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

[4season]

Good news, my preordered unit is shipped from B&H. That means they might have enough units for the first two waves. I did preorder pretty early, about few hours after the announcement.

Hope it pleases! If it's still on my mind as we get closer to the year-end holidays, maybe I'll order one for myself. But right now, I feel as if I've got too many other things distracting me.

 

[Agulliver]

Pentax's upcoming half-frame point and shoot style camera that they have been working on was recently released.

It looks decent, but it has one major issue, which is the price. During their product videos before, they have mentioned how they went with half-frame so it can be more affordable for younger people, which does work as it means twice as many shots per film. However the price is $549 Pounds, that's even more in american dollars, and especially canadian dollars, so on and so forth.
That's one glaring issue I think, for the target market.

Most young people would be better of fidning a vintage half-frame camera.

It was always going to cost something like 400-500 dollarpounds. A lower price was never realistic, nor expected. A vintage half frame camera will probably need work doing on it to function properly and won't have the automatic features the young audience need. Remember, these folk have never so much as held a camera of any kind that wasn't a smartphone.

And that's still the cost of a low end, entry level Android phone. The vast majority of the target audience already carry a device costing 3x the price of the Pentax 17 in their pockets all day long. What might help is payment schemes/loans in the way that phone contracts work...where you buy the camera over a year or two.

Still...I think we can assume that the report that Ricoh/Pentax management secretly hoped the 17 would flop can be consigned to the rubbish bin. It's been developed, manufactured and marketed well. Hardly the sign of a pig in a poke product the company really wants to bury.

 

[Cholentpot]

It was always going to cost something like 400-500 dollarpounds. A lower price was never realistic, nor expected. A vintage half frame camera will probably need work doing on it to function properly and won't have the automatic features the young audience need. Remember, these folk have never so much as held a camera of any kind that wasn't a smartphone.

And that's still the cost of a low end, entry level Android phone. The vast majority of the target audience already carry a device costing 3x the price of the Pentax 17 in their pockets all day long. What might help is payment schemes/loans in the way that phone contracts work...where you buy the camera over a year or two.

Still...I think we can assume that the report that Ricoh/Pentax management secretly hoped the 17 would flop can be consigned to the rubbish bin. It's been developed, manufactured and marketed well. Hardly the sign of a pig in a poke product the company really wants to bury.

My Pen F gothic needed the camera Dr before it was useful. And even fully working it's no way a beginner camera. No meter, no modern focus aid, gotta learn when the shutter slaps, double advance, no hot shoe. I love all these quirks but it does have a learning curve. The 17 seems pretty straight forward. Put lens on distance indicated and shoot.

 

[Agulliver]

The 17 has a fairly manageable learning curve for the intended audience.

I used to be a bit of a camera shob and wonder why the average functional human couldn't load and operate a fully manual camera, because I've been able to do so since the age of five. But in the grand scheme of things, many adults in decades past couldn't successfully operate a manual camera and even found loading 35mm film tricky. People under 25 don't even have the cultural background of people around them using film cameras to take hints from. So keeping the 17 simple while making it undeniably film (or analogue, if one must) while offering some flexibility in the controls are good design decisions. I've come to realise in mid adulthood that I am probably neurodiverse and certainly was that annoying gifted child....I mean, who else builds a 4 track recording studio complete with hand built mixing desk in their bedroom at the age of 11? That's also allowed me to relax and enjoy more simple cameras in recent years. The simplicity of a box camera can be liberating even if ultimate quality and flexibility is achieved with a fully manual SLR and an aresnal of lenses.

All those 50s-90s half frame cameras people rave about may well be excellent cameras, but they'll be utterly baffling to the group of people who Pentax have identified as their intended audience for now.

 

[xkaes]

Have you had photographs submitted for evidence?

Photographs are a completely different matter, and we all know these can be "doctored" without AI -- but this Perry Mason tangent is a completely different thread.

 

[xkaes]

I find the whole intentional scarcity to drive up demand thing implausible.

Years ago I took a course in "Consumer Psychology" which was offered at the Business School of a local University. A more apt title should have been "How to use Psychology to attract Consumers -- AKA Sell Product". History is replete with businesses using a variety of methods to increase demand where none existed before -- but we are getting of on another tangent.

I hope Pentax does well, regardless of the pre-existing or falsely-generated demand. I hope they sell a million of these cameras!

