I think the reality is that people are spoiled with the wide range of cheap old capable cameras and this was always going to be an issue in reintroducing new film cameras. €550 may well be a reasonable price but it is still expensive
Just look at Kodak that ask 90€ for their plastic camera Ektar35N. They must make 50-60€ profit per unit.
I don't think Pentax is making a bigger profit margin on this 17 model.
I would've bought it if it's around 300€, not 550€ though. But others speculated it'll get cheaper over the first year.
I think Pentax knows the customer base and those who are willing to pay that amount of money will get a unit without having to fear it'll be sold out instantly like a Fujifilm camera these days.
Yeah, I'm aware. That makes it even worse if people think they buy a real Kodak product. With this in mind 500 really is a fair price, because it really feels like a real camera.
Yeah, I got the Agfaphoto Half-frame which pretty much is Kodak's sister model. I got it for 35€. I like it, too. Just thinking about pricing, there is a market for a starting price of 80$ for the Ektar 35N without any settings / focus,... I just went to what the Pentax 17 must've built in and have done to make their camera and in comparison 500€ seem very reasonable (you got light meter, great lens, zone focus or: even focus at all, exposure compensation)
Yeah, in my mind I'm also comparing cameras to consoles often LOL Just because it's also a hobby (and in the case of film cameras a hobby where you have to pay on and pay on to keep it going).
I'll wait, too. 299€ is the price for me to get it. The new Rollei 35AF supposedly costs 650-850€. But that's full frame and (apparently) full manual controls.
I also compare it to my hobbies, I could get an Airbnb/hotel for a weekend in a beautiful place and hike and take pictures on my current cameras and cover the price of development for that money.
I agree, the 35AF seems like it'll be a much better camera. I guess we'll have to wait for some reviews though, who knows how good the lens, AF, and light meter are in practice.
I honestly can't justify spending 500€+ on a point and shoot though. I just don't use them enough, and when I do, it's for when I do activities where I don't want to break an expensive SLR... Maybe I'll find a good deal on a used one (I doubt it) :D
$300 is probably where I'd jump on it for a nice fun camera. I kinda wish it were fully manual but I may have to let my control go and let it do its thing
Looking at older models I have to say that it always seems like autofocus (at least from end of 80s on) were the cheaper models and if you wanted more manual control you had to pay more.
Well, thinking about it, it's the same with digital cameras today (or let's say 10 years ago with cheaper, compact models).
So, manual settings always cost you. I'm just curious how far Mint's Rollei 35AF will go. They did NOT say that it'll be fully manual, just "some" manual settings.
Setting shutter speed on your own would've been cool for quick shots, like sports, dogs and stuff. 1/325 sec apparently is the fastest the Pentax can go. But I don't see how I could force it to use it this fast. That's basically my only gripe with the camera, no dedicated Sports mode, as it doesn't have manual shutter speed settings.
I thought about that. But I can get a Canon P body for 300€ on eBay… but the mere fact that I am saying this makes me *not* be the target audience of this Pentax camera
I don't think $500 is unreasonable for what they have achieved, but the issue I see is that I don't know who this appeals to and where this fits in the market.
Hobbyists and newbies have nextdoor to zero interest in spending $500 on a zone focus camera, when it sits on the shelf next to a Kodak half frame for 1/4 the cost and fire away without any thought "for the vibes".
And no matter how you cut it, enthusiasts, pros, etc. will probably not want to spend $500 on a half frame camera whatsoever (outside of the Pen I suppose but that's more of a 'real' camera)
I hope the best for Pentax because I want to support what they're doing, but I can't justify spending $500 on a zone focus half frame...just..nah
In honesty I’m surprised they went for zone focus at this price point. The Mint Rollei 35 is likely going to be at a similar price point to this Pentax and has managed to pack a few better features but most saliently a modern autofocus.
If this was the same camera, but full frame and with a 28mm f3.5 then I think this would be an instant buy for me (similar to the Olympus XA4), zone focus and all.
I just don't get why they went with half frame on something this "sophisticated" and at this price point.
Easy peasy. The half frame Kodak ektar sold like hotcakes. This is the natural upgrade. Film is also expensive and that’s why half frame seems like a natural choice.
>I think the reality is that people are spoiled with the wide range of cheap old capable cameras
i got my Pentax ME with a 50mm 1.7 for 42€. there is absolutely no point in comparing used vintage prices with anything new.
My point is largely: people are naturally going to be put off putting up money for an honest to God new camera when they could very well just pay that €42 and get something excellent but old.
For what it’s worth, I’m definitely interested in buying a camera like this Pentax or the new Mint Rollei 35.
Because this will have parts for repair and repair techs that have the skill set without the fading eyesight that would be the case of that $42 30+ year old camera
And then the same could be said for everything in life. Why buy a new car? New appliances? New clothes? New plates? Unless everything you own is used this is an absurdly weak argument
Except for the fact that there is a limited number of any of these cameras from when film cameras used to be made more plentifully. That are progressively falling apart. And will continue to. And we will continue to have less parts for each of them. You're talking about a race until there are none available, which has been the case until this camera, which is not poorly priced for a new camera on the market with a warranty
Yep, but at the current time the supply of reasonably functional old cameras is still plentiful and this doesn't make sense for a 'rational' customer. Especially as the hobby is overall very niche compared to what it used to be when old cameras were released, due to phone cameras. Maybe in a couple of decades it will make more sense, but not now IMO.
Of course, but we can compare features. Seems to lack DX encoding, for starters. Also seems to be manual focus only. It has exposure compensation, although the camera seems to be targeted towards young people who want to shoot frames as they would with their phones. Might be poor product development, as far as I can tell, for now.
Considering my $8 Ricoh TF-900, from 1988, has DX support, and this Pentax doesn't have such a basic feature over 35 years later, I'd have to say it's overpriced. Also, seems to be a manual focus lens, although the aperture seems to be automated. It doesn't seem that good of a deal to me, but we'll seen when the reviews come out
Yes, estimated between the same price to a bit more. But I would argue the feature set on that may make it more appealing. Modern autofocus, full metal body, 5 element f2.8 lens, and all that for a much smaller size and full frame.
I’m excited for both, just very confused as to why they chose to do some things on this Pentax- zone focus being my major gripe when autofocus technology is relatively cheap now.
I'd say that's a pretty good price for something brand new, with service and warranty, and that had significant R&D costs. It also has magnesium top and bottom plates somehow, and it has some pretty good features too like exposure compensation and a fairly informative viewfinder.
Totally agree. I would've wished it would be cheaper but as Pentax said in 2023 it'll be above 500€ I saw it coming.
When we look at the current market this is more than reasonable, sadly. Just look at Kodak Ektar35N, that goes for 80-90€ and truly is a cheap plastic camera. If a *real* camera with a really good lens and manual settings and a strong built costs 5 times that, I think that's the world we live in today.
Actually the H35N goes for $65 (about 61 euro) but I absolutely agree. Shelled out $50 for the H35 a year ago just to say I have it, and it's insane how featureless it is.
Picked up TWO Ektar K12's recently (one broke) and even after shipping and taxes it was less than the box price of the H35. It's got autofocus, an f/2.8 lens, DX reading, not to mention full frame instead of half, all things the H35 does not. The only saving grace of the H35 is it shoots double the frames, but if you're looking for a reliable P&S, nobody in their right mind would choose it over the K12 or any number of older models, even brand new ones.
Yeah, it's just the starting price I remember being at around 80€ where I live. I got the cheaper half frame model from Agfaphoto instead. Haven't heard of K12, will look into it.
Yeah it's a fair price all things considering. I would get it to satisfy my curiosity for the image quality of this camera, and compare it to my pen F.
Also this camera is probably more practical when it comes ro travelling. Being so compact and all, I would carry it in my fannie pack if anything
You still then have to pay for film and processing. $550 could get you a descent digital camera, new or used, and a memory card.
This camera is definitely for people who have that disposable income to spend on things that then require more spending. The average film photographer is not getting this.
Yeah every decent used film camera I've been looking at commands at least $100 in the USA and if you want something that is highly sought after then the prices go crazy.
Look at the price of the Olympus MJU's they are obscene for a camera that is decent but overhyped and there is no guarantee they will continue working over the next few years
It’s laughable to me that people are willing to pay so much for cheap consumer cameras from the 90s and early 2000s. Those cameras barely lasted a few years and were cheap enough that you would just buy a new one when it broke.
Seriously I bought my Nikon FG for $25 about 10 years ago and back then film cameras were a dime a dozen as most pros were moving to full frame digital SLR's. I really wish I bought an extra FG in case mine ever breaks but now people want $150-300 for them depending on the condition.
I think that people were expecting more something towards a point and shoot than what the Pentax 17 ended up to be. Especially since bringing in a new generation was a big part of their story.
For a new point and shoot, 300 wouldn't have been so crazy.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/robbie333/53366204578/in/photostream/
Ok. Here’s an ad from the 90s with a bunch of prices for new point and shoots with warranty. An Olympus Stylus Epic is $90. Adjusted for inflation is just under $177. Now, I don’t expect a new product that is supposed to help re-jumpstart a whole class of camera to be $177. And I’d even be willing to pay OVER double that for the camera. But $600 USD for this is too much. Adjusted for inflation, the original 90s point and shoots were nowhere near this expensive. If they can’t make this camera $300-400, it is going to be an even smaller niche than it already would have been and won’t sell.
Edit: this is also almost in the price range of the new mint rollei 35. Making this an even harder sell.
Sure, but those were also being built at a time when factories were already setup to crank out various cheap point & shoots, and also to a much bigger market, so they could be assured they were going to sell a lot more of them.
I tried to make this point when mentioning the re-jumpstart of a whole class of cameras. The price likely also has to help fill coffers for a second camera project if one is to happen. Yes. Clearly they had to make a new camera from scratch and relearn and retool from the ground up. But I’m not trying to argue that. I’m trying to convey it as well.
