The new Pentax 17

excalibur2 said:
...anyway she continued to use it just set for only point a shoot and ignored all the other controls/setups that you could use . :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I do that with all my digital cameras.

Having a digital camera and setting it manually seems to me to be rather like having a dog and barking yourself... ;)
 
Looks lovely - but £500

try one of these for £50+ or a Pentax MV or ME for the same

TP_PEN_EE_1.jpg


TP_PEN_EE.jpg


TP_MV_1.jpg
 
Had a quick run out with mine today. Didn't finish the film even though I took about 60 shots !

It doesn't feel as cheap as the compact digitals I've had at various price points. It's not premium. It's sort of mid range. Mostly decent with the odd thing you wonder why they did it a bit weirdly. Battery compartment looks a bit like a random add on but it's ok. Actual body and functions are just the right size for me to use.

Shutter is very quiet. It's certainly a big contrast to some of the SLRS I've had that make a loud KER THUNK each time.

I used the macro mode a lot so it will be interesting to see how everything turns out. Used the P mode exclusively as the Auto mode picks a hyperfocal point not the point you choose necessarily.

£500 is a bit spicey price wise but most things seem to be these days.
 
I'm beginning to wonder if I should examine some of my half frame negatives for quality to see if this could be a camera for me to use... Thanks to all for the reports so far. I'll be very interested in your results Suz.
 
In one small way half frame is the misers version of 645 MF…

I was also going to get them scanned at the top resolution so they were the same as the my usual 35mm in pixel size. Not sure whether that will end up more grainy or not.
 
Yes. Tell us how you get on with that, if you do it.
 
srichards said:
In one small way half frame is the misers version of 645 MF…
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, I was thinking that if I can get along with my ETRS (and I do) perhaps another miniature format wouldn't be too bad...
 
BillN_33 said:
Looks lovely - but £500

TP_MV_1.jpg
Click to expand...

I doubt many people are going to buy this because of its price. Only the really hard core film aficionados who got a lot of cash to spare.

Once it gets to the used market it will probably make more sense.
 
ashishtamhane said:
I doubt many people are going to buy this because of its price. Only the really hard core film aficionados who got a lot of cash to spare.

Once it gets to the used market it will probably make more sense.
Click to expand...

I mean't £500 for the new Pentax 17- a MV1 in good condition can be picked up for under £50 - it's small, (a great size!) - lightweight, simple and easy to use plus interchangeable lenses are also cheap
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
I mean't £500 for the new Pentax 17- a MV1 in good condition can be picked up for under £50 - it's small, (a great size!) - lightweight, simple and easy to use plus interchangeable lenses are also cheap
Click to expand...
Yeah. I would rather get a Nikon F5 and still save some cash. Agreed it’s not with warranty but it could still be serviced with a local shop.
 
I know I want one.

I know I don't need one.
Yes, I have a lot of other film cameras but I still like the look of this one.



They are selling well with some retailers charging a little over the SRP. The lowest UK price I have found was £450 but that was a sort term promo price at a show.


Maybe sales will slow after the novelty wears off. Then of course Christmas is coming!



The unscrupulous part of me is tempted to buy one from a large general goods mail order company, shoot a film, do a review and return it for a refund 30 days later. This has two issues however.
It's not how I choose to do things.
I know I'd end up keeping it anyway.

I have a sneaking feeling there will be a number of used ones for sale around December as people used to digital speed and convenience find waiting to shoot 48 or 72 comparatively expensive photos decide it was fun while it lasted but it's not for them.
Then I'll buy one!
 
I think Pentax want to sell them more cheaply after they’ve sold the first lot. I’d expect prices to fall.

How much was the Lomo LCA when it was new?
 
Results are back. Lost 6 due to opening the back as it felt like the film had rewound but hadn't. Most other losses were focus errors. It's got more settings so it's more easy to get it wrong in the shorter focal lengths.

Bit of grain on a couple of indoor shots in lower light. Not sure whether those were the flash ones and I should have used the slow sync option.

Got a UV filter coming so it'll be interesting to compare if that makes any difference at all.

