Pentax to produce new film cameras. Let's discuss.
The price really surprised me too at first, but the more I think about it, the more I think it was gonna be hard however they came into the market.
Their primary competition is used cameras decades old. Of course those are going to be much cheaper. New cameras are more expensive than used. The camera really should be cheaper anyway, to attract the audience they are after and based on the features it has. But I'm sure some of that is because of essentially starting up a new film camera assembly line, if you will. I'm not sure how much they were able to reuse, and how much they had to invest upfront to make stuff most companies haven't made in decades.
I think they especially shot themselves in the foot with pricing by making a half-frame camera, where the used competition is very cheap and plentiful. I think used old half-frame cameras are probably some of the most readily available. Compare this higher-end compact film cameras where people are paying sometimes $1,000 for and the electronics just keep failing on them, making the inventory start to dwindle. That's a market where you could come in with a new several hundred or even $1,000 premium compact film camera, and you're essentially undercutting or matching the cost of failing used copies.
I don't know if that last point makes sense, haha. I just think there's still lots of good used cheap half-frames that are working. Still lots of used cheap SLRs that are working. For now.
Curious what other people's thoughts are. I'm still excited they went for it and made something though.
Is it made in Japan?
Quote from James Warner on June 19, 2024, 2:18 pmThe price really surprised me too at first, but the more I think about it, the more I think it was gonna be hard however they came into the market.
Their primary competition is used cameras decades old. Of course those are going to be much cheaper. New cameras are more expensive than used. The camera really should be cheaper anyway, to attract the audience they are after and based on the features it has. But I'm sure some of that is because of essentially starting up a new film camera assembly line, if you will. I'm not sure how much they were able to reuse, and how much they had to invest upfront to make stuff most companies haven't made in decades.
I think they especially shot themselves in the foot with pricing by making a half-frame camera, where the used competition is very cheap and plentiful. I think used old half-frame cameras are probably some of the most readily available. Compare this higher-end compact film cameras where people are paying sometimes $1,000 for and the electronics just keep failing on them, making the inventory start to dwindle. That's a market where you could come in with a new several hundred or even $1,000 premium compact film camera, and you're essentially undercutting or matching the cost of failing used copies.
I don't know if that last point makes sense, haha. I just think there's still lots of good used cheap half-frames that are working. Still lots of used cheap SLRs that are working. For now.
Curious what other people's thoughts are. I'm still excited they went for it and made something though.
What I don't understand is who they intend this to be for?
The price says this is not for new film photographers but half-frames says it's for people who don't want to spend all that much on film and developing (But pay 550EUR on the camera??).
The portrait by default also might be more targeting the smartphone photographers. But then the whole mode of operation is just a tad to complicated to consider this as an alternative point and shoot. So the influencers who would buy a Contax T2 probably don't want to operate this camera.
Somehow there must be a niche of users who actually want this and I'm missing it completely.
Quote from Kamera Brand on June 20, 2024, 3:56 amQuote from James Warner on June 19, 2024, 2:18 pmThe price really surprised me too at first, but the more I think about it, the more I think it was gonna be hard however they came into the market.
Their primary competition is used cameras decades old. Of course those are going to be much cheaper. New cameras are more expensive than used. The camera really should be cheaper anyway, to attract the audience they are after and based on the features it has. But I'm sure some of that is because of essentially starting up a new film camera assembly line, if you will. I'm not sure how much they were able to reuse, and how much they had to invest upfront to make stuff most companies haven't made in decades.
I think they especially shot themselves in the foot with pricing by making a half-frame camera, where the used competition is very cheap and plentiful. I think used old half-frame cameras are probably some of the most readily available. Compare this higher-end compact film cameras where people are paying sometimes $1,000 for and the electronics just keep failing on them, making the inventory start to dwindle. That's a market where you could come in with a new several hundred or even $1,000 premium compact film camera, and you're essentially undercutting or matching the cost of failing used copies.
I don't know if that last point makes sense, haha. I just think there's still lots of good used cheap half-frames that are working. Still lots of used cheap SLRs that are working. For now.
Curious what other people's thoughts are. I'm still excited they went for it and made something though.
What I don't understand is who they intend this to be for?
The price says this is not for new film photographers but half-frames says it's for people who don't want to spend all that much on film and developing (But pay 550EUR on the camera??).
The portrait by default also might be more targeting the smartphone photographers. But then the whole mode of operation is just a tad to complicated to consider this as an alternative point and shoot. So the influencers who would buy a Contax T2 probably don't want to operate this camera.
