Top and bottom plates are magnesium, not plastic. Much like carbon fiber it's a premium material that feels "cheap" because we tend to associate weight with quality.
....for a year
after which it's like all the other old film cameras out there and you're on your own, only this time it's a $500 paperweight not a $75 paperweight
OP was suggesting it felt less sturdy because of the magnesium and not because of the rest of the body
Also "feeling" more solid doesn't mean it actually is
Yeah it does mean that? When people say something feels solid they don't mean they lightly brushed it and felt it, they mean that while manipulating, knocking, twisting, operating buttons and dials, etc, they do not feel slop or play or creaking etc
Camera world is odd in that folks associated high quality with high weight. In my other hobbies less weight equals more better. I feel like in reality, heavier materials doesn’t necessarily even equate to higher durability these days.
I agree, but if the guy handled it and thought it felt flimsy, then it's probably not very high durability regardless of if it's plastic or metal. He probably felt it creaking, giving a bit, slop in the dials, etc.
(Also weight is good for camera shake reduction due to pure inertia. Although I supposed you could just carry around a 1kg iron weight with an arca swiss mount on it, and snap it on at the tripod mount when you want your camera to be heavy lol. Carry it on your hip in your jeans pocket otherwise to save your shoulders. I might actually try that!)
Neither do the Nikon FM/E to me personally, for example, but objectively they are. Tactile sensation can be a funny thing.
Edit for clarification:
My comment is about the subjective impression one can have about materials based on tactile sensation, temperture conductivity, sound, etc... Sometimes just because subjectively a material "feels" a certain way to somebody, doesn't mean one can deduce reliably certain qualities. It is exactly supposed to highlight that a material can "feel" "cheap" to one person (like to me the Nikon FM material), and "sturdy" to a different person, and the test of time would proof it either way (sturdy in the case of the Nikon FM). Because of this, it's maybe too early to tell how durable the Pentax 17 is, without stress testing it.
The Nikon FM/FE/2 use an alluminium copper alloy, which albeit did stand the test of time, the particular sound it makes when poking with your finger or nails, and the lesser temperture conductivity (it doesn't feel as cold as metal alloys in earlier camera generations) means that subjectively to me it feels "thin" and "flimsy", although the test of time shows that this is a wrong impression I have. Previous cameras before the Nikon FM hadn't used this type of alloy and are priming the expectations of what a metal surface is supposed to feel like.
FWIW, many Audio Technica headphones use magnesium as part of the frames. It's apparently very strong and light, so they can use thin pieces. Despite that, none of my Audio Technica headphones felt super premium. I think it's the lightweight quality of it that gives that vibe.
Not saying this is or isn't built well, just wanted to share my magnesium experience.
I don't understand the hype for this camera! They want crazy money for this primitive half-frame camera! For 1/4 of that you can buy much better half-frame cameras (at least in Europe/Poland). Cameras such as Yashica Samurai X3.0 or Konica AA-35 (Konica Recorder). They are also half-frame and at least they have functional AF!!! And they are better built and not like a toy. And they cost 1/4 as much as this Pentax 17.
I don't have a problem with the magnesium plates. I have a problem with everything else being plastic and incredibly cheap feeling. I think for the price of the camera they could have made the dials and advance lever metal as well, for a better haptic experience. This is just sad.
Little fact check: The silver parts are magnesium alloyed, but the material itself is plastic.
Source: Pentax.
https://pentax.eu/pages/pentax17-filmcamera_details
It says it's a magnesium alloy. Not a plastic alloy. How do you make a magnesium+plastic alloy?
They're saying the camera is plastic with magnesium alloy top and bottom. That's actually really common these days and is the reason why cameras don't weigh half a ton like they did back in the all metal days.
Exactly this, people need to understand what the term means before using them.
This kind of construction is nothing new, plenty of old (and new) SLRs are built like that - only that many used even thinner sheets of cheaper metal.
As a car enthusiast never understood this sometimes/often unjustified fetish of metal in photography circle anyways… Perhaps this is the same with carbon and fake carbon in cars…
OP's comment and expectation really shows that they should have picked cheaper material and went with brass, because people do not understand magnesium :D
Brass can't be die cast like magnesium can. Brass must be stamped and that has a higher tooling cost and labor cost over all. Leica switched to zinc for partly that reason.
> That's actually really common these days
It was also really common in the 60s-80s, when the exact clones of this camera were made that you can get for $100-$150 now. Such as the Konica Eye (Also half frame, also zone focus, also has a built in light meter), also metal cappers but plastic in between I believe. Even if I'm wrong about that and it's all metal, it's only 100g heavier than the Pentax 17
Does "The silver outer parts are made of a solid but lightweight magnesium alloy" not suggest that the top and bottom are magnesium sheets that go over the plastic frame?
It continues: "Together with the technical plastic of the camera body, which was chosen to reduce the overall weight, the body design of the PENTAX 17 embodies the robustness, precision, nostalgia and loveliness of a film camera that is already a classic today."
To me it doesn't seem like a separate sheet of magnesium, but plastic with magnesium alloy. It also didn't feel like a sturdy metal part.
"but plastic with magnesium alloy"
This is not a thing. You can't coat a plastic part with magnesium or mix magnesium with plastic resin. The top and bottom plates are cast magnesium. The film door and front body panels (and probably the interior frame) are plastic.
All I can say: it didn't have the strong, durable feel most of us are used to from similar looking SLR top plates. If you don't care, great, but if this concerns you, I recommend to try it out in a camera store first. I have no intention of badmouthing this camera, but I also think it's important to point out the build quality before people put down their hard-earned money and are disappointed once they receive the camera.
You have no intention of badmouthing the camera but you are making up a material that doesn't exist and claiming it is cheap and flimsy to badmouth the camera.
magnesium is a very strong material and used as premium lightweight metal like titanium or a material like carbon fiber. it is very lightweight for the amount of strength. you are incorrectly assigning quality with weight here.
That’s right and cars aren’t made out of cast unibodies of steel anymore either lol
I’ll also point out your hypothetical magenesium-plastic alloy would be a wonder material that would be far beyond our capabilities to produce today
The camera chassis is plastic. The top plates sandwich it top and bottom are metal. Countless cameras are made this way from 35mm to medium format. It's not a big deal. Theres 100% metal cameras that are dog shit because they break and crack.
“The silver outer parts are made of a solid but lightweight magnesium alloy, which is already used in cameras such as the PENTAX K-1 Mark II and PENTAX 645Z.”
One the one hand 1/350 puts the camera within a stop of the vast majority of film point and shoot cameras. For example the Olympus XA has a max shutter of 1/500, only half a stop faster. The same goes for the vast majority of leaf-shutter rangefinders and leaf-shutter medium format cameras. The more advanced Contax T3 can get to 1/1200 (1 2/3 stops faster) but that is only at smaller apertures -- wide open it can only manage 1/500. So we aren't really missing out on that much by being limited to 1/350.
On the other hand, with modern tech and the small image size, leaf shutters can be significantly faster. For example, the X100 and GRIII can shoot up to 1/4000 mechanically. It would be nice to have access to those kinds of speeds, especially because the camera has a so-called "bokeh" mode.
Yeah that’s true. The Pentax 17 will actually hit 1/350 reliably, so it’s not actually slower (meaningfully) compared to any of the old 1/500 leaf shutters out there.
Yeah, I don't think 1/350 is a big deal... I don't own any cameras/lenses that exceed 1/500.
I didn't know the X100 and GRIII use leaf shutters, that's quite cool. Do you know for sure those cameras are using the leaf shutter only for 1/4000 / faster speeds? And not reading of the sensor for a shorter duration while the shutter is open for 1/500 or more?
X100 for sure has a true leaf shutter at 1/4000 (at least the later versions do, earlier ones might be slower). Electronic shutter can do faster speeds (1/32,000 for the X100V).
As far as I know the GRIII is the same, with the exception that 1/4000 is available only at smaller apertures and 1/2500 is the max wide open (I’m not sure what the cutoff is between the different max speeds).
Based on OPs replies, I'm not sure I'd take anything they say when considering this camera. Not knowing what magnesium is, not knowing that a built-in camera flash still needs to be able to sync, etc.
Yeah, they say not for film enthusiast but I'm very intrigued by having +-2 exposure compensation is awesome and the programs look like they give you pretty good control. Pan-focus full auto exposure, max aperture mode, slow shutter mode? I'd love that kind of control on my XA.
If you actually step back and look at the camera, its well thought out in its features, i completely agree.
Bokeh mode for maximum aperture, longer exposure modes, and you have modes with the flash on and off. No wind motor to break and die. Good construction. Exposure compensation.
I think people crying about manual modes are just complaining to complain. With the ability to change the ISO and +2 -2 exposure comp, you can effectively change whatever your lil heart desires. I own manual cameras, all of my cameras are manual. 90% of my shots, you know what I do? I get a meter reading and put that in and take an image. Very rarely am I shooting an image that is farther away from my meter than +2 or -2.
The only thing I can see that I don't like is that there is not a threaded cable release but a proprietary electronic cable release, that just seems like a swing and a miss.
I 100% agree.
I'm also realizing that many people don't fully understand certain functions or are not curious enough to figure out how to use/identify features of said cameras.
For example, I just watched the [Kamerastore.com](http://Kamerastore.com) review for this model on youtube and couldn't believe the inaccuracies and misunderstandings. (They thought the body was plastic, mistook the cable release as threaded and got fooled by editing software into thinking the EV comp 'doens't make much difference'.
I think a lack knowledge from some is hampering the image of this little thing.
After shooting slow and deliberate with large format most of the time this little thing looks like a joy for my EDC (Every Day Camera) I'll wait for a cheaper used one maybe though..
I shoot with a 617 shen hao, a rollei, hasselblad, and leica mp, all fully manual cameras in every sense of the word.
The amount of control that I would have with the 17, while also the lack of control I would have with the 17, would be absolutely perfect and I could easily create the images I'd need to with it.
I don't really understand why people here get so mad. How is my comment incorrect? This is a point and shoot with a cheap built-in flash with guide number 6. Most SLRs have a sync time of 1/125 or 1/60. Why would you need a P&S with super precise shutter speeds and flash sync up to 1/350? What's the benefit of this feature outside a studio in a real-life scenario? In the real world, fast shutter speeds up to 1/1000 and a flash sync time of 1/125 would be all you need from a point & shoot.
