What's better than a Pentax 17?
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 06. 2024
- This is the grumpy old man blind review of the current thing that all the cool kids are so excited about.
If you found this video worthwhile, please check out "Nikon Film Cameras, Which one is right for you?", an e-book on Amazon by yours truly. It's three dollars worth of knowledge, guaranteed.
www.amazon.com/Nikon-Film-Cam...
Awesome classic analog merch available here:
www.redbubble.com/people/stil...
#pentax17 #hipster #schlock
The enormous development and massification of photography in the 20th century occurred due to the consumer market; not all of us can be professional photographers. I celebrate Pentax's decision to produce the Pentax 17 and I hope they continue to design and manufacture more cameras in the future. 🥳
At least they are trying to do something about bringing a new film camera into the market. I guess there will always be people complaining about everything and bring others down.
Is there a reason for a NEW camera when there is a plethora of fine used full frame cameras readily available?
@@russellyoung2852 Because probably half the sh*t on eBay doesnt work or its in crap condition with no warranty. Too many scammers and liars selling junk on there. I'll take new all day every day
@@russellyoung2852Of course check out the junk yard of vintage cameras online
@@russellyoung2852 Plenty. Lack of repair options. No manufacture of new parts. Service engineers retiring or dying of old age. Wear, tear and breakage. Ever increasing price as supply dwindles. etc etc etc
If this had been left another ten years, hardly anyone with any direct experience of making film cameras would be left to take advice or experience from, making any new development even more unlikely and expensive.
It may not be for us, but thank god someone has the balls to do it. Kudos to Pentax.
@@russellyoung2852
Oh, that's quite easy to answer.... All the cameras that are at least 20 years old, especially those with old electronics from the 70s - 2000s, are no longer produced, in most cases there are no more spare parts, unless you cannibalize other cameras to get a working one out of 3-5 cameras and nowadays nobody knows anything about the electronics from back then. Even the big companies such as Nikon, Canon, Pentax, or Leica etc. have now realized that their old models are becoming increasingly impossible to repair. This will get considerably worse in the next 10 to 30 years and what will you still be able to use for analog photography? Right, with fresh, newly produced and developed analog cameras that have been brought onto the market. And by the way, collecting cameras in bulk and storing them untouched in display cabinets or cupboards for decades is often not the best thing for the cameras either. I'm just saying resinification, leaking batteries, possibly even old mercury batteries. If the cameras are not moved regularly (even if without film), function tests are carried out, or are then used with film, the well-intentioned locking away doesn't really help either.
Unfortunately, the number of old analog cameras that nobody can use anymore is increasing, partly due to improper storage.
Such cameras are often stored in damp cellars, dusty attics, etc. Unfortunately, in many cases the cameras can be thrown away afterwards.
Is that enough of an answer to why you need new analog cameras?
By the way, half of the old analog cameras on the market need a CLA or a repair.
I like the Pentax 17 (though I haven't got one). I also like my Retinettes (a 1A and a 1B), my Zeiss Contina and my Balda Super Matic. If I had bought a Retinette 1B when they were brand new around 1962 it would have cost me equivalent of £500 in today's money. Even in 1970 the half frame Olympus Pen EE2, a fixed focus compact, would have cost me the equivalent of £475. The old cameras you showed are what I would call "family cameras for the middle classes", and , like the Pentax, are not professional tools. I did see a video where the vlogger mentioned that the body was quite large for a half frame and he suggested it could be developed into a full frame auto-focus camera. Let's hope that the 17 is successful enough to encourage Pentax to develop an enthusiast camera. I love your videos. Keith
I hope they sell really well, it may help to bring the price of film down.
Vintage has zero warranty, often dirty lenses. I happily imported a Rollei 35 SE (which I zone focus - Ilford HP5 pushed to 1600, f11, about 2m focus distance) from Japan for about £500 with odd parts/covers and am aware it can break anytime with no recourse to the manufacturer. Have an Agfa Super Silette as well and several working Zeiss Ikons (6x6, 6x9) ... The 17 camera is for the Instagram generation dipping their toes in film. It is ludicrous to judge it by any other standard. Pentax states it is the first in a series. So leave it at that.
