Pentax announces that they're working on new film cameras!

[mtnbkr]

It depends on the brand of the cell. Some of them have enough long life ("enough" for me is 1 to 3 months, sometimes even more.)

They are really cheap (here, cheaper than silver cells), easy to find, and come in packages of 6, 8, 12 cells.

Thus, for me they're a great solution

2-3 months is fine for me. When I first put it in, I was worried I'd find a dead battery next time I pulled the camera out. As you said, they're cheap, so as long as I'm getting multiple rolls per battery, I'm fine. It takes no time at all to change.

Chris

 

[Paul Howell]

I think we impose assumption on the new camera based on how vintage compact or point and shoot were made. I see no reason why a compact camera could not use a modern electronic shutter and power supply, rechargeable battery. An all mechanical body if metered would likely benefit from a common button battery.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never understood why they didn't just do some advertising.

Because the camera stores will do the advertizing for them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You mean 33% more shots per roll, right?

But too small size negative.

 

[KerrKid]

You asked for 1.35v "silver oxide" or "lithium" batteries. They can't be done because it would be going against chemistry...

The voltage of the cells is a consequence of the kind of cell itself, that is, the substance used for electrolyte, and electrodes.
See: "Cell potential"

Silver cell reaction:

View attachment 324591

This gives 1.56V. (aprox). This is part of the chemistry of the cell itself. You can create a 1.35v cell using other materials (and thus, other reactions), but if you want a "silver oxide" cell you'll get 1.56V.

The chemistry of regular lithium batteries give approx. 3.0V.



Well... There's a photo store, a 10 minutes drive from where I live, and they do have Kodak Gold 200 in 135. About $9.8 per roll. There's plenty in stock . Or you can order it from an online store.

Maybe we have it easier on this part of the planet earth...

The battery can be made of whatever works. My point was/is that surely someone can do it and isn’t.

B&H, Adorama, Freestyle are out of 35mm Kodak Gold 200 stock right this very minute. I don’t have a camera store anywhere near me, but Austin Camera is out of it, too. Be happy that you don’t have any problems getting film and at reasonable prices.

 

[ts1000]

Mechanical Film cameras, in a way 'emphasize' particular character qualities.

Those qualities translate to how a person wants to be perceived. I know this is subjective, but here are part-way-archetypes of a phycological profile I am thinking of:

a) bucking trends, no peer pressure, self-directed
b) function over form
c) patience
e) appreciates abstraction and analogies
f) planning ahead
g) quality over quantity

I am definitely looking forward Pentax making something good, something that lasts a long time, and something that is modular enough that gives birth to an ecosystem (that can be adopted by 3rd parties)

 

[cmacd123]

The mechanism shown on the video is the film advance lever, counter, and bottom mechanism found in the Pentax P30. Moreover the rewind knob is exactly as in the P30/P50 models.

This means the forthcoming camera will use a vertical shutter, just like the P30. The parts for cocking the shutter are visible on the underside of the camera.

or it may just represent someone getting familiar with some of the principles found in a "Fairly Modern" film SLR.

It is just like if Minolta still was around they would probably look at the X500/570 as well as the Dynax cameras to get up to speed on the technology.
it seems the last serious Pentax film Camera was http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Pentax_MZ-S . But I wonder if any Camera maker can buy shutter modules any more?

 

[Craig]

Shutters are still in DSLR's, so I wouldn't have though the shutter assembly would be a problem. I suspect the expertise that needs to be developed is in things like the film advance, tensioning and frame counter mechanism.

 

[cmacd123]

Just to comment on a few points.

1) the K-1000 was a very popular camera, BUT was in many ways a RE-Hash of the Spotmatic. Some (very few) parts even interchange. It proably held the record (if you include all the variations) for the longest production of any camera EVER. 1964 to 1997 (33 years) it was still a match needle all mechanical camera at the end, with many parts replaced by plastic.

2) both Ricoh and Pentax did contract out some of the Cameras that they have sold though the years - that supply chain may have to be rebuilt. I belive that the firm that actually Built the KR-5 Ricoh for example has left that market. Likewise, many cameras of almost all brands used "Copal Square" metal shutters. that is no longer off the shelf technology. And with Canon and Nikon going to Mirrorless, Ricoh may have to not depend on getting anyone else to make an equivalent.


2A) Ricoh would be no doubt able to borrow Ideas from their legacy of Ricoh branded cameras. I gave a family member an AF5 at the time back then and they were delighted with it, and the Negatives were good enough to allow some nice Poster sized prints.

3) the video did talk about a compact camera as Job 1

4) Pentax did indeed market the FA full frame lenses, some of the DA lenses were for the crop sensor. If they get to releasing an AF 35mm SLR, Part of the preparation will be also making something like the FA lenses available.

