More on the Pentax film camera project

[TenEleven]

This is just me hypothesizing, but I think that's exactly the idea.
The "zone focus" is electronic fly-by-wire as well. It will be relatively trivial to add an auto-focus sensor and make it "full frame" I believe.

Edit: Or they will release a premium iteration later down the line with a slightly faster lens and AF.* Both would track with how Japanese camera manufacturers have always operated - iterative change over massive do-overs.

*if it sells, obviously...

 

[Mos6502]

After seeing it with the back open I'd say it's almost a certainty we'll see a full frame version in the future. Perhaps even if the 1/2 frame version isn't a strong seller, simply making the film gate larger would be a simple way to offer what may be a more popular option for more experienced photographers.

 

[stephen_lumsden]

I think the price is ok and some people expect something for nothing in film cameras just because they got a real bargain 10 years ago. If I used this for 10-20 years it would be well worth it. I initially thought I would prefer a full frame version or the Rollei 35 af when it comes out, but this does seem quite pocketable, has a light meter on it, a good lens and could provide light relief in comparison to my Contax ii with j12 with handheld light meter. Never shot half frame before, but now I am developing and scanning my own stuff, now may be the time. Now I have to justify it to the wife.. or may be I have found my Christmas present.

 

[sojournerphoto]

My not concern is the size to be honest. Although it seems a lot, it’s not unreasonable for what it is. But it’s nearly as big as a film M, so would I carry it instead? Having put a roll through an EE3, I became quite enthused by half frame. We’ll see.

 

[stephen_lumsden]

My not concern is the size to be honest. Although it seems a lot, it’s not unreasonable for what it is. But it’s nearly as big as a film M, so would I carry it instead? Having put a roll through an EE3, I became quite enthused by half frame. We’ll see.

Looking at it again it does seem a bit big. I would have to handle it first before buying

 

[splitimageview]

Has anyone seen what 40 year old SLRs are going for, especially in boutique film stores and labs? For that matter the price of old film point and shoots. Exactly the shops that cater to the demo that Pentax is after.

$499 brand new with a warranty?

This is going to sell a ton. Just wait til Kendall Jenner gets one…

 

[sojournerphoto]

The reviews on the (digital) websites are all a bit grudging. Mostly, I suspect, because they’re written by people who don’t really get it. Almost by definition - they write for digital media reviewing digital, high volume white goods. So a low volume analogue tool seems alien, but they have to say something because it’s photography. The same people who think a £5k digital body is good value begrudge a £500 film camera!

I wish Pentax well with this one. It’s brave and I hope they’ve got their market segment right and reap some success.

 

[AntonioC]

The reviews on the (digital) websites are all a bit grudging. Mostly, I suspect, because they’re written by people who don’t really get it. Almost by definition - they write for digital media reviewing digital, high volume white goods. So a low volume analogue tool seems alien, but they have to say something because it’s photography. The same people who think a £5k digital body is good value begrudge a £500 film camera!

I wish Pentax well with this one. It’s brave and I hope they’ve got their market segment right and reap some success.

100%

It baffles me how 5k£ are ok for a top performance camera which will be used to shoot your cat but 500£ are way too much for this.
It’s a new camera, manufactured by a real company with *some* history to test the waters and see what can come next. Which is great IMHO.
Below that price point, you’re asking for Lomography stuff…

 

[ecowarrior]

Theoretically if the film market potential was there for all the Gen Z lot, then surely the latest Polaroid cameras would be flying off the shelves. I've never seen one in the wild. The Instax cameras probably sell OK, but again, you don't see that many of them. I think we have two of them in the loft somewhere. My kids don't care.

 

[JohnGellings]

I’ve only seen those sites say it is underspec’d and pretty. I mean. That’s not wrong. Doesn’t mean it’s bad either. Like many here, I think they just want a fully spec’d film camera.

 

[neal3k]

Lots has been mentioned about the Pentax 17 pricing. My perspective is this:
In 1961 I had a part-time minimum wage ($1.00/hour) job on weekends and bought my first adjustable camera, a Sears Tower 57-A, the cheapest rangefinder 35 I could find. It was $35 which in 2024 money is $360. And that was for me making $13/week before deductions.