 

[xkaes]

It looks decent, but it has one major issue, which is the price. During their product videos before, they have mentioned how they went with half-frame so it can be more affordable for younger people, which does work as it means twice as many shots per film. However the price is $549 Pounds, that's even more in american dollars, and especially canadian dollars, so on and so forth.
That's one glaring issue I think, for the target market.

That seems like a glaring contradict to me -- but apparently not to a lot of other people. That was the same problem with the Yashica Samurai cameras. They were half-frame, loaded with features (unlike the Pentax 17), but were very expensive. Fortunately, more affordable today.

 

[xkaes]

I suspect that there's several thousand cameras in people's hands now, or on the way.

Maybe the supply was actually larger than "advertised".

 

[xkaes]

A vintage half frame camera will probably need work doing on it to function properly and won't have the automatic features the young audience need.

Not my experience at all -- just the opposite. The main complaint I see regarding half-frame cameras is that they are TOO automatic.

 

[xkaes]

My Pen F gothic needed the camera Dr before it was useful. And even fully working it's no way a beginner camera. No meter, no modern focus aid, gotta learn when the shutter slaps, double advance, no hot shoe. I love all these quirks but it does have a learning curve. The 17 seems pretty straight forward. Put lens on distance indicated and shoot.

Interesting how you only bring up the Pen F -- only one branch of the huge Pen family tree. Nearly all of the Pen half-frame cameras were straight-forward, P&S cameras -- just load the film and dial in the film speed. Just like the Ricoh Auto-Halfs and countless others -- no need to focus or adjust anything, although some models allowed for that.

 

[xkaes]

All those 50s-90s half frame cameras people rave about may well be excellent cameras, but they'll be utterly baffling to the group of people who Pentax have identified as their intended audience for now.

Most of these "utterly baffling" cameras operate exactly the same way as the Pentax 17 -- load the film, and press the button. Same as the currently available Kodak H35 and H35N -- at a 90% discount -- here's a earlier thread with lots of great shots and information about other half-frame cameras:

Photrio's first Kodak Ektar H35 review!

Behold the mighty Kodak Ektar H35 half frame camera! 72 shots from a 36 exposure roll for all you misers, spend thrifts and artists... Taking one for the team I just bought this sage green version, well, because how many other sage green cameras are for sale? I'm not going to compare it to my...

www.photrio.com

 

[Agulliver]

That seems like a glaring contradict to me -- but apparently not to a lot of other people. That was the same problem with the Yashica Samurai cameras. They were half-frame, loaded with features (unlike the Pentax 17), but were very expensive. Fortunately, more affordable today.

The Samurai was a product of the late 80s and 90s, when there was a glut of cheap, half-decent compact cameras on the market. It was not affordable compared to the competition. The Pentax 17 has little to no competition.

Most of these "utterly baffling" cameras operate exactly the same way as the Pentax 17 -- load the film, and press the button. Same as the currently available Kodak H35 and H35N -- at a 90% discount -- here's a earlier thread with lots of great shots and information about other half-frame cameras:

Photrio's first Kodak Ektar H35 review!

Behold the mighty Kodak Ektar H35 half frame camera! 72 shots from a 36 exposure roll for all you misers, spend thrifts and artists... Taking one for the team I just bought this sage green version, well, because how many other sage green cameras are for sale? I'm not going to compare it to my...

www.photrio.com

The H35 is a wholly different beast to the Pentax 17. The H75 is no doubt fun, lightweight and people have taken decent photos with it....but it is a plastic toy camera with a plastic fixed focus, fixed aperture f10 lens and no exposure system or user control over exposures. To compare that to the 17 is ridiculous. They are simply not comparable.

Most of the half frame cameras of the past weren't fully auto, one had to adjust aperture or shutter speed. And yes, that is probably beyond most people under 25 coming from smartphone photography. It was beyond most people buying the Instamatics, box cameras and fully auto cameras that formed the bulk of sales throughout the history of the industry. That's not to say people cannot be taught, but you're not going to sell that many cameras if your customers take it out of the box and cannot use it pretty much straight away.

What I hope is that we and the industry can bring the newbies with us to learn more about traditional photography. After all, in the past it was not at all uncommon to start as a kid with a simple viewfinder camera with few (if any) manual settings, progress through semi auto to something with a lot of manual control.

 

[Cholentpot]

Interesting how you only bring up the Pen F -- only one branch of the huge Pen family tree. Nearly all of the Pen half-frame cameras were straight-forward, P&S cameras -- just load the film and dial in the film speed. Just like the Ricoh Auto-Halfs and countless others -- no need to focus or adjust anything, although some models allowed for that.

