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

[koraks]

since they're under new management

Well, to be clear, they're not. They're under new ownership. This may of course have implications for management especially after the initial phase under their new owners that they're presently in.
Investors generally don't decide on the launch of new products/product lines. They tend to focus on financial performance, and may assist in bringing resources (e.g. managerial competence or additional financial resources) to the company that could aid in such matters. But that's more in the area of facilitation and creating favorable conditions; not so much taking on managerial responsibility.

 

[mshchem]

I don't know who owns the "Instamatic" name? Doesn't need to be 126 (though that would be cool) . The retro analog thing will just get bigger.

 

[xkaes]

Kodak used the "INSTAMATIC" label on several of their 110 cameras too -- leading to a lot of confusion, especially when they wanted to buy "Some Instamatic film, please!".

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

 

[mshchem]

Kodak used the "INSTAMATIC" label on several of their 110 cameras too -- leading to a lot of confusion, especially when they wanted to buy "Some Instamatic film, please!".

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

Instamatic vs. Pocket Instamatic. Easy, no?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well, to be clear, they're not. They're under new ownership. This may of course have implications for management especially after the initial phase under their new owners that they're presently in.
Investors generally don't decide on the launch of new products/product lines. They tend to focus on financial performance, and may assist in bringing resources (e.g. managerial competence or additional financial resources) to the company that could aid in such matters. But that's more in the area of facilitation and creating favorable conditions; not so much taking on managerial responsibility.

Ownership is management. This is a small hands-on private investment firm that bought the company. They're not going to sit around collecting coupons.

 

[MattKing]

Ownership is management. This is a small hands-on private investment firm that bought the company. They're not going to sit around collecting coupons.

And they are certainly not going to waste the expertise of their many employees all around the globe by usurping their authority and making decisions outside the knowledge and experience and expertise of the investment professionals.
They might decide to bring in other people to Kodak Alaris management who have knowledge and experience in the film world, and those new managers may have their own ideas.
When one invests in something like Kodak Alaris, a huge proportion of the value of your new asset is the people there!

 

[mshchem]

Yeah, I suspect that the new ownership at KA have plans to grow. Not cut.

 

[koraks]

Ownership is management.

Nope. Not in this case, not in the case of tends of thousands of similar ventures with relatively small-scale investors.
As to counting coupons - no, evidently not; the degree to which an investor intervenes tends to vary, but generally focuses on structural changes. Changes to the managerial board, mergers, restructurings etc. They may bring new talent on board, but only at the top echelon of the company. Of course, an investor like this one can play a role in new market introductions as I indicated above, and they might facilitate existing plans that didn't developer under previous ownership.

 

[Henning Serger]

Can we please come back to the original topic?
The way KA is currently, or might be managed in the future has nothing to do with the qualities of the Pentax 17 and other potentially following Pentax film cameras.
We have a dedicated thread for the KA topic, where this management issue can be discussed.
Thanks.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[koraks]

Yes, duly noted @Henning Serger and you're right. Let's end the KA diversion here.

 

[Henning Serger]

Yes, duly noted @Henning Serger and you're right. Let's end the KA diversion here.

Thanks, highly appreciated.

So let's go on with the Pentax 17:
I am convinced we all here wish that Pentax will continue their film camera project, and offering more film cameras in the future, for different target groups in the market.
But that can only happen when the Pentax 17 is / will be a success! Success means: High sales numbers and happy / satisfied customers.

For high sales numbers of course also an excellent marketing is needed:
- First, the potential customers simply need to know that there is a new product on the market, they must be aware of that. Publicity is needed.
- Second: There must be many independent test reports, which - in the best case - report how good the camera is, and recommend buying it.

