The ISO dial in conjunction with the +/- 2 stops dial gives you a lot of control. In essence you can tell the camera it's loaded with anything from ISO 12 to 12,800, that's 10 stops. You'd need to pick your film for the right job. The manual ISO dial is great.
Pentax: Two new compact film cameras planned - Pentax 17 announced June 2024
-
A
- Thread starter Henning Serger
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
Forum statistics
The ISO dial in conjunction with the +/- 2 stops dial gives you a lot of control. In essence you can tell the camera it's loaded with anything from ISO 12 to 12,800, that's 10 stops. You'd need to pick your film for the right job. The manual ISO dial is great.
But this still only represents a limited amount of control. Essentially, it allows you to choose how to rate the film or adjust exposure based upon how you think the camera meter will interpret a scene. It does not allow you to set a particular exposure based upon your own experience and assessment of the scene or based upon a specific incident or reflected meter reading.
Well it's out. Bravo to Pentax's social media efforts - literally the first 10 posts I saw in Instagram this morning were of it ;-)
Sadly it still looks terrible, but that's OK because I'm not the target market and as much as I'd like to support Pentax for having the guts to actually make a "proper" film camera, US$500 for this is just a stretch too far. Half-frame was perfectly fine - even sensible - but at this price it needs either basic AF or some kind of rangefinder. Zone focussing would have been perfectly fine for a camera of this style, but at literally half the price.
Granted, this first camera was never intended for existing film enthusiasts, especially those happy to buy secondhand. US$500 will after all buy you an almost infinite number of near-mint, CLA'd SLRs that'll wipe the '17 for build, optical quality and flexibility. To get this market Pentax are going to have do go well beyond... a mechanical K-mount SLR, a 67iii or 6x7 rangefinder competitor to the Mamiya 7, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see Pentax succeed here. But I do wonder how many potential budding, new-to-film people are going to be willing to drop $500 on this? At $200-$300, it can be a spur of the moment purchasing decision, a nice birthday present for someone, etc. US$500 is more of an investment, people think about investments, and yeah, I dare say there are many more compelling options for film cameras at this price point. Albeit not "new".
Sadly it still looks terrible, but that's OK because I'm not the target market and as much as I'd like to support Pentax for having the guts to actually make a "proper" film camera, US$500 for this is just a stretch too far. Half-frame was perfectly fine - even sensible - but at this price it needs either basic AF or some kind of rangefinder. Zone focussing would have been perfectly fine for a camera of this style, but at literally half the price.
Granted, this first camera was never intended for existing film enthusiasts, especially those happy to buy secondhand. US$500 will after all buy you an almost infinite number of near-mint, CLA'd SLRs that'll wipe the '17 for build, optical quality and flexibility. To get this market Pentax are going to have do go well beyond... a mechanical K-mount SLR, a 67iii or 6x7 rangefinder competitor to the Mamiya 7, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see Pentax succeed here. But I do wonder how many potential budding, new-to-film people are going to be willing to drop $500 on this? At $200-$300, it can be a spur of the moment purchasing decision, a nice birthday present for someone, etc. US$500 is more of an investment, people think about investments, and yeah, I dare say there are many more compelling options for film cameras at this price point. Albeit not "new".
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,743
- Format
- 35mm
Look what the target demo is paying for mid to high end point and shoots, or a Fuji X series retro styled digital point and shoot and $500 for this makes more sense.
Here's where the APUG detractors go wrong. This camera is not for serious analog photographers. There aren't enough serious analog photographers to justify the effort to produce the camera they would want.
It isn't enough just to design a working camera and hand-build a few prototypes. They also have to design and build a mass-produceable product. And the machinery to mass produce that product. And who the hell is going to do that? The last K1000 was produced 28 years ago. Anybody with any knowledge of how to do that would at least be in their 70's. The K1000, Minolta SRT, and whatever Nikon or Canon produced are pretty much impossible for the current crop of working engineers. Has everybody forgotten that a new C41 emulsion, infinitely less complicated than these cameras was dismissed as simply impossible just last year? And when Harman did produce the miracle product there was endless bitching that they had the gall to have their customers pay for the R&D.
This product is sellable to enough people to justify building it. It is also possible. And possibly the essential first step on the road to allowing the engineers to learn how to build a camera that apuggers might want to buy.
Pentax seem to have it in their mind that they need to create a gimmicky camera to attract new film users. I think this is wrong. The classic cameras are what many of the people drawn to film want.
