Pentax 17: Beyond the Hype and Hate

  Updated Feb. 3, 2025

    Well, it's been six months since the much-ballyhooed new Pentax film camera made its debut. Enough time for the hype train to begin to run out of steam and the haters to pile on. So what is the real deal with the Pentax 17? Who is it for? Is it overpriced for what it is? And how does it stack up against its real competition: vintage 35mm viewfinder cameras from the 1970s to mid-'80s and even-older half-frame models? Let's dig in :-).

  What Is the Pentax 17?

    Like you really needed to know, right? But a little review of what it actually is (or more correctly, isn't) could help us to come to a more objective perspective than, oh say, 95% of the Internet ;-). Instead of just plowing ahead with the specifications or Ricoh's ad copy, however, let's approach it from the opposite end: what the Pentax 17 is not:

• News flash #1: It's not an SLR or a rangefinder. This seems to be a difficult concept for many reviewers/influencers to grasp. So, they complain that they wish they could see in the viewfinder what is going on with focus. But...it's...a...V...I...E...W...F...I...N...D...E...R...camera. So, comparing it to camera types that provide instant focus feedback is a fool's errand. It was never intended to be an enthusiast-level camera, so why try and force it to be one? Oh wait...it's $500 USD? That definitely must make it an enthusiast camera! (Eyeroll) 
• News flash #2: It's not a posh '90s AF point & shoot, encrusted in titanium (psst, but with all the wobbly innards of much more plebeian models :-0). A lot of complaints also seem to center around the "plasticky" feel of the 17, particularly the back and grip (which make almost no effort to hide their lowly construction). After the pleasant deception of the CONTAX Ts, the Minolta TC-1, the Nikon Ti 28 & 35, et al, the unabashed flaunting of the 17's hybrid construction (magnesium top & bottom plates sandwiching the plain polycarbonate chassis) is unacceptable in a $500 USD camera (is it just me, or am I sensing a theme here? ;-)), which should surely have a laser CNC-machined, titanium monocoque chassis designed for pressures of 200 atmospheres for that kind of money, right???

    So what is the Pentax 17 in reality? At first glance, it's a modern rendering of the manual zone-focusing, manual winding and rewinding, 35mm "compact" viewfinder cameras that were firmly targeted at consumers throughout the 1970s and into the early-'80s before AF took over. This is borne out not only in its function and styling, but also its internal construction, which has far more in common with 1981-85 than the 1990s (a very good thing in my opinion, as the '90s were a race to the bottom to see how much the innards of 35mm compact cameras could be de-contented). But Ricoh has also thrown in a twist or two...such as the vertical "half-frame" (17mm x 24mm in this specific case; 18x24 is the original dimension) film format that was tremendously popular in Japan throughout the 1960s and into the '70s. So, let's start there...

  A Brief History of Half-Frame

​    So-called "half-frame" cameras came into vogue in Japan beginning with the Olympus Pen series designed by none other than Yoshihisa Maitani (of later Olympus OM and XA fame) in 1959. Their reason for being was very straightforward: in early post-WWII Japan, the average person could not afford the processing for the standard 35mm format. By halving the image size, processing costs for the same amount of pictures was also halved, putting photography within reach of a far larger domestic demographic. A byproduct of this was a physically smaller camera that was easy to carry. Olympus would quickly be joined by a host of other manufacturers with their own half-frame model lines: Canon Demi, Petri Half, Yashica Half, and yes, the Ricoh (who just happened to buy Pentax in 2017 :-)) Auto Half, amongst others. The result? The half-frame market exploded in Japan during the first half of the 1960s, and became popular enough that Olympus even brought out an upmarket, advanced interchangeable lens SLR in the format (with a titanium rotary shutter, no less) in 1963. However, half-frame would prove to have a short half-life (groan ;-)) for two major reasons:

