In my opinion digital sensors have gotten better than their film counterparts, my XT4 produces higher quality images than any 35mm camera I've used or even seen. You literally can't argue that half frame isn't a trade off when seeing the images produced by half frame cameras, the amount of grain in the images is insane
I completely agree that the price is overblown, however your other points don't hold water in the perspective of business. Yes, they are making a camera that is leagues more accessible to the general public (when comparing to manufacturing a full manual body). At the end of the day, this camera has more hopes of offering Pentax HOPE that the film can be PROFITABLE. It gives hope, Not because it's exactly what we need as photographers interested in newer prosumer cameras, but because it captures a large enough potential market segment that can offer a future of profitability. Film is not in a place, in terms of business, to ask for cheaper/price accessible cameras. I definitely won't be buying this camera since it doesn't fit with budget, but I'm excited for what this camera could mean for the future of film.
@@taranspictures there are people who still buy leicas which are 2k and up this 500 is nothing to film lovers, although its not accessible to everyone , it is what it is, its a win for film in general
I do agree it is a win for film but comparing getting a Leica to getting a Pentax 17 is not a good point. That's like comparing a Ferrari to a fiat panda
@@taranspictures In recent times, there have been cheaper cameras manufactured. I personally own the Ektar H35, while there are also others like the moment 35mm p&s and other less popular ones. These have opened the, previously dead, film photography market into modern days. These cameras are low quality, cheap to manufacture, and a good "test" on whether a market segment even exists anymore. These cheap cameras have opened the eyes that the film market is hungry for more. Now (with the pentax), they're going up a step into higher quality (not impeccable, but better than pure plastic), less cheap to manufacture, and another test. However, this test is not just testing the existence of a market segment. It's testing whether this segment is mature/profitable enough. Conducting this test with a wider *potential* appeal has a HIGHER chance of having positive results. Compare that HOPE with the business profitability of a smaller, more competitive niche that is the prosumer. that would have higher chances to yield a "flop" in terms of business EVEN with a high quality amazing product. Trying to go "all out" on a product too early could mean the permanent discontinuation of film. Getting "into the water" slowly gives them a better idea on which customers are buying what, where profits are coming from, and ultimately a better idea on how to move forward with future products. A brand new film SLR may not be the best choice because it is expensive to manufacture, will require additional manufacturing of parts for servicing (something that the pentax 17 has to worry about less), and may not even catch the eye of the "big spenders" that is the professional photography industry. For so long, camera companies have made the most money off of the quality of digital, ease of use, and workflow accommodations that it offers. No matter how we feel about it, the market for film cameras may not be competitive enough against brand new digital cameras to expend resources and opportunity costs making a new film SLR. The only way to be sure, is by testing the market, which is exactly what the P17 is. TLDR: It's hope because it helps Pentax (and other possible film manufacturers) to get a better idea on the market, the segments of consumers, and right way to go in the future while balancing expenditures. The pentax 17 gives us more hope that there will be a future of newer SLR film cameras than if they flopped with a new SLR today.
Except your older Pentax doesn't come with any warranty and is at least 20 years old. And can't be repaired most of the time. This is a brand new camera. The price is about right.
Like I mentioned in the video you can buy MANY different cameras that are already refurbished and repaired for less money that will hold up for decades to come. You can also get older film cameras with warranties, especially if you are shopping local as my partner has done in the past
As someone who was brought up with film photography, I can totally understand why Pentax have released with half frame camera but agree that it would have been better with AF. Ask any 35mm film photography if they would love to own an original Olympus Pen F (1/2 frame) and I guarenttee they would love one. I still have an Olympus pen ef 1/2 frame camera and its fun to shoot with and with the cost of film getting double the amount of photos per roll isn't a bad thing. I think it'll sell well and if it does, I can see Pentax releasing a 35mm that's full frame. Just for reference as well, the Pentax 17 has sold out in Japan which is probably it's targeted audience.
I do agree that half frame is a brilliant way to counter the film prices but personally I don't think it's worth the drop in quality and the increase in grain in your photos. I would also love to own an Olympus pen f but the difference between me being happy with one of those and then the Pentax 17 is the price which I cannot justify
I am just a hobbyist, shoot just for myself essentially. Pentax 17 is my only camera right now. I like it and I think it is pretty good, but way overpriced for what it is. A glorified point and shoot is an apt description, but I do think it is a good one. I just came off of a Canon G7X Mark 2 and am very glad to be getting back into film photography.
