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

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,012
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I think my friend's negatives were HP5+.
 

cmacd123

Subscriber
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,314
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
Actually Not even Half Frame, when sound came out they made room for the sound track and shrunk the Standard image, then with Wide screen that streched it vertically.

35 mm movie film - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

only in the Silent days were movies "Half Frame. that Wikipedia link points to the section that explains "academy Format" and some of the dimensions that came later.

Not wanting to be labour the 110 film but it was actually made to curve in the cartridge so that the edges could be sharp without needing a fancy lens. Like Matt, when I was behind a camera Counter, our Pocket instamatic customers were quite happy with the results. the Kodak DISC was another matter. one review at the time suggested that Kodak was trying to get customers used to the expected lower resolution of early digital cameras.
 
  • pbromaghin
  • Deleted
  • Reason: End of diversion

foc

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
2,520
Location
Sligo, Ireland
Format
35mm
I hope I am not going too far off topic.
The arrival of 110 film saw the introduction of C41.
This was a huge game changer and improvement on its predecessor C22 and it left the Agfa (CNS) process in the ha'penny place.

Whatever we think about 110, we should be very grateful for C41.
 

xkaes

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,791
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format

If full-frame and half-frame prints are hanging on the same wall, no one could pick out which were from which cameras.
 

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
2,355
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format
xkaes said:
If full-frame and half-frame prints are hanging on the same wall, no one could pick out which were from which cameras.
Click to expand...

Depends on the magnification and the film. You'll see the difference at 8x10 with a grainy film/dev combo. At 11x14 you'll probably see for almost all dev/film combos.
 

xkaes

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,791
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
Pull out your magnifying glass if you want. Were not talking about resolution charts on the wall. If people are looking at normal prints of mixed subjects -- just like in a gallery -- there is no way they are going to pick out one from the other -- even if they are 16x20s.
 

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
2,355
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format

I think that's generous. I can spot the difference between 8x10s made from Tri-X and, say, Agfapan 100 at arms length. No magnifying glass required. Double-X is even worse because it is REALLY fussy about what developer you use and how you agitate. Put an 11x14 on the wall and - yes - if you step back to take it all in, it's not immediately apparent, but if you move in to look at the detail for any reason (something that does, in fact, happen in galleries) these differences do show up.

All things being equal, there is no substitute for square inches (or millimeters) of negative. The apparent sharpness and tonal rendering is always going to be greater for larger negatives. And that's doesn't require a magnifying glass to see.

However, whether this actually matters depends also on the subject. As good as Leica optics are, I've never found them to render highly detailed and articulated subjects like dense foliage to my satisfaction. OTOH, they are just fine for street photography, abstracts, and in-the-moment shooting where capturing that moment is more important than perfect image fidelity.

Consider these images - all are scans of 8x10 prints, all with shot with cameras on tripods.

The first is from a 35mm negative shot with a 50mm f/2 Collapsible Summicron.

The second is from a 6x9cm negative shot on a 90mm f/3.5 EBC Fujinon.

The third is from a 4x5 negative shot with a 127mm f/4.7 Ektar.

Now, I like all three of these images, but to my eye, the larger formats delivery much better sharpness and tonal fidelity. I think at 11x14 in a gallery you absolutely would see the differences even more:







 

xkaes

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,791
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
If I want the best quality, I pull out my 4x5" too, but I could hang 8x10" prints from a 4x5 and a half-frame -- and no one would know the difference.

I remember the SIXTY foot slides that Kodak hung over the entrance in Grand Central Station -- made from 35mm Kodachrome 25 slides. For some reason, no one was interested in pulling out their magnifying glasses as they stood in awe.

I understand your point, but outside the lab, in the real world, no one will notice.
 

Mick Fagan

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
4,421
Location
Melbourne Au
Format
Multi Format
xkaes said:
If full-frame and half-frame prints are hanging on the same wall, no one could pick out which were from which cameras.
Click to expand...
In general I would agree, but.

As each format has a different normal lens focal length, it is reasonably easy to ascertain which focal length recorded the scene by using relative focus.

As the image required gets smaller, half frame in this case, a shorter focal length lens is usually used, which will have more of the image in apparent focus, compared to the longer focal length required for the full frame (24mm x 36mm) required to give the same image (or almost the same image) which will have slightly less of the image in apparent focus.

There will be a differing depth of apparent in-focus area of the image, for each focal length. Decades ago I and a couple of other darkroom printers used to have a guessing game of which focal length a photographer used when we were viewing their prints, we were surprisingly good at estimating the focal length used.
 

xkaes

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,791
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
Mick Fagan said:
As the image required gets smaller, half frame in this case, a shorter focal length lens is usually used, which will have more of the image in apparent focus,
Click to expand...

If a half-frame 35mm image and a full-frame 35mm image are both enlarged to the same size print, the apparent greater DOF of the equivalent lens on the half-frame print is lost by the increased magnification of the smaller image -- and the increased circle of confusion.

Not that the typical viewer would ever notice.
 

Agulliver

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
3,569
Location
Luton, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
I saw a Pentax 17 in the wild a couple of weeks ago at a Mexican street market/dance event in London. Silly me, I decided only to shoot on digital that day. I hope the man with the Pentax 17 got some great shots.

There are a few special offers offering 5% discounts in the run up to Christmas.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,302
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Henning Serger said:
My assumption:
The cameras will be "twins": Same body, but with different lenses, e.g. one with a normal focal length, the other one with a wide angle lens.
Click to expand...

I'd think a more likely outcome would be a full-frame brother to the 17, with 40-45 mm lens instead of 28 mm.
 

xkaes

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,791
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
Donald Qualls said:
I'd think a more likely outcome would be a full-frame brother to the 17, with 40-45 mm lens instead of 28 mm.
Click to expand...

The Pentax 17 has a 25mm lens (38mm equivalent). If Pentax were to go with a full-frame (more expensive?) model with a 38mm f3.5 zone-focused lens, it should work OK. A longer or faster lens would really be pushing the zone-focusing.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,302
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
xkaes said:
A longer or faster lens would really be pushing the zone-focusing.
Click to expand...

I had (fifty years ago) a lot of good negatives and prints made with a Pony 135 (50/3.5, no RF) that would disagree with that. Even with ASA 80 Kodacolor, shooting in full daylight I was able to stop down enough to have useful depth of field and still keep hand-held shutter speeds (1/25 or 1/50). I don't know that I'd want to depend on scale focus for an 85 mm, but for a 50 it's fine. And if the 17 has a four-zone like my Olympus Pen EE-S2, it's easy enough for Pentax to print an actual distance scale on the full frame version...
 

xkaes

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,791
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
Like you, I don't mind zone-focusing at all. Pentax could come up with the same system as Minolta has on it's full-frame Hi-Matic G2. It has a 38mmm f2.8 lens with four zone-settings -- with large icons -- but it is also marked in feet and meters, and you can set the lens in between the click-stops -- which you can't do on the Pentax 17 (if I'm not mistaken).
 

Agulliver

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
3,569
Location
Luton, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
I don't mind zone focusing or simply feet/metres on the focus ring.

I've used 6x9 at f3.5 in the jazz club I keep going on about with a focus ring in feet. Outside where I can stop down to, say f8, it's no problem at all and zone focusing also works fine in 90% of situations. This summer I picked up a 35mm camera with zone focusing because it was looking rather forlorn in a shop and shot a roll in August.

I think the zone focusing system appeals to younger folk who are used to phones which not only offer auto focus by default (and have little in the way of *practical* manual focus) and tend to have huge depth of field with bokeh achieved by faking it with the camera app or editing app. Zone focusing offers a degree of manual control and a tactile experience while keeping it simple and easy.

@koraks Indeed, with luck he got more keepers from the 17 than I did with my DSLR. Not that I was disappointed!
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,414
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Agulliver said:
The Bear Club in Luton. I am such a fixture there that I get invited to staff parties. Even though I am a paying customer. One day I shall be mistaken for a piece of furniture
Click to expand...

Sorry I meant the Ronnie Scott's. Got confused with the Blue Note in Milan. Either way, I've heard of the Bear Club. The Jazz scene in the UK was very, very lively when I lived there.
 

miha

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
2,963
Location
Slovenia
Format
Multi Format
Back to the Pentax 17 – I noticed they go for €499 with Christmas discounts.
 

Agulliver

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
3,569
Location
Luton, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
As I receive newsletters from Analogue Wonderland, I have just this afternoon received a survey they are doing in conjunction with Pentax to help decide the next steps for their film camera project.

I completed the survey which had questions about what cameras I might like to see in the future, what features appeal to me....there's some demographic info so they know i'm not one of the youngsters and that I've been shooting film forever.

NOT wanting to begin any rumours but the options did include 35mm P&S, 35mm premium, 35mm SLR, 120 fixed lens, 120 interchangable lens.

What this tells me is that Pentax are still moving forward with a second model, but it might not appear for a while? Speculation - maybe the Mint/Rollei 35 being on the market has made them think twice about what step to take next? It would appear to occupy the market position many of us assumed Pentax would go for next.
 

analogwisdom

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2023
Messages
70
Location
KY
Format
Large Format

xkaes

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,791
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
Sounds like the "bean counters" have said, "We ran it up the flagpole and not enough people saluted".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…