More on the Pentax film camera project

bjolester said:
I am not a professional photographer, merely a happy hobby snapper, but I still feel the need to comment on your remarks about Pentax build quality.
The Pentax Spotmatic cameras were built like a tank, very durable and dependable. Many cameras in the K-series (K1000, KM and KX) inherited the same legendary build quality (and shutter and other mechanical features) from the Spotmatic. The MX and LX are probably not quite as robust and durable as the above mentioned cameras. From the Pentax ME and through the 1980-1990s plastic fantastic autofocus cameras the Pentax build quality probably left something to be desired. But from the digital K10D, K20D, K-7 and K-5 the build quality was again amongst the best in the camera business. The build quality of the current top Pentax DSLRs, Pentax K-3III and K-1II is second to none.
Click to expand...
I can vouch for the build quality of both the MX and LX cameras. As a working pro I had 4 MX bodies that I wore out over 15 years with only a couple of repairs. I shot thousands of rolls of film with those cameras and they never let me down on a job. The 4 LX bodies I bought used and used until I switched over to digital in 2004. I still have 2 of them and they still work. Again, lots of film run through those cameras and a grand total of one repair--the film counter in one of them gave out. I agree with you that some of the later Pentax auto everything SLRs weren't the most durable and my first DSLR, the Pentax *istD didn't inspire confidence. Its biggest fault was the ease with which the door over the CF card could come open which would shut down the camera. The write speed to the card was lethargic--5 raw files and then you had to wait 45 seconds or more to shoot another picture, but that was the joy of early digital. Lots of other early DSLRs weren't much better. You're right that the current DSLRs from Pentax are well built--my K3s and K1 have been excellent, again with professional use.
 
bjolester said:
I am not a professional photographer, merely a happy hobby snapper, but I still feel the need to comment on your remarks about Pentax build quality.
The Pentax Spotmatic cameras were built like a tank, very durable and dependable. Many cameras in the K-series (K1000, KM and KX) inherited the same legendary build quality (and shutter and other mechanical features) from the Spotmatic. The MX and LX are probably not quite as robust and durable as the above mentioned cameras. From the Pentax ME and through the 1980-1990s plastic fantastic autofocus cameras the Pentax build quality probably left something to be desired. But from the digital K10D, K20D, K-7 and K-5 the build quality was again amongst the best in the camera business. The build quality of the current top Pentax DSLRs, Pentax K-3III and K-1II is second to none.
Click to expand...
You are entitled to your opinions, just as I am to mine.

I was selling cameras when the Pentax Spotmatic was a current model ... It was a nice camera on the second to third tier of the quality brands. Pentax at the time (early 1970s) was not considered legendary, just a very good camera at a very decent price; a very popular brand. They were on par with Konica and Minolta, and a few others long gone now. I owned and used Nikon and Leica gear professionally.

In the digital realm years later, I had and used professionally the Pentax *istDS and K10D ... They were decent, somewhat cheap in feel but overall good lenses. Those are the cameras I let go of when I bought into Olympus E-1 and E-3 bodies, then E-M1, and a passel of Olympus HG lenses.

I moved from there back to Leica and Hasselblad (both digital and film), which are definitely at a different class level with respect to build (and price, of course).

I still have (and occasionally use) the Rollei 35S I bought in the 1980s. It was a little pricey then, but it's still working great today; its Sonnar 40mm f/2.8 lens is still excellent. (In fact, I just pulled it out and loaded it this morning for a few walk photos...) I also still have the Minox 35GT-E I bought in 1998, and use it similarly often.


Rollei 35S & Minox 35GT-E​

The top of this Pentax 17 looks way too complicated for a "happy hobby snapper," unnecessarily so. Why on earth you need six automation modes to do what a film speed setting, an aperture control, and (optionally for manual exposure) a shutter speed control (or EV compensation for auto mode) can do so easily I do not understand. My Rollei 35S does as well for manual metering, my Minox 35GT-E the same for an auto metering camera. Both of them are "happy hobby snapper" cameras... easy to learn, compact and easy to carry, easy to use.