Indoor:

Great British Car journey by Suzy Richards, on Flickr

Outdoor:

Ness Gardens 2024 by Suzy Richards, on Flickr

Ness Gardens 2024 by Suzy Richards, on Flickr
 
srichards said:
Results are back. Lost 6 due to opening the back as it felt like the film had rewound but hadn't. Most other losses were focus errors. It's got more settings so it's more easy to get it wrong in the shorter focal lengths.

Bit of grain on a couple of indoor shots in lower light. Not sure whether those were the flash ones and I should have used the slow sync option.

Got a UV filter coming so it'll be interesting to compare if that makes any difference at all.

Indoor:

Great British Car journey by Suzy Richards, on Flickr

Outdoor:

Ness Gardens 2024 by Suzy Richards, on Flickr

Ness Gardens 2024 by Suzy Richards, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Those look pretty impressive to me.
 
Interestingly I've been looking at the distance settings and there are gaps at closer distances which are uncatered for and it's only 1 metre and beyond that's completely covered.

Screenshot 2024-07-12 at 15.47.47.png
 
srichards said:
Interestingly I've been looking at the distance settings and there are gaps at closer distances which are uncatered for and it's only 1 metre and beyond that's completely covered.

View attachment 428490
Click to expand...

I wonder if it's not due to the nature of the lens? Typically older cameras of that style often struggled with getting close. I think. :D
 
Pentax 17..just watched august https://www.mc2photography.com/photography-online/ and not impressed by the quality (i.e. sharp, clear, grain etc results) of the shots.....well I know the camera was used by a 12 year girl but thought at least a few shots would impress me, and with VG shots obtainable from mobiles would the shots from the Pentax impress friends of the girl, same for anyone.
Just a funny side line:- My grandson is always amused with me using a film camera and it is embarrassing at times as we recently went to Duxford museum and on display was a Victor bomber, well I had the wrong ISO film for the indoor light conditions and had to rest the camera on railings for decent shutter speed and depth of of field...my grandson just took his mobile out of his pocket, took a shot and said "there you go" o_O and the shot was VG. :eggface:
 
So much depends on why you want to use a camera. If just to take memory shots, a phone or other snapshotty simple as possible device is ideal for most people. If you want to enjoy the process of taking a photo, then a more interactive camera experience is called for.
Our Pentax 17 got a lot of initial use (by my wife) with pretty mixed results mainly due to not setting the focus distance correctly and some other familiarity issues. Now the weather is better I think it will be coming out more, and I'll be loading more appropriate film - currently Pan F (50 iso) rather than the HP5 used last year, and Gold 200 (although wife likes some of the quirky Lomo emulsions like Purple). If you look at what some pro/semi-pro photographers have done with the P17, it is clearly a very capable camera in the hands of a skilled person. The best work I've seen has been urban landscapes and street shots.
 
lindsay said:
So much depends on why you want to use a camera. If just to take memory shots, a phone or other snapshotty simple as possible device is ideal for most people. If you want to enjoy the process of taking a photo, then a more interactive camera experience is called for.
Our Pentax 17 got a lot of initial use (by my wife) with pretty mixed results mainly due to not setting the focus distance correctly and some other familiarity issues. Now the weather is better I think it will be coming out more, and I'll be loading more appropriate film - currently Pan F (50 iso) rather than the HP5 used last year, and Gold 200 (although wife likes some of the quirky Lomo emulsions like Purple). If you look at what some pro/semi-pro photographers have done with the P17, it is clearly a very capable camera in the hands of a skilled person. The best work I've seen has been urban landscapes and street shots.
Click to expand...
Well I understand your opinion as a capable photographer, but would think Joe public who would buy this camera would just use it as a point and shoot then send it off to be developed and print and wouldn't learn anything about exposure, depth of field, shutter speed, latitude of film etc etc that all us us know about here.
 
I have no idea of the numbers involved, but instant film seems to be popular, even though it's a poor choice for posting pics on Farcebook or Instaglam. I know that digital users outnumber film users, but before (say) 1960, was the percentage of the population who used a camera much higher than film users now? I can recall cameras being uncommon.

Many who use film do so for the fun factor, and something like thePentax17 seems to me to have that touch of novelty that could make it popular. I've we ignore making 20x16 prints for gallery walls, and move down to prints for photo albums or the modern equivalent of a photo book, then based on my experience with Canon Dial half frame camera, the format is more than capable of that.