Not the camera for me (i have no interest in half-frame and like you would rather pick up one of my oldies if I felt like scale/zone focus), but then I'm not the target demographic. Still think it is great to see new film cameras being developed at all, and hope this leads to other models both by Pentax and other companies. 🤞
Hear, hear, Brian! An additional thing: if someone really is into half frame, there are loads of Japanese, high quality half frame cameras that are also built like tanks. The Olympus Pen series, the Pen F series (with interchangeable lenses), others from Yashica, Ricoh, Canon, etc., and even the Konica Auto-Reflex (with the hyphen) which gives you the ability to shoot half and full frame on the same roll. And most of these offer full manual control, in addition to some automation if desired. All are well under $500. Heck, the beautiful Pen F or FV SLR in working condition is usually less than $300 with a lens.
I like the humour and the review. I heard someone say this was a social media camera in that it works great for Instagram or something like that due to the half-frame. Since I am a social media Luddite, I wouldn't know. But I do know I love old cameras, and was lucky enough to find a 90+ year-old Zeiss Ikon folder whose bellows was still light tight, and with a little TLC works like when new. $35 on eBay. And a friend just found me a TLR Yashica Mat that is pristine and working great for $50 at a camera show. There is just something cool about these old cameras, but then again, since I am a relic, I like cameras that are relics too!
Cheers!
I was happy to see a new film camera on the market. A little shocked at the price tag for such a basic camera. Will be interesting to see how many they sell. Hopefully, we might see other new film cameras that helps to keep film photography going. I must admit, when I found out how much the Pentax 17 cost, I did think you would be better buying any one of a number of old used compact 35mm cameras. However, maybe there is a market where people want a new 35mm because they lack the knowledge or experience to buy or use a vintage camera? Bigest surprise was the zone focusing. At $500, did wonder why they couldn't have added AF or some type of rangefinder. Go back a few decades and there were lots of 35mm compacts for sale with more tech that cost lor less.
As a relatively new photographer, I've seen and played with enough of the cameras like the ones you mentioned to know that they're not very intuitive to use and user experience is honestly bad. You said it yourself, you most likely have to get it serviced to get a good one and it would be too much of a hassle by that point. I've serviced a few cameras and maybe its just bad luck but, I've had to send them back multiple times because of issues that arose after the service and that's just too much back and forth and time to be without a camera.
Pentax 17 is more akin to a 90s point and shoot, but with some options for shooting, creative control, auto exposure.
Comparing it to all manual everything bricks from the 50s doesn’t really make any sense.
Pentax are also set to launch more cameras, with this one being the first. I imagine more features with manual input and slr interface will be coming.
Best to celebrate that a new film camera is actually being made in 2024 and not bemoan what it’s not.
This is a good sign for film staying in production and supported in future!
Good to see you back
i think their argument for not making it fully mechanical was that it's too costly for a cam that isn't a safe bet. they also mentioned that the team had to learn about the mechanics from the old school designers, so it would have probably taken them longer on top of that
I would agree with you if the market/demand for these cameras was the same as back when I wasn't even born. But times have changed and compromises had to be made bc of where these cameras currently stand
Why that angry? That thing is not for us. For whatever reason , pentax figured that it is a good idea to build this project on people that have no interest in film photography. I hope they will succeed because I want to see a pentax 67 III. But I am afraid they have failed their customer interest research, they should have had done before releasing this funny thing.
It is simply not for people with several film cameras, it is for instagram people that don't even line film photography...
Time will tell.
Economically it starts to make sense only if you take about 4000 photos with it when compared to normal 35mm FF compact camera that cost $20 on 2nd hand market and has AF and some manual controls.
In Europe it cost $750 equivallent which is insane. It might make some sense with $250-300 price tag, but for $500-750 camera one would expect at least full manual control, shutter able to do 1/1000s and possibly even AF. But Ricoh is famous for GREED and strange cameras.
Btw there are some half frame vintage cameras too. Some cheap some expensive. Olympus PENs are famous.
Your points are fair enough. I'd add one more point to your last list. That would be the close focus ability. I like my Olympus Trip a lot but often wish I could get closer to things I'm shooting. I got curious about half frame cameras so ordered a Canon Demi ee17. I got my Trip for about 65 dollars and the Canon for 130 bucks. Would I like to try the new Pentax? Sure! But they are sold out and I don't have the cash in hand for one anyway so I'll stick with my classic cameras as long as they keep working. I'm a Pentax film and digital camera shooter, btw.