A fully mechanical camera would be difficult to make. It would be a major project and probably involve at least one partner for the mechanical shutter.
But an electronic shutter 35mm film SLR would not be difficult for Pentax to make. But I suspect that it would cost at least around USD 1,000 to make something nice. Personally, I think a nice new 35mm film SLR in the USD 1,000 to 1,500 range is what is most needed in new film cameras today, but perhaps Pentax thinks differently.
Maybe it wouldn't be quite as nice as a Pentax LX, which in 1980 was USD 1,085 with 50mm f/1.4 lens (about USD 3,950 today), but if Pentax could again make a "photographic instrument", I think they would greatly please a lot of people, beginners and experienced alike.
it could be bought at 4k USD when they had all the knowledge and the machines and, most importantly, an almost infinite market.
nowadays they don't have the knowledge anymore, the suppliers, machines, the market is way, way, way, way smaller than it was.
are we ready to pay more than leica prices or we'd be here bitchin about "bbbbbut i can buy an old one for a couple hundred bucks!!!"?
Plus, they have always said that this first camera is meant to build something and, if the sales are right, to be used as the first step towards a fully functional 35mm.
It's a half-frame camera with flash! Rather useful review
Plus, I think no matter how high spec'ed they would've made it/what they came out with first (in general), people wouldve still bitched saying "but it's not what *I* specifically wanted made/designed/spec'ed/priced
"
Plus, I think no matter how high spec'ed they would've made it/what they came out with first (in general), people wouldve still bitched saying "but it's not what *I* specifically wanted made/designed/spec'ed/priced
Yup, We are the grumpy old men of the photography world.
I see some posters are still completely and perhaps wilfully misunderstanding what it is that Pentax are doing here.
This is not aimed at us. At all.
This is not aimed at college or school photography students. At all.
This is aimed at casual photographers who have likely never used a camera that wasn't a smartphone. Just let that sink in. This is aimed at people who have never held a camera as we know it. This is aimed at people who's whole photography experience to date has been with smart phones. Because, like it or not, that is the experience the *vast* majority of those under 25 have had with photography. They've never picked up any kind of camera in their lives.
FWIW I pointed three much younger friends at the live stream last night. One has actually gone and placed an order. One was telling me, "Oh, bokeh feature that's so cool. It's vertical like my phone! Too expensive but I like it". The third has put it on a Christmas wishlist. It's also all over social media this morning. It's created a stir. And I think that much the same way many on this forum misunderstood what harman were doing in the way they promoted and sell Phoenix....y'all are wide of the mark again.
I honestly think it will hit the mark with the intended audience, especially if they can pay in installments like they do for the phones they carry which usually cost 2-4x the asking price of the Pentax 17.
And maybe, just maybe....the next camera will be of interest to a minority of APUGgers. Because there's a logical route where the next camera is full frame at least, and possibly auto focus or with more accurate focus than the Pentax 17. You can see that the camera body is plenty big enough to incorporate a full frame assembly and an autofocus system.
And what are we arguing about? That it has an LED flash (just like every smartphone does) and the lights by the viewfinder are somehow dangerous? "I can't imagine taking 72 photos"....it...isn't....aimed....at....you......it's aimed at people who think nothing of rattling off 8 photos of their friend's new hairstyle and another 10 of the cat inside five minutes. And that is photography of some sort, no need to be snobs about it.
"I started on a fully manual"....so did I. That's wholly missing the point. By age 6 I was using a fully manual 1930s medium format folder. These kids have reached their twenties without ever having so much as used a compact camera. They need to start somewhere. And this seems a good starting point.
Then maybe....just maybe...a few years down the line....there might be an SLR based around some of the parts in this camera and the Pentax DSLR range.
Still mulling over jointly buying one with one of my partners in photography. And if nothing else....one of the few big names left in photography has launched a brand new film camera in 2024. And we're complaining about that.
Finally, I do feel that some of the (mostly) young people who will buy this will find places like this very forum. I hope we don't turn them away. I hope we can do two things....encourage them to learn more while respecting the path they've had to take to get here...and maybe learning a thing or two from them.
I am particularly impressed with it's close-up capabilities. It's certainly not a toy, has some flexibility and a degree of user control.
Love this. Congratulations Pentax for delivering on your promises.
I am as 'serious' a photographer as they come and I've pre-ordered this.