EE-3 is straight forward but you need to protect the photocell these days. It dies the camera is stuck at one shutter speed. I guess I have mostly complicated half-frames. The Univex is intimidating to look at. Simple enough if you're a photographer.

 

[xkaes]

Most of the half frame cameras of the past weren't fully auto, one had to adjust aperture or shutter speed.

I've never heard of this photographic myth, but I'm not surprised. Most half-frame cameras were fully automatic -- if they had a meter, and most did. That's one of the reasons they were so popular. Pretty simple really. After loading the film (I know, that requires a college degree), and dialing in the film speed (which requires a post-graduate degree), the shutter speed is set, and the meter adjusts the aperture automatically. Many had a single shutter speed (unless a flash was used), while others adjusted the shutter speed as the film speed was set. A few used a meter that set the f-stop & the shutter speed in a programmed mode. All automatic. The 25mm or 28mm lens is fixed (on most models) so no focusing is needed. Many had indicators in the viewfinder if a tripod or flash was needed.

Check it out for yourself:

http://www.subclub.org/shop/halframe.htm

 

[bfilm]

I used to be a bit of a camera shob and wonder why the average functional human couldn't load and operate a fully manual camera, because I've been able to do so since the age of five. But in the grand scheme of things, many adults in decades past couldn't successfully operate a manual camera and even found loading 35mm film tricky. People under 25 don't even have the cultural background of people around them using film cameras to take hints from.

Where do you get this idea? It takes a few minutes to understand how to load and use a manual camera. Who were they selling all of these cameras to if no one could use them? Who is buying all of the old secondhand manual cameras now?

Learning to consistently choose appropriate exposure and acquire focus are more developed skills, but that is part of the pride and satisfaction of using the traditional manual cameras. People don't usually admire or enjoy an accomplishment or activity because it is easy.

 

[xkaes]

EE-3 is straight forward but you need to protect the photocell these days. It dies the camera is stuck at one shutter speed. I guess I have mostly complicated half-frames. The Univex is intimidating to look at. Simple enough if you're a photographer.

Come on, the Univex was produced almost 100 years ago! And yes, just like any camera, if the meter is dead, you've got a problem, but selenium meters continue to work fine after half a century if they are protected from light when not in use -- i.e. a camera case.

 

[Cholentpot]

Where do you get this idea? It takes a few minutes to understand how to load and use a manual camera. Who were they selling all of these cameras to if no one could use them? Who is buying all of the old secondhand manual cameras now?

Learning to consistently choose appropriate exposure and acquire focus are more developed skills, but that is part of the pride and satisfaction of using the traditional manual cameras. People don't usually admire or enjoy an accomplishment or activity because it is easy.

Kodak worked for years with different formats and camera manufacturers were always touting 'easy load!' or 'Self loading!' I think near the end there was a camera that you'd drop the film in and it would take it up by itself. I remember watching the World Series in the late 90's and having this commercial run.

Camera shop owners had frequent costumers who would stop in every few weeks to their cameras could get loaded by a 'professional'. 35mm was fiddley for a large segment of the population. That's why 126, 110, disk and eventually APS was developed.

 

[Cholentpot]

Come on, the Univex was produced almost 100 years ago! An yes, just like any camera, if the meter is dead, you've got a problem, but selenium meters continue to work fine after half a century if they are protected from light when not in use -- i.e. a camera case.

And it still works! Amazing! A little lube on the spinny thingy and it's back in business. Not like some of my newer cameras that can't be bothered to get through a roll of film without complaining.

 

[xkaes]

Learning to consistently choose appropriate exposure and acquire focus are more developed skills, but that is part of the pride and satisfaction of using the traditional manual cameras.

Makes me fear the Pentax 17 might fail because users will have to actually load film in the camera, and then focus the lens. And then there is the impossible hurdle of advancing the film! Only someone with a PhD in mechanical engineering can possibly manage that sort of challenge.

 

[xkaes]

That's why 126, 110, disk and eventually APS was developed.

And they all failed.

 

[bfilm]

Kodak worked for years with different formats and camera manufacturers were always touting 'easy load!' or 'Self loading!' I think near the end there was a camera that you'd drop the film in and it would take it up by itself. I remember watching the World Series in the late 90's and having this commercial run.

Camera shop owners had frequent costumers who would stop in every few weeks to their cameras could get loaded by a 'professional'. 35mm was fiddley for a large segment of the population. That's why 126, 110, disk and eventually APS was developed.