I am a grumpy old man too and agree with 99.99% of what you said in your video. This Pentax is too expensive for what it is, which is a over glorified point and shoot camera. All the examples of cameras you gave are much better than the Pentax 17 and cheaper. I never liked half frame and never will. I think most people that will buy this camera want to buy a new film camera, and its a novelty. I liked very much how you explained why the Pentax 17 is not a good camera for serious photographers,
I bought my first Pentax, an H1a, in 1966. Have owned many since and still shoot an ME and MX, ALL of which have better specs than the 17. All of which are less expensive. The people touting the 17 have hairstyles that cost more than some of my best lenses.
I'd also throw in the Olympus RC and RD, incredible little beasts.
Let the style & status conscious hipsters throw their money away and learn the hard way.
Gerat video, my friend.
definately Pen-F series! with that you can use different angle lenses and most importantly focus precisely lol. But anyway still thanksful for Pentax to release the film camera
I think the main hubbub about the Pentax 17 is not the specs it’s that it’s half frame but I think something like the Konica Auto-Reflex or Autorex is a better option considering the amazing lenses you can use. The only thing I could think is the size and weight of them but I just got a Autorex P for $170 U.S. with a Hexanon 57mm f/1.4 that most importantly has been serviced.
Hey you kids, get off of my lawn!
Clearly, the pen tax 17, is not your type of camera. For me is a good balance at a cost. You are comparing a 40-50 year old camera with a brand new. I am tired cleaning fungus, broken cameras, seals etc. So for me a fresh camera for new people is a nice introduction.
I think Pentax have probably done their market research on this and you pretty much hit the nail on the head when you said its for street photography (most of which doesn't rely on fine grain) and you get twice the number of shots for your cost of film.
Would I buy one ... nope; I'll buy a cheaper camera that can do more things, however of course cheaper means older and more likely to jam up quicker. Its a bit like trading in your car due to repair costs for a more expensive, newer, simpler but more reliable new one. Fortunately, you don't have to pay insurance or road tax on cameras ....
Talking of taxes ... 'free health care isn't really free', you're quite right. People who have more expendable income pay more in Value Added Tax by buying goods ( percentage variable from one EU country to the next) which subsidises the basic health care for those that can't afford it. If I break my leg health care is free at point of need, when I'm buying a new car the VAT pays for that medical care; if I buy a yacht it pays for my health care and for the health care of a poor family as well. Sort of state sanctioned Good Samaritan.
Yup. Whereas in the states, people seem pretty immured to seeing their own neighbours reduced to third rate and minimal medical care if they can't afford the insurance premiums - and essentially just shrug about it.
It was an odd and clumsy comment to have made IMO.
@@tobyrobson2939the states isn't that bad. The biggest problem is those paying for our own insurance are also having to subsidize those that mostly get free insurance. Which a lot do. Or a lot get reduced cost health insurance. And the rest of us pay for it. There's not a lot of people in the States with no insurance. That's a myth. And even the no insurance people can't get refused medical care. Any clinic, any hospital they will still get care. And depending on their income much if the bill will be waived and the rest given to monthly payments
I have the vintage Zeiss cameras you showed in your video. There is NO way I would pay $500 for a half frame camera. I stay with my Vintage Zeiss.
At 50 years old and having used many film cameras, the Pentax 17 is not a camera that I would buy, lots of other great options as you point out! I think the Pentax 17 is just a young hipster hype, I hope it will keep film production up, but Pentax could have don’t better with a full frame 35mm camera. I would also recommend a Rollei 35, Voigtlander Bessa!
Personally, I like my old Kodak Retina 1b for a scale focus camera.
As a German, I don't understand the healthcare point, but I like the cameras.