@@taranspicturesbecause the release of the premium camera’s will be based on the success of the pentax 17 and other new film camera’s. They have more premium models ready to be manufactured but to ask 1000 dollars for a premium camera will need a bigger pool of interested people
I own the Pentax 17 and am pleasantly surprised about the image quality. Sure you can’t blow the image up until A3 format, but A4 works really nicely. The camera is aimed for Gen Z with the assumption that most of the pictures end up as scans on instagrem. The price is serious, agreed, but it’s a great piece of machinery with qualiry components. Pentax mentioned that this is the first in a lineup of 3-4 other camera’s that will all be more premium.(so more expensive). The price is on par with the original prices of 30-40 year old camera’s adjusted for inflation. I’d recommend to give it a try. (This is my first Pentax camera - so no fangirl (yet))
Great to hear your experience with it. That's probably the most level headed comment I've had haha. I would love to try one in the future but I can't justify the price
If this had been released in the 90s, it would’ve been seen as a step backwards in tech and certainly nothing to shout about. But it’s now 2024 and they come out with this for £500. I suspect that they are going to see how well this sells before they decide to make anymore. And if they do, they will prob invest more into making better film cameras.
That's a great way of looking at it and I agree 100%, this is definitely an experiment from them to see how successful it can be but I just think they went about it a weird way
Saw the video earlier this week coming back to comment. I also agree with the points made honestly idk if I could shell out 800 or 1200 on a truly nice new film camera. I think a 600 or 800 camera that shot full frame that's in the style of a X100 with electrionics and probably a ultrasound autofocus instead of a range finder. Idk why in my mind cheap sensors and tuning them is easier then building a range finder😂😂. Ik it's just mirrors it's just so rare now days I just assume that must be the case.
I feel phones fill the need that half frame filled back in the days. If it were a cheep Holga price camera that you would not freak out if it broke, were lost or stolen then maybe. I would not waste my film on a half frame.
The only positives I can see are that other brands might follow and new film cameras is always nice, half frame or not. Other pro is that this camera is reparable (for now at least) or covered by warranty. Buying an old film camera is much cheaper, but that one could Break and getting a repair could be not possible. Take the beautiful Konica Hexar RF or maybe a Contax camera. Beautiful and good cameras, but expensive and next to no repair chances.
Good points but there are also many film cameras out there that either have already been refurbished/ repaired of are not too much of a hassle to get fixed
Since the lens is already focussed by an electric motor, they just omitted the autofocus electronics, which are a trivial extra expense. So why have the motorized focussing selected manually with zone focus? Because it makes the camera seem more serious or "better", which is total nonsense. I think he is absolutely correct, right on all points. The camera seems directed to a presumed market of photo ignorant influencers and social media types. I also agree that once all the YT producers who were sent a free Pentax 17 pay their dues by posting a video trying to find virtues to extol, interest will quickly peter out, relatively few sales at $500 per with be had, and both the camera and its hype will be dead by June next year. The ultimate problem with the Pentax 17 is that it is targeted at people who would buy a pocket digital camera like my Canon SD1100 for $125 or use their cellphone instead, bypassing the expense of film, processing and scanning. The Pentax 17 is going to end up as the "what were they thinking" event for the next decade.
I have stopped seeing anything about it already and it's only been about a month, the only thing that I have seen is the new Kyle McDougall video where he is saying he doesn't like the camera. 100% agree with it being a "what were they thinking" type of camera
Every film camera I've ever bought has worked, except from one but that was because I was sent the wrong one. People in this comment section are acting like this is the only camera that won't break
I don't mean the orientation of the image, I mean the whole design in general. Half frame cameras have existed way before social media. I'm talking about how they had the opportunity to create a camera that would benefit the majority of film shooters but instead they prioritised social media by creating a super basic camera that looks good but doesn't perform great
@@taranspictures oh sure, I wasn’t having a go at anything you said, but many people have been making that argument in the context of the vf orientation. Couldn’t agree more, I haven’t heard a single solid argument in favour of this camera over everything else on the market, I could get a used pen ft from a reputable local store that has techs inspecting their stock for half the price, if anything eventually breaks I could pay to get it fixed and still have change from the price of the p17.