Such it is.

G
 
Godfrey said:
We'll have to agree to disagree. I have and use, what, six MiNT cameras and they're all very nicely built and finished. They're not at Rollei or Voigtländer levels, and maybe not quite at Ricoh/Pentax level but darn close. I have several real (pre-Cosina) Voigtländers and still have my Rollei 35S, had a bunch of Rolleiflex TLRs over the years too ... far better build than Ricoh/Pentax IMO, having had and used both of those professionally too. One of the reasons I stopped using Pentax in 2007-2008 was that I found the cameras' and lenses' build quality to be significantly poorer than Olympus and Nikon. I moved from Pentax to Olympus and was delighted with the improvement and consistency.

G
Click to expand...
After watching Bellamy's video, he seems happy with the build, so I'm more optimistic.
 
Godfrey said:
I was selling cameras when the Pentax Spotmatic was a current model ... It was a nice camera on the second to third tier of the quality brands. Pentax at the time (early 1970s) was not considered legendary, just a very good camera at a very decent price; a very popular brand......
Click to expand...
Second or third tier? I suggest you read Jason Schneider's excellent writeup on Pentax camera and lenses.

www.rangefinderforum.com

The Pentax Papers, part 1, 1919 to 1973: From the founding of Asahi Optical Co. to the last screw-mount Pentax

The Pentax Papers, part 1, 1919 to 1973: From the founding of Asahi Optical Co. to the last screw-mount Pentax By Jason Schneider In 1919 Kumao Kajiwara founded the Asahi Optical Joint Stock Co. in Otsuka, Tokyo as a “town workshop” turning out wearable eyeglasses and binoculars. By 1923 the...
www.rangefinderforum.com www.rangefinderforum.com

Jim B.
 
It probably depended on where you lived.

At my high school in 1980~82, we had donated Nikon F & early F2 cameras in the AV department for the students to use for the year book, school paper, etc. Same as the local paper. At the local camera shops they were top dollar though. I lusted for one.

Best most of us could actually afford was Canon. I got an AE-1 & 50/1.8 when I joined the Army for that reason.

If you couldn't afford Canon, then you scrounged for used or made do with a Pentax, Minolta or whatever (and that's how we saw them then, as "whatever") until you could afford something decent from the big 2. Though once you bought into one of those 2, then you stuck with it due to the cost of lenses.

The ONLY time that cart got upset was when Canon had the guts to do the right thing, design wise, and change their mount from FD to EF for autofocus. Lot of people shifted to Nikon since they had to buy new lenses anyway.

Still growing up, I can't say I ever saw another teen with a Pentax in hand. Only Canons and Nikons and an occasional Minolta or mom's Instamatic.
 
Mackinaw said:
Second or third tier? I suggest you read Jason Schneider's excellent writeup on Pentax camera and lenses.

www.rangefinderforum.com

The Pentax Papers, part 1, 1919 to 1973: From the founding of Asahi Optical Co. to the last screw-mount Pentax

The Pentax Papers, part 1, 1919 to 1973: From the founding of Asahi Optical Co. to the last screw-mount Pentax By Jason Schneider In 1919 Kumao Kajiwara founded the Asahi Optical Joint Stock Co. in Otsuka, Tokyo as a “town workshop” turning out wearable eyeglasses and binoculars. By 1923 the...
www.rangefinderforum.com www.rangefinderforum.com

Jim B.
Click to expand...
Thank you, but I've been reading Jason Schneider's articles since the 1970s or before. He's entitled to his opinions too. We don't all have to agree. 😉

G
 
Godfrey said:
You are entitled to your opinions, just as I am to mine.

I was selling cameras when the Pentax Spotmatic was a current model ... It was a nice camera on the second to third tier of the quality brands. Pentax at the time (early 1970s) was not considered legendary, just a very good camera at a very decent price; a very popular brand. They were on par with Konica and Minolta, and a few others long gone now. I owned and used Nikon and Leica gear professionally.

