I guess this spells doom for the Pentax 17.
Pentax: Two new compact film cameras planned - Pentax 17 announced June 2024
-
A
- Thread starter Henning Serger
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Free Mini Radio triggers: Light pix lab Flash Q
- Started by RoboRepublic
-
Want to Buy Kodak Polytoner
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale PLAUBEL MAKINA 67 GRIP
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
I guess this spells doom for the Pentax 17.
Agreed, as someone who has been shooting the H35 since shortly after launch (it's my "snapshots to print as 4x6s for the photo album" camera), and specifically wants the Pentax 17 to upgrade the H35 for the same use case. It's just too expensive to justify buying for snapshots when the H35 gets the job done.
APS was a really good idea that failed only because of its proximity to the digital revolution, and I will die on that hill
I'd pay good money for a new production 35mm camera that automatically recorded metadata in the rebate without special attachments (yes, I know there are a few models out there that will do that). The only thing not to like about APS was the resolution hit compared to 24x36.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,743
- Format
- 35mm
Agreed, as someone who has been shooting the H35 since shortly after launch (it's my "snapshots to print as 4x6s for the photo album" camera), and specifically wants the Pentax 17 to upgrade the H35 for the same use case. It's just too expensive to justify buying for snapshots when the H35 gets the job done.
APS was a really good idea that failed only because of its proximity to the digital revolution, and I will die on that hill
I'd pay good money for a new production 35mm camera that automatically recorded metadata in the rebate without special attachments (yes, I know there are a few models out there that will do that). The only thing not to like about APS was the resolution hit compared to 24x36.
I have a bag of APS in my freezer. Honesty, if not for digital killing it I think it would have lived happily side by side with 35mm. I shoot a handful of rolls every year and the cameras make up for the small hit in resolution, which to be honest back in the day wasn't a massive deal. Everyone using APS was printing 4x6 and with modern scanning APS holds its own.
Agreed, as someone who has been shooting the H35 since shortly after launch (it's my "snapshots to print as 4x6s for the photo album" camera), and specifically wants the Pentax 17 to upgrade the H35 for the same use case. It's just too expensive to justify buying for snapshots when the H35 gets the job done.
APS was a really good idea that failed only because of its proximity to the digital revolution, and I will die on that hill
I'd pay good money for a new production 35mm camera that automatically recorded metadata in the rebate without special attachments (yes, I know there are a few models out there that will do that). The only thing not to like about APS was the resolution hit compared to 24x36.
I do like APS with many of its feature like the magnetic strip and cassette indicate fresh, exposed, developed condition and storing the film in the cassette but.. I would not go for it because it's smaller than 35mm. 35mm is the smallest format for serious photography.
All depends on your definition/opinion of "serious". Some consider 35mm only good enough for snap shots.
APS (AKA, half-frame) is only 2X away from full frame, and with fine-grain film, BIG prints are easy. There were some great APS cameras -- Minolta had an entire APS SLR system with a 400mm CAT. It's a shame those cameras can't be reloaded.
Less than likely not as pictures were taken almost 10 years before the book was released...
Half-frame is 18×24 mm, while APS is 30.2 × 16.7 mm. So APS would "win" over half-frame when looking at resolution, and it is closer to digital APSC. Half-frame would be more the microFourThirds equivalent...
Sure, but the two smaller formats are just cropped during the printing process from the actual larger size which is recorded on film... (as far as I understand it, I never used an APS camera... But I remember the ads, and a childhood friend had one on a school trip...)
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,743
- Format
- 35mm
I've done some nice work on 110, you can squeeze a lot out of film
I've tried, so far no dice. Someone will figure out a way to reload at some point.
As for the original intent of thread. Someone here has to have gotten a 17 by this point. Anyone gonna report back?
All true. I think of the APS format as half-frame because Minolta used the C-Classic APS format to create it's first digital SLRs with there Maxxum lenses and the APS-C format.
From WIKIPEDIA --
Advanced Photo System type-C (APS-C) is an image sensor format approximately equivalent in size to the Advanced Photo System film negative in its C ("Classic") format, of 25.1×16.7 mm, an aspect ratio of 3:2
FYI, It's interesting that some refer to APS as "Amateur Photo System".
In any event, any good lens on a half-frame or APS camera can produce great results, depending on the film, of course. Nothing "Amateur" about it.
That I would agree so why go even smaller? At least keeping the 35mm size they can make full use the the lenses already available. Using film that is smaller than the lenses were designed for sucks in the case when they first introduced DSLR.
Why do you think the lens was not designed for this format? I doubt they just used an existing 35mm lens. And lenses for smaller formats existed since before 35mm, and modern film. And mobile phones use even smaller lenses and sensors.
Minolta's (and others') first DSLR cameras had a half-frame (APS) sensor, but used their full-frame Maxxum lenses. The cameras and lenses were much larger than they needed to be for the size of the format.
