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

[xkaes]

Possibility four, "this camera exists with a film advance thumb wheel and costs $150 less".

 

[armadsen]

Possibility four, "this camera exists with a film advance thumb wheel and costs $150 less".

But still has auto exposure including variable shutter and aperture, coated multi-element glass lens, manual focus (by wire, not purely mechanical), magnesium top and bottom plates, a built in flash, exposure compensation, and multiple program modes? I doubt it. Cheaper, for sure, but $150 less seems like a stretch. In any case, Pentax thinks a wind lever is part of the attraction of film cameras for their target market.

 

[xkaes]

In any case, Pentax thinks a wind lever is part of the attraction of film cameras for their target market.

Perhaps it's Pentax's total lack of experience with half-frame cameras that they failed to realize that lots (most?) of half-frame cameras lacked a film advance lever. Ricoh produced LOTS of half-frame cameras, and NONE of them had a lever. I suspect that some -- not me -- would suggest that putting a film advance lever on a half-frame is like putting lipstick on a pig.

 

[Chan Tran]

Perhaps it's Pentax's total lack of experience with half-frame cameras that they failed to realize that lots (most?) of half-frame cameras lacked a film advance lever. Ricoh produced LOTS of half-frame cameras, and NONE of them had a lever. I suspect that some -- not me -- would suggest that putting a film advance lever on a half-frame is like putting lipstick on a pig.

But the film advance level is about the only thing that the Pentax 17 better than my Olympus XA.

 

[Agulliver]

Perhaps it's Pentax's total lack of experience with half-frame cameras that they failed to realize that lots (most?) of half-frame cameras lacked a film advance lever. Ricoh produced LOTS of half-frame cameras, and NONE of them had a lever. I suspect that some -- not me -- would suggest that putting a film advance lever on a half-frame is like putting lipstick on a pig.

No, you are *completely* missing the point. Pentax did a lot of market research with the intended market sector (young folk under 25) and found that the traditional winding lever was something they specifically identified with the experience of shooting film. Anecdotally I can confirm that when I have been shooting with a camera that has a winding lever, people instantly know that i am not shooting digital.

You are also missing the point that this is clearly a camera body that can be quite easily adapted/developed into a full frame 35mm camera, which fits in with Pentax having previously told us that they intend to launch two compact 35mm cameras. The betting is that the next one will be more conventional, a full frame camera but with many parts carried over from the 17. Then they've said that if the compacts are successful, they'll look at developing an SLR. Which would also likely have parts carried over such as the frame advance lever/ratchet, ISO and exposure compensation knobs and so on.

I honestly do not understand why some posters are so reluctant to understand what is being done here. Perhaps it is deliberate. I just hope that when the new, young film shooters find places like this....that we are all kind to them.

 

[4season]

My neighborhood dealer expects to receive a small number of 17s late next week - dare I go to check it out? It can be much harder to resist temptation when it's literally in one's hands!

Most of the secondhand cameras that I've acquired from eBay and elsewhere have needed servicing, sometimes extensive. My Ricoh Auto Half, Olympus Pen-FT, Pen-S, Canon Demi EE17, and Fuji TW3 were no exceptions.

 

[xkaes]

But the film advance level is about the only thing that the Pentax 17 better than my Olympus XA.

There are plenty of full-frame 35mm cameras that did away with the film advance lever -- especially those like the XA models that wanted to be SMALL, a feature that many people liked (for some really weird reason!).

 

[xkaes]

Most of the secondhand cameras that I've acquired from eBay and elsewhere have needed servicing, sometimes extensive. My Ricoh Auto Half, Olympus Pen-FT, Pen-S, Canon Demi EE17, and Fuji TW3 were no exceptions.

Just to balance this out, I've had the exact opposite experience -- but I only buy from sellers who say "it works fine", and have a full return policy if it doesn't. I can't remember the last time that happened.

 

[brbo]

But the film advance level is about the only thing that the Pentax 17 better than my Olympus XA.