 

[gavinlg]

Comparative size for those that are familiar with 35mm cannisters.

My take - It looks gorgeous, it's a near perfect 35mm point and shoot cam (I almost prefer scale focus to AF as long as it has flash), and the price is about right. A MJU II is $200-400usd for a decent one used and I've worn 3-4 of them out in the last 15 years (they're already beyond their projected usage-life).

Or look at it this way - you can buy a soulless plastic canon/nikon mirrorless blob with a plastic kit zoom with an APS-C sized sensor which is almost exactly the same size as a half frame film size, which will be outdated in 3 years, or you could buy this magnesium top and bottom plated, good quality prime lens sporting point and shoot which will still probably be good in 20 years when that canon mirrorless's proprietary battery wont even exist anymore.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

The reviews on the (digital) websites are all a bit grudging. Mostly, I suspect, because they’re written by people who don’t really get it. Almost by definition - they write for digital media reviewing digital, high volume white goods. So a low volume analogue tool seems alien, but they have to say something because it’s photography. The same people who think a £5k digital body is good value begrudge a £500 film camera!

I wish Pentax well with this one. It’s brave and I hope they’ve got their market segment right and reap some success.

Well said. Probably the debut of the latest mirrorless technological terror earlier yesterday didn't help.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Regarding pricing of the new 17, it's less than one-tenth what a film Leica costs. Last week, Leica announced that they were raising the prices of their film cameras by $300 (to just under $6,000, without a lens, of course), and as far as I have seen, no one on this forum even commented on it. And people think $500 for the new 17 is too high? I realize the 17 is in no way, shape, or form a Leica, but come on, for a brand new film camera, it's a good value.

The only other camera I think you can compare it to in the marketplace today is the Lomo LC-A+, which is currently priced at $300 (Lomo LC-A+ 35 mm Film Camera). I have no personal experience with the Lomo so I don't want to denigrate it (I've seen some great photos made with those cameras), but I think the Pentax 17 is a far better camera than the LC-A and clearly worth the price difference.

Personally, I'm quite impressed with what Pentax has achieved here. I'm pretty well set in terms of film cameras, but I'm thinking about ordering one just to support Pentax's effort.

 

[Freakscene]

Regarding pricing of the new 17, it's less than one-tenth what a film Leica costs. Last week, Leica announced that they were raising the prices of their film cameras by $300 (to just under $6,000, without a lens, of course), and as far as I have seen, no one on this forum even commented on it. And people think $500 for the new 17 is too high? I realize the 17 is in no way, shape, or form a Leica, but come on, for a brand new film camera, it's a good value.

Maybe no-one commented because all of us who are interested already have our film Leicas, and because anyone who watches Leica camera prices is insane, or at least a glutton for punishment.

 

[Coldkennels]

Below that price point, you’re asking for Lomography stuff…

Let's be realistic: some of Lomography's stuff has been near that price point in the past, too. The 120 version of the LC-A is £400... compared to that, the new Pentax looks like a steal.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Regarding pricing of the new 17, it's less than one-tenth what a film Leica costs. Last week, Leica announced that they were raising the prices of their film cameras by $300 (to just under $6,000, without a lens, of course), and as far as I have seen, no one on this forum even commented on it. And people think $500 for the new 17 is too high? I realize the 17 is in no way, shape, or form a Leica, but come on, for a brand new film camera, it's a good value.

The only other camera I think you can compare it to in the marketplace today is the Lomo LC-A+, which is currently priced at $300 (Lomo LC-A+ 35 mm Film Camera). I have no personal experience with the Lomo so I don't want to denigrate it (I've seen some great photos made with those cameras), but I think the Pentax 17 is a far better camera than the LC-A and clearly worth the price difference.

Personally, I'm quite impressed with what Pentax has achieved here. I'm pretty well set in terms of film cameras, but I'm thinking about ordering one just to support Pentax's effort.

