100 Things I Hate About The New Pentax 17 Camera  

I have seen a lot of these "I do not have one but here is the lowdown on it" videos. When you call it limiting, do you know that you can have a lot of fun by forcing the aperture using the various settings and pushing or pulling using the ISO/ASA and/or exposure compensation features? Do you know that the barrier for getting into film is the 'success rate' - or lack there of? Do you know that the exposure meter on this camera is shockingly acurate - shockingly. This camera is great for someone wanting to try film, have a little flexibility but still be supported and pretty much guarantee good outcome and then the option to learn to push settings a bit - after having experienced a good result and twice the exposures of many older, potentially quirky, un supported cameras. Half Frame - the barrier to a LOT of potential new film shooters is the cost of film - which half frame specifically addresses? That covers new shooters whom Pentax wants to get comfortable with film. As a long time shooter, I have many vintage cameras that I love to shoot. I also have digital cameras I love to shoot. This camera gives me a middle ground of fun with film and a pretty easy walk and shoot if the mood strikes me - plus twice as many exposures when I get back to the studio to develop and make prints. Maybe you won't like it. Maybe you will ike it. But maybe you'll have a better idea of which side you fall on if you actually use one. P.S.: I didn't get one for free to use for 2 weeks - I bought one with my own $... so this is not a non-critical observation. I would LOVE to see Pentax make a full featured film camera - but I realize that this camera is targeted as very specific markets - and, as someone who owns one, I can say I believe they hit many marks on that front.

I really enjoy the lens on the pentax 17, i think it takes great pictures and i like the half frame aspect of it! I just wish it was fully manual and had a faster shutter, then i would buy it!

Long comment here, Thanks for making this video! I have been thinking about this so much these weeks. Though I wish you’d have gotten more specific! I totally agree with you about the price, $250-300 would be fair. But even for that price they need to make some changes to let the camera shine for the robust analog shooters stills around. There is a lot that Pentax got right about this camera, the ISO select dial and exposure comp are great. But the 2 biggest issues are the lens settings, and the mode dial. The lens is so odd, it’s actually an auto focus motor mechanism with selectable points, that move the lens when half pressed, so they spent the money on 90% of an af mechanism without using it. It would have been cheaper and more desirable to just have a real manual focusing zone focus lens. And there needs to be an aperture ring! An aperture ring with an “A” automatic stop at the end like Pentax slr lenses had for 25 years. What were they thinking??? The mode dial, from the perspective as a photo teacher is just bonkers. It combines settings for Aperture, shutter speed, and Flash settings in ways that make no sense at all, with half the modes being the same with the only difference being flash off or flash auto. They are totally ignoring Aperture, which is infinity more important to learn about and use with film, since you cannot adjust the iso. My suggestions to make everything better with the camera staying 90% what it is now. Ditch the motor drive focus, just do real manual zone focus with a real Aperture ring with an A auto setting. Rip out that mode dial and replace it with 2 three way switches. One for flash with On, Off, and Auto. And the other for shutter, with A mode Aperture priority (or full auto if the lens Aperture is set to “A”) a Blub mode, and a 1/60 mechanical backup mode that would work without the battery and offer close to manual shooting. Put all of that into a square format 24x24 camera with a 35mm f2.4 (they already make this lens) and call it the Pentax 24. That would be a camera worth $400-600. Heck, since they already have motors make it lidar AF with an infinity focus lock. There’s so much advantage to the square format in 35mm for Pentax right now. 1. It’s a super rare format, with only a couple cameras like the zeiss Tenax, and Robot royal 24. So even long time photographers would be intrigued to have one and have a reason to buy the camera. 2. It checks the boxes of their want to appeal to “social media” young people, whatever that means, with the square format, while also pointing to a much loved format for analog photographers. 3. You still get that same “economy” they are taking about with 56 or more shots per roll. And 4. Pentax has never had a square format camera ever, in any format, so it would be a really meaningful milestone for them. I have been working on several modded cameras to turn them into square format 35mm, and the results are great. I’m gonna try and make a couple from Pentax cameras as a proof of concept. Heck, I think if they made a square format SLR that would absolutely fly off shelves. If Pentax does see this, just name that one the “Pentax RP” after my initials, haha and make me one with dark green leather.

Pentax already has hinted that the 17 is not their last attempt. With regards to the price, I am torn. It is not a used camera but a new one. Production facilities, R&D, everything costs a lot of money. Given that they had to rebuild everything basically from scratch, the price is "fair" on their site even though I think it is too much...

I still can’t believe Pentax stepped over the $1,000,000 bill lying on the ground by not releasing a new premium 35mm film P&S shoot camera. You have 20+ year-old premium P&S’s on their last leg going for $500-$2k on the used market. The market is literally screaming for one of these big players to come back in the ring and release a new premium film P&S camera. A quality new Ricoh GR1-type premium P&S or even a new Pentax Espio-type P&S was such an obvious play for them, I still can’t believe they didn’t do it.