I do think the “it isn’t for film photographers” argument is maybe a bit flimsy (you are ofc not the only person making it), because everyone says “film photographers want an SLR!” But meanwhile…every film photographer already HAS an SLR, and the cost of the SLR they will eventually produce, is going to be MUCH more expensive than this camera. I agree that most people comfortable with film cameras/buying used gear can’t justify the cost, but I-a film photographer-have so many SLRs but am honestly more intrigued by this camera because I don’t actually have a camera that is exactly like it (and it seems to be producing images far superior to previous half-frames I’ve used). So I think that is how it is actually appealing to a lot of film photographers (who have money to spend, ofc) while also geared toward some of the folks who want to start shooting film/want to do social media stuff with this camera. Also I bet they accounted for it being controversial, which has certainly paid them out in spades for getting so much coverage for this camera! I don’t expect I’ll end up getting one, but I think the results are much better than I expected, and I can see how it would differ enough from other stuff that I have (especially just as being a point and shoot, especially for just everyday documentary stuff, esp with flash), while if (& when) they put out a mechanical SLR that is $1200…I don’t think there’d be a way to justify that (barring some incredible feature) in any shape or form. For me, the feature that really spins my brain (& makes me never want to get one) is that the “auto” point of the camera fixes the focus at far/infinity (no matter what you choose), which I frankly cannot fathom a reason why really anyone would want that to happen.
You make some very good points and I agree with you on some of them but I do truly think that if they produced a full frame 35mm camera then it would have been more beneficial in terms of coverage on the internet and sales, even if it was double the price. See the thing they could have done which I mentioned in the video is they could have produced a k mount SLR which gives the option for people to go out and get their own lenses (or use ones they already have) and they won't have to design a new lens mount or even a new camera design as the Pentax k1000 is already brilliant as it is and although it may be a bit scummy, they could just recreate that camera
I agree and I would add for the planet it is not good. There are so many film cameras on the second market. For 500 you can get a Leica III with a lens
Yeah one thing that got to me was Matt Day who previously said the Kodak ektar was over priced but then was completely fine with the Pentax 17 being 10x the price
In my country we have "local Ebay". A year ago there were around 350 listings by "Pentax analog cameras", today there are a little over 100 of them and most are items in poor condition and/or unwanted models. The supply of used cameras is rapidly decreasing and prices are increasing. One of the bigger sellers is asking 170 for BROKEN F3... Yes, good cameras can still be found locally, but you have to spend a lot of time to make an educated purchase. Most people don't have that time. I couldn't find a single half-frame camera (which would not have to be imported) in decent condition either.
Oh yay, another "talking head" critique of a camera that the "talking head" doesn't even own or have any intention of owning. I guess engagement farming > factual/hands on information these days? Like he says "if you disagree, boost my algorithm." Lol.
@@taranspictures Not mad at all, just laughing at how many people have jumped on the bandwagon to ride the hype/hate train. You criticize Pentax and other photographers for doing things "for click" and yet here you are doing the same thing. Lol.