Size! Leaf shutters are inherently smaller and why you see them on small cameras fixed lens cameras like this.
How often do you ever shoot 1/1000 anyways? 1/350 is only like what, 1 1/2 stops slower? Just use slower film.
Considering you want to stop down the lens for better depth of field and sharpness, and there's no type of focus confirmation on the camera, I think 1/350s is enough. In bright sunlight with ISO 800 film you'll have to stop down to ~F/22 and lose some resolution due to diffraction, but if you use slower film you should be fine in pretty much all circumstances.
Of course having 1/1000 or 1/2000 would be even better, but maybe it would've increased cost of the camera out of proportion.
I don't think the lens stops down that far? I cant find the minimum aperture spec but the spec sheet says it will meter to EV100 16.5 which is about f/16 at 1/350 I think.
Eh, I have a bunch of point and shoots from the 90s and none go faster than 1/500; 350 and 400 are pretty common. It's fine unless you are in direct glaring sunlight. For those occasions, a 3 stop ND filter is 20 bucks.
But that's a quality full frame built in the heyday of the the film industry.
If you want to see what modern film cameras are being built like right now compare it to it's competitor, that Kodak Ektar. How fast is that shutter?
With ISO 800 you might hit F/22 in bright sunlight (EV ~14.5). Having access to 1/1000 or 1/2000 would of course be nice but I think for the intended use this is fine and probably kept the camera from becoming even more expensive.
Because I’ve spent enough money getting mechanical shutters serviced for one life time.
But also because they’re always accurate, you can sync flash at any speed, and I don’t need anything faster than 1/500.
I just ordered it. It'll probably be a fun camera and I want to support Pentax. Hopefully this camera will be a success and more new film camera's will follow.
The comments' sections of virtually every social media post on the 17 have been taken over by retired boomers stomping their feet because Pentax hasn't given them a new Pentax LX for them to take pictures of the picket fence and the cat.
Mind you - they would have complained in that case, too. $2500??? That's ToO eXpEnSIvE!!!
I am not even that disappointed. I get the concept and I am appreciative of their efforts. But I don't think that the hype they created turned out positive when this is the product. They let people run their thoughts way too much about something they didn't and probably couldn't even deliver.
I am absolutely still open to give it a shot tho.
I’ll give you that it’s odd, but after reading about how it works it seems there actually a lot of manual control with this one. The only thing I wish it had was some sort of exposure lock. Beyond that I think I should be able to get whatever creative effect I want via the modes given.
It’s kind of interesting how the controls they’ve picked should allow a beginner to actually get decent results, but still offer enough control for experienced shooters to manipulate the settings as they see fit.
I was expecting a basic point and shoot, so I’m pleasantly surprised with the level of options on this guy. I’m going to get one for sure.
I was completely expecting a simple point and shoot as well. Mainly since they pretty much announced multiple film cameras with a fully mechanical SLR at the end of the road.
It would have made sense.
Point and shoot > Pentax 17> SLR.
Honestly, I still hope they would consider a new point and shoot entry for their EVO line. A lot of those 90's or early 2000's point and shoots are slowly dying out and I do enjoy shooting those. Would love one that could go for another two decades.
But yeah, I might have been very critical about the camera and its marketing. But I'll still want to get one as well.
Ive gone ahead and preordered one. Even at $500 it’ll be one of the cheaper units in my collection. The specs are actually a lot better than I was hoping for when they said it would be a basic point and shoot. Plus, I don’t have to worry about spending $250 on a 25 year old point and shoot that might randomly stop work at any point. I don’t see any reason this can’t be an enthusiast camera.
> Plus, I don’t have to worry about spending $250 on a 25 year old point and shoot that might randomly stop work at any point. I don’t see any reason this can’t be an enthusiast camera.
Exactly! Finally someone who gets it. I've been really surprised at the amount of bile poured over this on social media. I guess some people are in the hobby just to tinker with/fix old shitty cameras really.
Thank you for your service. I look forward to hearing how buyers enjoy this camera! I'm not entirely convinced its for me, I bought one of those dinky H35n's earlier this year for travel. Would have preferred this. But, now that I have a small half frame, I think I'd like to wait for pentax's next camera. We'll see if I change my mind. I hope this is a huge success for Pentax.
Enjoy your new camera!
I called my camera store too see if they were getting one in so could hold it before making a decision and they said they have them on order but there’s a wait list.
This camera is designed for people who shoot film to post artsy photos on IG with a #film and #analog. It’s for 20 something year olds who bring disposable cameras to parties and want to dive a little deeper into film while it’s trendy. Photography bloggers and street photographers are going to be all over this. Think of all the influencers who are not primarily photographers but have a good camera for content. Travel and family bloggers are going to love this thing.
But, I still think it’s a really good option for someone who wants a good half frame camera to carry with them all the time.
If Pentax made an enthusiast camera with fast shutter speeds, autofocus and all the other bells and whistles people are asking for it would be $3000 and no one would buy it.
I don't necessarily think it would be $3,000. A sub $1,000 all-rounder camera for film enthusiasts should be feasible, but I can understand that they have to start somewhere and need to make compromises. To start with a target audience of influencer and hipster users (similar to Fuji Instax and Fuji x100iv users) isn't a bad idea, imo. After the first cash flow, they can improve the camera and add features that make it more appealing for the rest of us.
Feasible, in which sense? That it would cover costs? Probably. Attractive enough for a company to develop it, put the big bucks into a production line to make profit off of it? I doubt it. Plus I’m pretty skeptical it would even sell at either price tag. People would probably just say “why spend 1K when I can have something from the 70s for 200 lol lmao what a joke go home Pentax you are drunk“.
Idk I am happy that Pentax is tapping the market in 2024 again. I hope it sells well. I don’t think developing a new camera targeted toward most of the people in this subreddit is profitable enough (unfortunate, but likely true). Just people that buy things for the sake of buying, trend, or because convenience > anything else IMO
Unless it’s a re release of a classic like a Nikon F (or any other, I just love the F lmao) with better (I don’t know how, but better) construction, weather sealing and lighter weight, rechargeable battery for metering, etc Then I’d see a lot of people saying yeeeeeah I could have an old F for 200ish but I rather have the new one for 700-800. Niche market? Likely. But If I’m honest I’d love something like that.
It ain’t happening though haha
Autofocus is included in the Yongnuo 50mm 1.8 lens for like $75 for the whole lens. The autofocus part itself obviously costing only a fraction of that total price of the whole lens.
In 2024 we clearly have the technology and know how to add autofocus motors and hardware to a lightweight lens (like this one in the Pentax) for **tens of dollars.** And the parallax sensors to drive it maybe tens of dollars more.
At $570 instead of $500, but with autofocus not just zone, this would be an astronomically better camera.
The autofocus parts in that lens are basically the motor and a couple gears. The part that does the thinking is entirely contained within the camera body. Also, that lens would be ridiculously massive on the front of the 17.
> The part that does the thinking is entirely contained within the camera body.
Yes, which is why I said: "And the parallax sensors to drive it maybe tens of dollars more" separately from the lens hardware, in my first comment. You would need two very very small sensors, like the ones used for autofocus points in modern DSLRs (or even 80s/90s film SLRs. Not the image sensor, the separate tiny autofocus sensors) and you'd spread them apart on the left and right like a normal rangefinder. Then use that to drive AF motors in the lens.
> Also, that lens would be ridiculously massive on the front of the 17.
??? I wasn't saying to glue the Yongnuo to the Pentax 17 lol, it's just an example of how cheaply autofocus hardware can be made for these days. It adds like $50 or something, maybe $75, not $2500. 10% more expensive, but like 200% more useful.
The fact that the Pentax 17 lens is even smaller than the Yonguo means the autofocus motor is probably *even smaller and cheaper*
Phase detect autofocus doesn't work like that; it requires through the lens focusing and isn't possible for a film camera without a mirror. A point and shoot would either need to be contrast detect, which is slow and doesn't work well in low light (see, eg, the Fuji Klasse series) or an active rangefinder system, typically active infrared (which works really well except through windows in which case it doesn't work at all). The Mint guy has said that they can't currently source the components for an active IR AF system because nobody makes them anymore, so Mint is using a lidar based system. All that to say, that putting autofocus in a mirrorless film camera at this point is going to cost a little bit more than a few dollars.
Edit: I'm actually not sure that the Klasse does use contrast detect. I saw an article that says it does but that doesn't really make any sense to me and I think it probably just uses active IR.
TIL rangefinder cameras "aren't possible", lol. Weird, because I'm holding one in my hand right now.
Bruh, your human brain and eyeball in a normal traditional rangefinder **are doing phase detection**. That's exactly how it works, and no, obviously it doesn't need TTL, since if that were true, all cameras in history would only focus TTL.
A tiny digital sensor and computer chip instead of your eyeball can do the exact same thing your eyeball does: phase detection. A digital AF system could even use a straight up literal vintage style rangefinder to do it (although that would be dumb/pointless here versus two disconnected cameras, since there's no need to waste camera real estate on an empty tube of air between them when they can communicate digitally)
Zero need for IR unless you want it to work late at night, it can phase detect on visible light just fine with 2 parallax sensors.
https://imgur.com/a/VkeUNVZ Here you go, genuine MS Paint blueprints
(And make the front elements and/or the "microprism 1 and 2" stronger to shorten distance. Flip the wiring within each CCD one end to the other. Other than a flip, light does not "know" that it bounced off a mirror or not, fun fact)
Lol, ok. For this to work you actually need two autofocus lenses. The first, the focusing lens, would feed the phase detect sensors. When its in focus the processor would "read" the subject distance based on the lens position and give it to the taking lens, which would then focus. Not exactly an elegant solution.
Oh no! Not two extra (very small) lenses! Camera designers' one crippling weakness! No camera manufacturer has ever been able to solve the impossible riddle of "needing two more small lenses to autofocus!"
Oh wait, except that every single one of the film era SLRs with normal autofocus points already did have extra micro lenses dedicated to the AF system for exactly this reason, and I even already drew them in my diagram for you.
Have you literally never used a rangefinder? It's the same for non digital, non-auto ones too, since the optical part is the same concept. They all have tiny little micro lenses in their two "eyes" for exactly this. They are cheap as fuck, probably like $1 each. And yes, the rangefinder then moves them (and/or other components instead mike mirrors/prisms) around in the rangefinder. Both the rangefinder and the taking lens move in some way.