None of the alternative formats were ever as popular as 120 and 135 (35mm).

Pentax don't seem to think loading a camera manually is going to be too difficult for people.

I have never encountered these people that cannot load a manual film camera.

It is hard to imagine there could be any easier film loading than a 35mm SLR. On the electromechanical SLR with powered film advance, all you do is pull a bit of film out, and the camera does the rest. But even on the fully mechanical and manual SLR, the procedure is very simple to learn.

 

[bfilm]

Makes me fear the Pentax 17 might fail because users will have to actually load film in the camera, and then focus the lens. And then there is the impossible hurdle of advancing the film! Only someone with a PhD in mechanical engineering can possibly manage that sort of challenge.

I think the manual film-winding mechanism and manual zone-focus were the two best decisions Pentax made on the 17. But some of the advantage of the manual zone-focus is hindered by the actual focusing being electronically activated with the shutter press -- so you can't really have the focus physically preset and ready to go.

 

[ant!]

Pentax don't seem to think loading a camera manually is going to be too difficult for people.

I have never encountered these people that cannot load a manual film camera.

It is hard to imagine there could be any easier film loading than a 35mm SLR. On the electromechanical SLR with powered film advance, all you do is pull a bit of film out, and the camera does the rest. But even on the fully mechanical and manual SLR, the procedure is very simple to learn.

Actually, it seems like the 17 has some sort of easy-loading implemented, where the film just needs to inserted until a dot, similar to some late 90s SLRs.

Regarding film insert mess up: I use film since about 30 years, and from time to time I still manage to mess it up: a new to me camera has a slightly different setup then I am used to (rolling backward or forward? how far in), or when I use bulk rolled I cut the leader the wrong direction and a bad angle which leads to problems.
When I was new to manual cameras about 15 yrs ago (after cheap point and shoots as a kid and AF SLR a bit later), I didn't know I had to press a button underneath to unlock before I can rewind, of course I ripped that film, and instead of realizing it I opened the camera when I though I was done...
Last summer I managed to not insert a film on a half-frame correctly, which I realized only very late in the roll that the re-winding lever doesn't turn. Happened years before on a different camera as well, I should really look at the rewind lever...
In one camera, I had the film block after a handful shots, and I still don't know if it is (a) the camera's fault (should try with a non-bulk rolled film), (b) my bulk rolled film or it's cassette, or (c) something else which is my fault. I got the film out and the first few shots looked good, but of course the rest was empty (on a bulk rolled short film where I was already not 100% sure how much shots I actually get out. One of these films ripped also in the camera, no idea really why)
And on a 220 (new to me...), I aligned to the first dotted line instead of the full line with arrows a bit later on the roll, so 1-2 shots wasted on the leader.

I guess if I stick with one camera, I don't mess things up. Otherwise I might... Most of the time I am fine though...

 

[Cholentpot]

And they all failed.

110 and 126 were massive successes. Sure 120 and 35mm outlasted them but in their day cart based film was a hit. Disk and APS is a different story.

None of the alternative formats were ever as popular as 120 and 135 (35mm).

Pentax don't seem to think loading a camera manually is going to be too difficult for people.

I have never encountered these people that cannot load a manual film camera.

It is hard to imagine there could be any easier film loading than a 35mm SLR. On the electromechanical SLR with powered film advance, all you do is pull a bit of film out, and the camera does the rest. But even on the fully mechanical and manual SLR, the procedure is very simple to learn.

Here's the deal though.

In 2024 the person who would have had a point and shoot camera in say, 1991 and used a dozen rolls a year, they all use cell phones. Most people who took photos - this is important - were not photographers. They just needed a way to take snapshots. Pros and enthusiast made up a tiny segment of film and cameras sold. The vast majority of film sold was to people who needed a way to take photographs and didn't really care much how it was done. Hence having point and shoots that were idiot proof with things like uncancellable flash and auto everything.

Now days, most people using an actual camera are willing to put some effort into the whole thing

As for never encountering people who can't load film, why would so many companies put so much effort into making new and improved ways of loading cameras? You don't remember one of the key advertisements for a new model camera was 'Now Easier to load!!' or 'Never miss a shot with our new simplified loading!!' or 'Drop in the film the camera does the rest!!'

Also, the dentist trope of not being able to load a camera was kind of true.

 

[Chan Tran]

I can't see why one would want the Pentax 17. It doesn't even look nice.