the Pentax Auto 110 was (and Probably still is) the words SMALLEST interchangeable lens SLR camera.
and I love my Pentax 645. their was also a 67 which looks like an overgrown 35mm SLR.
Pentax also made several compact 35mm cameras.
Pentax: Two new compact film cameras planned - Pentax 17 announced June 2024
-
A
- Thread starter Henning Serger
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikkor 5cm f2 ltm
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L 184 LACON Condensor set
- Started by jbrianfoto
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L 184 Lamphouse and Bulb Adjustment Mechanism
- Started by jbrianfoto
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L184 accessories; VADAP tilting Baseplate
- Started by jbrianfoto
Forum statistics
the Pentax Auto 110 was (and Probably still is) the words SMALLEST interchangeable lens SLR camera.
and I love my Pentax 645. their was also a 67 which looks like an overgrown 35mm SLR.
Pentax also made several compact 35mm cameras.
You're missing my point. Pentax never jumped into any SMALLER than full-frame 35mm cameras, like just about everybody else did -- Canon, Minolta, Yashica, Olympus, Mamiya, Fuji, Petri, Kodak.......
Sure, Pentax made a great 110 camera -- one. Anything else smaller than full-frame 35mm? Nope. That was a great attempt, but the Pentax 110 cost as much as a full-frame 35mm camera.
Sure, Pentax made a great 110 camera -- one. Anything else smaller than full-frame 35mm? Nope. That was a great attempt, but the Pentax 110 cost as much as a full-frame 35mm camera.
Last edited:
I don't have any experience with this camera, but if they wanted it to be "great" and of high-quality build, then it probably had to cost as much as a 35mm camera.
The Pentax archives show there were at least two 110 cameras. Looking at them now, that might have been a good general design style for them to go with for the new compact cameras. It is not pure classic camera style, but it has an old camera look while being a bit unique and has the manual winding film advance.
There were two versions of the Pentax 110 -- the Pentax Auto 110 and the Pentax Auto 110 Super. They are the same camera with some minor changes/improvements, much like the Minolta SRT101 and the SRT102.
The big innovation with this camera was not that it was a 110 SLR -- there were other 110 SLRs, and there were earlier SLR cameras using 16mm film (the same size as 110 film). The innovation was that the shutter and the f-stop were combined together with the same blades -- and the exposure was automatic. They were able to accomplish this feat, allowing for a very small camera, but all of the lenses had to have a maximum f-stop of f2.8.
Could the current crop of engineers accomplish it by themselves at an affordable price????
The big innovation with this camera was not that it was a 110 SLR -- there were other 110 SLRs, and there were earlier SLR cameras using 16mm film (the same size as 110 film). The innovation was that the shutter and the f-stop were combined together with the same blades -- and the exposure was automatic. They were able to accomplish this feat, allowing for a very small camera, but all of the lenses had to have a maximum f-stop of f2.8.
Could the current crop of engineers accomplish it by themselves at an affordable price????
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,983
- Format
- Plastic Cameras
Lest it be forgotten, we "vote" with our $$: If you feel passionately about the need for new Pentax film cameras, don't forget to vote! The only sort of vote which might get future Pentax film cameras approved is if enough people buy them brand-new at regular retail prices, via official channels.
As for possible successors to higher-grade cameras including the LX, 645 and 6x7 series, best to keep expectations realistic, as the number of people willing to pay a sufficiently high price, probably amounts to handfuls of individuals scattered around the world. Or consider buying a new Leica M-camera instead; it might be cheaper.
As for possible successors to higher-grade cameras including the LX, 645 and 6x7 series, best to keep expectations realistic, as the number of people willing to pay a sufficiently high price, probably amounts to handfuls of individuals scattered around the world. Or consider buying a new Leica M-camera instead; it might be cheaper.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 955
- Format
- 35mm
Thank you. I learned something new today.
I think that the success or failure of this offering will be entirely determined by what a relatively small number of influencers on YouTube and instagram say about it. I can see it going either way. I personally think Ricoh/Pentax have dramatically missed. I just don't see there being much interest in guess focus, half frame film camera that looks plasticy. Maybe it'' be inexpensive enough that folks will but one just to "give it a try".
I expect this will be why a lot of people buy this camera, to support the return to film cameras by Pentax and hoping it can progress to nicer cameras.
I agree about moderating expectations. I doubt we will see cameras like the LX, 645, and 6x7 made again. People are willing to pay for a new Leica 35mm rangefinder camera for the quality and the legend. But I think there may just not be enough working professionals or enthusiastic amateurs nowadays that would be willing to buy new versions of the Pentax 645 or 6x7 for what it would likely cost to make these cameras and lenses again.
