Firs off, big fan, and obviously opinions aren't "wrong". But as afellow film nerd, and printer: - half frame is far beyond the 2MP required for the Instagram generation they say they are targeting - I print iso 400 half frame at 8x10, if you don't get the loupe at, and just enjoy the photos, it's all good - between the purchase, lenses, and CLA,my Pen FV isn't cheaper, and if I've got mirror corrosion setting it... I'll buy another, but that hasselblad cla is getting kicked back again. Old cameras aren't cheap - £500 is fair. If this were digital that's peanuts, and you be paying £300 used, which is ballpark for a good mju2 - It is not, and was never intended to be for "us", this camera is about getting more people in, and I'm all for that! Just my take, I want to still be shooting film in 20 years, and I'm not convinced old k1000s are going to ensure that happens
All very valid points and appreciated 👍 To be honest I have never printed from half frame but have cropped more than half frame. I feel the quality film cameras will definitely be in use in another 20 years no problem if cared for and serviced on occasion. How do you enjoy the Pen?
@@Distphoto they'll still work, but I'll be competing against others that already seem to be able to buy Leica M6s and MPs while I'm already getting guilt pangs for my 500cm. I absolutely *love* my Pen FV. The kit 38mm is a joy (check 35mmc for "5 frames of trains" for some of my pics). I have a crap version of the 20mm, a good 25mm, a gem of the 38, and a nice 100mm (I want the 70mm, but it costs a kidney). I have extension tubes, the clip on meter, and even the angled viewfinder. I can take the whole lot in one bag with filters too. It's my travel kit. I've put too much effort into half frame. But in my experience, if you use a staining Dev, 510 pyro, Obsidian Aqua, or Pyrocat HD at least, the staining is a massive win, and HP5 etc looks great. XP2 super in c42 or 510 pyro is also great. I also use full frame, 120 and 4x5. I'm not saying there aren't compromises, but it's a valid format Remember, 35mm cinema film is smaller than half frame, and that gets enlarged just fine 😂
💯 on point. I have a Pen S that is very close to this in operation, except I don't have a built in light meter, and the images I get out of that are more than adequate for social media. I also have a Konica Autoreflex that can switch between half and full frame on the fly, that is a blast to shoot with. That said, I am very tempted to get this camera on the basis that it supports Pentax's project and hopefully leads to more cameras in the future. I won't put this little foray down because this is one of the legitimate camera companies attempting to bring back film a little more (and yes, maybe cash in a bit). I understand that this is just your opinion, but if nobody supports this project, it does nothing to benefit the "film community".
I am certain that 100% mechanical cameras still have many years of operation ahead of them. Cameras that have electronic components will die slowly, but mechanical ones just need a little refurbishment for a new life. I bet that When we're all six feet underground, these cameras will still be operational.
You be surprised how much film cameras cost new back then, after adjusted for inflation. For a brand new camera with warranty and all it's definitely worth $500
"worth" is a big word. We could say it's not overpriced compared to what Pentax may have spent to make it, but its value for the user being comparable to other $500 cameras or even cameras that can be purchased for much less is very, very debatable.
There have been huge improvements over time to manufacturing, design, materials, etc. Things - especially electronic machines - cost way less now and you get WAY MORE for the money. The price comparison should not be made vs. what old cameras cost adjusted for inflation. It should be made vs what it costs today to design and manufacture a camera. My only partly informed gut feeling is that this camera should be closer to $250... But that woul dbe a price for a mature product and this is 'new'.. They had to design this and then start manufacturing from nothing... so there is extra cost to making something that is now 'new'
35 mm is the standard format for cinematic film, which is run vertically through the camera. So each frame is actually a bit smaller than "half frame". Millions of people have seen such pictures projected on cinema screens, without complaining about low resolution or bad image quality. -- The Pentax 17 can serve several purposes, e.g. as scouting camera, for shooting sequences to tell a story or show an object from several perspectives. Ok, you can do this with a "full frame" camera, too. But after 2 weeks of usage I must say I simply love this camera.
Bit of a weird take. A lot of people getting introduced to film rn want to have fun and get that old crappy point and shoot developed at a 1 hr photo look. Let’s let those people have fun and enjoy film how they want to. At the end of the day, the more people shooting film, the longer it stays alive.
Agree with that 100%. If that is the intention then it is perfect for that. I have just watched a lot of reviews seeming to make this camera out to be something it’s not.
@@Distphoto I know imma pick one up myself to use and review. I’m excited about it for multiple reasons! I’m assuming my excitement can possibly come off as if I’m saying it’s like a new ground breaking camera.. but it’s not. I’m just excited for it for specific reasons. As it seems most others peoples tones have been. I know sometimes we watch other TH-camrs and are like “what in the world are they talking about” but we gotta remember everyone has a different audience and everyone has different needs. I appreciated and enjoyed your video though. It got me even more excited personally!
@@13squier yeah that’s a super fun camera too. I think this 17 still has something unique for it tho.. I’ll make a video on it as well once I get my hands on it
That's the wrong reason to support this camera, but you're certainly not alone. I see a lot of people defending this like no tomorrow not because they want people to really have fun with a good product (which this is not compared to what else is available), but because they want film to stay alive for themselves. Film won't be saved by selling people a smartphone without the phone and with film (priced more than many smartphones that take better pictures and have more options). Film has been kept alive by people that not only wanted to enjoy film, but also enjoy photography, and learning it,and improving their technique. This won't teach you a thing and when the novelty has passed and the film costs start to hurt, the "new generation" will go back to their smartphone turning their Pentax 17 into e-waste.
In the fortunate position to afford this camera so I preordered it. I land right in that middle category as you stated, just wanting to have fun. Hoping that the support into the 17 will lead to a better more serious camera down the line.
Yeah I'm right here as well. I've already had my first roll developed and I'm pleased with it. It's a fun little camera, it feels robust, like I expect from a Pentax. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the screw on the side as much as it seems to upset literally everyone. And I'm excited about Pentax's film project.
I bought the Pentax 17 to do what I bought three Canonet QL17 G-IIIs for. All of them CALed, which goes for about 500 bucks these days btw and all of them with issues so glaring I sent them back. I also tried two Leica/Minolta CLs. These cameras are aging and if you want one that’s been serviced and actually taken care of throughout its life, so it doesn’t have a damaged finder, you’re gonna pay more than for the 17. I’m the first type of film photographer btw. I use it because it’s technically very capable and I expect my cameras not to fail me when I wanna take a shot.
I was planning on purchasing a Canonet QL17 Giii with a warranty for a little over $500 USD. Luckily, the Pentax 17 was announced before I clicked purchase, so I also pre ordered the Pentax 17, and I believe, as you mentioned, the Pentax is the better purchase.
Half-frame resolution can be plenty fine for me if I can just take good shots. Almost every classic shot that sticks with me from classic cinema was shot on 3 or 4 perf 35mm which is practically half-frame. There Will Be Blood's cinematography isn't dismissed an "unserious" photography because it was shot on 3-perf and not IMAX. Now, I do pixel-peep and enjoy full frame and 120 resolution, but I think certain people dismiss half-frame too quickly. Resolution matters of course. Below Super16/16mm is a better threshold in my opinion - Below that, and you're starving for more resolution no matter the composition.
I have seen this camera in the shops in Barcelona and it is so beautiful. Many years ago I used to have a film Yashica and had lots of fun with it. Although I shoot digital now I do not discard this camera. Thanks for the good video
All we as a film community have been wanting for a long time is a new SLR film camera, directly compatible with modern lenses, at sub Lieca prices... and instead we get this.
Yeah, I feel like if they would of made a camera that could use all there really great older lenses it would have been so awesome... may be they still will. I would buy that without hesitation.
I have been a Pentax digital user for a long time, and no nothing really about film, but it is so annoying that all these reviewers are saying about this camera. For me I would keep my mouth shut and just keep listening to you guys who are film photographers and draw my own conclusions as to what to think. Your video is a pretty good and fair take on this brave move by Pentax. Is it worth the money? again that is down to what you guys who shoot film will be the best judges of this. So thanks again Sir for a good and balanced opinion for especially young folks who this is principally aimed at.
I agree totally thats its great Pentax still believes film cameras are relevant and wanted. I shoot alot of 35mm and medium format film and for me the 1/2 frame is a bit too small for my needs. But for those interested in getting a start in film photography it just might fit them perfectly. I love the channel btw!
The screw being silver and not black becoming a “deal breaker” is such a wild take. You can always paint it or 3d print or fabricate something that works better I actually enjoy it the screw helps me support the camera. I feel like it suffers from the film “masters” who wanted a new professional camera. If this camera sells well it will bring people into the hobby/profession and thus there will actually be a demand for film cameras that are professional/consumer grade.
Not sure how wild it is... just my opinion. I really just think it looks odd. If I liked other things about the camera I could probabally look past it or paint or print my own, but why?
What’s the problem with half frame? I shoot my old Pen F and love the half frame . It might take me three - four x out to get thru 72 images but I just find the vertical a unique approach
@@Autorange888i hear you but am not in favor of the large size and weight. When the humidity hits, I don’t want either. For my purposes 35mm is great for zines, even if professionally done.
