Відео

Thanks for your kind words! My impression is the mechanically-charged electronically-timed shutter is fairly common among autoexposure analog cameras. However I am wondering if the Pentax 17 shutter is entirely electronic, with no coupling to the film advance, like the leaf shutter in a compact digital camera like the Ricoh GR. I'm thinking this for a few reasons: 1. Ricoh/Pentax could grab this part off the shelf, and this strikes me as a simpler design to achieve in 2024 2. The lens assembly seems quite independent from the film advance mechanism - it is almost floating above the rest of the camera - and I did not see any clear mechanical coupling into the body 3. I do not see any movement in the front or back of the shutter as I turn the film advance lever, suggesting that the shutter recharges on its own I have been thinking of making another video showing example photos from the Pentax 17 and exploring the lens in more detail - Pentax put in a full 8 blade aperture, which impressed me, and which I don't think has gotten enough coverage. But it might be a while. Thanks for watching!

How have you assessed the sharpness of the lens? I scan film from the Pentax 17 with a 36MP DSLR and I have been pleased with the performance of the lens, even on TMAX 100 and E100. I've found it to be extremely sharp, at least as sharp as my Ricoh GR10. That said, I have not had the pleasure of using the Pen system about which I've heard great things.

Thanks for the info! I looked up the service manual and I can see that you're right - I should have checked to see if a service manual was available before making this video. I'll pin your comment so hopefully viewers will see it.

It sounds like your system might have dirty electrical contacts. Clean all the gold contact points on both the back and the body. Isopropyl alcohol (IPA, rubbing alcohol) is not technically proper contact cleaner, but in my experience it has worked just fine. Make sure the contacts are dry before testing. And while you're at it, you might as well clean the contacts for the prism on the body and prism side as well. The electronics in the back are extremely simple so it's unlikely the problem is internal. Please report back!

The top and bottom plates really do appear to be metal. The top plate has a plastic insert, but it looks like there's a nice thick metal layer there - you can see it pretty well around 5:49. Also, another commenter has suggested that bare soldered wires are still common for built-in flashes inside cameras. I haven't taken apart enough modern cameras to know myself, but Pentax may have decided to save BOM cost on high voltage connectors by just soldering a few wires instead. In a camera that must already require so much manual labor to build, I can see why they did this.

Yes, double exposures should be easy on the Pentax 17, another benefit of the nice solid manual film advance mechanism! That said, in theory it would be possible to modify the firmware to allow multiple shutter releases before releasing the film advance solenoid. Quick double exposures would be effortless, but accidental ones would be extremely common!

It did! And fortunately so, because I've been having a lot of fun shooting with it.

I also prefer the Pentax 67... but gotta be realistic that it's a dead product. No new parts made and most likely you couldn't send it to Ricoh for repair, so gotta ask other specialists. On the other side, the Pentax 17 is a brand new product, still supported by the manufacturer.

@@anta40 I totally agree! The point is that people confront the price of old used stuff with the new one, and are completely unrealistic on how much new stuff should cost. Sure a brand new Pentax 67 would be possible, but it would cost at least 10 times as this 17

@@karellen00 Yeah, we mostly ignore inflation for convenience. I'm not a fan of half frame, but nevertheless this is an exciting news: a brand new 35mm camera. Hello Leitz, there's another player in town. Perhaps half frame format felt natural by younger folks who spend lots of time on smartphone 😬

I believe @mileskosik472 is on to something with his comment suggesting that the divets in the front plate are there to hide assembly features (like ejection pin marks), and the washers are there to make up for the gap from the divet to keep the front plate surface flat for the leatherette.

There are many such mats on Amazon, but this is the one in the video: www.amazon.com/dp/B07DGTJ463?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details

⁠Thanks! I was also curious.

I'm not sure about that - while the lens barrel cover comes off pretty easily, the lens itself is deeply integrated within the camera. However, since the Pentax 17 has a standard 40.5mm filter ring, I suppose it would be possible to augment the lens with say, closeup filters

I have wondered this myself, and a really excellent video answering your question from @AppliedScience already exists: ua-cam.com/video/ezME4_xMMnk/v-deo.html I would love to see date stamping in a future camera from Pentax, especially since very few cameras with date stamp functions can count as high as 2024.

In my experience Torx (not security Torx or Pentalobe) has a much better grip and doesn't strip like Philips or require alignment like flathead/slotted.

Normal, non-security Torx was chosen (along with phillips) as the main screw type for the Framework laptop since it was less likely to strip than Phillips or Posidrive screws.

