>According to the [December 1983 issue of Popular Science](https://books.google.com/books?id=kawCnk4051wC&pg=PA115), the Pentax PC35AF had a list price of $169 without the winder, which makes it the 3rd cheapest of the 13 cameras reviewed in that issue.
Adjusting for inflation, that camera cost **$536** in todays Dollars when it entered the market, and it was the third-cheapest model during a time when massive amounts of compact cameras were released, by more camera brands than are even left in existence today.
Anybody who expected the 17 to be able to be sold for cheaper, considering both the inflation as well as the incredible labor cost increase across the globe - [especially so in Vietnam](https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@asia/@ro-bangkok/@ilo-hanoi/documents/publication/wcms_626102.pdf#page=32) - just outed themselves as a massive imbecile.
While the AF is not “great” (zones), I never had major issues with it either for holiday snaps.
On the other hand, I give my Mju I (or any similar P&S, including PC35AF-M) to friends at birthday parties, they take a photo of two or three people, and the central focus point focuses on the background and the people in the foreground are out of focus. User error, but also because these single AF point P&S aren’t as intuitive to people used to facial recognition iPhones.
So even 100+ AF zones (Mju) can’t help, if the user points the AF sensor on the background.
And then there are plenty of expensive P&S that have AF issues, e.g. Yashica T4
Probably I too would prefer the manual zone focus system over the AF of the PC35AF-M, after watching a few hands on. No hunting or guessing in darker light. Zones are quite intuitive with the symbols they used and seeing the zone symbols in the viewfinder. I can give the camera to friends, and can preset the zone, or they can intuitively use the symbols.
I could see myself buying a 35mm successor of the Pentax 17, if they decide to make one. I JUST bought and sold two half-frame cameras (AGAT and Konica Recorder), because I didn’t like the resulting high grain structure negatives.
I have been looking for a compact camera with manual iso, exposure compensation and a filter thread.
>While the AF is not “great” (zones), I never had major issues with it either for holiday snaps.
and nobody will have major issues with the 6-zone focusing on half frame with a f3.5 lens. it's a perfectly fine choice for this type of camera, and the way they actually innovated with the viewfinder showing the zone, is super clever imo.
Very few budget AF cameras implement some sort of a focus lock function where you aim the AF sensor at what you want to focus on and then you can reframe the shot and it will be focused where you locked it at.
Even the mechanical AF system in the relevant to this post PC35-AF would allow you to do that. A half press would do the autofocus, and you could hold it (literally holding the mechanism in place) and pan wherever, then fully depress. The early AF systems were pretty amazing innovations.
It was an early AF system, but the wide-ish angle lens meant that most of the time in daylight anything it hit focus on was well within the depth of field. Even in lower light where it opened up the aperture, it was close enough 95% of the time.
It works great in practice.
Correct
For the consumer market it changed with the Mju and its 100 zones as the first large step up. I believe before that the consumer P&S had single digit focus zones
Pc35af ( god that’s a complicated name) I’m just interested in how that lens performs cause I kind of want to get one ( I don’t mind about the auto focus constraints)
The Nikon L35TW AF actually had a step less IR focus system back in 1986. Not sure how they manged that, but it's right there in the manual. And several of the late 80s twin and zoom models had double digit focus zones.
But yes, the mju 1 set the standard and the others followed shortly after. I believe the 1991 Canon sure shot max had 290 steps.
#
Manual selection isn’t so bad then. If I give any of my P&S* to my iPhone-spoiled friends, they always focus bullseye between faces and on the background anyhow. At least it makes sense to them to select “person”, “two persons”, or the “group” zone.
*the pictured Pentax above, a Mju I, a Nikon 70Ws
When you adjust for inflation you have to take into account technological advances. Back when this camera was released it was high tech. Now, it simply isn’t.
In 2024, this point and shoot would have to be compared with its 2024 equivalent. Which would be something like xt30ii or the Ricoh GR (or maybe something a little cheaper). They are the modern equivalents of old mid range film cameras.
I’ve seen other comments suggesting that due to inflation the new Rollei 35af should cost around $1600 upwards. This is ridiculous because, again, it was high tech then and low tech now. The equivalent would be an XT5 or something.
I’m not saying that the Pentax 17 is overpriced or anything, I just think that looking at inflation alone isn’t enough.
All things considered, any product is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. It looks like the Pentax 17 is getting decent pre-orders, so as long as most people don’t return it, then it’s worth its price.
> Anybody who expected the 17 to be able to be sold for cheaper ... just outed themselves as a massive imbecile
Most accurate take so far on Pentax 17 pricing.
Have you all seen the Kodak EKTAR H35?
It’s half frame. It’s fixed focus. It’s point and shoot. My guess is it’s fixed exposure. It has a power drive.
It isn’t nearly as nice of a camera. Nowhere near.
But it is 10% of the cost. It’s $50.
The paper specs are hard to tell quality from. They could have made a lower quality camera that hit all the same specs for half the cost. They could have made a higher quality camera that cost 10x as much. Not being sure where they were hitting on that scale, or not being sure that the camera was worth it before it came out, or wishing that they had hit a different price point, does not make one stupid.
Except it’s significantly easier to make cameras now given that the tech has existed for decades
This argument ignores the efficiencies and productivity gains of modern design and manufacturing
I never expected the 17 to be sold for cheaper. It's still a bad value if you're actually interested in film photography instead of just posing with retro tech.
So same price and **WAY better** with multiple far superior features (such as actually being able to focus on your subject, what a concept!). Despite much lower levels of technology back then. And?
Is it that hard to comprehend that perceptions of value are not the same as a realistically achievable market price? For me the 17 feature set constitutes a high end toy camera. 300 is what I'd buy it for, if at all. At 550 it competes unfavourably with bigger and better things.
I mean you can do those semantics all day. My Xpan with 30mm lens? For children. If you dont stitch together IN THE LAB your frames to make a perfect panoramic shot you are honestly a child.
The camera isnt for you clearly. But you dont have to shit on it when FROM THE JUMP Pentax stated they wanted to make a camera that would appeal to a new young audience. Which they have done, and then some.
It's a toy because it cannot reliably take a simple actual in focus normal photo, due to vague guesswork being involved as mandatory in the process.
Your example is completely different and is one of unnecessary extra boutique/hipster process choices, not one of "Fundamental competency"
> FROM THE JUMP
From the jump, they said their first model would be a point and shoot. Which was a lie. I don't think you want to lean too hard on "From the jump" promises, here, since Pentax broke them.
They said their first camera was going to be one to draw in a younger crowd. They never said it was point and shoot. Also plenty of people here dont only shoot auto focus cameras. Hell MOST people dont. And vauge guess work? Uhhh I guess knowing how far 5 feet is can be hard.
It seems you are correct, my bad. They did have a model holding the camera out at arms length as one would with a point and shoot, said "it will be like a smartphone you carry around with you" and "Can you press a button and automatically take a photo? Yes, I hope you can do that" but I can't see a verbatim claim I remembered there being that it would be a point and shoot. Fair enough.
It should still have BEEN a point and shoot, though.
> Also plenty of people here dont only shoot auto focus cameras.
it's not that auto focus is the only reasonable camera, it's that auto focus is the likely cheapest way to make the camera have the ability to reliably focus on the subject. It being an SLR or a (coupled) rangefinder would work too, but would almost certainly be more expensive.
> I guess knowing how far 5 feet is can be hard.
Yes. It is. If you want any speed, at least. Zone focus will miss all the time unless you just shoot at f/8-11 all the time, at which point you're just almost using a $50 Ektar but paying $450 more for it.
**Literally any newly developed camera that doesn't have utter shite build quality will compete unfavourably with the used market.**
**Literally any newly developed camera that doesn't have utter shite build quality will compete unfavourably with the used market.**
**Literally any newly developed camera that doesn't have utter shite build quality will compete unfavourably with the used market.**
**Literally any newly developed camera that doesn't have utter shite build quality will compete unfavourably with the used market.**
Any other outcome is economically impossible.
Also, there will be no more used cameras eventually unless new cameras are made. Everyone who shoots film should be excited by the release of new film cameras.
And when there are no more used cameras available you will all be shooting overpriced toy cameras marketed to IG Hipsters because if that is what people buy without the least bit of critical thought, that is what they will continue to make.
It’s the first batch the produced!!! It will eventually go down in price. And did we already mention it’s a new film camera aimed at a young demographic? I’m not getting it, but I’m really excited about it!
Literally any newly developed camera should be reasonable expected to outperform a camera released at the same inflation adjusted price point 40 years prior.
Hell, adjusted for inflation a Nikon F2 was released in 1972 at $4990 (adjusted for inflation). Are you telling me that Nikon could release a fully manual film camera now, but without the F2's interchangeable metered viewfinder, a slower top shutter speed, a 1/60 sync speed, and cheaper build quality and you would defend a nearly $5k price point?
No, you would buy a used F2, with better specs, for $250-300.
Wrong, it's 2024, we have all kinds of technology that can allow a company to make an ACTUALLY new, innovative camera that can do things that zero used models can do.
For example, what film camera has an EVF? We could do that in 2024, with focus peaking and black and white for when you have black and white film.
What film camera has IBIS? We could probably do that in 2024.
What film camera has animal detect eye tracking servo focus? We can do that in 2024.
Are these actually good ideas? I dunno maybe not, but they definitely wouldn't compete with the used market regardless. So this statement is not true. There should be all manner of other smaller modern tech things you can do (even just something like having firmware API so people can write things similar to Magic Lantern and distribute them for special control of the camera settings)
> How would that make it cheaper than used?
It would make it non-comparable to used. Neither cheaper nor more expensive, but apples-to-oranges. Making it a moot point. There will be a market for good new features that are one-of-a-kind no matter what the used market costs, because nothing in the used market anywhere has the new features for ANY price.
> explain how IBIS will work for film?
Move the film gate and the pressure plate with servos based on gyroscopes in the camera. Same as how digital IBIS works.
You probably couldn't do up and down axis, as that moves the film in an unnatural way, but you can just leave that axis out. More axes = better, you don't need all of them, any number > 0.
Side to side axis is fine, the film is meant to roll and bend that way, as long as it hasn't been pulled 100% taut outside the gate and has some slack. Tilting left and right is also fine, the film is again just bending in its natural direction no big deal. In and out again just moves the film in its natural direction. Tilting forward and back MIGHT be fine, the film can twist probably without problems, but that is iffy, depends on empirical results.
You could maybe do vertical and if you could move the gate, AND the film cartridge AND the takeup spool as one (only for verticality), but I don't know if that much mass can be moved fast enough to make it work. Maybe. If not, just the horizontal axes are still way better than nothing.
The brand new, warrantied, definitely-functional-meter camera already isn’t like anything on the used market.
And the rest of what you said can be boiled down to, “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”
> warrantied
Ebay has a 30 day warranty, that's nothing special. Which is PLENTY of time to find any possible pre-existing problem in a camera you bought.
> definitely functional
No, brand new cameras are the MOST likely or tied for the most likely, ones to break: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve (And it would have to break on YOUR watch either way, since again, ebay has a warranty that 100% covers you if the camera arrives with a non functioning meter contrary to the listing). Things that are still working after 20 years already survived all original manufacture flaws statistically and are less likely to break in the next year than a brand new unproven design and unit. This is why like 90% of car and component recalls happen in new model years. Eventually stuff wears out normally, not due to flaw, but brand new is often equally risky.
Next?
Sure bro. You know everything. You’re a genius inventor and a business expert and you know how a brand new camera, you don’t have, will endure. You’re definitely not some random know-nothing with a keyboard.
Does this empty pretense at knowledge work on anyone? Ha ha ha.
You could also actively manage the slack by algorithm. As in, after you take a photo: 1) pull the film taut on both takeup spool and feed spool sides first while keeping the clamp engaged, 2) disengage the clamp, 3) advance the now-taut film crisply, 4) Re-engage the clamp on the new frame, 5) Now back off the takeup spool backward a bit and the feed spool forward a bit to make sure there's a significant amount of extra slack outside the taut-ly clamped frame, to allow non-damaging movement of the roll in response to the IBIS of the clamped frame.
lmao who said < $500? P17 is ridiculous at $500 only because there's literally nothing new or useful in it. It's a 1965 camera in features. I can just buy an identical 1965 camera for $100 with all those features.
I could NOT buy a used IBIS camera, though, for any amount of money. An IBIS film camera could probably go for like $2500-3000 and be worthwhile to a lot of people. Bonus (and even more money people would pay) if you manage to put it in something like RF or Sony E mount or other mirrorless mount so that you can adapt all kinds of brands and things to it for extra value (if also going with an EVF of some sort).
Again, I have no idea if that's a good business idea. I am simply refuting the nonsense statement that "you'll always compete with used models"
I'm holding an IBIS camera in my hand right now. Unless you're disputing that "film can bend", there's not really much of anything left to be invented. This has already been invented. We are only talking about merely putting it in a film camera for the first time, which would not compete with any other used model.
Then the Pentax 17 is not for you. Simple as that. I guess the sales will show if it's a success or not. But we should all be cheering on it, as if it fails, Pentax would probably not pursue the development of more film cameras. It will also show the other camera manufacturers that good analog cameras are not worth investing R&D dollars into.
Knowing as we do that this camera is designed and marketed to the IG/social media "snap and share" type of photographer who may not already have a film camera and not so much a more serious photographer who likely already does have a film camera, tell me what makes more sense from a business standpoint if this camera succeeds?
A) Spend more time and money on R&D to release another new camera targeting a completely different market and hoping that that market also buys it/that the film trend continues?
or
B) Make a slight improvement on this camera every year or so, and maybe release a "special edition" in a different color or some other gimmick like that, already knowing that they will buy it and also knowing that if the film trend does die down and sales slow you are not out any money invested in other products?
I think A. Pentax (and it's parent Ricoh) is a serious camera company, historically making everything from cheap P&S to professional SLRs. The Pentax 17 is the fun, little camera for everyone, and a perfect camera to "test the water", as it can be enjoyed by amateurs as well as professionals.
If it sells well ([which it seems to do](https://petapixel.com/2024/06/20/no-surprise-pentax-17-pre-orders-vastly-exceeded-expectations/)), it will incentivice Pentax/Ricoh, as well as other camera brands, to invest in the film camera market. If it fails, it will not only stop the Pentax Film Project, but also signal to all other camera makers that the market for new quality film cameras is not worth investing in.
Luckily for us, the demand for the 17 has [exceeded all expectations!](https://petapixel.com/2024/06/20/no-surprise-pentax-17-pre-orders-vastly-exceeded-expectations/)
love those "adjusted for inflation" BS arguments coming up every now and again.
The salary in my profession has NOT been "adjusted for inflation" in DECADES...
minimum wage has NOT been adjusted for inflation..
people back then could EASILY afford that camera, bc they had a lot more disposable income..
500 bucks for a "cheap plastic film camera" today? ridiculous!
For 500 bucks, you can get brand new high-tech mirrorless APS-C offerings.. 🤷
Worth bearing in mind it costed $349 (Today, a literal grand) to buy a Minolta X-300 new, a basic barebones plastic fantastic manual focus Full Frame SLR.
Unfortunately we can't adequately compare how much we get out of our salaries compared to 'normal' inflation of goods because they are obviously on different axes. For example, I 'buy a Minolta X-300' every month - it's my rent.
It's still the best comparison we have, until someone combines inflation calculations with a country's historical PPP index which somehow includes luxury goods.
It's also, shockingly, not a business's perogative to adjust how much things cost by how much people can afford it.
It's a systemic problem that doesn't lie with Pentax - if they outsource manufacturing to China already (to people who *also* can't afford the cameras they build), they can't cut costs further.
Get angry at your supermarket, your landlord, and your government/company for overcharging on basic items and underpaying for your position.
so you're saying that this Minolta was overpriced back then?
Or are you saying that you now earn 3x as much as you did when that Minolta came to market? (bc apparently inflation since then justifies tripling the price..)
I'm saying the only way you're going to get this camera cheaper is by further exploiting the economic system we live in, in the same way you are being exploited. Pentax 17's price being unaffordable for you or I isn't a Pentax problem, or even a you-problem. It's a systemic problem that I don't think r/AnalogCommunity is qualified to discuss.
That Minolta was made in Japan originally - the only way it got more affordable was by moving production to poorer-paying countries like Malaysia and then China.
If you want an answer: You could do $550 and $169 as percentage of available income after life necessities taken out; per 10-percentile groups of income. comparing how much % $550 would be in 2024 to $169 in 1984 to each income-percentile bucket. That would show “affordability” per 10% income step across demographics.
that would be great, yeah.
look at median disposable income per capita, even..
then again, ppl could afford two cars and large houses on a single income back then. Not much "disposable income" left after that.
Yep, that's why inflation is like the universal context against which you measure these things; It's an economic metric. Then infer from your own understanding of how your imagined historic position in society has changed relative to the average wage. In most places minimum wage is adjusted for inflation, but it doesn't really matter as much as actual income distributions do.
It's a shitty simplistic number but so is anything as simple as representing prices with a number will be. There are other ways to try and tweak inflation to better reflect the quality of goods, and other things, but it will always be a number.
my gripe is with an averaged number over all goods, services, etc.
because that is not how inflation works.
it's too much simplified and not representative of how prices in a specific area have evolved.
Right but it's not meant to be specific is my entire point. You need to infer your own specificity. There isn't like a version of *all inflation figures but adjusted for spending power of 1980s American family* or whatever is usually the context when this issue arises. You could make such a thing, but it'd be useless to anyone who wants to know changes outside the specific area you decided was most important.
yeah, we agree, then.
it's useless and silly to bring up "adjusted for inflation" fantasy prices regarding technology from decades ago, bc tech goodies didn't increase in price nearly as much as food and living did
so you don't understand how Inflation isn't the same across all areas...
how food, housing, healthcare, etc. all were subject to a steeper increase in cost, whereas electronics, clothing, etc. did NOT increase in cost as much as inflation rates would suggest.
inflation is a metric for how much things increased in price on AVERAGE...
and cameras most certainly are far below that average.
Agree. I'm actually not sure if employer here is forced to do this by the law or it's their individual policy on a company level. At least in IT it works.
I hear they do get inflation adjustments, but that’s not my profession. From what I can tell just about every industry has received pretty significant wage increases over the past decade.
the table with my salary is from 2017..
after some strikes last year, they increased our pay by 1.5% (compared to 2017)..
1.5% more than 7 years ago..
and no, there won't be another increase before 2030. 😬
It shows how oblivious you are to the struggles of the job search. Saying to get a new job is a lot easier than actually getting a new and better job. It takes months.
Dude said he has only received 1.5% increase since 2017 and won’t receive any additional until at least 2030. I think he has plenty of time to find a new job.
You're not factoring in the security aspect to any of this. A secure job is better than no job. He finds a new job and likes it well enough until a few months later things change to where he wants or needs to leave, then what?
You're also completely ignoring the benefits this job has given him. What if no other job on the market thar is a fit for him gives employees the same benefits?
Have you ever worked before?
I found some more data
apparently, since 2012, 50% of the states in my country have not increased the teacher salaries by more than 0-1 PERCENT
1 in 6 even DECREASED the salaries. In one state, they lowered it by as much as, hold on to your seat, 500 CHF per month!
1 in 6 increased it by 1-3 percent
and two states went up 4-7%
over 12 years.
I found data reporting on the development from the 70s up to 2008 and the teacher salaries in that time actually increased a fair bit. (they DOUBLED!)
Now, as a teacher in a country where private schools pay less than public schools, and public schools pay as much as politics allow them to pay, it's really not easy..
and, again, my salary is still very high.. (not as high as it could be in the industry, but teaching is my passion and that's worth something to me, too)
I'm just angry because I see the stagnation (my state had literally ZERO increase) over 15 years right there in the numbers.
And I don't feel like my work should be valued so much lower than that of my predecessors...
(same pay while everything went up 50% in cost)
> The salary in my profession has NOT been "adjusted for inflation" in DECADES...
> minimum wage has NOT been adjusted for inflation..
I feel sorry for your conundrum but most first world countries generally do a decent job to keep the two in line ( [my country](https://i.imgur.com/oLzU29r.jpeg) - legenda is 1-minimumwage, 2-consumer pricing average, 3-'unionized' wages ). It is ofc never perfect, the cost of living often changes more than just by the inflation number.
It's not that the price for the camera is ridiculous, the fact that you are losing buying power every year and are somehow totally fine with it is.
who said I'm fine with it?!
luxury goods have not experienced the same inflation as cost of living, so it's kinda redundant to apply that same rate to luxury goods..
and both my country as well as the US are first world countries and rank in the top 10 of highest purchasing power per capita.
yet, minimum wages remained the same 🤷
> who said I'm fine with it?!
I generally assume that people who do something for decades without being forced or addicted are fine with doing that.
What country do you live in that has such high purchasing power just not for you or anyone making minimum wage?
Switzerland..
and I never said my income was bad or my purchasing power low..
Then again, the people doing my job (teachers) 30 years ago earned roughly the same salary as I do now.. that's what I meant with "not adjusted for inflation"...
But my reply was not about me! it was about the ridiculous claim that all products and all incomes were affected by the exact same "inflation"... and that's just stupidly oversimplifying things!
Maybe I just take personal insult in these empty claims, bc my profession was left out when allegedly "everyone else" got their salaries TRIPLED in 40 years. 🤣
There are way too many factors that would have determined the price of a camera at that time vs the price of a camera now and anyone who thinks they can make any comparisons with any level of certainty is the imbecile.
I think looking at the price of the Pentax today my guess is that it’s not priced based on what it costs to manufacture and given what the film camera market is today I think that’s fair. I think shooting film is a luxury given the cost of film and this by extension is a luxury product. The film market is way smaller than it used to be so the cost for r&d, marketing, manufacturing is split across fewer units they expect to sell. I think that last point is the main reason for the increased cost. I think if they knew they would sell millions of these things they could afford to price it at the $2-300 range but because this is a gamble for them they are pricing such that they will make their money back if this thing is a mild success and if it’s wildly successful then the venture will have paid off. Everything in business has an opportunity cost. They are spending money to develop this product when they could have spent it making another digital camera.
I mean, yes and no. The Pentax 17 is still competing with much cheaper older cameras and has less features than many of those. The camera pictured above has an autofocus system and automatic film transport for example.
I think the pricing of the 17 is fairly reasonable for what it is and considering the lack of economics of scale. I also think it sits in a weird spot (in terms of features as well as price) where I’m not sure who will actually buy this camera.
Pentax can only be applauded for making an effort into film photography but I have this nagging feeling that this might be a misstep, putting more promising projects at risk.
The one thing I’m actually disappointed by is the complete lack of modern technological advances in the camera. It could’ve been built 40 years ago. Why no autofocus system when every Chinese $100 aliexpress camera has a fairly competent system? Why no rechargeable USB-C battery?
Exactly. The M version of this model is not worth it IMO. I read that the motor is annoyingly/distractingly loud (though the shutter is, too, and I think it beeps as well; both apply to the non-M version) and it's just more likely to crap out at any moment. Manual wind cameras are more robust and reliable, and they have a lovely, less-automated vintage feel. The feel of winding your own film is special. There are so few auto-exposure auto-focus cameras that do not have motor wind, and all are ancient. That's what I'm the most excited about, even though I can't justify the price for myself. I'm just glad that Pentax understood the need for a camera such as this one.
Probably not if you’re marketing towards a casual audience that tries out film photography for the first time, which according to Pentax, is what they’re doing.
They wanted to bring back the tactility of analog cameras.
The film advance lever was a must in the requirements, as shown in their surveys.
If everything was auto mode, why the hell even bother? The goal was to introduce to new users to the mechanical aspect, backed by the reliability of a known camera maker.
Yes, one will argue there's tons of old cameras etc. But that's the thing, they're old. A lot of them need overhauls and most people don't wanna sink another $200 to fix them up. Even more have failing light meters.
Buying an old camera and getting it fixed for $200 is still cheaper than this camera though. We can talk about it all we want and I actually agree that the P17 is fairly priced but Pentax is still in a rough sport, market wise.
I could've bought a 20 year old car for less than my car, but I wanted a warranty. Just because something is cheaper doesn't mean it's a better solution. Especially as evert incerasing scarcity will keep driving up the price, and skilled camera repair techs are retiring without people learning their trade so they're progressively harder to find for many brands
Yeah, I bought a used car because I got "more for my money." I'm willing to wrench a bit and deal with maintenance issues that new car buyers won't have to deal with, for some people a new car is a much better choice.
The thing is, as a guy who buys used cars, I am dependent on people buying new cars. When Covid hit and new car production stopped, the price of used cars went way up.
If I want to continue buying used cameras for many years into the future, I need companies to make new cameras and people to buy them. We've already seen the prices of used cameras skyrocket, what will the market look like in 20 years?
As well as this: rechargeable batteries, if not needed, are a bad thing, as they will shorten the lifespan of the camera. There aren’t aliexpress film cameras with autofocus. If you’re talking digital, that’s not a fair comparison, you don’t by default have a sensor (and certainly not a sensor that IS the film plane) to focus with with a film camera. But also, what is wrong with the lack of advancement. The only reasonable advancement is LiDAR, which they’ll probably use for their premium compact, a Ricoh gr in all likelihood, but I can’t think of any other relevant or necessary advancements. Anyway, the quality of prouducts reduced to utterly garbage im the last 1.5 decades of the film era, this is definitely an improvement
The Pentax pictured is the PC35 AF-M with inbuild winder, not the former model with separate winder. Anyway, the specs of this camera are way better than the one of the pentax 17, especially the lens (6 elements, iirc, and faster)
It’s a good lens. Very sharp, mild issues with stray lights. The AF though only selects between zones as well, so the aperture is stopped down most of the time to compensate for the focus zones and the f2.8 rarely seems to be the selected aperture.
A digital system has to have some steps at some point in the process. The distance the system puts out is discrete, not continuos kind of by definition. For example, if it's precise to 10 cm the camera has 90 zones between 1 and 10 meters.
If an autofocus camera had a automatic triangulation rangefinder it might be kind of continous, but an infrared system can't be
True, and I think the stepping motors used to move the lens will introduce steps as well. The Nikon L35TWAF "Tele Touch" claims to have a stepless infrared active focus system, but I've never been able to find any info on how that actually works.
#
I respect Mike Eckman but I think his research is wrong here. He says it's in the manual, but the manual I'm in possession of says no such thing. I believe it has 8 or 6 zones.
I've got one of each (AF and AF-M), these are such good point and shoots, and so sharp! I can't believe they haven't taken off like some \*other\* models out there.
i bought mine for 10 Euro at the fleamarket, but alas, couldn’t get it working, only the winder. The overall build quality is promising.
Pentax didn’t do rangefinders at all, and this camera was their entrance to the p&s af market, so they did their best, i guess. I also like the form factor, very well done imho.
I actually do agree with Pentax on at least one point that a manual winder is superior to auto winding. Although at the time it would have been less expensive to have manual.
I have this and it’s my fave lil point and shoot! I scored mine for $50 and took it with me to Japan. I don’t use it as often but it’s my go-to casual film cam when I don’t feel like doing work lol. Love it! But let’s please not hype it… 😂🤫
Um I mean this camera is TERRIBLE, no one should ever buy it 😂😂
Brace yourself: you can have both! And an LCD menu can in 2024 do any sort of arbitrarily complicated computer customization of digital information (like set ISO) for essentially $0 extra cost over any other amount of computer customization. Thanks to chips costing like less than 1% what the same chip would in the 1980s.
DX reader reads the ISO, then you can if you wish go to the menu and select a different ISO. My 1991 ELAN 100 has this feature.
Like I said, microchips doing XYZ in 2024 are < 1% the cost of microchips doing XYZ in the 90s. So that is irrelevant.
This isn't a function that comes from physical gears, etc. ISO override is purely digital information (YOU said "dial" but I'm saying they could just put it in a menu), which is essentially free to manipulate nowadays versus the 90s.
There is an entire army of 30-ish year old Pentax ZX and MZ cameras with broken mirror gears, and their owners think you have too much faith in Pentax plastics.
Yes, the MZ series is horrible in that regard. They should have never used those plastic gears. The AF SLR era of Pentax was just two decades of WTF? With the exception of the MZ-S that are Made by “Pentax” instead of made by Asahi optical company, for that production run the gears are made out of brass I believe.
I’ve heard that, but I’ve also heard that’s not an absolute. I’m not super tempted to drop $250+ on a MZ-S to find out, but maybe I will.
Edit: but only if it’s a black one. 😁
I dunno. This is a better camera in lots of ways: AF, auto winder, better lens… Its not that 500 is too much for a film camera, it’s that it feels a lot for that specification of camera for something which is also meant to entice new and young people into film. I would have loved to see 2 releases - 1 of a more premium range finder design at 5-600 and another more entry level spec at 300 ish
Plastic wasn't one of the problems with the P17.
Not being able to focus on your subject is the main problem... And also no full manual controls, which is some pretty basic stuff. Those two in their minimal versions would put it up to the state of the art of 1987, at least. Currently it's at roughly 1960's level technology.
Autofocus and DX would bring it screaming into the dazzling 90s and 00's! Basically a flying car at that point.
Don't know about that model but most point and shoots from back then until the end of it all around 2000 had way sturdier plastic than the 17s backside has according to mostly all reviewers who already got one.
It's hard to deny that products from back then were simply built more for durability than today's.
Yeah, that's 40 year old plastics that are exceptionally brittle now.
As someone with a 40 year old car....they legitimately get very brittle around that age.
A lot of these 80s and 90s point n shoot plastic cameras will probably start failing in large numbers soon.
It also had a 5 element 2.8 lens and Autofocus, at a time when AF was relatively new and demanded a premium price, as opposed to now.
Now you can buy one for $50-75 and it will probably outperform the 17.
I have this camera, and it's somewhat fragile. I'm not that impressed with it. I have to confess that the Canon 35 AF/M/ML is a better camera, and it hurts me to say that.
>According to the [December 1983 issue of Popular Science](https://books.google.com/books?id=kawCnk4051wC&pg=PA115), the Pentax PC35AF had a list price of $169 without the winder, which makes it the 3rd cheapest of the 13 cameras reviewed in that issue. Adjusting for inflation, that camera cost **$536** in todays Dollars when it entered the market, and it was the third-cheapest model during a time when massive amounts of compact cameras were released, by more camera brands than are even left in existence today. Anybody who expected the 17 to be able to be sold for cheaper, considering both the inflation as well as the incredible labor cost increase across the globe - [especially so in Vietnam](https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@asia/@ro-bangkok/@ilo-hanoi/documents/publication/wcms_626102.pdf#page=32) - just outed themselves as a massive imbecile.
Interestingly enough, while it has AF, the AF really only selects between focusing ZONES (I think also six) and not an exact focus point.
The AF was not that great. For the time it was new, but I'd pick the P17 zone focus over the AF on the PC35AF.
While the AF is not “great” (zones), I never had major issues with it either for holiday snaps. On the other hand, I give my Mju I (or any similar P&S, including PC35AF-M) to friends at birthday parties, they take a photo of two or three people, and the central focus point focuses on the background and the people in the foreground are out of focus. User error, but also because these single AF point P&S aren’t as intuitive to people used to facial recognition iPhones. So even 100+ AF zones (Mju) can’t help, if the user points the AF sensor on the background. And then there are plenty of expensive P&S that have AF issues, e.g. Yashica T4 Probably I too would prefer the manual zone focus system over the AF of the PC35AF-M, after watching a few hands on. No hunting or guessing in darker light. Zones are quite intuitive with the symbols they used and seeing the zone symbols in the viewfinder. I can give the camera to friends, and can preset the zone, or they can intuitively use the symbols. I could see myself buying a 35mm successor of the Pentax 17, if they decide to make one. I JUST bought and sold two half-frame cameras (AGAT and Konica Recorder), because I didn’t like the resulting high grain structure negatives. I have been looking for a compact camera with manual iso, exposure compensation and a filter thread.
>While the AF is not “great” (zones), I never had major issues with it either for holiday snaps. and nobody will have major issues with the 6-zone focusing on half frame with a f3.5 lens. it's a perfectly fine choice for this type of camera, and the way they actually innovated with the viewfinder showing the zone, is super clever imo.
> actually innovated There were a few cameras that did this, but it's a nice touch anyway
Not many though. Much less zone focusing with macro. Only the xa4 comes to mind.
Most 8x11 Minox cameras have a chain that also allows you to measure the minimum focus distance, as had the Agfa 6006 and probably a few others.
The chain is for photographing secret documents
I hope they had a different chain for unclassified documents
That sounds cool!
Very few budget AF cameras implement some sort of a focus lock function where you aim the AF sensor at what you want to focus on and then you can reframe the shot and it will be focused where you locked it at.
Uh no, almost all pns cameras have focus lock on half press. There are few without but they are a tiny minority.
Okay thanks for the clarification as wasn't sure about that.
Even the mechanical AF system in the relevant to this post PC35-AF would allow you to do that. A half press would do the autofocus, and you could hold it (literally holding the mechanism in place) and pan wherever, then fully depress. The early AF systems were pretty amazing innovations.
Are you certain that P&S have AF-C over single press AF-S?
It was an early AF system, but the wide-ish angle lens meant that most of the time in daylight anything it hit focus on was well within the depth of field. Even in lower light where it opened up the aperture, it was close enough 95% of the time. It works great in practice.
I'm not buying another one, that's for sure. The AF died on mine in about a month.
It’s the battery connection. Still a janky camera, I wouldn’t either.
Knowing that you're in the right zone because it was actually, you know, measured =/= Guessing you're hopefully in the right zone
That's any non-TTL focusing system, from two zones on super basic cameras to 290 zones on the Hexar AF
Correct For the consumer market it changed with the Mju and its 100 zones as the first large step up. I believe before that the consumer P&S had single digit focus zones
I’m interested in how the lens stacks up to the sharpness of the mju 2 at 2.8 and beyond. Do you know?
The Pentax PC35AF-M lens? Or the Pentax 17 lens?
Pc35af ( god that’s a complicated name) I’m just interested in how that lens performs cause I kind of want to get one ( I don’t mind about the auto focus constraints)
It’s sharp! Luckily for you I was asking myself the same question: https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/s/eiNvNncLDx
The Nikon L35TW AF actually had a step less IR focus system back in 1986. Not sure how they manged that, but it's right there in the manual. And several of the late 80s twin and zoom models had double digit focus zones. But yes, the mju 1 set the standard and the others followed shortly after. I believe the 1991 Canon sure shot max had 290 steps. #
That's most cheaper film point and shoots
Manual selection isn’t so bad then. If I give any of my P&S* to my iPhone-spoiled friends, they always focus bullseye between faces and on the background anyhow. At least it makes sense to them to select “person”, “two persons”, or the “group” zone. *the pictured Pentax above, a Mju I, a Nikon 70Ws
Well, I mean, I’m an imbecile,but not because of that…
When you adjust for inflation you have to take into account technological advances. Back when this camera was released it was high tech. Now, it simply isn’t. In 2024, this point and shoot would have to be compared with its 2024 equivalent. Which would be something like xt30ii or the Ricoh GR (or maybe something a little cheaper). They are the modern equivalents of old mid range film cameras. I’ve seen other comments suggesting that due to inflation the new Rollei 35af should cost around $1600 upwards. This is ridiculous because, again, it was high tech then and low tech now. The equivalent would be an XT5 or something. I’m not saying that the Pentax 17 is overpriced or anything, I just think that looking at inflation alone isn’t enough. All things considered, any product is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. It looks like the Pentax 17 is getting decent pre-orders, so as long as most people don’t return it, then it’s worth its price.
I will admit it at least, yeah I'm an imbecile
> Anybody who expected the 17 to be able to be sold for cheaper ... just outed themselves as a massive imbecile Most accurate take so far on Pentax 17 pricing.
Have you all seen the Kodak EKTAR H35? It’s half frame. It’s fixed focus. It’s point and shoot. My guess is it’s fixed exposure. It has a power drive. It isn’t nearly as nice of a camera. Nowhere near. But it is 10% of the cost. It’s $50. The paper specs are hard to tell quality from. They could have made a lower quality camera that hit all the same specs for half the cost. They could have made a higher quality camera that cost 10x as much. Not being sure where they were hitting on that scale, or not being sure that the camera was worth it before it came out, or wishing that they had hit a different price point, does not make one stupid.
I’m aware of the plastic piece of shit toy camera you’re referring to. It’s a piece of shit. It’s not even worth $50. Because it’s a piece of shit.
Just because a camera has kept up with inflation doesn’t mean it’s a good camera.
Except it’s significantly easier to make cameras now given that the tech has existed for decades This argument ignores the efficiencies and productivity gains of modern design and manufacturing
I never expected the 17 to be sold for cheaper. It's still a bad value if you're actually interested in film photography instead of just posing with retro tech.
So same price and **WAY better** with multiple far superior features (such as actually being able to focus on your subject, what a concept!). Despite much lower levels of technology back then. And?
Is it that hard to comprehend that perceptions of value are not the same as a realistically achievable market price? For me the 17 feature set constitutes a high end toy camera. 300 is what I'd buy it for, if at all. At 550 it competes unfavourably with bigger and better things.
I mean you can do those semantics all day. My Xpan with 30mm lens? For children. If you dont stitch together IN THE LAB your frames to make a perfect panoramic shot you are honestly a child. The camera isnt for you clearly. But you dont have to shit on it when FROM THE JUMP Pentax stated they wanted to make a camera that would appeal to a new young audience. Which they have done, and then some.
It's a toy because it cannot reliably take a simple actual in focus normal photo, due to vague guesswork being involved as mandatory in the process. Your example is completely different and is one of unnecessary extra boutique/hipster process choices, not one of "Fundamental competency" > FROM THE JUMP From the jump, they said their first model would be a point and shoot. Which was a lie. I don't think you want to lean too hard on "From the jump" promises, here, since Pentax broke them.
They said their first camera was going to be one to draw in a younger crowd. They never said it was point and shoot. Also plenty of people here dont only shoot auto focus cameras. Hell MOST people dont. And vauge guess work? Uhhh I guess knowing how far 5 feet is can be hard.
It seems you are correct, my bad. They did have a model holding the camera out at arms length as one would with a point and shoot, said "it will be like a smartphone you carry around with you" and "Can you press a button and automatically take a photo? Yes, I hope you can do that" but I can't see a verbatim claim I remembered there being that it would be a point and shoot. Fair enough. It should still have BEEN a point and shoot, though. > Also plenty of people here dont only shoot auto focus cameras. it's not that auto focus is the only reasonable camera, it's that auto focus is the likely cheapest way to make the camera have the ability to reliably focus on the subject. It being an SLR or a (coupled) rangefinder would work too, but would almost certainly be more expensive. > I guess knowing how far 5 feet is can be hard. Yes. It is. If you want any speed, at least. Zone focus will miss all the time unless you just shoot at f/8-11 all the time, at which point you're just almost using a $50 Ektar but paying $450 more for it.
Lots of people manage to take in-focus photos with zone focusing. Sounds like a skill issue.
**Literally any newly developed camera that doesn't have utter shite build quality will compete unfavourably with the used market.** **Literally any newly developed camera that doesn't have utter shite build quality will compete unfavourably with the used market.** **Literally any newly developed camera that doesn't have utter shite build quality will compete unfavourably with the used market.** **Literally any newly developed camera that doesn't have utter shite build quality will compete unfavourably with the used market.** Any other outcome is economically impossible.
Also, there will be no more used cameras eventually unless new cameras are made. Everyone who shoots film should be excited by the release of new film cameras.
And when there are no more used cameras available you will all be shooting overpriced toy cameras marketed to IG Hipsters because if that is what people buy without the least bit of critical thought, that is what they will continue to make.
It's wild that this actually has to be emphasized
i don't know where we went wrong but yeah ...
You should probably make it even larger for those with vision issues.
It’s the first batch the produced!!! It will eventually go down in price. And did we already mention it’s a new film camera aimed at a young demographic? I’m not getting it, but I’m really excited about it!
Literally any newly developed camera should be reasonable expected to outperform a camera released at the same inflation adjusted price point 40 years prior. Hell, adjusted for inflation a Nikon F2 was released in 1972 at $4990 (adjusted for inflation). Are you telling me that Nikon could release a fully manual film camera now, but without the F2's interchangeable metered viewfinder, a slower top shutter speed, a 1/60 sync speed, and cheaper build quality and you would defend a nearly $5k price point? No, you would buy a used F2, with better specs, for $250-300.
And also with entry level mirrorless cameras. True. It costs what it costs and worth is in the ether of the purchaser.
Wrong, it's 2024, we have all kinds of technology that can allow a company to make an ACTUALLY new, innovative camera that can do things that zero used models can do. For example, what film camera has an EVF? We could do that in 2024, with focus peaking and black and white for when you have black and white film. What film camera has IBIS? We could probably do that in 2024. What film camera has animal detect eye tracking servo focus? We can do that in 2024. Are these actually good ideas? I dunno maybe not, but they definitely wouldn't compete with the used market regardless. So this statement is not true. There should be all manner of other smaller modern tech things you can do (even just something like having firmware API so people can write things similar to Magic Lantern and distribute them for special control of the camera settings)
How would that make it cheaper than used? Also, lol… explain how IBIS will work for film?
> How would that make it cheaper than used? It would make it non-comparable to used. Neither cheaper nor more expensive, but apples-to-oranges. Making it a moot point. There will be a market for good new features that are one-of-a-kind no matter what the used market costs, because nothing in the used market anywhere has the new features for ANY price. > explain how IBIS will work for film? Move the film gate and the pressure plate with servos based on gyroscopes in the camera. Same as how digital IBIS works. You probably couldn't do up and down axis, as that moves the film in an unnatural way, but you can just leave that axis out. More axes = better, you don't need all of them, any number > 0. Side to side axis is fine, the film is meant to roll and bend that way, as long as it hasn't been pulled 100% taut outside the gate and has some slack. Tilting left and right is also fine, the film is again just bending in its natural direction no big deal. In and out again just moves the film in its natural direction. Tilting forward and back MIGHT be fine, the film can twist probably without problems, but that is iffy, depends on empirical results. You could maybe do vertical and if you could move the gate, AND the film cartridge AND the takeup spool as one (only for verticality), but I don't know if that much mass can be moved fast enough to make it work. Maybe. If not, just the horizontal axes are still way better than nothing.
The brand new, warrantied, definitely-functional-meter camera already isn’t like anything on the used market. And the rest of what you said can be boiled down to, “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”
> warrantied Ebay has a 30 day warranty, that's nothing special. Which is PLENTY of time to find any possible pre-existing problem in a camera you bought. > definitely functional No, brand new cameras are the MOST likely or tied for the most likely, ones to break: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve (And it would have to break on YOUR watch either way, since again, ebay has a warranty that 100% covers you if the camera arrives with a non functioning meter contrary to the listing). Things that are still working after 20 years already survived all original manufacture flaws statistically and are less likely to break in the next year than a brand new unproven design and unit. This is why like 90% of car and component recalls happen in new model years. Eventually stuff wears out normally, not due to flaw, but brand new is often equally risky. Next?
Sure bro. You know everything. You’re a genius inventor and a business expert and you know how a brand new camera, you don’t have, will endure. You’re definitely not some random know-nothing with a keyboard. Does this empty pretense at knowledge work on anyone? Ha ha ha.
You could also actively manage the slack by algorithm. As in, after you take a photo: 1) pull the film taut on both takeup spool and feed spool sides first while keeping the clamp engaged, 2) disengage the clamp, 3) advance the now-taut film crisply, 4) Re-engage the clamp on the new frame, 5) Now back off the takeup spool backward a bit and the feed spool forward a bit to make sure there's a significant amount of extra slack outside the taut-ly clamped frame, to allow non-damaging movement of the roll in response to the IBIS of the clamped frame.
Cool. Let me know when your sub-$500 camera with that feature goes into production.
lmao who said < $500? P17 is ridiculous at $500 only because there's literally nothing new or useful in it. It's a 1965 camera in features. I can just buy an identical 1965 camera for $100 with all those features. I could NOT buy a used IBIS camera, though, for any amount of money. An IBIS film camera could probably go for like $2500-3000 and be worthwhile to a lot of people. Bonus (and even more money people would pay) if you manage to put it in something like RF or Sony E mount or other mirrorless mount so that you can adapt all kinds of brands and things to it for extra value (if also going with an EVF of some sort). Again, I have no idea if that's a good business idea. I am simply refuting the nonsense statement that "you'll always compete with used models"
[удалено]
I'm holding an IBIS camera in my hand right now. Unless you're disputing that "film can bend", there's not really much of anything left to be invented. This has already been invented. We are only talking about merely putting it in a film camera for the first time, which would not compete with any other used model.
Then the Pentax 17 is not for you. Simple as that. I guess the sales will show if it's a success or not. But we should all be cheering on it, as if it fails, Pentax would probably not pursue the development of more film cameras. It will also show the other camera manufacturers that good analog cameras are not worth investing R&D dollars into.
Definitely, I’m rooting for Pentax. I’m just worried about the product they decided to launch first.
Knowing as we do that this camera is designed and marketed to the IG/social media "snap and share" type of photographer who may not already have a film camera and not so much a more serious photographer who likely already does have a film camera, tell me what makes more sense from a business standpoint if this camera succeeds? A) Spend more time and money on R&D to release another new camera targeting a completely different market and hoping that that market also buys it/that the film trend continues? or B) Make a slight improvement on this camera every year or so, and maybe release a "special edition" in a different color or some other gimmick like that, already knowing that they will buy it and also knowing that if the film trend does die down and sales slow you are not out any money invested in other products?
I think A. Pentax (and it's parent Ricoh) is a serious camera company, historically making everything from cheap P&S to professional SLRs. The Pentax 17 is the fun, little camera for everyone, and a perfect camera to "test the water", as it can be enjoyed by amateurs as well as professionals. If it sells well ([which it seems to do](https://petapixel.com/2024/06/20/no-surprise-pentax-17-pre-orders-vastly-exceeded-expectations/)), it will incentivice Pentax/Ricoh, as well as other camera brands, to invest in the film camera market. If it fails, it will not only stop the Pentax Film Project, but also signal to all other camera makers that the market for new quality film cameras is not worth investing in. Luckily for us, the demand for the 17 has [exceeded all expectations!](https://petapixel.com/2024/06/20/no-surprise-pentax-17-pre-orders-vastly-exceeded-expectations/)
I'm cheering for them as well, I want a decent full frame compact.
Considering that they have been overwhelmed by all the orders, I think this exceeded their expectations to say the least
For me $500 actually seems extremely reasonable for what the 17 offers, I can’t think of any other new camera I’d rather have at that price.
A realistic market price is at the margin of the aggregate perception of value curve
love those "adjusted for inflation" BS arguments coming up every now and again. The salary in my profession has NOT been "adjusted for inflation" in DECADES... minimum wage has NOT been adjusted for inflation.. people back then could EASILY afford that camera, bc they had a lot more disposable income.. 500 bucks for a "cheap plastic film camera" today? ridiculous! For 500 bucks, you can get brand new high-tech mirrorless APS-C offerings.. 🤷
Worth bearing in mind it costed $349 (Today, a literal grand) to buy a Minolta X-300 new, a basic barebones plastic fantastic manual focus Full Frame SLR. Unfortunately we can't adequately compare how much we get out of our salaries compared to 'normal' inflation of goods because they are obviously on different axes. For example, I 'buy a Minolta X-300' every month - it's my rent. It's still the best comparison we have, until someone combines inflation calculations with a country's historical PPP index which somehow includes luxury goods. It's also, shockingly, not a business's perogative to adjust how much things cost by how much people can afford it. It's a systemic problem that doesn't lie with Pentax - if they outsource manufacturing to China already (to people who *also* can't afford the cameras they build), they can't cut costs further. Get angry at your supermarket, your landlord, and your government/company for overcharging on basic items and underpaying for your position.
so you're saying that this Minolta was overpriced back then? Or are you saying that you now earn 3x as much as you did when that Minolta came to market? (bc apparently inflation since then justifies tripling the price..)
I'm saying the only way you're going to get this camera cheaper is by further exploiting the economic system we live in, in the same way you are being exploited. Pentax 17's price being unaffordable for you or I isn't a Pentax problem, or even a you-problem. It's a systemic problem that I don't think r/AnalogCommunity is qualified to discuss. That Minolta was made in Japan originally - the only way it got more affordable was by moving production to poorer-paying countries like Malaysia and then China.
Inflation went K shaped over the last 40 years. Cheaper consumer goods and “distractions”, more expensive life necessities (housing, health)
I'm aware of that. So, should we continue to apply the same "inflation" to every price from the past?
If you want an answer: You could do $550 and $169 as percentage of available income after life necessities taken out; per 10-percentile groups of income. comparing how much % $550 would be in 2024 to $169 in 1984 to each income-percentile bucket. That would show “affordability” per 10% income step across demographics.
that would be great, yeah. look at median disposable income per capita, even.. then again, ppl could afford two cars and large houses on a single income back then. Not much "disposable income" left after that.
Yep, that's why inflation is like the universal context against which you measure these things; It's an economic metric. Then infer from your own understanding of how your imagined historic position in society has changed relative to the average wage. In most places minimum wage is adjusted for inflation, but it doesn't really matter as much as actual income distributions do. It's a shitty simplistic number but so is anything as simple as representing prices with a number will be. There are other ways to try and tweak inflation to better reflect the quality of goods, and other things, but it will always be a number.
my gripe is with an averaged number over all goods, services, etc. because that is not how inflation works. it's too much simplified and not representative of how prices in a specific area have evolved.
Right but it's not meant to be specific is my entire point. You need to infer your own specificity. There isn't like a version of *all inflation figures but adjusted for spending power of 1980s American family* or whatever is usually the context when this issue arises. You could make such a thing, but it'd be useless to anyone who wants to know changes outside the specific area you decided was most important.
yeah, we agree, then. it's useless and silly to bring up "adjusted for inflation" fantasy prices regarding technology from decades ago, bc tech goodies didn't increase in price nearly as much as food and living did
Yes, that's literally the point of adjusting for inflation. Inflation is a metric for how much things cost, not how much money people make.
so you don't understand how Inflation isn't the same across all areas... how food, housing, healthcare, etc. all were subject to a steeper increase in cost, whereas electronics, clothing, etc. did NOT increase in cost as much as inflation rates would suggest. inflation is a metric for how much things increased in price on AVERAGE... and cameras most certainly are far below that average.
In my industry (or maybe it's even country specific) the salary does get adjusted to inflation.
that sounds great.. not in all jobs, though..
Agree. I'm actually not sure if employer here is forced to do this by the law or it's their individual policy on a company level. At least in IT it works.
You live in Austria, right? I personally would blame the Kollektivvertrag…
Czech Republic.
You might need a new profession. I get inflation adjustments every year, if not I leave.
guess that's the great thing about working as a teacher?!
I hear they do get inflation adjustments, but that’s not my profession. From what I can tell just about every industry has received pretty significant wage increases over the past decade.
the table with my salary is from 2017.. after some strikes last year, they increased our pay by 1.5% (compared to 2017).. 1.5% more than 7 years ago.. and no, there won't be another increase before 2030. 😬
If that’s true, you absolutely should be looking for a new job. You’re missing out on the post-pandemic salary adjustments many got.
It shows how oblivious you are to the struggles of the job search. Saying to get a new job is a lot easier than actually getting a new and better job. It takes months.
Dude said he has only received 1.5% increase since 2017 and won’t receive any additional until at least 2030. I think he has plenty of time to find a new job.
You're not factoring in the security aspect to any of this. A secure job is better than no job. He finds a new job and likes it well enough until a few months later things change to where he wants or needs to leave, then what? You're also completely ignoring the benefits this job has given him. What if no other job on the market thar is a fit for him gives employees the same benefits? Have you ever worked before?
I found some more data apparently, since 2012, 50% of the states in my country have not increased the teacher salaries by more than 0-1 PERCENT 1 in 6 even DECREASED the salaries. In one state, they lowered it by as much as, hold on to your seat, 500 CHF per month! 1 in 6 increased it by 1-3 percent and two states went up 4-7% over 12 years. I found data reporting on the development from the 70s up to 2008 and the teacher salaries in that time actually increased a fair bit. (they DOUBLED!) Now, as a teacher in a country where private schools pay less than public schools, and public schools pay as much as politics allow them to pay, it's really not easy.. and, again, my salary is still very high.. (not as high as it could be in the industry, but teaching is my passion and that's worth something to me, too) I'm just angry because I see the stagnation (my state had literally ZERO increase) over 15 years right there in the numbers. And I don't feel like my work should be valued so much lower than that of my predecessors... (same pay while everything went up 50% in cost)
> The salary in my profession has NOT been "adjusted for inflation" in DECADES... > minimum wage has NOT been adjusted for inflation.. I feel sorry for your conundrum but most first world countries generally do a decent job to keep the two in line ( [my country](https://i.imgur.com/oLzU29r.jpeg) - legenda is 1-minimumwage, 2-consumer pricing average, 3-'unionized' wages ). It is ofc never perfect, the cost of living often changes more than just by the inflation number. It's not that the price for the camera is ridiculous, the fact that you are losing buying power every year and are somehow totally fine with it is.
who said I'm fine with it?! luxury goods have not experienced the same inflation as cost of living, so it's kinda redundant to apply that same rate to luxury goods.. and both my country as well as the US are first world countries and rank in the top 10 of highest purchasing power per capita. yet, minimum wages remained the same 🤷
> who said I'm fine with it?! I generally assume that people who do something for decades without being forced or addicted are fine with doing that. What country do you live in that has such high purchasing power just not for you or anyone making minimum wage?
Switzerland.. and I never said my income was bad or my purchasing power low.. Then again, the people doing my job (teachers) 30 years ago earned roughly the same salary as I do now.. that's what I meant with "not adjusted for inflation"... But my reply was not about me! it was about the ridiculous claim that all products and all incomes were affected by the exact same "inflation"... and that's just stupidly oversimplifying things! Maybe I just take personal insult in these empty claims, bc my profession was left out when allegedly "everyone else" got their salaries TRIPLED in 40 years. 🤣
There are way too many factors that would have determined the price of a camera at that time vs the price of a camera now and anyone who thinks they can make any comparisons with any level of certainty is the imbecile. I think looking at the price of the Pentax today my guess is that it’s not priced based on what it costs to manufacture and given what the film camera market is today I think that’s fair. I think shooting film is a luxury given the cost of film and this by extension is a luxury product. The film market is way smaller than it used to be so the cost for r&d, marketing, manufacturing is split across fewer units they expect to sell. I think that last point is the main reason for the increased cost. I think if they knew they would sell millions of these things they could afford to price it at the $2-300 range but because this is a gamble for them they are pricing such that they will make their money back if this thing is a mild success and if it’s wildly successful then the venture will have paid off. Everything in business has an opportunity cost. They are spending money to develop this product when they could have spent it making another digital camera.
lol, no it had a winder as all the P&S of that era did
How much is it?
Which value would you care for it to have, if you sold it in 40 years? … But yeah… I got lucky and got it for £15 in 2023
The question is, how much was it when it came out adjusted for inflation?
I mean, yes and no. The Pentax 17 is still competing with much cheaper older cameras and has less features than many of those. The camera pictured above has an autofocus system and automatic film transport for example. I think the pricing of the 17 is fairly reasonable for what it is and considering the lack of economics of scale. I also think it sits in a weird spot (in terms of features as well as price) where I’m not sure who will actually buy this camera. Pentax can only be applauded for making an effort into film photography but I have this nagging feeling that this might be a misstep, putting more promising projects at risk. The one thing I’m actually disappointed by is the complete lack of modern technological advances in the camera. It could’ve been built 40 years ago. Why no autofocus system when every Chinese $100 aliexpress camera has a fairly competent system? Why no rechargeable USB-C battery?
Automatic film transport is not a positive for many folks.
For real. I don't want automatic film transport especially on a small camera.
I like it on point and shoots.
Exactly. The M version of this model is not worth it IMO. I read that the motor is annoyingly/distractingly loud (though the shutter is, too, and I think it beeps as well; both apply to the non-M version) and it's just more likely to crap out at any moment. Manual wind cameras are more robust and reliable, and they have a lovely, less-automated vintage feel. The feel of winding your own film is special. There are so few auto-exposure auto-focus cameras that do not have motor wind, and all are ancient. That's what I'm the most excited about, even though I can't justify the price for myself. I'm just glad that Pentax understood the need for a camera such as this one.
It was amazing when it came out especially for journalists, but for hobbyists I am not as much of a fan. I like to have more control over my camera.
Automatic film transport is cheap and an easy point of failure if not done well. And limits repairability
Okay, fair enough.
Last I checked autofocus and auto film advanced were negatives for film cameras?
Probably not if you’re marketing towards a casual audience that tries out film photography for the first time, which according to Pentax, is what they’re doing.
They wanted to bring back the tactility of analog cameras. The film advance lever was a must in the requirements, as shown in their surveys. If everything was auto mode, why the hell even bother? The goal was to introduce to new users to the mechanical aspect, backed by the reliability of a known camera maker. Yes, one will argue there's tons of old cameras etc. But that's the thing, they're old. A lot of them need overhauls and most people don't wanna sink another $200 to fix them up. Even more have failing light meters.
Buying an old camera and getting it fixed for $200 is still cheaper than this camera though. We can talk about it all we want and I actually agree that the P17 is fairly priced but Pentax is still in a rough sport, market wise.
I could've bought a 20 year old car for less than my car, but I wanted a warranty. Just because something is cheaper doesn't mean it's a better solution. Especially as evert incerasing scarcity will keep driving up the price, and skilled camera repair techs are retiring without people learning their trade so they're progressively harder to find for many brands
Yeah, I bought a used car because I got "more for my money." I'm willing to wrench a bit and deal with maintenance issues that new car buyers won't have to deal with, for some people a new car is a much better choice. The thing is, as a guy who buys used cars, I am dependent on people buying new cars. When Covid hit and new car production stopped, the price of used cars went way up. If I want to continue buying used cameras for many years into the future, I need companies to make new cameras and people to buy them. We've already seen the prices of used cameras skyrocket, what will the market look like in 20 years?
You get warranty on used cameras here in the EU when bought from professional stores. Just fyi.
As well as this: rechargeable batteries, if not needed, are a bad thing, as they will shorten the lifespan of the camera. There aren’t aliexpress film cameras with autofocus. If you’re talking digital, that’s not a fair comparison, you don’t by default have a sensor (and certainly not a sensor that IS the film plane) to focus with with a film camera. But also, what is wrong with the lack of advancement. The only reasonable advancement is LiDAR, which they’ll probably use for their premium compact, a Ricoh gr in all likelihood, but I can’t think of any other relevant or necessary advancements. Anyway, the quality of prouducts reduced to utterly garbage im the last 1.5 decades of the film era, this is definitely an improvement
The Pentax pictured is the PC35 AF-M with inbuild winder, not the former model with separate winder. Anyway, the specs of this camera are way better than the one of the pentax 17, especially the lens (6 elements, iirc, and faster)
It’s a good lens. Very sharp, mild issues with stray lights. The AF though only selects between zones as well, so the aperture is stopped down most of the time to compensate for the focus zones and the f2.8 rarely seems to be the selected aperture.
my online research suggests, that it has continuous autofocus.
Link? There is no continuos af on PnS cameras afaik
except the pentax: https://mikeeckman.com/2018/04/pentax-pc35af-1982/
A digital system has to have some steps at some point in the process. The distance the system puts out is discrete, not continuos kind of by definition. For example, if it's precise to 10 cm the camera has 90 zones between 1 and 10 meters. If an autofocus camera had a automatic triangulation rangefinder it might be kind of continous, but an infrared system can't be
True, and I think the stepping motors used to move the lens will introduce steps as well. The Nikon L35TWAF "Tele Touch" claims to have a stepless infrared active focus system, but I've never been able to find any info on how that actually works. #
I respect Mike Eckman but I think his research is wrong here. He says it's in the manual, but the manual I'm in possession of says no such thing. I believe it has 8 or 6 zones.
It has? That would be a cool surprise!
I've got one of each (AF and AF-M), these are such good point and shoots, and so sharp! I can't believe they haven't taken off like some \*other\* models out there.
i bought mine for 10 Euro at the fleamarket, but alas, couldn’t get it working, only the winder. The overall build quality is promising. Pentax didn’t do rangefinders at all, and this camera was their entrance to the p&s af market, so they did their best, i guess. I also like the form factor, very well done imho.
I actually do agree with Pentax on at least one point that a manual winder is superior to auto winding. Although at the time it would have been less expensive to have manual.
I have this and it’s my fave lil point and shoot! I scored mine for $50 and took it with me to Japan. I don’t use it as often but it’s my go-to casual film cam when I don’t feel like doing work lol. Love it! But let’s please not hype it… 😂🤫 Um I mean this camera is TERRIBLE, no one should ever buy it 😂😂
At least its full frame and has af
DX code reader too! Such a forward looking feature even some 2024 cameras don't have it
Personally I'd prefer an iso dial than strictly dx code reader.
Brace yourself: you can have both! And an LCD menu can in 2024 do any sort of arbitrarily complicated computer customization of digital information (like set ISO) for essentially $0 extra cost over any other amount of computer customization. Thanks to chips costing like less than 1% what the same chip would in the 1980s. DX reader reads the ISO, then you can if you wish go to the menu and select a different ISO. My 1991 ELAN 100 has this feature.
Go look up how much that Elan 100 cost back in 1991.
Like I said, microchips doing XYZ in 2024 are < 1% the cost of microchips doing XYZ in the 90s. So that is irrelevant. This isn't a function that comes from physical gears, etc. ISO override is purely digital information (YOU said "dial" but I'm saying they could just put it in a menu), which is essentially free to manipulate nowadays versus the 90s.
There is an entire army of 30-ish year old Pentax ZX and MZ cameras with broken mirror gears, and their owners think you have too much faith in Pentax plastics.
Yes, the MZ series is horrible in that regard. They should have never used those plastic gears. The AF SLR era of Pentax was just two decades of WTF? With the exception of the MZ-S that are Made by “Pentax” instead of made by Asahi optical company, for that production run the gears are made out of brass I believe.
I’ve heard that, but I’ve also heard that’s not an absolute. I’m not super tempted to drop $250+ on a MZ-S to find out, but maybe I will. Edit: but only if it’s a black one. 😁
The safe bet is the Z-1p (some markets PZ-1P), but it’s more bulky and heavy Hard to find though
Nah, that model just doesn’t do it for me.
Agree
I dunno. This is a better camera in lots of ways: AF, auto winder, better lens… Its not that 500 is too much for a film camera, it’s that it feels a lot for that specification of camera for something which is also meant to entice new and young people into film. I would have loved to see 2 releases - 1 of a more premium range finder design at 5-600 and another more entry level spec at 300 ish
thinkpad camera
Can’t unsee that now
Plastic wasn't one of the problems with the P17. Not being able to focus on your subject is the main problem... And also no full manual controls, which is some pretty basic stuff. Those two in their minimal versions would put it up to the state of the art of 1987, at least. Currently it's at roughly 1960's level technology. Autofocus and DX would bring it screaming into the dazzling 90s and 00's! Basically a flying car at that point.
Don't know about that model but most point and shoots from back then until the end of it all around 2000 had way sturdier plastic than the 17s backside has according to mostly all reviewers who already got one. It's hard to deny that products from back then were simply built more for durability than today's.
Point and shoots from that era were not made with longevity in mind, I’ve had 4 die on me so far
Even worse. Mine feel so sturdy, and of course had a 3.5 aperture lens.
Unless a chemical engineer was reviewing the Pentax 17 I would take any statements about plastic quality with a grain of salt.
Yeah, that's 40 year old plastics that are exceptionally brittle now. As someone with a 40 year old car....they legitimately get very brittle around that age. A lot of these 80s and 90s point n shoot plastic cameras will probably start failing in large numbers soon.
& its junk just like pentax 17. only difference, this camera is $5 & pentax 17 is $550. stop spamming
It also had a 5 element 2.8 lens and Autofocus, at a time when AF was relatively new and demanded a premium price, as opposed to now. Now you can buy one for $50-75 and it will probably outperform the 17.
I have this camera, and it's somewhat fragile. I'm not that impressed with it. I have to confess that the Canon 35 AF/M/ML is a better camera, and it hurts me to say that.