1. Kodak's boycott of the format in the US, the largest market for the Japanese camera industry at the time, and for decades after. This had nothing to do with technical capability or providing value for the processing dollar, and everything to do with protecting Kodak's tremendously successful 126 film format and its Instamatic line of consumer compact cameras along with the processing (where the greatest profits actually were). Such was Kodak's monopolistic might at the time, that they could kill half-frame simply by refusing to provide processing for the format in the US. Not coincidentally, it was this stance taken by Kodak that motivated Olympus to push development of its OM 35mm SLR system, beginning in 1967, because they saw that half-frame was going to have no possibility of growth in the largest photographic market in the world. 
2. By the mid-'60s, the rapid recovery and growth of the Japanese economy had largely ameliorated the problem of film and processing costs for the average Japanese worker, which also coincided with saturation of the domestic market within those first five years of the decade with plenty of good-quality half-frame cameras. When taken together with Kodak's control of the US and other international markets, the industry saw that half-frame's time had essential come and gone and that 35mm was going to be their best chance at sustained future growth.

​
    Olympus would dominate the market and produced half-frame cameras longer than anyone else (until 1983), selling over 17 million cameras in the process. That sounds impressive (and it is) until you compare it with Kodak's 126-format Instamatic sales: 50 million units sold from 1963-70, and 75 million sold by the time production ended in 1988. Most of the other Japanese half-frame manufacturers pulled out much earlier: Canon ended Demi production in the late-'60s, Ricoh discontinued the Auto Half in the 1970s, and so on. So why has Ricoh now chosen half-frame for the Pentax 17? ​

  Why Half-Frame Makes Sense for the Pentax 17

    Unsurprisingly, one of the primary reasons for Ricoh settling on half-frame today is precisely why the format was originally introduced: Value. With film and processing costs only going up, doubling the amount of shots per roll of 35mm film is a most welcome feature, especially for the first-time film shooter that this camera is aimed at. Such expenses are nothing to be sneezed at, especially for a whole generation of users that has grown up in the smartphone era with virtually no photographic financial limit other than the data capacity of their phone. 

   A second, related, factor is that the vertical perspective of half-frame is already somewhat familiar to the smartphone user and thus it is not a huge adjustment from what they are already used to, and it is also easily cropped for social media sharing.

    Third, and a more calculated move on Ricoh's part, is that by making the 17 half-frame, it is differentiated from its most direct existing competitors: the slew of used zone-focusing, manual-winding 35mm compact cameras produced from the late-'70s to mid-'80s. The major advantage of those cameras? Price, of course. They can often be had from thrift stores and yard sales for a tenth of their inflation-adjusted price when new. Many of them also deliver a similar viewfinder look and manual film transport, which is a critical part of the whole film experience for many today, particularly the 18 to 40 film tyro  demographic that Ricoh is explicitly targeting. The Pentax 17 is at least 10 times the upfront cost, so how can it compete? By adding value on the film & processing end. And also by means of the camera's most important component...the lens, and secondarily, the quality of its construction.       

  Lens & Construction

    The 25mm f/3.5 triplet lens that Ricoh/Pentax re-engineered from that of the 1994 Pentax Espio Mini/UC-1 (32mm f/3.5) is a huge plus for this camera and, with its HD multicoatings, is more than a match for any of the Tessar-based (the Tessar itself is a modified triplet) lenses to be found on the vast majority of its vintage half-frame or 35mm competitors, all of which had single coatings that come nowhere near the 17's modern coatings. Pairing that lens with the still-substantial image area (408 square mm in this case) of half-frame was a great move by Ricoh, ensuring excellent optical results, while keeping the lens simple and therefore, affordable to produce. Fewer lens elements + advanced multicoating = very high resistance to flare and ghosting and classic, punchy Pentax colors.

