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

[Chan Tran]

So how much Pentax would have to sell the bottom of the line K1000 today to make money? I knew they used to sell it for $129 with the lens in 1980. Account for inflation that is about $500.

 

[Agulliver]

So how much Pentax would have to sell the bottom of the line K1000 today to make money? I knew they used to sell it for $129 with the lens in 1980. Account for inflation that is about $500.

A hell of a lot more than $500 because they'd have to re-engineer it from scratch in a world where such products are very much niche and production runs would be small....and there is no tooling carried over from previous models, no development from the previous models.

That's a world away from the original K1000 being a development on previous models launched into a world where they knew it might sell millions over many years.

In short, commercial suicide and the exercise would probably bankrupt Pentax/Ricoh if they tried that today.

 

[xkaes]

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.

You might want to buy it, but I'm sure the price tag would be $1,500.

 

[xkaes]

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

I'm not disagreeing with you -- merely pointing out that many will consider it just a "fun" camera. Not a serious camera, Not a photographic tool. In short, a "toy". Something to "play" with. But a pretty expensive toy. And for a lot less money, a "real" camera can easily be found.

 

[Chan Tran]

A hell of a lot more than $500 because they'd have to re-engineer it from scratch in a world where such products are very much niche and production runs would be small....and there is no tooling carried over from previous models, no development from the previous models.

That's a world away from the original K1000 being a development on previous models launched into a world where they knew it might sell millions over many years.

In short, commercial suicide and the exercise would probably bankrupt Pentax/Ricoh if they tried that today.

And that would make the Leica M a bargain. Good 35mm film camera you can buy new today for a few thousands bucks.

 

[Agulliver]

With the 17 apparently being an immediate success, what might happen if that success is somewhat sustained is that the next models won't require as much initial R&D as the 17 did. Because much of the work has been done and it looks like parts from the 17 could be carried over to a more conventional full frame 35mm camera. Maybe some could be carried over to an electronic SLR which also uses parts in common with current DSLRs.

The final goal of a mechanical SLR was always going to be the most tricky to achieve. The partially electronic SLR, if it appears in a couple of years, might not seem so expensive.

 

[Dwight Anderson]

No matter what folks here want for themselves, this first effort was not going to be a camera for serious photographers. After all, why would Pentax chase after the same group of photographers that quit buying new film cameras 20 years ago.

They're going after a totally new demographic with something appropriate for the new user, much like Kodak did with their wildly popular instamatics. Not a toy, but a decent camera for the casual user.

And for those who think it's too expensive, I would compare it to one of the cameras in my collection, a Minolta Autopak 600x. It's an all plastic camera with zone focusing, lever wind, auto exposure, auto flash and a good glass lens. It was $69 back in 1969, that's $590 today.

 

[xkaes]

I just asked AI to design a Pentax half-frame camera. Here's what it came up with:

 

[xkaes]

And for those who think it's too expensive, I would compare it to one of the cameras in my collection, a Minolta Autopak 600x. It's an all plastic camera with zone focusing, lever wind, auto exposure, auto flash and a good glass lens. It was $69 back in 1969, that's $590 today.

Kodak introduced the Instamatic film format and camera in 1963. Minolta's first 126 camera was a full-featured camera (unlike most 126 cameras) and was based on their successful 35mm rangefinder line of cameras. The Autopak 700 looked, operated and felt like a standard 35mm rangefinder. And this is how Kodak marketed the 126 camera to the public. They stated that these cameras would have the quality of a 35mm camera with drop-in-film ease. In fact most didn't have this quality, due to cheap lenses -- one of the reasons that the 126 format died out. And so Minolta's top-of-the-line 126 camera was an immediate commercial flop. It was a quality shooter that was far too pricey when compared to the typical $10 126 cameras on the market. It had a fast, 38mm f2.8, rangefinder-coupled, focusing lens with four elements in three groups. It had automatic, semi-automatic, and manual exposure modes with a behind-the-filter CDS meter. Shutter speeds could be selected from 1/30-1/250 (plus B), and apertures varied from f2.8 to f22.0. And of course, a hot shoe, cable release connection, PC contact, and tripod socket. It was probably the only 126 camera to offer all of these features. But Minolta learned its lesson -- you can't sell expensive 126 cameras! As a result, the Autopak 700 was very different from all of the later Minolta 126 cameras.

Can Pentax sell an expensive half-frame camera? No need to tell me, "They've already sold out". We'll see in a few months if the frenzy lingers.

 

[Dwight Anderson]

Interesting, you totally ignored my point and gave me an example which is not relevant.

 

[Cholentpot]

Kodak introduced the Instamatic film format and camera in 1963. Minolta's first 126 camera was a full-featured camera (unlike most 126 cameras) and was based on their successful 35mm rangefinder line of cameras. The Autopak 700 looked, operated and felt like a standard 35mm rangefinder. And this is how Kodak marketed the 126 camera to the public. They stated that these cameras would have the quality of a 35mm camera with drop-in-film ease. In fact most didn't have this quality, due to cheap lenses -- one of the reasons that the 126 format died out. And so Minolta's top-of-the-line 126 camera was an immediate commercial flop. It was a quality shooter that was far too pricey when compared to the typical $10 126 cameras on the market. It had a fast, 38mm f2.8, rangefinder-coupled, focusing lens with four elements in three groups. It had automatic, semi-automatic, and manual exposure modes with a behind-the-filter CDS meter. Shutter speeds could be selected from 1/30-1/250 (plus B), and apertures varied from f2.8 to f22.0. And of course, a hot shoe, cable release connection, PC contact, and tripod socket. It was probably the only 126 camera to offer all of these features. But Minolta learned its lesson -- you can't sell expensive 126 cameras! As a result, the Autopak 700 was very different from all of the later Minolta 126 cameras.

