The Pentax 17 gets everything out of film. The sharpness, the contrast. The camera always ensures the correct exposure. It is almost impossible to take a technically bad picture. What is the use of a cheap Kodak Ektar 35N if I have to expect that half of the pictures will be unusable? In order to push the Pentax 17 to the limits of its resolution, a high-resolution film would be necessary, such as the Ektar 25, which was available in the 1980s. A test with the Ektar100 or Kodak Pro Image 100 would already be possible today.
I like mine but I do get a lot of poor shots. Especially indoors with flash. It’s okay and certainly better than a P&S, but I switched back to using my Bessa 4A as my primary. However, super fun camera to use. Still very happy with it.
To be honest I found that most shots with the Ektar, though certainly technically worse, looked compositionally better to me. The higher exposure and contrast of the Pentax also resulted in images that tended toward looking busy. The technically inferior exposure and contrast of the Ektar softened details and warmed the image, with dark background foliage often turning into just blocks of murky colors creating profiles of negative space, rather than details that could possibly distract from the subject. That's both a strength and weakness for sure. I'd absolutely prefer the Pentax for more precise shots where an overall "vibe" from the camera is less important, and the Pentax would also probably be far better for darker environments like indoors, but that $50 camera has some personality for sure.
My grandparents and their friends traveled all over taking photos with Kodak 126 cartridge instamatics where you had to put flash bulbs in it. They used slide film and used to project them on a screen at camera club meetings. For this kind of photography the cheap Kodak cameras were fine.
What a good idea to compare the two with regards to photo quality. Well considered conclusion based on empirical findings. I own both cameras and while the Pentax is a significant step up in build and image quality, the Kodak is a lot of fun, fits so easily in a pocket, and does still produce some lovely images.
I have both and I love both, depends on the film I want to use, cheap 400 film will be in Ektar H35N, portra 400 will be in pentax 17 Honestly I never zoom in 100% to check sharpness, it is not what film photography does, the final destination usually on facebook or instagram so it doesn’t matter. Any back to the question, is it 10 times better? I will not use Pentax 17 in this price first of all, I will rather choose Pen-F or a GR1V at this price point, or even a pentax Espio mini. I think autofocus is essential at this pricepoint and it is not quite acceptable to let user do in manuel.
But sharpness isn't everything right ?? . . Tell that to an artist when you hand them a blunt pencil or a 4 inch wide paintbrush to do their outlines . .
Imagine how many film stocks you can buy with that $450 hahaha.. a good artisan lab can produce excellent scans, of which you can edit in Lightroom to get almost as close as the pentax 17.. I do have a Contax T2, since my dad bought one waaaaaaaaaaay back, and is almost in mint condition since he just kept it in his dry cabinet, yeah he got me into film photography. Save the money, and buy a decent Olympus, Canon, Pentax or Fujica point and shoot film cameras. But if you want that analog half-frame that's light and perfect for travel, get the H35N, or get an olympus Pen EE-2 in a good condition for $30 but does feel a bit hefty because of the metal alloy frame..I recommend the one that comes with a 28mm at f3.5.. the Pen EED 32mm at f1.7, that I have overexposes sometimes even with the ektar100. But as they say, the camera you have is the best camera.
I dont know that you could use the argument of 10x pricier means the Pentax has to be "10x better". I think that the question for me was; "are the images from the Kodak H35" good enough to spend any money on at all. I've seen lots of photos from the H35 across quite a few videos over time (I was wondering if it would be ok to get as a supplementary film camera on some trips) and if the lighting conditions and subject matter is right, some photos from the H35 are almost acceptable but as there is no exposure control and focus adjustment to deal with different circumstances means that most of the time the photos from it are so bad id suggest the H35 is worthless and can't be recommended. It didn't take me too many videos to work out that it wasn't something id waste money on. I had a Kokak camera like this 45yrs ago as that was all my parent could afford for a 13yr old interested in taking photos.. but they were atrocious photos. When I was 18 I got a Praktica SLR and that's when things really changed. It was manual only but exposure control and a half decent lens was transforming that now being more involving with better results that my photography became enjoyable. I think the enjoyment to be had with the Pentax 17 is the simplicity for casual and street but with enough control and lens quality that results are not embarrassing
I think it's worth showing how both handle lowlight, the pentax on a tripod can get some great shots in lowlight/indoors. I even saw some deranged person take a milky way shot using a tracking rig. Likewise some comparisons of the flash too would be interesting to see
Is it 10x better? Maybe not (I'm not sure how you would even measure such a thing), but what I do think is that it's absolutely clear is that the difference in image quality between those two cameras is every bit and more than the difference between many lenses that are separated by the same amount of money. And yes, sure, the Kodak can take nice photos, but good photographers have always been able to take nice photos with bad equipment -- even disposable cameras, which the Ektar is not too different from. That doesn't invalidate the existence of more expensive cameras. Plus if you want artsy low IQ on the Pentax you can just miss focus on purpose by one zone and then use the EV to over or under expose. $500 may seem steep in some ways, but 1) it is an actually good camera and lens, and 2) it may be that creating an all-new design and the stockpiles of parts to service them is not economically feasible without such a price tag. If you love shooting film and want to see capable new film cameras exist, and for the market to develop, I feel like this price point is not unreasonable enough to warrant much complaint.
actually who buy pentax 17 for profesional matter ? when most of camera film enthusiast is hobbyist .. then i think most of people will choose h35n for its price .. or get old olympus pen with automatic aperture
First, the results were totally expectable despite what we were promised. Second, by comparing two irrelevant devices you are giving the viewer a wrong impression that Pentax 17 really worths the price. NO WAY! With that price you can buy an Olympus PEN F, two Canon Demi's, or seven Olympus PEN EE's. You can complete this list with tens of legendary full-frame analog cameras.
Pentax 17 is better camera and price is justified , altough there are people out there who compares 30 years old cameras with abrand new one where also some development is done tobet there. Put that same cameras 40 years back intime (yeah I was there ) and you will be surprised that the prices are almost same compared to average income. Film nowdays is overhyped and made too expensive fir what it is.
@@ruiz1871 That might hold the true for basic stuff , and the rest is absolutely more expensive .It depend what you do with a film and which film we talking about. Anyway I had it enough of it and happy with a digital.
@@eagleeyephoto8715 i found 20 rolls of undeveloped color film from 20-15 years ago because I was too broke to ever develop them. Its why I stopped shooting color film.
@@jeremybassetti although the 17 is sharper because of the lens, the $450 price difference is too much. The better price point would be maybe $250, because as you pointed out, if you're just viewing it on the phone it's hard to tell. Also, even printed film sometimes shows a certain softness that people actually look for.
Lol. 250€ for a brand new film camera line, developed nearly from scratch (the triplet design was preexisting), in an industry where taking such big risks means potentially crashing down? Don't be ridiculous. You have to see the big picture. This camera might not be meant for you, but it has its place in the market
What was the cost for a film camera like the 17 new back in the day? If I remember correctly relatively the same. Besides while the kodak sure is fun to shoot gives you no control whatsoever.
After using both, i wouldnt even pay half price for the pentax 17. Every picture is formulaic and dull, like an iphone or something. They look good, but maybe i like a bit of wabi sabi