    Another clear advantage of the 17 is that fact that it is a new camera with full factory support, and in a complete reversal of typical 21st-century engineering...it's actually designed to be repaired instead of thrown away after a few years. Anyone with modicum of experience with point and shoots from the '80s & '90s is very well aware of the "brickage" factor innate with such cameras. You always have to be prepared for the sudden death of the camera via some failed component, whether the motorized film transport, the shutter, the exposure meter, some part of the circuitry, and so on, with no other recourse than finding another one to either cannibalize parts from or simply to replace the bricked unit. Rinse and repeat. The Pentax 17 is not just a warmed-over '80s model: using modern solderless ZIF connectors wherever possible, together with modern hybrid, modular construction actually makes it more repairable than virtually any vintage competitor. And where it does have soldered connections, they are not 45+ years old ;-). Overall build quality is impressive: winding is smooth, the shutter release creamy, and the camera is very quiet in operation, making it a great street camera whose small size makes it quite unintimidating to potential subjects. Another construction plus over almost every early-'80s 35mm viewfinder camera: no flimsy battery door hinge just waiting to reach its fatigue limit and fail; instead the CR2 battery is housed in the grip secured with a captive metal screw that is slotted for a coin to tighten and loosen it. Secure, practical, and virtually impervious to fatigue.​

  Comparisons with Vintage Half-Frame & 35mm Zone-Focus Models

    Ok, now let's see how the 17 stacks up on paper versus two vintage competitors: one half-frame and the other 35mm. Then, we'll consider what the differences and similarities mean in the real world today. First up, a half-frame alternative that is commonly available for 1/3 the cost (in "refurbished" condition; more on that later) of the Pentax 17:
​   

Canon Demi EE28 (1967)

​Model:

​Lens:

Coating:

Shutter Speeds:

Aperture Range:

ISO Range:

Metering:

​
Exposure Comp:

​Focus Zones:

Focus Distance:

Film Winding:

Flash:


Filters:

​Size (mm/inches):

​
Weight:

Power Requirement:

Canon Demi EE28

28mm f/2.8 (5e/3g)

Single; Spectra

1/300 - 1/30 sec.

f/2.8 - f/25

25 - 400

Selenium; EV 8 -17 @ ISO 100

None

3

0.8m (2.6') to infinity

132-degree stroke

Hot-shoe; 1/30 sec. sync


27mm diameter

116(4.6) x 69(2.7) x 39(1.5)

290g/10.2oz

None

​Pentax 17

25mm f/3.5 (3e/3g)

Multi; HD

1/350 - 4 sec. + Bulb

f/3.5 - f/22

50 - 3200

SPD: EV 2.5 - 16.5 @ ISO 100

​+/- 2 EV in 1/3-steps

6

0.25m (10") to infinity

​130-degree stroke

Built-in; GN 6 @ (ISO 100)


40.5mm diameter

127(5) x 78(3.1) x 52 (2)


​290g/10.2oz

1 x CR2 lithium

 
    ​    Next up, a 35mm contender:

Minolta Hi-Matic S2 (1981)

​
​Model:

​
​Lens:

​
Coating:

Shutter Speeds:

Aperture Range:

ISO Range:

Metering:

​
Exposure Comp:

​Focus Zones:

Focus Distance:

Film Winding:

Flash:

Filters:

​Size (mm/inches):

Weight:

Power Requirement:

​Minolta Hi-Matic S2 (1981)

38mm f/2.8 (4e/3g)

​
Single

1/430 - 1/8 sec.

f/2.8 - f/17

25 - 400

CdS cell; EV 6 - 17 @ ISO 100

None

5

0.8m (2.6') to infinity

140-degree stroke

Pop-up; GN 5 @ ISO 100

46mm diameter

129(5.1) x 76(3) x 53.5(2.1)

310g/10.9

2 x AA (LR6)​

Pentax 17

​
25mm f/3.5 (3e/3g); 37mm equivalent

Multi; HD

1/350 - 4 sec. + Bulb

f/3.5 - f/22

50 - 3200

SPD: EV 2.5 - 16.5 @ ISO 100

​+/- 2 EV in 1/3-steps

6

0.25m (10") to infinity

​130-degree stroke

Built-in; GN 6 @ ISO 100

40.5mm diameter

127(5) x 78(3.1) x 52(2)