Watch Analog Insights review of the camera. He address most of the problems people have with this camera and highlights the price complaint.i think a lot of the film community is missing the bigger picture here. All I see is photography channels reviewing the camera, Pentax needs to get it in the hands of its intended demographic. Not hardcore film photography channels.
Agree, but Pentax needs to sell the camera in the first place. Having good marketing helps a lot. If Pentax 17 shows up as a success at the end, then we will probably get another film camera which could be 35mm then, and so on. I want Pentax 6x7 III so badly to happen :(
@@Distphoto You know... nail polish is a thing. Mine is now black. I also put leatherette on the backplate, it cost me a few bucks and a few minutes of time...
Great review, thanks! I agree, film cameras are a niche and novelty for those who want the experience of film cameras from the past. In any case, this oversimplified film camera may have missed their target audience. I agree with you. They should have updated an old model with modern features. Perhaps a flip screen with exposure preview and compatibility with modern autofocus lenses. Pentax has kept the K-mount for nearly fifty years now. This would allow selection from a vast library of older lenes. Which are only a fraction of the cost of new lenes and still produce great images with manual focus. Let's hope they pursue this ideal in a future film camera. Even if only in a novelty camera market, it would sell well.
You certainly keep it real! I 'only' shoot film but am happy that Pentax recognized the resurgence and market. I also think from a marketing & POS this is a great way to gateway the younger crowd to film. I'll get my F1 rebuilt for the price, so it's not for me. My kids rather not deal with the nuance, YET. Kudos to you on the review & to PENTAX for helping keep film alive.
Thanks, Seems like they could have easily made this for the younger folk and made it appeal to more enthusiast types at the same time with a few tweaks. Wonder how hard a film mask would be to implement? Maybe be able to shoot both. Half and full frame and have manual or autofocus. Would change the lens configuration a little bit. And get rid of that screw. Not sure if any of that is possible by the way 🤷🏻♂️
Right now on Eb: Nikon FM2+50mm F1.4 near mint, for 400$. Another FM2 in "new" condition for 400$ + 50mm F1.8 EX cjndition for 140$. In my humbrid opinion, Pentax 17 pro's: -sharp lens -small minimum focusing distance -good looking (except ugly, antiergonomic grip/battery holder) And con's: -dark, narrow angle of wiew lens -enormous energy consumption + expensive battery -small G.N. of the flash -motorized focusing
I agree with 95% of what you said about the Pentax 17. I also agree with your comments on the other TH-cam reviewers, most don't know what they are talking about because they are self taught, want likes and to be popular, and want to make money off TH-cam. The biggest problem with film photography today is there is no structured education to learn film photography and most people learn from TH-cam its like the blind leading the blind. To me this camera is a over glorified point and shoot camera with lack of important controls and I agree with you on who is the target buyer of this camera. I am 71 years old and like you I understand film photography, I studied photography in high school, junior college and in a state college in California. I am lucky that all but one or two items of the equipment I own still work. Among the 15 cameras I own they include a Leica M3, a Mamiya TLR C330, Mamiya TLR C220, a Minolta SLR, and a Calumet 4x5. I just Hope that this is the first step to getting new cameras that were built like the old ones I have with built-in light meters, interchangeable lenses, and shutter speeds. Nope this camera is not for me and the biggest reason is that its a half frame. I want large beautiful prints and Half frame will not give them to me.
I love printing and enlarging my images like you. Not everyone has to. With this camera you are not going to. Also think improving your skills with this is unnecessarily difficult. Does not mean the camera will not have a purpose. Just not for me.
The biggest problem with the other youtubers isn't that they want likes or engagement, but they want people to buy this camera "for the cause," to save film photography or whatever. That's the wrong (and disingenuous) reason to push a mediocre product. You push a product when it's good in its own right, not because it supports a cause.
@@GiuseppeNelva I agree. Also it is hard to be non bias when a company sends you something. You have a genuine human desire to want to support them. So I commend anyone who has given a truly non bias review of the camera. Many I had seen were just saying it was the perfect camera and that is not true.
Here in the United Kingdom the price point is just short of £500.00 ($634.25), a lot of money, for that, actually a lot less I managed to get an Olympus PEN FT. Indeed I managed to get two PEN Fs, original and the FT for the same money. Admittedly only the FT has a meter built in, but I also managed to get a clip on meter for the PEN F, and these have the ability to take interchangeable lenses, they have no automation, but the fun factor of a fully manual. For me the half frame form factor is sufficient picture quality and not a problem. If automation is a must then there are fine examples of the Olympus PEN EEs out there, zone focusing, fully automatic with the option of manually adjusting the aperture. I applaud Pentax, but at the launch price it is competing against the cameras I have mentioned.
Totally valid points - certainly agreed it's big; a little strange considering Pentax love making things tiny (Auto 110, I-10, Q). I did think it was funny that on a 1972 Sears ad, the cheapest camera on the page is a Sears R|F, a fine little re-badged Ricoh 500G. Retail price: $79.50. In today's dollars, that's $597. Perhaps irrelevant but it's one way of looking at it (the 50 years ago way). On the same page is a Canon QL17 G-III for $144.50 ($1085). Nice to know you can still get nice ones for 1/3 original retail.
I have been taking pictures since 1956. And I totally fail to understand what all the hoopla is about, except for the cuteness factor. You want to shoot half-frame? Get an Olympus Pen FT. For half this price, you get an SLR (no zone focusing!) that is also a classic. The ones from Japan that the seller marks as "Mint" truly are Mint.
Very good video. Lines up with my thoughts pretty neatly. I've been extremely disappointed seeing so many defending this like no tomorrow not because they want novices to have a good product (which this is not compared to what is on the market) but because they hope it'll save film for themselves, basically throwing said novices under the bus for the sake of "the cause." Seeing "experts" going as far as saying that second hand SLRs are "unreliable" is especially sad. Many are built like tanks, and even if one was to fail, you'd still be able to buy several awesome models with much, much higher capabilities (which will actually let people learn and improve, and feel accomplished) before you even get close to the price of a Pentax 17.
The whole thing seems very one sided like everyone should buy this for “the cause” not even considering if it is really worth the money. One thing I would like to test out is how good this lens is. I just watched Thomas Heaton’s review (which is really good) and Pentax definitely knows how to make a good lens. Would like to see a comparison of say this lens’s against an Olympus Pen… would be interesting. Still would not overcome some of the other shortcomings though.
@@Distphoto while I'm 100% sure the lens is a great lens, an effective 37mm focal length that you can't change is another big shortcoming for me. Too limiting. Even the crappiest smartphone has some kind of zoom built in, and this "new generation" they're courting is going to go straight back to smartphones when they find themselves with a tool that isn't effective for most of the shots they want to take.
I totally agree with your analysis here. I think it’s great Pentax came out with a new film camera and that much of the community is behind it, but I have the same worry as you about the lack of quality and focus it may signal. Having worked at two film labs recently, the number of people who don’t care about quality or value as well as never pick up their negatives is a worrying trend, but the worse part is that when you try to explain it to them they just don’t care. To me, film is not only the experience but the quality that can be obtained, as well as it’s longevity. As for my opinion on the camera, I actually like the design, i don’t mind it being half frame for the economy and vertical orientation, but the camera being zone focus is absolutely ridiculous in 2024 and kills it for me. The big thing to me about point and shoots and autofocus slrs is the ability to shoot one handed. I love manual focus and manual cameras, but often times I need a camera I can shoot one handed so the fact that this camera doesn’t offer either experience truly ruins it for me. I have no idea who this camera is aimed for, but it was not aimed at the people who keep film alive.
Thank for the great input… I have heard of people just tossing their negatives. That’s crazy. Just a whole different mindset I guess. The zone focus just seems like a very odd choice. Not for me. I feel the same as you, If it was autofocus or manual focus I would be more interested
Manual. zone focus. With a 25mm lens and little expectation for enlargement greater than 8x10 inches, depth of field will cover almost and focus issue which is met. Since the focus is actually motor controlled with only the selection of focus setting being manual, it would have been both easy to install autofocus at no extra cost. So why did Pentax design this mixed manual, motorized focus system? My guess: A camera with manual focus is wearing "big boy pants". An autofocus camera of these specs screams point-n-shoot cheapy. In other words, it's all about marketing.
i know alot of people buying this camera that would be better off buying the Kodak H35N. buyer's remorse helps the secondhand market florish. getting a new one for my friends this holiday and used one next summer for around $300
In a few years when these start hitting the used market at a discount, it’ll be the perfect camera for my little boy. Can’t wait to take him on photo walks and see the world from his perspective
Somehow, this camera seems both over-complicated and over-simplifed. It's rather bizarre. I still kinda want it because I personally love half frame and have a large collection of half frame cameras (and a large stock of frozen 12 exposure rolls) that are for the most part, in various states of dis-repair at this point.
Nice!!! Can’t say I’ve ever had a 12 exposure roll. Bizarre explains it well! I still think it would be a good camera to have just nowhere near at the top of my (long) list.
