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

[Leikkor]

Me too. And I already have the Robot Royal 24 with a couple of lenses that I paid about the same money for (in addition to Minolta Rapid 24 that I basically got for shipping costs).

At the same time, I understand that square would be a nightmare for most people that rely on minilabs to get their film developed and scaned.

Some minilabs already request an upcharge for half-frame anyway.

 

[Cholentpot]

Unless its an Olympus stylus zoom, somehow those things sell for 50-100 dollars even with light leaks...but a compact dual lens type zoom I'd do, but a 38-140, no thanks.

Maybe. But they've never done it before (in a compact camera size form) and neither has any other manufacturer, afaik. Obviously, not a trivial task. Can Pentax afford R&D to make such a lens that will sell in quantities several magnitudes less than in the past?

Dual lens would be ok but kind of pointless. Zooms are out. And I've never seen a compact camera with a fast constant zoom.

well, it seems the Pentax 17 has achieved enough pre-orders to take Pentax by surprise. That is certainly good news.

Someone here is gonna owe me a coffee and cake.

 

[brbo]

Some minilabs already request an upcharge for half-frame anyway.

Because, contrary to the popular belief, scanning is still a process that is not fully automatic (in labs that care even the slightest about the results) and reviewing/correcting twice as many images does take a bit more time. But most scanners in minilabs today can handle half-frame. I know of none that can do square on 135 film without switching to full manual.

 

[Agulliver]

I've used a few compact 35mm cameras with zooms, Olympus, Canon and Konica. They're all kinda OK. The Olympus Mju 2 was probably the best. I still have the Konica and use it occasionally but when zoomed in none of them was really sharp. None of them is all that fast at taking a photo. None of them has a particularly fast lens. When I want a zoom, I use an SLR.

So I can see that a fixed lens is by far the best option for a compact. All the old viewfinder and rangefinder compacts I've used were fixed lenses...varying from 28mm to 50mm and they all have their limitations and circumstances in which they shine. But in the end, they win out on quality over the compact zooms.

 

[xkaes]

Pentax is capable of producing an extremely high quality constant f/2.8 28-50mm

No doubt. The problem would be the size & weight & cost. That's why they opted for an f3.5 lens on the 17. A slower zoom would be smaller, lighter and cheaper -- but would need AF.

 

[xkaes]

A full-frame 35mm image can handle some cropping pretty well, but a half-frame image -- not so much -- so a zoom lens on a half-frame is more appropriate. And, as the Yashica Samurai cameras point out, the zooms don't need to be enormous for half-frame cameras -- if they are not fast, and have variable f-stops.

 

[Agulliver]

Remember the 17 is aimed at people who will have used a wide angle phone lens 90% of the time. Many phones now have some sort of telephoto lens at 2x or 3x but few (one I can think of) have optical zoom. For the most part, this Pentax 17 offers what the indended audience want.

When/if they come to add a full frame (presumably landscape/horizontal) camera to the range....then there's some room for debate over whether 28mm is preferable to 35mm or 40mm or whatever. I've never used the Samurai but ithe images I've seen from them aren't exactly stellar....and t strikes me as looking like a 90s camcorder, and while it might be somewhat vapid a view.....that's terminally uncool right now when something that actually looks like a film camera is currently cool. A big part of the market research that Pentax/Ricoh did, determined that looking like a classic film camera with the hand crank wind and general layout was vital. Walking around with a vintage film camera of any format is currently quite fashionable....walking around with a camcorder, not so. They'd never sell an updated Samurai to the young folk. And it's not like the Samurai was a great success. There must have been reasons for that.

 

[xkaes]

And it's not like the Samurai was a great success. There must have been reasons for that.

I've had a completely different experience with my Samurais. The only other half-frame lens that I've used that is as sharp is the 25mm on the Ricoh half-frames.

The main problem with the Samurais was the very high price -- for a half-frame camera -- even though it's an SLR that does basically everything you can imagine. It even has diopter adjustment of the viewfinder and an intervalometer! We'll wait and see if Pentax can overcome that same financial hurdle with a camera that does much less.

The flip side of that coin, apparently, is that when I take my Samurai out for a spin, I don't have to worry too much about anyone stealing my "old camcorder" -- unlike the users of the new, fashionable, Pentax 17.

 

[pentaxuser]

Remember the 17 is aimed at people who will have used a wide angle phone lens 90% of the time. Many phones now have some sort of telephoto lens at 2x or 3x but few (one I can think of) have optical zoom. For the most part, this Pentax 17 offers what the indended audience want.

Yes I agree Most of these users are "portrait" orientated ie it is social photos often groups in close proximity to the taker where wide angle is ideal. Few I imagine will buy this camera for either landscapes or action shots

Pentax producing a film camera of the sophistication of their 1990s film models is a long way off and in terms of development and production costs is very unlikely to ever happen in my opinion

pentaxuser

 

[albireo]

Yes I agree Most of these users are "portrait" orientated ie it is social photos often groups in close proximity to the taker where wide angle is ideal. Few I imagine will buy this camera for either landscapes or action shots

Why do you assume that, please?

