Pentax Film Project

Just saw this too - B&W digital + New Film.

I wondered if and when this might happen given the unexpected robustness of film sales.  I figured it would be Nikon,  but happy with Pentax decision.  I hope it works out.

And even if there is only one last man standing

Pentax will be his name

Respect

AlainCo

RBIV wrote:

I wondered if and when this might happen given the unexpected robustness of film sales. I figured it would be Nikon,

They abandoned because you can't put PDAF points on film But yes in my opinion their current model is more Nikon than Leica.

but happy with Pentax decision. I hope it works out.

I have no interest in a film camera but it might actually pay for Pentax to reconnect to their history. If they can really succeed in making cameras both affordable and modern, then why not.

At least they try to "shake things" a little. They shake things in very very slow motion but still

Some things he says seemed like direct answers to this forum, like anticipating that people will complain that Pentax shouldn't spend time on this. I liked the answer, more or less, "we don't care we want to do this"

Intriguing move, and within financial reach of many more people than the Leica models will ever be. Pleased to see two photographic pioneers (Leica and Pentax) rounding out the film photography scene.

It is very smart. Please Pentax  think about releasing manual focus lenses also at good price.

This project i asked for 3 years ago.

Good time to resurrect two cameras with the MZ-S ergonomics, one being MZ-S Mark 2 and the other the MZD with the 60 MP Sony Sensor.  Nice to have a lightweight Full-Frame DSLR to complement the K-1 Mk3.

Simples!

robbo d wrote:

... of k7 / k5 / k3 cameras and not going back to speed dials please.

Not sure how modern the metering could be but front and rear control dials of the current era has been finely tuned.

Could we have a film camera with a deep grip ?

Will the compact be a Ricoh GRf ?

Will I need to pay on the crowd funding up front ?

So many questions... Love This !!!

The two wheels + Green button which began on the PZ-1 (or Z-1 depending which market you were in) hasn't been bettered.  The present metering and AF should work for

A film camera needs somewhere for the used and unused film to live either side of the shutter, so the space where the present battery sits needs to be the take-up spool,  but the late film cameras put a battery in the hand grip.

It needs to be modern enough to work with all the KAF4 lenses: you can't mount the DFA*50 or 85 or the DFA 21 Ltd on any film camera.

Haha … almost makes me glad I've hung onto my *ist film camera

Wonder what they'll call it … *ist ii ??

If no one else will say it

To me it's the stupidest idea I've ever seen with a Pentax name on it.

The combination of being able to able shake reduction to a sensor goes, the idea of usable ISO speeds in the thousands goes (or if you shoot 800-3200 it's insanely grainy.). Over the 6 years I've had the K1 I've been able to do available light photography which just wasn't possible with film.

Environmental impact of film and processing is negative,

Film has a cost and time impact. I was a fairly accomplished printer of black and white film. (Although I haven't been in a darkroom for nearly 20 years). Printing black and white you chose a "grade" of paper which set the steepness of the response curve which you now do with a slider in the software of your choice, but the ability to shape that curve gives so much more control. Burning and dodging to get a print just so was something which might take hours to perfect on the base board of an enlarger (with many "failed" prints creating waste product along the way). Today we do it on screen in a minute or two. Airbrushing blemishes out or compositing exposures is trivial with digital  and we share digitally. Shooting film to then scan rather than originating as digital really doesn't gain much, it takes choices away. And the ability to shoot hundreds of frames, and decide if they will be mono or what sort of colour after the event is something we don't get with digital.

I've no idea what the market is for film cameras. Like the cathode-ray-tube TV, VHS tape, or the steam powered automobile, I'm  who love them. Heaven help us people are even selling music on cassette tape again.

People who can't remember a world before the iPhone may have a nostalgia for the 1970s but having lived through the 1970sm the world is way better today. (Seriously go live in a world with 3 or 4 channels of TV, no GPS, no mobile phones, no internet, no laptops or tablets for a week. An write me a letter to say how you got on).

Ricoh have nothing to sell me now - unless I go back to shooting APS-C and buy something very wide for the K3-iii and get the DFA*50 as a portrait lens. The only thing I want is a replacement for the K1 - and I look over at my friends with their MILCs and think, yes I love my OVF, I love my Pentax ergonomics, I don't want to switch my lenses or use them with an adapter. I look at their AF experience and mine belongs in age of cassette tapes, and dial-up modems. If I divide pictures into "Focused exactly as I want", "OK but not exact" and "Unsatisfactory" there are too few in the first and too many in the last.  And thinking about have I selected the right AF point all the flaming time, and not framing, composition, and timing (plus switching the K1's 4 way controller out of AF point selection and screwing up some other setting) makes me look over at people with Sony and ask if I'm doing any better than clinging on to Pentax out of pure sentiment.

Give me a K1 with a sensor from this decade on the K3-iii's AF (expanded so it covers whole frame not just the central part like the K1) and I can keep going with Pentax for years. Otherwise Ricoh can be the market leader in Film ILCs. But my next camera body will probably be a Sony.

kypfer wrote:

Haha … almost makes me glad I've hung onto my *ist film camera

Wonder what they'll call it … *ist ii ??

I still have my MG and ME-Super. I still have some infra red film Deep frozen, but haven't felt the need to shoot film for 15-20 years. My A3 size prints from the *ist-D were as good as anything I even made from film, and somewhere round about the K10D / K7 they were better.

IMHO music peaked about 1979 or 1980 but everything else has continuously improved. Whether it is the motors we have now to drive AF which we simply didn't have in 2003, to everything with any kind of electronics in it (cheaper, better, less power drain), to better batteries, 20 years of progress in cameras could produce a film  camera much more capable than the *ist .