This reminds me of the Ensign Ful-Vue, a camera for medium format film. A lady held it upside down and when the film was developed it was discovered she had made only self portraits.
I shoot medium format and just wanted something small that doesn’t break down because it’s older than me. So yeah that was for me XD though design while I wish they would have done it smarter
I'll wait until they introduce a manual exposure version with a shutter speed range and aperture range. Also manual zone focussing with a proper distance scale on the lens. I like the idea of half frame because it contrasts so much with my normal medium and large format. This camera doesn't fit with the way I think when making images. It seems to me to be a modified 35mm point and shoot with some manual overrides. A 90's point and shoot dressed up to look like a 60's classic. So Pentax please make a camera for the film shooter and those who want to learn how to shoot film. Nice try, but I think you may have made the wrong camera.
Thee reality is that if one is looking for the highest photographic quality possible today, one would have to go to digital Hasselblad and Leica, or the Sony A9 III. At least a Fujifilm Xpro alike. They have greater definition, colorimetry and dynamic range. And after shooting ready to reach multiple digital processes. You can learn photographic technique faster and more effectively, since they have everything from AI to absolutely everything manual. The film is something else, it is the experience of time, of composition, of taking a single unique image, of pictorial tonality and even its imperfections. Talk about the Pentax 17 not being suitable due to its lack of "professionalism" or image deficiencies, since in film then one would have to go to medium format or ideally to a film sheets. But I agree that the price could have been lower, but it doesn't seem very high either, considering that you get it and it is ready to use, warranty an original parts, without surprises as is common in used cameras.
Looks great except for the zone focusing. I just don't feel like carrying a tape measure everywhere to estimate distance. I don't trust my eyes to tell the difference between 10 feet and 13 feet. I'd prefer pinpoint focusing with auto or manual.
It is new. Thats all. But for posting on social media, every cell phone is enough. I totally agree with you, that for learning film photography you need ar least 35 mm frame. Mediim format is even better. And darkroom printing is part of the learning process. It is key. Otherwise all film experience is fokused only on loading film. Everything else is digital process. So i am waiting on some new serious film camera👍
The answer to the video title is MO. There are at least a dozen half frame cameras left from the old days, all of which have more useful features, are more compact and "ready to do". They'll cost half to a third of the 17. They all have better lenses. In fact, you'd have to search to find a triplet in a half frame camera, apart from toys and semi-disposables, like the Kodak/Chinese junk. Its imaging ability limits it to scanning to post digital on phones and computer screens. So from the universe of photographers, we drop all who require a quality image which can make prints larger than 3x5s. We eliminate all who wish to assert creative control over their image, as the 17 allows none. So who is left? Hipsters who want to tot a camera to look cool out and around, i.e., camera as jewelry. People who went to fit into a film community, and willing to ignore that a tiny, pocketable digital cameras would do a better job from every point of consideration. In other words, someone who would never watch this channel. Someone who watches this channel wouldn't waste their time sharing a hobby with.
Have to agree with that... Not saying the camera is a bad thing. Just not for me and many other photographers out there that prefer control and quality. Posting to Instagram has little to nothing to do with why I personally shoot film.
I mean when you figure a FM3A was $1,500 USD adjusted for inflation when it was released and didn't even come with a lens then $500 USD actually seem fairly affordable for the 17. Realistically though, this new Pentax is more comparable in size and weight to something like a Nikon L35AF. I certainly would rather pickup the new Pentax than gamble on one of those.
When we only have 36 shots, not 72, we're challenged to look better, to deliberately choose our point of view and our composition. So this pntx17 does not help us to become better photographers 😊, it mainly helps pntx's shareholders.
Good quick review. I agree with most points, and the other comments. With the exchange rate, it's showing here in Canada at $680 before sales tax (15% in my province of Quebec). That's way too much for a fixed lens zone focus, neither an SLR nor a rangefinder. Apparently it's (pre)selling well, but I doubt these are young people going for their first film camera. One minor point, I don't think the reduced resolution inherent in the image dimensions was a concern given the target market. Request, could you discuss the Mint Rollei cameras? Their marketing is confusing as to what Rollei involvement is (just name-dropping?) and re build quality.
There is no Rollei involvement other than licensing out the name, because that's all Rollei is nowadays - a brand name with no infrastructure behind it. MiNT just worked out a deal with them.
The maximum shutter speed was the deal breaker for me. I often shoot faster than 1/350. I'm happy to see a film camera released that is neither a toy nor a luxury item, but it will be a hard pass for me.
I commented pretty much the same thing but the Reddit crowd got really riled up over it. It's just not a whole lot of camera for 500 USD, being essentially a slightly more advanced toy for nearly the price of a compact mirrorless or an entry level mirrorless system camera. Competition with the second hand market is just out of the question ,but that was always going to be the case. I'm sure Pentax did it as affordably as they could with an eye to salvaging the body (film transport, case etc.) for future iterations of the project. It's evident that the manufacturing base and return on investment just isn't there to produce slick, advanced plastic cameras from the get-go like they had in the 80s-00s. Therefore, for me the question is, should they succeed, what the compact camera will be like - will it be an iteration of this with a different lens and little else, or will it be a bit more advanced. And even then, what will it cost? But the 17 is really not for an already dedicated film shooter.
That’s just it “not a whole lot of camera for 500” but yeah sure it will make fun insta pics. And great to get the younger crowd buying film. Hope it accomplishes that. Interesting to see what is in the future.
Here in EU it is $700 equivallent. Which is nasty. For such price level I would expect at least proper single point AF or manual rangefinder and full manual control with Bulb - 1/1000s or better and hotshoe at least capable of firing manual flashes by central pin. Imagine how much will SLR from Ricoh cost if this simple camera cost $500. So for SLR we are in $3000+ territory.
Unfortunately I think all they proved was that to build and market a film camera it costs the same or more than digital. Hopefully the body is designed to be reworked into a rangefinder, simple retractable zoom, or something. I do think the half frame was a good choice for this camera given the description of use and customer base. My design would have been full mechanical, but I suspect that would cost twice as much.
Mostly on the fence about the half frame but that’s because I do not want one but like you say it fits for their intended target. You say fully mechanical would cost more? I would have thought the opposite but know nothing about camera manufacturing costs.
they should make something more delicate and much nicer fix lens full frame camera with rangefinder viewfinder , and put nice leather and copper plate over the camera and charge somewhere 1500-2000 usd or pounds. with a nice 35mm f2.5 or 40mm f2 lens, i would jump and buy it. (probably 2000 pounds not enough, considering the current produce rate for old stuff). Not 500 pounds toys
A camera shop in Brisbane, Australia has the Pentax 17 listed selling at $900 on their website. I haven't made any further enquiries into the availability or an inspection of the camera prior to purchase and I haven't been to this particular shop in years. So, I can tell you how Ricoh are seriously twisting my arm to the point of breaking and that I may have to take up contortionism as a career move to get me to purchase this newly released film camera. I may also have to protest that although this is the camera 'I didn't want' and 'this is not the camera for me at my level of experience' Ricoh are making demands that I get myself nearside sharpish to a local photographic outlet and make a purchase against my will and better judgement.
A realistic review. As someone who only shoots film and owns many cameras and formats, I realise this one isn't aimed at me, but I'm still disappointed at their lack of ambition here. Let's hope there are more projects in the pipeline. I'd be all over a quality Pentax66 like my 67ii. I can dream!
The whole point of the 17 is to make a camera for beginners, to gauge the market, and to get started with rebuilding manufacturing knowledge. If you don’t think this camera alone is ambitious you don’t know enough about how film cameras and manufacturing work. This was not an easy project for Pentax.
Absolutely, which is why I prefaced my post by saying that this isn’t aimed at someone like me. I have no experience of camera manufacture, but I do have 50+ years using all manner of film cameras and formats. I hope this camera is successful so that Pentax goes on to produce a new camera that more fits my needs.
I'd pay, at most, $200 for it. It's essentially a point-and-shoot film camera, right down to the non-interchangeable lens and the guesstimation viewfinder. The image size is also more akin to the APS cameras of old, which further reduces its usefulness to serious photographers (the most likely people willing to pay any more than that on a camera in general). I can't help thinking this camera will ultimately fizzle.
I guess current young people are not looking for quality images. Eg people posting images on Instagram. But Half frame can produce pretty usable images for printing in my opinion. They are definitely targeting people who grow up with film photography so I know what you are talking about. I was too disappointed when I saw it for the first time. I can live without it as I have so many other cameras in the cabinet..... I will be using 12ex film so I can finish in a day. But I am really surprised that they actually did it!
Yeah this thing is goofy. All the filmfluencers got their review copies and naturally turned out positive takes. But once the Rollei 35AF hits the streets it will definitely be the 2024 hot camera to buy.
Rollei's new "Rollei" will only have the logo. It will be manufactured in China by the Mint company, owner of the brand. It will not have Zeiss lenses but rather "Rollei", and no manual focus either, only auto. That does not mean that it is a bad camera, just be aware that it is not the direct Rollei heir. It will be for 700 US dollars.
