Thank you, this means a lot. I was definitely trying to let the camera speak for itself, and I appreciate that my approach came through. I believe that with the facts laid out, everybody can draw their own conclusions. Though I did let slip that, in my humble opinion, Pentax did a great job with this camera - considering all the effort involved - and I have found it (subjectively) to be a joy to use, far beyond my expectations.
@@EvanDorsky I always said that i'm not interested in half frame, and even if it was a 35mm camera, i would not buy it, having hundreds of second hand marvels for much cheaper at my reach, but i appreciatte the effort that Pentax did very much, because this opens a path for other makers. And after this video, my appreciation for this camera and for Pentax is even greater. Maybe everyone needs to see the guts of it... ;)
I very much appreciate this tear down video. I figured Pentax designed it to be serviceable when I noticed no use of Torx screws (or the like), only flathead or Philips. I own one and have so far shot about 8 rolls of 36 with it. Aesthetically, it has me taking pics that I probably wouldn’t take with any other type of camera. Of course I could say that about any camera, but there really is something special about the way it’s been designed. I’m not an engineer, just a picture taker, and I like the pictures I’m taking with it. I also don’t get all the vitriol being thrown at the pricing of this item. Camera companies aren’t charities and there are definitely more evil things to fund or support in this world than half-frame film cameras.
In my experience Torx (not security Torx or Pentalobe) has a much better grip and doesn't strip like Philips or require alignment like flathead/slotted.
Normal, non-security Torx was chosen (along with phillips) as the main screw type for the Framework laptop since it was less likely to strip than Phillips or Posidrive screws.
Kudos from a working analog camera technician! I've been curious about the internals on this. Your hunch about the shutter is correct: The winder gearing should be charging the small shutter in the lens assembly (while also advancing the film) but exposure duration is controlled by the electronics, so the whole exposure system is mechanically-charged electronically-timed. Would love to see more camera repair content on youtube, keep it up!
Thanks for your kind words! My impression is the mechanically-charged electronically-timed shutter is fairly common among autoexposure analog cameras. However I am wondering if the Pentax 17 shutter is entirely electronic, with no coupling to the film advance, like the leaf shutter in a compact digital camera like the Ricoh GR. I'm thinking this for a few reasons: 1. Ricoh/Pentax could grab this part off the shelf, and this strikes me as a simpler design to achieve in 2024 2. The lens assembly seems quite independent from the film advance mechanism - it is almost floating above the rest of the camera - and I did not see any clear mechanical coupling into the body 3. I do not see any movement in the front or back of the shutter as I turn the film advance lever, suggesting that the shutter recharges on its own I have been thinking of making another video showing example photos from the Pentax 17 and exploring the lens in more detail - Pentax put in a full 8 blade aperture, which impressed me, and which I don't think has gotten enough coverage. But it might be a while. Thanks for watching!
very nice to see how it screams quality craftsmanship within the camera itself. it looks so clean and organized. i have no doupt this camera will work for decades after purchase. Also, you inadvertantly possibly made the best repair guide for anyone in the future to look for. Seriously, i look for such teardowns if i can't find good service manuals and this invents the wheel before anyone else needs to. Great video!
looking at the internals, this goes a long way to explaining the price. very well built and thought out. sadly alot of people would appropriate that. they could have just added a steel weight into the bottom to make it a little heavier ;) that would have saved some of the complaints
Good tear down video. Well presented with useful commentary. And some interesting aspects to the design. Well thought through which I’m happy about as Pentax 17 owner
Looks like a very nice camera. I know from a couple of the photography blogs I like, they have been pessimistic of the camera initially and then found they liked it - especially when they saw the resulting images.
Excellent and informative video, thanks. I'm pretty sure I could take one apart too. Getting it back together again would, in my case, be the tricky part 😂
Interesting to see electronic shutter and mechanical film advance separated like that. Can't help to wonder if it would make possible to modify the camera for the Lomo style double exposure, at least in theory. Probably would require reprogramming some of the on-board logic. Thanks for the teardown and explanation, it was a joy to watch. Edit: turns out the double exposure is possible and actually quite simple using the film rewind button at the bottom as explained by Analogue Wonderland in their video.
Yes, double exposures should be easy on the Pentax 17, another benefit of the nice solid manual film advance mechanism! That said, in theory it would be possible to modify the firmware to allow multiple shutter releases before releasing the film advance solenoid. Quick double exposures would be effortless, but accidental ones would be extremely common!
All plastic, but it looks the same I have on the DA*55/1.4, that doesn't feel cheap at all. The top and bottom plate might not be brass but they seem to get the job done and they look good. A lot of people for that price wanted a Pentax 67 III with a 105/2.4, and quickly point out a list of 40 years old used cameras that you can get with the same amount of money. What you are really paying here is the lens that looks like a little marvel from the shots I've seen, a good mechanical design that leans towards repairability, and metal parts where they matter (all the rewinding mechanisms and gears). Honestly I'm not at all a fan of the AF lens with manual presets, but my guess is that it shares part of the design with a future full AF camera, who knows, maybe full frame too?
I also prefer the Pentax 67... but gotta be realistic that it's a dead product. No new parts made and most likely you couldn't send it to Ricoh for repair, so gotta ask other specialists. On the other side, the Pentax 17 is a brand new product, still supported by the manufacturer.
