Pentax 17: The all-new half-frame 35mm film camera from Pentax

It's been teased for ages (and leaked), but Pentax's half-frame film camera is finally here: The Pentax 17

I don't know if I really need it, but I'm still quite interested.

Some highlights I've noticed so far from the spec sheet (download link):

• ISO range of 50-3200
• Fixed F3.5 25mm lens
• Zone focusing (0.82ft, 1.7ft, 4ft, 5.6ft, 10ft and ∞）
• Multiple shooting modes including full auto and aperture priority
• Shutter speed range of 1/350 to 4 seconds
• Uses a CR2 battery
• Priced at €550, or about $590 USD

What a weird spec for a modern camera. Half-frame, slow triplet lens, slow fastest shutter speed. I don't see any way to set the aperture, but I do see a Bokeh setting (ugh, I hate that word). Seems like it's trying to be the reincarnation of the half-frames that were briefly popular in the early 60s - lots of automation, few real user options. Could be fun, but that's a high price, considering that I have an Olympus PEN D3 fully manual half-frame with a six-element 32/1.7 lens and a working CdS meter sitting on the shelf.

Yeah, a little odd, especially when you remember that half-frame cameras need to be held in portrait position to get landscape photos. 

And, yeah, brokeh does get a bit overused these days. Back in the day, we just said that the background was blown out and everyone knew what we meant. 

Hey, our local lab already has a video on the Pentax 17.

In reply to David S. Wallens :

Oh neat. I'll have to watch that video when I have a few minutes to spare today.

Is this the cheap fun camera for someone who usually shoots with a Leica?

I've bought Leicas for less.

In reply to 02Pilot :

I have as well, but it was used.

I liked this review of the Pentax 17. While it's not a cheap camera in a magnesium body, it's still more than I'd like to spend. 

Hmmm.  Starting point is 35mm, which is too small a negative for enlargements.  Let's make it even smaller by cutting the image area in half!  Maybe somebody will buy it, but not me.

I wonder if Kiev is still making the Kiev 88....

You could shoot half frame for about $40: 

I bought one for my 13 yo daughter's recent birthday and she's loving it. It's effectively a disposable camera that you can reload. Hard to imagine spending almost $600 on the Pentax... many people are going back to film because it's a slower process and yields images with character that aren't just another Snapchat or Instagram filter. Which is to say I think half frame is kinda smart. 72 exposures is appealing when a questionable image quality is exactly the aim. If you want super sharp nice film images, there's a million pro cameras that still sell for pennies on the dollar. 

I think the 17 makes a ton of sense and might be a big hit.  It isn't a camera I feel like owning for myself.  And that's okay.

I am still interested in seeing what comes of their sometimes mentioned project to create a new film SLR.  News on that has been pretty quiet though.

Now that I'm looking into processing for half frame cameras, I've found that most of the big online labs charge an extra $10-$12 bucks for scanning or printing half frame cameras. Not for delivering 72 prints...just the same 36 prints but as diptychs. Guessing their scanner/printer has to be manually advanced for each pair of frames and it's a nuisance. 

The increased cost is annoying, but still cheaper than two rolls of film for the same quantity of images. 

Modern(ish) half-frames are quite capable of surprising resolution with the right film. This is on Ektar:

I took that some time ago with one of the last, and weirdest, half-frames ever made, the Yashica Samurai Z.

In reply to Mezzanine :

"A slower process that yields images with characters" was one of the main driving factors that got me into film photography. I'm with you that if I want high-end images or something I need to shoot for work, I'm going to use digital.

I've actually had that half-frame camera on my wishlist for a while now, though it might be time to just buy it myself (because it's only $40) because I really miss how much fun it was shooting with my Olympus Trip 35.

Not to be too cheery about it, but I'm over the moon that Pentax is selling a brand-new 35mm film camera that was built from the ground up.

Got film back from the Ektar H35 I mentioned above, and I'm really impressed for a $40 toy camera: 

All Kodak Gold 200, low res scans from thedarkroom.com. 

Our local lab just posted its Pentax 17 review.

Mezzanine said:

...Not for delivering 72 prints...just the same 36 prints but as diptychs. Guessing their scanner/printer has to be manually advanced for each pair of frames and it's a nuisance. 

 

 

I would have the lab process the film and do my own scans if I was interested enough in buying and using this camera.  

It seems like the 17 is selling pretty well currently.

In reply to pres589 (djronnebaum) :

It does seem to be generating quite a lot of buzz. After watching a number of videos on the 17, I'm coming around to the idea of it but I really don't need another camera...I guess we'll see how I feel when I get film back from my new Ricoh Auto Half SL if I need to find another half frame camera. 

Glad to see Pentax doing well.

I have lenses/bodies from both my Grampa and my Dad and am too much of a sentimentalist to switch brands, even though the digital options are limited.

Next time I’m up at our local lab, I’ll see if I can hold a Pentax 17.

In reply to CrustyRedXpress :

I've grown pretty attached to my Pentax as well.

I've recently grown curious about monochrome digital cameras, so the K-3 Monochrome definitely interests me–at least in the sense that it seems to be one of just a handful of monochrome cameras available alongside the Monochrom models from Leica.

I mean, they all are out of my price range, but I just think they are neat.

I would say save your money.  I had an Olympus half frame camera and it was much ado about nothing.  The photographs were much smaller and getting them processed was a PITA.    

In reply to spitfirebill :

Let's face it.  Anyone interested in playing with a film camera in this megapixel age is not overly concerned with convenience.  It's about the "process."

Coming from someone who's probably shot more frames on film than I have with my phone over the last 12 months.   But I'm in the "go big or go home" camp.

In reply to 1988RedT2 :

I’d agree, film is definitely about the process. Whether shooting 110 or 120 (see what I did there?), no wrong answer as far as I’m concerned. 

Tangentially related:  Anybody still shooting old Polaroid instant cameras?  I see that the last Polaroid film factory in the Netherlands is still making film, and is being sold under the Polaroid name.  I may order some from Bezos today and blow the dust off my 80's vintage One Step.  If I can find it.  It's in a box around here somewhere.  Probably haven't laid eyes on it in ten years.  Wonder if it still works?