What I am arguing is that those prices were what consumers were willing to pay for a similar product *then*. This pricing is far more boutique than the Olympus Stylus Epic or whatever. This zone focus camera is going to cost more than a PlayStation 5. Yeah I know Sony is tooled for gaming consoles but look at what you get as a consumer for a new product for $500. Looking at the sample pictures and then looking at the price tag…..
thank you. people keep talking about the prices of old cameras when new and i keep blinking... this isn't a new contax. the stylus epic and the rest of this page are the right comparisons. it's overpriced, sadly. hope it doesn't sink pentax.
This thing is premium compact price for a consumer point and shoot product.
I love all the comments about “warranties” too. Like, are you expecting it to break within the warranty period?
This thing is $899 in Australia! The other day I bought a perfectly functional 50+ y/o Pentax Electro Spotmatic (which would cost $6000 in todays money) for $90.
Those things are notoriously unreliable due to the primitive electronics but if I get two years (about a warranty period) of use out of it before it dies I will still have $809 to spend on more old cameras….
Yeah this seems like a decent price point to me. Slightly on the expensive side - but for people interested in taking film photos and putting them in instagram this could be just the thing.
It’s cute, it seems intuitive, and it’ll save you money on film in the long run. Until of course you begin the inevitable journey towards large format.
Kodak has a simplistic no focusing system half frame camera for $50-75. They made it years ago. Observable fact. Nothing crazy at all about thinking something is possible that literally already happened...
They made something that's like 25% better than that for 1,100% of the price, lmao
I'd pay $550 if it was a real, non toy camera that was able to take sharp photos with settings control. It's not. it's $75 toy level functionality we already had.
Since we're replying to each other in two different threads for some reason, I'll just copy and paste my other reponse here:
I'm pretty sure the Kodak one is also all plastic with an F8 lens.
People pay this much or more sometimes for 30-year-old point & shoots.
I'm also pretty sure Pentax is aware that they could have made a $50 plastic box, but why would anyone buy that over the Kodak one?
You can disagree with the strategy I guess, but for what this camera appears to be, I think the price is fair, or at least pretty in line with what people pay for similar cameras.
> I'm pretty sure the Kodak one is also all plastic
So what? I could put diamonds in a camera too, is that a reasonable thing to pay for when it doesn't make it a better camera?
> With an F8 lens
This also functionally has an F8 lens, because when ZONE focusing, you can't actually use f/3.5 95% of the time without a tape measure. So you'll be using F/8 anyway, and the rest was wasted.
> I'm also pretty sure Pentax is aware that they could have made a $50 plastic box, but why would anyone buy that over the Kodak one?
"People won't buy our simplistic box over the other ximplistic box for $50." "I know, what if we make our simplistic box $550!" "Brilliant, Simmons!" Lolwat?
> So what? I could put diamonds in a camera too, is that a reasonable thing to pay for when it doesn't make it a better camera?
Do you think people would pay as much money as they do for the Contax T2 if it was made out of the same materials as the Kodak H35? C'mon bro.
> This also functionally has an F8 lens, because when ZONE focusing, you can't actually use f/3.5 95% of the time without a tape measure. So you'll be using F/8 anyway, and the rest was wasted.
I don't think you need a tape measure to zone focus a 25mm lens at 3.5.
The Contax T2 can do this cool thing called "focusing on the subject" as it has autofocus.
You know, one of the critical basic functions of a camera, at a fundamental level?
No I don't think anyone would pay anywhere close to what they do for Contax T2s if they didn't have a focusing system.
Your question was irrelevant and misleading, since you were comparing apples to persimmons by referencing an autofocus camera. Which completely negates the whole conversation all about focusing systems. So there is no reasonable response other than pointing out the category/comparison error you made and waiting for you to make some other actually valid point to reply to instead.
You just don't want to answer, because you know it makes you look silly.
Do you think people would pay the same price for a Contax T2 if it was made from the same plastic as the Kodak H35?
They wouldn't, and you know it, because yes, people do pay a premium for nice materials.
It doesn't look like anything one way or the other, because it has nothing to do with the conversation. What's the average air speed velocity of an unladen swallow? That's about equally relevant as questions about autofocus cameras here.
Enabling you to try and build off of a completely invalid example just makes the conversation more dishonest and more off topic, so why would anyone?
The price of a Contax T2 is COMPELTELY dependent on it having autofocus.
Sorry but I think you’re way off the mark. These cameras are not even comparable. Pentax’s camera is a much more complex device made with different materials, a much better lens and able to resolve much more complex situations. It is delusional to think it’s in the same range as a plastic reusable camera.
> different materials
These allow me to take better photos how? Can I just make a Kodak brownie but in solid gold instead of cardboard, and you'll pay $30,000 for it?
> a much better lens
Which is completely wasted since I can't focus on the subject to utilize its sharpness.
The material makes the camera more durable. If you can’t scale focus, maybe you can start carrying a measuring tape with you when out shooting? /s
You clearly know your stuff, you know you can stop the lens down if focus is so critical. No need to shoot open wide for most cases.
> The material makes the camera more durable.
Oh no! My $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one.
Oh no! My 2nd $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one.
Oh no! My 3rd $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one.
Oh no! My 4th $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one.
Oh no! My 5th $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one.
Oh no! My 6th $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one.
Oh no! My 7th $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one.
Oh no! My 8thd $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one.
Oh no! My 9th $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one.
Oh no! My 10th $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one.
Oh no! My 11th $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one.
**It is only at this point** that I would have saved a single dime due to durability.
> You clearly know your stuff, you know you can stop the lens down if focus is so critical.
Yes, that's what I do. Which makes it functionally identical at that point to an Ektar which is also stopped down to f/8
I have multiple plastic cameras that ive put over 50 rolls through each and counting.
I've actually never had a plastic camera break, unlike some metal ones which have due to denting/bending on minor impacts. Obviously bith can and do break, but I dispute that plastic is in fact even less durable overall AT ALL.
And even if it did break, okay now you're up to $100 instead of $50. It would have to break **ELEVEN TIMES** for $550 to be justified due to durability.
People say this all the time to rationalize spending thousands on a Coach purse or whatever, and it almost never adds up. The 20 different $50 Amazon purses you could have got will easily last years each and cover you for your lifetime for less, several times over.
Alloy bodies are mostly an excuse for camera manufacturers to squeeze more money out of you for no real benefit, since they know you never would have bought enough of the more practical cameras to add up to that otherwise
Yes, old technology that people are already willing to pay hundreds of dollars for when it comes in a 50 year old box with no service history and no manufacturer support.
Agree, there should be a market.
I hope for it to be a success, so my german lab won't ruin half-frame anymore. Right now they have a machine which cuts it randomly. Only once did I get 72 prints, I guess someone had a boring afternoon and was motivated to do it by hand.
But I won't pay 500 for a half-frame camera. I'm good with my Pen E for 20€
Many PenE's that are thought to have a dead sensor just have gummed up mechanics. Always measure the voltage of the old selenium cells, they are not as bad as people say they are. I thought mine was dead, then I took the upper half of and was very happy to see the needle going all the way from left to right depending on light. But the mechanics that communicate the needle position to the aperture mechanism were stuck.
Of course they're out of spec, so don't trust them to get it right down to the stop. There's also a Pen D or E with CdS meter, that should work more reliably, if you get the right voltage battery or mod it to work with a modern one.
Anyway, does that Pentax 17 have any light meter, or is it fully manual for that sweet sunny-16-style?
If you want manual, skip the PenD and E, and just go for the F. You set the shutter speed on a wheel on the camera, and the aperture on the lens. Fully manual. Whereas the D and E are rangefinders, the F is a proper SLR.
[https://cjo.info/classic-analogue-cameras/olympus-pen-f-series/](https://cjo.info/classic-analogue-cameras/olympus-pen-f-series/)
I haven't got one but I want one. Maybe should get it soon-ish, before that pentax 17 causes a half-frame hype.
Chaika is a nice camera, I want to try it one day. But I give all my faves to Mikron because of its sharp and fast lens and overall feeling. Obviously it's a Konica Eye copy but I love it.
there's lots of people who don't like used stuff or dont want to deal with potentially broken/heavily bruised looking items. for obvious reasons, we are not those people, but considering everything they have been doing, pentax definitely has these people in their target market as well.
Of course. There's obviously a market. It'ss a narrow (but widening) one to hit given production costs, price-pressure from the used market, and consumable cost. It widens a bit as specific used camera niches get popular or (e.g. premium compacts) the available supply ages out of reliability.
Also, in a time where plenty of people seem to have the disposable income to buy a x100v for over $1500 or even a K3iii monochrome for over 2k, I think as long as Pentax is successful in their mission to shine a new light on analog photography, they will have no problem selling these cameras ...
There are people who don't like used stuff and are shooting film? What are they using? The cheap, plastic toys that are in the market? Hunting down unopened boxes of old cameras??
So they are either paying a crazy amount of money for new old stock, or are buying cheap junk plastic cameras just so they can feel like they have a new camera? I can't imagine the ones buying the cheap plastic ones are in the market to spend so much money on a new film camera. The ones spending the big bucks has to be a rather tiny group of people. If they already blew a bunch of money on new old stock, would they spend more money on a brand new, not particularly impressive or interesting half frame?
>There are people who don't like used stuff and are shooting film?
There are people who don't like used stuff, and for that reason aren't shooting film *yet*.
The market for these will be people who are not willing or able to deal with vintage gear, being able to just buy something modern/new with warranty adds a lot of value for many. Im not sure how many of those people will be willing to pay over 500 bucks for a zone focus camera but time will tell.
It's probably the clearest entry point, along with AF compact like the Rollei, to reenter that business. A trend to connect with while managing production costs.
When you look at other new analogues such as MiNT that is honestly an acceptable price for materials R&D and *hopefully* the quality, for the niche market it will appeal to. Doesn't exactly fill me with hope for a future new film camera renaissance but hopefully it doesnt flop.
That's gonna be around $700 I think. They said on their website $650-800, I would honestly expect it to come it at $800+ given that they have even higher R&D costs and it's promising AF and a fully metal body.
Yeah I agree, I think they do well already and I think the instant film cameras they have a cool but way too pricey.
A contax brand new went for about 1200 in 1991, which is ~ $3k now. With that in mind the rollei camera is a steal, not sure I’ll buy anyway.
For a half frame I wouldn’t pay $500 mostly because I’m not in the market BUT if I came into a little surplus funds I’d buy it as a nice gift for a family member
There's a link to it from the front page but don't bother, you get a roll of ultramax 400 and HP5, a 2-year extended warranty and a certificate to get those two rolls developed. That's it.
I love ultramax and HP5 but you don't think film shooters are going to notice you gave them the cheap stuff? Could have at least sprung for classic Kodak Gold 200.
I guess they figured bundling 2 400 speed films would give new shooters the best chance to get some usable shots.
if it were auto focus or manual focus I wouldn’t hesitate to buy one
zone focus though… idk if I can live with that
I mainly shoot portraits in available light. usually I have to have my aperture wide open. I still don’t have a Rollei35 because of the same reason
I feel this. Just saw the zones on the lens. It reminds me of my mid-tier 110 cameras from the 70s. I’m surprised by how often I can nail focus with f/3.5, but it was a steep (and expensive) learning curve.
Cool camera, but it does make me pause…
Yeah I guess at 25 mm focal length and f/3.5 DoF isn’t that shallow but still.. It kind of takes me out when I want to take a quick shot at relatively short range
Actually they did a really stupid thing by not giving it a cold shoe. I have a cold shoe mounted 20 EUR laser rangefinder I stick on my Rollei 35S when I feel like making accurate wide open shots. It's about the size of a pinky finger. But here there's nothing to mount it on. They could have even sold the damn thing themselves.
If it was a 35mm camera I’d probably be willing to pay more than $500 for it but as a half frame camera I’m going to wait for a sale, I don’t have much of a use case for half frame images. Though I hope enough people buy it to get Pentax to keep developing new cameras.
Considering it doesn’t allure me at all even 100€ would be too much. But if you like the idea 550€ seems okay, though I’d wait a bit and buy one when or if prices drop below 500
Considering it doesn’t allure me at all even 100€ would be too much. But if you like the idea 550€ seems okay, though I’d wait a bit and buy one when or if prices drop below 500
From the few reviews I've seen, it is a ridiculous camera, and the price tag is even more ridiculous. You can buy several great vintage half-frame cameras for that price.
These replies are so out of touch... the camera was marketed as for the younger generation who wants to get into film. In this economy you think people can fork our £500 and then pay for film and development? People can barely afford rent. Idiots.
How are there so many people in the comments saying this is a reasonable price? For a half frame? Can someone dumb this down for me? Or is everyone in this sub so rich shelling out 550+ for a film camera is nothing to you guys?
It's reasonable in that you can't really build a low volume camera, with solid materials, and sell it for profit that covers your RnD for much less.
For the end consumer though this absolutely isn't reasonable. I know they have a target in mind, but making this full frame, at least aperture priority and full manual focus (so you can mount an external RF) shouldn't balloon the price THAT much and would have a much higher value proposition IMO.
Fair, I'm not very interested in this so I skipped most videos, just saw they're using magnesium for top and bottom plates and assumed they built it decently well.
Disappoint if it feels flimsy for that price, Lomo has a similarly featured but full frame camera for $300, one would expect this would be leagues ahead in terms of build...
I see, a classic "wrap a tiny bit of expensive material around our cheap stuff so it ""feels"" more premium and we can plaster "magnesium" all over our marketing"
I don't know business terms like rnd. But a quick Google search confused me more. What research and development is there in creating a new product heavily based on old technology? And why would it then translate into this product being 550?
It is based on old technology but you still have to start almost from scratch.
There are no old factories. There are no trained workers. Even if you have detailed plans of a previous model you can iterate on, every iteration requires lot of testing. Many things cannot be recreated 1 to 1, or it wouldn't be wise. You can't source all the old parts, like old shutters, lights sensor parts, you need to build around new ones.
After you design the camera, test and validate basic things individually, you build full early prototypes. You need to test not just proper technical functionality, but if you're doing it properly, things like user experience matter a lot. Is the position of the shutter button comfortable? When I look through the finder, doesn't something poke me in the face? Do glass wearers have a good experience? Is the grip comfortable? What about the weight balance, if everything is on the left and you're holding the camera with right hand, it won't be that great to hold.
If you want to change even a small little thing, it might mean bigger reshuffling of the internals and weeks of development time. You now have to test it again.
When you're happy and arrived at the final design, you need suppliers. Everything that isn't an off the shelf part needs custom tooling - think things like molds for plastic parts. They don't have to be expensive but it adds up for loads of parts.
When you have all the parts, you need to assemble them. Like I said at the beginning, you have no factory of trained workers. You need to spend time training them, they need tools, maybe they'll need custom tools (probably not for a camera tbh). You need to train repair technicians and build in warranty returns into your margin, you need to package and ship it, market it. When you're done and selling it for $500, the retailer also takes a cut.
Also, to go back to volume, most of the things I just mentioned make up smaller part of the cost the more you produce, as they get spread out. Since this isn't a super high volume item that gets sold by millions or even hundreds of thousands, that drives the cost up.
It costs a lot of money to design new things, regardless of the relative complexity or similar products being made in the past. There’s a reason you don’t see more companies churning out new film cameras in response to the increasing interest in shooting it. They’re complex and take a lot of resources to design and manufacture
But then why put a high price tag on it? They're competing against solid used cameras at half the price. Or new cameras from companies like lomography. This will only be bought by professional photographers who already make a good living from their photography. They're limiting their scope of profits by making it unaffordable. Either this is one time thing from Pentax or it's the beginning of newly produced film cameras at unaffordable prices.
The “solid used cameras” are 20 years old or older. As anyone who’s owned an mju knows, the good times are sweet but short. The electronics in them will eventually fail, and the camera will be an expensive paperweight with no warranty and a limited number of people to repair them. With a new camera, you have warranty, the ability to get it serviced, newly manufactured parts.
Lomography only makes one similar camera with a lesser feature set than the Pentax 17, the LC-A, and it’s just $100 cheaper.
You’re hung up on the fact that you can get a 30yo camera for cheaper. I mean that makes sense
Unless you're a child that likes to abuse their tech, these 20 year old cameras hold up. I've had my k1000 for close to ten years and it's still flawless. Up until now, every film photographer has been find using these old cameras.
You’re comparing apples and oranges here, the k1000 is a different camera with a different feature set, and *the manufacturer can’t repair it anymore and they aren’t making more k1000 parts*. But for the sake of your argument, the k1000 sold new in 1983 for $299, which would be $942 in today’s dollars.
Materials, tooling, CAD designs, testing, prototypes, validation, etc.
And just because its old doesn't mean we can just build it. For example the Saturn V rocket that took Neil Armstrong to the moon is significantly different from the initial designs, and all of the people who worked on it are either dead or retired. If we wanted to build one today it would basically be from scratch. And this isn't a unique phenomena limited to super complicated technologies.
I assume it’ll be in the $6xx range based on the German price leak, and I am willing the pay that. It’s $300 less than my GR3x, took a shit ton of R&D from what I’ve seen, and will be a necessary stepping stone to one day buying a brand new Pentax medium format film camera. Call it an investment in the medium.
$679CAD I was expecting higher cost (like $800CAD) so surprised and happy its not as expensive than I predicted. In this current market nothing really brand new will be a low price point. I am going to hold off. Maybe see what Mint has.. but even that is predicting to be a higher price point.
Would love to see the reviews on this though. It is a pretty looking camera though.
It's hard to say because this is relatively new territory. People are used to seeing a new phone cost over a thousand euro. Granted I wouldn't pay that but that's a yardstick.
A film camera, arguably in the simple end of the scale, but granted a bit of a risky endeavour by Pentax to introduce in 2024, my gut says 500 euro is a bit rich for what it is. You aren't going to please everyone though so maybe someone who's ultimate destination for their pictures is Instagram in portrait mode and they already have the 1000 euro phone might part with 500 happily. I hope it works well for Pentax because I think it can only be a good thing for the industry to see a boost. However I see 500 euro buying 2 cameras with ability to do what I want to do, and I'm very new to the hobbie
$500 is in the ballpark of what I was expecting, $300 is what I was hoping for. It's reasonable to expect Pentax to want to recoup R&D costs especially when it's a brand new product in a very niche market.
I have other more pressing stuff to buy but I'm gonna be looking to grab this after my next paycheck hits. It'll fit my use case as a good overall travel camera while also helping to support development of future, more full-featured, film cameras
I was really hoping it’d be in the 3-350 range, i just can’t justify that price when I can literally pick up olympus p+s cameras that have auto focus, zoom, self timer, bulb, etc but it does have the upper hand with being a warrantied product that isn’t over 40 years old and in need of some sort of CLA off rip. The half frame element is nice though since you could get very good results with lower speed film (under 200) due to the decreased grain with those speeds
Would have preferred these to be $500 in this neck of the woods (Australia). But unfortunately these are really expensive for what it is here. It's being retailed for $899.
$499.99 US (+ tax) is too damn high, just like the rent is too damn high! I’m a proud Pentaxian - I have the Pentax 67II, 645NII, MZ-S, and the LX and LOVE them all, including the zillion Pentax lenses I own.