290g/10.2oz

1 x CR2 lithium

    Now, there is a plethora of vintage half-frame and 35mm alternatives to the 17. So why did I choose these two for comparison? First, similar lens specifications (with the number of elements actually favoring the vintage cams, which means jack squat ;-)). Also, similar weights, with the Minolta also coming very close in dimensions (the cute little soapbar Demi definitely wins in the compact size department). Adjusted for inflation, both the Canon and the Minolta originally sold new for about half of the Pentax' current price. Today, "refurbished" examples of the Demi EE28 are selling for about a third of the price of the 17, with the Hi-Matic S2 coming in at a fifth of the cost in "mint" condition (and often a tenth in good working condition). Let's look at the Canon versus the Pentax first.

    Leaving aside used versus new for the moment, does the Pentax 17 offer double the value of the Demi? As far as the specs go, about the only thing that the Pentax literally doubles is the number of focus zones :-). So how much difference would you notice in the real world? 

• Lens - Yes, the Canon has two more elements than the Pentax. And that will be the extent of its superiority ;-). The Pentax' triplet is thirty years newer in basic design and its coatings are sixty years more advanced than those used on Canon's modified-Tessar design. You may well personally find the 28/2.8 lens of the Canon to be perfectly suited to your needs, but it simply is not in the same league as the 17's (not a slight against the Canon; that's just reality).
• Handling - The Demi EE28 is a gorgeous little camera and many people (if not most) will give it the edge in styling over the Pentax. And it has plenty of that magic word for so many vintage camera nerds: metal. But that sano soapbar styling comes at a cost...grip. While the Pentax' plasticky grip is straight out of the '80s, it does actually improve the ergonomics of the camera immensely. The slightly larger dimensions of the Pentax also make it easier to hold for those with larger hands. Again, this is a completely subjective decision, but for me the Pentax more than holds (pun intended :-)) its own.
• ISO & Exposure Compensation - Here is a no doubter in favor of the Pentax over almost any compact viewfinder camera from the 1960s to '80s, including the Demi EE28 (as noted by adventurepdx in the comments below, the more advanced Demi EE17 did indeed feature an exposure factor regulating lever with +1/2, +1, and +2-stop settings). The ISO range of the 17 is large and in charge, and its exposure compensation control is more comprehensive and convenient than anything from that period. The 17 is going to be much more capable in lower light...provided that you find a way to stabilize it at slower shutter speeds below 1/30 sec. to prevent blurring.
• Focus Zones & Distance - Unsurprisingly, the 0.25m minimum focus distance of the Pentax is a noticeable reduction from the 0.8m of the Canon. And that can make a lot of difference if you are the type who likes to get closer to certain subjects. 6-zone versus 3-zone focusing will be less noticeable in bright conditions, but when light levels drop and the camera opens the aperture more, reducing the depth of field, that's again where the Pentax will deliver a higher percentage of in-focus pictures. Of course, that is reliant upon the user selecting the proper zone, but the Pentax' higher level of focusing precision can help to make that a reality. 
• Filters - No contest...the 40.5mm filter diameter of the Pentax is far more common and user-friendly than the comparatively tiny 27mm for the Demi.