Maybe because Olympus didn't get the thumbwheel quite perfect? With my Ricoh Caddy I can advance the film without moving the camera away from my eye even though I'm left-eyed. That said, there a things I don't like about that camera and I can easily see myself preferring Pentax 17.

Does an advance lever make or break a compact camera? No.

Do 25-year-old prospective buyers know what features make a particular camera great? Also, no.

 

[xkaes]

I honestly do not understand why some posters are so reluctant to understand what is being done here.

"I honestly do not understand why" you assume this. I think that most posters want a new camera, and hope Pentax does well with this camera. I certainly do. That doesn't mean we have to like everything about the camera. Whether it's the size, the price, the features, there will always be things we would like to see different about a new camera. That's always been the case, and always will be. I remember when the Incredible Konica Minolta A2 came out. Very small, packed with tons of features, and pretty expensive. One reviewer from a major publication gave it a bad review only because the door for the Compact Flash was plastic -- instead of metal. Honestly.

Let me repeat myself. I hope Pentax sells a million of these cameras, and makes billions of dollars. I just don't see how that will happen.

 

[Pioneer]

Funny thing...I don't see any of the other major camera manufacturers jumping out and making a new film camera at all...let alone one at the price level you would like. They may try later on if Pentax turns out to be successful...or maybe not.

I think I'll stick with Pentax. At least they have announced a product plan that is headed towards creating something I may be interested in buying.

 

[xkaes]

"With my Ricoh Caddy I can advance the film without moving the camera away from my eye even though I'm left-eyed. That said, there a things I don't like about that camera and I can easily see myself preferring Pentax 17."


If you have no more use for your Ricoh Caddy, contact me!!!

 

[Cholentpot]

No, you are *completely* missing the point. Pentax did a lot of market research with the intended market sector (young folk under 25) and found that the traditional winding lever was something they specifically identified with the experience of shooting film. Anecdotally I can confirm that when I have been shooting with a camera that has a winding lever, people instantly know that i am not shooting digital.

You are also missing the point that this is clearly a camera body that can be quite easily adapted/developed into a full frame 35mm camera, which fits in with Pentax having previously told us that they intend to launch two compact 35mm cameras. The betting is that the next one will be more conventional, a full frame camera but with many parts carried over from the 17. Then they've said that if the compacts are successful, they'll look at developing an SLR. Which would also likely have parts carried over such as the frame advance lever/ratchet, ISO and exposure compensation knobs and so on.

I honestly do not understand why some posters are so reluctant to understand what is being done here. Perhaps it is deliberate. I just hope that when the new, young film shooters find places like this....that we are all kind to them.

User you are commenting on, I suspect is being obtuse for the sake of being so. If someone can't understand why Pentax decided to stick a winding lever on the camera then they're out of touch as to why this camera exists and refuse to budge. Pentax could sell millions and kickstart a film revolution and there will still be people saying the the people at Pentax are idiots who have no idea what they're doing.

But I guess once more for the deaf crowd.

The crowd that the 17 is aimed at is not looking for a tiny convenient camera. They want a tactile film camera that makes them do filmy things, like wind the film on, rewind the film, select focus, turn it on and off, move dials and switches, and have the option of letting the camera do all the work for you. It's not so complex, it's the same as the people who want to get up and flip the record. Why? Why not.

 

[Chan Tran]

Maybe because Olympus didn't get the thumbwheel quite perfect? With my Ricoh Caddy I can advance the film without moving the camera away from my eye even though I'm left-eyed. That said, there a things I don't like about that camera and I can easily see myself preferring Pentax 17.

Does an advance lever make or break a compact camera? No.

Do 25-year-old prospective buyers know what features make a particular camera great? Also, no.

You'r left eye so you will have problem because they never designed cameras for left eye people. The thumb wheel on the XA is OK but I would prefer the film advance level (but in close examination the film advance level of the Pentax 17 is too small) . I also like to have the film advance level out to rest my thumb (somethng left eyed people would never want to do).
You think a 25 year old even a rich one would spend $500 for a film camera?