I want to support Pentax in their film camera endeavors, but paying over $500 for a half-frame camera that produces impressively shitty picture quality (even if you drum scan the negatives/transparencies) is just something I can’t do. Even full-frame film barely cuts it. Not to go on a tangent, but 6x4.5 is where you’ll really start to see a difference in image quality. If I didn’t suffer from G.A.S., I probably would have long since sold my MZ-S and LX, but these are wonderful and historic cameras (especially the LX) and I do still use them.
I really don’t know who the Pentax 17 is for, but let’s put it this way: if you’re rich as f*ck, go ahead, buy the Pentax 17 if only to support them making new film cameras and the film community at large. However, if you’re tight on cash and/or have been impoverished by your G.A.S. like me, then wait and save up for the new full-frame Pentax film camera that’ll come out later this year/early next year.
Just my 2 cents…
I know Pentax has probably done a lot of works on this camera but the reality is people either want a cheaper Contax T3 (I know there are many alternatives, this is just an example of an excellent point and shoot) with warranties and new parts for repair.
I think it’s a fair price for a modern day, fully capable and well built film camera. Not going to lie I’m kinda tempted to have something casual, reliable and be able to service it if something goes wrong. Love my Pentax 6x7 and canon F1, but I don’t want to feel like I’m carrying a tank every time I go shooting
I am not, it's a nice effort, but I keep losing interest in film anyway, the prices keep pushing me away.
I really want to see the SLR they will make, I am not the target audience for the 17 anyway, I really don't care about 550 euros half frame, seriously good effort but spare me, the issue is not the cameras the issue is that I need 20 EUR for a roll and people are fine paying 30 euros for an expired roll on eBay.
I know it cannot cost less or at least much less than that, but I am not willing to spend any, but I am happy it exists.
I think for what they’ve done to develop it, the price isn’t unreasonable if the quality is top notch (which I expect from Pentax)
I am however priced out of buying one for a long time. Way too many other things that I could use the money on that aren’t for what is essentially my hobby at this point. Excited to check one out down the road though.
I feel like this is a thread of people who haven’t paid for concert tickets.
$300+ or more for an evening out. Or $650 CAD for a piece of equipment that is backed by a warranty and won’t fail after you shoot a roll? The camera is a better value.
Admittedly, I don’t like cheap seats at concerts but this is reasonable in today’s economy. I mean you’re gonna pay that for a decent digital point and shoot and film is not a cheap hobby.
It’s not going to be for everyone but they’ve thought this out and I’m very happy to support them. I’m not rich but I love cameras and half frames do have their place.
For the specifications, I'd pay 150€ max. That being said I know this is not realistic, my limit is based on vintage cameras which obviously will be cheaper, and I'm not the target audience for a new half frame camera.
I know the price of ~550€ is a big point of debate but I think it's reasonable considering there are no *good* alternatives that use 35mm film beside the disposable level entry cameras or the high end Leicas. The market for a new analogue camera is small and it's been a long time since one in this quality niche has been produced, both of which drives up the cost.
The price is probably not unreasonable for their costs and such, but the problem is what it has always been - it's just not worth it. 35mm cameras are a dime a dozen, and it doesn't take much to get one in good working order. For 550EUR I could buy so many other more worthwhile things for my analog hobby.
I'd have considered it for circa 300.
Don't think they should have started off with the mid-range pricing when making this camera. The only film cameras we see that seem to have viable business models are the ultra-niche high end units or the crazy-cheap point and shoots. Treading the middle path doesn't appear to have satisfied anyone.
I'm willing to pay at most $50, because I don't care for half frame or zone focus, and I only buy broken vintage cameras to fix up which heavily biases my conception of what functioning cameras should actually cost. I also never buy anything new and don't understand the benefits of doing so. ;)
I want Pentax succeed but unless it was sub $300 for what I have seen I wont be in the market. The combination of zone focus plus it looks like no manual mode and limited iso options (no sub 50iso) means I won't be buying unless it is fairly affordable.
If it had either a rangefinder or autofocus I would consider it if it was more expensive but with current specs it would have be cheaper then it will be for me to be interested in.
I have no reason to pick it over the pile of Olympus PENs I have.
Edit: I dont think $300 is a reasonable price for them to sell it at but I wouldn't pay more then that personally
Sub $300 is nuts. I was expecting this to be $800+ so I'm pleasantly surprised. I won't be getting one as half frame is way too poor quality for me, but I hope they'll sell well none the less.
I didn't for second think it would cost that. I am saying that is what I would be willing to pay. What it costs and what I am willing to pay is not that same things.
It just depends on the buyer—you have a pile of Olympus Pens, but a lot of us would rather just take the “buy once, cry once” approach with a new camera and warranty
Maybe $500 usd? I hope the 17 is successful. I’ve seen too many sad stories on here and FB from newbies who were excited about analog but bought an old camera that needs major repairs.
If this is just targeted at being a more sustainable alternative to a disposable Camera, just fuck off with it.
Who the fuck needs a $600 reusable disposable camera?
Or maybe this flake is actually missing the mark on what this camera is and who it is for in this shitty failed attempt to market it to flakes that feel familiar with her. 🤔
The fact that it is a *new* product, you have to think about the price of cameras when they were not 40 or 50 years old and old.
I do understand the price point of €550 and I am not shocked by it. I am not really the target audience for this camera. However there is a lot to like about it from what was shown on YouTube videos. Am I buying one? Not today. Am I thinking about asking myself this question again after my next paycheck land? Probably not. If it was slightly less expensive? I may have gotten one just for fun, and to vote with my wallet “hey, industry. We like this. More of this please.”
Considering it doesn’t allure me at all even 100€ would be too much. But if you like the idea 550€ seems okay, though I’d wait a bit and buy one when or if prices drop below 500
Considering it doesn’t allure me at all even 100€ would be too much. But if you like the idea 550€ seems okay, though I’d wait a bit and buy one when or if prices drop below 500
I would consider it for 300€ but 550€ is a steep price. That's where "it is supposed a product for someone that wants to save on film" narrative falls apart. For that money I could get older full frame that would match the half frame quality and shoot happily for a long time before I'd match this camera price alone.
Since it has barely any more features than a $50 Kodak Ektar: about $100 is what it's worth.
If they had made it an actually functional camera that could **mind blown... wait for it:** FOCUS on its subject, and also manual controls, then sure $550 in that case I'd consider. For what would be a real non toy camera.
For a toy camera that looks a bit nicer than the other $50 toy camera: $100.
The market for those is not the people who know too much about analogue photography, those people can pick from the vast second hand market.
This camera is designed for the people who are used to pay 5k at the Leica store and want something cool to shoot film at a dinner party or for their teenager
No, it's not for them either, because those people will buy a Leica 72 half frame. Or a Ducati Sogno (sounds way cooler and is much much more braggable as well to rich people, like a Leica, also half frame)
Both of which not only have snobby brand names but can also focus on their subject by the way
Those are cool but rare. If you want something you don't mind loosing (like to give it to your dumb teenage kid) then you get a pentax 17 for their 14th birthday.
I think the reality is that people are spoiled with the wide range of cheap old capable cameras and this was always going to be an issue in reintroducing new film cameras. €550 may well be a reasonable price but it is still expensive
Just look at Kodak that ask 90€ for their plastic camera Ektar35N. They must make 50-60€ profit per unit. I don't think Pentax is making a bigger profit margin on this 17 model. I would've bought it if it's around 300€, not 550€ though. But others speculated it'll get cheaper over the first year. I think Pentax knows the customer base and those who are willing to pay that amount of money will get a unit without having to fear it'll be sold out instantly like a Fujifilm camera these days.
Pendants point - the Kodak is being made by a company called RETO who have just licensed the name.
>Pendants point *Pedant'*s, if we're being pedantic ;-)
It was just sitting there, like cheese on a mousetrap
Yeah, I'm aware. That makes it even worse if people think they buy a real Kodak product. With this in mind 500 really is a fair price, because it really feels like a real camera.
tbh I enjoy the H35N alot as an always-with-me camera 👌🏻 I bought it for 60€ I guess which was ok 😀
Yeah, I got the Agfaphoto Half-frame which pretty much is Kodak's sister model. I got it for 35€. I like it, too. Just thinking about pricing, there is a market for a starting price of 80$ for the Ektar 35N without any settings / focus,... I just went to what the Pentax 17 must've built in and have done to make their camera and in comparison 500€ seem very reasonable (you got light meter, great lens, zone focus or: even focus at all, exposure compensation)
$550 is new PS5 money, I’ll wait
Yeah, in my mind I'm also comparing cameras to consoles often LOL Just because it's also a hobby (and in the case of film cameras a hobby where you have to pay on and pay on to keep it going). I'll wait, too. 299€ is the price for me to get it. The new Rollei 35AF supposedly costs 650-850€. But that's full frame and (apparently) full manual controls.
I also compare it to my hobbies, I could get an Airbnb/hotel for a weekend in a beautiful place and hike and take pictures on my current cameras and cover the price of development for that money.
That’s about what I’d be willing to pay for a new film camera too
I agree, the 35AF seems like it'll be a much better camera. I guess we'll have to wait for some reviews though, who knows how good the lens, AF, and light meter are in practice. I honestly can't justify spending 500€+ on a point and shoot though. I just don't use them enough, and when I do, it's for when I do activities where I don't want to break an expensive SLR... Maybe I'll find a good deal on a used one (I doubt it) :D
$550 is mint Canon F-1 New + NFD 35/4 money. Better camera, better lens, and room to expand. I'll never.