As to the technical bits, I was happy from the results I got from a fixed focus box camera knowing nothing about exposure, apertures, shutter speeds and the really confusing concept (to me) of depth of field. I suspect that for many the enjoyment of using it outweighs any small technical deficiencies.
 
I do agree Brian, but I think Pentax were aiming at two targets: hipsters looking for the analogue experience; and people who were interested in film and accepted they needed to put a little more effort into photography using it (zone focusing and exposure mode). You don't need to know and understand the holy trinity of exposure to use the P17, even if it does help. It's also, though, worth bearing in mind the prime audience: Japan. Pentax tend to target their products at the home market these days, with other geographies a bonus. It seems to have hit the spot there because the Japanese hipsters and semi-serious photographers like to work within defined parameters, perhaps. Either way, and whatever any of us may think, it appears to have been a relative success since the noises coming from the East suggest they are planning something else in the foreseeable. Personally I like it, though it is of limited use to me, but it has greatly enthused my non-photographer wife, and piqued her interest far more than any of the digital cameras I've previously given her.
 
StephenM said:
I have no idea of the numbers involved, but instant film seems to be popular, even though it's a poor choice for posting pics on Farcebook or Instaglam. I know that digital users outnumber film users, but before (say) 1960, was the percentage of the population who used a camera much higher than film users now? I can recall cameras being uncommon.

Many who use film do so for the fun factor, and something like thePentax17 seems to me to have that touch of novelty that could make it popular. I've we ignore making 20x16 prints for gallery walls, and move down to prints for photo albums or the modern equivalent of a photo book, then based on my experience with Canon Dial half frame camera, the format is more than capable of that.

As to the technical bits, I was happy from the results I got from a fixed focus box camera knowing nothing about exposure, apertures, shutter speeds and the really confusing concept (to me) of depth of field. I suspect that for many the enjoyment of using it outweighs any small technical deficiencies.
Click to expand...
Well it's probably my fault in not understanding what other people enjoy from torn jeans to box brownies.....c'est la vie
 
excalibur2 said:
Pentax 17..just watched august https://www.mc2photography.com/photography-online/ and not impressed by the quality (i.e. sharp, clear, grain etc results) of the shots.....well I know the camera was used by a 12 year girl but thought at least a few shots would impress me, and with VG shots obtainable from mobiles would the shots from the Pentax impress friends of the girl, same for anyone.
Just a funny side line:- My grandson is always amused with me using a film camera and it is embarrassing at times as we recently went to Duxford museum and on display was a Victor bomber, well I had the wrong ISO film for the indoor light conditions and had to rest the camera on railings for decent shutter speed and depth of of field...my grandson just took his mobile out of his pocket, took a shot and said "there you go" o_O and the shot was VG. :eggface:
Click to expand...

The thing about that is that he's probably right for what it's going to be used for.

Bu two things cross my mind with mobile shots.

1: Very few people do anything with then once they've posted them to social media. Pretty sure that while my daughter takes more shots of herself in a day than I have from my entire childhood, by the time she's my age, I wonder where they'll be. Fewer photos means each one holds greater value.

2: I actually have come to realise I quite like the process. My current favourite way to shoot is a blended way of using film lenses on a mirrorless camera. While I have another mirrorless (and much more modern and competent) camera, I hardly use it. It feels like I could point it in the general direction of something and it would end up in focus.

But I'm preferring the slower process of manual focussing, but the instant gratification of seeing it.
 
Last edited:
I thought the shots were mostly fine, and I'd be happy with them, knowing the limitations of a small negative, even though I'm slightly older than 12 years.

But paying £499 for a half-frame camera doesn't really appeal to me. I have an Olympus Trip 35 which gives a similar user experience, with a negative twice the size. Using FP4 Type 517 at £3.50 a roll, and developing at home, the cost of film and developing isn't really an issue. If I was shooting colour film and using commercial development and scanning, the economy of half-frame would be more enticing.

Of course second-hand vintage cameras aren't going to last forever and we will be thankful in the long run for the work of Pentax in introducing new stock into the market.
 
Kevin Allan said:
I thought the shots were mostly fine, and I'd be happy with them, knowing the limitations of a small negative, even though I'm slightly older than 12 years.
Click to expand...
Well without watching again and I might have missed it and thinking this 12 year old girl would probably also use her mobile (backup) for shots of New York......what was the girl's opinion of her shots, did she say WOW I'm going to use a film camera more...... afterall she was a small example of joe public.
 
Last edited:
Im assuming the project hasn’t been a huge success, the lead designer recently left Pentax throwing into doubt the continuation any new analogue development.
The 17 was a brave thing to do, but should have kept it simple imo
 
benc98 said:
Im assuming the project hasn’t been a huge success, the lead designer recently left Pentax throwing into doubt the continuation any new analogue development.
The 17 was a brave thing to do, but should have kept it simple imo
Click to expand...
The price of film is killing analogue photography :( and only diehards and people who don't care about costs thinking "it's my hobby and film cost? well it's only about two pints of beer"......................would be left.
 
The advantage of the pentax 17 is it halves the cost of taking a picture at all. Also the old half frame cameras are potentially unreliable so you can see why a modern half frame could be popular.

It's definitely an antidote to the making every frame matter type of undertaking you have with full frame and especially medium format. There's the opportunity to be a bit more experimental and just take more photos for the same cost.
 
benc98 said:
Im assuming the project hasn’t been a huge success, the lead designer recently left Pentax throwing into doubt the continuation any new analogue development.
The 17 was a brave thing to do, but should have kept it simple imo
Click to expand...

I was quite surprised it was even attempted :)

I have been interested in getting a half frame 35mm camera for a while now, but have not even looked at the 17.

Could that be my generally anti Pentax bias since I was cheated by the sticky solenoid issue? Could be, I was very strongly Pentax since the early 70s until that happened, nobody could say wrong about them :)

Could it be the price? Can but a nice G9 for the same price.

Could it be that a 25 year old Canon A10 takes better pictures?

Quite obviously I am not in the target market, I just can't see any reason for having one.

I respect peoples decisions to buy one, though in the main, can't agree with the reasoning.

I really enjoy the Voigtlander Vito BR, and from what I have seen, takes better photos, the 17 would feel (and looks) more like an Instamatic in comparison.

I think if it had been a re-worked SLR using carbon fibre and the latest electronics, I would have been more interested in ,looking :)
 
srichards said:
The advantage of the pentax 17 is it halves the cost of taking a picture at all. Also the old half frame cameras are potentially unreliable so you can see why a modern half frame could be popular.
Click to expand...

The Pentax 17 isn't cheap. The people I know who are using film cameras typically don't use them all the time - and they either use old SLRs or are doing polaroids.

My feeling is that the Pentax 17 is a brave attempt engage with a wider market. The half frame may well have been as much about the similarity with phones and portrait format as any cost reduction. But it needed to sort of go viral in order to succeed - all or nothing.

While the stock of working SLRs will presumably decline the market isn't that large and while half frame may be attractive to some it's also a put off to a lot of others. I haven't seen anybody out and about with a Pentax 17 - but I do see a few people about with film SLRs.

I have an old Pentax MZ-M that is about 25 years old - quite plasticky as it was relatively cheap in its day. I can't help feeling that if Pentax wanted to make a real splash they should have resurrected something like this and packaged it with a little pancake lens.
 
I have two friends both with Pentax 17's - both avid film camera shooters (both shoot over 200 rolls of 35mm a year), one shoots with it a lot, often creating diptychs or triptychs with it.

For half frame I think that the images are very good, and the results I have seen stand up to a lot of 35mm shots, partly beacuse the lens is in teh 17 is 'surprisingly' good,

It certainly has its place in the market. Half rame with 72 shots on a roll actually makes it economical to shoot with in film terms, more so if you develop yourself. If they had entered the market with a full 35mm with a 50mm there would have been a lot of comparisons with existing legacy film SLRs, which is why their next venture is rumoured to be in the MF field.

