Pentax: Two new compact film cameras planned - Pentax 17 announced June 2024

[bfilm]

except the 17 uses easy components and solutions, it's a box with almost no moving parts and (i suppose) a simple electronic logic.
a fully fledged slr, instead, needs decent processors and a nice set of functions. nobody would pay 3-zeroes kind of money for an electronic slr without various metering modes, a more than decent AF, and all the bells and whistles.

Well, I think that is debatable. Sometimes paying more for less (features) is exactly what people want. This is a big part of the success of the Leica rangefinder film cameras.

But even so, I don't think it would have to cost any more than the K-1 to achieve all of those features in a 35mm film SLR from Pentax, and could even probably be a little bit less expensive.

 

[tykos]

I don't think the argument that some people give that the youth of today need something totally different than past cameras is valid. Once again, the good cameras have perennial appeal. Plenty of today's youth have no problem learning traditional cameras.

haven't read this.
today's youths can learn everything they want. if i learned how to use a camera, everybody can.
fact is that probably the big numbers are (and always has been) in the casual shooters, people that just wants a picture but couldn't care less how it's made.

just like every sector: there's the Yaris GR, but the money is made with standard Yaris. Or bikes, or...

 

[xkaes]

A slightly earlier half-frame -- with aperture control of the exposure (f8 or11), and a hot shoe:

 

[bfilm]

haven't read this.
today's youths can learn everything they want. if i learned how to use a camera, everybody can.
fact is that probably the big numbers are (and always has been) in the casual shooters, people that just wants a picture but couldn't care less how it's made.

just like every sector: there's the Yaris GR, but the money is made with standard Yaris. Or bikes, or...

That is the argument (that today's youth need a different type of camera) many are making for the Pentax 17.

I think with so few new film cameras available today, and nothing serious except the USD 5,700 Leica rangefinder, that a good quality traditional type camera, like a 35mm film SLR, in the USD 1,000 to 1,500 range is what is most needed. There needs to be a good camera option, available new, for people developing a genuine interest in film. This is what will sustain film use long-term, and it is a camera that would appeal to beginners and experienced alike.

 

[tykos]

Well, I think that is debatable. Sometimes paying more for less (features) is exactly what people want. This is a big part of the success of the Leica rangefinder film cameras.

But even so, I don't think it would have to cost any more than the K-1 to achieve all of those features in a 35mm film SLR from Pentax, and could even probably be a little bit less expensive.

leica has a brand and they are the only one that can sell a camera at that price.

a 1000-1500 slr needs way more development than an easy point and shoot (it's not a k-1, it's an entirely new camera apart from some parts) and has a higher price. Everybody is complaining because they'd want this or that feature in the 17, just imagine at 3x the price all these people going like "i'd only use a mechanical slr" "my eos-1 has a faster AF" "wait, no custom functions?" "only two timer modes???".

the slr is, however, pentax' goal for this project. we'll see.

 

[Cholentpot]

leica has a brand and they are the only one that can sell a camera at that price.

a 1000-1500 slr needs way more development than an easy point and shoot (it's not a k-1, it's an entirely new camera apart from some parts) and has a higher price. Everybody is complaining because they'd want this or that feature in the 17, just imagine at 3x the price all these people going like "i'd only use a mechanical slr" "my eos-1 has a faster AF" "wait, no custom functions?" "only two timer modes???".

the slr is, however, pentax' goal for this project. we'll see.

I'm just thrilled that Half Frame is all the talk. I've always loved the format, historically it's the default for 35mm if you include the history of cine. I've shot loads of it and somehow the grain looks perfectly fine on half frame.

I'm seeing from the 17 that when Pentax does a 35 it's going to be along the lines of an ME style camera with design cues from all the past. But first I think they're going to put out a high end AF compact.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

And I was just becoming half-frame curious for diptych slide reasons

 

[brbo]

But first I think they're going to put out a high end AF compact.

I really hope so. Manual focus "by-wire" in 17 makes absolutely zero sense if not for future part reuse.

 

[brbo]

And I was just becoming half-frame curious for diptych slide reasons

I guess we'll be seeing a lot o this from 17. Fake panoramas are also fun with half-frame cameras. Too bad with 17 you need to move it away from your eye (loosing the framing) to wind it and manual exposure is also needed for best results with "panoramas".