 

[xkaes]

Adding to the undefined target audience -- the 20-somethings -- the ones I know would only want something with WiFi & GPS or something that does FUN stuff -- like most LOMO gear.

LOMO, Kodak, Escuro, etc. already have one branch covered. The Hi-Tech branch?

I know LOMOs are toys -- AKA, fun cameras. Is that all the Pentax 17 is?

 

[xkaes]

You'r left eye so you will have problem because they never designed cameras for left eye people.

 

[loccdor]

The WallyMart down in town now has about 12 feet of shelf space displaying new LP records - probably around 50 titles. The next isle has a seemingly continuous supply of fresh Fuji Superia Xtra 400 (but no other film, just Superia).

That's great. Last year I went to Walmart in my dad's small town because I ran out of film visiting him, all they had was instant film, and some 35mm disposable cameras. I'd love to have been able to buy any 35mm rolls, but there was no one selling it within an hour's drive. Luckily I had given him a few rolls of Superia a decade earlier and he had held onto them.

 

[cmacd123]

My point was it's a something close to a toy camera, with cherished brand name stuck to it,

Glass Lens, Metal Top and Bottom, more references to past Pentax Cameras than you can shake a stick at. I can't include this is the "Toy" category.

now the Kodak brand half frames with the lens and one speed shutter out of a one time use setup, in an all Plastic Camera..... THAT is close to a toy Camera.

 

[cmacd123]

Perhaps it's Pentax's total lack of experience with half-frame cameras that they failed to realize that lots (most?) of half-frame cameras lacked a film advance lever. Ricoh produced LOTS of half-frame cameras, and NONE of them had a lever.

The old Engineers that they were working with no doubt included both Pentax and Ricoh staff. the market research said the Camera SHOULD have a wind lever. so it has a wind lever modeled on the Pentax Auto 110. (or perhaps the exact part if the tooling still was in existence) one of several traditional film camera references in the new Camera. Including the AOC logo from the 1960s. (Early Pentax Cameras in the states had a honneywell logo instead of the Ashai logo, but Pentax Cameras sold anywhere else had the AOC logo.

The Ricoh Auto half, a suscessful Camera in teh 1960s (Still often working well after 60 years!) had both automatic film advance and did not require any Batteries. is shown several times in the Pentax 17 Videos. I would be shocked if the Archive reference Auto Half did not have a roll of two of film run through it as part of the research phase.

 

[bfilm]

We all want to be enthusiastic about a new film camera, and hopefully Pentax will proceed to some nicer models, but we have to be honest that the 17 is really just one step above a "toy" camera.

I suspect most, maybe even all, of the internal mechanics are plastic, engineering plastics notwithstanding. Until Pentax makes a film camera again with bronze, brass, and steel mechanics, we can't consider it too serious. We will see how long it takes people to strip the gears on the film advance of the 17.

Additionally, there is no real control over aperture and shutter speed in any way that would allow new users to start learning the concepts of exposure. Having some real notation and the ability to adjust these aspects of the camera is required for a serious camera.

 

[aw614]

User you are commenting on, I suspect is being obtuse for the sake of being so. If someone can't understand why Pentax decided to stick a winding lever on the camera then they're out of touch as to why this camera exists and refuse to budge. Pentax could sell millions and kickstart a film revolution and there will still be people saying the the people at Pentax are idiots who have no idea what they're doing.

But I guess once more for the deaf crowd.

The crowd that the 17 is aimed at is not looking for a tiny convenient camera. They want a tactile film camera that makes them do filmy things, like wind the film on, rewind the film, select focus, turn it on and off, move dials and switches, and have the option of letting the camera do all the work for you. It's not so complex, it's the same as the people who want to get up and flip the record. Why? Why not.

Yep thats my general impression as I've continued to read this thread...

I can't believe there are arguments about a film advance lever vs wind knob, I'll use whatever the camera comes with. Really the size doesn't bother me, especially if it turns into a Pentax version of a Cosina CT1 type clone for other models.

 

[bfilm]

Do you have any data to support your assumptions about internal construction?