Its not a camera for me, all my film work is MF, I can't get on with 35mm (digital has spoilt me), but I would be interested in a new MF film camera
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I have two friends both with Pentax 17's - both avid film camera shooters (both shoot over 200 rolls of 35mm a year), one shoots with it a lot, often creating diptychs or triptychs with it.

For half frame I think that the images are very good, and the results I have seen stand up to a lot of 35mm shots, partly beacuse the lens is in teh 17 is 'surprisingly' good,

It certainly has its place in the market. Half rame with 72 shots on a roll actually makes it economical to shoot with in film terms, more so if you develop yourself. If they had entered the market with a full 35mm with a 50mm there would have been a lot of comparisons with existing legacy film SLRs, which is why their next venture is rumoured to be in the MF field.

Its not a camera for me, all my film work is MF, I can't get on with 35mm (digital has spoilt me), but I would be interested in a new MF film camera
Click to expand...
............but dealing with joe public you have to persuade/give a reason etc "why use the £500 half frame Pentax 17 point and shoot camera instead of a mobile phone"......it can't be quality of shots, or it's cheap in use etc so would have to be something like the look of film results.
 
excalibur2 said:
............but dealing with joe public you have to persuade/give a reason etc "why use the £500 half frame Pentax 17 point and shoot camera instead of a mobile phone"......it can't be quality of shots, or it's cheap in use etc so would have to be something like the look of film results.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Pentax 17 was ever aimed at the public at large. I think it was marketed to the new analog photography market - people who already use or are interested in film photography and would like to buy a new camera instead of relying on the used supply. It will never replace the mobile phone for most people, as indeed dedicated digital cameras won't either (which is why the compact digicam market is now a tiny fraction of what it once was). The camera phone is convenient, easy to use, is usually with them when you need it, and the quality is more than enough for their needs.

I expect there are many reasons why people choose to use film, but outside of professionals who still use the medium, most of them will probably come down to some variation of "because I want to", rather than any considerations of costs, or technical quality (although I personally believe that film does look better than phone images, which start to fall apart if you look at them on a display much bigger than, well, a phone screen) . The cost of film will put some people off, but mostly it will be a case of what people can afford or, more pertinently, what they are prepared to spend to do the thing that is important to them.
 
FishyFish said:
I don't think the Pentax 17 was ever aimed at the public at large. I think it was marketed to the new analog photography market - people who already use or are interested in film photography and would like to buy a new camera instead of relying on the used supply. It will never replace the mobile phone for most people, as indeed dedicated digital cameras won't either (which is why the compact digicam market is now a tiny fraction of what it once was). The camera phone is convenient, easy to use, is usually with them when you need it, and the quality is more than enough for their needs.

I expect there are many reasons why people choose to use film, but outside of professionals who still use the medium, most of them will probably come down to some variation of "because I want to", rather than any considerations of costs, or technical quality (although I personally believe that film does look better than phone images, which start to fall apart if you look at them on a display much bigger than, well, a phone screen) . The cost of film will put some people off, but mostly it will be a case of what people can afford or, more pertinently, what they are prepared to spend to do the thing that is important to them.
Click to expand...
Maybe it was a mistake by https://www.mc2photography.com/photography-online/ to use a 12 year girl for the Pentax 17 and should have been "tested" by one of the guys on the team to show results you can achieve using this camera. If mainly digi guys watch this show they are probably laughing and as I have mentioned (being a diehard film user) wasn't impressed.
 
excalibur2 said:
Maybe it was a mistake by https://www.mc2photography.com/photography-online/ to use a 12 year girl for the Pentax 17 and should have been "tested" by one of the guys on the team to show results you can achieve using this camera. If mainly digi guys watch this show they are probably laughing and as I have mentioned (being a diehard film user) wasn't impressed.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but there were many other reviews of the camera from other sources which painted it in a favourable light, although most of the ones I saw also had caveats.

My personal view is that a full-frame 35mm camera (even if otherwise identically featured) would have been a better proposition from Pentax.
 
Gentlemen, it might all be academic anyway. Pentax have paused their film development. I suspect it might well prove to be a permanent pause.
 
A friend of mine just showed me an editorial they shot with one of these (mixed in with Hasselblad and Contax G2 shots) and I'm extremely impressed by the quality you get from the lens. I'm actually casually on the lookout for one now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top