I'm voicing my opinions on a topic that is trending, it's literally what every youtuber does. No matter how big or small someone is they are making content to get clicks, whether that is by praising a camera or criticising it, and personally I think it's a strange choice from Pentax to produce this. I don't have to own the camera to give my opinions on it, obviously having a first hand experience with the camera may sway my opinion but from where I stand right now, £500 seems way too much for what is a half frame point and shoot
@@taranspictures It isn't strange or weird at all. For the main audience Pentax is marketing it makes perfect sense. Example, you harp on about how it should have been autofocus. This camera was made for people wanting a *"film experience"* so why would they make it autofocus? One of the most "loved" traits of past film cameras is manual focus. It is the same reason they made it manual film advance. "Manual" (zone) focus and manual film advance portray the rose tinted nostalgia of "shooting film." Zone focus is easier to understand for someone new to "manual" focus and faster than something like a split prism for new/novice photographers. They didn't want to make a film camera that operates or handles like the 47 million point and shoot digitals that are on the market, or like the last decade of film point and shoots. I just laugh at all the "reviews" that can't connect these dots - despite it being in multiple releases in print and video to *why* they made the decisions they did. The issue with your "critiques" is that you, and all the other people hating on price, feature set, etc - without actually owning one - is that it isn't the *exact* camera *you* wanted. So instead of actually getting one, and doing a fair-shake review in context to what the camera actually is - you just jump on the bandwagon and bash it when you didn't even bother to research it enough to understand why it is what it is. The camera is an upper quality film point and shoot where they designed it to have a bit of personality that is mainly marketed to new film photographers or people wanting to include film into their social media (and there is *nothing* wrong with that.) I also find it hilarious all the hate on the price - yet the same people whining and moaning about $499 dollars are the same people who have a 1200 dollar phone in their pocket, pay $22 dollars for a salad, and walk around with $2k dollar digital and a $1.5k lens attached with no complaints. Anyone who understands production, logistics, and manufacturing knows the price is reasonable. The "new parts" count on a camera like the 17 is way higher than some new model of digital where they are using a already in production sensor, components, knobs, and electronics with an established supply chain. The price of the 17 is inline with decent quality digital point and shoots. Given the sales of the 17 so far - the price must be quite fair. All the people who complain about it not being an SLR wouldn't pay what a new SLR cost in 2024 anyway, and same with the people who cry that it isn't a successor to the 67 would sh*t their pants at what that costs. The funniest part of all this, is when the Rollei 35AF is released by MiNT - the same people are going to by whining and moaning about how that camera is too expensive and not exactly what *they* wanted. Comparing to decades old gear isn't a valid comparison either - because no matter how people try to paint it - old gear is a dice roll - and there isn't a repair shop on every corner, and parts for 99% of the old cameras aren't made anymore. I have a whole bin full of "working, serviced" film cameras that aren't working right, so there is what I paid for all those - then the rolls of film I paid for to learn they weren't quite right. I learned how to repair and keep a stash of parts for my Bronicas because no one works on them anymore, and the gear I really like - I have "parts" versions of them so I can fix them when they do break. Someone who is new to film probably isn't going to want to navigate the murky, fanboi filled, take-a-gamble world of buying used film gear. It doesn't matter how well it was maintained, it doesn't matter how many times it was serviced - wear and tear, old electronics, and old rubber, foam, and glass degrades over time - this is *fact* This is coming from someone (me) who owns ~18 or so film cameras, that I used often ( I shoot multple rolls a week, and develop at home...), and I service and repair myself. Dealing with old gear is a pain in the a** when it comes to getting it worked on or serviced in most part of the world. Something new with warranty is very alluring to a large amount of people. The 17 is a great camera for what it is. If you use it in a way that is inline with what the camera was made for - it is awesome. I am three rolls into mine and I love it. I stick it in my pocket, I shoot pics with reckless abandon cause half frame - and I get home and can make great 8x10 (and I have zero doubt I can do larger) prints. The camera feels great in the hand, is easy to use, and the modern glass & coatings outperforms my older half frames and 35mm small cameras. I really like it has an EV comp control (funny how most "reviews" don't even mention that....) The meter is more accurate as well. I also like the lack of "is this the outing where this camera dies" back of the brain thoughts I get when using my 40+ year old gear. I cringe everytime I gingerly rack the film advance on my GS645 cause I know how fragile they are these days....I took the 17 out with my local photography club - and everyone who I let use it loved it. Whining and moaning that it isn't something it isn't and that it isn't what *you* wanted - is just plain silly to me and a waste of time. It is like ordering fish and complaining it isn't steak to the point where you can't appreciate the fish.
‘Half frame is a trade off’ - your XT4 has a sensor even smaller at 23.8 mm × 15.6 mm.
Seriously lol
In my opinion digital sensors have gotten better than their film counterparts, my XT4 produces higher quality images than any 35mm camera I've used or even seen. You literally can't argue that half frame isn't a trade off when seeing the images produced by half frame cameras, the amount of grain in the images is insane
But the quality of even your phone is much better than what you will get with half frame.
I completely agree that the price is overblown, however your other points don't hold water in the perspective of business. Yes, they are making a camera that is leagues more accessible to the general public (when comparing to manufacturing a full manual body). At the end of the day, this camera has more hopes of offering Pentax HOPE that the film can be PROFITABLE. It gives hope, Not because it's exactly what we need as photographers interested in newer prosumer cameras, but because it captures a large enough potential market segment that can offer a future of profitability. Film is not in a place, in terms of business, to ask for cheaper/price accessible cameras.