@@anta40 I totally agree! The point is that people confront the price of old used stuff with the new one, and are completely unrealistic on how much new stuff should cost. Sure a brand new Pentax 67 would be possible, but it would cost at least 10 times as this 17
@@karellen00 Yeah, we mostly ignore inflation for convenience. I'm not a fan of half frame, but nevertheless this is an exciting news: a brand new 35mm camera. Hello Leitz, there's another player in town. Perhaps half frame format felt natural by younger folks who spend lots of time on smartphone 😬
Love to see they made pretty notable efforts towards serviceability! Also, nice work; I think people are going to be looking for this video in 10-15 years when these things start experiencing a lot of wear and tear problems. Did you use a high value resistor to drain the flash?
Thanks! I was also happy to see how easy the camera was to disassemble. And yes, to drain the flash I made an array of 0.25W resistors with an effective resistance of ~50kOhms, trying to get a reasonable drain time without pulling too much current and burning up the resistors. I think I could have gotten away with a lower effective resistance.
I believe @mileskosik472 is on to something with his comment suggesting that the divets in the front plate are there to hide assembly features (like ejection pin marks), and the washers are there to make up for the gap from the divet to keep the front plate surface flat for the leatherette.
Wonderful video. So many armchair yootoobers are saying this camera feels cheap and plasticky. If only they saw all the care in materials and design that goes into the 17.
If only they would have gone for a proper rangefinder or fully manual camera I would have bought it. But it does not seem to be a bad camera and I think there's plenty of people who'll have a ton of fun with it.
A few questions for you. Was the flex cable dated 3-21-2024? I couldn't quite see the 2024 number so not sure if it's a manufacturing date or just a part number. Did you figure out what the o rings under the leatherette were for? Maybe tooling for future features on the camera body? Any indication that this was built with using the same body for future film camera releases? And were the front and back screws on the top plate really just decorative? It looked like they secured into tabs on the camera body. Great vid.
My editing didn’t make it very clear, since I called those screws “decorative-looking” - but they are in fact functional, playing a part in securing the top plate. And thank you! Edit: Also, I believe you have the date on the flex cable right. Gives some sense of how long it took Pentax to accumulate parts and ramp up prosecution (lead time of a few months is not that surprising to me as a consumer electronics hardware engineer).
Cool video, i have always wonder have do old cameras stamp the date on the film? I think it must a litle digital clock whith small ligh bulbs or small led in this old style camera and a lens for focusing maybe, and of course the clock built in mirror. I think that will be super interesting to make a video about.
I have wondered this myself, and a really excellent video answering your question from @AppliedScience already exists: ruclips.net/video/ezME4_xMMnk/видео.html I would love to see date stamping in a future camera from Pentax, especially since very few cameras with date stamp functions can count as high as 2024.
Vielen Dank! Sehr interessantes Video! Tolle Kamera! Das einzige, dass mich vom Kauf abhält, ist das Halbformat. Ist es irgendwie möglich die Kamera von Halbformat auf Vollformat zu ändern?
This gives me some good confidence in my purchase, thanks! Hopefully this shuts up the people calling it a cheap plastic camera. As for the "shutter delay" people notice, do you think that's likely the solenoid firing after the shutter to prepare for the next film advance? and it only sounds like there's a shutter delay?
Yes, you’re on to something with the perceived shutter delay. But in some cases there is a real shutter delay. The sequence goes like this: 1. On shutter half press: 1a. lens moves to the focus point 2. On shutter full press: 2a. Shutter releases (instant, nearly silent) 2b. Solenoid fires (delayed, loud) So if the photographer half presses the shutter release and waits, then the shutter can be fired with no delay and the perceived shutter delay is just the delay of the solenoid firing. However, if the user goes straight to a full press, then there is true shutter delay while step 1a (lens moving to the focus point) completes. This focus delay is disappointing for a zone focus camera - it would be nice if the camera just prefocused to the desired zone. I imagine Pentax designed it this way to trade instant response for prolonged battery life.
@@EvanDorsky That's interesting but tracks with how I'd expect it after seeing the teardown! The camera only focuses on half shutter even though it should ideally already be focused by that point since the zone is set. I wonder what tradeoffs there were here. I'm not sure if battery life would be too harmed by setting it right away because if you keep taking repeated shots at one zone it will keep moving the lens back and forth from the default to the same zone, instead of just leaving it there. What's neat though is it could be addressed someday via software. Glad that half pressing it can avoid the delay though! that's what I'm used to anyways with digital cameras
@@NickCheng93 I have a suspicion that focusing system works as is either because the mechanism is taken from an autofocus camera or because it'd make easier to integrate simple auto focusing later. Seeing how focusing ring works in discrete values rather than continuous makes me think so even more.
@@salihsen8346 they'd need to fully replace that binary switching kind of thing right? so this would be an iteration for a future camera? Does seem nice and forward thiking
Cool teardown! I am surprised to see point-to-point wiring made a comeback. I was anticipating flex cables and some JSTs, like modern cameras. Curious, is the top shell all plastic, or is it a plastic insert into a stamped metal cover? I bet they are using metalized plastic like fujifilm.
The top and bottom plates really do appear to be metal. The top plate has a plastic insert, but it looks like there's a nice thick metal layer there - you can see it pretty well around 5:49. Also, another commenter has suggested that bare soldered wires are still common for built-in flashes inside cameras. I haven't taken apart enough modern cameras to know myself, but Pentax may have decided to save BOM cost on high voltage connectors by just soldering a few wires instead. In a camera that must already require so much manual labor to build, I can see why they did this.
after watching this, I don't feel it's overpriced anymore. my only gripe with this camera is that it should have gotten a sharper lens. even the original Pen F from the early 60's shoots sharper than the 25mm chosen for this
How have you assessed the sharpness of the lens? I scan film from the Pentax 17 with a 36MP DSLR and I have been pleased with the performance of the lens, even on TMAX 100 and E100. I've found it to be extremely sharp, at least as sharp as my Ricoh GR10. That said, I have not had the pleasure of using the Pen system about which I've heard great things.