But film emulsions haven't moved on, those which are still made are films of 20 years ago. And whilst from the mid 1980s to the early 2000s I could shoot a stack of colour print film or Ilford XP1 / XP2 and drop off at a 1 hour lab, now I have to send film away for processing (or process IR or other B&W at home). With less choice of films, more hassle to process them, net, the experience of shooting film is  worse than it was in 2000.  And the cost has probably increased faster than other things.

But my next camera body will probably be a Sony.

ew.

James O'Neill wrote:

If no one else will say it

To me it's the stupidest idea I've ever seen with a Pentax name on it.

The combination of being able to able shake reduction to a sensor goes, the idea of usable ISO speeds in the thousands goes (or if you shoot 800-3200 it's insanely grainy.). Over the 6 years I've had the K1 I've been able to do available light photography which just wasn't possible with film.

Environmental impact of film and processing is negative,

Film has a cost and time impact. I was a fairly accomplished printer of black and white film. (Although I haven't been in a darkroom for nearly 20 years). Printing black and white you chose a "grade" of paper which set the steepness of the response curve which you now do with a slider in the software of your choice, but the ability to shape that curve gives so much more control. Burning and dodging to get a print just so was something which might take hours to perfect on the base board of an enlarger (with many "failed" prints creating waste product along the way). Today we do it on screen in a minute or two. Airbrushing blemishes out or compositing exposures is trivial with digital and we share digitally. Shooting film to then scan rather than originating as digital really doesn't gain much, it takes choices away. And the ability to shoot hundreds of frames, and decide if they will be mono or what sort of colour after the event is something we don't get with digital.

I've no idea what the market is for film cameras. Like the cathode-ray-tube TV, VHS tape, or the steam powered automobile, I'm who love them. Heaven help us people are even selling music on cassette tape again.

People who can't remember a world before the iPhone may have a nostalgia for the 1970s but having lived through the 1970sm the world is way better today. (Seriously go live in a world with 3 or 4 channels of TV, no GPS, no mobile phones, no internet, no laptops or tablets for a week. An write me a letter to say how you got on).

Ricoh have nothing to sell me now - unless I go back to shooting APS-C and buy something very wide for the K3-iii and get the DFA*50 as a portrait lens. The only thing I want is a replacement for the K1 - and I look over at my friends with their MILCs and think, yes I love my OVF, I love my Pentax ergonomics, I don't want to switch my lenses or use them with an adapter. I look at their AF experience and mine belongs in age of cassette tapes, and dial-up modems. If I divide pictures into "Focused exactly as I want", "OK but not exact" and "Unsatisfactory" there are too few in the first and too many in the last. And thinking about have I selected the right AF point all the flaming time, and not framing, composition, and timing (plus switching the K1's 4 way controller out of AF point selection and screwing up some other setting) makes me look over at people with Sony and ask if I'm doing any better than clinging on to Pentax out of pure sentiment.

Give me a K1 with a sensor from this decade on the K3-iii's AF (expanded so it covers whole frame not just the central part like the K1) and I can keep going with Pentax for years. Otherwise Ricoh can be the market leader in Film ILCs. But my next camera body will probably be a Sony.

They say they'll start with a compact camera. And I suppose they may have knowledgeable historical Ricoh engineers that may have worked on film cameras, as they released a lot of them too. No need to delay Pentax DSLRs because of human resources in that case.

Not sure it will impact their plans for DSLRs. It's rather good news to see them try things instead of being shut down by Ricoh following recent news. I suppose Ricoh wouldn't invest in film if they planned to shut down the camera division very soon ... So, it might in fact be a good news for a K1III.

JeremieB wrote:

They say they'll start with a compact camera. And I suppose they may have knowledgeable historical Ricoh engineers that may have worked on film cameras, as they released a lot of them too. No need to delay Pentax DSLRs because of human resources in that case.

Not sure it will impact their plans for DSLRs. It's rather good news to see them try things instead of being shut down by Ricoh following recent news. I suppose Ricoh wouldn't invest in film if they planned to shut down the camera division very soon ... So, it might in fact be a good news for a K1III.

That's a valid point, and I think the optimist's view is that this a sign  of health in the Pentax part of Ricoh.  The pessimist's view is Pentax is alive, possibly well, but has gone utterly bat-shot crazy. No prizes for guessing which I tend towards

This is very exciting!

3Percent wrote:

But my next camera body will probably be a Sony.

ew.

Sony because (a) I'd rather give up than use a Canon, (b) there is an adapter which will support my DFA*85 and DFA21 ltd , plus the 77 limited. So it is possible to keep the K1 and have a MILC. (c) Sony's AF seems to be the best of the lot. (d) I like the slim body of the A7r family.

Stick with Pentax because (a) Ergonomics (b) OVF (c) lenses used natively (d) the time get used to a new system.

2016 K1 against a 2016 Sony was easy to stay with Pentax. 2016 K1 against 2022 Sony less easy. 2016 K1 against a 2026 Sony ?

That's why I want K1 with 2021/2/3 technology. Just putting the K3-iii AF in it and updating the Wifi from 10MBit/sec to something closer to the 780Mbit/sec my laptop is running at so I could do wireless tethering would probably get me to open my wallet, never mind a better prism, sensor, faster SD cards.

The Squirrel Mafia wrote:

This is very exciting!

I've been in a high speed automobile accident. That was exciting, but it doesn't make it a good thing to do.