In the digital realm years later, I had and used professionally the Pentax *istDS and K10D ... They were decent, somewhat cheap in feel but overall good lenses. Those are the cameras I let go of when I bought into Olympus E-1 and E-3 bodies, then E-M1, and a passel of Olympus HG lenses.

I moved from there back to Leica and Hasselblad (both digital and film), which are definitely at a different class level with respect to build (and price, of course).

I still have (and occasionally use) the Rollei 35S I bought in the 1980s. It was a little pricey then, but it's still working great today; its Sonnar 40mm f/2.8 lens is still excellent. (In fact, I just pulled it out and loaded it this morning for a few walk photos...) I also still have the Minox 35GT-E I bought in 1998, and use it similarly often.


Rollei 35S & Minox 35GT-E​

The top of this Pentax 17 looks way too complicated for a "happy hobby snapper," unnecessarily so. Why on earth you need six automation modes to do what a film speed setting, an aperture control, and (optionally for manual exposure) a shutter speed control (or EV compensation for auto mode) can do so easily I do not understand. My Rollei 35S does as well for manual metering, my Minox 35GT-E the same for an auto metering camera. Both of them are "happy hobby snapper" cameras... easy to learn, compact and easy to carry, easy to use.

Such it is.

G
Click to expand...

I was also around in the 70s when the Spotmatic was popular and also was working in a camera store.

I speak as a lifelong Nikon shooter - the idea that Nikon was pro quality and the Spotmatic wasn't was built somewhat on marketing fluff. The Nikons got attention because all the pros were using them. Why? Because the military and the photojournalists coming back from Vietnam discovered them cheap in Japan and Hong Kong on the way home. Once the journalists showed up with an F on TV, that was it. Nikon won ... or did until Canon gave them a run with the F1.

Objective differences between these camera lines did exist, but in my direct observation, Nikons actually came in a lot more for service than Spotmatics did. Why? Because more people were shooting more Nikon more often. In fact, the pro rental place I worked at only offered Nikon as a 35mm option.

The Spotmatics were built like tanks - just like the Nikon F. The Spotmatics had an OK meter - just like the Nikon did. Nikon had the edge with more lenses and a bigger overall system, but they were not wildly better built. Both were very well engineered. I did hate the Spotmatic thread mount and much preferred the F's bayonet.

In fairness, Nikon also won because it was more modular. The ability to change out backs, motor drives, prisms, and so forth made the F a really versatile machine, and I'm sure this contributed to its success as well.
 
Last edited:
wlewisiii said:
It probably depended on where you lived.

At my high school in 1980~82, we had donated Nikon F & early F2 cameras in the AV department for the students to use for the year book, school paper, etc. Same as the local paper. At the local camera shops they were top dollar though. I lusted for one.

Best most of us could actually afford was Canon. I got an AE-1 & 50/1.8 when I joined the Army for that reason.

If you couldn't afford Canon, then you scrounged for used or made do with a Pentax, Minolta or whatever (and that's how we saw them then, as "whatever") until you could afford something decent from the big 2. Though once you bought into one of those 2, then you stuck with it due to the cost of lenses.

The ONLY time that cart got upset was when Canon had the guts to do the right thing, design wise, and change their mount from FD to EF for autofocus. Lot of people shifted to Nikon since they had to buy new lenses anyway.

Still growing up, I can't say I ever saw another teen with a Pentax in hand. Only Canons and Nikons and an occasional Minolta or mom's Instamatic.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the same for me although I was in high school from '68 to '72... At age 14, I was all set to buy a Minolta SRT-101 when my uncle handed me a Nikon F Photomic FTn and told me to give him the money I was going to pay for that Minolta. The Minolta at the time was selling for $129.00 at the shops in Manhattan, the Nikon with 50/1.4 lens was three times that and I certainly couldn't afford it on my own.