SLR (k1000, MX, LX...) - too complicated for beginners and less invested hobbyists, expensive and requires an additional lens purchase (which lens mount???) Premium P&S - it would probably cost around 1k$, which would be too expensive for a younger audience (I certainly hope they will release a new Ricoh R1s, there is time, they will release 3 more models ) FF - huge selection of used excellent cameras as the competition and anyone involved in analog photography already has a collection of FF cameras (if this was the same camera only FF I personally would not buy it) In my country (in Europe) there is not a single second-hand HF camera in solid condition in the ads. Second-hand is always a risk and often a complication. For example I bought Konica BM P&S 150$ + Portra 30$ + shipping, developing and scanning 20$ - half of the film was severely underexposed, and LCD broke after the first roll rendering the camera unusable, 200$ down the drain (not to mention the time wasted) for nothing... now that is truly expensive. There is no one-size-fits-all camera, of course there are things on it that I wish were different for me personally but in my modest opinion this is an interesting enough offer that appeals to a wide range of people. One more thing... Pentax is kept alive by Ricoh (probably for some prestige/goodwill/history reasons) and they are doing something that none of the leading manufacturers want to do, for a small niche of people... and of course they deserve to be given some leeway in criticism and to be applauded for their effort. PS I'm not a RU-vidr or a critic, just a hobbyist

Somebody already put one up on eBay for nearly twice the price at around $899.

Yep!

First, good and hard hitting, especially calling out the cheerleaders, I mean "reviewers." Next, $500 is par for the course for a camera like this. Put any camera's original price in an inflation calculator--we've just gotten used to cheap stuff. Even film is cheap, comparing it to its price in the '70s. And lastly, the Pentax 17 is sorely disappointing. Half frame? Zone focus?? Auto exposure??? CR2 batteries???? But at least you can wind the film manually to get that full film experience...

Yes all wise comments but you are sadly missing the point. All those “ alternative “ cameras mentioned are second hand. What did these cameras cost when new - and work out what that value is now worth and then compare. This is a new camera. You can buy a new car or a second hand car just like cameras but to compare the prices of these as like for like is ridiculous! This is a new camera with a warranty- all your alternatives- either need a costly CLA or will need one - if those old ticking time bomb electrical cameras can be fixed !!! This is a new camera appealing to a younger generation who are getting into film cameras etc and not the older generation that we are with old film camera experience. It’s a new camera with half frame to give better value to the younger generation in a portrait mode - to appeal to their social media lifestyle. I would say give this camera a chance but you don’t need too. It’s not marketed for you. With the money that Pentax get the second and third cameras in their plans might well that full frame etc etc camera you want.

Interesting thing about the lc-wide is that it didn't sell very well, and the main point people said against it... too expensive! Half the price of the Pentax and considered too expensive, the hype train is real for Pentax.

You are correct.

When watching the other reviews, I'm tempted to think that they want to place themselves in a position where owning a Pentax 17 becomes the key to some exclusive hip club, a bit like Leica. While I have no doubt that the lens on this thing is incredible (heck, they had 25 more years to perfect their glass manufacturing), it essentially comes down to how much better is it. I know that people who will buy it are going after the "modern electronics". This, I can get. But since most of my cameras are as old as dirt and I rarely have had an electronic failure, I feel that this is just a non-issue.

hey if I got one for free I would be making a positive review too even if it sucked

For this kind of money, I’d rather buy 2 Lomo 110’s and a load of 110 film.

That is the the essence of the RU-vidr monster. Most RU-vidrs care more about likes, money, and fame. You never get a truthful review and most use buzz words, and say the same things over and over again without a original thought. Having said that I agree with 99.99% of what you said. I would rather buy and old camera that I can get with built-in light meter, a range of good lenses, shutter speeds, and F-stops for a less price. You really don't have to buy or use the Pentax 17 to know its a bad camera that is a glorified point and shoot camera.

500 dollars and no autofocus....

Fully agree, they got their marketing strategy wrong

don't get this line of critique this camera is getting -- I can get a Pentax k1000 for a 100! a nikon FM2 for 300! ....Then YES! GO BUY THEM! like what business sense would it have made for pentax to have come out with a rerelease K1000 that's a 500 dollars when you can still go buy an old LX for cheaper? Like I think they really tried to make a camera that serves the state of film photography today. I see toooo many people out there just absolutely wasting money by pumping rolls of portra 400 through those fixed exposure kodak half frame point and shoots-- Think about how much better off those people would be if this were there default choice. I do love that you brought up the LCA-Wide -- and you're the first I've seen to do so! which like yes, it is just quite simply it's only/closest market competitor....and for price and features, does damn near blow it out of the water. Hate the half-frame hate it's getting as well, Half-frame is a zine-machine, that vertical aspect ratio is just so perfect for producing cheap and cheerful magazines...fine art no, but hassy's and LF gear are going up, but still a steal in a relative sense

I always like these people who make comments like its a Leica and has a red dot so it has to cost a lot. It is expensive because 0) highly experienced craftsmen design and make the product 1) much of it is still handbuilt or handtested 2) the workers are in Germany 3) Germany has laws that stipulate that "fair" wages must be paid 4) Besides wages benefits must be provided and paid for 5) top quality parts are used 6) it is not made in China so slaves, prisoners, and wage-slaves can not be used. These are all the reasons that a Leica is expensive and because it is expensive it is something of a niche product. If the same camera were made in USA, Canada, etc, it would be just as expensive. Indeed cameras made in Japan would be very expensive that is why they are outsourced to China (and I suspect soon Vietnam, India or Indonesia). It has nothing to do with red dots on the camera (indeed those without red dots are just as expensive :-) )

The k1000 launched at $299 in 1976 paired with a kit lens. Adjusted for inflation, that's more than $1000. This camera is half that, comes with a warranty, and is not aimed at serious photographers. Unfair comparison in my opinion. I WILL agree that this camera pales in comparison to the Pentax MX I have on my shelf, or any other interchangeable film SLR for that matter, but if I'm a young person looking for an introduction to film photography, I'm probably gonna be more enticed by this thing with a return policy than a used something off of eBay. Fully functional, Pentax warranty, new materials with no concern for how it was stored or kept up in that time frame.

Odd comparing the 17 to the FM2? It’s more comparable to the L35AF in size and weight. Price argument is odd too, can’t compare new vs used pricing. Like sure I can get a 20 year old Honda Civic for 1/10 of the cost of new one and they both get me to the same place.

Why do you buy this camera if you have so many issues with it? Skip it and go for a different one, job done.

Most of those alternative cameras cost almost as much as the pentax on second hand market (often more). Get a macro lens for them and you will be well over the cost of the pentax and only then matching its features. Oh and you will have problems because it's 50 year old.

The LC-Wide and LC-A are a bit cheaper but also feel much cheaper and more plasticy than the Pentax 17 (which also has a lot of plastic). Just compare photos of them with the back open and you can see the difference in manufacturing quality. On that note, considering what the Pentax 17 already costs we can imagine what a new K1000 with all metal construction would have cost. Especially as the first new film camera for Pentax.... Maybe 1200$ or more? You could have made the same video as this then and complained: "Who is going to buy this new K1000 when I can get a used FM2a with more features a lot cheaper?" They had to make tough decisions and compromises and I think they did well all things considered. But we will see how the market will react

Good that Pentax didn't send you a 17. "I can buy a [insert long ago discontinued film camera model] for less money!" Yes, you can. You also will habe no assurance that it'll work, in what condition it really is and so on. I really am tired of all those comparisons with decades old machines to this one.

If you don’t want Pentax to continue with this project and to build a more complex camera just keep blabbering on about how horrible this is. Pentax in their original announcement said there were no longer any engineers that worked on film cameras back in the day. This was an exercise to see if they could even design and build a film camera again. So please just keep your elitist crap to yourself and go haunt the used shops for.

Not 100% agree with this. And I will give some details why. Any used camera will be cheaper than a brand new one, if everybody say "we will not get this camera because I can get cheaper used" the used market will become older and older. I agree with the slightly high price point and hope Pentax will lower the price with time but comparing it to Lomo camera is unfair since they are based on soviet design and require less R&D. And also they cost 400 to 450$ new. Closer than you said to the Pentax 17. At least in my country, the LCA classic isn't available anymore. Also, you can get cheaper used camera but what about the warranty ? What about the CLA that may be required. As an analog lover and user, I've spent a lot of money on "working" camera that finally require some care. That's not cheap as well. I mean, my Rolleiflex T was checked by a pro last year (everything was okay) and finally require a CLA anyway. You can get a Nikon kit for 350$, add as well 180$ to 200$ just in case because sooner or later it will need a CLA. And what about beginner ? How many people get in analog community and ask "I've bought a camera and my film is blank" or "why I have light leaks all over the film?" I see them every day. Maybe this camera target them ? You and I are people who shoot and know how a camera work, but not everyone. Especially beginners. Buying a 30+ years old camera isn't easy for them. I absolutely understand that many of us want a brand-new SLR coming out, but the market will be even smaller and the price will be even bigger than what you pay for a used SLR on eBay. The problem will remain the same. Used camera will be cheaper than brand-new ones. Pentax have clearly stated that the film camera project will be in 3 phases. The first one is an entry level camera like the 17. The second should be a compact expert and the last one an SLR. But it will not be cheap. Look at the price of the MiNT/Rollei 35 AF. It will be at least 800$. An SLR would be 1000$ maybe 1200$. 500$ is unrealistic and will never happen. I hope I'm wrong, it will be cool to have a 500$ brand-new SLR. The 17 isn't targeting you and me, that's why many of us are not happy. As a more experienced photographer, I'm also disappointed by the review. It lacks technical details and even in the manual it's not crazy. Note : I like your channel and your work, and this is only my opinion.

If you handled one of these with your hands, you would have even more issues. :/