And concerning marketing of the Pentax 17, Pentax has so far indeed made a really excellent job:
1. With officially announcing that they are really considering / evaluating making new film cameras again they created huge awareness and very positive vibes in the film community.
2. The videos in which Takeo Suzuki (TKO), the responsible designer and head of the project team, then later explained ideas, potential routes/paths of development, challenges and hurdles, and asked for feedback from the film community, have been really excellent.
Because the film community has been involved in the process right from the beginning. And the honesty and open-mindedness of TKO has been really great.
3. They created special social-media accounts for the Pentax film project as well, to even get in better contact with the film community.
4. In-time before the official product launch Pentax sent lots of final finished cameras from the first production run (not prototypes) to a huge number of (potential) reviewers. And not only to film guys, but also to (mainly) digital camera guys / reviewers.
Absolutely the right decision:
If you look now for Pentax 17 reviews online, you will find dozens of them. Including digital main stream media sources like dpreview or Petapixel. I've found also lots of reports and reviews in printed media about it.
So even almost all digital shooters meanwhile know about the Pentax 17. The Pentax 17 is probably the most reviewed / reported camera this year, surpassing even the new digital cams.
That is very good, and it is also needed: Publicity and awareness are really essential for a market success of this project.
5. Pentax organized together with their national subsidiaries and big(ger) local distributors or camera stores public events on which the Pentax 17 was presented directly to the customer. I know of such events happening in Japan, the US, Germany, France and Italy (and probably that took place in even more countries).

In the past Pentax was often heavily critisized for their bad / insufficent marketing (and for good reasons). Fortunately the situation has changed: The marketing for the Pentax K3-III was already significantly improved.
And with the Pentax 17 they have made so far an even much better, almost perfect marketing job. That should be highly appreciated.

At the end I just want to give you a link to something you will certainly enjoy and having fun:
I talked about the Pentax 17 as the probably most reviewed camera of this year. I have watched lots of these reviews.
And I want to give you a link the the by far most charming review of all of them, by the 12 year old offspring / new blood Scottish photographer Xiana McAdam.
Please have a look from 18:40 min. onwards, and enjoy :



Best regards,
Henning

 

[xkaes]

Instamatic vs. Pocket Instamatic. Easy, no?

Easy? No. Kodak didn't use the word "Pocket" on all of its Instamatic cameras that used 110 film. Only a few of them were labeled "Pocket Instamatic". Some were simply labeled "Tele-Instamatic", "Mini-Instamatic", and "Instamatic", with no "Pocket" at all.

(1974) After Kodak's original line of Pocket Instamatics in 1972, Kodak unveiled a similar line of 110 cameras in 1974 that were similar in many ways, and were simply called "Instamatics" -- dropping the "Pocket" -- although they were just as small and light, if not more so.

 

[pbromaghin]

Easy? No. Kodak didn't use the word "Pocket" on all of its Instamatic cameras that used 110 film. Only a few of them were labeled "Pocket Instamatic". Some were simply labeled "Tele-Instamatic", "Mini-Instamatic", and "Instamatic", with no "Pocket" at all.

(1974) After Kodak's original line of Pocket Instamatics in 1972, Kodak unveiled a similar line of 110 cameras in 1974 that were similar in many ways, and were simply called "Instamatics" -- dropping the "Pocket" -- although they were just as small and light, if not more so.

And they we’re all pieces of crap. I had one and left it in a taxi in Sao Paolo. Good riddance.

 

[Agulliver]

And they we’re all pieces of crap. I had one and left it in a taxi in Sao Paolo. Good riddance.

There's no need for snobbery. I used to think as you do but how many millions of people used these because they were convenient and cheap....who would otherwise have never taken a photo in their lives? And while I don't exactly like the 110 format, there's something liberating about using a camera that fits in the pocket and just does it's thing. They are also, for the time, really well designed miniature machines.

Though this has little to do with Pentax in 2024/5. I do wonder if they're going to observe how the Mint/Rollei 35 does to evaluate if it's worthwhile bringing a full frame 35mm camera based on the 17 into the market. If the Rollei 35 turns out to be good quality and gives good results, there might currentl. not be sufficient market for two? But Pentax's market research has been excellent so far as has their marketing. Honestly if I had the spare money I'd buy a Pentax 17

 

[xkaes]

And they we’re all pieces of crap. I had one and left it in a taxi in Sao Paolo. Good riddance.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and while most 110 camera were mediocre, some were top notch. Even Leica made 110 cameras, for Pete's Sake. No one ever called them "crap". And Pentax's 110 SLR cameras with several wide-angle to tele-photos lenses. Even a ZOOM lens? No one calls them "crap". And they are still used today -- because they were so well made!!!

 

[chuckroast]

And they we’re all pieces of crap. I had one and left it in a taxi in Sao Paolo. Good riddance.

Maybe, but they had a role to play. I was working as a part time photographer's assistant when these were popular. The guy I worked for took on a project to teach school children the basics of photography. My job was to develop the (black and white) film, and print it.