50-year-old camera with selenium cell is a hit or miss, mostly misses in my experience. A cleaned, restored camera with tested selenium cell will cost about the same as a brand new Pentax in my opinion
yes with much better quality
Nice video, finally someone with brain 🙂
I have Voigtlander Vito II, I've load Ilford Pan F50 (34 years old) in it, I love this camera, and I never ever gonna replace it with this Pentax piece of shi., I mean- piece of photo equipment 😊
Yeah...ANY old SLR film camera by ANY of the common manufacturers is light years more "advanced" in picture-taking capability and flexibility. If you decide you don't like film you will be able to sell the classic camera for what you paid for it. ;)
There are brand new Leica mp/m6 selling above $5000, Lomo LCA+ and Wide at $300 which has lesser zone control and significantly lower built quality and a few plastic f8 lens like Kodak h35. There is a $500 Pentax 17. A 30-50 years old camera don't even get the right shutter at lower shutter, regardless how well the service are, it need springs replacements, hinges and peeling skins, viewfinders thats 1/3 of its original visibility for $100? I will take the Pentax 17 thanks.
The Pentax 17 is counterintuitive to the reasons for people shooting with film. Film shooters are better off with one of those classics than the 17. All the best.
Just get a Pentax ME with a 50 mm lens and call it a day! More versatility and value!
"the darn thing.."
Muahahahahaha hahahahahahaha!
"Because free healthcare isn't really free" --- WTF kind of comment is that? Do you think the Pentax 17 costs more in Europe because healthcare? Btw, the US spends WAY MORE on healthcare than any European country.
I guess that I should have expected someone with strong opinions about a camera they haven't touched would also have strong opinions about other subjects they don't understand.
Dang. New camera triggers photographers.
😂😂😂
He's not wrong I guess. In Sweden where I live there is a "small" tax-driven overall cost, and a "small" bill when visiting your doctor - but those bills are very small compared to US costs though (either you pay taxes or you pay for an insurance). Soo, it isn't free, but way better than US.
Wahhh
I'm a Pentaxian and while I probably won't get the 17 , its because of half frame, plus I have some old 35mm film bodies and plenty of lenses that'll work on them. The problem with vintage cameras is if there is a meter, its most like gone or won't last much longer, so a noob will need at least a hotshoe light meter to take pictures, or a proper light meter on a 70 year old "Panzer" camera. Plus not to mention the hundreds of dollars of maintenance after you buy a second hand one thats been in someone's attic for 50-60 years. These cameras are junk by now, and to get them into good condition takes hundreds of dollars by specialist camera repairers to put back into operation if its possible at all.
I'm probably about to get burned on a vintage camera, and many people have bought cameras with failed systems on them too. If you put $50 to $100 bucks into a vintage camera that needs $200 on a teardown service and if you're lucky the light meter still works just get a $100 hotshoe light meter incase the inbuilt light meter breaks down in a middle of a roll. Then they need light seal kits too.
Telling people to buy a 60 to 70 year old camera is really really dumb dude.
The 17 is designed for noobs who do not know how to use a manual mode. You can't tell a film noob to rush out and buy a 60-70 year old camera sight unseen, and find a tech repair it and hope it will actually work, because of a manual mode that they won't know how to use........
The Pentax 17 is not aimed at manual film shooters, but noobs. They're given a zone focus system to learn about depth of field and to practice visually assessing distance, as they will eventually learn how to use "Hyper Focal Distance Photography" in the future. Its about distance scales and hyper focal distance photography used in large format and 6x7 and the smaller formats. Its not about auto focus as they could have put in an auto focus system and then the user would have been detatched from the process of a semi-manual manual focus experience.
Never heard as much bullshit about a camera.
This channel is not about cameras, it's about health care in Europe.
The Pentax 17 is NNNEEEWWW! Why buy old? "Some technicians are around to fix it". Complete nonsense. The photos are excellent using the Pentax 17. "Idiot lights" in cars are enough unless you are driving a race car with a repertoire of gauges. What you are complaining about is included in today's digital cameras with a much higher prize. You're completely unreasonable. Give credit to Pentax to get us out of the misery of buying old junk. 😮🎉
My opinion exactly. My voits are all almost 70 years old. I see no reason they won't double or triple that.
They did it this way because they go after hipsters who do not have and do not want to have basic knowledge about photography, and who just want to have something trendy hanging about their neck. A gadget.
I was looking forward to seeing this camera and all I can say is I'm very disappointed. This is what happens when digital engineers try to design a film camera. They try to simplify it by making it more complicated. Why the f*ck didn't they just make a good camera with manual, aperture priority and fully manual zone focus. I don't think I could use one if you gave it to me for free.
Spent two seconds watching this until I heard your idiotic comment about healthcare. Get real.
Wahh