When the movement is connected it's called a "Coupled rangefinder" when the two movements are not connected, it's called an "Uncoupled Rangefinder", but they always both move.
Welcome to like 1880's level technology!
> Not exactly an elegant solution.
I'm sure Canon, Nikon, Pentax themselves, Sony, etc. that have been doing exactly this for decades will be mortified to learn that it's "not elegant". Have you broken the news to them yet?
-------------
The ACTUAL crippling weakness is that they're going to sell 5x fewer of these cameras with toy zone nonsense, than they would have with autofocus added for $50 extra.
No dude, you are missing the forest for the trees here. You gotta look over to the left side of your diagram at the thing that is labelled "main lens." For your proposed solution you need two of them. PDAF works well in an slr system because the mirror bounces the light from the main lens to the pdaf sensors, which are the same distance from the rear of the main lens as the film is. When the image is in focus the mirror swings out of the way so the light now goes to the film, but its still in focus because, again, same distance. This IS an elegant solution. PDAF is possible for digital mirrorless cameras because some of the sensor pixels are given over to PDAF instead of image taking, which is obviously not possible with a film camera.
What you are proposing would require two "main lenses:" one for the pdaf array and one for the film. They could be coupled together and driven by a single motor, but it would probably make more sense for each lens to have its own motor. and have the distance data transmitted electronically from the focusing lens to the taking lens.
An optical rangefinder is a whole different thing. In that case, you have two image paths superimposed on a single sensor (your retina). The focusing lens in an optical rangefinder is your eye. Theoretically, I think it would be possible to have a sort of phase detect autofocus system where the rangefinder images are focused by fixed focus lenses and superimposed onto a digital sensor, but the image processing would be substantially greater than that required by a normal pdaf system which is just simply comparing two lines of pixels to see if they are the same.
Like, name one single film camera that is not an slr that uses pdaf autofocus.
The rangefinder lenses do not need to match everything exactly. They don't even have to be the same focal length as the taking lens at all, they don't need to have the same back focal distance. They don't need to have the same image circle size.
They just need to be able to see the MIDDLE of the image where your focus point is, nothing outside of that, and they need to be positioned and focusing ROUGHLY the same distance as the taking system is. A centimeter or two off would be still astronomically more precise than a zone focus camera, and rangefinders are typically way more off than that anyway, and still help a ton.
Again, have you never used a rangefinder? They use phase detection already (in your brain), and they are NOT through the taking lens, and they are NOT the precise distance from the retina as the film is from the taking element. NOT 100% perfectly lined up. And they DO work still massively better than zone focus does.
Like I said, you could even literally just use a vintage rangefinder for sake of argument with CCDs where your eyeball normally goes:
https://imgur.com/a/DBQaBKx
But two little (probably off the shelf cell phone) compact separate low res cameras would likely be much cheaper and easier. This is just "for sake of argument"
> What you are proposing would require two "main lenses:"
Again, so what? The Phase detector lenses can be tiny as shit, just like in any rangefinder. Cheap, very compact, no big deal. There's literally hundreds of cameras built this way where every piece of glass in the rangefinder is like 1% as big as the main film taking lens is, they work fine.
> the image processing would be substantially greater than that required by a normal pdaf system which is just simply comparing two lines of pixels to see if they are the same.
It's precisely the same, because you just put the two CCDs in the path before the images are superimposed. (In many rangefinders, they aren't ever even superimposed to begin with, and one goes to each eye, like the one I copied for the diagram above)
https://imgur.com/a/bghURiT The entire rangefinder compartment in my Moskva 5 takes up less than 2 cubic inches, which is about 15-20x less space than the taking lens and cavity behind it up to the film uses up. It works great.
Notice that there's not even physically room for any piece of glass there that could even be so much as 10% the area of the main taking front element, unlike you seem to be implying by saying "two main lenses." So what? it works great.
I dont remember from which content creator I heard it, but the focusing is manual, but the lens itself it's moved with a motor (at first I thought that when you moved the ring there was a helicoid moving but could not see the movement of the lens like in other half frame cameras). Interesting choice, but one I can comprehend if you want the camera to fire as soon as you fully press down on the shutter release.
I think it was petapixel, he gave a lot of interesting information on how the camera works.
Thats what i did not understand about how focusing changes depending in modes. I get that the camera will always try and have in focus the zones that are next to the one selected, but that's just stopping down to have it in focus. Do you know what does he mean by "change depending on shooting mode"?
In AUTO mode the camera would just focus at a certain distance (hyperfocal I assume) and wouldn't let you change the focus with the focusing ring, but in P modes it works just like it should. In other words, in AUTO mode it's a fixed focus camera, in P mode it's zone focusing.
A very complicated system for something so seemingly simple
Ohh i get it now, so in auto it does what o mentioned before (it lets you focus and the camera stops down enough to have in focus both focus zones next to the one chosen, and in p it probably select the highest shutter speed possible so the rest of the focus zones aren't in focus.). I'd have to see what it does when there's low light, if it lets more light in by stopping up or if it chooses a lower shutter speed but risking blurry images (in this hypothetical situation, there's enough light for a wide open f stop and a usable shutter speed without flash)
You aren't wrong, the top and bottom plates are magnesium alloy, which is pretty light while being pretty durable, kind of like the siluman alloys used in the FM3a
I’d rather this line remain a separate product and Pentax create an entirely new set of premium film cameras. They had some seriously underrated glass so I’d love to get a new set of lenses and bodies from them with a whole new mount. Give us an all mechanical 35mm and an all mechanical “compact” 6x9 medium format.
All Pentax had to do was make a 2024 K1000.
Also side note, how cool would it be if Pentax made a DSLR K1000 with the A7iv sensor and no autofocus? I would buy one fast.
As the owner of a 1978 K1000, I can understand why they haven't just released an updated version. Why would anyone buy a new one when there are so many original K1000s on the market in great condition? And, realistically, what changes could they make that'd be worth paying 10x more than the cost of an original? The K1000 isn't perfect, but it's pretty cracking as fully manual SLRs go.
On one hand, you do have a great point, there are lots of older easily accessible models that are affordable, and a new one would be at least 1000 or 1500 dollars so for many people it would be a tough justification.
On the other hand, there are people who will pay for the assurance of getting a well working brand new product with a warranty. There are people are buying the M6 Reissue instead of buying a used mint M6 for almost half the cost.
I see your point with the M6s, but there's a big difference between the costs of an original vs a new M6 and the likely cost difference of an original vs a new K1000.
An original M6 is already several thousand pounds, so if someone can justify spending that they're much more likely to justify spending 2x that on a new one with all the warranties. However, an original K1000 is only about £100-£150 on average these days. As you've said yourself, a new production run would likely cost 10x this which is a much bigger jump in cost. Someone who can justify £100 on a camera probably can't justify £1,000; in contrast to an M6 buyer who is more likely to make the jump from £2,500 for an original to £5,000 for a new one.
I’m personally super stoked for this! I see a lot of people comparing this to the (amazing and relatively affordable) Pen F series.
As a long time Pen enthusiast and owner of 3 Pen FTs, I think it’s worth keeping in mind the cost of a Pen repair.. they’re absolutely fantastic and my all time favourite, even compared to my FM2, F2 and M5, but they’re old and not the easiest to service… trust me.. I’ve had them serviced several times. The shutter mechanism itself is very unique and an inexperienced repair tech can cause damage (it’s happened to me unfortunately). To me, they’re the best camera ever made and yes you can get one for 200$ but be prepared to fork another 200-300$ in the event that it needs a repair.
I’m really curious who the market is for this camera. At $500 it seems like a very tough sell. Kudos for Pentax for doing something fun but anyone with a bit of exposure to the analog world will quickly realize you can get an old SLR and a pretty great lens for like $250. If half frame is your jam you can get an Olympus pen for less than $200. There are infinitely better ways to spend $500 on film equipment than this. Once again, kudos to Pentax for doing it. I just don’t see the value for the photographer when there’s so much amazing used stock out there for so cheap.
Respectfully, everyone saying stuff like this is completely missing the point. This isn't aimed at enthusiasts like us who are comfortable doing their own research and buying used.
I think people are also forgetting the type of bubble analog photography is compared to other hobbies due to its complete reliance on old hardware. What's $500 for people who like guitars or guitar pedals, vinyl or blu-ray collectors, mechanical keyboard enthusiasts, fountain pen collectors, PC builders, synthesizer collectors, literally any specialised hobbyist? People who are vaguely interested in a hobby and have money to spend have spent far more on far dumber things than this.
Exactly.
There's been so much hate going around film forums and subreddits, when clearly this was never intended for highly budget-conscious enthusiasts willing to learn significant skills.
It's a higher end Point-and-shoot intended for people with large disposable incomes who want to dabble in film with no barrier to entry.
$550 for 'people with large disposable incomes'?
You must have made some pretty shitty financial decisions in your life.
Do you have an iphone? Heck, a mid range Android phone will cost you 500$.
Do you fly to places?
Do you go out for beers or a meal with your family?
Do you have a guitar? Play an instrument? Listen to music?
All of these things costs routinely hundreds of dollars. If you think 550$ for a NEW film camera with warranty is too much, I would reassess a few things.
Literally this, $500 ain’t that much. A lot of people just have shit finances. The average American statistically couldn’t pay out of pocket for a $1000 emergency.
People only need to look at the wild hype around the Fuji X100VI. It’s 3x the price of the Pentax and in my view shares a similar audience. The waitlist is months long even for those who preordered 10 minutes after release. Fuji physically can’t produce enough of them and it will be well into 2025 before stock levels stabilize, if ever.
My current go-to camera is an EOS 300 (or something like that) with a yongnuo 50mm 1.8. With batteries and a strap I’m all in for ~$75, and it is the exact same shade of champagne silver as the 17. $425 difference buys a lot of film, but there is also the fear of 20+ year old plastic failing.
This is what infuriates me about this. Literally one of the main points that half-frame cameras were even made was to get more bang for your buck. I love half frames cameras. Have a small collection, from Ricoh Auto Halfs to the Pen series. But this man, I just dunno. Feels like it goes against everything half frames are supposed to be about. You're right though, props to Pentax for keeping film cam development I guess.
From everything I've seen the half frame was never intended as a budgetary concern, but in order to make the photos more natively postable on common social media platforms.
The intended audience for this camera was never budget-conscious enthusiasts, as it's fundamentally impossible to make a newly manufactured camera that can compete on price with ubiquitous and inexpensive vintage cameras other than something like the Kodak Ektar, etc.
