I guess this spells doom for the Pentax 17.
Also, the dentist trope of not being able to load a camera was kind of true.
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.
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.
Agreed, as someone who has been shooting the H35 since shortly after launch (it's my "snapshots to print as 4x6s for the photo album" camera), and specifically wants the Pentax 17 to upgrade the H35 for the same use case. It's just too expensive to justify buying for snapshots when the H35 gets the job done.
APS was a really good idea that failed only because of its proximity to the digital revolution, and I will die on that hill
I'd pay good money for a new production 35mm camera that automatically recorded metadata in the rebate without special attachments (yes, I know there are a few models out there that will do that). The only thing not to like about APS was the resolution hit compared to 24x36.
Agreed, as someone who has been shooting the H35 since shortly after launch (it's my "snapshots to print as 4x6s for the photo album" camera), and specifically wants the Pentax 17 to upgrade the H35 for the same use case. It's just too expensive to justify buying for snapshots when the H35 gets the job done.
APS was a really good idea that failed only because of its proximity to the digital revolution, and I will die on that hill
I'd pay good money for a new production 35mm camera that automatically recorded metadata in the rebate without special attachments (yes, I know there are a few models out there that will do that). The only thing not to like about APS was the resolution hit compared to 24x36.
35mm is the smallest format for serious photography.
Everyone using APS was printing 4x6 and with modern scanning APS holds its own.
No idea what was used for this book in the 70s, likely not a camera from the 90s...
APS (AKA, half-frame) is only 2X away from full frame, and with fine-grain film, BIG prints are easy. There were some great APS cameras -- Minolta had an entire APS SLR system with a 400mm CAT. It's a shame those cameras can't be reloaded.
APS has three formats. I was referring to the C for "Classic" (25.1 × 16.7 mm; aspect ratio 3:2; 4×6" print).
All depends on your definition/opinion of "serious". Some consider 35mm only good enough for snap shots.
APS (AKA, half-frame) is only 2X away from full frame, and with fine-grain film, BIG prints are easy. There were some great APS cameras -- Minolta had an entire APS SLR system with a 400mm CAT. It's a shame those cameras can't be reloaded.
Sure, but the two smaller formats are just cropped during the printing process from the actual larger size which is recorded on film...
All depends on your definition/opinion of "serious". Some consider 35mm only good enough for snap shots.
Why do you think the lens was not designed for this format? I doubt they just used an existing 35mm lens. And lenses for smaller formats existed since before 35mm, and modern film. And mobile phones use even smaller lenses and sensors.That I would agree so why go even smaller? At least keeping the 35mm size they can make full use the the lenses already available. Using film that is smaller than the lenses were designed for sucks in the case when they first introduced DSLR.
Minolta's (and others') first DSLR cameras had a half-frame (APS) sensor, but used their full-frame Maxxum lenses. The cameras and lenses were much larger than they needed to be for the size of the format.
Half-frame film cameras, like the Pentax 17, can use a smaller, shorter, lighter focal length lens and get the same f-stop. Normally, half-frame cameras are much smaller and lighter due to the smaller format and lens, but just as the first DSLRs were not smaller and lighter, the Pentax 17 isn't either.
Who said History never repeats itself???
Why do you think the lens was not designed for this format? I doubt they just used an existing 35mm lens. And lenses for smaller formats existed since before 35mm, and modern film. And mobile phones use even smaller lenses and sensors.
Whoa there. So you would prefer that they built a tiny little camera irregardless of the already stated ongoing development goals and the ergonomic problems that potentially arise as the body shell gets smaller? Pentax has developed a pretty compact camera here and I am willing to bet that a lot these same parts, maybe even the same body shell, will be used in the next version which is hopefully 35mm.
For what it is worth I think that they are doing a pretty good job and within a unusually quick timeline.
We are not talking about the Pentax 17. Which the lens is OK but it's slow of f/3.5. Zone focusing is not good. No manual exposure control is also not good. I wouldn't even pay $100 for the thing.
Whoa there. So you would prefer that they built a tiny little camera
I did not say I wanted a tiny camera -- although the Fuji Mini is a winner in my book. But the Pentax 17 half-frame is bigger than many full-frame 35mm cameras. What sense is that if it doesn't offer more features or a smaller price tag???
View attachment 372611
There are LOTS of half-frame cameras with great fixed-focus, all-glass f2.8 lenses that create great results. Some even have some control of exposure -- if nothing else varying the film speed. At f3.5 why go focusing???
I think 126 was the mainstay of Kodak's offering for over 10 years, and 110 was good for another ten. Film sales, Developing Equipment sales, Chmical and paper sales, all money headed to Rochester. All ensuring that Kodak workers were welcome every year at the Rochester Car Dealers as well as "the House of Gutars"And they all failed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?