Somehow there must be a niche of users who actually want this and I'm missing it completely.
I think it's geared towards street photography and a snapshot camera. I'm also picking up a strong hipster vibe. The portrait default is because of the orientation of the film. I would assume all half frames are like that, but I never used one (nor will I ever) so I can't say for sure.
I was thinking they were going to come up with something like a poor man's Leica.
look at the gallery of images on the Pentax link I posted. is just me or are they just not so hot. Some of the You Tube guys did way better.
I'm also surprised there is a market for the Pentax 17. That said, I'm surprised there is a market for a lot of things! It can be argued that $500 is a fair price. If it were $300 it would be a good deal. In any case I still won't buy one. Putting aside my own feelings though, I'm happy to see this camera has generated a lot of excitement and positive reviews. Pentax has already stated that demand is exceeding their expectation (Pentax hype?). I can only conclude there is an alternate universe where this camera makes sense. Maybe a recent university grad in Japan or some entirely different reality than my own. I trust Pentax did its market research and played this right. Fingers crossed. I'm cheering for you Pentax!
But yes, there is something going on with the brand that is a mystery to many, myself included. Are they in survival mode? Do they need a life-line to be sustainable? Is Pentax just a pet project or perhaps an incubator for other divisions within Ricoh? Maybe Ricoh is stringing Pentax along and hoping for a buyer? Who knows! Whatever the direction is, it does look like Pentax is pivoting and trying to carve out a business as a niche player.
For me personally, I hope the future of Pentax is bright and includes an attainable and worthy successor to the K-1 (and K-3 iii) with updated lenses to match. This would be the obvious path for Pentax if they were not facing a lot of head-wind and just stayed the course without market disruption. Pentax used to be the value proposition. They made DSLR cameras in a DSLR market with bodies that were built like tanks and packed a lot of features for the money. At present, Pentax is a DSLR brand in a mirrorless market with experimental moves like monochrome and half frame film, neither of which I would call a bargain. Is the 17 taking Pentax down a path that alienates its existing (and small) customer base? Please Pentax, stay the course and release worthy successors to your current DSLR cameras! I don't even care if they arrive at a glacial cadence. Just don't leave me hanging! Show me a sign!
I do hope the 17 is a success. I hope it elevates and sustains the brand to do other magnificent things... especially if it funds future development of feature packed, value oriented, successors to the K-1 and K-3 line. I'm not convinced it will but I'm watching with patience and hope! Sorry for the ramble.
Quote from grover on June 20, 2024, 10:34 pmI'm also surprised there is a market for the Pentax 17. That said, I'm surprised there is a market for a lot of things! It can be argued that $500 is a fair price. If it were $300 it would be a good deal. In any case I still won't buy one. Putting aside my own feelings though, I'm happy to see this camera has generated a lot of excitement and positive reviews. Pentax has already stated that demand is exceeding their expectation (Pentax hype?). I can only conclude there is an alternate universe where this camera makes sense. Maybe a recent university grad in Japan or some entirely different reality than my own. I trust Pentax did its market research and played this right. Fingers crossed. I'm cheering for you Pentax!
But yes, there is something going on with the brand that is a mystery to many, myself included. Are they in survival mode? Do they need a life-line to be sustainable? Is Pentax just a pet project or perhaps an incubator for other divisions within Ricoh? Maybe Ricoh is stringing Pentax along and hoping for a buyer? Who knows! Whatever the direction is, it does look like Pentax is pivoting and trying to carve out a business as a niche player.
For me personally, I hope the future of Pentax is bright and includes an attainable and worthy successor to the K-1 (and K-3 iii) with updated lenses to match. This would be the obvious path for Pentax if they were not facing a lot of head-wind and just stayed the course without market disruption. Pentax used to be the value proposition. They made DSLR cameras in a DSLR market with bodies that were built like tanks and packed a lot of features for the money. At present, Pentax is a DSLR brand in a mirrorless market with experimental moves like monochrome and half frame film, neither of which I would call a bargain. Is the 17 taking Pentax down a path that alienates its existing (and small) customer base? Please Pentax, stay the course and release worthy successors to your current DSLR cameras! I don't even care if they arrive at a glacial cadence. Just don't leave me hanging! Show me a sign!
