I'm as impressed as you! -- when i wrote "I thought they could do better", i meant the Pentax 17 camera. The success is unbelievable! No doubt a new film camera will be coming next, maybe a variation on the Pentax 17.
Pentax: Two new compact film cameras planned - Pentax 17 announced June 2024
-
A
- Thread starter Henning Serger
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Awesome Agfa Ambi Silette 3 Lens Outfit
- Started by pdccamerqs
-
For Sale For Sale or Trade! Schneider 65mm f/8 Super Angulon
- Started by pdccamerqs
-
Sold 4X5, 5X7 film
- Started by nsurit
Forum statistics
I'm as impressed as you! -- when i wrote "I thought they could do better", i meant the Pentax 17 camera. The success is unbelievable! No doubt a new film camera will be coming next, maybe a variation on the Pentax 17.
Earlier you suggested it was 20% of their sales. Sales and revenue are not the same things -- neither is profit.
I'm not sure that statement is true...I've seen no evidence to support it...in fact it's widely reported that their best-selling camera the last couple of years has been the GRIII and it's variants. I'm very happy for anyone who wants to spend a ludicrous €500 on a plastic half frame camera with limited functionality but not me....
After yet another massive disappointment buying used film photography gear (why do I keep buy MINT++++ crap from ebay japan?), I'm seriously considering getting a Pentax 17 and calling it a day.
IME buying used cameras, and lenses, in 2025 is a huge crap shoot. With the proliferation of DIY photo 'repairers' out there tinkering, disassembling and putting back together wrongly after learning from a youtube video; or just simply due to the fact that most used gear has been around for several decades and might have been knocked about, bumped, mistreated in subtle, invisible, but detectable (once in use) ways, well, buying used is increasingly a huge risk.
IME buying used cameras, and lenses, in 2025 is a huge crap shoot. With the proliferation of DIY photo 'repairers' out there tinkering, disassembling and putting back together wrongly after learning from a youtube video; or just simply due to the fact that most used gear has been around for several decades and might have been knocked about, bumped, mistreated in subtle, invisible, but detectable (once in use) ways, well, buying used is increasingly a huge risk.
Yikes. I've had pretty much the exact opposite experience. In fact, most of the time when sellers say, "I don't know if it works", they just didn't know how to use it or how to TURN IT ON.
Isn't Ricoh BIG department copiers? It is for Konica Minolta -- which is still in business, just not in photography.
It certainly is astonishing in a really good way and bodes well for film photography.
But for slightly more money, you can get a clean Leica IIIF and either a 35mm or 50mm Color-Skopar which, in my opinion, will deliver far better images and certainly provide the owner with more options.
In my view, that combination is probably the best compact film camera combination available today.
Subtle stuff.
Brand-new looking OM zuiko prime that's noticeably decentered.
Spanking mint, close to unused, boxed, Olympus XA3 that overexposes by 2 stops, but only in strong light.
I don't want to play around with half working kit for the 'analogue look'. I want nothing but the best, and no niggles to get in the way of my photography, just like the dudes who buy digital cameras and then tweak them to fix the back-focusing. That's not too much to ask for some expensive kit to work at its best.
I hate it when I'm putting a lot of work in photographing things only for some technical issue to ruin the day in subtle but noticeable ways.
My absolute best photographic purchases in 35mm format over the last couple of years were two Nikon F mount Voigtlaender prime lenses I bought new. Cosina still makes them in Japan. Absolutely wonderful stuff. Perfect images. A pleasure to use.
Pentax, bring those full frame film cameras to the market!
I am not sure where the 20% number comes from, as I am not aware that Ricoh gives that kind of detail.
But if it is true, I imagine it would be for Ricoh Imaging Company, Ltd., and not the Ricoh company or group as a whole.
Ricoh is publicly traded so they do need to give some degree of detail, but I agree that we (I?) haven't seen this from Ricoh and I'm not going to believe it unless we do.
I also agree that 20% of revenue for the whole company seems unlikely since Ricoh is much more than just cameras. 20% of revenue for the camera division seems more possible, but I'll believe it when Ricoh puts it on their website (If they have, I think we'd all be interested in a link.)
