PENTAX 17: B&W and C41 Colour First Tests

I was sent a PENTAX 17 by a YouTube Mate who had one sent to him by Ricoh and he did s review but showed NO SNAPS -- so I have tried it with outdated AGFAPAN 25 and outdated 'TUDOR' (FUJI) 100 . I processed the AGFAPAN 25 i a Home-Made 2-bath formula after doing a 'Clip Test' of 4 frames which showed I had to cut the Dev Times i each bath to 3 mins , then I did the Tudor 100 in C41 myself. I set 50 ASA for the Agfapan 25 -- the LOWEST ASA on the Dial then set a bit of '+' Exposure Compensation to make it 32 ASA as I know that gave good results. The 2005 dated TUDOR 100 I set 100ASA on the dial then added a bit of '+' exposure compensation to make it about 64 ASA . I found all my very 'CLOSE-UP' were OUT OF FOCUS ! Subjects about 3 to 4 feet away were sharp enough. I used the FLASH Fill-In on several such as the B&W ones in the Graveyard and the Bloke Window Cleaning but the flash is really TOO WEAK to do much at any 'Distance' On some B&W 'LANDSCAPE' shots I had a Black BLOB in the Corner which may have been a FINGER or my CAP -- My WIFE nearly FAINTED when she found out THE PRICE !! I am demonstrating it today at the Monthly 'TEA CLUB' of BRENTWOOD & DISTRICT PHOTOGRAPHIC CLUB where half a dozen members meet up during the Summer Shut Down and Drink TEA, eat CAKE and TALK PHOTOGRAPHY !

I had a word with my YouTube MATE about things on this Camera as there is no 'Readout' what settings it gives and in instruction book NO 'Technical Details so I went on the RICOH Website and FOUND the PENTAX 17 book and on that were 'Extra Pages' so i found out the Maximum Shutter Speed is 1/350th second for example. My Mate said the Instruction Book he was sent was a First Version one-- more pages added on later ones. i did find if you wind and fire shutter only TWICE at loading you can get EXTRA FRAMES No Problemo -- shutter does not 'Lock Up' as in some cameras. Also it is easy to open back in changing bag and CUT the film with the rewind button pressed IN so you can process 'Short Lengths' of Film as I do . No 'DX Coding' which is GOOD so outdated films can be downrated easily.

Congratulations on taking the time to give such a good practical review of the camera Peter.

It seems to be a bit of a 'Marmite' product and a mix of 'nice to have' features on the one hand whilst seemingly
'handicapped' by deliberate omission on the other.

Can't make it out at all.

Personally I can't see myself ever going back to film and if i were to i'd probably opt for one of the existing Pentax film cameras with more to offer for less money!

Just my thoughts...

Best Wishes

Karlo

That was exactly my reaction to it Karlo. Why pay that extortionate price when you can get better on Ebay? e.g., an analogue *ist.
Also, how are the developing houses reacting to having to do twice the work, upload twice the number of shots (or indeed, print twice the number of shots)? And, at the end of the day, if you are going to digitize the images and electronically manipulate them, why use film to capture them in the first place?

Nice to see some photos from the new film camera. And a nice set, too - which is a compliment to the photographer even more than it is a comment on the camera.



It isn't for the likes of us. It's for a generation of mobile phone photographers who see the world in portrait format, have discovered a trendy thing called film, aren't wanting/able to face the complications of an SLR and are willing to pay much more than the puchase price of the camera for a ticket to a Taylor Swift** concert. (**Other expensive artists are available). I would imagine that the developing houses are rubbing their hands with glee - it's more business!

Shouldn't knock the camera's capabilities (or lack of). They're not far off what I moved to (a long time ago...) when I took a step beyond a Kodak Brownie 127. An SLR only came several years later. Who knows what today's buyer of a Pentax 17 might do in the future??

Steve

Out of interest I dug out my old 1970 Wallace Heaton catalogue this morning and looked at compact 35mm cameras. Then, the average price was around £40. Then I used the 'What@s it Worth' website to see how much £40 computes to in 2024. Believe it or not, the website calculated that £40 in 1970 equals £780 by todays values. With that in mind, maybe the Pentax 17, is better value?? How is that for a useless piece of information??

For me the price and the small format are the worst points - half-frame is just too small. Even normal 35mm is a small format and the bare minimum to offer anything like decent quality.


An old argument long since debunked - the pleasure in using the wonderful cameras, the physical controls and format, the challenge, the results that are different from what can be achieved by digital.