I do hope the 17 is a success. I hope it elevates and sustains the brand to do other magnificent things... especially if it funds future development of feature packed, value oriented, successors to the K-1 and K-3 line. I'm not convinced it will but I'm watching with patience and hope! Sorry for the ramble.
I don't think Pentax can compete with Nikon and Canon anymore when it comes to technology. Autofocus and things like that. I remember someone saying something to the effect of "When Leica designs a new camera, they are more likely to take features away rather than add them".
Keep in mind Leica made a digital monochrome camera with no LCD and they sold it for big $$$
maybe that's the route Pentax should go (other than the outlandish cost). I was thinking the 17 might have been a nice rangefinder- poor man's Leica.
In general the camera isn't for me. I like the default portrait orientation of half-frame, but 72 shots per roll is overwhelming to think about. I feel like the 36 shot rolls sit in my camera a lot longer than I'd like already. I feel like 37mm is fine, but it's not even close to my favorite focal length and if I'm buying a camera with a non-interchangeable lens, it needs to be my favorite focal length.
I think the camera makes sense for the people it's targeted at though. Someone who wants to try out film photography as a novel aesthetic for their photos. They are uncomfortable with the complexity and uncertainty of buying used and want something new in box with a return policy and are willing to spend to get that guarantee of compatibility and functionality. I am reminded of all those fairly expensive new turn tables that came out several years ago, some costing in the neighborhood of this camera (I think it's the same demographic) Because they could have also bought cheaper, better quality used gear but didn't because they weren't enthusiasts, they were dabbling and not very interested in the technical aspects, but also wanted good quality.
I don't feel like half-frame is totally about economics. I think mostly about ergonomics. People coming from phones or digital point and shoots are not going to have the process of consideration that I've found comes with film and it's going to be easy for them to burn through 36 shots without really thinking about it. Changing film rolls is going to be seen as negative and a fiddly interruption to the shooting process. They want to change film rolls just enough to remind them that they are shooting film, but never so much that it gets in the way of being in the moment.
I think the focal length is also representative of this, the number of times I've heard non-camera people I know say 'I wish I had camera that just takes photos like what I see', is too numerous to count, the 37mm lens begins to approach that and looks distinctly different from the standard 24-28mm phone focal lengths, which I believe now looks 'unprofessional' to people because they associate it with all the phone images they've ever seen.
In short, I think it's a perfect camera for what it's trying to be, but it's not for me. I think it's aimed at someone wanting to explore being more involved in their photography, but isn't overly technical and wants something that just works and is perceived as high quality and are willing to learn some mechanical operation in order to achieve the 'film aesthetic'. It's for a true hobbyist. Not a beginner, and not an enthusiast, but someone who is at a point where they could be converted into an enthusiast, so they are experimenting with something that is more technical but has that safety net of being new.
Quote from grover on June 20, 2024, 10:34 pmBut yes, there is something going on with the brand that is a mystery to many, myself included. Are they in survival mode? Do they need a life-line to be sustainable? Is Pentax just a pet project or perhaps an incubator for other divisions within Ricoh? Maybe Ricoh is stringing Pentax along and hoping for a buyer? Who knows! Whatever the direction is, it does look like Pentax is pivoting and trying to carve out a business as a niche player.
It's my completely unfounded hunch that this is Fuji's fault. I think the market demographic is very similar to those who are buying the X100 series of cameras. Fuji created a market with seemingly infinite demand and I think this is Pentax's attempt to cash in on that a bit. It has some similar characteristics of being appealing to someone as a more technically advanced camera but they don't want to go whole-hog into ILCs, offering higher image quality and more hands-on control than their phone/p&s, while avoiding the used market. But this costs $1100 less. I could see someone who wanted the x100vi but couldn't get one deciding to buy this instead because it doesn't feel like an inferior product because it's a completely different segment. Being a film camera causes it to not feel like a compromise because you couldn't get what you wanted but instead can be seen as an alternative direction.
Should they have called the camera 17.5 ?
Quote from KankRat on June 24, 2024, 5:45 pmShould they have called the camera 17.5 ?
What about Zeiss Ikon Pentaxina/Pentaxica/Pentaxamat/Pentaxmatic?
I mean that is pretty much what it is right?
A recreation of the 1960 fixed lens Zeiss Ikon Contessa, Symbolica, Contessamatic and Contessamat and who knows how many other names.
Apparently the engineers internally called some of them "Idiotica" as the whole goal of these cameras was to sell to people who don't know anything about cameras or photography.
