Now tell me what a NEW full frame SLR would cost.... Probably about $2500. The fact is this is a NEW camera. If you don't want to buy new, don't. I don't But I'm not going to tell anyone not to go buy a brand new mirrorless camera either. NEW comes with new parts, warranties and repairs etc. This camera isn't for you? Great, don't buy it. But the price is quite reasonable IF you want a new camera. And frankly, I hadn't considered buying this, but maybe I will for my wife. This would be perfect for her. They are in stock at B&H...
I used this same logic when I chose to purchase a Nikon FM2N, a 28mm f2.8 ais and 50mm 1.4 Zeiss lens over a leica M6, since I was able to purchase the camera, lenses and film and still have money leftover however, I think we should all support the Pentax 17 and purchase one if possible. I'm new to film, so I purchased the camera directly from Pentax when it was announced, in hopes of contributing to keeping film alive. The camera, 2 rolls of film, 2 vouchers for development, and a 2yr extended warranty (3 year warranty in total) only cost me $600.
Its really the only smart thing to do. I would suspect you also have plenty of good photos to show for your thought and effort, something many gear hounds can not provide.
500 usd is serious money for investing in a hobby. Pentax made clear in their videos that this camera attempt to bring film photography to the young “smart phone”/“instagram” demography. Pentax 17 is also the first in a line-up of three or four in the Pentax Film Camera family, which will be brought to market based on the success of the Pentax 17. These camera’s will all be more premium. Your example with the K1000 is skewd as I just looked up the original price in 1993 of the body alone which was $263, adjusted for inlation I just calculated via de federal reserve bank, it would cost $553 in 2023 (excluding the lens). The Pentax 17 does include a great pancake lens and a great exposure meter. I’m impressed by the details on my scans. (I bought the Pentax 17 and am very happy with the results, they exceeded expectations)
"500 usd is serious money for investing in a hobby" People blow $500 on all kinds of things. I imagine they put this out hoping to turn a profit father than putting out a $2500 SLR that enthusiasts say "I'll just buy the used Nikon for a tenth the price!" Also, we forget the Japanese market. This might sell like hotcakes over there.
@@musa7606 Yes, a 2500 dollar SLR by itself will not be enough to warrent all costs to manufacture one, think of specific tooling and R&D costs. It’s a very bad business model. With an affordable camera of 500 usd you will have the benefit of economy of scale, the R&D and tooling can be devided amongst more sold camera’s. Pentax was really clear that if this is successful there will be more camera’s: a premium compact (I’m interested) and an SLR are all on the tsble. If the Pentax is sold well, and I believe it’s at least exceeding their expectations, there will be a level up. But first you need a healthy base. That is what Pentax is working on now.
Half frame is the same dimensions as super 35... notable works include your favorite movies from the 20th century. The Pentax 17 triplet is clear and contrasty. It's not a clinically sharp lens, but I think it beats Trip 35's and Pen EE's cleanly - that's the market segment it belongs to. No, I didn't buy one. I just scan other people's photos. Trust me, lack of manual controls can be a blessing to the casual user. That's the market because, believe it or not, that's most film shooters right now. What discount could even make you value this design anyway? I kind of doubt there is one.
Just bought a $122 Canon P + $25 shipping on Buyee, nearly mint condition, not even a tiny wrinkle on the shutter. Still have about 500 bucks more, or 84 rolls of my fav Fomapan 100. The price for Pentax 17 was way beyond what I expected. Didn’t even expect it was gonna be a half frame. Was expecting something like $300 at most.
I've always had mixed feelings about "half-frame". For print film, the prints will generally cost the same per print. Say you are paying $.1.00 per 4 x 6 (I don't know the current rate). The negative development and film cost is only a small part of the per picture price. You don't end up saving much. For slides, the mounting cost does not leave you with much of an overall per picture saving either. The compactness is a good point, but realistically, at that point digital makes more sense to me. I'm not sure if you will have better detail when enlarging. The finer theoretical resolution of film is offset by the resolution limits of the lens. The fact that you are using real film has to have meaning to you personally, to be worth it.
It's just blind consumerism - until recently nobody cared about half-frame cameras, they were a niche within a niche within a niche. Now, suddenly - everyone and their grandma wants an overpriced half-frame, zone-focusing toy camera with a triplet lens. Why? Because we need to show -Pentax- um.. -Ricoh- Hoya? that we want new film cameras? Pff, whatever. All the best film cameras have already been made, back when things were made to last.
Yes, sadly that is the true root of the problem with all the "newest and greatest " in the photography world. I guess people are tricked into thing the Pentax 17 is different because it has the vale of being the "only film camera" (as long as you don't to any research or care about usability). It is strange to see how many people will rabidly defend this camera even though all will be forgotten in a closet in 2 years at most.
I put my money down for the new 17, I already have plenty of old film cameras, but supporting Pentax with this new camera will hopefully encourage them and others to continue making more new film cameras. It is a fun little camera to start, and being half frame you can save some money on film purchase as well.
@@andrewsmithphoto They are also notorious for producing equipment that has features that many photographers appreciate, in body shake reduction, astrotracer to mention some. I have a full set of lenses for their Q series which as you say has been discontinued, they still work well many years after they were discontinued. If you had been following the film project videos that the designer TKO has been releasing about the development timeline for the new film camera(s) , you would realise that this is the starting point , for what may be a whole new line of film cameras, produced by a traditional camera manufacturer rather than a kick starter firm. I wish them well and hope that the success of this new camera leads to something that you may buy second hand in 20 years time.......
@@andrewsmithphoto They are also notorious for having quality cameras that have very long product runs K1000 LX 6x7 and 645, companies discontinue products once they are no longer making money from them, not everything needs replacing every 18 months. Speaking of history, when they upgraded the K1 model to the K1ii, they offered users of the K1 model a chance to upgrade their camera to the K1ii with a new image motherboard, not many other camera companies have ever offered that service to their consumers. Good luck to them on their film revival camera models, good luck to you with 59 rolls running through some heritage camera without a breakdown :)
@@XATNEP1 I have run over 50 rolls each thought My S3, SP, FM2 and years ago the canon AE1. Never had any issues or even needed a CLA on any of those cameras. But I doubt many will even put 5 rolls through a 17, (my point if you watched) it is a fad not the future.
my thoughts exactly. why waste money on rolls versus bulk rolls? Bulk rolls, even if you put more than 36 frames per roll you are still saving. 50ft on average gives you 8-12 rolls of 36 exposures (aproximately) and 100 feet of a bulk roll on average costs about 100$. The math is simple. You pay less than 8 dollars a roll easily. I am getting 5$ per roll versus 10-15$ per roll.
I was truing to keep things super low lever since the kind of people buying a Pentax 17 are with out doubt complete amateurs who don't even know film has to be developed.
@@justin_704 Trying to make some common ground with the lowest common denominator (Pentax 17 fan boys apparently) who know nothing of film or developing.
@@justin_704 the cost of a roll is not limited to the roll itself, it’s also should include development and scan or print cost. So to take your $8 roll, it will take $5 to het it developed and another $15 to get it scanned (as that is what the demographic of the Pentax 17 most likely does. The difference of have 72 pictures on a roll compares to 36 is that I just saved 28 usd every time I develop and scan my single role. Ofcourse prices may be different but it gives some idea
@@rhinman I got one for a few dollars as spare parts. The one I use is the first production run which is called Olympus pen. After that was the pen S. I paid under $100 for it. They might have gone up but your not going to pay anywhere near the price of the Pentax 17
I just got a Nikon FM2n in pristine condition for half the price of a Pentax 17 😊 By the way, Pentax K1000 was my first SLR. I bought it for my 20 years birthday in 1978. I think it was the cheapest non-Soviet camera I could afford at the time. I replaced it with a Pentax MX a couple of years later
I would prefer a Nikon FM2 with 50mm F1.4 Nikkor, for the cost of a Pentax 17. I am really sure that two photos taken by Pentax 17 will not be as good as one shot taken by Nikon FM2 + 50mm F1.4, so the price of the film is not the main argument, IMHO.
I always tell people if you shoot film and dont own an FM with a 50mm and 28mm you are doing yourself a major disservice. They are too good not to own and too cheap and common to make any excuse.
"I would prefer a Nikon FM2 with 50mm F1.4 Nikkor" As would I, but maybe we aren't the market... Or maybe this is a camera to get out friends who know nothing about manual cameras into shooting film...
This is pretty mean for no reason. Not only is the Pentax 17 new, with a warranty and everything, it's also pretty good at what it does! I had no issues paying the price for something that had a lot of R&D put into it, and the pictures I've got back have been quite nice. People are so used to the used market that they forget what these things cost when they were new. It's sold quite well so there is a market for it, and that market will create a bigger market for more advanced cameras coming down the pipe. Frankly, this one is good enough for me for what I'm using it for. It's light and small and easy to use, perfect for carrying with me when I don't feel like hauling the Mamiya 7 or whatever. If it's not for you, it's not for you, but being a dick about it isn't gonna win you any points.
I am not sure how I can be mean to a consumer product? You can believe whatever you want, but no one is getting any Pentax 17 images published or winning awards. While Mamiya 7s are still widely used by pros even in the digital age so clearly you are missing al lot of the picture... pun intended.
@@andrewsmithphoto You're being mean to people who will or have already bought the camera and enjoy what it can do. Your whole tone is "I know better than all these people who bought this thing that they have a use for". Since when does everything have to be professional grade, anyways? And since when are you a professional? Who cares if it ends up on a gallery wall or not? You can dislike the camera all you like, but your tone is incredibly off-putting and elitist, especially for a no-name RU-vidr. Trying to be cute with a pun doesn't disguise the fact that you misunderstand the product and the intended audience (you couldn't even get the specs right) and somehow think that makes you the final arbiter of taste. The typos aren't helping either. If you had had an actual measured argument I wouldn't have cared, but you went internet asshole route, and I'm calling you on it. Flashing all that cash on the table isn't exactly endearing either. Oh, you have some money! We are all SO PROUD of you! Now while you sit there and foam at the mouth about a product nobody is forcing you to buy, I'm gonna go out and take some pictures and have fun doing it.
@@andrewsmithphoto What a smoothbrain comment. Exactly what percentage of the film community is going out there with their camera to win a fucking award? Some people just want to enjoy the hobby and have a bit of fun.
You're also forgetting the cost of developing.. But it's a shit camera but I'm glad it's doing well, it should introduced more options to the market. Used cameras WILL die at some point.
@@andrewsmithphoto Maybe.. but you'd be amazed at what crappy cameras are running.. Gen Z loves crap cameras. especially point and shoot.. I've sold a bunch of Olympus point and shoots for boatloads of $$.
@@andrewsmithphoto I think it makes a lot of sense to provide the entry level camera first to get more Gen Z into photography. This camera does cut down development+scan cost by half. So in the end it is a cheaper camera to run.
@@SonnyCrackBeats respect your view, I however love the sharp pictures my Pentax 17 takes. If I print them on A4/letter the scans are still really good.
It only starts making some sense once user shoots more than 3000-4000 pics when compared to any other cheap 35mm film compact camera. And there are even older 1/2 frame cameras, then the Pentax17 advantage is only in warranty. And since user needs to shoot couple thousands of shots to even neutralize the investment into camera by shooting 72 frames instead of 36, then I must ask who the hell would be so serious with film and use such camera for capturing 3000-4000 photos. Such maniacs probably prefer proper film SLR with good lenses to start with, not a halfframe semiauto brick with 3 element lens and zone focus :)
Leica never stopped, Kodak rebranded a cheap half frame Chinese camera a couple of years ago, Mint made a camera and is making a Rollie 35 revival. So yes there are a few new option on the market.
This is a fantastic message. People are so easily seduced in buying something new instead of looking at what the journey of photography is. I know there is something to small pocketable cameras, but I really dig your point about your money going farther with buying a K1000 and a lens and some film. Having a relationship with photography is about that progression and that 600 dollars can be better spent on the different options you had mentioned.
@@andrewsmithphoto So? Maybe someone wants what the 17 offers. It's stupid to make a blanket "don't buy the pentax 17" statement. Not everyone wants to deal with the ebay lottery and troubleshooting old cameras. Maybe someone just wants a reliable way to shoot some film. Get over it.
@@rjbiii Never said anything of the sort your ego just can't cope with someone who disagrees with you and provides logical arguments you do not have the knowledge to rebuke.
You completely lost the entire point of the camera itself, focusing entirely on the pure financial economy of the purchase. Go watch all of the videos that Pentax released, before this camera was ever actually put to market. They have EXTREMELY good reasons for charging the money they charge, and hey, if $650 is too rich for your blood, then you were never the target demographic in the first place. ✌️
I set a very clear and reasonable criteria. But the Camera is a joke no shutter speed selector no rangefinder a plastic lens even as a stopgap or prototype it is very disappointing.
@@andrewsmithphoto yeah, but YOUR criteria was never Pentax's criteria; you're evaluating what you *assume* about the camera in a way that suits your argument. The camera is absolutely NOT a joke, and a quick look at some of the work produced already, by various photographers around the world, would go a long way towards reminding you of that. It's not meant to be any of the things you're trying to evaluate it on.
@@andrewsmithphoto why does it make any difference at all, whether there are "notable" works produced on half-frame or not? You're grasping at straws here, to try and justify what is ultimately an uninformed op-ed about a product that was never intended to be marketed to you (as a demographic). Again, go watch the Pentax videos, pre-release of the camera itself. Maybe you'll come out of it with a greater understanding of their goals -- you're evaluating the camera based on YOUR expectations, not the expectations of the company that actually designed it. Put simply, you're evaluating it for everything it's NOT, rather than for what it IS.