Can Pentax sell an expensive half-frame camera? No need to tell me, "They've already sold out". We'll see in a few months if the frenzy lingers.

Reads like an AI generated comment.

 

[BradS]

automated bullshit generator

 

[xkaes]

Interesting, you totally ignored my point and gave me an example which is not relevant.

You brought up 126 cameras, so I assumed you thought it was relevant. I think it's a good comparison. Minolta tried to make a quality 126 camera and it didn't work out. We'll see if the same holds true for the Pentax 17 half-frame.

 

[Dwight Anderson]

You brought up 126 cameras, so I assumed you thought it was relevant. I think it's a good comparison. Minolta tried to make a quality 126 camera and it didn't work out. We'll see if the same holds true for the Pentax 17 half-frame.

I specifically listed a model Minolta made that was intended for casual shooters, that had similar features that sold for a similar price at the time. Not the full featured camera you listed. The point is that casual shooters were paying similar amounts as the new Pentax for an amateur cameras.

And Kodak sold millions of 126 cameras at every price point imaginable. Heck, I've got a 127 brownie starmatic with auto exposure that sold for the equivalent of $375 in 1959.

 

[mshchem]

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.



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.

Great story.

I remember when plastics were impossible to use when heating foods, now commonplace. (Plastic as consumer single use should be stopped, terrible)

Plastic DWV pipe has replaced most iron pipe. Don't expect to find similar materials in today's camera as one made 40 years ago.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I specifically listed a model Minolta made that was intended for casual shooters, that had similar features that sold for a similar price at the time. Not the full featured camera you listed. The point is that casual shooters were paying similar amounts as the new Pentax for an amateur cameras.

And Kodak sold millions of 126 cameras at every price point imaginable. Heck, I've got a 127 brownie starmatic with auto exposure that sold for the equivalent of $375 in 1959.

Kodak's Instamatic 500 had a 4-element Tessar-type of lens and and was totally manual, including a Gossen selenium meter:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2024/01/athens-in-1964-with-instamatic-500.html

Kodak also sold a 126 Retina Reflex. Nice item but I do not know if it sold well. The main problem with the 126 cartridge was the lack of a pressure plate.

 

[MattKing]

The main problem with the 126 cartridge was the lack of a pressure plate.

That and the square format.
Good for many, not good for more.
Exacerbated by standard amateur photographer printing paper being only 3.5" wide for much of 126's heyday - those 3.5"x3.5" prints looked small beside the 3.5"x5" prints that their 35mm using friends received.

 

[bfilm]

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.

Don't expect to find similar materials in today's camera as one made 40 years ago.

One can argue costs, efficiencies, innovations, the intended user, or whatever else, but the fact remains that the materials of fine mechanics don't change. There is a reason the classic cameras have such long-lasting appeal.

The materials of fine mechanics don't change. The materials of fine clocks and watches don't change. The materials of fine cameras and lenses don't change.

It is about more than just getting the job done. The inspiration and enjoyment from using a finely crafted instrument of traditional materials can't be matched by modern synthetic materials. This is a perennial thing.

We should be aspiring to there being more nice traditional cameras again than only the Leica rangefinder. Don't get me wrong, I really like the Leica rangefinder, but there really needs to be one or two other nice options.

If we take for an example that Zeiss is creating very respectable manual rangefinder lenses with their Japanese partner, Cosina, for around one-third the price of the Leica Portuguese/German manufacture, maybe we can eventually hope for a nice mechanical camera from someone for around USD 1,900, one-third of the USD 5,700 Leica rangefinder. I think such a camera would find success.

And this is not to say that there cannot be lower-priced mostly plastic film cameras. Maybe these will serve a purpose. But we shouldn't make these out to be more than they really are. There is no reason a new user needs to start out on such a camera, either. I do not think it will be the casual dabbler in film that maintains film use in the long run, but rather the dedicated enthusiasts, and it is often these people who appreciate the classic traditional cameras.

 

[armadsen]

I just got a notification that my Pentax 17 has shipped! I’m eager to get it and shoot with it. Will report back when I have.

 

[xkaes]

What will you compare the results to?

 

[kitspics]

Here's what it came up with:

finally we know what a new pentax half frame camera might look like

 

[Pioneer]

This is really a funny post to read through. Thirty two pages of serious commentary on a camera that not a single one of us actually owns, that I am aware of. Although a few have ordered it.

I think that in penance we must all buy one and use it at least long enough to write a review!

 

[Pioneer]

Did you mean to write, "we must all buy one and use it at least long enough to write something intelligent about this new camera"?

Yep. Sounds good

 

[Cholentpot]

This is really a funny post to read through. Thirty two pages of serious commentary on a camera that not a single one of us actually owns, that I am aware of. Although a few have ordered it.

I think that in penance we must all buy one and use it at least long enough to write a review!

they're all sold out. I've been speaking to a few people who have one though, a few quirks they've all mentioned wouldn't sit well for me personally but most people wouldn't care. Waiting for someone on here to get one so we can drive them crazy with questions.

 

[xkaes]

I think that in penance we must all buy one

Thanks for the kind offer, but I never take money from strangers -- especially THAT much money.