That was very interesting, Thank you. Now I am wondering whether to get some kind of filter to make sure dust doesn't get inside the lens. Dust blower might just push dust deeper inside.
I am not sure if those fingers are for focusing. They might set the intensity of the flash. I don't have the schematics to verify this, but if the flash intensity is set by distance it can be used for flash fill photography.
maybe both, the fingers just send the binary data back to the motherboard, then the data might be used for both focusing and flashing. I think that makes sense
I'm not sure about that - while the lens barrel cover comes off pretty easily, the lens itself is deeply integrated within the camera. However, since the Pentax 17 has a standard 40.5mm filter ring, I suppose it would be possible to augment the lens with say, closeup filters
I'm very surprised that there is no chassis and that the casing indeed is an integral part of the structure. Looks like a very cheaply build camera, using injection mouldings to provide the strength of the camera, just like those cheap point and shoot cameras of the 90s. They must make a huge profit from each camera.
I’ve convinced myself that Pentax chose to motorize the focus mechanism for one of two reasons: 1. They are testing the technology for a future autofocus camera 2. It was actually cheaper, or easier, for Pentax to design it this way vs manufacturing new helicoid, lubricating it, dialing in the manual focus feel, etc. #2 may sound like a ridiculous reason, but I think it’s important to remember that Pentax hasn’t made a camera like this in at least two decades, and it might have been easier for them to just slap in an autofocus mechanism based on one of the Ricoh compact digital cameras. That said, I think with a lidar/phase detect rangefinder, it would be very easy for Pentax to adapt this design to autofocus. And I’d love a new autofocus camera from Pentax so I’m very much hoping for reason #1.
Modular, no stupid clamp down ribbon connection points, easy disassembly…but the real question remains for us techs, will the release parts to 3rd parties?
I fear not, but the crossover between the 3D printing community and the analog community is strong. PPP Cameras has already released a replacement ergonomic grip/battery cover, and with the easy disassembly, we could see files starting to pop up. However it’s hard for me to predict which parts will break first, since the mechanisms are generally either well protected or made of metal (like the film advance gears). Maybe it will be the door, since it’s made of plastic and someone is bound to drop their camera while inserting or removing film. I’m sure someone in the community will design and print replacement doors - might even be me!
@@EvanDorsky Wouldnt be a hard thing to make. Even most of the electronics look to be easily reverse engineered. If I had to guess, it has a simplified copal electronic shutter in it. Theoretically, that shouldnt fail. Ive only come across 2 that have failed on Fuji X100 series and that was because of a firmware problem that cooked the gear when the motors overheated from hunting all the time on the aperture control. Im glad to see they didnt try to cheap out on the film transport gear train like Rollei did on some of the later 35 models. II really really hope Mint camera doesnt make the same mistake with the 35AF. Were on the waiting list for some of those to tear down.
As a process engineer quite familiar with multiple electronic and mechatronic assemblies I must say, that it is very sad, that they are still using things that are not supposed to be in any camera designed and manufactured within last 20 years. There are multiple design fails like usage of screws of many different types all over the camera which makes the assembly more complicated and also affects sourcing, logistic etc. I see no use of loctite on screws. Then all those front, back, top and bottom covers should be very easily removable without digging through main controls or peeling out the rubber grip(!). I see no dust seals, so that camera will be full of junk after some time, especially when carried in pocket. There should be ideally only one HDI PCB instead of having several separate ones. All those hand soldered wires are just disgusting. Hand soldering should be avoided at all cost and all such wires should be attached by connector or replaced with flex cable attached by connectors to PCB. Ideal board would be cleaned to remove all flux residues and then covered by conformal coating to maximize lifetime and protect it from dust, moisture and other nasty things. ZIF connectors are standard for ages, even that Ricoh from your older video is much better example of assembly. This Pentax 17 reminds me when I was fixing shutter button in my beloved Pentax K-5, again the same disgusting strategy inside with bunch of hand soldered wires all over the place, screws with different type in various places and really horrible layout of parts inside. Contrary to that when I was cleaning sensor on my 2011 Olympus XZ-1 the inside was pretty neat design. And it is much more complex digital camera than this Pentax 17 and was being sold for less money (!). Also my Oly EPL-6 which I openned recently to fix damaged cover is much better assembly, and that is lowcost MFT camera. Cmon Ricoh, move to 20th century! Looking at this assy, this camera barely hits $100 level. Anything above is just cover for development cost and margin for Ricoh. At least they can easily replace that cheap lens module with different lens and offer some Pentax 17 wide or telephoto version in future if they want.
Thanks, because it will take some time before I can pick up a junk one cheap from a fleamarket or ebay ! Seems terribly overpriced for a all plastic camera, I guess you pay the hype of having again a flim camera (and the opportunity to spend again money on film cardridges 😆)
Yes this is barely $100 level assembly, rest is just for covering development cost and margin for Ricoh. Significantly more complex cameras are being sold for less.
I'd take a real, old film camera over this nasty plastic overpriced toy-like nonsense any day. Why they bothered with this rubbish over re-making a design they would have perfected decades ago is beyond me. Even more confusing is *some* people (mostly RUclipsrs with ulterior motives, i.e. a free camera) keep praising it as a wonderful piece of kit when it is clearly not. No proper focusing? No proper control of settings? Cheap plastic contruction? Cheap and nasty slow lens? Honestly it's junk.