$500 point and shoot, half pics only….. huh. A better buy would be a regular 35mm Pentax film camera with a real telephoto lens at half the price and better results. Since the rationale for 17mm is posting, the poster can always crop and post if they want, instead of no choice.
I agree with everything you said. Well done, very informative. I'm going to buy one anyway because I want one. I'm not a pro and may be more in the hoarder group. I use all my cameras and have an F-1, EF and even a Canonet QL 17( a bunch more). My plan is to use it as a family gathering /event, informal portrait camera ( I rarely do FB for friends). Yes 500 is a bunch but I want it and I do want to support film....or I'm just a hoarder. Thanks for the video.
I can't even imagine who on earth would want to buy this camera - I went through the half frame era in the late 60s early 70s with Olympus Pen EE and Pen F cameras when it was a good idea to get 75 photos on one 36 exposure film. But these days there are so many excellent digital cameras with great zoom capabilities, accurate auto exposure systems and excellent pocketability, that can take at least a thousand images on a reusable SD card. This camera is 50 years too late and ridiculously overpriced.
I like most of the things about this camera except for I think it's bigger than it needs to be and it costs way too much. 100 to maybe $300 you could buy a beautiful Olympus pen camera that's so much nicer there's no comparison.
Opinions are merely opinions and I acknowledge them all. This video would have had a bit more weight for content with the actual camera in hand😂. But opinions without the actual camera in question are simply assumptions at best.
I am making assumptions but I can say for sure that I have printed enough 35 mm negs with much higher quality optics than this and half frame would not cut it for me. That is my biggest gripe. It’s just not for me and if you want to learn and get more creative with your photography I would make the assumption this is not the best option.
@@Distphoto Assuming it’s not worth $500 because it doesn’t meet one’s criteria is fair to that individual. For me, I am going to buy it simply to support Pentax for further development of potential future camera production.
It’s very cool they made it. Quite a risk on their part and should be commended ❤ I think you should actually have one before reviewing it. Gotta try it. You haven’t even used it to make photo how can you really judge? I shoot a PEN F and it’s made some of the best photos on film I’ve seen. Quality loss only applies to enlargement prints or pixel peeping. Buying this should be considered in a way like backing a kickstarter or project. And you get a great little camera out of it!
You have valid points… I know what half frame is and as you mentioned enlargements will suffer. Deal breaker. My fear of shooting a camera like this is what happens when I capture some really good and want to make an enlargement? But I am mainly a printer so I have bias towards making enlargements. But it is very cool they made it
This is not a review. Nowhere did the author mention they were reviewing the camera. This is a discussion on the pros and cons of an item the features of which are known. There's absolutely no reason for someone be required to purchase an item before they can discuss its features. What kind of argument is that? It sounds like you're trying to silence legitimate criticism.
Exactly my thoughts. It is a camera for fun. But is it worth $500, no. I have a canon A1, convince me to spend $500. Ah, autofocus, I have canon EOS 1n with modern EF lenses, convince me.
canon f-1 prices near me = $791aud, Rollei = 600, olympus pen with lens probably 500. You are at or very close to the cost of the Pentax already and these cameras can often have problems. Analogue cameras aare super overpriced at the moment. Also zone focus is fun and challenging.
Its just way to expensive for what I would receive. I understand the cost of setup, but I'm not here to sponsor pentax. I want value for my money. "Holga" well you can pick one up for less than £ 50 and you will learn more. The argument for old cameras are going to fail, doesn't ring true. There are loads of cameras for sub £250 that will be better in every way. You can service a large proportion of them for less that £150. I own everything from holga to leica, there value for money is different for each. But this pentax is not a good value item. If you must have half frame and new. Look at the lomo lcwide. I thought this was an over priced item. But compared to the pentax it's a bargain. Does the and half frame, meters for exposure and is some focus.
In such videos, those that praise the product to the skies are more successful. When I saw the camera for the first time, I was curious to know how much it cost and it's just an overpriced toy for me.
i wouldn't consider it a real camera. a poor rehash of 80's half frame, 110 format and spy cameras of that era. diffacult to print with even with a cone to move the focal lenght of the lens closer to the film. i spended 15 years in the commercial printing labs of midtown. it takes more time to reproduce a print. is there going to be an option of lenes to match the needs of the camera line.
This is something like Lomo LC-A. Shitty camera with shitty lens, with which you can make some amazing photos, but majority of them will be bad or questionable. But hipsters will love this.
Yes agree. Would go for a good quality used Pen F/FT/FV instead for less than that price and you get interchangeable lenses and full control. And if you really want lo-fi go for 110 (pentax auto110) or a holga. Perhaps the best bet is to wait for the upcoming Rollei.
All new cameras and fat lenses are OVER Priced! Mirrorless have no pentaprism, some no actual shutter, all seem to have more plastic.. Kodak started 1/2 frame, in a today brownie. 1/2 frame can be great! So you save film! Big deal. I used Olympus Pen-S professionaly a long time ago! I don't go back..
An old canon eos budget film camera will have better functionality. Not sure why these companies dont simply dust off their old designs and rebuild them. This camera is a complete non starter at that price....half frame?? Seriously
I don't see a bight future for this camera. Too expensive and too weird. I don't see a real target audience for it. I still think they should have build a new solid medium format camera. Yes it would have been more expensive - but I'm convinced there is a bigger target audience for medium film format which would actually buy and use a new film camera.
I think this was a good "dip the toes in the water" camera for Pentax. Feel out the market. Given the very strong sales the camera has already gotten (Pentax said a few days ago they are shutting down orders because the demand far outstripped their planned supply) I would say it has a good future. Pentax already stated they have a roadmap for future film cameras if this one does well - so hopefully that is the case. I would love a new medium format camera, but I understand why they chose a 35mm for the 17.
Using an inflation calculator a brand new Pentax 67ii would cost around $5000 for the body alone in 2024. Plus you would have to add the cost to manufacture it would be even higher since Pentax would be nearly starting from scratch. If they did remake the 67 people would still be complaining about the price.
@@sdcorrey good point, but at least the camera would be worth the money. Would then be deciding between Mamiya 7 or NEW Pentax 🤷🏻♂️ but of course people would still complain
![เปิดคำทำนาย นอสตราดามุส - บาบา วานก้า ปี 2025 คนทั่วโลกต้องเจออะไรบ้าง? | แฉ 11 ธ.ค. 67 [2/3] |GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xmTIKWJUMPM/mqdefault.jpg)
Firs off, big fan, and obviously opinions aren't "wrong".
But as afellow film nerd, and printer:
- half frame is far beyond the 2MP required for the Instagram generation they say they are targeting
- I print iso 400 half frame at 8x10, if you don't get the loupe at, and just enjoy the photos, it's all good
- between the purchase, lenses, and CLA,my Pen FV isn't cheaper, and if I've got mirror corrosion setting it... I'll buy another, but that hasselblad cla is getting kicked back again. Old cameras aren't cheap
- £500 is fair. If this were digital that's peanuts, and you be paying £300 used, which is ballpark for a good mju2
- It is not, and was never intended to be for "us", this camera is about getting more people in, and I'm all for that!
Just my take, I want to still be shooting film in 20 years, and I'm not convinced old k1000s are going to ensure that happens
All very valid points and appreciated 👍 To be honest I have never printed from half frame but have cropped more than half frame. I feel the quality film cameras will definitely be in use in another 20 years no problem if cared for and serviced on occasion. How do you enjoy the Pen?
@@Distphoto they'll still work, but I'll be competing against others that already seem to be able to buy Leica M6s and MPs while I'm already getting guilt pangs for my 500cm.
I absolutely *love* my Pen FV. The kit 38mm is a joy (check 35mmc for "5 frames of trains" for some of my pics). I have a crap version of the 20mm, a good 25mm, a gem of the 38, and a nice 100mm (I want the 70mm, but it costs a kidney). I have extension tubes, the clip on meter, and even the angled viewfinder. I can take the whole lot in one bag with filters too. It's my travel kit.
I've put too much effort into half frame. But in my experience, if you use a staining Dev, 510 pyro, Obsidian Aqua, or Pyrocat HD at least, the staining is a massive win, and HP5 etc looks great. XP2 super in c42 or 510 pyro is also great.
I also use full frame, 120 and 4x5. I'm not saying there aren't compromises, but it's a valid format
Remember, 35mm cinema film is smaller than half frame, and that gets enlarged just fine 😂
yep analogue prices near me are sky high, often almost the price of pentax
💯 on point. I have a Pen S that is very close to this in operation, except I don't have a built in light meter, and the images I get out of that are more than adequate for social media. I also have a Konica Autoreflex that can switch between half and full frame on the fly, that is a blast to shoot with. That said, I am very tempted to get this camera on the basis that it supports Pentax's project and hopefully leads to more cameras in the future. I won't put this little foray down because this is one of the legitimate camera companies attempting to bring back film a little more (and yes, maybe cash in a bit). I understand that this is just your opinion, but if nobody supports this project, it does nothing to benefit the "film community".
I am certain that 100% mechanical cameras still have many years of operation ahead of them. Cameras that have electronic components will die slowly, but mechanical ones just need a little refurbishment for a new life. I bet that When we're all six feet underground, these cameras will still be operational.