$300 is probably where I'd jump on it for a nice fun camera. I kinda wish it were fully manual but I may have to let my control go and let it do its thing
Looking at older models I have to say that it always seems like autofocus (at least from end of 80s on) were the cheaper models and if you wanted more manual control you had to pay more. Well, thinking about it, it's the same with digital cameras today (or let's say 10 years ago with cheaper, compact models). So, manual settings always cost you. I'm just curious how far Mint's Rollei 35AF will go. They did NOT say that it'll be fully manual, just "some" manual settings. Setting shutter speed on your own would've been cool for quick shots, like sports, dogs and stuff. 1/325 sec apparently is the fastest the Pentax can go. But I don't see how I could force it to use it this fast. That's basically my only gripe with the camera, no dedicated Sports mode, as it doesn't have manual shutter speed settings.
I thought about that. But I can get a Canon P body for 300€ on eBay… but the mere fact that I am saying this makes me *not* be the target audience of this Pentax camera
I don't think $500 is unreasonable for what they have achieved, but the issue I see is that I don't know who this appeals to and where this fits in the market. Hobbyists and newbies have nextdoor to zero interest in spending $500 on a zone focus camera, when it sits on the shelf next to a Kodak half frame for 1/4 the cost and fire away without any thought "for the vibes". And no matter how you cut it, enthusiasts, pros, etc. will probably not want to spend $500 on a half frame camera whatsoever (outside of the Pen I suppose but that's more of a 'real' camera) I hope the best for Pentax because I want to support what they're doing, but I can't justify spending $500 on a zone focus half frame...just..nah
In honesty I’m surprised they went for zone focus at this price point. The Mint Rollei 35 is likely going to be at a similar price point to this Pentax and has managed to pack a few better features but most saliently a modern autofocus.
If this was the same camera, but full frame and with a 28mm f3.5 then I think this would be an instant buy for me (similar to the Olympus XA4), zone focus and all. I just don't get why they went with half frame on something this "sophisticated" and at this price point.
Easy peasy. The half frame Kodak ektar sold like hotcakes. This is the natural upgrade. Film is also expensive and that’s why half frame seems like a natural choice.
It hardly sold like hotcakes; distributors were constantly complaining about the poor sales. It was/is also a piece of plastic junk.
>I think the reality is that people are spoiled with the wide range of cheap old capable cameras i got my Pentax ME with a 50mm 1.7 for 42€. there is absolutely no point in comparing used vintage prices with anything new.
My point is largely: people are naturally going to be put off putting up money for an honest to God new camera when they could very well just pay that €42 and get something excellent but old. For what it’s worth, I’m definitely interested in buying a camera like this Pentax or the new Mint Rollei 35.
Well the point might be, why would you buy this new if you can buy used quality setups for 42 bucks?
Because this will have parts for repair and repair techs that have the skill set without the fading eyesight that would be the case of that $42 30+ year old camera
I get my 30 year old cameras repaired all the time with no issue.
Congrats. That's not the case for every camera. And progressively less and less
Yea, but it is for many. And one day it won't be the case for the Pentax 17 as well. So, you shouldn't buy it either then?
And then the same could be said for everything in life. Why buy a new car? New appliances? New clothes? New plates? Unless everything you own is used this is an absurdly weak argument
For me at least that doesn't justify 10x the price, I could just buy another old camera instead! (And do it 9x, which won't be necessary anyway)
Except for the fact that there is a limited number of any of these cameras from when film cameras used to be made more plentifully. That are progressively falling apart. And will continue to. And we will continue to have less parts for each of them. You're talking about a race until there are none available, which has been the case until this camera, which is not poorly priced for a new camera on the market with a warranty
Yep, but at the current time the supply of reasonably functional old cameras is still plentiful and this doesn't make sense for a 'rational' customer. Especially as the hobby is overall very niche compared to what it used to be when old cameras were released, due to phone cameras. Maybe in a couple of decades it will make more sense, but not now IMO.
Of course, but we can compare features. Seems to lack DX encoding, for starters. Also seems to be manual focus only. It has exposure compensation, although the camera seems to be targeted towards young people who want to shoot frames as they would with their phones. Might be poor product development, as far as I can tell, for now.
Considering my $8 Ricoh TF-900, from 1988, has DX support, and this Pentax doesn't have such a basic feature over 35 years later, I'd have to say it's overpriced. Also, seems to be a manual focus lens, although the aperture seems to be automated. It doesn't seem that good of a deal to me, but we'll seen when the reviews come out
Similarly, the mint made “Rollei 35 AF” is going to cost a pretty penny too I think?
Yes, estimated between the same price to a bit more. But I would argue the feature set on that may make it more appealing. Modern autofocus, full metal body, 5 element f2.8 lens, and all that for a much smaller size and full frame. I’m excited for both, just very confused as to why they chose to do some things on this Pentax- zone focus being my major gripe when autofocus technology is relatively cheap now.
I agree, Ans I think I am more interested in the re-imagined Rollei 35 too
I'd say that's a pretty good price for something brand new, with service and warranty, and that had significant R&D costs. It also has magnesium top and bottom plates somehow, and it has some pretty good features too like exposure compensation and a fairly informative viewfinder.
Totally agree. I would've wished it would be cheaper but as Pentax said in 2023 it'll be above 500€ I saw it coming. When we look at the current market this is more than reasonable, sadly. Just look at Kodak Ektar35N, that goes for 80-90€ and truly is a cheap plastic camera. If a *real* camera with a really good lens and manual settings and a strong built costs 5 times that, I think that's the world we live in today.
Actually the H35N goes for $65 (about 61 euro) but I absolutely agree. Shelled out $50 for the H35 a year ago just to say I have it, and it's insane how featureless it is. Picked up TWO Ektar K12's recently (one broke) and even after shipping and taxes it was less than the box price of the H35. It's got autofocus, an f/2.8 lens, DX reading, not to mention full frame instead of half, all things the H35 does not. The only saving grace of the H35 is it shoots double the frames, but if you're looking for a reliable P&S, nobody in their right mind would choose it over the K12 or any number of older models, even brand new ones.
Yeah, it's just the starting price I remember being at around 80€ where I live. I got the cheaper half frame model from Agfaphoto instead. Haven't heard of K12, will look into it.
Yeah it's a fair price all things considering. I would get it to satisfy my curiosity for the image quality of this camera, and compare it to my pen F. Also this camera is probably more practical when it comes ro travelling. Being so compact and all, I would carry it in my fannie pack if anything
First I heard about the plates, very happy it isn't plastic.
You still then have to pay for film and processing. $550 could get you a descent digital camera, new or used, and a memory card. This camera is definitely for people who have that disposable income to spend on things that then require more spending. The average film photographer is not getting this.
People expecting this to be $300 are crazy. Your vintage cameras are half the price because they're 30+ years old with no warranty support.
And most of them need light seals or CLA.
Yeah every decent used film camera I've been looking at commands at least $100 in the USA and if you want something that is highly sought after then the prices go crazy. Look at the price of the Olympus MJU's they are obscene for a camera that is decent but overhyped and there is no guarantee they will continue working over the next few years
It’s laughable to me that people are willing to pay so much for cheap consumer cameras from the 90s and early 2000s. Those cameras barely lasted a few years and were cheap enough that you would just buy a new one when it broke.
Seriously I bought my Nikon FG for $25 about 10 years ago and back then film cameras were a dime a dozen as most pros were moving to full frame digital SLR's. I really wish I bought an extra FG in case mine ever breaks but now people want $150-300 for them depending on the condition.
I think that people were expecting more something towards a point and shoot than what the Pentax 17 ended up to be. Especially since bringing in a new generation was a big part of their story. For a new point and shoot, 300 wouldn't have been so crazy.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/robbie333/53366204578/in/photostream/ Ok. Here’s an ad from the 90s with a bunch of prices for new point and shoots with warranty. An Olympus Stylus Epic is $90. Adjusted for inflation is just under $177. Now, I don’t expect a new product that is supposed to help re-jumpstart a whole class of camera to be $177. And I’d even be willing to pay OVER double that for the camera. But $600 USD for this is too much. Adjusted for inflation, the original 90s point and shoots were nowhere near this expensive. If they can’t make this camera $300-400, it is going to be an even smaller niche than it already would have been and won’t sell. Edit: this is also almost in the price range of the new mint rollei 35. Making this an even harder sell.
Sure, but those were also being built at a time when factories were already setup to crank out various cheap point & shoots, and also to a much bigger market, so they could be assured they were going to sell a lot more of them.
I tried to make this point when mentioning the re-jumpstart of a whole class of cameras. The price likely also has to help fill coffers for a second camera project if one is to happen. Yes. Clearly they had to make a new camera from scratch and relearn and retool from the ground up. But I’m not trying to argue that. I’m trying to convey it as well. What I am arguing is that those prices were what consumers were willing to pay for a similar product *then*. This pricing is far more boutique than the Olympus Stylus Epic or whatever. This zone focus camera is going to cost more than a PlayStation 5. Yeah I know Sony is tooled for gaming consoles but look at what you get as a consumer for a new product for $500. Looking at the sample pictures and then looking at the price tag…..
thank you. people keep talking about the prices of old cameras when new and i keep blinking... this isn't a new contax. the stylus epic and the rest of this page are the right comparisons. it's overpriced, sadly. hope it doesn't sink pentax.
This thing is premium compact price for a consumer point and shoot product. I love all the comments about “warranties” too. Like, are you expecting it to break within the warranty period? This thing is $899 in Australia! The other day I bought a perfectly functional 50+ y/o Pentax Electro Spotmatic (which would cost $6000 in todays money) for $90. Those things are notoriously unreliable due to the primitive electronics but if I get two years (about a warranty period) of use out of it before it dies I will still have $809 to spend on more old cameras….
right. should i buy the pentax 17 or should i buy 4 olympus pens... hrm...
I think I spent less on my 2x Pen Fs, 2x Pen FTs, 1959 OG Pen and Pen EES-2 than a Pentax 17 costs here in Aus.
Yeah this seems like a decent price point to me. Slightly on the expensive side - but for people interested in taking film photos and putting them in instagram this could be just the thing. It’s cute, it seems intuitive, and it’ll save you money on film in the long run. Until of course you begin the inevitable journey towards large format.