Maybe I should have stated this, but I bought the Pentax 17 with my own money. And I won’t argue over opinions, since everybody is entitled to their own - and this camera is certainly not for everyone (I mostly shoot medium format so it’s not even for me!). But I must state that in objective terms, the Pentax 17 lens is excellent. It is made of glass with high quality coatings, and I scan my film with a 36MP full frame DSLR, so I can state that the lens produces images that are sharp and contrasty, with vivid color and nondistracting out-of-focus regions. I have not noted any flare or aberrations, and the images appear basically free of distortion too. I don’t follow RUclips commentary (for the reasons you state), and I am not suggesting that you have done this, but many people are judging the lens based on low quality scans. This is not surprising to me, as many users of the Pentax 17 are new to film, and many labs are not used to scanning half frame. Over time I expect the true qualities of the Pentax 17 lens to be better known. Now I’m thinking I should make a video discussing this topic with sample images. Edit: also, another fact - f/3.5 was not so uncommon for premium fixed lens compact film cameras back in the day. Off the top of my head, I believe the Pentax UC-1, Fuji Tiara, and Ricoh R1s landed here. Though I’d like a faster lens too.
I didn't actually mean you got a free camera, that was aimed at certain 'others', should have made that more clear, sorry. I do however take your point about the actual lens being good in itself, and I have seen images that corroborate this. I may come across as being particularly harsh on this camera - if we were talking a brand new relatively small company releasing their first film camera then yes, not bad for a first attempt. But this is from a brand with decades of experience, designs and know how that produced some of the best SLR's ever produced. They couldn't use some of that to make a suitably up to date jewel of a camera? Why would anyone with half a brain buy this at £500 when they can have a Pentax K1000 with 50mm lens, fully working and serviced for ~£150, or for a little bit more, a legendary Canon A1 or Olympus OM1, both with an also legendary lens all in? I get that the 'but it's brand new' argument would appeal to some, but for that kind of money I'd personally want a lot more quality and usability, not less.
@@ste76539 I agree that for photographers "in the know", there are many highly capable film cameras to be had for far less. But in my opinion, the Pentax 17 fills a niche for the photographer who is curious about film but has no desire to research old models, is overwhelmed by all the bad information on the internet, doesn't want to take a risk on eBay, and wants to try something new. Also, while the cameras you named may be more desirable for photographers like us (as I've said before, the Pentax 17 is definitely not made "for me"), the Pentax 17 also has an integrated flash and a really excellent meter, making it highly versatile, especially for beginners. And I also have very high expectations for Pentax. I do think it's apt for you to bring up the idea of a relatively small company releasing their first film camera, since that is actually how I see the Pentax "Film Project" - a small, experimental effort, starting almost from scratch, since Pentax lost most of its film camera design expertise years ago (and I can see how not all of it would transfer from digital cameras). I have even higher hopes for the other film cameras that are very likely coming from Pentax in the future, given the success of the 17.
@@ste76539I think you're hitting on the main problem of making a new film camera in 2024. The K1000 + standard lense in $1982 costed $220 or $693 today adjusted for inflation. Taking into account of R&D costs + modernizing the manufacturing process I doubt that it can be sold today for any cheaper than the release price. And aside from a few enthusiasts, I don't think many people are willing to shell out $700 for the most bare bones SLR, which has to compete with the used camera market AND conveniences of modern cameras. So I think it only makes sense for Ricoh to try to corner the casual market and see how it develops from there.
@@ste76539 I'm increasingly tempted by the P17, even though I have an OM-1 and a P67 (and, err, quite a few others 😅). It's small, easy to use, saves on film, and seems to take excellent pictures. Plus, as this video shows, it looks to be well made. I'd say it fills a niche.
Come on. Just a somewhat funny looking half frame camera. Not even half as small. A tear down? What’s so very special except the date of production? Who needs it, when you don’t want to make a statement to others?
I feel bad now for asssuming the film advance gears were plastic. It feels well made when advancing the camera. Thank you for the quality tear down.
This was a very thorough and expert takedown. Awesome job on the design & serviceability, Suzuki-san!
Thanks! Yes, I was really happy with how smoothly the disassembly (and reassembly) process went.
After watching so many videos about this camera, i feel this is really the best one. No more opinions, just facts. Very well done and thank you
Thank you, this means a lot.
I was definitely trying to let the camera speak for itself, and I appreciate that my approach came through. I believe that with the facts laid out, everybody can draw their own conclusions.
Though I did let slip that, in my humble opinion, Pentax did a great job with this camera - considering all the effort involved - and I have found it (subjectively) to be a joy to use, far beyond my expectations.
@@EvanDorsky I always said that i'm not interested in half frame, and even if it was a 35mm camera, i would not buy it, having hundreds of second hand marvels for much cheaper at my reach, but i appreciatte the effort that Pentax did very much, because this opens a path for other makers. And after this video, my appreciation for this camera and for Pentax is even greater. Maybe everyone needs to see the guts of it... ;)
I very much appreciate this tear down video. I figured Pentax designed it to be serviceable when I noticed no use of Torx screws (or the like), only flathead or Philips. I own one and have so far shot about 8 rolls of 36 with it. Aesthetically, it has me taking pics that I probably wouldn’t take with any other type of camera. Of course I could say that about any camera, but there really is something special about the way it’s been designed. I’m not an engineer, just a picture taker, and I like the pictures I’m taking with it. I also don’t get all the vitriol being thrown at the pricing of this item. Camera companies aren’t charities and there are definitely more evil things to fund or support in this world than half-frame film cameras.
In my experience Torx (not security Torx or Pentalobe) has a much better grip and doesn't strip like Philips or require alignment like flathead/slotted.
Normal, non-security Torx was chosen (along with phillips) as the main screw type for the Framework laptop since it was less likely to strip than Phillips or Posidrive screws.
