It’s a fact: Ricoh launched a new film camera, Pentax branded, half-frame and with a price tag of $500. The Pentax 17, as it is called because of the 17mm-wide negatives, is already available. The first reactions are mixed — from euphoria to disappointment, pretty much everything seems to be in the package.
The new film camera is more or less as was predicted in the Macfilos Newsround six weeks ago. The new Pentax 17, made by Ricoh, is a half-frame camera with default portrait orientation. The manufacturer explicitly refers to social media usage of the images, a fact that we also had assumed. The Pentax 17 has a fixed 25/3.5 lens, which makes for a 37mm full-frame angle of view. The lens has zone focus. And because the camera has no rangefinder, you have to guess the distance. The manual rewind function is also as expected.
What’s somewhat surprising is the design. The Pentax 17 clearly alludes to immortal Pentax classics such as the MX/ME, the tiny Pentax 110 pocket film SLR (one of the more bizarre camera concepts in the last decades) and, of course, the Pentax K1000. The camera looks fairly traditional but also a bit strange with the large portrait viewfinder in the middle and the modern built-in flash. The latter might be a good idea, less for very dark scenes but more for filling in mainly in sunny situations.
Functions? Program mode, slow shutter, exposure correction
The much-promoted six shooting modes appear not to be all that different from each other. It is more or less all program mode, there is no possibility to manually set aperture or exposure time. Only a very prominent wheel on the shoulder of the Pentax 17 allows for exposure correction up to plus or minus two aperture values. The fastest speed of the leaf shutter 1/350sec, the slowest is 4sec apart from B. The pretty basic three-elements-in-three-groups lens closes, according to PetaPixel, down to f/16 if necessary.
So what do we make if it? Foremost, kudos to Ricoh for their courage. The market is full of good second-hand film cameras, but this brings something new. And, which is clever, something different. The price of $499.95 or €549.99 VAT included, or £499.99, is daring given the fact that half-frame negatives and somewhat simple lens won’t guarantee spectacular sharpness or resolution. But maybe it’s precisely what the target group, the under 30s, which is fed up with “perfect” smartphone photos. And they will welcome that the cost per shoot is only half of full-frame, since film and processing have become so expensive.
Much love for the new Pentax 17…
The first comments on the new Pentax 17 camera reveal mixed feelings. Many reviewers applaud Ricoh’s courage, and they highlight the originality of the camera. In the mentioned PetaPixel review, Chris Niccolls, an experienced hand without any doubt, is full of praise for the new camera. It gave him plenty of keepers, he says. Hamish Gill on 35mmc concludes: “It’s really hard not to be impressed by what the Pentax 17 is capable of” — and he proves it with some really nice images. James Tocchio on casualphotophile finds it a “great camera, and an incredible achievement for the folk at Pentax.”
… but also a few critical remarks
However, there are other voices. Abby Ferguson on Pocket-lint concludes: “Pentax’s first film camera in 20 years isn’t the revival I was hoping for.” She writes that she would have preferred a technologically more advanced camera with more manual controls. Furthermore, there are the usual comments on platforms such as reddit on the Pentax 17 which are more or less competent. Other than privileged reviewers, supplied with test cameras well in advance, the commentators will not feel the urge to be on good terms with the industry.
The camera was designed by Takeo Suzuki. And Ricoh/Pentax demonstrated how modern marketing with social media and YouTube videos can work. They managed to arouse curiosity and gave their customers the feeling of a company working for them, catering for their needs. And they got one more thing right. At launch date, there were enough cameras available in many online shops and also the major stores. In Germany, I heard, the Ringfoto group has placed a quite substantial order. Ricoh/Pentax justifiably takes pride in it.
What are your feelings about the Pentax 17?
For now, it’s the customers who have to decide. Are you among them? Anyone in the mood for sharing some experiences and thoughts about the first new serious film camera for years here in our friendly community? Could you imagine forking out $/£500 or €550 for this camera? Or do you see it as another overpriced toy for hipsters? You are welcome to discuss here!