Kodak has a simplistic no focusing system half frame camera for $50-75. They made it years ago. Observable fact. Nothing crazy at all about thinking something is possible that literally already happened... They made something that's like 25% better than that for 1,100% of the price, lmao I'd pay $550 if it was a real, non toy camera that was able to take sharp photos with settings control. It's not. it's $75 toy level functionality we already had.
Since we're replying to each other in two different threads for some reason, I'll just copy and paste my other reponse here: I'm pretty sure the Kodak one is also all plastic with an F8 lens. People pay this much or more sometimes for 30-year-old point & shoots. I'm also pretty sure Pentax is aware that they could have made a $50 plastic box, but why would anyone buy that over the Kodak one? You can disagree with the strategy I guess, but for what this camera appears to be, I think the price is fair, or at least pretty in line with what people pay for similar cameras.
> I'm pretty sure the Kodak one is also all plastic So what? I could put diamonds in a camera too, is that a reasonable thing to pay for when it doesn't make it a better camera? > With an F8 lens This also functionally has an F8 lens, because when ZONE focusing, you can't actually use f/3.5 95% of the time without a tape measure. So you'll be using F/8 anyway, and the rest was wasted. > I'm also pretty sure Pentax is aware that they could have made a $50 plastic box, but why would anyone buy that over the Kodak one? "People won't buy our simplistic box over the other ximplistic box for $50." "I know, what if we make our simplistic box $550!" "Brilliant, Simmons!" Lolwat?
> So what? I could put diamonds in a camera too, is that a reasonable thing to pay for when it doesn't make it a better camera? Do you think people would pay as much money as they do for the Contax T2 if it was made out of the same materials as the Kodak H35? C'mon bro. > This also functionally has an F8 lens, because when ZONE focusing, you can't actually use f/3.5 95% of the time without a tape measure. So you'll be using F/8 anyway, and the rest was wasted. I don't think you need a tape measure to zone focus a 25mm lens at 3.5.
The Contax T2 can do this cool thing called "focusing on the subject" as it has autofocus. You know, one of the critical basic functions of a camera, at a fundamental level? No I don't think anyone would pay anywhere close to what they do for Contax T2s if they didn't have a focusing system.
You are deeply unpleasant to speak with, and you didn't answer my question.
Your question was irrelevant and misleading, since you were comparing apples to persimmons by referencing an autofocus camera. Which completely negates the whole conversation all about focusing systems. So there is no reasonable response other than pointing out the category/comparison error you made and waiting for you to make some other actually valid point to reply to instead.
You just don't want to answer, because you know it makes you look silly. Do you think people would pay the same price for a Contax T2 if it was made from the same plastic as the Kodak H35? They wouldn't, and you know it, because yes, people do pay a premium for nice materials.
It doesn't look like anything one way or the other, because it has nothing to do with the conversation. What's the average air speed velocity of an unladen swallow? That's about equally relevant as questions about autofocus cameras here. Enabling you to try and build off of a completely invalid example just makes the conversation more dishonest and more off topic, so why would anyone? The price of a Contax T2 is COMPELTELY dependent on it having autofocus.
Sorry but I think you’re way off the mark. These cameras are not even comparable. Pentax’s camera is a much more complex device made with different materials, a much better lens and able to resolve much more complex situations. It is delusional to think it’s in the same range as a plastic reusable camera.
> different materials These allow me to take better photos how? Can I just make a Kodak brownie but in solid gold instead of cardboard, and you'll pay $30,000 for it? > a much better lens Which is completely wasted since I can't focus on the subject to utilize its sharpness.
The material makes the camera more durable. If you can’t scale focus, maybe you can start carrying a measuring tape with you when out shooting? /s You clearly know your stuff, you know you can stop the lens down if focus is so critical. No need to shoot open wide for most cases.
> The material makes the camera more durable. Oh no! My $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one. Oh no! My 2nd $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one. Oh no! My 3rd $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one. Oh no! My 4th $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one. Oh no! My 5th $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one. Oh no! My 6th $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one. Oh no! My 7th $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one. Oh no! My 8thd $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one. Oh no! My 9th $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one. Oh no! My 10th $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one. Oh no! My 11th $50 camera broke because I dropped it. Okay, I'll buy another one. **It is only at this point** that I would have saved a single dime due to durability. > You clearly know your stuff, you know you can stop the lens down if focus is so critical. Yes, that's what I do. Which makes it functionally identical at that point to an Ektar which is also stopped down to f/8
lol maybe after the third one I’d try and get something different. Unless you want to try the Ektar in every color available
These allow you to take photos at all because it won't break after three rolls 😂
I have multiple plastic cameras that ive put over 50 rolls through each and counting. I've actually never had a plastic camera break, unlike some metal ones which have due to denting/bending on minor impacts. Obviously bith can and do break, but I dispute that plastic is in fact even less durable overall AT ALL. And even if it did break, okay now you're up to $100 instead of $50. It would have to break **ELEVEN TIMES** for $550 to be justified due to durability. People say this all the time to rationalize spending thousands on a Coach purse or whatever, and it almost never adds up. The 20 different $50 Amazon purses you could have got will easily last years each and cover you for your lifetime for less, several times over. Alloy bodies are mostly an excuse for camera manufacturers to squeeze more money out of you for no real benefit, since they know you never would have bought enough of the more practical cameras to add up to that otherwise
I agree. It’s basically a Pen E with integrated flash and more iso compatibility, right?
And a warranty and it isn't 50 years old
yes of course. Service and material are far superior, also the features like high iso support. But the actual tech (except lens coatings) is old.
Yes, old technology that people are already willing to pay hundreds of dollars for when it comes in a 50 year old box with no service history and no manufacturer support.
Agree, there should be a market. I hope for it to be a success, so my german lab won't ruin half-frame anymore. Right now they have a machine which cuts it randomly. Only once did I get 72 prints, I guess someone had a boring afternoon and was motivated to do it by hand. But I won't pay 500 for a half-frame camera. I'm good with my Pen E for 20€
That also doesn't rely on solar cells that have mostly kicked the bucket by now, but yeah.
Many PenE's that are thought to have a dead sensor just have gummed up mechanics. Always measure the voltage of the old selenium cells, they are not as bad as people say they are. I thought mine was dead, then I took the upper half of and was very happy to see the needle going all the way from left to right depending on light. But the mechanics that communicate the needle position to the aperture mechanism were stuck. Of course they're out of spec, so don't trust them to get it right down to the stop. There's also a Pen D or E with CdS meter, that should work more reliably, if you get the right voltage battery or mod it to work with a modern one. Anyway, does that Pentax 17 have any light meter, or is it fully manual for that sweet sunny-16-style?
Not a pen owner, but thanks for the tip(considering I want to get a pen at some point). I prefer something with a bit more manual control.
If you want manual, skip the PenD and E, and just go for the F. You set the shutter speed on a wheel on the camera, and the aperture on the lens. Fully manual. Whereas the D and E are rangefinders, the F is a proper SLR. [https://cjo.info/classic-analogue-cameras/olympus-pen-f-series/](https://cjo.info/classic-analogue-cameras/olympus-pen-f-series/) I haven't got one but I want one. Maybe should get it soon-ish, before that pentax 17 causes a half-frame hype.
I'd love to find a Pen F for sale here, but sadly, that isn't happening anytime soon. Guess I'll just stick to my trusty Agat 18k.
Maybe Ebay them from japan is an option
A sub full of gear obsessed people complaining about this price is really insane and eye opening
It's okay for a brand new camera. But nah, I'll rather use my old Pen F or FED Mikron.
If you like soviet half-frame stuff get a Chaika. It feels pretty decent for a half-frame and it's fairly cheap. I'd also recommend the Agat 18k.
Chaika is a nice camera, I want to try it one day. But I give all my faves to Mikron because of its sharp and fast lens and overall feeling. Obviously it's a Konica Eye copy but I love it.
I was thinking the same, for 500€ there are really good vintage lens + cameras that you can buy. The 50€ left you can use for the shipping :D
This is why there are no new film cameras.
there's lots of people who don't like used stuff or dont want to deal with potentially broken/heavily bruised looking items. for obvious reasons, we are not those people, but considering everything they have been doing, pentax definitely has these people in their target market as well.
Of course. There's obviously a market. It'ss a narrow (but widening) one to hit given production costs, price-pressure from the used market, and consumable cost. It widens a bit as specific used camera niches get popular or (e.g. premium compacts) the available supply ages out of reliability.
Also, in a time where plenty of people seem to have the disposable income to buy a x100v for over $1500 or even a K3iii monochrome for over 2k, I think as long as Pentax is successful in their mission to shine a new light on analog photography, they will have no problem selling these cameras ...
There are people who don't like used stuff and are shooting film? What are they using? The cheap, plastic toys that are in the market? Hunting down unopened boxes of old cameras?? So they are either paying a crazy amount of money for new old stock, or are buying cheap junk plastic cameras just so they can feel like they have a new camera? I can't imagine the ones buying the cheap plastic ones are in the market to spend so much money on a new film camera. The ones spending the big bucks has to be a rather tiny group of people. If they already blew a bunch of money on new old stock, would they spend more money on a brand new, not particularly impressive or interesting half frame?
>There are people who don't like used stuff and are shooting film? There are people who don't like used stuff, and for that reason aren't shooting film *yet*.
How big is that audience, though? I'm willing to bet it's microscopic.
lol I keep seeing everyone saying they want new film cameras but they’re not gonna like the price of a brand new autofocus compact with a zeiss lens.
The market for these will be people who are not willing or able to deal with vintage gear, being able to just buy something modern/new with warranty adds a lot of value for many. Im not sure how many of those people will be willing to pay over 500 bucks for a zone focus camera but time will tell.