I definitely won't be buying this camera since it doesn't fit with budget, but I'm excited for what this camera could mean for the future of film.
I don't see how this camera offers hope when they have priced out the majority of people who would buy it
exactly, i dont personally want that camera but its a win for film as a whole
@@taranspictures there are people who still buy leicas which are 2k and up this 500 is nothing to film lovers, although its not accessible to everyone , it is what it is, its a win for film in general
I do agree it is a win for film but comparing getting a Leica to getting a Pentax 17 is not a good point. That's like comparing a Ferrari to a fiat panda
@@taranspictures In recent times, there have been cheaper cameras manufactured. I personally own the Ektar H35, while there are also others like the moment 35mm p&s and other less popular ones. These have opened the, previously dead, film photography market into modern days. These cameras are low quality, cheap to manufacture, and a good "test" on whether a market segment even exists anymore. These cheap cameras have opened the eyes that the film market is hungry for more.
Now (with the pentax), they're going up a step into higher quality (not impeccable, but better than pure plastic), less cheap to manufacture, and another test. However, this test is not just testing the existence of a market segment. It's testing whether this segment is mature/profitable enough. Conducting this test with a wider *potential* appeal has a HIGHER chance of having positive results. Compare that HOPE with the business profitability of a smaller, more competitive niche that is the prosumer. that would have higher chances to yield a "flop" in terms of business EVEN with a high quality amazing product. Trying to go "all out" on a product too early could mean the permanent discontinuation of film. Getting "into the water" slowly gives them a better idea on which customers are buying what, where profits are coming from, and ultimately a better idea on how to move forward with future products.
A brand new film SLR may not be the best choice because it is expensive to manufacture, will require additional manufacturing of parts for servicing (something that the pentax 17 has to worry about less), and may not even catch the eye of the "big spenders" that is the professional photography industry. For so long, camera companies have made the most money off of the quality of digital, ease of use, and workflow accommodations that it offers. No matter how we feel about it, the market for film cameras may not be competitive enough against brand new digital cameras to expend resources and opportunity costs making a new film SLR. The only way to be sure, is by testing the market, which is exactly what the P17 is.
TLDR: It's hope because it helps Pentax (and other possible film manufacturers) to get a better idea on the market, the segments of consumers, and right way to go in the future while balancing expenditures. The pentax 17 gives us more hope that there will be a future of newer SLR film cameras than if they flopped with a new SLR today.
Except your older Pentax doesn't come with any warranty and is at least 20 years old. And can't be repaired most of the time. This is a brand new camera. The price is about right.
Like I mentioned in the video you can buy MANY different cameras that are already refurbished and repaired for less money that will hold up for decades to come. You can also get older film cameras with warranties, especially if you are shopping local as my partner has done in the past
As someone who was brought up with film photography, I can totally understand why Pentax have released with half frame camera but agree that it would have been better with AF. Ask any 35mm film photography if they would love to own an original Olympus Pen F (1/2 frame) and I guarenttee they would love one. I still have an Olympus pen ef 1/2 frame camera and its fun to shoot with and with the cost of film getting double the amount of photos per roll isn't a bad thing. I think it'll sell well and if it does, I can see Pentax releasing a 35mm that's full frame. Just for reference as well, the Pentax 17 has sold out in Japan which is probably it's targeted audience.
I do agree that half frame is a brilliant way to counter the film prices but personally I don't think it's worth the drop in quality and the increase in grain in your photos. I would also love to own an Olympus pen f but the difference between me being happy with one of those and then the Pentax 17 is the price which I cannot justify
I am just a hobbyist, shoot just for myself essentially. Pentax 17 is my only camera right now. I like it and I think it is pretty good, but way overpriced for what it is. A glorified point and shoot is an apt description, but I do think it is a good one. I just came off of a Canon G7X Mark 2 and am very glad to be getting back into film photography.
I'm glad you like it and I'm glad you're getting back into film photography, that's all that matters really!