Yes, the optics were truly bad, but some of those images were just striking. Those crappy cameras ended up being a gateway for these kids to experience the joys of image making.

 

[xkaes]

Yes, the optics were truly bad,

Talk about stereotyping.

Many 110 cameras had top-notch lenses. Minolta, for example, produced 16mm cameras for many years before the Kodak 110 cameras. Minolta put their high quality 16mm lenses in their 110 camera as well. And even Kodak developed special lenses for some of their 110 cameras. The Ektramax (it was not labeled "Pocket" or "Instamatic") had a 25mm f1.9 four-element, focusing lens with an aspheric element. Edge-to-edge sharpness, even wide open. And Pentax's 110 SLR lenses were top-notch, too.

 

[chuckroast]

Talk about stereotyping.

Many 110 cameras had top-notch lenses. Minolta, which had produced 16mm camera for many years before the Kodak 110 cameras,. They put their high quality 16mm lenses in their 110 camera as well. And even Kodak developed special lenses for some of their 110 cameras. The Ektramax (it was not labeled "Pocket" or "Instamatic") had a 25mm f1.9 four-element, focusing lens with an aspheric element. Edge-to-edge sharpness, even wide open.

Yes, but the principal point of conversation here is the consumer grade plastic cameras Kodak made that these particular children were using. Perhaps a more complete reading of what I wrote is in order.

 

[pbromaghin]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and while most 110 camera were mediocre, some were top notch. Even Leica made 110 cameras, for Pete's Sake. No one ever called them "crap". And Pentax's 110 SLR cameras with several wide-angle to tele-photos lenses. Even a ZOOM lens? No one calls them "crap". And they are still used today -- because they were so well made!!!

People didn’t say those cameras were crap because they weren’t. The Kodaks were crap. I started with an original Instamatic when I was 7 or 8 years old. It was a wonderful little camera. Good lens and terrifically easy to use. It broke and my mom gave me the 110 for Christmas. I almost lost interest in photography

 

[mshchem]

OK, back to the Pentax 17. It's a success so far. If it draws in more people, who become analog enthusiasts that's promising.

I think one thing missing, I feel is important, is The Print. This needs to be part of the revival of analog.

 

[MattKing]

And they we’re all pieces of crap. I had one and left it in a taxi in Sao Paolo. Good riddance.

My father's 110 Kodachromes exposed in a higher end Kodak Pocket Instamatic camera (500?) project really well using his Kodak Pocket Carousel projector - many look absolutely great up on the screen.

It is always a risk to paint with a wide brush by using the word "all".
Back in the days of my working in retail, I saw lots of really good snapshots taken by customers with their 110 cameras. Many of them might not have bothered taking any photos at all if they didn't have available to them the compact and inexpensive and easy and relatively trouble free option of 110 cameras and film.

 

[koraks]

OK, back to the Pentax 17.

Yes, indeed. Let's get back to this; thanks all.

 

[MattKing]

At my Darkroom Group meeting yesterday my friend who has the Pentax 17 was making some work prints from his negatives, in advance of creating some diptychs for Exhibition prints.
They looked really good, and really surprised my other friend at the meeting, who hadn't really appreciated before the capabilities of half frame.
So we doubled down, and described what standard fare movie theatre films used to consist of - vast numbers of half frame images, each blown up to fill the big screen!

 

[Cholentpot]

And they we’re all pieces of crap. I had one and left it in a taxi in Sao Paolo. Good riddance.

110/16mm Camera Image Quality

Mamiya 16 'De Lux', f/4 1/25s Fuji HR-21 @ 12; Parodinal 1+100 25' D850 negative scan w/ El-nikkor 40mm on bellows

www.photrio.com

65 pages of what 110/16mm can do. Knock yourself out.

 

[mshchem]

At my Darkroom Group meeting yesterday my friend who has the Pentax 17 was making some work prints from his negatives, in advance of creating some diptychs for Exhibition prints.
They looked really good, and really surprised my other friend at the meeting, who hadn't really appreciated before the capabilities of half frame.
So we doubled down, and described what standard fare movie theatre films used to consist of - vast numbers of half frame images, each blown up to fill the big screen!

Exactly. Kodak's VR, T-grain films will make very nice images. I haven't splurged yet, however, I have a box of Gepe half frame slide mounts and half frame negative carrier for my Beseler enlargers