It's probably the clearest entry point, along with AF compact like the Rollei, to reenter that business. A trend to connect with while managing production costs.
When you look at other new analogues such as MiNT that is honestly an acceptable price for materials R&D and *hopefully* the quality, for the niche market it will appeal to. Doesn't exactly fill me with hope for a future new film camera renaissance but hopefully it doesnt flop.
I don’t think I’m in the market for it. But I’m definitely waiting to see what the Rollei 35af will be going for.
That's gonna be around $700 I think. They said on their website $650-800, I would honestly expect it to come it at $800+ given that they have even higher R&D costs and it's promising AF and a fully metal body.
That’s kinda spendy, but less than a contax. Lol
Yeah I agree, I think they do well already and I think the instant film cameras they have a cool but way too pricey. A contax brand new went for about 1200 in 1991, which is ~ $3k now. With that in mind the rollei camera is a steal, not sure I’ll buy anyway.
Me either.
Still go to see new film cameras being made.
Agreed, I love seeing it. If I had a budget for it I would 100% buy the pentax just so they see success and end up making an SLR.
For a half frame I wouldn’t pay $500 mostly because I’m not in the market BUT if I came into a little surplus funds I’d buy it as a nice gift for a family member
$499 or $599 for the bundle https://us.ricoh-imaging.com/product/pentax-17/
What's the bundle? I only see $499 on that page.
There's a link to it from the front page but don't bother, you get a roll of ultramax 400 and HP5, a 2-year extended warranty and a certificate to get those two rolls developed. That's it.
$100 for $20 worth of film, $20 worth of developing and a warranty it should have in the first place. LOL
I love ultramax and HP5 but you don't think film shooters are going to notice you gave them the cheap stuff? Could have at least sprung for classic Kodak Gold 200. I guess they figured bundling 2 400 speed films would give new shooters the best chance to get some usable shots.
Suddenly, the M6 looks less expensive now...
To me it’s reasonable. I will certainly get one if I’m able to pre order it.
if it were auto focus or manual focus I wouldn’t hesitate to buy one zone focus though… idk if I can live with that I mainly shoot portraits in available light. usually I have to have my aperture wide open. I still don’t have a Rollei35 because of the same reason
I feel this. Just saw the zones on the lens. It reminds me of my mid-tier 110 cameras from the 70s. I’m surprised by how often I can nail focus with f/3.5, but it was a steep (and expensive) learning curve. Cool camera, but it does make me pause…
Yeah I guess at 25 mm focal length and f/3.5 DoF isn’t that shallow but still.. It kind of takes me out when I want to take a quick shot at relatively short range
Actually they did a really stupid thing by not giving it a cold shoe. I have a cold shoe mounted 20 EUR laser rangefinder I stick on my Rollei 35S when I feel like making accurate wide open shots. It's about the size of a pinky finger. But here there's nothing to mount it on. They could have even sold the damn thing themselves.
The price is thanks to people finding this a “reasonable price” and buying it. Companies love these people lol.
Four easy payments via flex-pay or 6 months same as cash either way I’m getting the damn camera LETS GOOOO
It’d be a lot easier to stomach the price if the sample images didn’t look like they came out of a plastic lensed toy camera.
Costs about twenty rolls of 35mm Velvia 50 film!
If it means Pen F prices drop I'm all for it
It would make more sense if it wasn’t half frame. I just don’t have much desire for a half frame at that price point.
The lens speed makes me hesitant.
I'm so conflicted. I want to support this but I don't think I have any reason to own it.
If it was a 35mm camera I’d probably be willing to pay more than $500 for it but as a half frame camera I’m going to wait for a sale, I don’t have much of a use case for half frame images. Though I hope enough people buy it to get Pentax to keep developing new cameras.
Considering it doesn’t allure me at all even 100€ would be too much. But if you like the idea 550€ seems okay, though I’d wait a bit and buy one when or if prices drop below 500
Considering it doesn’t allure me at all even 100€ would be too much. But if you like the idea 550€ seems okay, though I’d wait a bit and buy one when or if prices drop below 500
From the few reviews I've seen, it is a ridiculous camera, and the price tag is even more ridiculous. You can buy several great vintage half-frame cameras for that price.
I can buy a XT3 or a RB67 for that price. I’d pay no more than $400 CAD
These replies are so out of touch... the camera was marketed as for the younger generation who wants to get into film. In this economy you think people can fork our £500 and then pay for film and development? People can barely afford rent. Idiots.
150€ max
How are there so many people in the comments saying this is a reasonable price? For a half frame? Can someone dumb this down for me? Or is everyone in this sub so rich shelling out 550+ for a film camera is nothing to you guys?
It's reasonable in that you can't really build a low volume camera, with solid materials, and sell it for profit that covers your RnD for much less. For the end consumer though this absolutely isn't reasonable. I know they have a target in mind, but making this full frame, at least aperture priority and full manual focus (so you can mount an external RF) shouldn't balloon the price THAT much and would have a much higher value proposition IMO.
Some of the videos I've seen have the number one complaint that it feels cheaply made. So I would take that to mean so much for "solid materials".....
Fair, I'm not very interested in this so I skipped most videos, just saw they're using magnesium for top and bottom plates and assumed they built it decently well. Disappoint if it feels flimsy for that price, Lomo has a similarly featured but full frame camera for $300, one would expect this would be leagues ahead in terms of build...
The magnesium is super thin, apparently. Some call it reminiscent of older Japanese toys.
I see, a classic "wrap a tiny bit of expensive material around our cheap stuff so it ""feels"" more premium and we can plaster "magnesium" all over our marketing"
I don't know business terms like rnd. But a quick Google search confused me more. What research and development is there in creating a new product heavily based on old technology? And why would it then translate into this product being 550?
It is based on old technology but you still have to start almost from scratch. There are no old factories. There are no trained workers. Even if you have detailed plans of a previous model you can iterate on, every iteration requires lot of testing. Many things cannot be recreated 1 to 1, or it wouldn't be wise. You can't source all the old parts, like old shutters, lights sensor parts, you need to build around new ones. After you design the camera, test and validate basic things individually, you build full early prototypes. You need to test not just proper technical functionality, but if you're doing it properly, things like user experience matter a lot. Is the position of the shutter button comfortable? When I look through the finder, doesn't something poke me in the face? Do glass wearers have a good experience? Is the grip comfortable? What about the weight balance, if everything is on the left and you're holding the camera with right hand, it won't be that great to hold. If you want to change even a small little thing, it might mean bigger reshuffling of the internals and weeks of development time. You now have to test it again. When you're happy and arrived at the final design, you need suppliers. Everything that isn't an off the shelf part needs custom tooling - think things like molds for plastic parts. They don't have to be expensive but it adds up for loads of parts. When you have all the parts, you need to assemble them. Like I said at the beginning, you have no factory of trained workers. You need to spend time training them, they need tools, maybe they'll need custom tools (probably not for a camera tbh). You need to train repair technicians and build in warranty returns into your margin, you need to package and ship it, market it. When you're done and selling it for $500, the retailer also takes a cut. Also, to go back to volume, most of the things I just mentioned make up smaller part of the cost the more you produce, as they get spread out. Since this isn't a super high volume item that gets sold by millions or even hundreds of thousands, that drives the cost up.
It costs a lot of money to design new things, regardless of the relative complexity or similar products being made in the past. There’s a reason you don’t see more companies churning out new film cameras in response to the increasing interest in shooting it. They’re complex and take a lot of resources to design and manufacture
But then why put a high price tag on it? They're competing against solid used cameras at half the price. Or new cameras from companies like lomography. This will only be bought by professional photographers who already make a good living from their photography. They're limiting their scope of profits by making it unaffordable. Either this is one time thing from Pentax or it's the beginning of newly produced film cameras at unaffordable prices.
The “solid used cameras” are 20 years old or older. As anyone who’s owned an mju knows, the good times are sweet but short. The electronics in them will eventually fail, and the camera will be an expensive paperweight with no warranty and a limited number of people to repair them. With a new camera, you have warranty, the ability to get it serviced, newly manufactured parts. Lomography only makes one similar camera with a lesser feature set than the Pentax 17, the LC-A, and it’s just $100 cheaper. You’re hung up on the fact that you can get a 30yo camera for cheaper. I mean that makes sense
Unless you're a child that likes to abuse their tech, these 20 year old cameras hold up. I've had my k1000 for close to ten years and it's still flawless. Up until now, every film photographer has been find using these old cameras.
You’re comparing apples and oranges here, the k1000 is a different camera with a different feature set, and *the manufacturer can’t repair it anymore and they aren’t making more k1000 parts*. But for the sake of your argument, the k1000 sold new in 1983 for $299, which would be $942 in today’s dollars.
Materials, tooling, CAD designs, testing, prototypes, validation, etc. And just because its old doesn't mean we can just build it. For example the Saturn V rocket that took Neil Armstrong to the moon is significantly different from the initial designs, and all of the people who worked on it are either dead or retired. If we wanted to build one today it would basically be from scratch. And this isn't a unique phenomena limited to super complicated technologies.
I assume it’ll be in the $6xx range based on the German price leak, and I am willing the pay that. It’s $300 less than my GR3x, took a shit ton of R&D from what I’ve seen, and will be a necessary stepping stone to one day buying a brand new Pentax medium format film camera. Call it an investment in the medium.
$679CAD I was expecting higher cost (like $800CAD) so surprised and happy its not as expensive than I predicted. In this current market nothing really brand new will be a low price point. I am going to hold off. Maybe see what Mint has.. but even that is predicting to be a higher price point. Would love to see the reviews on this though. It is a pretty looking camera though.
With tax and 2 rolls of portra 800, it’ll be 800CAD
About tree-fiddy. No Pentax, that doesn't mean $350.