5) later Pentax digital Cameras use electronic communication between camera and lens, so it is not a given that any new camera can take a legacy SMC Pentax Lens and run with it.

 

[cmacd123]

Shutters are still in DSLR's, so I wouldn't have though the shutter assembly would be a problem. I suspect the expertise that needs to be developed is in things like the film advance, tensioning and frame counter mechanism.

Mirror less sometimes use an electronic shutter - no moving parts.

 

[alanrockwood]

An intriguing possibility (which I don't expect to happen) would be to make a half frame camera that would use the same lenses as on a crop frame digital camera. Half frame cameras have a nominal crop factor of 1.44x, which is probably close enough to the 1.5x crop factor of Pentax digital cameras that the digital lenses would probably work OK.

 

[Roger Cole]

I have both M42 and K mount lens, a new K1000 would be nice.

I don't think we'll get it but I'd take a new MX over a dozen new K1000s. I have both; my MX is in fine shape but the light seals are shot in my K1000. I'm wondering if they're even worth bothering with considering how much I prefer my MX (and my LX too, but that's in a vastly different league from the K1000 - well, so's the MX but the LX even more so - and a quite different camera from the MX too for that matter.)

I don't understand why the used prices for nice MXs are way less than K1000s, but I'm happy about that.

 

[Roger Cole]

...
The quality jump from 35mm to 645 is more dramatic than from 645 to 67.

...

(3) "We can’t even get film for the cameras we have": Are you sure of this? Currently you can readily buy film in the following formats:
110
135
120
220 (shanghai GP3)
127 (some custom manufacturers)
620 (same)
Minox 8x10 film is sold bulk (roll form) for you to fit into cassetes.

The only important format that is conspicuously absent is 126. Then there's Disc film which is a generally hated format...

1. It absolutely is. Getting my Mamiya 645 Pro just about put a stop to my shooting 35mm at all. Anything (save slides for projection, and though I used to do that, now that I have an Epson 5050UB projector and 150" screen in my home theater, I scan whatever other image and project digitally if I want to do that..) as I was saying, other than slides for projection, anything I can do with my 35mm cameras I can do significantly better with the 645. Maybe ultra low light as there are faster 35mm lenses (even compared to the extremely expensive 80mm f/1.9 Mamiya and that's just one focal length) and that really is about the only time and reason I shoot 35mm anymore, at least with my SLR gear. I'm having fun using the little H35 half frame and pocket cameras and such a different matter. I carry the H35 while out shooting with medium format. The 6x4.5 gives me the same effective degree of needed enlargement as my 6x6 cameras most of the time, when I end up cropping anyway, and the increase in quality from 35mm really is dramatic. As someone said, more than the increase from 645 to 6x7 for most purposes.

As someone ELSE said though, silly debate. Use what YOU prefer, for whatever reasons, even if it's just "I just plain LIKE this one." That's my reason for shooting 4x5 - I just like doing it, even though the quality from my 6x7 negs is pretty much indistinguishable to me. (My 4x5 kit is actually a lot smaller and lighter than my RZ 67 one though, considering the lenses!)

2. I suspect the "we can't even get film" complaint is entirely with regard to color negative film. And that IS probably what most new-to-film people will want first, and in 35mm that's valid right now. B&W and even E6 (though admittedly you pay dearly for the latter) seem readily available. Anything other than 35mm and 120 is irrelevant for this discussion.

 

[Roger Cole]

Try a 6x9 folder sometime. Pretty compact and nice big negative (or slide).

But zone focusing, no? I almost never shoot in bright sun. That means guess work and poor focus more than offsetting larger negatives, unless maybe I carried a separate rangefinder but that's another piece of gear and kind of defeats the purpose.

 

[cmacd123]

I don't understand why the used prices for nice MXs are way less than K1000s, but I'm happy about that.

Some Photography course require that the student show up equipped with a K1000. A MX will not technicaly meet that requirment, even though it has the same capabilities, and is as "Manual" as the K1000.

 

[Roger Cole]

Some Photography course require that the student show up equipped with a K1000. A MX will not technicaly meet that requirment, even though it has the same capabilities, and is as "Manual" as the K1000.

Yeah I know. I always thought that was pretty stupid.

The MX also has depth of field preview, something I very much miss(ed) on the rare occasions I tried to use the K1000.

 

[Craig]

The quality jump from 35mm to 645 is more dramatic than from 645 to 67.

645 to 6x7 is something I wouldn't do. 35mm to 645 - not worth it for the difference in weight of the camera, slower lenses and other restrictions a MF SLR imposes. 35mm to 6x9 is enough a difference to make it worth it to me, as a 6x9 neg is twice the size of 645.

I've had 645, 6x7 and 6x9. There is a reason the 645 is sold and the 6x7 and 6x9 remain.

 

[MattKing]

The battery can be made of whatever works. My point was/is that surely someone can do it and isn’t.

There isn't anything currently allowed that you can make a battery of and have the battery work properly with a camera that needs 1.3 volts, unless:
1) you are willing to pay for an expensive voltage reduction adapter; or
2) you can accept relatively short (2-3 months or less) battery life.

 

[Agulliver]

"waaaaaaa we can't get film for the cameras we have".

We are in the lucky position of having cameras that work. The problems with supply of film are not something the Ricoh/Pentax have any control over. The main reason we cannot always obtain film when we want to buy it is because demand has skyrocketed. Said demand means more people wanting to use film which means more people wanting to buy cameras. And this is where Ricoh/Pentax comes in. They probably have faith in the film manufacturers getting their acts together with increased production and stable availability of colour as well as B&W film by the time their proposed new camears appear.

Pentax kept all their blueprints. The fellow in the video states this. Ricoh also made fine cameras but may well not have kept their blueprints. There's this common assumption that all manufacturing companies keep old blueprints....why should they? We know, because we've been told, that Canon didn't. I know Sony, Kenwood and Yamaha at least did not for their cassette decks (because I've asked). Sankyo didn't for their cine cameras though they did keep spare parts until early in the 21st century. There is no reason why Ricoh or any other manufacturer should have kept blueprints for discontinued products. None whatsoever. We can be thankful that Pentax did.

Honestly this community frustrates me at times.

"we want new film cameras".

Kodak launch cheap, Kodak branded film camears
"No, not like that. Bring back Pentax or Nikon"

Pentax announce they're working towards manufacture of new film cameras

"NO, not like that you're owned by Ricoh now"....."I demand a 645"...."I demand a 6x7"...

Surely this is good news whether you personally want to purchase the end product or not? And if Pentax don't succeed, perhaps someone else will step in their place. All the bother over Pentax now being owned by Ricoh....such is the case for many companies these days. It matters little, if at all.

 

[koraks]

Honestly this community frustrates me at times.

Goosfraba. Now repeat after me: goosfraba. There you go.

 

[fs999]

Honestly this community frustrates me at times.

Sad we can't like posts...

 

[Helge]

As someone ELSE said though, silly debate. Use what YOU prefer, for whatever reasons, even if it's just "I just plain LIKE this one." That's my reason for shooting 4x5 - I just like doing it, even though the quality from my 6x7 negs is pretty much indistinguishable to me. (My 4x5 kit is actually a lot smaller and lighter than my RZ 67 one though, considering the lenses!)

That’s just relativism and meekness. But perhaps the meek shall inherit the earth?

Some things do have a time, and hang around for other reasons than being useable and desirable.
Not saying that that necessarily applies to formats over 66.
But it could.

I just have a feeling that most people who shoot 69 and 67 outside a studio do it for the same reasons some people drive a Hummer to work. Only a camera is more easily attainable.

Large format is a different story because there you absolutely have some huge advantages of movements and being able to print as large as you want, for wall size frames without any grain and at super resolution.

 

[faberryman]

Goosfraba. Now repeat after me: goosfraba. There you go.

For those members who may not be cineasts:

 

[Film-Niko]

"waaaaaaa we can't get film for the cameras we have".

We are in the lucky position of having cameras that work. The problems with supply of film are not something the Ricoh/Pentax have any control over. The main reason we cannot always obtain film when we want to buy it is because demand has skyrocketed. Said demand means more people wanting to use film which means more people wanting to buy cameras. And this is where Ricoh/Pentax comes in. They probably have faith in the film manufacturers getting their acts together with increased production and stable availability of colour as well as B&W film by the time their proposed new camears appear.

Pentax kept all their blueprints. The fellow in the video states this. Ricoh also made fine cameras but may well not have kept their blueprints. There's this common assumption that all manufacturing companies keep old blueprints....why should they? We know, because we've been told, that Canon didn't. I know Sony, Kenwood and Yamaha at least did not for their cassette decks (because I've asked). Sankyo didn't for their cine cameras though they did keep spare parts until early in the 21st century. There is no reason why Ricoh or any other manufacturer should have kept blueprints for discontinued products. None whatsoever. We can be thankful that Pentax did.

Honestly this community frustrates me at times.

"we want new film cameras".

Kodak launch cheap, Kodak branded film camears
"No, not like that. Bring back Pentax or Nikon"

Pentax announce they're working towards manufacture of new film cameras

"NO, not like that you're owned by Ricoh now"....."I demand a 645"...."I demand a 6x7"...

Surely this is good news whether you personally want to purchase the end product or not? And if Pentax don't succeed, perhaps someone else will step in their place. All the bother over Pentax now being owned by Ricoh....such is the case for many companies these days. It matters little, if at all.

+ 1,000,000,000 !!!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I for one am looking forward to seeing what Pentax comes up with.