I do feel like there could be potential for a new Pentax 35mm SLR, if they could make something of real quality, at least medium-grade, and offer it for around USD 1,000-1,500.
Yes, I have thought all along that Pentax should have started with a higher-quality more general appeal camera than this one seems like it is going to be.
I don't mind the zone focus. I would certainly rather have that than Lidar lasers coming out of my camera like Mint is doing with their new camera. But so far, the manual winding mechanism and the zone focus seem to me the only good choices Pentax has made for the new camera.
I think if they would have started with a general appeal classic-style 35mm compact camera that the smartphone people would have liked it just as much (maybe even more) and that it would then also appeal to a greater range of existing photographers. Maybe this is still what the second compact camera will be.
And the base model Ballfinger tape deck which cannot even record costs $11,000. The one that can record costs $28,000 and by all accounts, while it is a remarkable machine it is no better than my 50 year old Revox.
Analogue Audio Design have not yet manufactured a deck for sale and will not tell you what the asking price is.....but they estimate shipping at $600 so the actual machine itself will be no cheaper than the Ballfinger.
Yes, there are people who can make complex mechanical machines....want to pay $10k for a film SLR?
It's DX format 
That would be one heck of a film SLR.
The Leica film rangefinders are USD 5,700.
I think someone could do a medium-grade and even a high-grade film SLR for less than that, especially considering that all of the unique components of an SLR are still being made.
It should have been something comparable in sleekness and quality to the Nikon ti, Contax T or Ricoh GR.
Yes, you would think that with the popularity of the Contax T cameras, that they would have said 'okay, how do we put the hand-wound film-advance mechanism that we want on a Contax T2 or Leica minilux'. Possibly enlarging the camera body if necessary for comfort of using the manual film winding mechanism.
Last edited:
Yes, yes, yes, a hundred times, YES!
Small, simple, sleek, elegant, reliable, pocketable ... They should have designed a product that elicited these kinds of adjectives.
I frankly, can't imagine what they're thinking with this awkward, goofy looking contraption.
Actually, I also have the "digital" cousin of a A110, the Optio I10 which looks almost like the 110 from 5 feet away. https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/optio-i-10/spec.html When I need to take a digital close up, like trying to read a nameplate on an appliance, it is my "go to" camera. (what else is a digital Camera useful for)
And yes the A110 did use several tricks - including the unique shutter/aperture system to make an SLR not much bigger than the 110 Cartridge.
I will take @xkaes point that Pentax was more interested in making BIGGER cameras than several variations of the 35mm format. I can see where the decison would be easy to NOT touch 16mm, as as soon as you do you need a supply chain to keepyour customers suplied with multiple types of Film to fit your camea, or use someone elses cartridge and be seen as a "Me Too Model"
Certainly we have seen 24X36, (and even a 24X34 if I recall) 24X24 and many 24X18 Cameras. Not to metion all of the above in AGFA RAPID as well as size 135.
I think that if Pentax had made a compact camera with a form similar to the Leica CL 35mm film camera and put their hand-wound film-advance mechanism and zone-focus triplet-type lens (but in 35mm or 40mm for full 24x36mm) along with a simple light meter and manual and aperture-priority exposure modes that it would be wildly popular.
Last edited:
Yes!
Apparently, their market research established manual winding is the most desired feature in a potential new film camera. Go figure... The (relatively) most expensive used film cameras are compact cameras with ae, af and motor-wind. I have Contax T with manual focus and manual wind, but I would buy T2 instead in a heart beat if it wasn't more expensive than T. Manual focus brings very little to these cameras (and I say this as a rangefider fan), manual winding brings absolutely nothing.
I can understand the desire to put the hand-wound film-advance mechanism on the camera. Few people are going to be looking to use the camera for high-speed shooting, and they feel that the hand winding mechanics are a unique feature of film cameras, and it is a way to distinguish it from digital image recording methods. The manual focus, in this case zone-focus, could be considered in a similar way -- while not unknown, it is much less common in digital image recording.
But I do feel that these things are more awkward on a compact camera, and that is another reason that I think going straight to a new film SLR would have been nicer. But I suppose that the right choices on a compact camera could still make it a viable first step on the return to film cameras for Pentax. What remains to be seen is if they have made the right choices. At this point, while reserving some judgment since one really has to wait for the official announcement to see what they have done, I am mostly interested in seeing what they do with their second new film camera model.
Considering that Ballfinger is aiming to be a top-of-line tape machine, it might be more accurate or fair to compare them with Ampex.
In 1975, the Ampex ATR-700 was USD 2,000, and in 1976 the Ampex ATR-102 was USD 5,450. In today's dollars, that gives USD 11,400 and USD 29,500.
