I’m thinking of grabbing one simply to have a new film camera and possibly help Pentax get enough sales to continue going and make a film SLR.
I’ve got a canon Demi half frame that’s fun to use but doesn’t have a working light meter, the film advanced sticks every few frames and the view finder is full of dust. Having a brand new film camera would probably feel amazing compared to this one.
Pretty unlikely to have any form of sealing for such a camera. You usually need an external underwater clear cage for something like that. Will most likely be weather resistant like most bodies these days are though.
>Will most likely be weather resistant like most bodies these days are though.
I’m basically looking to replace my Olympus Infinity Twin and Pentax Espio WR with something that is cheaper to shoot. I just want to carry it on hikes. Doesn’t need much.
I guess we have different terms for considering something sealed. That’s where I misunderstood you. Most if not all companies do not consider it sealing, just resistance. Sealing generally refers to being impenetrable.
[A blog link to establish commonality that it is well used delineation](https://www.thephoblographer.com/2022/07/13/no-your-camera-isnt-weather-sealed-its-weather-resistant-maybe/#:~:text=Weather%20resistant%20%E2%80%93%20the%20camera%20is,can%20resist%20exactly%20those%20elements.)
[Fujiflm](https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/series/fundamentals-of-photography/lens-names-explained/#:~:text=WR%20%3D%20Weather%20Resistance,FUJINON%20XF50mmF1.0%20R%20WR): Every lens and body is labeled Weather Resistance (WR), not WS
>WR means the lens is resistant against moisture, dust particles, and certain temperatures.
[Nikon](https://www.nikonusa.com/learn-and-explore/photography-glossary#term-water-resistant-or-rain-proof-binoculars):
>Water resistant/rain proof binoculars mean that brief exposure to the elements, a light sprinkle, is tolerable. Unlike a waterproof instrument, there is no immersion capability.
[Pentax](https://us.ricoh-imaging.com/product/pentax-k-1-ii/): Uses the term Weather Resistant
Canon: [DOES](https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/which-camera-which-features/#weather-sealed) define their cameras as "weather sealed".
[Sony](https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00246101): uses the term "Water/Dust Resistant" and uses IPX definitions. They are much less descriptive about any resistance they use among their lenses or bodies.
[Olympus](https://explore.omsystem.com/us/en/omd): DOES use the term Weather Sealing: Again using IPX definitions
So I guess if you are a Olympus or Canon shooter, you are good to go. Otherwise, the rest of the major mfgrs disagree.
How does one add weather resistance without the use of seals to prevent ingress of moisture or dust? I’m not using some particular company’s jargon, but stating that I would like the presence of seals to prevent the camera from being affected by weather. Some modest weather sealing.
How does the half-frame effect the focal length? Is it similar to a APSC sensor where a focal lenght would have 1.6x multiplier to find the effective full frame field of view? Or because you're essentially using half the frame you're getting the same field of view? It looks like the film will be halved vertically (judging by the viewfinder).
Either way, I reckon this would be a huge seller for the company. There is massve demand for pocketable film cameras (I hope this is actually pocket-able), and the half frame means you're halving your film costs! If everything is scanned anyway, the size of the negative is just not as important.
> Is it similar to a APSC sensor where a focal length would have 1.6x multiplier to find the effective full frame of view?
1.4x-ish but yes. this 25mm focal length is about a 35mm on full-frame
> It looks like the film will be halved vertically (judging by the viewfinder)
Yeah, in the last update from Pentax they said that this would be the case, with an emphasis on portrait shooting for the digital age. Kind of cool to have the first film point-and-shoot to ever be made with the intention of its products being viewed on phones. I'll definitely be buying it in the hopes that it does well enough for them to greenlight another couple of models.
Strictly speaking all half frame 35mm cameras with horizontal film transport have a default portrait orientation, and theres a long history of half frame cameras going back decades (the Olympus Pen series being the most notable off my the top of my head, going back to the 60s). In fact, half frame cameras with landscape orientation are a rare minority as vertical film transport requires some atypical design choices. I can only think of two off hand - the yashica samurai and the agat 18.
Now, in saying that, clearly none of these were created with an intent for viewing on modern phones, so you're certainly right that Pentax is the first in best dressed when it comes to their intent for how they are viewed!
Yeah looking through a few of the more premium half-frame cameras that used to be around I see that the design isn’t quite as revolutionary as I thought. What I was really referring to was the half-frame proportioned viewfinder - most of the half-frame cameras I’m aware of are the lower end ones (particularly ones like the Kodak Ektar H35) which seemed to have landscape oriented viewfinders that would be interchangeable with a full frame disposable with small frame lines drawn on it, as opposed to this more purpose-built large portrait viewfinder.
This thing is kinda ugly and I kinda love it. Classic weird Pentax design, real or not. “17” naming is perfect. The industry is a lot more boring without Pentax in it: hope they stick around.
I don't want to sound like "that guy" but I was really hoping that Pentax would take a look at the Contax T2 or T3 and say " we should make a camera just like this. Great lens, small and well built. We will own the market."
I imagine they would if they could, but it’s very hard for a company to produce a high end 35mm film camera today. There’s literally countless analog cameras on the market, so Pentax would have had to develop something that no other existing analog camera can do.
And even then it would likely be very expensive, and barely anyone would buy it because why would you do that when you can get other 35mm cameras that do the same thing for less. Half frame is less explored and there’s not many options out there for a “modern” half frame film camera.
Maybe Pentax is planning to develop more if this one does well?
They’re likely targeting the people who like old digital cameras, which is a huge trend right now. Half frame gives you twice as many shots, it’s more convenient and also less expensive to buy film for. So it would likely be more appealing to the people who like the old digi cams but are looking to get into film.
In this case good image quality isn’t something people care about, they like the look.
I gotta say, I really like the way this is shaping up!
I want a brand new film camera that works fine and doesn’t break the bank that I can carry around casually
Because they are trying to appeal to a market that no longer shoots film primarily. If you’re convincing someone to buy into a format they will basically need to keep paying for to use your product, this maximizes the number of exposures they can shoot before their roll is up. Now their 36 exposure roll is 72 and what may have cost you $30 on two rolls of Portra actually cost you half that. Pretty straight forward if you ask me.
It’s no different than using, say, APS-C or MFT sensor cameras. These are wildly popular and yet detail is lost. The trade off of cost/convenience/size vs IQ/detail is always on the table. For some it’s worth it. I don’t personally see myself ever investing in this sort of camera. The trade off in quality is not one I can accept. But I also shoot full frame digital for the same reason. But you asked why half frame. That’s why half frame.
“Plenty of detail” is subjective. It’s a trade off. Half frame film users will tell you there plenty of detail in that half frame. And they are right. Because it’s subjective. Low light and dynamic range are definitely some of the biggest trade offs, though. But it really isn’t quite different. It’s the same, just analog.
It absolutely is. But when folks talk about resolving power, IQ, and all that they are not talking about megapixels. To put this into perspective, the iPhone 15 Pro has a 48 MP sensor. But a sensor its size cannot resolve fine details. It’s why as soon as you zoom in, those photos fall apart. Any 24 MP full frame camera will resolve higher resolution images because the larger the sensor, the finer the details it captures. It’s why medium format and large format cameras are superior to 35mm and full frame digital cameras.
The lens on an iPhone cannot resolve those 48 megapixels. The lenses available for an APS-C camera like the latest Fuji models absolutely can. A full frame 24 megapixel camera with a competent lens resolves exactly the same amount of detail as a 24 megapixel APS-C camera.
And the reason medium and large format film is more detailed is because its resolution is higher (more "megapixels").
Since m43 hit 16 MP or over its IQ has at least equalled that of the iconic 35mm film cameras like Leicas, and APSC even better. But half-rame film will be half the IQ of full 35mm.
OTOH if they've given this new half frame an excellent lens, making beautiful 4X6" or 5X8" prints could be a lot of fun for some. Zero interest in half I frame vertical portrait myself.
Scans of half frame aren’t even going to come close to APSC. As a 55 yo lifer using film, half frame sucks for anything beyond novelty or lomo esque kind of work, which is fine if that’s what you after, but you’d be way better off with even crappy full frame point and shoots.
Not true
Depends on the lens and the film used, I have shot with Yashica 17 half frame which when scanned gave images which look fine on my QHD monitor and has enough details to make a 4x6 print for photo books. So, basically as good as any consumer grade point and shoot of 90s.
The worrisome part was the shutter got jammed after 3 rolls, as most vintage half frame cameras are crap, but this pentax looks well built.
I don’t know, first glance, Hey great! but really, why? Is it going to produce great pictures? I have film cameras I love and I’m not shooting w them. For what? A personal project, maybe. But I don’t see spending hundreds to thousands a year on film, processing and printing, and the time that takes. It’s cute tho.
Not a camera guy but this came up on my feed. Is this good or bad? How does it compare to that of Canon and Sony? My minimal understanding is that Sony is the best and Canon excels only in like color or something, and Nikon isn’t even worth mentioning.