If you look at the rate of inflation since the Olympus 1/2 frame cameras were introduced, the price of the Pentax 17 is comparable.

Thank you, this means a lot. I was definitely trying to let the camera speak for itself, and I appreciate that my approach came through. I believe that with the facts laid out, everybody can draw their own conclusions. Though I did let slip that, in my humble opinion, Pentax did a great job with this camera - considering all the effort involved - and I have found it (subjectively) to be a joy to use, far beyond my expectations.

@@EvanDorsky I always said that i'm not interested in half frame, and even if it was a 35mm camera, i would not buy it, having hundreds of second hand marvels for much cheaper at my reach, but i appreciatte the effort that Pentax did very much, because this opens a path for other makers. And after this video, my appreciation for this camera and for Pentax is even greater. Maybe everyone needs to see the guts of it... ;)

That is a level of attention to detail I totally respect!

Maybe I should have stated this, but I bought the Pentax 17 with my own money. And I won’t argue over opinions, since everybody is entitled to their own - and this camera is certainly not for everyone (I mostly shoot medium format so it’s not even for me!). But I must state that in objective terms, the Pentax 17 lens is excellent. It is made of glass with high quality coatings, and I scan my film with a 36MP full frame DSLR, so I can state that the lens produces images that are sharp and contrasty, with vivid color and nondistracting out-of-focus regions. I have not noted any flare or aberrations, and the images appear basically free of distortion too. I don’t follow UA-cam commentary (for the reasons you state), and I am not suggesting that you have done this, but many people are judging the lens based on low quality scans. This is not surprising to me, as many users of the Pentax 17 are new to film, and many labs are not used to scanning half frame. Over time I expect the true qualities of the Pentax 17 lens to be better known. Now I’m thinking I should make a video discussing this topic with sample images. Edit: also, another fact - f/3.5 was not so uncommon for premium fixed lens compact film cameras back in the day. Off the top of my head, I believe the Pentax UC-1, Fuji Tiara, and Ricoh R1s landed here. Though I’d like a faster lens too.

I didn't actually mean you got a free camera, that was aimed at certain 'others', should have made that more clear, sorry. I do however take your point about the actual lens being good in itself, and I have seen images that corroborate this. I may come across as being particularly harsh on this camera - if we were talking a brand new relatively small company releasing their first film camera then yes, not bad for a first attempt. But this is from a brand with decades of experience, designs and know how that produced some of the best SLR's ever produced. They couldn't use some of that to make a suitably up to date jewel of a camera? Why would anyone with half a brain buy this at £500 when they can have a Pentax K1000 with 50mm lens, fully working and serviced for ~£150, or for a little bit more, a legendary Canon A1 or Olympus OM1, both with an also legendary lens all in? I get that the 'but it's brand new' argument would appeal to some, but for that kind of money I'd personally want a lot more quality and usability, not less.

​@@ste76539 I agree that for photographers "in the know", there are many highly capable film cameras to be had for far less. But in my opinion, the Pentax 17 fills a niche for the photographer who is curious about film but has no desire to research old models, is overwhelmed by all the bad information on the internet, doesn't want to take a risk on eBay, and wants to try something new. Also, while the cameras you named may be more desirable for photographers like us (as I've said before, the Pentax 17 is definitely not made "for me"), the Pentax 17 also has an integrated flash and a really excellent meter, making it highly versatile, especially for beginners. And I also have very high expectations for Pentax. I do think it's apt for you to bring up the idea of a relatively small company releasing their first film camera, since that is actually how I see the Pentax "Film Project" - a small, experimental effort, starting almost from scratch, since Pentax lost most of its film camera design expertise years ago (and I can see how not all of it would transfer from digital cameras). I have even higher hopes for the other film cameras that are very likely coming from Pentax in the future, given the success of the 17.

​@@ste76539I think you're hitting on the main problem of making a new film camera in 2024. The K1000 + standard lense in $1982 costed $220 or $693 today adjusted for inflation. Taking into account of R&D costs + modernizing the manufacturing process I doubt that it can be sold today for any cheaper than the release price. And aside from a few enthusiasts, I don't think many people are willing to shell out $700 for the most bare bones SLR, which has to compete with the used camera market AND conveniences of modern cameras. So I think it only makes sense for Ricoh to try to corner the casual market and see how it develops from there.

​@@ste76539 I'm increasingly tempted by the P17, even though I have an OM-1 and a P67 (and, err, quite a few others 😅). It's small, easy to use, saves on film, and seems to take excellent pictures. Plus, as this video shows, it looks to be well made. I'd say it fills a niche.

Where did you learn how to repair cameras? How can I learn to do so?