Just give me a full frame pentax clone of ANY OF THEIR CAMERAS
Exactly my point, they already have the blue prints to create something amazing so why would they put money into creating something mediocre
@@taranspicturesbecause the release of the premium camera’s will be based on the success of the pentax 17 and other new film camera’s. They have more premium models ready to be manufactured but to ask 1000 dollars for a premium camera will need a bigger pool of interested people
I own the Pentax 17 and am pleasantly surprised about the image quality. Sure you can’t blow the image up until A3 format, but A4 works really nicely. The camera is aimed for Gen Z with the assumption that most of the pictures end up as scans on instagrem. The price is serious, agreed, but it’s a great piece of machinery with qualiry components. Pentax mentioned that this is the first in a lineup of 3-4 other camera’s that will all be more premium.(so more expensive). The price is on par with the original prices of 30-40 year old camera’s adjusted for inflation. I’d recommend to give it a try. (This is my first Pentax camera - so no fangirl (yet))
Great to hear your experience with it. That's probably the most level headed comment I've had haha. I would love to try one in the future but I can't justify the price
If this had been released in the 90s, it would’ve been seen as a step backwards in tech and certainly nothing to shout about. But it’s now 2024 and they come out with this for £500. I suspect that they are going to see how well this sells before they decide to make anymore. And if they do, they will prob invest more into making better film cameras.
That's a great way of looking at it and I agree 100%, this is definitely an experiment from them to see how successful it can be but I just think they went about it a weird way
I'd like one, looks like a fun one
I'm sure it is fun, if you get one be sure to let me know what you think of it!
Saw the video earlier this week coming back to comment. I also agree with the points made honestly idk if I could shell out 800 or 1200 on a truly nice new film camera. I think a 600 or 800 camera that shot full frame that's in the style of a X100 with electrionics and probably a ultrasound autofocus instead of a range finder. Idk why in my mind cheap sensors and tuning them is easier then building a range finder😂😂. Ik it's just mirrors it's just so rare now days I just assume that must be the case.
Sounds like a dream but I can imagine that would be a lot more haha
I feel phones fill the need that half frame filled back in the days. If it were a cheep Holga price camera that you would not freak out if it broke, were lost or stolen then maybe. I would not waste my film on a half frame.
Yeah it's a strange choice from Pentax
The only positives I can see are that other brands might follow and new film cameras is always nice, half frame or not. Other pro is that this camera is reparable (for now at least) or covered by warranty. Buying an old film camera is much cheaper, but that one could Break and getting a repair could be not possible. Take the beautiful Konica Hexar RF or maybe a Contax camera. Beautiful and good cameras, but expensive and next to no repair chances.
Good points but there are also many film cameras out there that either have already been refurbished/ repaired of are not too much of a hassle to get fixed
Since the lens is already focussed by an electric motor, they just omitted the autofocus electronics, which are a trivial extra expense. So why have the motorized focussing selected manually with zone focus? Because it makes the camera seem more serious or "better", which is total nonsense. I think he is absolutely correct, right on all points. The camera seems directed to a presumed market of photo ignorant influencers and social media types. I also agree that once all the YT producers who were sent a free Pentax 17 pay their dues by posting a video trying to find virtues to extol, interest will quickly peter out, relatively few sales at $500 per with be had, and both the camera and its hype will be dead by June next year. The ultimate problem with the Pentax 17 is that it is targeted at people who would buy a pocket digital camera like my Canon SD1100 for $125 or use their cellphone instead, bypassing the expense of film, processing and scanning. The Pentax 17 is going to end up as the "what were they thinking" event for the next decade.
I have stopped seeing anything about it already and it's only been about a month, the only thing that I have seen is the new Kyle McDougall video where he is saying he doesn't like the camera. 100% agree with it being a "what were they thinking" type of camera
And one more thing…with the money…go buy 8! Canon eos elan II’s. All 8 will work and if you break one YOU HAVE 8!
Every film camera I've ever bought has worked, except from one but that was because I was sent the wrong one. People in this comment section are acting like this is the only camera that won't break
Lol the social media argument. Because turning a camera 90 degrees is difficult.
I don't mean the orientation of the image, I mean the whole design in general. Half frame cameras have existed way before social media. I'm talking about how they had the opportunity to create a camera that would benefit the majority of film shooters but instead they prioritised social media by creating a super basic camera that looks good but doesn't perform great
@@taranspictures oh sure, I wasn’t having a go at anything you said, but many people have been making that argument in the context of the vf orientation. Couldn’t agree more, I haven’t heard a single solid argument in favour of this camera over everything else on the market, I could get a used pen ft from a reputable local store that has techs inspecting their stock for half the price, if anything eventually breaks I could pay to get it fixed and still have change from the price of the p17.