This isn’t trying to compete with anything the other cameras manufacturers currently have out, this is a film camera which the others don’t currently offer
Yes, shot on film and then developed giving you negatives. Most places that develop film will offer you digital scans but some people still use photo paper in a dark room to keep the entire process analog
If you are processing your own film, you only have to load the film into the processing tank (on a reel) in total darkness. You can do that in a changing bag or a totally dark room. It takes like 2 minutes or so. Then you process the film in normal room light by pouring chemicals in and out of the developing tank, which is light-tight. I’ve done it many hundreds of times. The “red room” is for making black and white prints because black and white printing paper is generally not sensitive to red light while film is.
I just saw civil war and the protagonist was shooting film at night with fast moving subjects, no flash and getting award winning shots.
Was this not realistic?
I’m assuming sarcasm? I shoot film professionally, and boy it gets challenging when lighting drastically changes. Like, “Do we really want to go inside right now? I literally put in a roll of Portra 160!”
3.5 is fine on a film camera if you know how to pick your scenes and compositions. This camera has a flash on it anyway.
If you want to shoot in the dark dark, just get a modern digital camera.
Why? And don't get me wrong, I actually shoot film as well. My most used film camera is even a half frame. But you can find an abundance of decent used film cameras. And it's not like their new camera is benefiting from any sort of technological progress like digital would. It's a box with a mechanical timer and a lens. And we've already figured out optics a long time ago.
What I'm hoping for is that this doesn't come back to bite Pentax in the ass as a failed venture, that's all.
People can be a bit intimidated by the entire scope of film cameras available, there are lots of cameras that look like rubbish but are actually cherished as excellent and vice versa, not to mention always having the chance of something not functioning quite right without a casual observer being able to tell if it is fatal to the camera or something you can work around. So there is definitely a market that would spring for a new production quality film camera that is not a "toy" like most new production film cameras thus far could uncharitably be referred to.
Additionally, the first to market (even if no-one else is racing) gets to enjoy the novelty factor. I am absolutely certain this thing will sell well even if most units sold will be used to shoot 1-2 rolls and then put on a shelf or sold, and as much as I detest the field, this thing is going to be prime influencer fuel.
All this, for Pentax, equals in a pretty good chance of tidy profits without massive risk.
As for development, I wouldn't stress about it. We've already gone through a cycle of having lots of manual controls on top of the camera evolve into a digital menu hell only to evolve back into lots of controls on top of the camera, not to mention actually going back toward digicams after thinking they were well and truly dead under the trample of SLR's. Sometimes what is seen as higher tech is not intrinsically better.
Mind you, by "higher tech" I'm not talking about things such as UI but rather the difference between a modern sensor vs. a sensor from 20 years ago. All this while film has remained more or less the same across its history and that leaves the camera, which in the case of film photography matters very little. And unless the lens is exceptional, then it doesn't stand out.
But I am speculating since we don't know what the final product will be like.
I have a Pen F rather enjoy it.
The main point is the used market has been kind of insane for film cameras with even beat up ones or ones with issues commanding at least high asking prices.
I think the market for something new really is there.
I thought about it for a day and put a deposit on a pre-order. I’m a bit excited about a new 35mm camera. I want to support them and hope they continue to bring out more models as planned. My old Nikon Fa and beloved Mamiya 6 still hold my heart but my old half frames and Olympus trips that hardly work will be blown away by this release. Can’t wait to play with it.
If it has some modest weather sealing I'll pick it up.
I’m thinking of grabbing one simply to have a new film camera and possibly help Pentax get enough sales to continue going and make a film SLR. I’ve got a canon Demi half frame that’s fun to use but doesn’t have a working light meter, the film advanced sticks every few frames and the view finder is full of dust. Having a brand new film camera would probably feel amazing compared to this one.
Seriously this. I'm tempted not just because its new, but because I want this project to continue.
Pretty unlikely to have any form of sealing for such a camera. You usually need an external underwater clear cage for something like that. Will most likely be weather resistant like most bodies these days are though.
>Will most likely be weather resistant like most bodies these days are though. I’m basically looking to replace my Olympus Infinity Twin and Pentax Espio WR with something that is cheaper to shoot. I just want to carry it on hikes. Doesn’t need much.
> Pentax Espio WR Sound good, yeah that's a weather resistant body, not sealed.
That’s what I want. Some modest weather sealing. Gasket around the film door and some seals on the plastic seams.