I wound up with an M-A like that and have never regretted it🙂

 

[JohnGellings]

Comparative size for those that are familiar with 35mm cannisters.

My take - It looks gorgeous, it's a near perfect 35mm point and shoot cam (I almost prefer scale focus to AF as long as it has flash), and the price is about right. A MJU II is $200-400usd for a decent one used and I've worn 3-4 of them out in the last 15 years (they're already beyond their projected usage-life).

Or look at it this way - you can buy a soulless plastic canon/nikon mirrorless blob with a plastic kit zoom with an APS-C sized sensor which is almost exactly the same size as a half frame film size,

Huh? which one? and cameras do not have souls...

It does look smaller than in other photos here.

 

[JohnGellings]

Regarding pricing of the new 17, it's less than one-tenth what a film Leica costs.

It is kind of like 1/10th of the camera too though.

Last week, Leica announced that they were raising the prices of their film cameras by $300 (to just under $6,000, without a lens, of course), and as far as I have seen, no one on this forum even commented on it.

Why would we? It is the norm for Leica.

And people think $500 for the new 17 is too high? I realize the 17 is in no way, shape, or form a Leica, but come on, for a brand new film camera, it's a good value.

Well, scale focus, a few shutter speeds, no manual mode, half frame... I mean, those are a few things that people may not like about it for $500.

The only other camera I think you can compare it to in the marketplace today is the Lomo LC-A+, which is currently priced at $300 (Lomo LC-A+ 35 mm Film Camera).

Exactly... $300 seems like a better price for the Pentax too.

I have no personal experience with the Lomo so I don't want to denigrate it (I've seen some great photos made with those cameras), but I think the Pentax 17 is a far better camera than the LC-A and clearly worth the price difference.

How so? How is it better? It sure is prettier.

Personally, I'm quite impressed with what Pentax has achieved here. I'm pretty well set in terms of film cameras, but I'm thinking about ordering one just to support Pentax's effort.

I also am impressed by the camera. However, there is nothing wrong with thinking it is expensive for what it is. That said, people are buying it, so... great for Pentax. I hope Pentax truly does well as one of the companies that truly brings something to us different camera wise i.e monochrome digital, DSLRs, and now film cameras again.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

It is kind of like 1/10th of the camera too though.

Why would we? It is the norm for Leica.

Well, scale focus, a few shutter speeds, no manual mode, half frame... I mean, those are a few things that people may not like about it for $500.

Exactly... $300 seems like a better price for the Pentax too.

How so? How is it better? It sure is prettier.

I also am impressed by the camera. However, there is nothing wrong with thinking it is expensive for what it is. That said, people are buying it, so... great for Pentax. I hope Pentax truly does well as one of the companies that truly brings something to us different camera wise i.e monochrome digital, DSLRs, and now film cameras again.

My point with the Leica comparison was that the Pentax 17 is a brand new film camera from a reputable manufacturer and with all of the other major manufacturers having ceased production years ago, it's really the only other quality 35mm film camera in production. As I said, I don't think the 17 is comparable to a Leica, but it's not priced in the Veblen goods luxury territory of the Leicas either.

As to how it's better than an LCA, I don't have any personal experience with the Lomo cameras so I don't want to comment too much, but for one thing the Pentax 17 is a brand new in-house design manufactured in (I believe) the same factory in Vietnam as some of Pentax's best lenses. The current LCA+ is a Chinese-made copy of an old Russian camera that was a knock-off of an even older Cosina camera. Not that they can't make great images, but LCAs are not exactly known as the most trouble-free or long-lasting cameras in the world. Again, I don't mean to badmouth the LCA but there is a reason Lomo has always touted the "Don't worry just shoot" principle.

Sure, I'd be happier if the 17 cost less. But I don't think it's reasonable for people (not here, but elsewhere on the internet) to complain that "I could buy an F3 and a lens or two for that price!" Of course you could! That F3 and a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor cost the equivalent of over $4,000 in today's money when it was introduced in 1981. That's what happens after 40 years of depreciation.