That is indeed astonishing. Do you have a link that shows this?
FWIW, I have a Pentax 17 and I like it a lot. Furthermore, 100% of my doubts and worries about that camera come from other people telling me that I am definitely not going to be happy with half-frame and I won't be able to make 8x10 prints, and grain will be huge, etc. If I didn't hang around photography fora, both here and on Reddit, I wouldn't have known that I was supposed to be unhappy about half-frame.
Likewise, I wouldn't have known that I was supposed to be unhappy with the zone focusing or that I was supposed to be mystified by it. --- I still don't get why zone focus is supposed to be a problem. I mean, this is the focusing system of Fuji Instax cameras, and those are entirely focused on the widest, most mainstream market.
I have at times wondered if the relatively wide size of the Pentax 17 for a half-frame is so it would have some parts in common with an upcoming "Pentax 35" at full-frame.
This.
I have been seriously tempted to by the relatively low prices of used cameras, but it's just so hard to feel confident in what you're getting. Yeah, I keep seeing "MINT++++" cameras and sometimes I notice fungus, cracks, and when the seller says "tested, works perfectly" I have to keep in mind that the most likely did not put a roll of film through it, so who knows if it has light leaks, or if that haze that "has no effect on the photo" actually has no effect on the photo.
I recently posted some photos in this from that I took with my Olympus PEN, trying to figure out why they looked soft. One of the suggestions was that perhaps when it was repaired / cleaned, someone disassembled the lens and didn't put it back at quite the right distance from the film.
Say what you will about the Pentax 17, but it feels great in the hand, is well made, and you couldn't ask for a more trusted manufacturer to back it up.
Absolutely. Very likely to be the reason.
My own experience regarding this: I lusted for years after a Rolleiflex. I finally found a 3.5F III with the last Planar version in what seemed like mint condition. Original case in good condition, 'one careful owner'. I went through the images with a fine comb. I bought it.
Initially impressions were good. No fungus, no dust, no mould or other crud in the taking lens. I go test it with film. The images didn't impress me at all. They looked, weird, soft, 'low-fi', just like most of the Rolleiflex images you see online. But I knew I should get something better, as I have an almost new Rolleicord (Xenar lens) with a known 'pedigree' that gave me much sharper pictures than the Rolleiflex.
So I bite the bullet and decide to send my 3.5FIII to the best Rollei repair wizard currently on the planet - Magicflex in Germany. He essentially rebuilds Rolleiflex bodies from the ground up, has access to original bits and pieces, and doesn't mess around - but it will cost you. Also, he has access to original Rollei test equipment which he uses to critically measure tolerances to the same standard -or better- used by the original Rollei employees when building these. At the moment, he only offers his own rebuilds for sale at astronomical prices. Back then, a few years ago, he accepted other people's Rolleis for full rebuilds.
So he starts rebuilding mine from scratch and he keeps me posted with texts and images about everything that he found. A lot was wrong with the camera. A lot. I won't give you details to avoid boring you to death but this camera had been tampered with by a few clueless people. Owners? Possibly. Experienced 'technicians'? Very likely.
When he gives me the camera back, I had a somewhat lighter wallet but a completely new camera. It felt different, smelled different, worked different. Most importantly it takes images that are leagues better wrt what I was getting before. The scans (4000dpi scans from my Nikon Coolscan) look like from a different camera essentially.
Again: the camera looked new. None of the usual yellow or red flags. I even carefully went with a ruler through the images to make sure the front standard wasn't misaligned!
What this has taught me is that dicking around with used gear can be an expensive, lengthy pursuit best left to people who have the time and money. Myself, I just want a perfectly working tool to take photographs, and next time I will only buy a new camera, so all I can say is I hope Pentax delivers.
Last edited:
Another "big pro" is the splendid lens it has. I have seen 30x40 cm prints made from the Pentax 17 and they retain plenty of detail. The body can be a good platform to develop a future full frame camera, there is plenty of space to make the film gate fit a 24x36 mm frame. Perhaps it is reason to be bigger than neccesary, so they could reuse some of its desing.
Seriously. That lens does not get enough credit for just how crazy sharp and flare resistant it is. Modern lens coatings are a huge advantage.
| 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:  |