You be surprised how much film cameras cost new back then, after adjusted for inflation. For a brand new camera with warranty and all it's definitely worth $500
Well I understand the inflation argument and see the point, however I also understand value and to me it’s just does not have it.
"worth" is a big word. We could say it's not overpriced compared to what Pentax may have spent to make it, but its value for the user being comparable to other $500 cameras or even cameras that can be purchased for much less is very, very debatable.
There have been huge improvements over time to manufacturing, design, materials, etc. Things - especially electronic machines - cost way less now and you get WAY MORE for the money. The price comparison should not be made vs. what old cameras cost adjusted for inflation. It should be made vs what it costs today to design and manufacture a camera. My only partly informed gut feeling is that this camera should be closer to $250... But that woul dbe a price for a mature product and this is 'new'.. They had to design this and then start manufacturing from nothing... so there is extra cost to making something that is now 'new'
Well said, a lot of these legacy lenses which are available on eBay and the like, cost an arm and a leg in their day.
35 mm is the standard format for cinematic film, which is run vertically through the camera. So each frame is actually a bit smaller than "half frame". Millions of people have seen such pictures projected on cinema screens, without complaining about low resolution or bad image quality. -- The Pentax 17 can serve several purposes, e.g. as scouting camera, for shooting sequences to tell a story or show an object from several perspectives. Ok, you can do this with a "full frame" camera, too. But after 2 weeks of usage I must say I simply love this camera.
Bit of a weird take. A lot of people getting introduced to film rn want to have fun and get that old crappy point and shoot developed at a 1 hr photo look. Let’s let those people have fun and enjoy film how they want to. At the end of the day, the more people shooting film, the longer it stays alive.
Agree with that 100%. If that is the intention then it is perfect for that. I have just watched a lot of reviews seeming to make this camera out to be something it’s not.
I would recommend to those people a Kodak Ektar H35 for $40. It even takes a AAA battery for its flash.
@@Distphoto I know imma pick one up myself to use and review. I’m excited about it for multiple reasons! I’m assuming my excitement can possibly come off as if I’m saying it’s like a new ground breaking camera.. but it’s not. I’m just excited for it for specific reasons. As it seems most others peoples tones have been. I know sometimes we watch other TH-camrs and are like “what in the world are they talking about” but we gotta remember everyone has a different audience and everyone has different needs. I appreciated and enjoyed your video though. It got me even more excited personally!
@@13squier yeah that’s a super fun camera too. I think this 17 still has something unique for it tho.. I’ll make a video on it as well once I get my hands on it
That's the wrong reason to support this camera, but you're certainly not alone. I see a lot of people defending this like no tomorrow not because they want people to really have fun with a good product (which this is not compared to what else is available), but because they want film to stay alive for themselves.
Film won't be saved by selling people a smartphone without the phone and with film (priced more than many smartphones that take better pictures and have more options). Film has been kept alive by people that not only wanted to enjoy film, but also enjoy photography, and learning it,and improving their technique. This won't teach you a thing and when the novelty has passed and the film costs start to hurt, the "new generation" will go back to their smartphone turning their Pentax 17 into e-waste.
In the fortunate position to afford this camera so I preordered it. I land right in that middle category as you stated, just wanting to have fun. Hoping that the support into the 17 will lead to a better more serious camera down the line.
Very cool. Really hope more is to come and they try something 35mm or medium format!
Yeah I'm right here as well. I've already had my first roll developed and I'm pleased with it. It's a fun little camera, it feels robust, like I expect from a Pentax. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the screw on the side as much as it seems to upset literally everyone. And I'm excited about Pentax's film project.
I bought the Pentax 17 to do what I bought three Canonet QL17 G-IIIs for. All of them CALed, which goes for about 500 bucks these days btw and all of them with issues so glaring I sent them back. I also tried two Leica/Minolta CLs. These cameras are aging and if you want one that’s been serviced and actually taken care of throughout its life, so it doesn’t have a damaged finder, you’re gonna pay more than for the 17. I’m the first type of film photographer btw. I use it because it’s technically very capable and I expect my cameras not to fail me when I wanna take a shot.
I was planning on purchasing a Canonet QL17 Giii with a warranty for a little over $500 USD. Luckily, the Pentax 17 was announced before I clicked purchase, so I also pre ordered the Pentax 17, and I believe, as you mentioned, the Pentax is the better purchase.
I can relate. Bought for similar reasons.
Half-frame resolution can be plenty fine for me if I can just take good shots.
Almost every classic shot that sticks with me from classic cinema was shot on 3 or 4 perf 35mm which is practically half-frame.
There Will Be Blood's cinematography isn't dismissed an "unserious" photography because it was shot on 3-perf and not IMAX. Now, I do pixel-peep and enjoy full frame and 120 resolution, but I think certain people dismiss half-frame too quickly.
Resolution matters of course. Below Super16/16mm is a better threshold in my opinion - Below that, and you're starving for more resolution no matter the composition.
You would have to think that reissuing the K1000 would be a popular move. A simple but reliable camera that is much loved.
Pretty much ever K1000 is still trucking along nicely, it would cannibalise and confuse a re-release haha
I have seen this camera in the shops in Barcelona and it is so beautiful. Many years ago I used to have a film Yashica and had lots of fun with it. Although I shoot digital now I do not discard this camera. Thanks for the good video
All we as a film community have been wanting for a long time is a new SLR film camera, directly compatible with modern lenses, at sub Lieca prices... and instead we get this.
Yeah, I feel like if they would of made a camera that could use all there really great older lenses it would have been so awesome... may be they still will. I would buy that without hesitation.
I have been a Pentax digital user for a long time, and no nothing really about film, but it is so annoying that all these reviewers are saying about this camera. For me I would keep my mouth shut and just keep listening to you guys who are film photographers and draw my own conclusions as to what to think. Your video is a pretty good and fair take on this brave move by Pentax. Is it worth the money? again that is down to what you guys who shoot film will be the best judges of this. So thanks again Sir for a good and balanced opinion for especially young folks who this is principally aimed at.
I agree totally thats its great Pentax still believes film cameras are relevant and wanted. I shoot alot of 35mm and medium format film and for me the 1/2 frame is a bit too small for my needs. But for those interested in getting a start in film photography it just might fit them perfectly. I love the channel btw!
@@robdixon5016 Thanks! 🙏
The screw being silver and not black becoming a “deal breaker” is such a wild take. You can always paint it or 3d print or fabricate something that works better I actually enjoy it the screw helps me support the camera. I feel like it suffers from the film “masters” who wanted a new professional camera. If this camera sells well it will bring people into the hobby/profession and thus there will actually be a demand for film cameras that are professional/consumer grade.
Not sure how wild it is... just my opinion. I really just think it looks odd. If I liked other things about the camera I could probabally look past it or paint or print my own, but why?
What’s the problem with half frame? I shoot my old Pen F and love the half frame . It might take me three - four x out to get thru 72 images but I just find the vertical a unique approach
Nothing wrong with it if you like the images you get with it. For my purposes it’s just not enough resolution.
@@Distphoto Go for medium format for a start and proceed to large format. The quality and character of film pictures exceeds digital.
@@Autorange888i hear you but am not in favor of the large size and weight. When the humidity hits, I don’t want either. For my purposes 35mm is great for zines, even if professionally done.
Watch Analog Insights review of the camera. He address most of the problems people have with this camera and highlights the price complaint.i think a lot of the film community is missing the bigger picture here.
All I see is photography channels reviewing the camera, Pentax needs to get it in the hands of its intended demographic. Not hardcore film photography channels.
Agree, but Pentax needs to sell the camera in the first place. Having good marketing helps a lot. If Pentax 17 shows up as a success at the end, then we will probably get another film camera which could be 35mm then, and so on. I want Pentax 6x7 III so badly to happen :(
I used the original half-frame camera the Olympus Pen when I was stationed in Korea in 1966. They still have the Pen but it is digital.
Battery cover design was common for Pentax in the 1990s. The sfxn Pentax screw is black and fits the 17
I did not know. Wish this one was black.
@@Distphoto You know... nail polish is a thing. Mine is now black. I also put leatherette on the backplate, it cost me a few bucks and a few minutes of time...
Great review, thanks! I agree, film cameras are a niche and novelty for those who want the experience of film cameras from the past. In any case, this oversimplified film camera may have missed their target audience. I agree with you. They should have updated an old model with modern features. Perhaps a flip screen with exposure preview and compatibility with modern autofocus lenses. Pentax has kept the K-mount for nearly fifty years now. This would allow selection from a vast library of older lenes. Which are only a fraction of the cost of new lenes and still produce great images with manual focus. Let's hope they pursue this ideal in a future film camera. Even if only in a novelty camera market, it would sell well.
You certainly keep it real!
I 'only' shoot film but am happy that Pentax recognized the resurgence and market. I also think from a marketing & POS this is a great way to gateway the younger crowd to film. I'll get my F1 rebuilt for the price, so it's not for me. My kids rather not deal with the nuance, YET. Kudos to you on the review & to PENTAX for helping keep film alive.
Thanks, Seems like they could have easily made this for the younger folk and made it appeal to more enthusiast types at the same time with a few tweaks. Wonder how hard a film mask would be to implement? Maybe be able to shoot both. Half and full frame and have manual or autofocus. Would change the lens configuration a little bit. And get rid of that screw. Not sure if any of that is possible by the way 🤷🏻♂️
Right now on Eb: Nikon FM2+50mm F1.4 near mint, for 400$.
Another FM2 in "new" condition for 400$ + 50mm F1.8 EX cjndition for 140$.
In my humbrid opinion, Pentax 17 pro's:
-sharp lens
-small minimum focusing distance
-good looking (except ugly, antiergonomic grip/battery holder)
And con's:
-dark, narrow angle of wiew lens
-enormous energy consumption + expensive battery
-small G.N. of the flash
-motorized focusing
I agree with 95% of what you said about the Pentax 17. I also agree with your comments on the other TH-cam reviewers, most don't know what they are talking about because they are self taught, want likes and to be popular, and want to make money off TH-cam. The biggest problem with film photography today is there is no structured education to learn film photography and most people learn from TH-cam its like the blind leading the blind. To me this camera is a over glorified point and shoot camera with lack of important controls and I agree with you on who is the target buyer of this camera. I am 71 years old and like you I understand film photography, I studied photography in high school, junior college and in a state college in California. I am lucky that all but one or two items of the equipment I own still work. Among the 15 cameras I own they include a Leica M3, a Mamiya TLR C330, Mamiya TLR C220, a Minolta SLR, and a Calumet 4x5. I just Hope that this is the first step to getting new cameras that were built like the old ones I have with built-in light meters, interchangeable lenses, and shutter speeds. Nope this camera is not for me and the biggest reason is that its a half frame. I want large beautiful prints and Half frame will not give them to me.
I love printing and enlarging my images like you. Not everyone has to. With this camera you are not going to. Also think improving your skills with this is unnecessarily difficult. Does not mean the camera will not have a purpose. Just not for me.
The biggest problem with the other youtubers isn't that they want likes or engagement, but they want people to buy this camera "for the cause," to save film photography or whatever. That's the wrong (and disingenuous) reason to push a mediocre product. You push a product when it's good in its own right, not because it supports a cause.
@@GiuseppeNelva I agree. Also it is hard to be non bias when a company sends you something. You have a genuine human desire to want to support them. So I commend anyone who has given a truly non bias review of the camera. Many I had seen were just saying it was the perfect camera and that is not true.
Here in the United Kingdom the price point is just short of £500.00 ($634.25), a lot of money, for that, actually a lot less I managed to get an Olympus PEN FT. Indeed I managed to get two PEN Fs, original and the FT for the same money. Admittedly only the FT has a meter built in, but I also managed to get a clip on meter for the PEN F, and these have the ability to take interchangeable lenses, they have no automation, but the fun factor of a fully manual. For me the half frame form factor is sufficient picture quality and not a problem. If automation is a must then there are fine examples of the Olympus PEN EEs out there, zone focusing, fully automatic with the option of manually adjusting the aperture. I applaud Pentax, but at the launch price it is competing against the cameras I have mentioned.
Totally valid points - certainly agreed it's big; a little strange considering Pentax love making things tiny (Auto 110, I-10, Q).
I did think it was funny that on a 1972 Sears ad, the cheapest camera on the page is a Sears R|F, a fine little re-badged Ricoh 500G. Retail price: $79.50. In today's dollars, that's $597. Perhaps irrelevant but it's one way of looking at it (the 50 years ago way).
On the same page is a Canon QL17 G-III for $144.50 ($1085). Nice to know you can still get nice ones for 1/3 original retail.
Interesting! I get the inflation argument too but if I do not find value in it than that does not really hold water with me.
I have been taking pictures since 1956. And I totally fail to understand what all the hoopla is about, except for the cuteness factor. You want to shoot half-frame? Get an Olympus Pen FT. For half this price, you get an SLR (no zone focusing!) that is also a classic. The ones from Japan that the seller marks as "Mint" truly are Mint.
@@Nikonhermit I like the looks of the Olympus better as well.
Very good video. Lines up with my thoughts pretty neatly. I've been extremely disappointed seeing so many defending this like no tomorrow not because they want novices to have a good product (which this is not compared to what is on the market) but because they hope it'll save film for themselves, basically throwing said novices under the bus for the sake of "the cause."
Seeing "experts" going as far as saying that second hand SLRs are "unreliable" is especially sad. Many are built like tanks, and even if one was to fail, you'd still be able to buy several awesome models with much, much higher capabilities (which will actually let people learn and improve, and feel accomplished) before you even get close to the price of a Pentax 17.
The whole thing seems very one sided like everyone should buy this for “the cause” not even considering if it is really worth the money.
One thing I would like to test out is how good this lens is. I just watched Thomas Heaton’s review (which is really good) and Pentax definitely knows how to make a good lens. Would like to see a comparison of say this lens’s against an Olympus Pen… would be interesting. Still would not overcome some of the other shortcomings though.
@@Distphoto while I'm 100% sure the lens is a great lens, an effective 37mm focal length that you can't change is another big shortcoming for me. Too limiting. Even the crappiest smartphone has some kind of zoom built in, and this "new generation" they're courting is going to go straight back to smartphones when they find themselves with a tool that isn't effective for most of the shots they want to take.
I totally agree with your analysis here. I think it’s great Pentax came out with a new film camera and that much of the community is behind it, but I have the same worry as you about the lack of quality and focus it may signal. Having worked at two film labs recently, the number of people who don’t care about quality or value as well as never pick up their negatives is a worrying trend, but the worse part is that when you try to explain it to them they just don’t care. To me, film is not only the experience but the quality that can be obtained, as well as it’s longevity. As for my opinion on the camera, I actually like the design, i don’t mind it being half frame for the economy and vertical orientation, but the camera being zone focus is absolutely ridiculous in 2024 and kills it for me. The big thing to me about point and shoots and autofocus slrs is the ability to shoot one handed. I love manual focus and manual cameras, but often times I need a camera I can shoot one handed so the fact that this camera doesn’t offer either experience truly ruins it for me.
I have no idea who this camera is aimed for, but it was not aimed at the people who keep film alive.
Thank for the great input… I have heard of people just tossing their negatives. That’s crazy. Just a whole different mindset I guess.
The zone focus just seems like a very odd choice. Not for me. I feel the same as you, If it was autofocus or manual focus I would be more interested
Manual. zone focus. With a 25mm lens and little expectation for enlargement greater than 8x10 inches, depth of field will cover almost and focus issue which is met. Since the focus is actually motor controlled with only the selection of focus setting being manual, it would have been both easy to install autofocus at no extra cost. So why did Pentax design this mixed manual, motorized focus system? My guess: A camera with manual focus is wearing "big boy pants". An autofocus camera of these specs screams point-n-shoot cheapy. In other words, it's all about marketing.
@@randallstewart1224 That makes complete sense 👍. This thing basically is a point and shoot. With slight “control” options.
you 've got it right to the point in my opinion
right for some not for others 🤷🏻♂
Wait and get the rollei 35 AF for a couple of hundred more
i know alot of people buying this camera that would be better off buying the Kodak H35N. buyer's remorse helps the secondhand market florish. getting a new one for my friends this holiday and used one next summer for around $300
In a few years when these start hitting the used market at a discount, it’ll be the perfect camera for my little boy. Can’t wait to take him on photo walks and see the world from his perspective
That will be awesome 👍
Somehow, this camera seems both over-complicated and over-simplifed. It's rather bizarre. I still kinda want it because I personally love half frame and have a large collection of half frame cameras (and a large stock of frozen 12 exposure rolls) that are for the most part, in various states of dis-repair at this point.
Nice!!! Can’t say I’ve ever had a 12 exposure roll. Bizarre explains it well!
I still think it would be a good camera to have just nowhere near at the top of my (long) list.
This reminds me of the Ensign Ful-Vue, a camera for medium format film. A lady held it upside down and when the film was developed it was discovered she had made only self portraits.
I shoot medium format and just wanted something small that doesn’t break down because it’s older than me. So yeah that was for me XD though design while I wish they would have done it smarter
I'll wait until they introduce a manual exposure version with a shutter speed range and aperture range. Also manual zone focussing with a proper distance scale on the lens. I like the idea of half frame because it contrasts so much with my normal medium and large format. This camera doesn't fit with the way I think when making images.
It seems to me to be a modified 35mm point and shoot with some manual overrides. A 90's point and shoot dressed up to look like a 60's classic.
So Pentax please make a camera for the film shooter and those who want to learn how to shoot film.
Nice try, but I think you may have made the wrong camera.
Thee reality is that if one is looking for the highest photographic quality possible today, one would have to go to digital Hasselblad and Leica, or the Sony A9 III. At least a Fujifilm Xpro alike. They have greater definition, colorimetry and dynamic range. And after shooting ready to reach multiple digital processes. You can learn photographic technique faster and more effectively, since they have everything from AI to absolutely everything manual. The film is something else, it is the experience of time, of composition, of taking a single unique image, of pictorial tonality and even its imperfections. Talk about the Pentax 17 not being suitable due to its lack of "professionalism" or image deficiencies, since in film then one would have to go to medium format or ideally to a film sheets.