That's exactly my point, you summed it up perfectly!
I do think the “it isn’t for film photographers” argument is maybe a bit flimsy (you are ofc not the only person making it), because everyone says “film photographers want an SLR!” But meanwhile…every film photographer already HAS an SLR, and the cost of the SLR they will eventually produce, is going to be MUCH more expensive than this camera. I agree that most people comfortable with film cameras/buying used gear can’t justify the cost, but I-a film photographer-have so many SLRs but am honestly more intrigued by this camera because I don’t actually have a camera that is exactly like it (and it seems to be producing images far superior to previous half-frames I’ve used).
So I think that is how it is actually appealing to a lot of film photographers (who have money to spend, ofc) while also geared toward some of the folks who want to start shooting film/want to do social media stuff with this camera. Also I bet they accounted for it being controversial, which has certainly paid them out in spades for getting so much coverage for this camera!
I don’t expect I’ll end up getting one, but I think the results are much better than I expected, and I can see how it would differ enough from other stuff that I have (especially just as being a point and shoot, especially for just everyday documentary stuff, esp with flash), while if (& when) they put out a mechanical SLR that is $1200…I don’t think there’d be a way to justify that (barring some incredible feature) in any shape or form.
For me, the feature that really spins my brain (& makes me never want to get one) is that the “auto” point of the camera fixes the focus at far/infinity (no matter what you choose), which I frankly cannot fathom a reason why really anyone would want that to happen.
You make some very good points and I agree with you on some of them but I do truly think that if they produced a full frame 35mm camera then it would have been more beneficial in terms of coverage on the internet and sales, even if it was double the price. See the thing they could have done which I mentioned in the video is they could have produced a k mount SLR which gives the option for people to go out and get their own lenses (or use ones they already have) and they won't have to design a new lens mount or even a new camera design as the Pentax k1000 is already brilliant as it is and although it may be a bit scummy, they could just recreate that camera
Its 200 pound camera for 500, thats all theres to it :D Have no idea whos this camera for
Exactly! Yet people have been trying to justify it, all it is is corporate greed
I just stopped watching right after telling, you haven’t had the camera in your hand.
A critic of some product without testing it is Blabla.
That's fair enough
Exactly, duder is just click-bait engagement farming lol.
I agree and I would add for the planet it is not good. There are so many film cameras on the second market. For 500 you can get a Leica III with a lens
Exactly, people should invest in the used market not even just because it's better for the environment, it's also just a way to get a better camera
@@taranspictures Im very angry against some youtubers who know this is crap and recommand it
Yeah one thing that got to me was Matt Day who previously said the Kodak ektar was over priced but then was completely fine with the Pentax 17 being 10x the price
In my country we have "local Ebay". A year ago there were around 350 listings by "Pentax analog cameras", today there are a little over 100 of them and most are items in poor condition and/or unwanted models. The supply of used cameras is rapidly decreasing and prices are increasing. One of the bigger sellers is asking 170 for BROKEN F3... Yes, good cameras can still be found locally, but you have to spend a lot of time to make an educated purchase. Most people don't have that time.
I couldn't find a single half-frame camera (which would not have to be imported) in decent condition either.
@@taranspictures plastic lens vs glass... I personally would not use that camera even if I received it as a gift
Pentax 17 or not… just a half frame negative person. Embrace half frame and enjoy the camera
I'm not a half frame negative person, I'm a £500 half frame negative person😂
Oh yay, another "talking head" critique of a camera that the "talking head" doesn't even own or have any intention of owning. I guess engagement farming > factual/hands on information these days? Like he says "if you disagree, boost my algorithm." Lol.
Correct👍 stay mad
@@taranspictures Not mad at all, just laughing at how many people have jumped on the bandwagon to ride the hype/hate train. You criticize Pentax and other photographers for doing things "for click" and yet here you are doing the same thing. Lol.
