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

[blee1996]

I use Nikon Coolscan V to scan. Half frame is easy: I scan as full frame, and run a simple script to split all frames into two.

But 24x24 is impossible on the Coolscan. I can scan them on Epson V700, but the resolution is lower than Nikon. In addition, I have to manually draw one 24x24 frame and copy 36 times in Epson Scan software.

Therefore I would rather have Pentax 35 as the first sibling to Pentax 17.

 

[Henning Serger]

Masks are of little use if you have to manually position the film for every frame. .......

Thanks, important point indeed. I've talked about that today with my local professional lab. They have five different scanners for different purposes, including the Noritsu HS-1800. They told me 24x24 might work with a dedicated mask and dedicated coding. But of course that must be tested, difficult to evaluate in theory.

So, let's assume the "worst case":
Thesis: It is neither possible with the SP-3000, nor with the HS-1800.
But good labs are already operating different scanner types for different applications and customer needs for many years. That is nothing new for established labs.
And we have new developments in the market as well, like the Aura 35: https://auralab.photo/
From the description scanning 24x24mm should be possible without problems.

And then there is also the option of camera scanning: Would be very affordable even for very small, newly established labs. Scanning is slower compared to scanning of 35mm with a HS-1800 or SP-3000, but it would be fast enough to offer scans at a reasonable price.

I think to give the film market new impulses, fresh stimulus, we have to increase the number of options and alternatives for (potential) users.
A square format 24x24mm based on standard 35mm film would be such an option. It would improve the versatility of the by far most used film type, 35mm film. It would be attractive both from an aesthetic point of view, and like halfframe also from an economical point of view (more photos from a 135 film).
The cheap plastic halfframe cameras like the Kodak Ektar H35 are very popular, and that was a signal seen by Pentax, and confirming to them that halfframe would be accepted in the market.
If a camera manufacturer now would introduce a 24x24mm square format camera, and customers show demand for it, that would also be a signal to others also entering that market. And further improved scanning options would follow, too.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[brbo]

You don't have to sell square on 135 film to me. I was waaay ahead of you.

I'd love for Pentax 24 to happen, but I'm pretty sure it won't for the reasons I mentioned.

 

[Henning Serger]

You don't have to sell square on 135 film to me. I was waaay ahead of you.

I know, and I don't want to sell it to you .
I just want to discuss the possibilities of it.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[xkaes]

24x24mm is just too weird a format -- but "weird" is popular today. But many view the half-frame format as weird too. Maybe that's one of the reasons -- besides the cell phone format thing, and the cost savings -- that there seem to be so many of them popping up all over the place. Around A DOZEN at last count -- although several of then are really the same thing. This is reminiscent of the Afga/RIcoh/GAF/Standard/Ansco/Gatling/Revue half-frame cameras of earlier years -- same cameras, different labels.

 

[cmacd123]

Thanks, important point indeed. I've talked about that today with my local professional lab. They have five different scanners for different purposes, including the Noritsu HS-1800. They told me 24x24 might work with a dedicated mask and dedicated coding. But of course that must be tested, difficult to evaluate in theory.

so do any of the ones that they have manage to do half frame without anything more than a menu selection.

 

[Mick Fagan]

xkaes, if you think a 24mm x 24mm format is "just too weird" how weird must the 56mm x 56mm format be to the (literally) tens of millions of photographers who have been using this square format in Rollei and Hasselbald cameras, to name just two of the manufacturers who were supplying cameras with a square format?

Although I myself have not used the square format very much, I have always noted that one never needs to choose portrait or landscape mode when using a square format camera. This attribute suggests to me that it could be a desirable feature for a point and shoot type of camera.

 

[xkaes]

so do any of the ones that they have manage to do half frame without anything more than a menu selection.

I just use a 35mm full-frame holder and grab two images at once and crop.

 

[xkaes]

xkaes, if you think a 24mm x 24mm format is "just too weird"

I wasn't referring to my opinion. I use the square format lots of times. I'm talking about the camera-purchasing public in general. But even though enough of the public might think it's weird enough to be good, I doubt Pentax would risk it.