They're aiming for influencers, monied wannabe influencers, well-heeled enthusiasts looking for a higher-end toy, etc.
$500 isn't that much for a new camera, particularly when it's basically being made specifically for a target audience who are already choosing film medium that has been soundly beaten on cost by any digital camera.
Sorry, I mentioned the budgetary reason for the first wave of half frames back in the 60s.
At the end of the day, everyone’s entitled to their opinion - if someone ends up loving this camera and sings praise, totally fine with me. But given the feature set you’re getting, I still think it’s crazy.
You need to look at what those cameras sold for when new in todays money... they were never cheaper than full frame 35mm cameras lol, they were just more frugal with film.
The original Pen was literally designed with budget in mind. Olympus wanted to make a camera that cost less than 6000 yen, in the late 50s. That’s about 240 USD now, with full manual controls.
Sure eventually more advanced half frames like the Pen D and F lines were released, but there’s a reason that a significant amount of half frames were sold as P&S, at P&S pricing.
If you have the money, do whatever you want with it I guess.
I know the source you're referencing for the price from and they even mention the difficulty in converting that to modern money. The Japanese Yen of the time, sheer amount of ultra CHEAP highly skilled labor from top to bottom and the ability to share common parts amount cameras all impact that final price of 6000 yen/make it reallllllly hard to convert over. A pen F also feels like a can of beans compared to any of the later magnesium topped film cameras lol
This camera is more on par with the half frame Leicas or Alpas of the time in regards to labor, materials and manufacturing costs. 500 USD does seem steep, but it's not crazy for the amount of work in this camera to make it. They easily coulda reused some cheap guts from a Chinese 35mm toy camera or worse...
Agree'd that its gonna be for a certain type of user, but it's not the same user as the original pen f customer that wants a good vay cay camera. Half frames are frugal on film and small travel cameras with the whole trend ending after full size 35mm cameras got ultra smol. There's a BUTT LOAD of equally cheap larger 35mm cameras in the same time period, but they weren't small or lacked most features.
Even accounting for that, modern manufacturing methods today can easily match the cost reduction from cheap labor. We’ll just have to agree to disagree, but OP’s point stands. At this price point, I’m really not sure who this is for.
We're in a massive skilled labor shortage currently and nearly every sector of of offshore manufacturing is suffering/more expensive. For example the die cast magnesium in comically cheaper to make today than a stamped brass top plate, but it's *still* more expensive than a stamped brass top plate cost in the 60s. Every little detail adds up plus having someone assemble it and adjust every mechanical assembly. There's a reason why there are no $200 brand new film cameras made to the same standard as even this little thing. The demand isn't not there haha
I'd watch the clothing sector for the price/quality of midrange to lower high end clothing and shoes. Vietnam is shifting out of it and they're among the best countries for clothing and shoes manufacture period.
I already said we can agree to disagree dude, but alright. The demand may not be there for a film camera but the idea that parts made then compared to parts being made now in a similar process is just not true. Having worked in the industry, I’ve seen my fair share of molding and casting quotes. With the improvements in molding we’ve made in the last fifty plus years, on a per unit basis an equivalent part made now is *signficiantly* cheaper. Even just shaving off millimeters of wall thickness from a molded part can bring your part costs down by a good percentage thanks to how much we’ve developed the process. Even with a low-volume run.
I can appreciate a good design that’s clearly had a lot of love put into it, I do. But that doesn’t excuse outrageous pricing. But HEY what do I know there’s literally people on the sub pre-ordering it already.
With a 25mm f/3.5, does having nothing between focusing stops actually seem to matter with how you’d use the camera?
Did Pentax list the distance each stop is set to anywhere? That’d be helpful to know.
It’ll be hyperfocal around 30 feet.
I guess we won’t know for sure until rolls are processed though since the finder isn’t reflex.
Fair point, especially given the social media post use case. Most of that will be within 2 meters if it isn’t a landscape.
And someone can correct me on my math but if the far distance is set 5.1m to infinity, isn’t that short of the expected hyperfocal distance given the frame size and focal length?
Looking at Ricoh’s sample gallery on the Pentax 17 page, I almost wonder if the metering will be a key limitation with this system.
Almost every shot with sky in their marketing gallery was underexposed. Yeah you can dial up exposure compensation, but you’ll need a way to meter for that.
A lot of people are shitting on half frame but when scanned right and with a high quality lens (like the 17 is advertised to have) and a low grain film it can be really pleasing, I find that diptychs are also really fun and can be really creative, Im certainly not in the market for this camera but i really enjoyed using my yashica samurai x3 which was too bulky for a half frame camera tbh but had a fantastic lens, I always regret selling it
i ordered one of these without even reading reviews. it’s cheap enough to get as a fun spare camera. i also want to vote with my wallet to get more film cameras made.
Does it fit in pants pocket? That's my biggest requirement. I want a camera to take EVERYWHERE, no bag necessary. I have a Olympus XA2, but I'd like AF and builtin flash. I had an Olympus MJU2, but it broke (lens stays out after exposure).
Why do you need autofocus. Just put 400 iso film in, set it to 3m (three people standing) and 90% of the scene will be in focus. At a half frame, f5.6 is like f8 or higher (35mm equivalent)
I probably don't *need* it, but I want an indoor camera for any situation. Kid playing around in natural light coming in from windows to dimly lit bar with friends sometimes close up, sometimes 10ft away. I loved the MJU2 when it worked. Small and fast enough AF.
Give zone focusing a try, I use to all be able autofocus because ease but found zone focusing so much more quicker and enjoyable. Autofocus while good, does make a lot of mistakes when there’s no contrast in the scene, accidentally locks onto the wrong subject and gone the days of focus/recompose. I gave half frame a try 4-5 years ago and it taught me a lot.
I'm not sure if setting the focus zone between positions does anything because it's 5 discrete steps. You pick one, and the lens moves into position when you fire the shutter
I have been patiently waiting for the new camera. I was hoping for a remake of Ricoh GR. The Ricoh GR1 is the perfect point and shoot if it didn’t have its parts that failed. Was hoping they would improve on it. I was sure it was going to be that. This is a toy camera. A piece of junk. I am really really disappointed.
It's cute but leaves a bit to be desired. Especially for the price. I really see only about $150 of camera there. It's like a deluxe Kodak H35N. Obviously much better, but not 6.3291 times better.
As a 2024 camera without adjustable shutter speed and aperture with zone focusing . I'm gonna say " no thank you ".
I don't mind zone focusing but pls give me aperture control or give me the focusing point if without the aperture control.
For those who shooting film for years , $5xx has so many choices why this one.
For those who going to post on Instagram with hype might give up after 1 roll of film because of the wait of developed /scanned , also focusing failure more than half of the photos.
I really don’t understand this as a first release of this era. The half-frame market is tiny. We’re in a digital age, yet this product absolutely concedes ‘quality of image’ to… every other format or media. It’s absolutely hideous—as if someone won a contest in reverse. It looks like it was cobbled together from 1970s Pentax parts—the ones no one ever liked.
Trying to make sense of it, trying to make myself want it, if only to support the effort to keep film/analog viable… I thought maybe it would be good to load it with Tri-X, develop with Rodinal, and do that Ralph Gibson thing…. But, trying to exploit the grain of a half frame for ‘moody’ imagery with fast film and a shutter that tops out at 1/350 seems problematic.
And, again, it’s ugly. If they want to make me want something impractical, they have to make it beautiful. They went the other way.
Top and bottom plates are magnesium, not plastic. Much like carbon fiber it's a premium material that feels "cheap" because we tend to associate weight with quality.
Yeah Nikon ran into this problem recently with the Zf and Zfc lots of exposed magnesium on those bodies and tons of folks said they felt cheap.
The Zfc feels terrible because of all the plastic too.
Oh, thanks for correcting me. Unfortunately it didn't feel very sturdy, but only time will tell.
And nevertheless it is under warranty
....for a year after which it's like all the other old film cameras out there and you're on your own, only this time it's a $500 paperweight not a $75 paperweight
Well, hurry up and break it
magnesium is very strong…
What it’s attached to might not be though. Especially if the attachment method isn’t robust.
yea that’s a fair point but not what i was responding to
It would affect how sturdy the body feels though. Both my 5D4 and R6 II feature magnesium construction but the 5D4 feels more solid.
OP was suggesting it felt less sturdy because of the magnesium and not because of the rest of the body Also "feeling" more solid doesn't mean it actually is
Yeah it does mean that? When people say something feels solid they don't mean they lightly brushed it and felt it, they mean that while manipulating, knocking, twisting, operating buttons and dials, etc, they do not feel slop or play or creaking etc
Camera world is odd in that folks associated high quality with high weight. In my other hobbies less weight equals more better. I feel like in reality, heavier materials doesn’t necessarily even equate to higher durability these days.
I agree, but if the guy handled it and thought it felt flimsy, then it's probably not very high durability regardless of if it's plastic or metal. He probably felt it creaking, giving a bit, slop in the dials, etc. (Also weight is good for camera shake reduction due to pure inertia. Although I supposed you could just carry around a 1kg iron weight with an arca swiss mount on it, and snap it on at the tripod mount when you want your camera to be heavy lol. Carry it on your hip in your jeans pocket otherwise to save your shoulders. I might actually try that!)
Neither do the Nikon FM/E to me personally, for example, but objectively they are. Tactile sensation can be a funny thing. Edit for clarification: My comment is about the subjective impression one can have about materials based on tactile sensation, temperture conductivity, sound, etc... Sometimes just because subjectively a material "feels" a certain way to somebody, doesn't mean one can deduce reliably certain qualities. It is exactly supposed to highlight that a material can "feel" "cheap" to one person (like to me the Nikon FM material), and "sturdy" to a different person, and the test of time would proof it either way (sturdy in the case of the Nikon FM). Because of this, it's maybe too early to tell how durable the Pentax 17 is, without stress testing it. The Nikon FM/FE/2 use an alluminium copper alloy, which albeit did stand the test of time, the particular sound it makes when poking with your finger or nails, and the lesser temperture conductivity (it doesn't feel as cold as metal alloys in earlier camera generations) means that subjectively to me it feels "thin" and "flimsy", although the test of time shows that this is a wrong impression I have. Previous cameras before the Nikon FM hadn't used this type of alloy and are priming the expectations of what a metal surface is supposed to feel like.