I'm voicing my opinions on a topic that is trending, it's literally what every youtuber does. No matter how big or small someone is they are making content to get clicks, whether that is by praising a camera or criticising it, and personally I think it's a strange choice from Pentax to produce this. I don't have to own the camera to give my opinions on it, obviously having a first hand experience with the camera may sway my opinion but from where I stand right now, £500 seems way too much for what is a half frame point and shoot
@@taranspictures It isn't strange or weird at all. For the main audience Pentax is marketing it makes perfect sense. Example, you harp on about how it should have been autofocus. This camera was made for people wanting a *"film experience"* so why would they make it autofocus? One of the most "loved" traits of past film cameras is manual focus. It is the same reason they made it manual film advance. "Manual" (zone) focus and manual film advance portray the rose tinted nostalgia of "shooting film." Zone focus is easier to understand for someone new to "manual" focus and faster than something like a split prism for new/novice photographers. They didn't want to make a film camera that operates or handles like the 47 million point and shoot digitals that are on the market, or like the last decade of film point and shoots. I just laugh at all the "reviews" that can't connect these dots - despite it being in multiple releases in print and video to *why* they made the decisions they did.
The issue with your "critiques" is that you, and all the other people hating on price, feature set, etc - without actually owning one - is that it isn't the *exact* camera *you* wanted. So instead of actually getting one, and doing a fair-shake review in context to what the camera actually is - you just jump on the bandwagon and bash it when you didn't even bother to research it enough to understand why it is what it is. The camera is an upper quality film point and shoot where they designed it to have a bit of personality that is mainly marketed to new film photographers or people wanting to include film into their social media (and there is *nothing* wrong with that.)
I also find it hilarious all the hate on the price - yet the same people whining and moaning about $499 dollars are the same people who have a 1200 dollar phone in their pocket, pay $22 dollars for a salad, and walk around with $2k dollar digital and a $1.5k lens attached with no complaints. Anyone who understands production, logistics, and manufacturing knows the price is reasonable. The "new parts" count on a camera like the 17 is way higher than some new model of digital where they are using a already in production sensor, components, knobs, and electronics with an established supply chain. The price of the 17 is inline with decent quality digital point and shoots. Given the sales of the 17 so far - the price must be quite fair. All the people who complain about it not being an SLR wouldn't pay what a new SLR cost in 2024 anyway, and same with the people who cry that it isn't a successor to the 67 would sh*t their pants at what that costs.
The funniest part of all this, is when the Rollei 35AF is released by MiNT - the same people are going to by whining and moaning about how that camera is too expensive and not exactly what *they* wanted.
Comparing to decades old gear isn't a valid comparison either - because no matter how people try to paint it - old gear is a dice roll - and there isn't a repair shop on every corner, and parts for 99% of the old cameras aren't made anymore. I have a whole bin full of "working, serviced" film cameras that aren't working right, so there is what I paid for all those - then the rolls of film I paid for to learn they weren't quite right. I learned how to repair and keep a stash of parts for my Bronicas because no one works on them anymore, and the gear I really like - I have "parts" versions of them so I can fix them when they do break. Someone who is new to film probably isn't going to want to navigate the murky, fanboi filled, take-a-gamble world of buying used film gear. It doesn't matter how well it was maintained, it doesn't matter how many times it was serviced - wear and tear, old electronics, and old rubber, foam, and glass degrades over time - this is *fact* This is coming from someone (me) who owns ~18 or so film cameras, that I used often ( I shoot multple rolls a week, and develop at home...), and I service and repair myself. Dealing with old gear is a pain in the a** when it comes to getting it worked on or serviced in most part of the world. Something new with warranty is very alluring to a large amount of people.
The 17 is a great camera for what it is. If you use it in a way that is inline with what the camera was made for - it is awesome. I am three rolls into mine and I love it. I stick it in my pocket, I shoot pics with reckless abandon cause half frame - and I get home and can make great 8x10 (and I have zero doubt I can do larger) prints. The camera feels great in the hand, is easy to use, and the modern glass & coatings outperforms my older half frames and 35mm small cameras. I really like it has an EV comp control (funny how most "reviews" don't even mention that....) The meter is more accurate as well. I also like the lack of "is this the outing where this camera dies" back of the brain thoughts I get when using my 40+ year old gear. I cringe everytime I gingerly rack the film advance on my GS645 cause I know how fragile they are these days....I took the 17 out with my local photography club - and everyone who I let use it loved it. Whining and moaning that it isn't something it isn't and that it isn't what *you* wanted - is just plain silly to me and a waste of time. It is like ordering fish and complaining it isn't steak to the point where you can't appreciate the fish.
Mate I'm not reading all that😂
Complete waste of money
100%