Half-frame film cameras, like the Pentax 17, can use a smaller, shorter, lighter focal length lens and get the same f-stop. Normally, half-frame cameras are much smaller and lighter due to the smaller format and lens, but just as the first DSLRs were not smaller and lighter, the Pentax 17 isn't either.
Who said History never repeats itself???
Half-frame film cameras, like the Pentax 17, can use a smaller, shorter, lighter focal length lens and get the same f-stop. Normally, half-frame cameras are much smaller and lighter due to the smaller format and lens, but just as the first DSLRs were not smaller and lighter, the Pentax 17 isn't either.
Who said History never repeats itself???
Whoa there. So you would prefer that they built a tiny little camera irregardless of the already stated ongoing development goals and the ergonomic problems that potentially arise as the body shell gets smaller? Pentax has developed a pretty compact camera here and I am willing to bet that a lot these same parts, maybe even the same body shell, will be used in the next version which is hopefully 35mm.
For what it is worth I think that they are doing a pretty good job and within a unusually quick timeline.
You misunderstood. We talked about me not going from 35mm to APS because the format is smaller. They should keep the APS the same size as 35mm to make use of the vast amount of existing lenses. If they were to use APS film with 35mm lens that is not good.
We are not talking about the Pentax 17. Which the lens is OK but it's slow of f/3.5. Zone focusing is not good. No manual exposure control is also not good. I wouldn't even pay $100 for the thing.
I would prefer they build a full size 35mm. Should be either an SLR or a rangefinder (fixed lens OK). Should have full manual exposure control.
There are LOTS of half-frame cameras with great fixed-focus, all-glass f2.8 lenses that create great results. Some even have some control of exposure -- if nothing else varying the film speed. At f3.5 why go focusing???
I did not say I wanted a tiny camera -- although the Fuji Mini is a winner in my book. But the Pentax 17 half-frame is bigger than many full-frame 35mm cameras. What sense is that if it doesn't offer more features or a smaller price tag???
You actually use this thing? More importantly, do you LIKE using this camera? If so then the Pentax 17 is most certainly not for you. My smartphone is too small to use as a camera in my opinion but this makes my phone look monstrous. I guess I would be disappointed as well if this is what I had expected. To each his own.
Even at f/8 you still need focusing. Disposable generally has f/11 or so lens but it's still not enough DOF.
MattKing
Moderator
I was one of those camera store people who was asked from time to time by customers to help unload and re-load a 35mm camera. Those customers seemed to have more problems with the rewind/unload part of the process than they did with putting new film in.
Those were the customers who I would encourage to try 110 or 126. And many of those ended up with very satisfying results - much more satisfying than the results they obtained when they messed up and opened the back of a 35mm camera without fully rewinding it first. I had customers who used the simplest of 126 cameras - think the Kodak Instamatic 104 camera, as an example - but used them thoughtfully, and in circumstances suited to their use. And the prints - or sometimes Kodachrome slides - were very nice.
The best 110 results I ever saw were my father's 110 Kodachrome slides, projected in his pocket Carousel projector. The film was exposed in one of the top-end Kodak Pocket Instamatic cameras.
The best disc camera result I ever saw was a 3x4 foot poster, printed by the research department at Eastman Kodak, from a Kodacolor disc negative. That was a bit unusual, of course - it was done for a singularly important purpose.
A 110 negative is the size of a M4/3 sensor. And a 35mm half frame camera gives a larger negative.
I briefly used a borrowed Olympus Pen in the 1970s - with Tri-X IIRC. I would love to try out a modern half-frame camera, with modern film.
But I don't need to buy another new camera - I'm already well supplied.
Those were the customers who I would encourage to try 110 or 126. And many of those ended up with very satisfying results - much more satisfying than the results they obtained when they messed up and opened the back of a 35mm camera without fully rewinding it first. I had customers who used the simplest of 126 cameras - think the Kodak Instamatic 104 camera, as an example - but used them thoughtfully, and in circumstances suited to their use. And the prints - or sometimes Kodachrome slides - were very nice.
The best 110 results I ever saw were my father's 110 Kodachrome slides, projected in his pocket Carousel projector. The film was exposed in one of the top-end Kodak Pocket Instamatic cameras.
The best disc camera result I ever saw was a 3x4 foot poster, printed by the research department at Eastman Kodak, from a Kodacolor disc negative. That was a bit unusual, of course - it was done for a singularly important purpose.
A 110 negative is the size of a M4/3 sensor. And a 35mm half frame camera gives a larger negative.
I briefly used a borrowed Olympus Pen in the 1970s - with Tri-X IIRC. I would love to try out a modern half-frame camera, with modern film.
But I don't need to buy another new camera - I'm already well supplied.
I think 126 was the mainstay of Kodak's offering for over 10 years, and 110 was good for another ten. Film sales, Developing Equipment sales, Chmical and paper sales, all money headed to Rochester. All ensuring that Kodak workers were welcome every year at the Rochester Car Dealers as well as "the House of Gutars"
126 Came out in 1963 and was Kodak's number one consumer format until 110 in 1972. (and 126 was still selling for a few years after that.)
| 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:  |