    Now, on to the Minolta:

• Lens - The Hi-Matic S2 sports the ubiquitous 38mm f/2.8 Tessar-type lens that was found on innumerable mid-to-high-end viewfinder compact cameras in the late-'70s through early-'80s. Performance is good, but again, not in the Pentax' league. Even doubling the enlargement size of the Pentax' negatives to level the playing field is not enough for the Minolta to outdo it. I can't say it enough: the lens on the Pentax 17 is an absolute gem and kudos to the optical design team responsible for it.
• Handling - The overall dimensions of the Minolta and Pentax are within 2mm in every way and with weight within less than 10%, they provide a very similar heft-in-the-hand experience. Personal preference will rule, of course, but the finger grip of the 17 simply fits my hand better and provides a surer grip and so I will give it the nod when it comes to ergos...for me ;-). 
• ISO & Exposure Compensation - Ditto from the Demi comparison above.
• Focus Zones and Distance - The Minolta sports 5 focus zones, making it close enough to the Pentax for me to call it a draw between in two in practical terms. But, as with the Demi, the Pentax destroys the Minolta in close-focus capability (0.25m vs. 0.8m)
• Filters - 40.5mm vs 46mm. 46mm filters are a bit more common than 40.5mm versions, so the Minolta gets a win here, but it's not a huge edge by any means, as there is no trouble obtaining the 40.5s. 
• Batteries - With its 2-AA configuration, the Minolta has the advantage in availability, expense, and milliamp-hours over the single CR2 of the Pentax...if you use alkaline AAs. But if you choose to power the Minolta with lithium AAs, the costs are virtually identical. Why use lithium AAs? No leakage concerns (my number one annoyance with alkalines), much better performance in cold weather, and weight savings of 1/3 (15g vs. 23g per cell). The compact CR2 obviously will be even lighter than the AAs, but again, the difference of weight in the hand between the two is negligible in the real world. When it comes to battery life, the Pentax is admittedly nothing to write home about with a rating of 10 rolls of 36 exp. with flash used 50% of the time. With alkalines, the Minolta should give at least 20-25 rolls of 36 with 50% flash, and considerably more with lithiums.

  New Versus "Used"

   You may have noted the quotation marks surrounding certain words regarding condition of used cameras. And this brings up a major point in favor of a new camera versus a used one: the actual condition of the camera. Many online sellers have no compunction in slapping the words "refurbished" or "mint" on a vintage camera after no more than a quick wipe with microfibre cloth. Examination of their own pictures reveals fungus-filled lenses and viewfinders, degraded light seals oozing out of the back of the camera, not mention dirt, dust, rust, scratches, and other signs of use, abuse, and neglect. Legally, there's no real definition of "refurbished.” It can signify whatever a vendor or seller wants it to mean, so it always comes back to "Buyer Beware". With a new product, such as the Pentax 17, there is a certain level of condition, operability, and product support that Pentax has to legally meet that re-sellers of used equipment don't, and that is included in that $500 USD price. Now, whether you find that a compelling argument in the new vs. used conversation is obviously a matter of personal decision. 

    Why am I bringing this up? Because at the end of the day, right or wrong, the single biggest deciding factor that the vast majority of potential buyers for the Pentax 17 are considering is this: THE PRICE.      

  Is the Pentax 17 Overpriced?

  According to the good ol' Interwebs...ABSOLUTELY! But, as usual, that is an oversimplification and a product of unrealistic expectations. Now, would I rather see the 17 priced lower? Of course, who wouldn't? But consider a few points:

• Pentax did not simply resurrect an old design and put it back into production (as if that would somehow save production costs after a 40-year layoff, anyways). Though the lens is derived from a thirty-year old design, it still had to be optimized for half-frame (meaning a substantial reduction in focal length) and Pentax has arguably put the best coatings, EVER, on a lens of this type and at this price point. The rest of the camera's construction is also a product of careful consideration on the part of the engineers to provide a good balance of performance, weight, and durability. The magnesium top and bottom plates are an excellent example of this: Ricoh could have gone all Canon AE-1 and faked the metal finish, but they actually gave us real magnesium, which inevitably costs more than polycarbonate.
• Repairability is more valuable, in my opinion, than ever. So many of the electronic products we use today are deliberately engineered to fail after the warranty expires along with being needlessly difficult to repair (pushing us to buy new rather than try to extend the usable lifespan of said products). Looking at the teardown of the Pentax 17 is a refreshing step back in time and something for which Ricoh deserves commendation. That is another point of value baked into the price of the camera. You may value that differently than I do, and that is your prerogative :-). 
• Pentax wants to recoup their development and production costs in a reasonable amount of time. That is going to mean that first adopters (as usual) will pay a premium until those costs are at least partially accounted for. Will the price come down, eventually? That depends. If demand for the camera remains high, Ricoh will have no reason to reduce the price. That's the way capitalism works ;-). And if they don't have to reduce the price to meet their sales targets...that means that the camera is not overpriced, at least from the market's perspective.