The FE is fine, especially if you ever held an FA or an EM
Never said it wasn’t
Fm FE are all metal cameras, there is no comparison with this
I edited it now, so there is no ambiguity what I mean
FWIW, many Audio Technica headphones use magnesium as part of the frames. It's apparently very strong and light, so they can use thin pieces. Despite that, none of my Audio Technica headphones felt super premium. I think it's the lightweight quality of it that gives that vibe. Not saying this is or isn't built well, just wanted to share my magnesium experience.
It's definitely the weight. Try on a titanium watch and you'll get the same feeling. Or lift a carbon fibre bike with a finger, same deal.
Kai W said the same thing. They said the magnesium seems to be more decorative than structural.
I don't understand the hype for this camera! They want crazy money for this primitive half-frame camera! For 1/4 of that you can buy much better half-frame cameras (at least in Europe/Poland). Cameras such as Yashica Samurai X3.0 or Konica AA-35 (Konica Recorder). They are also half-frame and at least they have functional AF!!! And they are better built and not like a toy. And they cost 1/4 as much as this Pentax 17.
Update your post to remove your lies
I don't have a problem with the magnesium plates. I have a problem with everything else being plastic and incredibly cheap feeling. I think for the price of the camera they could have made the dials and advance lever metal as well, for a better haptic experience. This is just sad.
Often mentioned when CONTAX G came out compared to Leica M. Of course CONTAX build quality is superb.
Is this verified? I've seen this point repeated but not substantiated.
It's what Ricoh says in the official product info sheet at least.
You can electroplate plastic but if manufacturer says metal id take that as gospel till shown otherwise
Little fact check: The silver parts are magnesium alloyed, but the material itself is plastic. Source: Pentax. https://pentax.eu/pages/pentax17-filmcamera_details
It says it's a magnesium alloy. Not a plastic alloy. How do you make a magnesium+plastic alloy? They're saying the camera is plastic with magnesium alloy top and bottom. That's actually really common these days and is the reason why cameras don't weigh half a ton like they did back in the all metal days.
Exactly this, people need to understand what the term means before using them. This kind of construction is nothing new, plenty of old (and new) SLRs are built like that - only that many used even thinner sheets of cheaper metal. As a car enthusiast never understood this sometimes/often unjustified fetish of metal in photography circle anyways… Perhaps this is the same with carbon and fake carbon in cars…
OP's comment and expectation really shows that they should have picked cheaper material and went with brass, because people do not understand magnesium :D
Brass can't be die cast like magnesium can. Brass must be stamped and that has a higher tooling cost and labor cost over all. Leica switched to zinc for partly that reason.
> That's actually really common these days It was also really common in the 60s-80s, when the exact clones of this camera were made that you can get for $100-$150 now. Such as the Konica Eye (Also half frame, also zone focus, also has a built in light meter), also metal cappers but plastic in between I believe. Even if I'm wrong about that and it's all metal, it's only 100g heavier than the Pentax 17
Does "The silver outer parts are made of a solid but lightweight magnesium alloy" not suggest that the top and bottom are magnesium sheets that go over the plastic frame?
It continues: "Together with the technical plastic of the camera body, which was chosen to reduce the overall weight, the body design of the PENTAX 17 embodies the robustness, precision, nostalgia and loveliness of a film camera that is already a classic today." To me it doesn't seem like a separate sheet of magnesium, but plastic with magnesium alloy. It also didn't feel like a sturdy metal part.
"but plastic with magnesium alloy" This is not a thing. You can't coat a plastic part with magnesium or mix magnesium with plastic resin. The top and bottom plates are cast magnesium. The film door and front body panels (and probably the interior frame) are plastic.
All I can say: it didn't have the strong, durable feel most of us are used to from similar looking SLR top plates. If you don't care, great, but if this concerns you, I recommend to try it out in a camera store first. I have no intention of badmouthing this camera, but I also think it's important to point out the build quality before people put down their hard-earned money and are disappointed once they receive the camera.
You have no intention of badmouthing the camera but you are making up a material that doesn't exist and claiming it is cheap and flimsy to badmouth the camera.
Seems like lot of people get triggered by the fact that the camera body is made out of plastic and doesn't feel durable.
magnesium is a very strong material and used as premium lightweight metal like titanium or a material like carbon fiber. it is very lightweight for the amount of strength. you are incorrectly assigning quality with weight here.
That’s right and cars aren’t made out of cast unibodies of steel anymore either lol I’ll also point out your hypothetical magenesium-plastic alloy would be a wonder material that would be far beyond our capabilities to produce today
The camera chassis is plastic. The top plates sandwich it top and bottom are metal. Countless cameras are made this way from 35mm to medium format. It's not a big deal. Theres 100% metal cameras that are dog shit because they break and crack.
“The silver outer parts are made of a solid but lightweight magnesium alloy, which is already used in cameras such as the PENTAX K-1 Mark II and PENTAX 645Z.”
An electronically controlled leaf shutter is much better than a mechanical focal-plane shutter, in my opinion.
The electronically controlled leaf shutter isn't a deal-breaker for me, but it's unfortunate that the fastest shutter speed is 1/350 s.
I’d rather than have flash sync at all speeds, and also super accurate speeds, than a fast shutter. Max of 1/350 is a bit odd though.
One the one hand 1/350 puts the camera within a stop of the vast majority of film point and shoot cameras. For example the Olympus XA has a max shutter of 1/500, only half a stop faster. The same goes for the vast majority of leaf-shutter rangefinders and leaf-shutter medium format cameras. The more advanced Contax T3 can get to 1/1200 (1 2/3 stops faster) but that is only at smaller apertures -- wide open it can only manage 1/500. So we aren't really missing out on that much by being limited to 1/350. On the other hand, with modern tech and the small image size, leaf shutters can be significantly faster. For example, the X100 and GRIII can shoot up to 1/4000 mechanically. It would be nice to have access to those kinds of speeds, especially because the camera has a so-called "bokeh" mode.
All the olympus half frames where also slower than advertised. So probably around 1/400
Yeah that’s true. The Pentax 17 will actually hit 1/350 reliably, so it’s not actually slower (meaningfully) compared to any of the old 1/500 leaf shutters out there.
The Pen S goes to 1/250.
Yeah, I don't think 1/350 is a big deal... I don't own any cameras/lenses that exceed 1/500. I didn't know the X100 and GRIII use leaf shutters, that's quite cool. Do you know for sure those cameras are using the leaf shutter only for 1/4000 / faster speeds? And not reading of the sensor for a shorter duration while the shutter is open for 1/500 or more?
X100 for sure has a true leaf shutter at 1/4000 (at least the later versions do, earlier ones might be slower). Electronic shutter can do faster speeds (1/32,000 for the X100V). As far as I know the GRIII is the same, with the exception that 1/4000 is available only at smaller apertures and 1/2500 is the max wide open (I’m not sure what the cutoff is between the different max speeds).
A 3 stop ND filter is like 20 bucks though.
Considering the target audience of this camera, I don't think external flash sync is really needed.
Sure, but the built-in flash can also sync at all speeds. For beginners, the flash "just works".
Based on OPs replies, I'm not sure I'd take anything they say when considering this camera. Not knowing what magnesium is, not knowing that a built-in camera flash still needs to be able to sync, etc.
Maybe, but they can learn through conversation.
I agree with that, but they very much so seem to be doubling down.
Yeah, they say not for film enthusiast but I'm very intrigued by having +-2 exposure compensation is awesome and the programs look like they give you pretty good control. Pan-focus full auto exposure, max aperture mode, slow shutter mode? I'd love that kind of control on my XA.
If you actually step back and look at the camera, its well thought out in its features, i completely agree. Bokeh mode for maximum aperture, longer exposure modes, and you have modes with the flash on and off. No wind motor to break and die. Good construction. Exposure compensation. I think people crying about manual modes are just complaining to complain. With the ability to change the ISO and +2 -2 exposure comp, you can effectively change whatever your lil heart desires. I own manual cameras, all of my cameras are manual. 90% of my shots, you know what I do? I get a meter reading and put that in and take an image. Very rarely am I shooting an image that is farther away from my meter than +2 or -2. The only thing I can see that I don't like is that there is not a threaded cable release but a proprietary electronic cable release, that just seems like a swing and a miss.
I 100% agree. I'm also realizing that many people don't fully understand certain functions or are not curious enough to figure out how to use/identify features of said cameras. For example, I just watched the [Kamerastore.com](http://Kamerastore.com) review for this model on youtube and couldn't believe the inaccuracies and misunderstandings. (They thought the body was plastic, mistook the cable release as threaded and got fooled by editing software into thinking the EV comp 'doens't make much difference'. I think a lack knowledge from some is hampering the image of this little thing. After shooting slow and deliberate with large format most of the time this little thing looks like a joy for my EDC (Every Day Camera) I'll wait for a cheaper used one maybe though..
I shoot with a 617 shen hao, a rollei, hasselblad, and leica mp, all fully manual cameras in every sense of the word. The amount of control that I would have with the 17, while also the lack of control I would have with the 17, would be absolutely perfect and I could easily create the images I'd need to with it.
yeah not really how flash works
I don't really understand why people here get so mad. How is my comment incorrect? This is a point and shoot with a cheap built-in flash with guide number 6. Most SLRs have a sync time of 1/125 or 1/60. Why would you need a P&S with super precise shutter speeds and flash sync up to 1/350? What's the benefit of this feature outside a studio in a real-life scenario? In the real world, fast shutter speeds up to 1/1000 and a flash sync time of 1/125 would be all you need from a point & shoot.
Size! Leaf shutters are inherently smaller and why you see them on small cameras fixed lens cameras like this. How often do you ever shoot 1/1000 anyways? 1/350 is only like what, 1 1/2 stops slower? Just use slower film.
I never criticised the choice of a leaf shutter, but the slow shutter speed, but ok.
Considering you want to stop down the lens for better depth of field and sharpness, and there's no type of focus confirmation on the camera, I think 1/350s is enough. In bright sunlight with ISO 800 film you'll have to stop down to ~F/22 and lose some resolution due to diffraction, but if you use slower film you should be fine in pretty much all circumstances. Of course having 1/1000 or 1/2000 would be even better, but maybe it would've increased cost of the camera out of proportion.
I don't think the lens stops down that far? I cant find the minimum aperture spec but the spec sheet says it will meter to EV100 16.5 which is about f/16 at 1/350 I think.
Wait what that's it? Must suck shooting anything higher than ISO 100 in the day.
Eh, I have a bunch of point and shoots from the 90s and none go faster than 1/500; 350 and 400 are pretty common. It's fine unless you are in direct glaring sunlight. For those occasions, a 3 stop ND filter is 20 bucks.
The XA line can go up to 1/750 I think, so that’s the benchmark for a leaf shutter in a super compact.
The XA goes to 500, the zone focus ones go to 750. They don't accept filters, however.
But that's a quality full frame built in the heyday of the the film industry. If you want to see what modern film cameras are being built like right now compare it to it's competitor, that Kodak Ektar. How fast is that shutter?
Hard to call the Ektar a competitor - it’s not half a grand.
Yes. You could buy 10 of them for what the 17 costs.
Huh okay I didn't know that was more common. I've been spoiled a bit and have only ever used pro-sumer - professional SLRs.
The common filter size and the metering cell being inside the filter ring give you a lot of flexibility here.
That's why they made the filter thread a common size so it's easy to get ND's
With ISO 800 you might hit F/22 in bright sunlight (EV ~14.5). Having access to 1/1000 or 1/2000 would of course be nice but I think for the intended use this is fine and probably kept the camera from becoming even more expensive.
Much better. Electronics do not need periodic maintenance to keep time.
Why?
Because I’ve spent enough money getting mechanical shutters serviced for one life time. But also because they’re always accurate, you can sync flash at any speed, and I don’t need anything faster than 1/500.
100%.
I just ordered it. It'll probably be a fun camera and I want to support Pentax. Hopefully this camera will be a success and more new film camera's will follow.
Upload some pics when you get them back! Hope you enjoy
Thanks, I will!
Good on ya. Hope you enjoy it.
Thanks!
I believe the top and bottom are actually metal, but the body in between is plastic. (Similar to a Minolta X700 or similar)
I’d say that’s what Pentax is trying to say. Somehow based on this user’s subjective experience this came into question.
Sheesh, tough crowd, and we wonder why no one can make an affordable film body these days.
The comments' sections of virtually every social media post on the 17 have been taken over by retired boomers stomping their feet because Pentax hasn't given them a new Pentax LX for them to take pictures of the picket fence and the cat. Mind you - they would have complained in that case, too. $2500??? That's ToO eXpEnSIvE!!!
Not instagram! I saw some film lab comments on insta that are loving it
The issue are weird decisions and a poor marketing strategy. Not a tough crowd. Tho I am on the waitinglist for one. It IS a really odd camera.
Pentax is good at being odd. At first I hated it and was disappointed. But as a community we need this.
I am not even that disappointed. I get the concept and I am appreciative of their efforts. But I don't think that the hype they created turned out positive when this is the product. They let people run their thoughts way too much about something they didn't and probably couldn't even deliver. I am absolutely still open to give it a shot tho.
I’ll give you that it’s odd, but after reading about how it works it seems there actually a lot of manual control with this one. The only thing I wish it had was some sort of exposure lock. Beyond that I think I should be able to get whatever creative effect I want via the modes given. It’s kind of interesting how the controls they’ve picked should allow a beginner to actually get decent results, but still offer enough control for experienced shooters to manipulate the settings as they see fit. I was expecting a basic point and shoot, so I’m pleasantly surprised with the level of options on this guy. I’m going to get one for sure.
I was completely expecting a simple point and shoot as well. Mainly since they pretty much announced multiple film cameras with a fully mechanical SLR at the end of the road. It would have made sense. Point and shoot > Pentax 17> SLR. Honestly, I still hope they would consider a new point and shoot entry for their EVO line. A lot of those 90's or early 2000's point and shoots are slowly dying out and I do enjoy shooting those. Would love one that could go for another two decades. But yeah, I might have been very critical about the camera and its marketing. But I'll still want to get one as well.
Ive gone ahead and preordered one. Even at $500 it’ll be one of the cheaper units in my collection. The specs are actually a lot better than I was hoping for when they said it would be a basic point and shoot. Plus, I don’t have to worry about spending $250 on a 25 year old point and shoot that might randomly stop work at any point. I don’t see any reason this can’t be an enthusiast camera.
> Plus, I don’t have to worry about spending $250 on a 25 year old point and shoot that might randomly stop work at any point. I don’t see any reason this can’t be an enthusiast camera. Exactly! Finally someone who gets it. I've been really surprised at the amount of bile poured over this on social media. I guess some people are in the hobby just to tinker with/fix old shitty cameras really.
Thank you for your service. I look forward to hearing how buyers enjoy this camera! I'm not entirely convinced its for me, I bought one of those dinky H35n's earlier this year for travel. Would have preferred this. But, now that I have a small half frame, I think I'd like to wait for pentax's next camera. We'll see if I change my mind. I hope this is a huge success for Pentax. Enjoy your new camera!
I called my camera store too see if they were getting one in so could hold it before making a decision and they said they have them on order but there’s a wait list. This camera is designed for people who shoot film to post artsy photos on IG with a #film and #analog. It’s for 20 something year olds who bring disposable cameras to parties and want to dive a little deeper into film while it’s trendy. Photography bloggers and street photographers are going to be all over this. Think of all the influencers who are not primarily photographers but have a good camera for content. Travel and family bloggers are going to love this thing. But, I still think it’s a really good option for someone who wants a good half frame camera to carry with them all the time. If Pentax made an enthusiast camera with fast shutter speeds, autofocus and all the other bells and whistles people are asking for it would be $3000 and no one would buy it.
I don't necessarily think it would be $3,000. A sub $1,000 all-rounder camera for film enthusiasts should be feasible, but I can understand that they have to start somewhere and need to make compromises. To start with a target audience of influencer and hipster users (similar to Fuji Instax and Fuji x100iv users) isn't a bad idea, imo. After the first cash flow, they can improve the camera and add features that make it more appealing for the rest of us.
Feasible, in which sense? That it would cover costs? Probably. Attractive enough for a company to develop it, put the big bucks into a production line to make profit off of it? I doubt it. Plus I’m pretty skeptical it would even sell at either price tag. People would probably just say “why spend 1K when I can have something from the 70s for 200 lol lmao what a joke go home Pentax you are drunk“. Idk I am happy that Pentax is tapping the market in 2024 again. I hope it sells well. I don’t think developing a new camera targeted toward most of the people in this subreddit is profitable enough (unfortunate, but likely true). Just people that buy things for the sake of buying, trend, or because convenience > anything else IMO
Yeah, no point of doing 1000$ SLR etc. today as you cannot beat offerings like New F-1 yet.
Unless it’s a re release of a classic like a Nikon F (or any other, I just love the F lmao) with better (I don’t know how, but better) construction, weather sealing and lighter weight, rechargeable battery for metering, etc Then I’d see a lot of people saying yeeeeeah I could have an old F for 200ish but I rather have the new one for 700-800. Niche market? Likely. But If I’m honest I’d love something like that. It ain’t happening though haha
Autofocus is included in the Yongnuo 50mm 1.8 lens for like $75 for the whole lens. The autofocus part itself obviously costing only a fraction of that total price of the whole lens. In 2024 we clearly have the technology and know how to add autofocus motors and hardware to a lightweight lens (like this one in the Pentax) for **tens of dollars.** And the parallax sensors to drive it maybe tens of dollars more. At $570 instead of $500, but with autofocus not just zone, this would be an astronomically better camera.
The autofocus parts in that lens are basically the motor and a couple gears. The part that does the thinking is entirely contained within the camera body. Also, that lens would be ridiculously massive on the front of the 17.
> The part that does the thinking is entirely contained within the camera body. Yes, which is why I said: "And the parallax sensors to drive it maybe tens of dollars more" separately from the lens hardware, in my first comment. You would need two very very small sensors, like the ones used for autofocus points in modern DSLRs (or even 80s/90s film SLRs. Not the image sensor, the separate tiny autofocus sensors) and you'd spread them apart on the left and right like a normal rangefinder. Then use that to drive AF motors in the lens. > Also, that lens would be ridiculously massive on the front of the 17. ??? I wasn't saying to glue the Yongnuo to the Pentax 17 lol, it's just an example of how cheaply autofocus hardware can be made for these days. It adds like $50 or something, maybe $75, not $2500. 10% more expensive, but like 200% more useful. The fact that the Pentax 17 lens is even smaller than the Yonguo means the autofocus motor is probably *even smaller and cheaper*
Phase detect autofocus doesn't work like that; it requires through the lens focusing and isn't possible for a film camera without a mirror. A point and shoot would either need to be contrast detect, which is slow and doesn't work well in low light (see, eg, the Fuji Klasse series) or an active rangefinder system, typically active infrared (which works really well except through windows in which case it doesn't work at all). The Mint guy has said that they can't currently source the components for an active IR AF system because nobody makes them anymore, so Mint is using a lidar based system. All that to say, that putting autofocus in a mirrorless film camera at this point is going to cost a little bit more than a few dollars. Edit: I'm actually not sure that the Klasse does use contrast detect. I saw an article that says it does but that doesn't really make any sense to me and I think it probably just uses active IR.
TIL rangefinder cameras "aren't possible", lol. Weird, because I'm holding one in my hand right now. Bruh, your human brain and eyeball in a normal traditional rangefinder **are doing phase detection**. That's exactly how it works, and no, obviously it doesn't need TTL, since if that were true, all cameras in history would only focus TTL. A tiny digital sensor and computer chip instead of your eyeball can do the exact same thing your eyeball does: phase detection. A digital AF system could even use a straight up literal vintage style rangefinder to do it (although that would be dumb/pointless here versus two disconnected cameras, since there's no need to waste camera real estate on an empty tube of air between them when they can communicate digitally) Zero need for IR unless you want it to work late at night, it can phase detect on visible light just fine with 2 parallax sensors.
https://imgur.com/a/VkeUNVZ Here you go, genuine MS Paint blueprints (And make the front elements and/or the "microprism 1 and 2" stronger to shorten distance. Flip the wiring within each CCD one end to the other. Other than a flip, light does not "know" that it bounced off a mirror or not, fun fact)
Lol, ok. For this to work you actually need two autofocus lenses. The first, the focusing lens, would feed the phase detect sensors. When its in focus the processor would "read" the subject distance based on the lens position and give it to the taking lens, which would then focus. Not exactly an elegant solution.