I am going by Takeo Suzuki stating that the camera is made of the magnesium alloy top and bottom covers and engineering plastics. Also by the reported weight of the camera. And by the sound of the mechanism.

Bronze, brass, and steel gears: Leica does this, and it costs $5700. For a new company to manufacture this way without an existing production infrastructure - subcontractor network, how much do you think such a camera would cost?

I do not think that a nice camera has to cost as much as Leica. I think Pentax would be quite capable of making something nice, at least medium-grade, in the USD 1,000 to 1,500 range. And the tooling and training involved in making a nicer camera would probably be expected to be put to use for years or even decades of production of the camera model.

Stripping gears: based on what?

This may or may not happen. I just think it could be a possibility. 72 frames per roll of film is a lot of film advancing, depending upon the strength and durability of the (likely) plastic mechanism. Plastic just wears out and breaks, unlike the traditional materials that wear in and can be maintained over a long lifetime.

 

[kitspics]

the ones I know would only want something with WiFi & GPS

if they wanted something to spy on them they could just use instagram...

 

[brbo]

The thumb wheel on the XA is OK

Yes. I'm just saying there are other cameras that have it implemented even better. But you'd never know that if you haven't used such cameras. And 25-year-olds in general have very little experience with film cameras, even less with half frame.

You think a 25 year old even a rich one would spend $500 for a film camera?

Absolutely. Some spend way more than that on film cameras. Even I am tempted. Unfortunately, I know a lot more about film cameras than an average first time film camera buyer so 600 EUR still buy me a lot more of a camera than what Pentax 17 would. But Pentax 17 didn't miss by much at all, two features (motor wind and AF) and I probably wouldn't be able not to buy it. And I'm faaaaar from being rich.

 

[Agulliver]

I know LOMOs are toys -- AKA, fun cameras. Is that all the Pentax 17 is?

No. As has been explained many times, the toy cameras are cheaply constructed, have fixed focus plastic lenses, fixed aperture around f10, no exposure control either auto or manual. The Pentax 17 a proper three element glass coated lens, manual focus, auto shutter speed and aperture control (maximum f3.5 aperture) and some degree of manual control via the +/- 2 stop exposure knob and the manual ISO selection as well as several different auto exposure modes.

It's not, in any way shape or form a toy camera. If anyone doesn't see this, then that is once again deliberate.

We all want to be enthusiastic about a new film camera, and hopefully Pentax will proceed to some nicer models, but we have to be honest that the 17 is really just one step above a "toy" camera.

I suspect most, maybe even all, of the internal mechanics are plastic, engineering plastics notwithstanding. Until Pentax makes a film camera again with bronze, brass, and steel mechanics, we can't consider it too serious. We will see how long it takes people to strip the gears on the film advance of the 17.

Additionally, there is no real control over aperture and shutter speed in any way that would allow new users to start learning the concepts of exposure. Having some real notation and the ability to adjust these aspects of the camera is required for a serious camera.

You suspect....do you have a source? What we can see looks well made, there's a proper film loading/handling mechanism visible when the back is opened which no toy camera ever had.

A camera doesn't have to be all bronze, brass and steel. Though if you really want to kill the market by dropping a $1200 P&S camera please go ahead and start your own company.

I'll tell a little story. During 1970 my dad designed the hull of the RNLI Arun class lifeboat. His original design involved much less brass than previous lifeboats, and the whole boat could be submerged upside down, right itself and refloat itself within seconds. It also had a top speed twice that of any previous lifeboat. The RNLI insisted that it "must have brass" because that was a tradition. The modified version took longer to self-right and could sink, cost a lot more...and wasn't as fast. Still better than anything that had gone before it, but suffered from the insistence that modern materials not be used in place of the traditional brass.

The Pentax 17 is designed to last many years in use. Perhaps not the 60 years some of the cameras of the past manage...but longer than the cheap plastic toy cameras for sure. It is not hampered by it's lack of brass, and would only weigh and cost more if it had brass....for little if any gain in performance and longevity. Getting hung up on brass or steel really isn't the way forward.