Di(tri)ptychs and panoramas also use a lot of film which is what we want!

 

[pentaxuser]

If I have a complaint about the Pentax 17 it is that at £400 I think I'd have gone halvesies with a partner....and who knows....maybe it'll be a success and they'll drop the price.

On another video I have seen today a couple of the comments were to the effect that it was almost £500 at Analogue Wonderland ( £499.99) and ín a store in Germany it was about 550 euros, Of course these sources might be wrong. Can I ask where is it on sale at £400

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[albireo]

Even though it's not exactly what I wanted it seems better than what I expected.

I still think that a Contax T2/T3 knockoff would sell like crazy, but understand that Pentax still has some way to go before they are able to produce a camera like that. 17 is cool though. Low tech and the "no designer was involved" approach might actually appeal to users they are aiming for. I have a lot of < 50 EUR HF cameras that do more than 17 so I'm almost certain I'll be able to resist the temptation, but I'm not saying "never" to Pentax 17...

Looking forward to your diptych half-frame scan samples if you end up getting one, @brbo. The multicoated triplet appears to be capable of good results based on what I can see from one or two of the initial reviews (eg Shoot Film Like a Boss).

For any lurkers who are wondering how well half-frame negatives render when exposed, developed and digitalised well by someone who knows what they're doing: look no further than brbo's work - on flickr for instance.

This is going to be fun!

 

[xkaes]

OK, so the Pentax 17 is $500. The Kodak H35 is $50. What do I get for $450? I can buy a Kodak H35, Olympus Pen D3, a Konica AA-35, and a Yashica Samurai for that that price -- and have enough left over for film!

 

[Agulliver]

Thanks

pentaxuser

It isn't on sale for £400. What I meant to say is that if it were ever to be reduced to £400 I think that's the price point at which myself and one of my partners would buy one jointly for £200 each. Neither of us owns any half frame cameras.

 

[Pioneer]

OK, so the Pentax 17 is $500. The Kodak H35 is $50. What do I get for $450? I can buy a Kodak H35, Olympus Pen D3, a Konica AA-35, and a Yashica Samurai for that that price -- and have enough left over for film!

That is an interesting question for me. I have never used either camera and it has been a long time since I used a half frame camera of any type (Oly Pen), so it would be really nice to have someone do a review that addresses that value question. I will say, if I were to buy this camera I would rather go with the higher priced version from Ricoh themselves with the extended warranty. It is brand new design so I expect there will be some teething problems.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The $500 price point hit me as absurd. Then I remembered that the T4 I bought 30 years ago for $70 (? can't remember what they went for new) is now selling for the same $500. The T4 is a better camera, but it wasn't designed for a 30 year lifetime - though mine do still work.

I was thinking of selling my trio of T4s and buying a Leica M3 to replace them.

 

[Cholentpot]

OK, so the Pentax 17 is $500. The Kodak H35 is $50. What do I get for $450? I can buy a Kodak H35, Olympus Pen D3, a Konica AA-35, and a Yashica Samurai for that that price -- and have enough left over for film!

the $450 is for a camera that won't break after 5 rolls.

The Pen is more than not going to have a faulty meter, AA35 hopefully works...if you can find one. Samurai is also a gamble, again if you can find one.

Or you pay what a new camera costs and gets something you can expect to work.

 

[bfilm]

leica has a brand and they are the only one that can sell a camera at that price.

But this doesn't change the point.

In fact, the Leica legend and brand exist precisely because of their excellent "featureless" camera. Leica has made essentially the same camera for 70 years and it has outlasted every other 35mm film camera.

Hasselblad is another that made essentially the same highly desirable "featureless" camera for 50 years. These are excellent cameras that do what they need to do well and nothing more.

Linhof, perhaps the oldest camera maker in the world, still make the Technika, one of the finest examples of a technical view camera ever to exist. Despite its mechanical complexity, essentially all it does is hold the film and lens in particular positions.

These are all fine mechanical tools or instruments that are excellent for their intended purpose. The lack of features is one of the benefits.

It is true that you can make good pictures with many cameras, but it is also true that the camera you use affects the way you think and make photographs. The camera very much can affect the quality of photography.