 

[brbo]

so do any of the ones that they have manage to do half frame without anything more than a menu selection.

Noritsu scanners will scan HF "out of the box" (as well as both 135 panoramic formats (Widelux and XPan)). It's literally one click to change to desired format.

I believe Frontiers are a bit more involved, but doable. Pakons would also need a bit of fiddling with the files. Anyone know about Agfa D-Lab?

Ironically, of those lab scanners, Pakons (all dumped by minilabs a while ago) would probably be the easiest to quickly adapt to scan square format on 135 film at somewhat acceptable speed and manual labour involved.

 

[foc]

Ironically, of those lab scanners, Pakons (all dumped by minilabs a while ago) would probably be the easiest to quickly adapt to scan square format on 135 film at somewhat acceptable speed and manual labour involved.

I believe the Pakon could scan Xpan panorama negatives (24x65mm). I never tried it myself but IIRC you typed in the length of the panorama negative, in this case 65mm. If so then it should be just as easy to type in 24mm (for 24x24).

The Pakon scanned in one continuous negative feed. If the negative spacing was off on the preview screen, you simply used the arrow keys to line it up. You had unlimited movement, left or right. Not all scanners had this.

 

[MattKing]

I wonder if there are scanners that offer a mode for 126?

 

[cmacd123]

I wonder if there are scanners that offer a mode for 126?

the mini-labs when 126 was in its prime were "direct to paper" and would have come with a Lens to use for 126, (or used a built in Zoom)

 

[Angarian]

Concerning 24x24mm square format in general, I think it could be indeed successful for Pentax to offer a "Pentax 24 square" as a sister model to the current Pentax 17.
Because of the following reasons:
1. The square format has been very popular in photography for decades. Not only in medium format, but also in amateur formats: More than 150 million Instamatic 126 cameras have been sold in a bit less than three decades. And also a high three-digit million number of Polaroid integral instant film cameras, and several million Fujifilm instax square cameras.
The square format has not been as popular as the rectanglar formats, but nevertheless a very significant percentage of photographers like it (and lots of photographers are using both rectangular and square format).
2. "Same parts strategy": Most of the parts of the Pentax 17 can be used for such a Pentax 24 as well. That lowers both design costs and production costs significantly, with improved economies of scale.
3. If Pentax offers a "camera family" based on the Pentax 17 - Pentax 17, Pentax 24, Pentax 35 - it would not also lowers overall costs, but also the total customer base / user base could be increased significantly. It would also be very good from a marketing point of view.

I agree. In the mid-term that would be a very good strategy.
Good for Pentax, and good for the film photography scene in general, as it increases the variety of formats and the creative options, and lowers the costs per shot. Win-win-win situation.

And as described, the small challenges concerning fast scanning can be overcome with moderate, reasonable efforts.

 

[cmacd123]

one of the first things I noticed when I got my Pentax 17 was the HUGE set of Film Rails. I suspect that very few design changes would be required to build a very similar FULL frame Camera.. Different lens, change to the finder and a revised winding mechanism. as well as a larger Gate opening. about 90% of the body could be the same.

 

[xkaes]

There are lots of half-frame cameras that were also made in a full-frame version. The exact same body and features, just with a longer lens -- and sometimes with the exact same name.

 

[Agulliver]

The only real disadvantage I see in 24x24 square negatives in 135 film is that it isn't a recognised standard. Labs are gonna hate it. Those who print or scan at home won't have such problems though.

 

[brbo]

The only real disadvantage I see in 24x24 square negatives in 135 film is that it isn't a recognised standard. Labs are gonna hate it. Those who print or scan at home won't have such problems though.

There are many home scanners where you will have problems with 24x24. The best home scanners for 24x24 are, ironically, the worst for 135 film (flatbeds).

 

[Agulliver]

There are many home scanners where you will have problems with 24x24. The best home scanners for 24x24 are, ironically, the worst for 135 film (flatbeds).

And the problem for young photographers is that they're unlikely to have a flatbed scanner. They will probably use a lab or possibly DSLR scanning. Or one of those cheap "scanners" you can get on Amazon, sometimes branded Kodak.