But I agree that the price could have been lower, but it doesn't seem very high either, considering that you get it and it is ready to use, warranty an original parts, without surprises as is common in used cameras.
All valid points and though I do primarily shoo medium format and sheet film you can get amazing quality from 35mm... much smaller makes me hesitant.
Looks great except for the zone focusing. I just don't feel like carrying a tape measure everywhere to estimate distance. I don't trust my eyes to tell the difference between 10 feet and 13 feet. I'd prefer pinpoint focusing with auto or manual.
I do like my focus to be spot on so this would just bug me. And judging distance with your eyes like you said can be tough so I feel the same.
Absolutely and more
It is new. Thats all. But for posting on social media, every cell phone is enough. I totally agree with you, that for learning film photography you need ar least 35 mm frame. Mediim format is even better. And darkroom printing is part of the learning process. It is key. Otherwise all film experience is fokused only on loading film. Everything else is digital process. So i am waiting on some new serious film camera👍
Same here 👍👍👍
The answer to the video title is MO. There are at least a dozen half frame cameras left from the old days, all of which have more useful features, are more compact and "ready to do". They'll cost half to a third of the 17. They all have better lenses. In fact, you'd have to search to find a triplet in a half frame camera, apart from toys and semi-disposables, like the Kodak/Chinese junk. Its imaging ability limits it to scanning to post digital on phones and computer screens. So from the universe of photographers, we drop all who require a quality image which can make prints larger than 3x5s. We eliminate all who wish to assert creative control over their image, as the 17 allows none. So who is left? Hipsters who want to tot a camera to look cool out and around, i.e., camera as jewelry. People who went to fit into a film community, and willing to ignore that a tiny, pocketable digital cameras would do a better job from every point of consideration. In other words, someone who would never watch this channel. Someone who watches this channel wouldn't waste their time sharing a hobby with.
Have to agree with that... Not saying the camera is a bad thing. Just not for me and many other photographers out there that prefer control and quality. Posting to Instagram has little to nothing to do with why I personally shoot film.
I ordered for support of future new cameras, the vendor cancel my order so I think it was for me to have it/buy it. I have an excellent Olympus Pen F
I think the Olympus Pen is a much better looking camera!
I mean when you figure a FM3A was $1,500 USD adjusted for inflation when it was released and didn't even come with a lens then $500 USD actually seem fairly affordable for the 17. Realistically though, this new Pentax is more comparable in size and weight to something like a Nikon L35AF. I certainly would rather pickup the new Pentax than gamble on one of those.
When we only have 36 shots, not 72,
we're challenged to look better, to deliberately choose our point of view
and our composition.
So this pntx17 does not help us to become better photographers 😊,
it mainly helps pntx's shareholders.
Very valid point!
Good quick review. I agree with most points, and the other comments. With the exchange rate, it's showing here in Canada at $680 before sales tax (15% in my province of Quebec). That's way too much for a fixed lens zone focus, neither an SLR nor a rangefinder. Apparently it's (pre)selling well, but I doubt these are young people going for their first film camera. One minor point, I don't think the reduced resolution inherent in the image dimensions was a concern given the target market. Request, could you discuss the Mint Rollei cameras? Their marketing is confusing as to what Rollei involvement is (just name-dropping?) and re build quality.
Thank you, I do want to dig into what is going on with the Mint camera and will do my best to cover it 👍
There is no Rollei involvement other than licensing out the name, because that's all Rollei is nowadays - a brand name with no infrastructure behind it. MiNT just worked out a deal with them.
Isn't there a new rollei 35 comming out with AF?
The maximum shutter speed was the deal breaker for me. I often shoot faster than 1/350. I'm happy to see a film camera released that is neither a toy nor a luxury item, but it will be a hard pass for me.
Buy a used contax, you can get them in mint condition for less money and get much better image quality.
I agree.
I commented pretty much the same thing but the Reddit crowd got really riled up over it. It's just not a whole lot of camera for 500 USD, being essentially a slightly more advanced toy for nearly the price of a compact mirrorless or an entry level mirrorless system camera. Competition with the second hand market is just out of the question ,but that was always going to be the case. I'm sure Pentax did it as affordably as they could with an eye to salvaging the body (film transport, case etc.) for future iterations of the project. It's evident that the manufacturing base and return on investment just isn't there to produce slick, advanced plastic cameras from the get-go like they had in the 80s-00s. Therefore, for me the question is, should they succeed, what the compact camera will be like - will it be an iteration of this with a different lens and little else, or will it be a bit more advanced. And even then, what will it cost? But the 17 is really not for an already dedicated film shooter.
That’s just it “not a whole lot of camera for 500” but yeah sure it will make fun insta pics. And great to get the younger crowd buying film. Hope it accomplishes that.
Interesting to see what is in the future.
Here in EU it is $700 equivallent.
Which is nasty. For such price level I would expect at least proper single point AF or manual rangefinder and full manual control with Bulb - 1/1000s or better and hotshoe at least capable of firing manual flashes by central pin.
Imagine how much will SLR from Ricoh cost if this simple camera cost $500. So for SLR we are in $3000+ territory.
Yeahh I am going to wait out for the Rollei 35AF
Looks to be more promissing!
Unfortunately I think all they proved was that to build and market a film camera it costs the same or more than digital. Hopefully the body is designed to be reworked into a rangefinder, simple retractable zoom, or something. I do think the half frame was a good choice for this camera given the description of use and customer base. My design would have been full mechanical, but I suspect that would cost twice as much.
Mostly on the fence about the half frame but that’s because I do not want one but like you say it fits for their intended target. You say fully mechanical would cost more? I would have thought the opposite but know nothing about camera manufacturing costs.
they should make something more delicate and much nicer fix lens full frame camera with rangefinder viewfinder , and put nice leather and copper plate over the camera and charge somewhere 1500-2000 usd or pounds. with a nice 35mm f2.5 or 40mm f2 lens, i would jump and buy it. (probably 2000 pounds not enough, considering the current produce rate for old stuff). Not 500 pounds toys
That would be more ideal for me as well…
A camera shop in Brisbane, Australia has the Pentax 17 listed selling at $900 on their website. I haven't made any further enquiries into the availability or an inspection of the camera prior to purchase and I haven't been to this particular shop in years. So, I can tell you how Ricoh are seriously twisting my arm to the point of breaking and that I may have to take up contortionism as a career move to get me to purchase this newly released film camera. I may also have to protest that although this is the camera 'I didn't want' and 'this is not the camera for me at my level of experience' Ricoh are making demands that I get myself nearside sharpish to a local photographic outlet and make a purchase against my will and better judgement.
So many great used cameras you could pick from for less than 500.00 including point and shoots .
Agree.
I thank you for a great honest review but for now I’ll stay with my old Pentax MX for film photography. Regards Fred
A realistic review. As someone who only shoots film and owns many cameras and formats, I realise this one isn't aimed at me, but I'm still disappointed at their lack of ambition here. Let's hope there are more projects in the pipeline. I'd be all over a quality Pentax66 like my 67ii. I can dream!
Thanks!!! Hopefully they realize what a winner they have with the 67!!!!
iirc, they may build up to 4 film cameras, unless the market support this 17, they may not be able to issued the rest.
The whole point of the 17 is to make a camera for beginners, to gauge the market, and to get started with rebuilding manufacturing knowledge. If you don’t think this camera alone is ambitious you don’t know enough about how film cameras and manufacturing work. This was not an easy project for Pentax.
Absolutely, which is why I prefaced my post by saying that this isn’t aimed at someone like me. I have no experience of camera manufacture, but I do have 50+ years using all manner of film cameras and formats. I hope this camera is successful so that Pentax goes on to produce a new camera that more fits my needs.
I'd pay, at most, $200 for it. It's essentially a point-and-shoot film camera, right down to the non-interchangeable lens and the guesstimation viewfinder. The image size is also more akin to the APS cameras of old, which further reduces its usefulness to serious photographers (the most likely people willing to pay any more than that on a camera in general). I can't help thinking this camera will ultimately fizzle.
I guess current young people are not looking for quality images. Eg people posting images on Instagram. But Half frame can produce pretty usable images for printing in my opinion. They are definitely targeting people who grow up with film photography so I know what you are talking about. I was too disappointed when I saw it for the first time. I can live without it as I have so many other cameras in the cabinet..... I will be using 12ex film so I can finish in a day. But I am really surprised that they actually did it!
it's worth every penny if it's got the features and performance you are looking for. also it will not smell musty. those old cameras make me queasy
Have gotten some Nelly cameras for sure. Sometimes stinking like smoke 🤮
I love the idea and the design. But for 500usd, I can buy a brandnew K3 body here in the Phils.
Makes it hard to justify.
Yeah this thing is goofy. All the filmfluencers got their review copies and naturally turned out positive takes. But once the Rollei 35AF hits the streets it will definitely be the 2024 hot camera to buy.
Looking forward to the Rollie!