• Action shots - nice roll of HP5+ 400 or Portra 800, huge DOF with a 25mm half frame with f/8 or above -> good fun with action shots and street photography
• Landscape - make gentle movement of arm to turn camera body sidewise 90 degree - et voila! Secret landscape modeⓇ unlocked!

All of the above works with my marvellous Fuji GA645i (vertical format 6x4.5 which takes great landscapes and can be set to manual focus and shot at f/11). It will work fine for creative users of the Pentax 17 - and there are many, many very creative young people out there about to put their hands on one of these.

Exciting!

 

[xkaes]

there are many, many very creative young people out there

I'll agree with that -- but most of the ones I know are trying to figure out how to pay their rent, in part because of the smart phone bills.

 

[Arthurwg]

Cafe Lemhitz shots were done in the ´60, way before the Contax T2 camera was released.

The book was published in 1978. If not a Contax, I'd like to know which camera that he used.

 

[albireo]

I'll agree with that -- but most of the ones I know are trying to figure out how to pay their rent, in part because of the smart phone bills.

Exactly! So it's a good idea for them to buy a camera, unwrap it, use it. Great to have a warranty too. Thus avoiding expensive mistakes. No hidden surprises, no CLA, no repairs. No mould. No rusty bits.

Buy it. Read the manual. Enjoy it. The way photography should always be.

500$ is the price of an entry level Android phone after all. 500$ is the price of a few Playstation games. A Ryanair flight from Sweden to Spain? 200 euro. Make it 400 return.

Hobbies are pleasant, but there's a cost. And time saved on waiting for CLAs is also money

 

[ant!]

The book was published in 1978. If not a Contax, I'd like to know which camera that he used.

Contax T2: 1991, by Kyocera
Contax II: 1936, by Zeiss Ikon
very different beasts.
No idea what was used for this book in the 70s, likely not a camera from the 90s...

 

[Cholentpot]

Exactly! So it's a good idea for them to buy a camera, unwrap it, use it. Great to have a warranty too. Thus avoiding expensive mistakes. No hidden surprises, no CLA, no repairs. No mould. No rusty bits.

Buy it. Read the manual. Enjoy it. The way photography should always be.

500$ is the price of an entry level Android phone after all. 500$ is the price of a few Playstation games. A Ryanair flight from Sweden to Spain? 200 euro. Make it 400 return.

Hobbies are pleasant, but there's a cost. And time saved on waiting for CLAs is also money

Keep in mind, the crowd this is aimed at got into film AFTER all the really good cheap deals were more or less a thing of the past. People aren't offloading gear like they were 15-20 years ago. You're paying good money for a good camera in good condition these days. Sure you can pick up an FM for $100 but unless you know what your doing or already into the whole film thing it's not really $100.

Let's break it down.

$100 for the Nikon FE/FM/EM +$10 shipping

Battery is another $5 (or not with the FM)

Strap $10

Lens, anywhere from $50-$200, to be safe we'll go with $100 for a 50 1.8

So, to start we're already at $225, and that's if you know where to look and find a reputable person and the gear survives the post office. Remember the people the 17 is aimed at don't hang around Photrio classifieds and maybe not even Ebay.

When I started with film about a decade ago I had no idea about anything. I saw a TLR in a photo still from a movie and had to have one. I didn't even know what they were called. I went on Ebay and typed in 'Camera with two lenses' and got a Lubitel and a Ricohflex, both for about $100. I then went on Amazon and got two packs of film, Tmax 400 and Ektar 100. Again, no idea what I was doing. No idea what depth of field, aperture shutter speed. Just loaded up and away I went. It took a few years until I realized that the only focus on the Lub was the tiny center dot. The Ricohflex had a jammed focus that I later fixed myself. Eventually I was given a late 90's Olympus bridge camera, got some film from Walmart, a DSLR from a pawn shop and down the rabbit hole I went.

If I had any idea what I was doing I could have started off with a better kit for less money. $500 to get into a popular hip hobby isn't awful.

 

[xkaes]

I really hope that Pentax is able to extract $500 from lots of people (young or old) who already have a "camera" in their pocket. Stranger things have happened. I still remember Pet Rocks. They sold like hot-cakes -- mostly to people who couldn't afford to put gas in their tanks!

I DON'T hope that many of them discover that they could have gotten a like-new Maxxum 5 (or similar) "do-absolutely-anything", small, light-weight, SLR with TWO zoom lenses for under $25 -- and used the change to pay for film & processing. I know, I know. the people interested in the Pentax 17 are not interested in a "system" camera, just something small & portable & using "this strange stuff called film". Maybe some will discover that two cameras are better than one. Which will they leave at home? The cellphone or the Pentax?

