The Pentax 17 is bad news for film photography
The Pentax 17 is a new analog camera. In principle, this is a reason to celebrate. But it’s not as good news for the film photography community as many people seem to think. Hear me out.
Pentax actually did it. They made a film camera. In 2024. This is a huge deal. After all, most analog cameras are old enough to have seen days without any digital exposure. Thus having a brand new film camera on the block is pretty exciting — in principle, at least. Because in reality, the Pentax 17 is actually pretty disappointing — and possibly even bad news for the world of analog photography.
What is the Pentax 17?
The Pentax 17 is the first outcome of Pentax’s long awaited film photography project. It is a half frame camera, meaning that the size of your negative is 24mm by 17mm (that’s where the name comes from, by the way) or half of full frame 35mm, which is 24mm by 36mm.
Thus, you get double the amount of frames compared to 35mm (72 vs. 36) but also only half of the resolution. In the world of film grain, this is a lot. But then again, film is also expensive as fck. So it’s quality vs. quantity I guess.
Half frame also means that you have to adjust your geographical orientation, for horizontal is vertical, and vertical is horizontal. This is because on half frame, you shoot two vertical images to cover up the space of one horizontal full frame image.
Moving on, the Pentax 17 has a fixed 25mm f/3.5 lens, which is about the equivalent of a 37mm full frame lens. It has neither auto nor manual focus, but uses zone focusing instead. In other words: you have to pretty much guess focus. Pentax is so far silent about the 17’s shutter speeds; Jason Kummerfeldt has said in his video that it might max out at 1/320th. Which would not be that much. At least you can (and need to) set the ISO (50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 3200) manually, so for all you folks out there wanting to push or pull your film, the Pentax 17 has got you covered.
It even has exposure compensation of +/- two f-stops, so that the ISO basically ranges from 12 to 12,800. Which is awesome if you want to test the laws of physics and shoot whatever film on ISO 12,800 on HALF-FRAME — you are basically a hero. Completely insane, but still a hero.
And so is Pentax (great transition I know). They were crazy enough to build a new film camera from the ground up in the age of digital hegemony. That definitely deserves some credit, maybe even a lot. But maybe not as much as people seem to grant them. Let me explain.
Why is it bad news?
The Pentax 17 is — in principle — very good news for the film photography community. In a world relying on aging bodies and old souls some fresh wind of change is always welcome — and much needed. Just the fact that a major company like Pentax/Ricoh cared about film enough to produce a brand new analog camera is proof that film is very much alive. However, it is not all gold that glitters. Which brings me to the price.
The Pentax 17 is $500 US, in Europe it’s about 550€. In other words: it’s FIVE HUNDRED bucks for a zone-focusing half frame camera with a fixed lens and a fairly low max shutter speed. Sure, you have manual ISO control and the camera looks cool. But is that enough to justify the 500 dollar price tag?
After all, the camera is marketed as an economical option to a full frame camera for its capability to capture 72 frames on one roll of 35mm. However, you can get a decent point and shoot for a fraction of that price. I got my Mju I for $150 and though it does everything automatically, I would argue that it still is the better camera. To break even with the 500 dollar seventeen, you would need to shoot a lot of photos.
Which brings me to the next point: 72 images are A LOT of images. Which means that the film will stay in your camera for a LONG time. Of course, you could argue that now you have some room to shoot more than usual. But because of the limitations from the lens and shutter speeds, you are not as flexible when it comes to different lighting situations, for the film inside your camera stays the same — for 72 images. And aren’t the limitations what draws us to film? And possibly a lot of newbies too? After all, if you want to shoot a great quantity of images, get yourself a digicam. Or just shoot with your phone, idk.
I also don’t like the way the Pentax 17 is marketed at young photographers. As if young people who didn’t grow up with film are too stupid to figure out how a full frame camera works. That is, Pentax make it seem like their decision to produce a half frame camera was so that young people can directly upload their photos to Instagram or whatever. Wtf? I bet that even young people who are always occupied with their phones can TURN A CAMERA AROUND to get a vertical shot. Sure, shooting vertical in horizontal mode is more convenient. But it’s also very confusing. And it’s not like young people are not already uploading their film photos on instagram without the magic of vertical half frame. So why?
Who is this camera for?
And this is actually the biggest question I have with this camera: why and for whom? Honestly, who is the target audience for this camera? Pentax clearly identified young inexperienced photographers as their main target audience. However, I’m sceptical if so many young people interested in film photography would start out buying a FIVE HUNDRED dollar HALF FRAME camera. For those just wanting to capture moments on film, $500 is too much. And for those wanting to start their film photography adventure half frame is too little.
When I first saw the camera I was very much excited. But then I saw the price and I was shocked. Why should I buy the Pentax 17 when I can get a Canon A(E)1 with some pretty good Canon FD lenses (the 24, 28 and a fast 50) and some rolls of film for the same price. Or A LOT of film period. Hell, you can even get a Mamiya 645 with a slow lens for the same price if you’re lucky. That is, the people who can “easily” afford a 500 dollar half frame camera are probably enthusiasts and knowledgable hobbyists who would have rather seen a plain and simple SLR with an old Pentax lens mount.
So again, who is this camera for? Because as a camera, it might actually be a good first start into film photography (if you ignore the zone focusing for a moment) — but for such a price it most definitely isn’t.
What now?
And this is why the Pentax 17 is (potentially, I should add) bad news for film photography. The buzz and excitement around this camera and the whole Pentax/Ricoh project is more than justified. It’s good news — in principle. But in reality, it might turn out to be disastrous.
Because what if the Pentax 17 does not become a best seller? For the young people it was marketed at, it’s probably too expensive or at least deterrent in this regard. And for all film photography nerds who are usually much older (not me, but most others :D) and financially much more secure (at least in their imagination :D) the Pentax 17 is probably too limiting in many aspects (Half frame, fixed lens, low max shutter speed). I guess only time will tell if the Pentax 17 will become a success story.
Don’t get me wrong, tough: I want the Pentax 17 to be a best seller. For this would encourage Pentax (and other manufacturers) to develop and produce more (new) film cameras. I’m just worried that the 17 fails and Pentax pulls the plug on this dream of a world filled with new film cameras.
So let’s hope that the Pentax 17 does not turn out to be bad news after all. Because in principle it’s actually pretty good news and we should still applaud Pentax for trying. Just maybe not get our hopes up too high.
Cheers :)