So we really have very similar prices today for a top-grade tape machine. It is the often very useful medium-grade that is often lost when a certain mechanical or electromechanical product is no longer the main type.
I think the shipping price of the Analog Audio Design will have little to do with the cost of the tape machine and much more to do with the weight and size of the machine. I am curious to know what their tape machine costs (I have now found that prices are said to be EUR 10,000 for the player and EUR 13,000 for the recorder + player, although it is possible it has changed since these prices were suggested a few years ago).
Addendum: This is why I think the real aim of Pentax should be to make a medium-grade film SLR system. It seems like the new Pentax compact camera will be another entrant into the low-grade film camera category. I think a medium-grade camera is what the vast majority of photographers want, and it is the area that is currently empty as far as new cameras.
Last edited:
Yes, it will have to have something like this if they hope for it to appeal to anyone except complete beginners. And even exposure compensation is only useful if you determine you can trust the meter or learn its tendencies.
The Pentax Film Project videos have suggested that there will be some (maybe limited) control of exposure possible.
I expect that it will be on a second or third model that we see more complete control of exposure possible.
Price comparisons over time can be a difficult thing. I think this is interesting to consider since it is perceived that film and processing are very expensive nowadays.
I think there are three main things that affect the price consideration here. The first is general to anything and the second two more specific to film in this case.
First, is that the overall cost of living can vary dramatically over time. This can mean that things one once considered a manageable expense for a hobby or even work might not appear the same at another time.
Second, is that we have been spoiled by a few decades of low cost for film and processing. But as will be shown below, this has not always been the case.
Third, is that digital imaging has really destroyed the perception and value of pictures. Many people now consider pictures as cheap, disposable, plentiful things without much value. The value of a film recording and real photographic print are generally only perceived now by the astute devotee.
Here is something I worked up a few months ago, based upon old published prices of Kodachrome, to illustrate the cost of color transparency film over time. Basically what it shows is that film and processing cost similar today to what they did in the 1950s and less than they did in the 1930s. As mentioned above, we were spoiled by a few decades of low cost, but things have now returned to a point similar to a previous period.
Circa 1936, 18-picture roll of 35mm
$3.50 including processing
$80.00 today
Circa 1954, 20-picture roll of 35mm
$3.50 including processing
$41.00 today
Circa 1954, 36-picture roll of 35mm
$5.50 including processing
$64.00 today
Example, today
Ektachrome E100 or Provia 100F, 36-picture roll of 35mm
$22-$30 film
$10-$20 processing without mounting or scans
+postage
I think there are three main things that affect the price consideration here. The first is general to anything and the second two more specific to film in this case.
First, is that the overall cost of living can vary dramatically over time. This can mean that things one once considered a manageable expense for a hobby or even work might not appear the same at another time.
Second, is that we have been spoiled by a few decades of low cost for film and processing. But as will be shown below, this has not always been the case.
Third, is that digital imaging has really destroyed the perception and value of pictures. Many people now consider pictures as cheap, disposable, plentiful things without much value. The value of a film recording and real photographic print are generally only perceived now by the astute devotee.
Here is something I worked up a few months ago, based upon old published prices of Kodachrome, to illustrate the cost of color transparency film over time. Basically what it shows is that film and processing cost similar today to what they did in the 1950s and less than they did in the 1930s. As mentioned above, we were spoiled by a few decades of low cost, but things have now returned to a point similar to a previous period.
Circa 1936, 18-picture roll of 35mm
$3.50 including processing
$80.00 today
Circa 1954, 20-picture roll of 35mm
$3.50 including processing
$41.00 today
Circa 1954, 36-picture roll of 35mm
$5.50 including processing
$64.00 today
Example, today
Ektachrome E100 or Provia 100F, 36-picture roll of 35mm
$22-$30 film
$10-$20 processing without mounting or scans
+postage
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,743
- Format
- 35mm
I'm going to bet a roll of film that this camera is going to sell like hot cakes. Anyone wanna one up me on that?
Just on seeing how the APUG kvetchers seem to not understand what Pentax is doing is a good basis for me thinking that Pentax knows the crowd they're aiming at.
I'll say it again,
People this camera is aimed at are not using film to get excellent results and using a loupe to look at the grain pattern. This is aimed at people who want a tactile experience. Who needs gears when you can have a fixie to lope around town?
Just on seeing how the APUG kvetchers seem to not understand what Pentax is doing is a good basis for me thinking that Pentax knows the crowd they're aiming at.
I'll say it again,
People this camera is aimed at are not using film to get excellent results and using a loupe to look at the grain pattern. This is aimed at people who want a tactile experience. Who needs gears when you can have a fixie to lope around town?
Except "fixies" are the strongest, best-built, highest-grade bicycles. Look at track bicycles and Japanese Keirin racing.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |