I just heard of some folks and well known photography guru types that pointed out negative features, complaining of materials or debate about the Pentax 17 if it should even exist. Examples of complaints are "...It's manual winder...", "...who uses Zone Focus?", "why another half frame..." and much more annoying questions. I'll be accused of being a Pentax fanboy, but folks are forgetting that it is an all new camera.
I don't know much of its innards nor have heard many details about any new technology applied to the design, but the Pentax designers said that they were working on an all mechanical new film camera. Not denied or confirmed, but this seems to be a proof of concept test. They utilized a manual winder that claims to be any homage to the "Auto110" and other points.
This is a test of the market for the film users enthusiasm more than the introduction of a film camera. I would hazard that this camera took a fraction of the usual R & D budget to produce compared to a full blown full frame SLR to design. However, nobody considered that the shutter might be a hint of a new and simple design test. I suspect a new method for efficient shutter design is possible and propelling a half frame version of this is easier than a full.
I would hope they are tackling the old problems such as spring memory problems and materials wear issues that used to exist. I do wonder why such a limited top speed range. If it was an off the shelf electronic shutter, it would top out at 500 or 1000 and more, not the odd 350th.
Cameras like the K1000 and ME-Super or LX and A-series were all unique favorites, but unfortunately none were superior and I am a LX user since the beginning.
If I were Ricoh and Pentax designers, I would distill the Pentax heart of any of these models... the bang for buck factor. The future Pentax, in my opinion... typical words when you want to not be wrong... is that the first ask is "how hungry are they for a new film camera?" Fads tend to be poor roadmap for design. There are technical strengths that make all the above cameras so renown if not financially popular.
K1000 was a perceived success and claimed for its longevity and that is false. The ME-Super was held in high regard as easy to use and great control, but longevity was not considered. The LX was technically a high point in technical design, although I do love this camera, had weaknesses in many areas of its design as well. The A or Super-A would if it could be a technical step forward, however, it too suffers from budget considerations in its design.
Cameras with parts that may well be considered consumable parts are destined to bread down within 4 to 7 years. This begs the question for the new Pentax, is it important to bring in a new design with more cost cutting considerations or will it be a true leap in the new volatile area of film?
This camera wets the appetite of the new users of film. Then next will most likely offer an advanced version for the more skilled and discerning users, maybe a rangefinder version, if anyone noticed the manner the sensor window and odd motorized focus seems to work in. Then the advanced versions will follow as well a need to answer the question of formats.
They have a cranked operated point and shoot re-hash as the first offering. They didn't go the route of off the rack shutters or a typical phase AF focus cameras as a simple update of the old, the PC35AF days. This is a very strategic release to not step backwards and if the "sold out" signs are right, we are well under way forwards to see what that full frame offering might be. This is all a good thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment