People are completely missing the point… film photography is making a come back but is still in danger because the existing cameras are getting old and we are losing the expertise of repairing them, are getting out of spare parts, and already lost the expertise making them. The cameras are expensive because of the R&D required to relearn how to build them using modern facilities and techniques. They are also more modern, have spare parts and come with warranty. To make the film industry grow and to lower the costs of film in the future, you need a market, that involves the major players coming back to this market to get it out of this expensive niche. Considering these points, they are not as expensive as you think they are. These new cameras are IMPORTANT, and if we do not support them, in a few years, we can say byebye to our analog hobby.
I think people here have no idea how much analog cameras used to cost when they were released. These prices are expected for something new, with tech support and warranty. Yes I know you can buy a used Canon AE-1 for a sandwich and 10 bucks, but good luck when they fail (and will eventually). People are just being negative about something amazing and in my opinion it's worth supporting if we want to see more new stuff coming out.
ok it makes sense, but once upon a time there were no digital cameras, so if you wanted to take photographs you had to accept the imposed prices! today you can choose not only digital but also the enormous second-hand market. and cameras were once built to be indestructible! take a nikon f2 for example or a canon f1
1:13 "...estimation focusing" Don't under-eastimate that method - Rollei 35S's 'estimation focusing' was/is great for "getting a feel" for distances and, combined with setting the aperture, for depth-of-field. I did learn(ed) a lot from it.
All the people who hilariously lost their minds over the Pentax 17's price (I love mine so far, three rolls in...) are predictably going to do the same over the 35AF. I don't expect it to actually cost what they are hoping - I think it will be more expensive. I will buy it either way - brand new, quality manufacturer (MiNT camera) and AF crammed into that itty bitty thing sounds neat-o. Since the 17 was hot seller , I am sure the AF will be even more so - that way all the people who think it is 1974 and/or can't find anything better than do than a hate-circle-jerk for a camera they were never going to buy anyway cause they are too busy bickering over "wHo Is iT fOr???!!??" can whine and moan about it on the interwebs, while us who actually own one will be out having a blast using it. I have been carrying my Pentax 17 everywhere and it is has proven to be well worth $499, I am sure the 35AF will be as well. MiNT who is making the new 35AF makes great instant film cameras (I own a TLR70 and have used it quite a bit, it is a blast and worth the price IMO.) I wonder though, will the person making this videos actually ever buy/use a 35AF - cause they didn't for the 17
Thank you for your perspective! I think the new Rollei 35 AF is much better than the Pentax 17. I would have welcomed the original 40mm instead of the 35mm for the Rollei. I take photos with a Rollei 35s and I find the new Rollei 35AF interesting if it delivers good image quality. A Pentax 17 with an f1.7 lens :-) and better choice of materials would have pleased many analog camera fans. The old Olympus Pen D3 has an f1.7 lens and half frame. Pentax-Ricoh made the wrong choice here when it came to equipping the Pentax 17!!! The price of the new Rollei 35AF is OK! Film and development and scanning costs are really expensive!!!! It doesn't matter which analog camera you use. If these prices continue to rise, analog photography will become a super luxury. A hobby that most people no longer want or can afford.
Y'all funny af, expecting a new film camera in the middle of 2024 to be $100 😂 Most cameras are above $100 USED with no type of guarantee that it won't give put by next weekend. At least Pentax gives that.
@@VivaEZLN1maybe $100 was an exaggeration but not by much. At $800, I don’t know who this camera is aimed for. It’s a small “travel” type camera that one can throw in a purse or the pocket of a hoodie but for $800 I can think of many other used cameras that I’d rather have. You can also purchase warranty on used cameras. A person that wants to start messing around with film is not going to pay $800 for a camera (specially with the price of film how it is) and I feel like an experienced person isn’t going to pay that either. I can put together a Leica R4 + lens + warranty kit for less than $800. Idk, maybe there’s a market for these cameras and I do love that some companies are still trying to keep film alive but I don’t know how well they’re going to do at that price point.
@@ToniLovesSkateboarding I can agree with you on that, someone who is starting to shoot film will not pay the $800, unless they have money to blow, but I believe this camera is more for the people who already have a few years shooting film, and understand what they're getting into. A lot of us know that film isn't cheap and the gamble it is to send off a roll and receive half a blank roll. I think that's who this camera is aimed for. The Pentax 17 is aimed more at beginners because of the type of settings it comes with and the Half Frame. The thing about some older film cameras is that not everyone is buying from a reputable camera shop, so not everyone is getting a kit with warranty. Also some of those cameras come with small flaws, even if they're froma shop. For example, some have engraving from a previous owner. I personally don't mind if there's engraving or not, but I know there's people out there that do.