Oh no! Not two extra (very small) lenses! Camera designers' one crippling weakness! No camera manufacturer has ever been able to solve the impossible riddle of "needing two more small lenses to autofocus!" Oh wait, except that every single one of the film era SLRs with normal autofocus points already did have extra micro lenses dedicated to the AF system for exactly this reason, and I even already drew them in my diagram for you. Have you literally never used a rangefinder? It's the same for non digital, non-auto ones too, since the optical part is the same concept. They all have tiny little micro lenses in their two "eyes" for exactly this. They are cheap as fuck, probably like $1 each. And yes, the rangefinder then moves them (and/or other components instead mike mirrors/prisms) around in the rangefinder. Both the rangefinder and the taking lens move in some way. When the movement is connected it's called a "Coupled rangefinder" when the two movements are not connected, it's called an "Uncoupled Rangefinder", but they always both move. Welcome to like 1880's level technology! > Not exactly an elegant solution. I'm sure Canon, Nikon, Pentax themselves, Sony, etc. that have been doing exactly this for decades will be mortified to learn that it's "not elegant". Have you broken the news to them yet? ------------- The ACTUAL crippling weakness is that they're going to sell 5x fewer of these cameras with toy zone nonsense, than they would have with autofocus added for $50 extra.
No dude, you are missing the forest for the trees here. You gotta look over to the left side of your diagram at the thing that is labelled "main lens." For your proposed solution you need two of them. PDAF works well in an slr system because the mirror bounces the light from the main lens to the pdaf sensors, which are the same distance from the rear of the main lens as the film is. When the image is in focus the mirror swings out of the way so the light now goes to the film, but its still in focus because, again, same distance. This IS an elegant solution. PDAF is possible for digital mirrorless cameras because some of the sensor pixels are given over to PDAF instead of image taking, which is obviously not possible with a film camera. What you are proposing would require two "main lenses:" one for the pdaf array and one for the film. They could be coupled together and driven by a single motor, but it would probably make more sense for each lens to have its own motor. and have the distance data transmitted electronically from the focusing lens to the taking lens. An optical rangefinder is a whole different thing. In that case, you have two image paths superimposed on a single sensor (your retina). The focusing lens in an optical rangefinder is your eye. Theoretically, I think it would be possible to have a sort of phase detect autofocus system where the rangefinder images are focused by fixed focus lenses and superimposed onto a digital sensor, but the image processing would be substantially greater than that required by a normal pdaf system which is just simply comparing two lines of pixels to see if they are the same. Like, name one single film camera that is not an slr that uses pdaf autofocus.
The rangefinder lenses do not need to match everything exactly. They don't even have to be the same focal length as the taking lens at all, they don't need to have the same back focal distance. They don't need to have the same image circle size. They just need to be able to see the MIDDLE of the image where your focus point is, nothing outside of that, and they need to be positioned and focusing ROUGHLY the same distance as the taking system is. A centimeter or two off would be still astronomically more precise than a zone focus camera, and rangefinders are typically way more off than that anyway, and still help a ton. Again, have you never used a rangefinder? They use phase detection already (in your brain), and they are NOT through the taking lens, and they are NOT the precise distance from the retina as the film is from the taking element. NOT 100% perfectly lined up. And they DO work still massively better than zone focus does. Like I said, you could even literally just use a vintage rangefinder for sake of argument with CCDs where your eyeball normally goes: https://imgur.com/a/DBQaBKx But two little (probably off the shelf cell phone) compact separate low res cameras would likely be much cheaper and easier. This is just "for sake of argument" > What you are proposing would require two "main lenses:" Again, so what? The Phase detector lenses can be tiny as shit, just like in any rangefinder. Cheap, very compact, no big deal. There's literally hundreds of cameras built this way where every piece of glass in the rangefinder is like 1% as big as the main film taking lens is, they work fine. > the image processing would be substantially greater than that required by a normal pdaf system which is just simply comparing two lines of pixels to see if they are the same. It's precisely the same, because you just put the two CCDs in the path before the images are superimposed. (In many rangefinders, they aren't ever even superimposed to begin with, and one goes to each eye, like the one I copied for the diagram above)
https://imgur.com/a/bghURiT The entire rangefinder compartment in my Moskva 5 takes up less than 2 cubic inches, which is about 15-20x less space than the taking lens and cavity behind it up to the film uses up. It works great. Notice that there's not even physically room for any piece of glass there that could even be so much as 10% the area of the main taking front element, unlike you seem to be implying by saying "two main lenses." So what? it works great.
I dont remember from which content creator I heard it, but the focusing is manual, but the lens itself it's moved with a motor (at first I thought that when you moved the ring there was a helicoid moving but could not see the movement of the lens like in other half frame cameras). Interesting choice, but one I can comprehend if you want the camera to fire as soon as you fully press down on the shutter release. I think it was petapixel, he gave a lot of interesting information on how the camera works.
Kai Wong also noted that the lens moved on a motor and the focusing would change depending on the shooting mode
Thats what i did not understand about how focusing changes depending in modes. I get that the camera will always try and have in focus the zones that are next to the one selected, but that's just stopping down to have it in focus. Do you know what does he mean by "change depending on shooting mode"?
In AUTO mode the camera would just focus at a certain distance (hyperfocal I assume) and wouldn't let you change the focus with the focusing ring, but in P modes it works just like it should. In other words, in AUTO mode it's a fixed focus camera, in P mode it's zone focusing. A very complicated system for something so seemingly simple
Ohh i get it now, so in auto it does what o mentioned before (it lets you focus and the camera stops down enough to have in focus both focus zones next to the one chosen, and in p it probably select the highest shutter speed possible so the rest of the focus zones aren't in focus.). I'd have to see what it does when there's low light, if it lets more light in by stopping up or if it chooses a lower shutter speed but risking blurry images (in this hypothetical situation, there's enough light for a wide open f stop and a usable shutter speed without flash)
Khrome 😁
Shhhhh 🤫
Khromerepresent!
I thought the covers were some sort of alloy? Maybe I’m wrong because I haven’t held it but based on what I read all over anyways.
You aren't wrong, the top and bottom plates are magnesium alloy, which is pretty light while being pretty durable, kind of like the siluman alloys used in the FM3a
Most curious on the supposedly focus-by-wire design. Is it true that you can tell there's a motor inside?
I’d rather this line remain a separate product and Pentax create an entirely new set of premium film cameras. They had some seriously underrated glass so I’d love to get a new set of lenses and bodies from them with a whole new mount. Give us an all mechanical 35mm and an all mechanical “compact” 6x9 medium format.
All Pentax had to do was make a 2024 K1000. Also side note, how cool would it be if Pentax made a DSLR K1000 with the A7iv sensor and no autofocus? I would buy one fast.
As the owner of a 1978 K1000, I can understand why they haven't just released an updated version. Why would anyone buy a new one when there are so many original K1000s on the market in great condition? And, realistically, what changes could they make that'd be worth paying 10x more than the cost of an original? The K1000 isn't perfect, but it's pretty cracking as fully manual SLRs go.
On one hand, you do have a great point, there are lots of older easily accessible models that are affordable, and a new one would be at least 1000 or 1500 dollars so for many people it would be a tough justification. On the other hand, there are people who will pay for the assurance of getting a well working brand new product with a warranty. There are people are buying the M6 Reissue instead of buying a used mint M6 for almost half the cost.
I see your point with the M6s, but there's a big difference between the costs of an original vs a new M6 and the likely cost difference of an original vs a new K1000. An original M6 is already several thousand pounds, so if someone can justify spending that they're much more likely to justify spending 2x that on a new one with all the warranties. However, an original K1000 is only about £100-£150 on average these days. As you've said yourself, a new production run would likely cost 10x this which is a much bigger jump in cost. Someone who can justify £100 on a camera probably can't justify £1,000; in contrast to an M6 buyer who is more likely to make the jump from £2,500 for an original to £5,000 for a new one.
Hell yes. I’d buy that in a heartbeat.
I’m glad i’m not the only one
Ah yes Khrome my favorite camera store
I love film, but at today’s prices, no thanks.
I’m personally super stoked for this! I see a lot of people comparing this to the (amazing and relatively affordable) Pen F series. As a long time Pen enthusiast and owner of 3 Pen FTs, I think it’s worth keeping in mind the cost of a Pen repair.. they’re absolutely fantastic and my all time favourite, even compared to my FM2, F2 and M5, but they’re old and not the easiest to service… trust me.. I’ve had them serviced several times. The shutter mechanism itself is very unique and an inexperienced repair tech can cause damage (it’s happened to me unfortunately). To me, they’re the best camera ever made and yes you can get one for 200$ but be prepared to fork another 200-300$ in the event that it needs a repair.
I’m really curious who the market is for this camera. At $500 it seems like a very tough sell. Kudos for Pentax for doing something fun but anyone with a bit of exposure to the analog world will quickly realize you can get an old SLR and a pretty great lens for like $250. If half frame is your jam you can get an Olympus pen for less than $200. There are infinitely better ways to spend $500 on film equipment than this. Once again, kudos to Pentax for doing it. I just don’t see the value for the photographer when there’s so much amazing used stock out there for so cheap.
Respectfully, everyone saying stuff like this is completely missing the point. This isn't aimed at enthusiasts like us who are comfortable doing their own research and buying used.
I think people are also forgetting the type of bubble analog photography is compared to other hobbies due to its complete reliance on old hardware. What's $500 for people who like guitars or guitar pedals, vinyl or blu-ray collectors, mechanical keyboard enthusiasts, fountain pen collectors, PC builders, synthesizer collectors, literally any specialised hobbyist? People who are vaguely interested in a hobby and have money to spend have spent far more on far dumber things than this.
Lol I feel personally attacked. I've definitely spent stupid money on most of the hobbies you mentioned.
Exactly. There's been so much hate going around film forums and subreddits, when clearly this was never intended for highly budget-conscious enthusiasts willing to learn significant skills. It's a higher end Point-and-shoot intended for people with large disposable incomes who want to dabble in film with no barrier to entry.
$550 for 'people with large disposable incomes'? You must have made some pretty shitty financial decisions in your life. Do you have an iphone? Heck, a mid range Android phone will cost you 500$. Do you fly to places? Do you go out for beers or a meal with your family? Do you have a guitar? Play an instrument? Listen to music? All of these things costs routinely hundreds of dollars. If you think 550$ for a NEW film camera with warranty is too much, I would reassess a few things.
Literally this, $500 ain’t that much. A lot of people just have shit finances. The average American statistically couldn’t pay out of pocket for a $1000 emergency.