I have wanted a small pocketable camera for when I don't feel like hauling around my FUJI GW690 III or Rolleis and I absolutely love the look of well scanned grain in 35mm format. Vertical half frame will offer fantastic composition opportunities too, and based on what I can see the lens is capable of excellent sharpness if focused well. Not a problem at all to zone focus with a 25mm f/3.5 half frame - I'm used to zone focusing my Agfa Record II Apotar 105mm 6x9 and Voigtlaender Perkeo folders, it will be child's play with this.
For those people out there who are frothing at the mouth about the gazillion used cameras available which are 'better value' than this. Used cameras mostly suck IME. They're often full of hidden issues, have been knocked about for 50 years by multiple users, often have frayed light seals that need taking care of and so on. If you're a photographer, meaning you buy a camera to take pictures with, having to deal with myriads issues before being able to go out there and actually photograph is a major let down. I can see how buying and 'fixing' old cameras (and dump them back on the bay when the fixing bit doesn't quite go as planned) may be a fun hobby for some, though.
I did try to buy a small camera on the used market: I bought a Minox 35 GT, then an Olympus XA. Misaligned lenses, electronics tampered with. Two of my Rolleicords had to go through some serious CLA to really shine. Months and months of wait, and a lot more money thrown at the project than initially planned. Those MINT A++++ PEN half frames from Japan? They mostly look like a$$. Mould, rust, unglued leatherette. Not spending my cash on that. I'm actually sick of the current state of the used camera market. I am so happy that Pentax is giving me an opportunity to open a box and know everything is in factory condition ready to go and if something fails I can send it back for repair.
Anyhow - the year is 2024 and one of largest Japanese camera manufacturers has designed, engineered and mass produced a new film camera from scratch. Sounds like great news to me!
Last edited:
Exactly that. I have seen in different geographic forums twice some different users saying "I can get 3 Olympus Pens for that", yes, but they are old and can come with many pain inducing problems!
Instagram and other social media is where the population is at. An anecdote is that they ran a poll of "which Pentax you love the most" and IIRC also "...would you like it revived" and the Pentax 67 scored high. I don't know how feasible would it be for them to revive the medium formats, considering if there is any tooling left (67 discontinued 2009, 645 still active as digital?). But another thing is the actual demand for eg. medium format, given that Lomo and Kodak had to reduce (temporally) film prices for the format as seemingly 35mm film is the hot demanded market. This is one product that might precede a series.
The 17 is a great start, I am not part of their market but wish for good success! And then, as others pointed, look at the 35mm full frame fitting gate. Put a nice lens for that format and Pentax will be up to subsitute the Olympuses and Contaxes of the 90-00s. Those are going for pretty penny and their electronics are failing. For that, however, we shall see how Mint's Rollei new 35 will fare. The 17's design is quite a 1980's-90s mix that I do not really personally favour, but it is very interesting how that time era went from fugly to romantic now.
I've generally been lucky with older, mechanical cameras bought on market stalls and even given to me be people who "found dad's old camera in the attic" types. But typically they're usable with an issue or two that I work around or can fix (light seals fixed, shutter a bit slow I work around)). The 90s and 00s electronic cameras seem less reliable these days.
If I have a complaint about the Pentax 17 it is that at £400 I think I'd have gone halvesies with a partner....and who knows....maybe it'll be a success and they'll drop the price.
I don't actually own a half frame camera right now and kind of wish i did. But again, this isn't even aimed at me. I'm just somewhat better at understanding what young people want from a camera because I work with kids and have a handful of friends who are in their 20s.
If I have a complaint about the Pentax 17 it is that at £400 I think I'd have gone halvesies with a partner....and who knows....maybe it'll be a success and they'll drop the price.
I don't actually own a half frame camera right now and kind of wish i did. But again, this isn't even aimed at me. I'm just somewhat better at understanding what young people want from a camera because I work with kids and have a handful of friends who are in their 20s.
Even though it's not exactly what I wanted it seems better than what I expected.
I still think that a Contax T2/T3 knockoff would sell like crazy, but understand that Pentax still has some way to go before they are able to produce a camera like that. 17 is cool though. Low tech and the "no designer was involved" approach might actually appeal to users they are aiming for. I have a lot of < 50 EUR HF cameras that do more than 17 so I'm almost certain I'll be able to resist the temptation, but I'm not saying "never" to Pentax 17...