Too expensive. There's a big gap between the really cheap kodaks, Agfa etc. plastic cameras and this and the Pentax 17. I have a Nikon FM, but I am wanting something that is smaller, automatic and an upgrade in image quality from the cheap plastics that are available at the moment.
Do you think a 50 year old camera is going to last forever? Most old analog cameras have electronic parts that will one day fail. I have a Nikon F3 and use it a lot, but I know that one day it will be put on a shelf because something will break that won't be repairable. This new stuff coming out is exciting because it means warranty, spare parts and repairability for decades to come. You are comparing apples with oranges unfortunately.
@@WhosPhotoTubeI don't think you understand what this means. That old Rollei will one day fail and won't be repairable. All these old cameras that can be bought on eBay will one day be paperweights. New stuff coming out is amazing because it means repairability, warranties and support.
@@joaolouro1085 Fair, but define old? I shoot with a Zeiss Ikon Ikonta 521/2 and works flawlessly for 86 years. There is NO electronic (because it's analog, right). Not sure if you can beat that quality
I was wondering who bought the Rollei label to use, since Rollei Fototechnic is extinct other than as a label. This camera, although very nice, is as much a Rollei as the bicycles at WalMart that say Schwinn on them are actual Schwinns. Businesses that own the rights to old, defunct, but still recognized brands frequently sell them to people who want to use them on their products. In this case, the people who bought the rights actually the old Rollei, so that's good. But, this company is not Rollei, technically. It's a different company that makes a technologically improved Rollei clone camera that also paid to use the Rollei logo. It seems that they do actually care about quality, and despite the expense they ran with it, so I'm encouraged. But don't expect them to somehow restart the old Rollei Fototechnic production lines in Germany. They're gone.
I like your reviews, but I find both the Rollei 35AF AND the Pentax 17 rather pointless. $800 and $500 respectively for products that give no more functionality than (albeit larger) used (but well maintained, and sometimes almost new if bought from Japan) SLRs at a third of the price. Also, if the small size is important, any number of digital point-and-shoot cameras with a myriad of extra functions will perform better for very little money.
You've probably misunderstood target audience. What digital point-and-shoot cameras have to do with this? I own SLRs and rangefinders and I want Pentax 17 so bad
@@adtforit’s still way too much. Granted it’s not auto focus but you can the originals for less in good condition. It’s good that new film cameras are being made but it should be £300 to give any benefit for film. People that are willing to spend £800 on this camera are pretty much already invested in film. £800 most likely wont attract anyone new
@@Benjohns89 It is simply not possible to make a camera at that price, nor were they ever made that cheapy with this kind of functionality. I think the camera market is a very weird one to enter when you have an enormous used market which simply cannot be competed with on price. The thing lomography showed was the profitable approach to this kind of market is to make stuff that is sufficiently different from what already exists to have merit. Both Pentax and Rollei seem to be following suit by making cameras that look cool and have something about them which makes them special. The two reasons why people would want to get these cameras are because you don't want to get involved with the used market and the experience of taking photos that is different than digital. Digital cameras are so expensive that companies are unwilling to take risks in creating funky designs anymore which is why they're so boring looking.
@@Carthodon no I agree, that’s the annoying part. I just don’t see how it’s viable in the long term. Maybe I’m blind to it but is there really a market for this at £800? It’s a shame, I used to love using film but I’ve even priced out, can’t justify it. I bought my Leica M2 about 6 years ago for £500. I sold it 2 years later for £600. Now they are going for £1000+. It would be different if film was as cheap as it was 7-10 years ago but that’s shooting up too.
@@Benjohns89 I'm not sure but I hope so. According to Pentax their camera did well and may increase production capacity. My feeling is these cameras aren't really geared towards us. They're geared towards young people who probably never had a full frame digital camera and are looking for a fun hobby that is instagram worthy, something which will impress other people and have the money for a 1k phone. I'd be willing to bet that the used market as a concept is probably intimidating for them, especially with the overwhelming number of choices they'd have to sift through and terminology that they'd have to learn. As a result ease of use and being able to buy it like any other product are probably what sells this stuff even more than their specs.