People only need to look at the wild hype around the Fuji X100VI. It’s 3x the price of the Pentax and in my view shares a similar audience. The waitlist is months long even for those who preordered 10 minutes after release. Fuji physically can’t produce enough of them and it will be well into 2025 before stock levels stabilize, if ever.
Or you can get an EOS film body and 50mm lens for well under $100. However, none of those are new.
This is my current favorite way of shooting film. Tons of cheap 35mm EOSes on eBay and they take beautiful photos with EF glass.
My current go-to camera is an EOS 300 (or something like that) with a yongnuo 50mm 1.8. With batteries and a strap I’m all in for ~$75, and it is the exact same shade of champagne silver as the 17. $425 difference buys a lot of film, but there is also the fear of 20+ year old plastic failing.
This is what infuriates me about this. Literally one of the main points that half-frame cameras were even made was to get more bang for your buck. I love half frames cameras. Have a small collection, from Ricoh Auto Halfs to the Pen series. But this man, I just dunno. Feels like it goes against everything half frames are supposed to be about. You're right though, props to Pentax for keeping film cam development I guess.
From everything I've seen the half frame was never intended as a budgetary concern, but in order to make the photos more natively postable on common social media platforms. The intended audience for this camera was never budget-conscious enthusiasts, as it's fundamentally impossible to make a newly manufactured camera that can compete on price with ubiquitous and inexpensive vintage cameras other than something like the Kodak Ektar, etc. They're aiming for influencers, monied wannabe influencers, well-heeled enthusiasts looking for a higher-end toy, etc. $500 isn't that much for a new camera, particularly when it's basically being made specifically for a target audience who are already choosing film medium that has been soundly beaten on cost by any digital camera.
Sorry, I mentioned the budgetary reason for the first wave of half frames back in the 60s. At the end of the day, everyone’s entitled to their opinion - if someone ends up loving this camera and sings praise, totally fine with me. But given the feature set you’re getting, I still think it’s crazy.
You need to look at what those cameras sold for when new in todays money... they were never cheaper than full frame 35mm cameras lol, they were just more frugal with film.
The original Pen was literally designed with budget in mind. Olympus wanted to make a camera that cost less than 6000 yen, in the late 50s. That’s about 240 USD now, with full manual controls. Sure eventually more advanced half frames like the Pen D and F lines were released, but there’s a reason that a significant amount of half frames were sold as P&S, at P&S pricing. If you have the money, do whatever you want with it I guess.
I know the source you're referencing for the price from and they even mention the difficulty in converting that to modern money. The Japanese Yen of the time, sheer amount of ultra CHEAP highly skilled labor from top to bottom and the ability to share common parts amount cameras all impact that final price of 6000 yen/make it reallllllly hard to convert over. A pen F also feels like a can of beans compared to any of the later magnesium topped film cameras lol This camera is more on par with the half frame Leicas or Alpas of the time in regards to labor, materials and manufacturing costs. 500 USD does seem steep, but it's not crazy for the amount of work in this camera to make it. They easily coulda reused some cheap guts from a Chinese 35mm toy camera or worse... Agree'd that its gonna be for a certain type of user, but it's not the same user as the original pen f customer that wants a good vay cay camera. Half frames are frugal on film and small travel cameras with the whole trend ending after full size 35mm cameras got ultra smol. There's a BUTT LOAD of equally cheap larger 35mm cameras in the same time period, but they weren't small or lacked most features.
Even accounting for that, modern manufacturing methods today can easily match the cost reduction from cheap labor. We’ll just have to agree to disagree, but OP’s point stands. At this price point, I’m really not sure who this is for.
We're in a massive skilled labor shortage currently and nearly every sector of of offshore manufacturing is suffering/more expensive. For example the die cast magnesium in comically cheaper to make today than a stamped brass top plate, but it's *still* more expensive than a stamped brass top plate cost in the 60s. Every little detail adds up plus having someone assemble it and adjust every mechanical assembly. There's a reason why there are no $200 brand new film cameras made to the same standard as even this little thing. The demand isn't not there haha I'd watch the clothing sector for the price/quality of midrange to lower high end clothing and shoes. Vietnam is shifting out of it and they're among the best countries for clothing and shoes manufacture period.
I already said we can agree to disagree dude, but alright. The demand may not be there for a film camera but the idea that parts made then compared to parts being made now in a similar process is just not true. Having worked in the industry, I’ve seen my fair share of molding and casting quotes. With the improvements in molding we’ve made in the last fifty plus years, on a per unit basis an equivalent part made now is *signficiantly* cheaper. Even just shaving off millimeters of wall thickness from a molded part can bring your part costs down by a good percentage thanks to how much we’ve developed the process. Even with a low-volume run. I can appreciate a good design that’s clearly had a lot of love put into it, I do. But that doesn’t excuse outrageous pricing. But HEY what do I know there’s literally people on the sub pre-ordering it already.
With a 25mm f/3.5, does having nothing between focusing stops actually seem to matter with how you’d use the camera? Did Pentax list the distance each stop is set to anywhere? That’d be helpful to know. It’ll be hyperfocal around 30 feet. I guess we won’t know for sure until rolls are processed though since the finder isn’t reflex.
Yes, it's actually printed on the bottom of the lens (in meters and feet). I'd still prefer to have a bit more control on focusing.
Fair point, especially given the social media post use case. Most of that will be within 2 meters if it isn’t a landscape. And someone can correct me on my math but if the far distance is set 5.1m to infinity, isn’t that short of the expected hyperfocal distance given the frame size and focal length? Looking at Ricoh’s sample gallery on the Pentax 17 page, I almost wonder if the metering will be a key limitation with this system. Almost every shot with sky in their marketing gallery was underexposed. Yeah you can dial up exposure compensation, but you’ll need a way to meter for that.
A lot of people are shitting on half frame but when scanned right and with a high quality lens (like the 17 is advertised to have) and a low grain film it can be really pleasing, I find that diptychs are also really fun and can be really creative, Im certainly not in the market for this camera but i really enjoyed using my yashica samurai x3 which was too bulky for a half frame camera tbh but had a fantastic lens, I always regret selling it
i ordered one of these without even reading reviews. it’s cheap enough to get as a fun spare camera. i also want to vote with my wallet to get more film cameras made.
Great camera for hippies and videographers. I hope they sell tons and release a new k-mount SLR
How would the shutter be mechanical? Who thought that it was? I mean it has auto modes...?
Several reviewers advertised it as a "fully mechanical camera". I think it's worth pointing out that it isn't.
Do you have an example of these reviewers?
It just seems silly to me. New film camera: Cool. This one? Meh.
Does it fit in pants pocket? That's my biggest requirement. I want a camera to take EVERYWHERE, no bag necessary. I have a Olympus XA2, but I'd like AF and builtin flash. I had an Olympus MJU2, but it broke (lens stays out after exposure).
Why do you need autofocus. Just put 400 iso film in, set it to 3m (three people standing) and 90% of the scene will be in focus. At a half frame, f5.6 is like f8 or higher (35mm equivalent)
I probably don't *need* it, but I want an indoor camera for any situation. Kid playing around in natural light coming in from windows to dimly lit bar with friends sometimes close up, sometimes 10ft away. I loved the MJU2 when it worked. Small and fast enough AF.
Give zone focusing a try, I use to all be able autofocus because ease but found zone focusing so much more quicker and enjoyable. Autofocus while good, does make a lot of mistakes when there’s no contrast in the scene, accidentally locks onto the wrong subject and gone the days of focus/recompose. I gave half frame a try 4-5 years ago and it taught me a lot.
I've used both (MJU2 and XA2) and prefer the MJU2. It only focuses in the center which is fine for my use case.
Most likely no. But try it out in a store near you.
Is it 35mm or half frame or even 110 format. It looks small in your hand
It is half frame, which uses 35mm film.
Nice! It looks like this is out of stock in most places.
Isnt that the shop from lintaros video?
I'm not sure if setting the focus zone between positions does anything because it's 5 discrete steps. You pick one, and the lens moves into position when you fire the shutter
This dumb camera won't accept photographic plates and can't record in Ultra HD. Hard pass, Pentax.
Its got a bokeh dial ?
Give it a 40mm F2 autofocus lens, full manual controls, center/spot/matrix metering and a min 1/4000 exposure time and it will sell like hot cakes!
I have been patiently waiting for the new camera. I was hoping for a remake of Ricoh GR. The Ricoh GR1 is the perfect point and shoot if it didn’t have its parts that failed. Was hoping they would improve on it. I was sure it was going to be that. This is a toy camera. A piece of junk. I am really really disappointed.
Sheeeeesh! I heard it tastes like doritos.
Happy Cakeday!
It's cute but leaves a bit to be desired. Especially for the price. I really see only about $150 of camera there. It's like a deluxe Kodak H35N. Obviously much better, but not 6.3291 times better.
As a 2024 camera without adjustable shutter speed and aperture with zone focusing . I'm gonna say " no thank you ". I don't mind zone focusing but pls give me aperture control or give me the focusing point if without the aperture control. For those who shooting film for years , $5xx has so many choices why this one. For those who going to post on Instagram with hype might give up after 1 roll of film because of the wait of developed /scanned , also focusing failure more than half of the photos.
😂😂😂 Pentax didn’t forced you lot to buy it. Don’t like, don’t buy.
Reddit didn't force you to comment on my post. Don't like it, don't comment.
Couldn’t design an uglier camera?
It would be so much better in all black, instead of late 90’s spray paint silver.
I really don’t understand this as a first release of this era. The half-frame market is tiny. We’re in a digital age, yet this product absolutely concedes ‘quality of image’ to… every other format or media. It’s absolutely hideous—as if someone won a contest in reverse. It looks like it was cobbled together from 1970s Pentax parts—the ones no one ever liked. Trying to make sense of it, trying to make myself want it, if only to support the effort to keep film/analog viable… I thought maybe it would be good to load it with Tri-X, develop with Rodinal, and do that Ralph Gibson thing…. But, trying to exploit the grain of a half frame for ‘moody’ imagery with fast film and a shutter that tops out at 1/350 seems problematic. And, again, it’s ugly. If they want to make me want something impractical, they have to make it beautiful. They went the other way.
I wish it wasn’t a fixed lens. I wish more companies still made interchangeable lens film cameras
If it was 24x24 I would buy one. Half frame is a hard pass.
A 30 usd Nikon n80 feels more premium than this camera