I still think that a Contax T2/T3 knockoff would sell like crazy, but understand that Pentax still has some way to go before they are able to produce a camera like that. 17 is cool though. Low tech and the "no designer was involved" approach might actually appeal to users they are aiming for. I have a lot of < 50 EUR HF cameras that do more than 17 so I'm almost certain I'll be able to resist the temptation, but I'm not saying "never" to Pentax 17...
My local camera shop says it will get a few of them and will accept pre-orders, but while looking at it, I noticed they have an ME Super in excellent-plus condition and with an f/1.7 lens, for a third of the price. Much more tempted by that Pentax.
I'm surprised by how quickly it's all come together, seemingly some UK shops will ship it this week! I'm used to a much slower burn with influencers drip-feeding nuggets. I thought it might launch for Christmas.
I might buy it, I liked shooting the Kodak half-frame and I generally walk around with my F55 on Auto. Half frame will really help with the hit I feel over £30 Velvia.
I might buy it, I liked shooting the Kodak half-frame and I generally walk around with my F55 on Auto. Half frame will really help with the hit I feel over £30 Velvia.
In many ways, I think the costs of making an electromechanical camera have actually come down. Consider that not so long ago Nikon was selling the F6, as nice of an electronic SLR as has ever been created, for USD 2,500. The Pentax K-1 series digital SLRs cost USD 1,700 and are of very solid build-quality.
This is by no means lost knowledge and experience. At one time, Pentax and others were breaking new ground, innovating, and using new processes to create cameras like the LX. This is not necessary now. Pentax can use tried and true processes and materials. They don't really have to do anything new to create a good 35mm film SLR.
To really try and recreate something like the LX at equivalent quality might be more expensive than many people want today, but it would not be more expensive than Leica.
If not going the classic style route, Pentax could make a 35mm film SLR companion to the K-1 series digital SLR using the same type of viewfinder and pentaprism, mirror assembly, and shutter unit. Change the digital sensor, processor, and rechargeable battery for the film-advance mechanism, rear door, and disposable battery. Modify the electronics and body.
Creating a long-appeal model would have the added advantage that they could sell the same camera for 20+ years, possibly with refinements over time, and have lots of time to recoup costs. The good cameras have perennial appeal.
I don't think the argument that some people give that the youth of today need something totally different than past cameras is valid. Once again, the good cameras have perennial appeal. Plenty of today's youth have no problem learning traditional cameras.
Last edited:
Yes, much less painful than watching the online birth of Harman Phoenix.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,743
- Format
- 35mm
I've had three ME Supers and they're all dead.
Bingo.
Notice how they have 'food' on the scale focus. They know what they're doing. The world doesn't need a fully mechanical paperweight of a camera right now. Consumers are looking for something fun and playful. Many on here are loath to admit but a cellphone can do 90% of what we need for general photography. Having a chunk of something in your hand with LEDs and a crank is a breath of fresh air for people who've only known cell phones.
1700USD minus the sensor, let's say 1000USD, and i'm already hearing "I JUST FOUND AN EOS 300 @15BUCKS LOL PENTAX", but ok.
Fact is that film-advance mechanism would probably require a different body (notice dslrs always have very little left "space" compared to film slrs, that's where the canister needs to go) that would require new machinery and a different assembly line.
i don't know how the space is used inside the k-1, but if some CPUs are in the central area (next to the sensor) you'd need to put them away or completely build from scratch if, say, the autofocus/esposure meter is in some ways coupled with the sensor. New internal arrangement, new assemply line, new components, etc.
How much would all these new machineries and assembly lines and r&d cost?
i mean, look at this image from pentaxforums:
all that stuff need to go and a decent bunch of it needs to be rearranged somewhere (the buttons, the processors that are still needed). New board design, new boards production, new attachment points in the body for those boards --> new body.
Yes, I almost added a similar note. That it would probably be easier to design a new body and electronics.
But this is not groundbreaking stuff. This is the same type of thing that is done for any camera -- just like they did with the new 17.
They could have an electronic shutter with a tiny A76 battery. Instead, they used a BIG battery -- mainly due to the flash.
except the 17 uses easy components and solutions, it's a box with almost no moving parts and (i suppose) a simple electronic logic.
a fully fledged slr, instead, needs decent processors and a nice set of functions. nobody would pay 3-zeroes kind of money for an electronic slr without various metering modes, a more than decent AF, and all the bells and whistles.
a fully fledged slr, instead, needs decent processors and a nice set of functions. nobody would pay 3-zeroes kind of money for an electronic slr without various metering modes, a more than decent AF, and all the bells and whistles.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |