Pentax 17: first few snapshots

[Axelwik]

The company Elite Brands bought the Minolta trademark from Konica Minolta and they are selling cameras under the name Minolta. However, they only have digital cameras and no film camera.

Cameras — Minolta Digital

www.minoltadigital.com

Correction The JMM Properties just filed a claim for the Minolta trademark as it has not been used for so long. So the trademark was granted to JMM Properties which in turn license it to Elite Brands. So Konica Minolta has nothing to do with it at all.

Regardless, it appears that they're not making film cameras and what used to be Minolta is nothing more than buying and selling the brand name, or a larger company buying their physical and intellectual assets. Ancient history.

Anyway, I'm not really sure why Minolta was brought into this other than someone trying to justify a losing/irrelevant argument.

I hope Pentax sells tons of these little cameras. Might buy one myself at some point.

 

[Chan Tran]

I'll add that Sony bought Minolta's photographic division -- not the rights to the Minolta name -- and simply continued Minolta's line of Maxxum DSLR cameras & lenses under the Sony label. So the REAL Minolta photo gear is still being made.

Not really! Sony bought the Minolta A mount system which they no longer make. In fact Sony wasn't successful in making/selling these cameras. The E mount system is Sony.

 

[brbo]

Nevertheless, we still don't know what new "Minolta" AF zoom film camera sells for half the price of Pentax 17...

 

[xkaes]

Not really! Sony bought the Minolta A mount system which they no longer make. In fact Sony wasn't successful in making/selling these cameras. The E mount system is Sony.

Yes, really. Sony made and sold Minolta Maxxum mount cameras and lenses for over a decade. The first DSLR was almost identical to the Maxxum 5D & 7D, and the early lenses & flash units were absolutely identical. That's an enormous number of cameras and lenses & other re-badged Minolta gear -- and they obviously made money doing it. Sure they eventually made a switch away to a new mount, just like Nikon & Canon did -- but it was Sony's great Minolta-based DSLR cameras that allowed them to break into the digital PRO market in the first place. I, for one, am glad that they bought Minolta. Without Sony's financial support, Minolta's cameras never would have survived in the digital camera world.

 

[xkaes]

Nevertheless, we still don't know what new "Minolta" AF zoom film camera sells for half the price of Pentax 17...

That makes two of us, but I've bought Minolta Maxxum 5 cameras with zoom lenses for under $20 -- in like new condition. But that has nothing to do with the Pentax 17.

 

[Chan Tran]

Yes, really. Sony made and sold Minolta Maxxum mount cameras and lenses for over a decade. The first DSLR was almost identical to the Maxxum 5D & 7D, and the early lenses & flash units were absolutely identical. That's an enormous number of cameras and lenses & other re-badged Minolta gear -- and they obviously made money doing it. Sure they eventually made a switch away to a new mount, just like Nikon & Canon did -- but it was Sony's great Minolta-based DSLR cameras that allowed them to break into the digital PRO market in the first place. I, for one, am glad that they bought Minolta. Without Sony's financial support, Minolta's cameras never would have survived in the digital camera world.

Sony DSLR based on the Maxxum didn't do well. While the A900 is an excellent camera it didn't sell well in its time but that makes the used ones now valuable. It's the first DSLR ( along with the Nikon D3X which cost 3 times as much) with 24MP.

 

[xkaes]

Sony DSLR based on the Maxxum didn't do well.

Apparently well enough for Sony to keep making them and selling them for over a decade. That's like saying "Minolta SLR cameras were failures because they stopped making them". Minolta SLRs, Maxxum cameras, and Sony a-mount cameras were all success stories in their own time. If they hadn't been, Minolta never would have made Maxxum cameras, and Sony never would have made a-mount cameras, and then e-mount cameras. But sooner or later they will stop making e-mount cameras too -- because they "didn't do well".

 

[Otis]

Very nice! These are the sharpest samples I have seen From this new camera.
This really makes me want to dust off my Olympus half frames and get busy with some B&W that I still have.
These last few years has seen my film use decline to almost nil. About the only silver halide I have been shooting are paper negatives in various home made 4x5 cameras.

 

[Otis]

But $500....

That was my reaction at first. But then…..got to thinking about my age, 75, and what everything else is priced at here in the US. If the missus and I go out for dinner (a rare event) to a local dive, the bill is still $45-50 with tip. The annual service/checkup on our gas furnace is $140. A hundred feet of Tri-X bulk is $160! I remember buying that and getting change back from a $10!
So, I think we just have to realize times have changed.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

That was my reaction at first. But then…..got to thinking about my age, 75, and what everything else is priced at here in the US. If the missus and I go out for dinner (a rare event) to a local dive, the bill is still $45-50 with tip. The annual service/checkup on our gas furnace is $140. A hundred feet of Tri-X bulk is $160! I remember buying that and getting change back from a $10!
So, I think we just have to realize times have changed.

Wow, Otis. You know where to find reasonable food. Right next door at the waterfront in Olympia, a dinner for two (seafood and one glass of beer) ends up being $80, 90, or 100.

Back to the original topic of the new Pentax 17. It does not matter if an experienced old-time photographer can buy a XYZ on ePrey for $10, 20, 30, or whatever magical number. He is not the intended customer. Those comments are irrelevant. Here is a new camera with a full warranty, no fool-around issues pertaining to if the thing works or has fungus, a good to excellent lens, and it only costs $500. This is a new world. No one gives a cr*** if a XYZ cost $zzz in 1995.

 

[Chan Tran]

Wow, Otis. You know where to find reasonable food. Right next door at the waterfront in Olympia, a dinner for two (seafood and one glass of beer) ends up being $80, 90, or 100.

Back to the original topic of the new Pentax 17. It does not matter if an experienced old-time photographer can buy a XYZ on ePrey for $10, 20, 30, or whatever magical number. He is not the intended customer. Those comments are irrelevant. Here is a new camera with a full warranty, no fool-around issues pertaining to if the thing works or has fungus, a good to excellent lens, and it only costs $500. This is a new world. No one gives a cr*** if a XYZ cost $zzz in 1995.

Cameras got quite expensive in the 90's. They were at the lowest price early 80's. In early 80's they were less expensive than the 60's and 70's.

 

[xkaes]

and it only costs $500. This is a new world.

That sums it up. Pentax might be right, but it makes me think we will never get control of inflation.

 

[Otis]

Wow, Otis. You know where to find reasonable food. Right next door at the waterfront in Olympia, a dinner for two (seafood and one glass of beer) ends up being $80, 90, or 100.

Back to the original topic of the new Pentax 17. It does not matter if an experienced old-time photographer can buy a XYZ on ePrey for $10, 20, 30, or whatever magical number. He is not the intended customer. Those comments are irrelevant. Here is a new camera with a full warranty, no fool-around issues pertaining to if the thing works or has fungus, a good to excellent lens, and it only costs $500. This is a new world. No one gives a cr*** if a XYZ cost $zzz in 1995.

Usually a teryaki joint at Hawks prairi, we live off Marvin road. I was not knocking the price. It is no surprise these days. As I said, it does make me want to grab my Olympus Pen VF camera, the original with all manual control, and remind myself of what that little Zuiko can do. As I said, the last silver halide I exposed was some B&W paper negatives in a homemade 4X5. Haven’t been down to the Olympia waterfront this summer, busy with my telescopes since I got my cataract surgery. I can see again!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Very nice! These are the sharpest samples I have seen From this new camera.
This really makes me want to dust off my Olympus half frames and get busy with some B&W that I still have.
These last few years has seen my film use decline to almost nil. About the only silver halide I have been shooting are paper negatives in various home made 4x5 cameras.

Welcome to Photrio!

 

[35mmJim]

I had various Nikon SLRs for years. But when the last one finally failed it threw me out of film for a while. I couldn't mentally justify buying "cheap" used camera bodies that continuously fail causing lost film and/or repeated purchases. So I've been out of film for about 6 years now.

Seeing that Pentax released the 17 this summer I got interested and luckily enough I got one as a surprise birthday gift this week. Loaded a roll of Kodak ColorPlus 200 and on 12 of 72 shots. So no developed film yet.

My only gripe with it is the zone focusing. How I wished it was marked on top in meters instead of pictorials.

Everything on the camera seems to work as advertised and for a newly developed film camera, appealing to the masses is important, so a point and shoot style camera makes sense for Pentax's first new camera in 20 years.

If Pentax released a 35mm SLR body I'd probably pick it up. I feel Pentax is barking up the right tree.

 

[Chan Tran]

I had various Nikon SLRs for years. But when the last one finally failed it threw me out of film for a while. I couldn't mentally justify buying "cheap" used camera bodies that continuously fail causing lost film and/or repeated purchases. So I've been out of film for about 6 years now.

Seeing that Pentax released the 17 this summer I got interested and luckily enough I got one as a surprise birthday gift this week. Loaded a roll of Kodak ColorPlus 200 and on 12 of 72 shots. So no developed film yet.

My only gripe with it is the zone focusing. How I wished it was marked on top in meters instead of pictorials.

Everything on the camera seems to work as advertised and for a newly developed film camera, appealing to the masses is important, so a point and shoot style camera makes sense for Pentax's first new camera in 20 years.

If Pentax released a 35mm SLR body I'd probably pick it up. I feel Pentax is barking up the right tree.

If it has something like a rangefinder would be better but without it's not as bad as no manual exposure controls at all.

 

[Angarian]

I had various Nikon SLRs for years. But when the last one finally failed it threw me out of film for a while. I couldn't mentally justify buying "cheap" used camera bodies that continuously fail causing lost film and/or repeated purchases. So I've been out of film for about 6 years now.

Seeing that Pentax released the 17 this summer I got interested and luckily enough I got one as a surprise birthday gift this week. Loaded a roll of Kodak ColorPlus 200 and on 12 of 72 shots. So no developed film yet.

My only gripe with it is the zone focusing. How I wished it was marked on top in meters instead of pictorials.

Everything on the camera seems to work as advertised and for a newly developed film camera, appealing to the masses is important, so a point and shoot style camera makes sense for Pentax's first new camera in 20 years.

If Pentax released a 35mm SLR body I'd probably pick it up. I feel Pentax is barking up the right tree.

Welcome to Photrio!

If the Pentax 17 has motivated you to come back to film after a six year interruption, then Pentax' concept / market-positioning of this camera has worked successfully in your case.
I wish you fun and many good photos with this camera!

 

[xkaes]

I had various Nikon SLRs for years. But when the last one finally failed it threw me out of film

I never owned any Nikon camera, but I've only heard how great they are -- especially how durable and long-lasting they are. Your experience seems like a fluke.

 

[xkaes]

My only gripe with it is the zone focusing. How I wished it was marked on top in meters instead of pictorials.

The distance is marked in feet and meters on the front of the camera, and since you have to remove your eye from the viewfinder to set the distance anyway, that seems just as easy as using the distance icon scale.

I'll admit that lots of earlier half-frame cameras with focusing lenses had distance symbols in the viewfinder -- which made it SUPER-easy to focus. Just as important, it reminded you to focus the lens -- I'm afraid that many Pentax 17 users will forget to focus the lens simply because they are not used to doing that.

 

[brbo]

Distance symbols are visible in Pentax 17 viewfinder.

 

[35mmJim]

I never owned any Nikon camera, but I've only heard how great they are -- especially how durable and long-lasting they are. Your experience seems like a fluke.

Never said they are not great cameras. My FM2 was 30 years old when it was time to go.

But again they are decades old and it's now long past getting new factory spare parts. I'm not patient enough to deal with that runaround to keep them going.

 

[xkaes]

GOOD TO KNOW!!! The other half-frame cameras that I know of also used distance icons in the viewfinder. Some might have used actual distance numbers, but I doubt it -- you'd have to put TWO scales.

 

[George Mann]

Never said they are not great cameras. My FM2 was 30 years old when it was time to go.

But again they are decades old and it's now long past getting new factory spare parts. I'm not patient enough to deal with that runaround to keep them going.

The redesigned 2nd series FM is the most reliable of the bunch if you disregard its issue with desilvering prisms.

I have owned countless Nikons since 1975, and have only had 1 that suffered a major failure. A minty EL that underexposes by 2 stops.

Nikons are truely the most reliable SLR's ever made.

 

[mshchem]

One thing about half-frame cameras. With 72 exposures it might take a year to go through a roll of film. One could find unexpected gems when the film is processed and printed.

 

[blee1996]

One solution is diptych: forcing yourself to do two photos back to back within a minute. Then the roll can be finished in about the same time.

And I have my bulk-rolled short length film too.