Rollei's new "Rollei" will only have the logo. It will be manufactured in China by the Mint company, owner of the brand. It will not have Zeiss lenses but rather "Rollei", and no manual focus either, only auto. That does not mean that it is a bad camera, just be aware that it is not the direct Rollei heir. It will be for 700 US dollars.
Yep on the battery screw.
Part looks like something from a hardware store.
At least paint it black…
It's really odd
$500 point and shoot, half pics only….. huh.
A better buy would be a regular 35mm Pentax film camera with a real telephoto lens at half the price and better results. Since the rationale for 17mm is posting, the poster can always crop and post if they want, instead of no choice.
I agree with everything you said. Well done, very informative. I'm going to buy one anyway because I want one. I'm not a pro and may be more in the hoarder group. I use all my cameras and have an F-1, EF and even a Canonet QL 17( a bunch more). My plan is to use it as a family gathering /event, informal portrait camera ( I rarely do FB for friends). Yes 500 is a bunch but I want it and I do want to support film....or I'm just a hoarder. Thanks for the video.
Thank you! Do think it would be neat to have… a part of history in a way and cool to support them for sure. So many other cameras I want to hoard… own
I can't even imagine who on earth would want to buy this camera - I went through the half frame era in the late 60s early 70s with Olympus Pen EE and Pen F cameras when it was a good idea to get 75 photos on one 36 exposure film. But these days there are so many excellent digital cameras with great zoom capabilities, accurate auto exposure systems and excellent pocketability, that can take at least a thousand images on a reusable SD card. This camera is 50 years too late and ridiculously overpriced.
I like most of the things about this camera except for I think it's bigger than it needs to be and it costs way too much. 100 to maybe $300 you could buy a beautiful Olympus pen camera that's so much nicer there's no comparison.
This camera makes the K1000 seem inexpensive! The new 17 is too expensive. I’ll wait a few years for the price to come down. 💰
Great video. At that price point, I'd pick a Nikon F in mint condition w/ an insane good 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor lens. No brainer.
Thanks, I would as well! Will get me a solid Nikon at some point ☝️
Opinions are merely opinions and I acknowledge them all. This video would have had a bit more weight for content with the actual camera in hand😂. But opinions without the actual camera in question are simply assumptions at best.
I am making assumptions but I can say for sure that I have printed enough 35 mm negs with much higher quality optics than this and half frame would not cut it for me. That is my biggest gripe. It’s just not for me and if you want to learn and get more creative with your photography I would make the assumption this is not the best option.
@@Distphoto Assuming it’s not worth $500 because it doesn’t meet one’s criteria is fair to that individual. For me, I am going to buy it simply to support Pentax for further development of potential future camera production.
@@vangstr I believe that is a worthy investment for sure
It’s very cool they made it. Quite a risk on their part and should be commended ❤
I think you should actually have one before reviewing it. Gotta try it. You haven’t even used it to make photo how can you really judge?
I shoot a PEN F and it’s made some of the best photos on film I’ve seen. Quality loss only applies to enlargement prints or pixel peeping.
Buying this should be considered in a way like backing a kickstarter or project. And you get a great little camera out of it!
You have valid points… I know what half frame is and as you mentioned enlargements will suffer. Deal breaker.
My fear of shooting a camera like this is what happens when I capture some really good and want to make an enlargement?
But I am mainly a printer so I have bias towards making enlargements.
But it is very cool they made it
This is not a review. Nowhere did the author mention they were reviewing the camera. This is a discussion on the pros and cons of an item the features of which are known. There's absolutely no reason for someone be required to purchase an item before they can discuss its features.
What kind of argument is that? It sounds like you're trying to silence legitimate criticism.
@@GiuseppeNelva Relax, it's just the internet.
Exactly my thoughts. It is a camera for fun. But is it worth $500, no. I have a canon A1, convince me to spend $500. Ah, autofocus, I have canon EOS 1n with modern EF lenses, convince me.
@@ataboyboyboy8895 yup, agree
It cost way too much just to save a little on film.
I guess it depends on what you’re trying to do.
canon f-1 prices near me = $791aud, Rollei = 600, olympus pen with lens probably 500. You are at or very close to the cost of the Pentax already and these cameras can often have problems. Analogue cameras aare super overpriced at the moment. Also zone focus is fun and challenging.
Wow those cameras are super inflated. Way cheaper here. Did not know there was such a difference in different areas…
The Nikon L35AF gave us more features 40 years ago.
Many many cameras do.
Very different view from Analog Insight’s take.
Its just way to expensive for what I would receive. I understand the cost of setup, but I'm not here to sponsor pentax. I want value for my money. "Holga" well you can pick one up for less than £ 50 and you will learn more. The argument for old cameras are going to fail, doesn't ring true. There are loads of cameras for sub £250 that will be better in every way. You can service a large proportion of them for less that £150. I own everything from holga to leica, there value for money is different for each. But this pentax is not a good value item. If you must have half frame and new. Look at the lomo lcwide. I thought this was an over priced item. But compared to the pentax it's a bargain. Does the and half frame, meters for exposure and is some focus.
Well said. wish the value was there but...
Hipsters buy it, photographers buy a mint FM2 for the same price
They should have made a better looking box at least.
👍🏻
In such videos, those that praise the product to the skies are more successful. When I saw the camera for the first time, I was curious to know how much it cost and it's just an overpriced toy for me.
i wouldn't consider it a real camera. a poor rehash of 80's half frame, 110 format and spy cameras of that era. diffacult to print with even with a cone to move the focal lenght of the lens closer to the film. i spended 15 years in the commercial printing labs of midtown. it takes more time to reproduce a print. is there going to be an option of lenes to match the needs of the camera line.
This is something like Lomo LC-A. Shitty camera with shitty lens, with which you can make some amazing photos, but majority of them will be bad or questionable.
But hipsters will love this.
Indeed. You will get some “keepers”
zone focus and the god awful battery screw placement are deal breakers at that price point
That weird screw 🤷🏻♂️
Sir, did you just say that the screw that holds the battery in the camera is a deal breaker for you? Come on bro.
Yup. Looks terrible. Don’t like it 🤷🏻♂️
Yes agree. Would go for a good quality used Pen F/FT/FV instead for less than that price and you get interchangeable lenses and full control. And if you really want lo-fi go for 110 (pentax auto110) or a holga. Perhaps the best bet is to wait for the upcoming Rollei.
The Rollie does look promising!
I have trouble taking 36 frames.
Same here 😂 firing off junk frames to finish up a roll cause I can’t wait to develop…
Buy shorter film, like 24/48 frames.
@@ivarnordlkken8082 seriously thinking about only buying 24 frame film for my 35mm cameras. I have about 30 rolls of 36 exposure to go through first.
Absolutely NO! Next question please.
Plastic body and fixed lens for $500 is way to expensive. Buy a 90´s Nikon or Canon autofocus camera instead, and save 350 bucks for film/chemicals
What is that 30-40 rolls of decent film?
I'll be waiting for the Rollei35AF
That does sound very promising. A bit more maybe but also more capable
Extremely high price
@@platino536 Kinda like everything these days. I do not even mind the price… I just don’t see the value.
Expensive low rez snapshots. Not something I would wont.
The low rez kills it for me
All new cameras and fat lenses are OVER Priced! Mirrorless have no pentaprism, some no actual shutter, all seem to have more plastic.. Kodak started 1/2 frame, in a today brownie. 1/2 frame can be great! So you save film! Big deal. I used Olympus Pen-S professionaly a long time ago! I don't go back..
An old canon eos budget film camera will have better functionality. Not sure why these companies dont simply dust off their old designs and rebuild them. This camera is a complete non starter at that price....half frame?? Seriously
ew brother ew what's that brother ???? wait - it's a toy camera at an exorbitant price so the hipsters think they're buying something extremely cool
Unfortunately too expensive for what you get.
The value really is not there unfortunately
$500 for the Pentax 17 !!! You are JOKING, right !? It is a STUPID camera in 2024 !
I don't see a bight future for this camera. Too expensive and too weird. I don't see a real target audience for it. I still think they should have build a new solid medium format camera. Yes it would have been more expensive - but I'm convinced there is a bigger target audience for medium film format which would actually buy and use a new film camera.
Very valid point. If the remade the 67. I would be buying one for sure…
I think this was a good "dip the toes in the water" camera for Pentax. Feel out the market. Given the very strong sales the camera has already gotten (Pentax said a few days ago they are shutting down orders because the demand far outstripped their planned supply) I would say it has a good future. Pentax already stated they have a roadmap for future film cameras if this one does well - so hopefully that is the case. I would love a new medium format camera, but I understand why they chose a 35mm for the 17.
@@Distphoto Me too 🙂
Using an inflation calculator a brand new Pentax 67ii would cost around $5000 for the body alone in 2024. Plus you would have to add the cost to manufacture it would be even higher since Pentax would be nearly starting from scratch. If they did remake the 67 people would still be complaining about the price.
@@sdcorrey good point, but at least the camera would be worth the money. Would then be deciding between Mamiya 7 or NEW Pentax 🤷🏻♂️ but of course people would still complain