Erwin Puts:

"This mastery of craft and anticipation of the dynamics of the situation, will be more secure and, let us face it, more enjoyable when the tool is in harmony with these goals. A fully manual and mechanical camera that, fitting in your hands, translates your aims with the smooth precision of a finely tuned instrument, has added value."

"It is a pity in my view that most reviewers neglect the art of taking pictures and the subtle match of instrument and result to get fine pictures that fit the character of the instrument."

 

[BradS]

OK, so the Pentax 17 is $500. The Kodak H35 is $50. What do I get for $450? ....

I was kinda thinking the same. The Kodak H35 is currently available on Amazon for $40 , the Ilford Sprite is available for $25...yeah, these are not really comparable to the Pentax 17 but, maybe they are. I mean, they all just fun toy cameras for film-curious folks who grew up with a smart phone...no? I wonder how many "kids" in Pentax's target market will follow the same line of thought and come to the conclusion that, the $500 price for a "fun toy camera" is absurd...

 

[xkaes]

the $450 is for a camera that won't break after 5 rolls.

You obviously haven't used the old half-frames that I've used. My Pen D3 works like new, so do my Samurai Z (I have three). Never had a problem with Ricoh AutoHalfs, Agat 18s. I could go on all day. Besides, if one of them does give up the ghost, they are easy and inexpensive to replace.

 

[albireo]

OK, so the Pentax 17 is $500. The Kodak H35 is $50. What do I get for $450?

Let's see - just to start with.

Do you take pictures with your cameras? Do you own plastic lenses as well as multicoated glass lenses? If so, try taking a picture of the same subject with both types of lenses. See if you appreciate the differences in your scans or prints.

If you can't appreciate the difference between an image taken with a plastic lens and one taken with a well designed multicoated glass triplet, then by all means go ahead and buy that Kodak H35 and save those $450.

 

[xkaes]

I was kinda thinking the same. The Kodak H35 is currently available on Amazon for $40 , the Ilford Sprite is available for $25...yeah, these are not really comparable to the Pentax 17 but, maybe they are. I mean, they all just fun toy cameras for film-curious folks who grew up with a smart phone...no? I wonder how many "kids" in Pentax's target market will follow the same line of thought and come to the conclusion that, the $500 price for a "fun toy camera" is absurd...

I think you would be surprised at what some of these toys cameras can produce. The main thing that the Pentax 17 has over them is a auto-exposure shutter -- but there are lots of 35mm half-frame & full-frame cameras that are smaller and have that -- like the Minolta HiMatic G2, which you can get on EBAY for $10.

 

[BradS]

I'm gonna go stand in the corner and wait for the guy with the "you're not the target market" club to administer another round of beatings.

 

[xkaes]

Do you take pictures with your cameras? Do you own plastic lenses as well as multicoated glass lenses? If so, try taking a picture of the same subject with both types of lenses. See if you appreciate the differences in your scans or prints.

You'd be surprised what Optical Grade Acrylic Lenses can produce. But beyond that argument, I can get a full-frame Minolta Hi-Matic G2 with a 38mm f2.8 four-element glass lens for $10 in mint condition. The camera is smaller and lighter and lacks a flash -- but has auto-exposure and manual f-stop control.

 

[albireo]

You'd be surprised what Optical Grade Acrylic Lenses can produce. But beyond that argument, I can get a full-frame Minolta Hi-Matic G2 with a 38mm f2.8 four-element glass lens for $10 in mint condition. The camera is smaller and lighter and lacks a flash -- but has auto-exposure and manual f-stop control.

Sadly, too often, one man's mint condition is another man's mouldy greasy dusty Japanese-eBay-grade crap condition.

 

[Pioneer]

I do support Pentax and I am thrilled that they have started on this project. They have taken the first step and finished camera #1 on their road map. That is a GREAT first step.

But I am one of those who are firmly in the "Not The Target Market" category. Since this is the first of the four models of film cameras that Pentax originally announced I am going to wait for camera #4. It might take a couple of years to get there but I am pretty sure that my K1000 will continue to work just fine while I am waiting. Meanwhile I can watch and see how well these new cameras hold up.