On the other hand, square photos go well on Instagram.

 

[Angarian]

And the problem for young photographers is that they're unlikely to have a flatbed scanner.

I have to disagree from my own experience: All younger film photographers I know have a flatbed scanner. And if you look on social media like instagram, most posted film shots there are scanned with a flatbed scanner. They are really very popular and widespread (despite their very low quality for 35mm film; but for social media posts the quality seems to be sufficient and acceptable for most users).
I don't think that scanning will have a significant negative influence on 24x24 format popularity. Prof. labs can do it either with camera scanning, a Pakon, or can get in contact with companies currently developing new prof. lab scan equipment like Aura (was already mentioned here).

 

[brbo]

Yes, camera scanning will have no problem with basically any format.

If Ricoh was smart they would send a few Pentax K3 III Monochromes to "influencers" and show them how to do a proper scan with such a camera. Maybe even introduce a special Monochrome camera with no IR filter and accompanying software.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The only real disadvantage I see in 24x24 square negatives in 135 film is that it isn't a recognized standard. Labs are gonna hate it. Those who print or scan at home won't have such problems though.

The adopted standard for 35mm film is 24x36 other sizes were were tried and were not selected. I would have liked to see the flexibility 24x24, 24x26, 24x28, 24x30, 24x32, and 24x34 or even narrower or wider, but I do not see that happening. What we have is half frame, WideLux and Xpan sizes.

 

[Henning Serger]

Although I myself have not used the square format very much, I have always noted that one never needs to choose portrait or landscape mode when using a square format camera. This attribute suggests to me that it could be a desirable feature for a point and shoot type of camera.

Yes, Mick, that certainly makes a 24x24mm square format also attractive for a target market of "easy point & shoot". And that is a very important market for 135 film. The importance is very clearly indicated by
- the huge demand we see on the used market for 35mm P&S cameras
- the huge demand for very cheap, simple plastic fixfocus 35mm P&S cameras (sold in the 6-digit number range every year)
- the huge demand for SUCs ( 7-digit number is sold every year).

Currently there is the Diana mini from Lomography offering 24x24mm format.
As explained above, the relatively small hurdles for a very fast scanning at prof. labs can be overcome. If Pentax would decide in the mid-term (in the shorter term a Pentax 35 as a sister-model to the Pentax 17 certainly should have priority) to also offer a Pentax 24 for square format they could either contact in time scanner companies like Aura, or they also could contact the camera scanning device manufacturers and ask for an automated, mototorized film advance in the film holders, or they could offer that by themselves:
With the current Pentax K1-II, and the most probably next year coming successor K1-III they have an excellent option for camera scanning, which could be delivered in an optimized package to labs.

Generally: If they or any other camera manufacturer offer 24x24mm, it will definitely be very good for the film market as a whole, in general. A further attractive option customers can choose. It will make 35mm film even more flexible and popular.
Then 17x24mm halfframe, 24x24mm square, classic 24x36mm, and 24x56mm, 24x65mm and 24x70mm (Sprocket Rocket) panorama formats are available. Within these numerous options probably everyone will find at least 1-2 formats he likes.

For a continued and further strengthened film revival we will also have to think "out of the box", and adding new ways and options to the established ones. That is very important.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

We might see Kodak Alaris sell 17 and 35mm cameras soon especially since they're under new management. Pentax may private label theirs for them.

 

[Henning Serger]

We might see Kodak Alaris sell 17 and 35mm cameras soon especially since they're under new management. Pentax may private label theirs for them.

Alan, that is very unlikely, because:
1. Kodak Alaris does not have the right to use the Kodak brand name for cameras (that right was sold many years ago to a completely different company; e.g. the Kodak Ektar branded plastic fixfocus cameras are not offered by Kodak Alaris, nor by Eastman Kodak)

2. Pentax has set a strong focus in marketing in the last years to re-establish their brand and making it stronger, and besides Leica, they are so far the only of the big(ger) camera manufacturers who are offering a high-quality 135 film camera. It would be counterproductive for them to weaken their brand and their quite unique position in the market by doing private label business.

Best regards,
Henning