My high school had a bunch of donated cameras for the Photo Staff to use ... most of us used our own cameras because most of that stuff was junky and prone to failing at the worst moments. My friends were all envious that I got the Nikon; they had Canon, and Minolta, and one or two had other cameras; I cannot recall anyone who had a Pentax.

That said, at the photo store where I worked during the first years after high school, I sold a lot of Pentax cameras because they were generally less expensive than the Nikon/Canon/Olympus range, and we didn't carry much in way of Minolta or Konica gear.

Pentax always made good optics, their manual focus lenses were very nicely made and finished. My own interactions with their late-'90s/early-'00s AF lenses was a little less wonderful on the build and mechanical side. Although the L series lenses were optically super ... I still have one of these L series lenses, the SMC Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special in Leica Thread Mount, adapted to M-bayonet with the usual Leica adapter. And it remains a favorite, imaging and quality right there with my Leica lenses.


SMC-Pentax-L 43mm f 1.9 Special​

But I'm way far afield from the Pentax 17 at this point. 😉

G
 
Godfrey said:
Pretty much the same for me although I was in high school from '68 to '72... At age 14, I was all set to buy a Minolta SRT-101 when my uncle handed me a Nikon F Photomic FTn and told me to give him the money I was going to pay for that Minolta. The Minolta at the time was selling for $129.00 at the shops in Manhattan, the Nikon with 50/1.4 lens was three times that and I certainly couldn't afford it on my own.
Click to expand...
Good for him and yeah we are. Still I'm really happy that Pentax has had the courage to do this. I have too many expensive hobbies to buy one (tomorrow will be an IWI Jericho Enhanced instead of a Pentax 17 I think ... 🙂 ) but I think it's a good buy for anyone who does get one.
 
It's too soon to call the 17 a success, because we're talking about pre-orders, which can, and often are, canceled for whatever reason, such as speculators who lose interest when easy profits don't materialize.
 
JeffS7444 said:
It's too soon to call the 17 a success, because we're talking about pre-orders, which can, and often are, canceled for whatever reason, such as speculators who lose interest when easy profits don't materialize.
Click to expand...
Well, it could just have no pre orders and be forgotten. I mean, in recent times, I cannot think of a camera that has enough pre-orders to be considered sold out and not be considered a success.
 
JohnGellings said:
They claimed there were a lot of pre orders and that it had sold out? Back then... ?

Also, that was 20-25 years ago. However, it seems strange that if in 2000, the S3 didn't sell well, they'd do it again in 2005 with the SP.
Click to expand...
They actually did 3 releases: S3 in 2000, black paint S3 in 2002, then SP in 2005. Seems weird that they’d keep going if the first S3 release was a flop. But I’m glad they did! My S3 2000 and SP 2005 are two of my very favorite cameras.
 
Freakscene said:
It would/does, but most lidar systems are too large, slow or currently too expensive to put in a camera. That’s not to say they always will be.



I found the A1 autofocus worked better in low light than the Zf. What Z lenses do you have? Have your lenses been reliable and are they properly centred? I tested the Zf with a 50/1.8 that had a mechanical problem and was substantially decentred. When you have that much resolution available in the design, you really see any softness. I admit I might have just got a Friday afternoon lens.

Marty
Click to expand...

Yeah mine have been flawless - 50 1.8, 35 1.8 and 40 f2, but I've used pretty much all the Z lenses. Unfortunate about the decentred copy - in my retail experience the Z lenses have been pretty consistent but there's always bad ones in any batch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hayli
Pentax 17 flash WAY too bright
Replies
2
Views
150
Hayli
Hayli
Disappointed_Horse
The Terror of War—Was Nick Ut's "Napalm Girl" photo taken with a Pentax camera?
6 7 8
Replies
156
Views
12K
Duofold RF
D
M
Update from Light Lens Lab on producing peel-apart film
Replies
2
Views
348
Rayt
Rayt
Y
LLL's Film Project
Replies
9
Views
814
BillBingham2
BillBingham2
Rick Waldroup
The Granbury Project
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
news shooter
N
Back
Top Bottom