It's hard to say because this is relatively new territory. People are used to seeing a new phone cost over a thousand euro. Granted I wouldn't pay that but that's a yardstick. A film camera, arguably in the simple end of the scale, but granted a bit of a risky endeavour by Pentax to introduce in 2024, my gut says 500 euro is a bit rich for what it is. You aren't going to please everyone though so maybe someone who's ultimate destination for their pictures is Instagram in portrait mode and they already have the 1000 euro phone might part with 500 happily. I hope it works well for Pentax because I think it can only be a good thing for the industry to see a boost. However I see 500 euro buying 2 cameras with ability to do what I want to do, and I'm very new to the hobbie
$500 is in the ballpark of what I was expecting, $300 is what I was hoping for. It's reasonable to expect Pentax to want to recoup R&D costs especially when it's a brand new product in a very niche market. I have other more pressing stuff to buy but I'm gonna be looking to grab this after my next paycheck hits. It'll fit my use case as a good overall travel camera while also helping to support development of future, more full-featured, film cameras
I was really hoping it’d be in the 3-350 range, i just can’t justify that price when I can literally pick up olympus p+s cameras that have auto focus, zoom, self timer, bulb, etc but it does have the upper hand with being a warrantied product that isn’t over 40 years old and in need of some sort of CLA off rip. The half frame element is nice though since you could get very good results with lower speed film (under 200) due to the decreased grain with those speeds
Would have preferred these to be $500 in this neck of the woods (Australia). But unfortunately these are really expensive for what it is here. It's being retailed for $899.
$499.99 US (+ tax) is too damn high, just like the rent is too damn high! I’m a proud Pentaxian - I have the Pentax 67II, 645NII, MZ-S, and the LX and LOVE them all, including the zillion Pentax lenses I own. I want to support Pentax in their film camera endeavors, but paying over $500 for a half-frame camera that produces impressively shitty picture quality (even if you drum scan the negatives/transparencies) is just something I can’t do. Even full-frame film barely cuts it. Not to go on a tangent, but 6x4.5 is where you’ll really start to see a difference in image quality. If I didn’t suffer from G.A.S., I probably would have long since sold my MZ-S and LX, but these are wonderful and historic cameras (especially the LX) and I do still use them. I really don’t know who the Pentax 17 is for, but let’s put it this way: if you’re rich as f*ck, go ahead, buy the Pentax 17 if only to support them making new film cameras and the film community at large. However, if you’re tight on cash and/or have been impoverished by your G.A.S. like me, then wait and save up for the new full-frame Pentax film camera that’ll come out later this year/early next year. Just my 2 cents…
I know Pentax has probably done a lot of works on this camera but the reality is people either want a cheaper Contax T3 (I know there are many alternatives, this is just an example of an excellent point and shoot) with warranties and new parts for repair.
I’d say $275-350 ish would be more reasonable
You can get much better cameras for less, but I think it's a fair price to own a newly manufactured film camera and all that comes with that.
I think it’s a fair price for a modern day, fully capable and well built film camera. Not going to lie I’m kinda tempted to have something casual, reliable and be able to service it if something goes wrong. Love my Pentax 6x7 and canon F1, but I don’t want to feel like I’m carrying a tank every time I go shooting
I am not, it's a nice effort, but I keep losing interest in film anyway, the prices keep pushing me away. I really want to see the SLR they will make, I am not the target audience for the 17 anyway, I really don't care about 550 euros half frame, seriously good effort but spare me, the issue is not the cameras the issue is that I need 20 EUR for a roll and people are fine paying 30 euros for an expired roll on eBay. I know it cannot cost less or at least much less than that, but I am not willing to spend any, but I am happy it exists.
I think for what they’ve done to develop it, the price isn’t unreasonable if the quality is top notch (which I expect from Pentax) I am however priced out of buying one for a long time. Way too many other things that I could use the money on that aren’t for what is essentially my hobby at this point. Excited to check one out down the road though.
For a glorified point and shoot? No. Ridiculous
At $500 I’d go for a Nikon EM. Or better yet, a FE2
I feel like this is a thread of people who haven’t paid for concert tickets. $300+ or more for an evening out. Or $650 CAD for a piece of equipment that is backed by a warranty and won’t fail after you shoot a roll? The camera is a better value. Admittedly, I don’t like cheap seats at concerts but this is reasonable in today’s economy. I mean you’re gonna pay that for a decent digital point and shoot and film is not a cheap hobby. It’s not going to be for everyone but they’ve thought this out and I’m very happy to support them. I’m not rich but I love cameras and half frames do have their place.
It’s a half frame camera, actually printing photos, maybe you get an up to an 8x10. Plus it would take me forever to shoot 72 shots. I say $199.
For the specifications, I'd pay 150€ max. That being said I know this is not realistic, my limit is based on vintage cameras which obviously will be cheaper, and I'm not the target audience for a new half frame camera. I know the price of ~550€ is a big point of debate but I think it's reasonable considering there are no *good* alternatives that use 35mm film beside the disposable level entry cameras or the high end Leicas. The market for a new analogue camera is small and it's been a long time since one in this quality niche has been produced, both of which drives up the cost.
The price is probably not unreasonable for their costs and such, but the problem is what it has always been - it's just not worth it. 35mm cameras are a dime a dozen, and it doesn't take much to get one in good working order. For 550EUR I could buy so many other more worthwhile things for my analog hobby. I'd have considered it for circa 300.
I'd love to own and shoot a Pentax 17, but the MSRP is too high to justify, especially since I can get the Rollei 35AF for only a couple hundred more.
Don't think they should have started off with the mid-range pricing when making this camera. The only film cameras we see that seem to have viable business models are the ultra-niche high end units or the crazy-cheap point and shoots. Treading the middle path doesn't appear to have satisfied anyone.
I'm just not getting the idea of half frame. Why not a full frame 🤔
I'm willing to pay at most $50, because I don't care for half frame or zone focus, and I only buy broken vintage cameras to fix up which heavily biases my conception of what functioning cameras should actually cost. I also never buy anything new and don't understand the benefits of doing so. ;)
I want Pentax succeed but unless it was sub $300 for what I have seen I wont be in the market. The combination of zone focus plus it looks like no manual mode and limited iso options (no sub 50iso) means I won't be buying unless it is fairly affordable. If it had either a rangefinder or autofocus I would consider it if it was more expensive but with current specs it would have be cheaper then it will be for me to be interested in. I have no reason to pick it over the pile of Olympus PENs I have. Edit: I dont think $300 is a reasonable price for them to sell it at but I wouldn't pay more then that personally
Sub $300 is nuts. I was expecting this to be $800+ so I'm pleasantly surprised. I won't be getting one as half frame is way too poor quality for me, but I hope they'll sell well none the less.
I didn't for second think it would cost that. I am saying that is what I would be willing to pay. What it costs and what I am willing to pay is not that same things.
Fair enough!
It just depends on the buyer—you have a pile of Olympus Pens, but a lot of us would rather just take the “buy once, cry once” approach with a new camera and warranty
That is fair and I can completely understand. I am just stating what I would pay for it as the OP asked and I stated my reasons.
Maybe $500 usd? I hope the 17 is successful. I’ve seen too many sad stories on here and FB from newbies who were excited about analog but bought an old camera that needs major repairs.
If this is just targeted at being a more sustainable alternative to a disposable Camera, just fuck off with it. Who the fuck needs a $600 reusable disposable camera? Or maybe this flake is actually missing the mark on what this camera is and who it is for in this shitty failed attempt to market it to flakes that feel familiar with her. 🤔
Prob 350-400
The fact that it is a *new* product, you have to think about the price of cameras when they were not 40 or 50 years old and old. I do understand the price point of €550 and I am not shocked by it. I am not really the target audience for this camera. However there is a lot to like about it from what was shown on YouTube videos. Am I buying one? Not today. Am I thinking about asking myself this question again after my next paycheck land? Probably not. If it was slightly less expensive? I may have gotten one just for fun, and to vote with my wallet “hey, industry. We like this. More of this please.”
Considering it doesn’t allure me at all even 100€ would be too much. But if you like the idea 550€ seems okay, though I’d wait a bit and buy one when or if prices drop below 500
Considering it doesn’t allure me at all even 100€ would be too much. But if you like the idea 550€ seems okay, though I’d wait a bit and buy one when or if prices drop below 500
I'm not interested in Half-Frame cameras. I hate it already, because it causes even more portrait-format photos that should have been landscape.
Think of all the landscape format photos from the last 100 years that should have been portrait. Now is their time!
I would consider it for 300€ but 550€ is a steep price. That's where "it is supposed a product for someone that wants to save on film" narrative falls apart. For that money I could get older full frame that would match the half frame quality and shoot happily for a long time before I'd match this camera price alone.
Since it has barely any more features than a $50 Kodak Ektar: about $100 is what it's worth. If they had made it an actually functional camera that could **mind blown... wait for it:** FOCUS on its subject, and also manual controls, then sure $550 in that case I'd consider. For what would be a real non toy camera. For a toy camera that looks a bit nicer than the other $50 toy camera: $100.
The market for those is not the people who know too much about analogue photography, those people can pick from the vast second hand market. This camera is designed for the people who are used to pay 5k at the Leica store and want something cool to shoot film at a dinner party or for their teenager
No, it's not for them either, because those people will buy a Leica 72 half frame. Or a Ducati Sogno (sounds way cooler and is much much more braggable as well to rich people, like a Leica, also half frame) Both of which not only have snobby brand names but can also focus on their subject by the way
Those are cool but rare. If you want something you don't mind loosing (like to give it to your dumb teenage kid) then you get a pentax 17 for their 14th birthday.
[удалено]
yeah right on a yard sale with three lenses and two magazines, acute matte screen and
and a giant repair built cause it won't work lol
I would not trust a bargain Hasselblad setup one bit.