If you look at the rate of inflation since the Olympus 1/2 frame cameras were introduced, the price of the Pentax 17 is comparable.
Can clearly see why this costs the price it does. I love mine, people should understand how much work Pentax put into this unit
Take a look into cameras from competitors. That will help you.
@@xmedawhat competitors? Leica and Mint? Which are both more expensive?
Overpriced piece of plastic
@@TheKardred "Overpriced" bruh that camera is cheaper than new ones back in the days
@@GoofyCatGoofer than high end models? At least you get a metal body that will last 50 years. This shit is dead in 10
Kudos from a working analog camera technician! I've been curious about the internals on this. Your hunch about the shutter is correct: The winder gearing should be charging the small shutter in the lens assembly (while also advancing the film) but exposure duration is controlled by the electronics, so the whole exposure system is mechanically-charged electronically-timed. Would love to see more camera repair content on youtube, keep it up!
Thanks for your kind words!
My impression is the mechanically-charged electronically-timed shutter is fairly common among autoexposure analog cameras. However I am wondering if the Pentax 17 shutter is entirely electronic, with no coupling to the film advance, like the leaf shutter in a compact digital camera like the Ricoh GR. I'm thinking this for a few reasons:
1. Ricoh/Pentax could grab this part off the shelf, and this strikes me as a simpler design to achieve in 2024
2. The lens assembly seems quite independent from the film advance mechanism - it is almost floating above the rest of the camera - and I did not see any clear mechanical coupling into the body
3. I do not see any movement in the front or back of the shutter as I turn the film advance lever, suggesting that the shutter recharges on its own
I have been thinking of making another video showing example photos from the Pentax 17 and exploring the lens in more detail - Pentax put in a full 8 blade aperture, which impressed me, and which I don't think has gotten enough coverage. But it might be a while. Thanks for watching!
very nice to see how it screams quality craftsmanship within the camera itself. it looks so clean and organized. i have no doupt this camera will work for decades after purchase. Also, you inadvertantly possibly made the best repair guide for anyone in the future to look for. Seriously, i look for such teardowns if i can't find good service manuals and this invents the wheel before anyone else needs to. Great video!
Fascinating. I’m not one to call that camera overpriced. Thank-you. The audio was very clear.
looking at the internals, this goes a long way to explaining the price. very well built and thought out. sadly alot of people would appropriate that.
they could have just added a steel weight into the bottom to make it a little heavier ;) that would have saved some of the complaints
Good tear down video. Well presented with useful commentary. And some interesting aspects to the design. Well thought through which I’m happy about as Pentax 17 owner
Looks like a very nice camera. I know from a couple of the photography blogs I like, they have been pessimistic of the camera initially and then found they liked it - especially when they saw the resulting images.
Excellent and informative video, thanks.
I'm pretty sure I could take one apart too. Getting it back together again would, in my case, be the tricky part 😂
Looks great. I will get one soon. Thank you. ❤
Great video. I'm about to get this camera and it's good to know that Pentax / Ricoh had repairability in mind when manufacturing this camera.
Wonderful video. It makes you appreciate even more the effort Pentax put into this camera.
Your video justify everything TKO said in the development story, definitely worth checking out too
Looks very well engineered. Hope sells well.
Interesting to see electronic shutter and mechanical film advance separated like that. Can't help to wonder if it would make possible to modify the camera for the Lomo style double exposure, at least in theory. Probably would require reprogramming some of the on-board logic. Thanks for the teardown and explanation, it was a joy to watch.
Edit: turns out the double exposure is possible and actually quite simple using the film rewind button at the bottom as explained by Analogue Wonderland in their video.
Yes, double exposures should be easy on the Pentax 17, another benefit of the nice solid manual film advance mechanism!
That said, in theory it would be possible to modify the firmware to allow multiple shutter releases before releasing the film advance solenoid. Quick double exposures would be effortless, but accidental ones would be extremely common!
That was fascinating.
Neat. Looks like a great camera.
Thank you for nice video Evan!
This is such a good video, thanks a lot for your job!
Great video! Thanks for making this.
It was my pleasure! Glad you enjoyed it.
All plastic, but it looks the same I have on the DA*55/1.4, that doesn't feel cheap at all. The top and bottom plate might not be brass but they seem to get the job done and they look good. A lot of people for that price wanted a Pentax 67 III with a 105/2.4, and quickly point out a list of 40 years old used cameras that you can get with the same amount of money. What you are really paying here is the lens that looks like a little marvel from the shots I've seen, a good mechanical design that leans towards repairability, and metal parts where they matter (all the rewinding mechanisms and gears). Honestly I'm not at all a fan of the AF lens with manual presets, but my guess is that it shares part of the design with a future full AF camera, who knows, maybe full frame too?
I also prefer the Pentax 67... but gotta be realistic that it's a dead product. No new parts made and most likely you couldn't send it to Ricoh for repair, so gotta ask other specialists. On the other side, the Pentax 17 is a brand new product, still supported by the manufacturer.
@@anta40 I totally agree! The point is that people confront the price of old used stuff with the new one, and are completely unrealistic on how much new stuff should cost. Sure a brand new Pentax 67 would be possible, but it would cost at least 10 times as this 17
@@karellen00 Yeah, we mostly ignore inflation for convenience. I'm not a fan of half frame, but nevertheless this is an exciting news: a brand new 35mm camera. Hello Leitz, there's another player in town. Perhaps half frame format felt natural by younger folks who spend lots of time on smartphone 😬
Very helpful, this is a great tear down video, thank you!
Love to see they made pretty notable efforts towards serviceability! Also, nice work; I think people are going to be looking for this video in 10-15 years when these things start experiencing a lot of wear and tear problems.
Did you use a high value resistor to drain the flash?
Thanks! I was also happy to see how easy the camera was to disassemble.
And yes, to drain the flash I made an array of 0.25W resistors with an effective resistance of ~50kOhms, trying to get a reasonable drain time without pulling too much current and burning up the resistors. I think I could have gotten away with a lower effective resistance.
did you determine a purpose for the washers on the front plate under the leatherette? assembly locators maybe?
I believe @mileskosik472 is on to something with his comment suggesting that the divets in the front plate are there to hide assembly features (like ejection pin marks), and the washers are there to make up for the gap from the divet to keep the front plate surface flat for the leatherette.
Proper respect! Thank you for sharing this.
Wonderful video. So many armchair yootoobers are saying this camera feels cheap and plasticky. If only they saw all the care in materials and design that goes into the 17.
What you mean is digital film camera. Digital film roles are are similar like digital tape?
Excellent video!
Great video, thank you!
Thanks for the informative video
If only they would have gone for a proper rangefinder or fully manual camera I would have bought it. But it does not seem to be a bad camera and I think there's plenty of people who'll have a ton of fun with it.
My guess for the washers on the front is so you cant feel divets from where the inkection molding sprews are through the leatherette.
That is a level of attention to detail I totally respect!
A few questions for you. Was the flex cable dated 3-21-2024? I couldn't quite see the 2024 number so not sure if it's a manufacturing date or just a part number. Did you figure out what the o rings under the leatherette were for? Maybe tooling for future features on the camera body? Any indication that this was built with using the same body for future film camera releases? And were the front and back screws on the top plate really just decorative? It looked like they secured into tabs on the camera body. Great vid.
My editing didn’t make it very clear, since I called those screws “decorative-looking” - but they are in fact functional, playing a part in securing the top plate. And thank you!
Edit: Also, I believe you have the date on the flex cable right. Gives some sense of how long it took Pentax to accumulate parts and ramp up prosecution (lead time of a few months is not that surprising to me as a consumer electronics hardware engineer).
very helpful, thank you!
Cool video, i have always wonder have do old cameras stamp the date on the film? I think it must a litle digital clock whith small ligh bulbs or small led in this old style camera and a lens for focusing maybe, and of course the clock built in mirror. I think that will be super interesting to make a video about.
I have wondered this myself, and a really excellent video answering your question from @AppliedScience already exists: ruclips.net/video/ezME4_xMMnk/видео.html
I would love to see date stamping in a future camera from Pentax, especially since very few cameras with date stamp functions can count as high as 2024.
Awesome video!!!
Where did you learn how to repair cameras? How can I learn to do so?
Vielen Dank! Sehr interessantes Video! Tolle Kamera! Das einzige, dass mich vom Kauf abhält, ist das Halbformat. Ist es irgendwie möglich die Kamera von Halbformat auf Vollformat zu ändern?
This gives me some good confidence in my purchase, thanks! Hopefully this shuts up the people calling it a cheap plastic camera.
As for the "shutter delay" people notice, do you think that's likely the solenoid firing after the shutter to prepare for the next film advance? and it only sounds like there's a shutter delay?
Yes, you’re on to something with the perceived shutter delay. But in some cases there is a real shutter delay. The sequence goes like this:
1. On shutter half press:
1a. lens moves to the focus point
2. On shutter full press:
2a. Shutter releases (instant, nearly silent)
2b. Solenoid fires (delayed, loud)
So if the photographer half presses the shutter release and waits, then the shutter can be fired with no delay and the perceived shutter delay is just the delay of the solenoid firing.
However, if the user goes straight to a full press, then there is true shutter delay while step 1a (lens moving to the focus point) completes.
This focus delay is disappointing for a zone focus camera - it would be nice if the camera just prefocused to the desired zone. I imagine Pentax designed it this way to trade instant response for prolonged battery life.
@@EvanDorsky That's interesting but tracks with how I'd expect it after seeing the teardown! The camera only focuses on half shutter even though it should ideally already be focused by that point since the zone is set. I wonder what tradeoffs there were here. I'm not sure if battery life would be too harmed by setting it right away because if you keep taking repeated shots at one zone it will keep moving the lens back and forth from the default to the same zone, instead of just leaving it there.
What's neat though is it could be addressed someday via software.
Glad that half pressing it can avoid the delay though! that's what I'm used to anyways with digital cameras
@@NickCheng93 I have a suspicion that focusing system works as is either because the mechanism is taken from an autofocus camera or because it'd make easier to integrate simple auto focusing later. Seeing how focusing ring works in discrete values rather than continuous makes me think so even more.
@@salihsen8346 they'd need to fully replace that binary switching kind of thing right? so this would be an iteration for a future camera? Does seem nice and forward thiking
But did it still work once you put it back together? 😅🙂 Thanks, been waiting for a teardown
It did! And fortunately so, because I've been having a lot of fun shooting with it.
so cool thabk you
Cool teardown! I am surprised to see point-to-point wiring made a comeback. I was anticipating flex cables and some JSTs, like modern cameras. Curious, is the top shell all plastic, or is it a plastic insert into a stamped metal cover? I bet they are using metalized plastic like fujifilm.
The top and bottom plates really do appear to be metal. The top plate has a plastic insert, but it looks like there's a nice thick metal layer there - you can see it pretty well around 5:49.