 

[Cholentpot]

I really hope that Pentax is able to extract $500 from lots of people (young or old) who already have a "camera" in their pocket. Stranger things have happened. I still remember Pet Rocks. They sold like hot-cakes -- mostly to people who couldn't afford to put gas in their tanks!

View attachment 372528

I DON'T hope that many of them discover that they could have gotten a like-new Maxxum 5 (or similar) "do-absolutely-anything", small, light-weight, SLR with TWO zoom lenses for under $25 -- and used the change to pay for film & processing. I know, I know. the people interested in the Pentax 17 are not interested in a "system" camera, just something small & portable & using "this strange stuff called film". Maybe some will discover that two cameras are better than one. Which will they leave at home? The cellphone or the Pentax?

Maybe getting a 17 will lead them to get other cameras in the future or maybe ask someone like Pentax to make something better after the 17.

 

[xkaes]

Earlier, I was hoping to eventually see some comparison test shots between the Pentax 17 and the Kodak H35 (or similar) camera. I think it more likely that we will see comparisons between the Pentax 17 and cell phone camera shots first.

 

[aw614]

I really hope that Pentax is able to extract $500 from lots of people (young or old) who already have a "camera" in their pocket. Stranger things have happened. I still remember Pet Rocks. They sold like hot-cakes -- mostly to people who couldn't afford to put gas in their tanks!

View attachment 372528

I DON'T hope that many of them discover that they could have gotten a like-new Maxxum 5 (or similar) "do-absolutely-anything", small, light-weight, SLR with TWO zoom lenses for under $25 -- and used the change to pay for film & processing. I know, I know. the people interested in the Pentax 17 are not interested in a "system" camera, just something small & portable & using "this strange stuff called film". Maybe some will discover that two cameras are better than one. Which will they leave at home? The cellphone or the Pentax?

I dont know why this new Pentax bothers you so much.

 

[bfilm]

Maybe getting a 17 will lead them to get other cameras in the future or maybe ask someone like Pentax to make something better after the 17.

Let us hope some camera makers do start making fine cameras again. What we need are some good photographic "instruments" or "tools" available new again. The old ones are serving us well, but they will need to be replenished eventually. Every camera available new today, except the Leica rangefinder film cameras, encourage the young generations to view film as a joke instead of the true way to do photography.

Erwin Puts:

"Most people assume that digital photography (a huge misnomer) is simply photography by other means than the use of film and chemicals. ... This attitude is not only widespread it is the conventional wisdom worldwide. Being universally accepted does not make it true."

"The essence of film-based photography is not only the fact that the mechanism of capturing an image and fixing it in a silver halide grain structure creates a final picture that can hardly be altered. The fundamental issue here is the fact that the laws of physics create the image, in particular by the characteristics of light rays and the interaction between photons and silver halide grains. Photography is writing with light, and fixing the shadows."

"Photography is not only intimately linked to the use of film, but in fact depends for its very existence on film."

 

[xkaes]

I dont know why this new Pentax bothers you so much.

It doesn't bother me at all. Why would it -- I'm all set with half-frames. I'd like Pentax to succeed -- as I've written several times (maybe you missed that part). I just don't see how that will happen at that price, for those features. We'll have to wait and see. I suspect that if the camera had a lower price tag, or more features, it would have a better chance. My fingers are crossed -- optimistically.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

Buy it. Read the manual. Enjoy it. The way photography should always be.

Read the manual? What madness is this?

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I dug out my FED Mikron, and it's doing well. The meter's responsive, and the shutter sounds no worse than it always did. Even the case (dodgy-smelling Soviet car-seat plastic with a corduroy lining) is in one piece. My local camera shop has organised a photo walk, and I may take this along. Not sure I can take 72 photos in a couple of hours.

 

[xkaes]

I was under the impression that manufactures gave up on user manuals. Sony doesn't give you one -- any more.

 

[BradS]

Let us hope some camera makers do start making fine cameras again. What we need are some good photographic "instruments" or "tools" available new again. The old ones are serving us well, but they will need to be replenished eventually. Every camera available new today, except the Leica rangefinder film cameras, encourage the young generations to view film as a joke instead of the true way to do photography.

Erwin Puts:

"Most people assume that digital photography (a huge misnomer) is simply photography by other means than the use of film and chemicals. ... This attitude is not only widespread it is the conventional wisdom worldwide. Being universally accepted does not make it true."

"The essence of film-based photography is not only the fact that the mechanism of capturing an image and fixing it in a silver halide grain structure creates a final picture that can hardly be altered. The fundamental issue here is the fact that the laws of physics create the image, in particular by the characteristics of light rays and the interaction between photons and silver halide grains. Photography is writing with light, and fixing the shadows."

"Photography is not only intimately linked to the use of film, but in fact depends for its very existence on film."

"...but, that's, like, just your opinion, man." -- The Dude


and even though he states his opinions forcefully, they are just his opinions, nothing more.