Signing up for the Macfilos newsletter
The SUBSCRIBE button (below) is now working again. If you have recently been unable to register for the Macfilos newsletter, please try again now. We apologise for the error which crept in during the recent site redesign. If you have any other queries or wish to contact us, use the CONTACT button.
I have been testing one for a week. It’s’ definitely not for me: too many quirks and I can get a Nikon FE2 and an FM2n for the same price. However, as an entry into the world of analogue photography I think it’s a brave move that needs to be applauded. True, £500 is not the optimal price point given the quality of the camera but R&D costs may have needed to be covered.
I was in Arles all this week and there was a whole crew of people testing them out – Ricoh/Pentax marketing is slick!
If it encourages more people to take up film and that means more supply at better prices then I think it deserves our support.
PS: I forgot to add. The shutter – it’s ridiculously quiet! Quieter than an M3! Perfect street camera.
Well, these guys at Pentax/Ricoh have balls for sure.
Personally, I would not spend €500 on a half frame camera with rudimentary functions.
Why? My shelf is full of more capable alternatives with better lenses, like 2 OM2n, one of which was recently serviced by the OM-doctor, a FM2n with manual F-lenses from 28 to 105 mm, a F4 with a display without LCD-bleeding and so on.
There is the argument, that spare parts for all these cameras will become rare. True, but so what?
We’ll see how this will sell and can only hope, that the balls are big enough to continue with a full frame offspring.
Greets
Dirk
The insides are certainly big enough to accommodate full frame, but it’d possibly need a different shutter ..and maybe interchangeable lenses ..or a zoom?
That’s my hope as well. David. I heard rumors of a film SLR in the pipeline. However, this market is crowded with second-hand gear. Something Contax T3-ish would be great… All the best. JP
Mmm, yes; I prefer my little half-frame Canon Dial (small, with spring-loaded motor-drive) to this needlessly bulky Pentax half-frame.
[The Dial’s easy to use horizontally, too – as it’s almost square – to take ‘normal’ landscape-style photos.]
I bought a 1964 Olympus Pen D a few years ago, which cost only £30 and is in excellent condition and full working order. The SIX element lens is f1.9 (v 3 elements and f3.5 here). It’s also super sharp. You have full manual control, the quietest shutter I have ever heard, 76 photos on each roll of film in a small, all metal, 400g well made camera. The lens is the equivalent of 45mm in 35mm full frame format. Flash is synchronised at all speeds which run from 1/500 sec to 1/8 sec, plus B. Great to see Pentax making a film camera, but for £500, only one mode and a 3 element lens – no thanks. That makes this a no brainer to me. Buy the Olympus.
Hi Michael, an Olympus Pen is a wonderful choice. However, you won’t find one at bargain prices today. But even if you have to fork out considerably more, you will get much value for money. And great images, if you know how to handle the kit… JP
Well, I don’t want one, but I think it will sell like hot cakes, then they will bring out something more grown up (I won’t want that either!)
But I think it’s brilliant that they are doing it, good luck to them!
Dear Jono, fully agree. They have courage, and I hope it pays off. If it does, the example will encourage Ricoh and maybe also other companies. All the best, Jörg-Peter
I’m all in favour of new film cameras ( like the new M6 ) but better to just make the MX, ME or ME super again.When you try to re-make things that are inferior to the originals in spec and design, what really is the point? Trying to model the camera on many of Pentax’s greatest hits has resulted in something of a Frankenstein look.Half frame and half baked. At least, I’d have preferred autofocus or manual focus to zone focus. Good luck to Pentax/Ricoh though. Let’s see if it sells. Not for me. Is it another overpriced toy for hipsters. I could see it as fun to play with but a toy I would soon get tired of.
.
Sorry to pour cold water on what seems – to me – to be some over-the-top enthusiasm for an under-specified film camera – at £500 no less! This looks, to me, like an oversized Olympus PEN EE, stretched widthways into the body of a ‘full-frame’ Pentax Spotmatic.
Clear your head of all the advertising guff, and what have you got?
A portrait-format (tall-&-skinny photos, like Ralph Gibson’s) Auto-only camera (no choice of shutter speeds except what the camera gives you ..up to 1/350th of a second max), guess-the-distance focusing, no choice of apertures (except by theme, such as ‘Bokeh’ – that’s ‘wide aperture’ to you and me).
What exactly does this give – at £500 – which one can’t get from a neater, smaller – and older – Canon Demi EE17? (Odd coincidence that they’re both called “17”?) ..The Demi gives More!
That’s to say f1.7 lens, choosable shutter speeds (up to 1/500th), choose-them-yourself apertures or Auto, distance info shown on the lens and in the finder.
Full frame Olympus Trips (need no batteries) cost around £100 on eBay, the half-frame Olympus Pen-EEs for about £120 upwards, and the Canon Demi EE17 for a bit more (sorry, can’t resist) ..at about £130+.
This Pentax 17 has a lesser (3 element f3.5) lens, slower fastest shutter speed, bigger and heavier body, assorted flashing lights in the finder instead of an aperture and distance scale, and the inside looks like it’s purposely crippled, with a half-frame masking plate where a full-frame mask should, and could, fit.
The Pentax 17 has an ISO scale up to 3200, whereas the Canon goes up to only 400 ..but just choose an aperture 3 stops smaller than the Canon’s meter suggests, and that’s perfect for ISO 3200 film.
This may sell to youngsters in Japan (do they have a spare ¥100,500?) who want to keep Mr Maitani’s Olympus half-frame tradition going. But it’s essentially a £500 SNAPSHOT camera.
Would you really buy and drive a retro Ford Model T in 2024?
Unless Ricoh/Pentax is going to offer a line of cheap 35mm half-frame film scanners – and maybe bottles of Pentax-brand do-it-yourself ‘monobath’ develop-&-fix, and plastic tanks – I think this’ll go the way of Polaroid’s Polavision and Nimslo 3D cameras.
Buy now – if you really must – ‘cos by next year this Pentax will have disappeared ..and will be no Moore.
Dear David, I agree with much of what you are saying, and it has a reason that I quoted from the reviews without commenting on the camera myself. I do think, though, that this is a bold move and an interesting market test. Maybe it is successful and lead to other new film cameras. So, I am not sure if you prognosis is right, but we can discuss this in 2025! All the best, JP
I still have a Yashica t5. Why should I buy a half-format camera with such a simple lens?
You shouldn’t, period. I hope your T5 will last you long. It’s an excellent camera. I once had one and shot many slide (!) films with it. All sharp and well exposed. JP
I wish them well with their 17. I have a lot of admiration for them – it’s a courageous move and it’s not as though the film community hasn’t been bemoaning the shrinking (albeit still substantial) supply of 35mm compacts that still work reliably.
Having said that, I don’t think I’ll be buying one. I have a few mid- to high-end compacts that I’ve had for years, and other than an interesting form factor the 17 would not be bringing much to the party. I do wonder if the chassis might subsequently be adapted to create a camera with a little more enthusiast appeal.
Final thought is that Pentax/Ricoh may still have the blueprints kicking around of an all-time classic 35mm compact – the GR-1. An updated version of that would be a very different proposition as well as, presumably, a slightly more expensive one. I suspect too that if the intention really is to pitch half frame as a benefit, building in retractable vertical masks would not have been too difficult – IIRC the similar form-factor R1 had retractable horizontal masks as part of a quasi-panoramic mode.
Thanks, Paul, for your comment. I think most of us hope for pretty much the same. The problem is, we are not Ricoh’s target group. But if the 17 experiment goes well, the obstacles for creating a GR-1n or so might become smaller. JP
Not sure whether I will pull the trigger on one (they might actually not be available yet in the US either) but I certainly wish Pentax all the best. Personally I am hoping for a point & shoot with decent autofocus that is reliable and that can be repaired. As to the availability of used cameras, yes, they is a large supply but the cameras are in the best case a few decades old and the ones with electronics can in most cases not be repaired. I recently had a few film cameras fail so I can perfectly understand people being reluctant to go that route.
Ho SlowDriver, I fully understand what you mean when speaking of the risks of used film cameras. However, £500 is a lot of money for a camera full of compromises. That is, full of what we see as compromises. At any rate, I also do wish Ricoh/Pentax all the best. JP
Hi JP, it is hard to imagine a new camera (requiring a fair amount of R&D) costing much less than $500 (the US price is $499.95) nowadays and as far as I am concerned the comment from Brandon Libby puts it all in perspective… If it is successful (I honestly would be surprised if it wasn’t) there will be other film cameras from Pentax and if it isn’t there is still the Rollei 35AF from MiNT to look forward to this year.
Hi Dunk,
thanks a lot for your feedback. What you are describing is what many of us had hoped for, I think. But I wonder what the price point for this product would have been and if the target group appreciated that. But if the Pentax 17 sells well, Ricoh might feel encouraged to launch such a camera. Generally, I perceived them as quality driven so far, so there is still hope. My personal wish would be something between an Olympus XA and a Contax T3….
All the best, Jörg-Peter
I remember back in 1977 a colleague of mine bought a newly released flat shaped, Minolta 110 Zoom SLR Film Camera with 25-50mm macro zoom Lens. He seemed very happy with it.
The going price now is about £120 for decent used examples. For those “hipsters” wishing to try the film experience, I would advise looking at the used market first.
True. Chris, the second-hand market has so much to offer, at all quality levels and price points. As long as repair facilities exist, the market for new film cameras will remain small. I think that’s what Leica has also experienced with the re-launch of the M6… Jörg-Peter
If you want brand new are there any other options at this price point?
If you’re like me, and primarily shoot in and around f8, and don’t care if images are technically perfect (ie always in sharp focus) then the P17 is probably a decent choice for shooting film for fun, and on a budget.
The P17 seems like a toy that can be pushed into more serious photography if the shooter is okay with the limitations. Many Ricoh GR shooters fire away in “P” mode (I certainly did when I had a GRII) and produce brilliant photos -there’s no reason those same folks wouldn’t be able to do the same with P17.
I think it looks like fun, and for less than the cost of a pair of M11 batteries, it’s hard to argue against the potential value this thing presents.
Maybe I’ll get one? 🤔
…and for less than the cost of a pair of M11 batteries, it’s hard to argue against the potential value this thing presents.
Many a true word…
That made me laugh Mike. A great variety of things have potential value compared to the cost of Leica batteries!
TBH if I as a camera sales person, I could not look customers straight in the eye, and with ‘tongue in cheek’, try and convince potential buyers that this very basic specification ‘mere 3 element lens’ half frame camera, is worth its $500 selling price – without feeling guilty about misleading them. For less $ I’d rather try and sell them a s/h pocketable Minox 35 series / Olympus XA series / Ricoh GR series, compact full frame film camera. In fact would be more to Ricoh’s credit if they revived the Ricoh GR series with its pro quality 28mm (and 21mm!!) FF lens.
Hi Dunk,
thanks a lot for your feedback. What you are describing is what many of us had hoped for, I think. But I wonder what the price point for this product would have been and if the target group appreciated that. But if the Pentax 17 sells well, Ricoh might feel encouraged to launch such a camera. Generally, I perceived them as quality driven so far, so there is still hope. My personal wish would be something between an Olympus XA and a Contax T3….
All the best, Jörg-Peter
I think most of us feel the same way. This is perhaps a camera for those who never had a Pentax of old or a Contax or Olympus XA series. Even Ricoh themselves had the 500ME which was far superior to this, and that was back in the 70s!
But that is EXACTLY what it is. All us old geezers moaning that it isn’t an exact reproduction of whatever esoteric film compact gives us rose-tinted memories are completely missing the point 🙂
Default portrait mode? With a fixed 37mm (equiv) f3.5 lens? No focus. A definite no-go for me.
If the emphasis is on portraits, it should have a lens suitable for portraits!
Hi Martin, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding. The camera can be focussed to six different distances from .25m to infinity. The term “portrait mode” refers to the default orientation of the image which is vertical in the Pentax 17 and horizontal in almost all other cameras. JP