Also, another commenter has suggested that bare soldered wires are still common for built-in flashes inside cameras. I haven't taken apart enough modern cameras to know myself, but Pentax may have decided to save BOM cost on high voltage connectors by just soldering a few wires instead. In a camera that must already require so much manual labor to build, I can see why they did this.
after watching this, I don't feel it's overpriced anymore. my only gripe with this camera is that it should have gotten a sharper lens. even the original Pen F from the early 60's shoots sharper than the 25mm chosen for this
How have you assessed the sharpness of the lens? I scan film from the Pentax 17 with a 36MP DSLR and I have been pleased with the performance of the lens, even on TMAX 100 and E100. I've found it to be extremely sharp, at least as sharp as my Ricoh GR10.
That said, I have not had the pleasure of using the Pen system about which I've heard great things.
I really want that mat for lens repair... which one is it??
There are many such mats on Amazon, but this is the one in the video: www.amazon.com/dp/B07DGTJ463?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
Thanks! I was also curious.
Well done! It can be repaired for next 10 years at least supported by PENTAX!
Would you say that the camera will survive a small rain shower or is every drop of water fatal?
That was very interesting, Thank you. Now I am wondering whether to get some kind of filter to make sure dust doesn't get inside the lens. Dust blower might just push dust deeper inside.
I put an ND filter on my Pentax 17 as soon as I opened the box (I add one to all of my lenses) so you can never go wrong by adding one.
It's a pity they didn't let you change one part and it becomes a regular 35mm format instead of half format ( can't take slides as it is).
C'est très bien !
I am not sure if those fingers are for focusing. They might set the intensity of the flash. I don't have the schematics to verify this, but if the flash intensity is set by distance it can be used for flash fill photography.
maybe both, the fingers just send the binary data back to the motherboard, then the data might be used for both focusing and flashing. I think that makes sense
@@phangun13
It is possible that they are for both focusing and flash.
wow, it is a half frame.
5:44 Evan's hair sighting
So in theory it'd only be a small step to giving this camera interchangeable lenses. ??
I'm not sure about that - while the lens barrel cover comes off pretty easily, the lens itself is deeply integrated within the camera.
However, since the Pentax 17 has a standard 40.5mm filter ring, I suppose it would be possible to augment the lens with say, closeup filters
I'm very surprised that there is no chassis and that the casing indeed is an integral part of the structure. Looks like a very cheaply build camera, using injection mouldings to provide the strength of the camera, just like those cheap point and shoot cameras of the 90s. They must make a huge profit from each camera.
Amazing vídeos! This confirms that this camera has 20 year old technology 😂
Very interesting! From what you see inside the camera, could this design be easily converted in a future version to full autofocus?
Autofocus can miss. Just learn the snap focus system lol…
I’ve convinced myself that Pentax chose to motorize the focus mechanism for one of two reasons:
1. They are testing the technology for a future autofocus camera
2. It was actually cheaper, or easier, for Pentax to design it this way vs manufacturing new helicoid, lubricating it, dialing in the manual focus feel, etc.
#2 may sound like a ridiculous reason, but I think it’s important to remember that Pentax hasn’t made a camera like this in at least two decades, and it might have been easier for them to just slap in an autofocus mechanism based on one of the Ricoh compact digital cameras.
That said, I think with a lidar/phase detect rangefinder, it would be very easy for Pentax to adapt this design to autofocus. And I’d love a new autofocus camera from Pentax so I’m very much hoping for reason #1.
Modular, no stupid clamp down ribbon connection points, easy disassembly…but the real question remains for us techs, will the release parts to 3rd parties?
I fear not, but the crossover between the 3D printing community and the analog community is strong. PPP Cameras has already released a replacement ergonomic grip/battery cover, and with the easy disassembly, we could see files starting to pop up.
However it’s hard for me to predict which parts will break first, since the mechanisms are generally either well protected or made of metal (like the film advance gears).
Maybe it will be the door, since it’s made of plastic and someone is bound to drop their camera while inserting or removing film. I’m sure someone in the community will design and print replacement doors - might even be me!
@@EvanDorsky Wouldnt be a hard thing to make. Even most of the electronics look to be easily reverse engineered. If I had to guess, it has a simplified copal electronic shutter in it. Theoretically, that shouldnt fail. Ive only come across 2 that have failed on Fuji X100 series and that was because of a firmware problem that cooked the gear when the motors overheated from hunting all the time on the aperture control. Im glad to see they didnt try to cheap out on the film transport gear train like Rollei did on some of the later 35 models. II really really hope Mint camera doesnt make the same mistake with the 35AF. Were on the waiting list for some of those to tear down.
Madre in chinese 😢😅😅😅😅😅😅descartable
Someone has plenty of money to burn!
Sản xuất việt nam 😂
Weird mix of ribbon cables and hand-soldered individual wires. It looks well-made, but not necessarily well-designed…
As a process engineer quite familiar with multiple electronic and mechatronic assemblies I must say, that it is very sad, that they are still using things that are not supposed to be in any camera designed and manufactured within last 20 years. There are multiple design fails like usage of screws of many different types all over the camera which makes the assembly more complicated and also affects sourcing, logistic etc. I see no use of loctite on screws. Then all those front, back, top and bottom covers should be very easily removable without digging through main controls or peeling out the rubber grip(!). I see no dust seals, so that camera will be full of junk after some time, especially when carried in pocket. There should be ideally only one HDI PCB instead of having several separate ones. All those hand soldered wires are just disgusting. Hand soldering should be avoided at all cost and all such wires should be attached by connector or replaced with flex cable attached by connectors to PCB. Ideal board would be cleaned to remove all flux residues and then covered by conformal coating to maximize lifetime and protect it from dust, moisture and other nasty things. ZIF connectors are standard for ages, even that Ricoh from your older video is much better example of assembly. This Pentax 17 reminds me when I was fixing shutter button in my beloved Pentax K-5, again the same disgusting strategy inside with bunch of hand soldered wires all over the place, screws with different type in various places and really horrible layout of parts inside. Contrary to that when I was cleaning sensor on my 2011 Olympus XZ-1 the inside was pretty neat design. And it is much more complex digital camera than this Pentax 17 and was being sold for less money (!). Also my Oly EPL-6 which I openned recently to fix damaged cover is much better assembly, and that is lowcost MFT camera. Cmon Ricoh, move to 20th century!
Looking at this assy, this camera barely hits $100 level. Anything above is just cover for development cost and margin for Ricoh. At least they can easily replace that cheap lens module with different lens and offer some Pentax 17 wide or telephoto version in future if they want.
ZIF connectors absolutely can not be used for flash, they would burn up. Modern day high end cameras still use soldered wires for integrated flash.
Thanks, because it will take some time before I can pick up a junk one cheap from a fleamarket or ebay ! Seems terribly overpriced for a all plastic camera, I guess you pay the hype of having again a flim camera (and the opportunity to spend again money on film cardridges 😆)
Yes this is barely $100 level assembly, rest is just for covering development cost and margin for Ricoh. Significantly more complex cameras are being sold for less.
I'd take a real, old film camera over this nasty plastic overpriced toy-like nonsense any day. Why they bothered with this rubbish over re-making a design they would have perfected decades ago is beyond me. Even more confusing is *some* people (mostly RUclipsrs with ulterior motives, i.e. a free camera) keep praising it as a wonderful piece of kit when it is clearly not. No proper focusing? No proper control of settings? Cheap plastic contruction? Cheap and nasty slow lens? Honestly it's junk.
Maybe I should have stated this, but I bought the Pentax 17 with my own money.
And I won’t argue over opinions, since everybody is entitled to their own - and this camera is certainly not for everyone (I mostly shoot medium format so it’s not even for me!).
But I must state that in objective terms, the Pentax 17 lens is excellent. It is made of glass with high quality coatings, and I scan my film with a 36MP full frame DSLR, so I can state that the lens produces images that are sharp and contrasty, with vivid color and nondistracting out-of-focus regions. I have not noted any flare or aberrations, and the images appear basically free of distortion too.
I don’t follow RUclips commentary (for the reasons you state), and I am not suggesting that you have done this, but many people are judging the lens based on low quality scans. This is not surprising to me, as many users of the Pentax 17 are new to film, and many labs are not used to scanning half frame. Over time I expect the true qualities of the Pentax 17 lens to be better known. Now I’m thinking I should make a video discussing this topic with sample images.
Edit: also, another fact - f/3.5 was not so uncommon for premium fixed lens compact film cameras back in the day. Off the top of my head, I believe the Pentax UC-1, Fuji Tiara, and Ricoh R1s landed here. Though I’d like a faster lens too.
I didn't actually mean you got a free camera, that was aimed at certain 'others', should have made that more clear, sorry. I do however take your point about the actual lens being good in itself, and I have seen images that corroborate this. I may come across as being particularly harsh on this camera - if we were talking a brand new relatively small company releasing their first film camera then yes, not bad for a first attempt. But this is from a brand with decades of experience, designs and know how that produced some of the best SLR's ever produced. They couldn't use some of that to make a suitably up to date jewel of a camera? Why would anyone with half a brain buy this at £500 when they can have a Pentax K1000 with 50mm lens, fully working and serviced for ~£150, or for a little bit more, a legendary Canon A1 or Olympus OM1, both with an also legendary lens all in? I get that the 'but it's brand new' argument would appeal to some, but for that kind of money I'd personally want a lot more quality and usability, not less.
@@ste76539 I agree that for photographers "in the know", there are many highly capable film cameras to be had for far less.
But in my opinion, the Pentax 17 fills a niche for the photographer who is curious about film but has no desire to research old models, is overwhelmed by all the bad information on the internet, doesn't want to take a risk on eBay, and wants to try something new.
Also, while the cameras you named may be more desirable for photographers like us (as I've said before, the Pentax 17 is definitely not made "for me"), the Pentax 17 also has an integrated flash and a really excellent meter, making it highly versatile, especially for beginners.
And I also have very high expectations for Pentax. I do think it's apt for you to bring up the idea of a relatively small company releasing their first film camera, since that is actually how I see the Pentax "Film Project" - a small, experimental effort, starting almost from scratch, since Pentax lost most of its film camera design expertise years ago (and I can see how not all of it would transfer from digital cameras). I have even higher hopes for the other film cameras that are very likely coming from Pentax in the future, given the success of the 17.
@@ste76539I think you're hitting on the main problem of making a new film camera in 2024. The K1000 + standard lense in $1982 costed $220 or $693 today adjusted for inflation. Taking into account of R&D costs + modernizing the manufacturing process I doubt that it can be sold today for any cheaper than the release price. And aside from a few enthusiasts, I don't think many people are willing to shell out $700 for the most bare bones SLR, which has to compete with the used camera market AND conveniences of modern cameras. So I think it only makes sense for Ricoh to try to corner the casual market and see how it develops from there.
@@ste76539 I'm increasingly tempted by the P17, even though I have an OM-1 and a P67 (and, err, quite a few others 😅). It's small, easy to use, saves on film, and seems to take excellent pictures. Plus, as this video shows, it looks to be well made. I'd say it fills a niche.
Production cost $65 worth $105.
Come on. Just a somewhat funny looking half frame camera. Not even half as small. A tear down? What’s so very special except the date of production? Who needs it, when you don’t want to make a statement to others?