​
    Ultimately, how much value the Pentax 17 offers is a matter of personal opinion. Having played with one at my local store, I did not leave with it. Was it because of the price? Nope. I simply don't feel that I need the camera, having a closet full of vintage 35mm P&S and SLR models to choose from. Would I feel differently if the half-frame format was an important thing to me? Yes I would. Given the choice between the 17 and the Demi EE28 or another vintage half-frame model at "half" the price for a "refurbished" or "mint" copy, I would save my money longer and buy the Pentax. Overall, it is a great camera that Ricoh can justly be proud of: it provides plenty of haptic feedback for those looking for a more analog experience (e.g. focus and film transport), it is well-made and has full factory service support, and it has the most important ingredient in a camera: a superb lens. Is it the perfect film camera? News Flash #3: the perfect camera does not exist ;-). Should it be perfect for $500 USD? I'll let you answer that for yourself :-).  

  Who Is the Pentax 17 For?

   Aside from Ricoh's target demographic of 18-40 year-olds looking for the analog experience, is there anyone else that would buy this camera? Good question. I will venture to say that someone with a bit more experience can extract a lot from it. If you know your way around manual ISO and exposure compensation controls, the 17 provides a pretty decent level of control over exposure. There is also more control over flash exposure available than virtually any vintage or modern competitor. There is no reason for someone with experience not to be able to create excellent images with this camera if they want to. If you value portability, ease of use, photographic results and appreciate a blend of personality and practicality, do yourself a favor and at least get one in your hands before deciding whether to hate on it or not.

    For the many people fixated on price, the Pentax 17 could easily underwhelm when they compare it to what they can obtain from 45 years ago for 10 cents on the dollar or even less. But, conversely, think of how much it would cost to produce the Minolta Hi-Matic S2 (or an equivalent model) in today's inflated dollars. It's not just adjusting for inflation itself in a vacuum; today's cost of equivalent labour to manufacture it must also be accounted for. Taking that into consideration, I don't see Ricoh's price point for a camera that is superior in almost every way as unreasonable. Feel free to disagree ;-).   

  Wrap-Up

    I will be the first to admit that when Ricoh/Pentax initially announced their film camera project, that I said "I'll believe it when I see it...". Well, I have seen it, held it, looked at hundreds of images made with it, and I have to say I am impressed. They actually did it...and I think they did so thoughtfully. Are there compromises? News Flash #4: every camera is a compromise. But the Pentax 17 has all of the ingredients of a great film camera: 1) an excellent lens, 2) it's easy to take with you, and 3) it involves you in the process. Are there other cameras out there that can do the same thing? For sure. Are they new? Unlikely. How much is that worth to you? At least Ricoh has made it possible for us to ask and answer those questions. And for that I applaud them :-).

  References:

    Pentax 17 User Manual @ https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/support/man-pdf
    Canon Demi EE 17 User Manual @ www.pacificrimcamera.com
    Canon Demi EE 28 User Manual @ www.butkus.org
    Minolta Hi-Matic S2 User Manual @ www.butkus.org
    1981-82 Sears Camera & Photographic Supplies Catalog @ www.butkus.org
    Canon Demi EE 28 @ https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film67.html
    Canon Demi EE 17 @ https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film64.html
    Half-frame @ Camera-wiki.org