I guess we have different terms for considering something sealed. That’s where I misunderstood you. Most if not all companies do not consider it sealing, just resistance. Sealing generally refers to being impenetrable.
You're wrong. Weather sealing is the standard term for this.
[A blog link to establish commonality that it is well used delineation](https://www.thephoblographer.com/2022/07/13/no-your-camera-isnt-weather-sealed-its-weather-resistant-maybe/#:~:text=Weather%20resistant%20%E2%80%93%20the%20camera%20is,can%20resist%20exactly%20those%20elements.) [Fujiflm](https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/series/fundamentals-of-photography/lens-names-explained/#:~:text=WR%20%3D%20Weather%20Resistance,FUJINON%20XF50mmF1.0%20R%20WR): Every lens and body is labeled Weather Resistance (WR), not WS >WR means the lens is resistant against moisture, dust particles, and certain temperatures. [Nikon](https://www.nikonusa.com/learn-and-explore/photography-glossary#term-water-resistant-or-rain-proof-binoculars): >Water resistant/rain proof binoculars mean that brief exposure to the elements, a light sprinkle, is tolerable. Unlike a waterproof instrument, there is no immersion capability. [Pentax](https://us.ricoh-imaging.com/product/pentax-k-1-ii/): Uses the term Weather Resistant Canon: [DOES](https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/which-camera-which-features/#weather-sealed) define their cameras as "weather sealed". [Sony](https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00246101): uses the term "Water/Dust Resistant" and uses IPX definitions. They are much less descriptive about any resistance they use among their lenses or bodies. [Olympus](https://explore.omsystem.com/us/en/omd): DOES use the term Weather Sealing: Again using IPX definitions So I guess if you are a Olympus or Canon shooter, you are good to go. Otherwise, the rest of the major mfgrs disagree.
How does one add weather resistance without the use of seals to prevent ingress of moisture or dust? I’m not using some particular company’s jargon, but stating that I would like the presence of seals to prevent the camera from being affected by weather. Some modest weather sealing.
Look up hydrophobic materials or chemical films. When something is sealed it is “airtight” “closed” “blocked”.
Nah just keep the plastic bag on it comes in.
How does the half-frame effect the focal length? Is it similar to a APSC sensor where a focal lenght would have 1.6x multiplier to find the effective full frame field of view? Or because you're essentially using half the frame you're getting the same field of view? It looks like the film will be halved vertically (judging by the viewfinder). Either way, I reckon this would be a huge seller for the company. There is massve demand for pocketable film cameras (I hope this is actually pocket-able), and the half frame means you're halving your film costs! If everything is scanned anyway, the size of the negative is just not as important.
> Is it similar to a APSC sensor where a focal length would have 1.6x multiplier to find the effective full frame of view? 1.4x-ish but yes. this 25mm focal length is about a 35mm on full-frame
> It looks like the film will be halved vertically (judging by the viewfinder) Yeah, in the last update from Pentax they said that this would be the case, with an emphasis on portrait shooting for the digital age. Kind of cool to have the first film point-and-shoot to ever be made with the intention of its products being viewed on phones. I'll definitely be buying it in the hopes that it does well enough for them to greenlight another couple of models.
Strictly speaking all half frame 35mm cameras with horizontal film transport have a default portrait orientation, and theres a long history of half frame cameras going back decades (the Olympus Pen series being the most notable off my the top of my head, going back to the 60s). In fact, half frame cameras with landscape orientation are a rare minority as vertical film transport requires some atypical design choices. I can only think of two off hand - the yashica samurai and the agat 18. Now, in saying that, clearly none of these were created with an intent for viewing on modern phones, so you're certainly right that Pentax is the first in best dressed when it comes to their intent for how they are viewed!
Yeah looking through a few of the more premium half-frame cameras that used to be around I see that the design isn’t quite as revolutionary as I thought. What I was really referring to was the half-frame proportioned viewfinder - most of the half-frame cameras I’m aware of are the lower end ones (particularly ones like the Kodak Ektar H35) which seemed to have landscape oriented viewfinders that would be interchangeable with a full frame disposable with small frame lines drawn on it, as opposed to this more purpose-built large portrait viewfinder.
Don't forget the Canon Dial. What a strange looking camera that was.
I hope they make this in sufficient amounts to meet demand. I'm worried about it going for 2x-3x the price on keh.com.
This thing is kinda ugly and I kinda love it. Classic weird Pentax design, real or not. “17” naming is perfect. The industry is a lot more boring without Pentax in it: hope they stick around.
This is going to be an instant buy for me after loving my Kodak H35.
What's everyone's guess on pricing? I'm gonna guess $499
I’m hoping $350 but would be willing to pay $450 or $500
I don't want to sound like "that guy" but I was really hoping that Pentax would take a look at the Contax T2 or T3 and say " we should make a camera just like this. Great lens, small and well built. We will own the market."
I belive their roadmap is: Budget 35mm p&s. Premium 35mm p&s. Then SLRs or some sort.
I imagine they would if they could, but it’s very hard for a company to produce a high end 35mm film camera today. There’s literally countless analog cameras on the market, so Pentax would have had to develop something that no other existing analog camera can do. And even then it would likely be very expensive, and barely anyone would buy it because why would you do that when you can get other 35mm cameras that do the same thing for less. Half frame is less explored and there’s not many options out there for a “modern” half frame film camera. Maybe Pentax is planning to develop more if this one does well?
Yeah but half frame sucks, so there’s that. Who would shoot half resolution when full frame is everywhere? Not me.
They’re likely targeting the people who like old digital cameras, which is a huge trend right now. Half frame gives you twice as many shots, it’s more convenient and also less expensive to buy film for. So it would likely be more appealing to the people who like the old digi cams but are looking to get into film. In this case good image quality isn’t something people care about, they like the look.
On the other hand, twice as many prints, offsetting a lot of the film cost saving. But I've got this on my wants list.
I gotta say, I really like the way this is shaping up! I want a brand new film camera that works fine and doesn’t break the bank that I can carry around casually
Why half frame though?
Because they are trying to appeal to a market that no longer shoots film primarily. If you’re convincing someone to buy into a format they will basically need to keep paying for to use your product, this maximizes the number of exposures they can shoot before their roll is up. Now their 36 exposure roll is 72 and what may have cost you $30 on two rolls of Portra actually cost you half that. Pretty straight forward if you ask me.
Well or course I understand the convenience in terms of costs. I'm not fully convinced that half frame will have enough resolution.
Enough resolution for what?
It’s no different than using, say, APS-C or MFT sensor cameras. These are wildly popular and yet detail is lost. The trade off of cost/convenience/size vs IQ/detail is always on the table. For some it’s worth it. I don’t personally see myself ever investing in this sort of camera. The trade off in quality is not one I can accept. But I also shoot full frame digital for the same reason. But you asked why half frame. That’s why half frame.
APS-C and MFT sensors have plenty of detail. The trade-offs are in low-light capability and dynamic range. I'd say it's quite different.
“Plenty of detail” is subjective. It’s a trade off. Half frame film users will tell you there plenty of detail in that half frame. And they are right. Because it’s subjective. Low light and dynamic range are definitely some of the biggest trade offs, though. But it really isn’t quite different. It’s the same, just analog.
40 megapixel is plenty by any standard.
It absolutely is. But when folks talk about resolving power, IQ, and all that they are not talking about megapixels. To put this into perspective, the iPhone 15 Pro has a 48 MP sensor. But a sensor its size cannot resolve fine details. It’s why as soon as you zoom in, those photos fall apart. Any 24 MP full frame camera will resolve higher resolution images because the larger the sensor, the finer the details it captures. It’s why medium format and large format cameras are superior to 35mm and full frame digital cameras.
The lens on an iPhone cannot resolve those 48 megapixels. The lenses available for an APS-C camera like the latest Fuji models absolutely can. A full frame 24 megapixel camera with a competent lens resolves exactly the same amount of detail as a 24 megapixel APS-C camera. And the reason medium and large format film is more detailed is because its resolution is higher (more "megapixels").
Live your truth. The science behind sensor design doesn’t figure into your philosophy and that’s fine. I’m gonna get drunk now. But this was fun.
Since m43 hit 16 MP or over its IQ has at least equalled that of the iconic 35mm film cameras like Leicas, and APSC even better. But half-rame film will be half the IQ of full 35mm. OTOH if they've given this new half frame an excellent lens, making beautiful 4X6" or 5X8" prints could be a lot of fun for some. Zero interest in half I frame vertical portrait myself.
Scans of half frame aren’t even going to come close to APSC. As a 55 yo lifer using film, half frame sucks for anything beyond novelty or lomo esque kind of work, which is fine if that’s what you after, but you’d be way better off with even crappy full frame point and shoots.
Not true Depends on the lens and the film used, I have shot with Yashica 17 half frame which when scanned gave images which look fine on my QHD monitor and has enough details to make a 4x6 print for photo books. So, basically as good as any consumer grade point and shoot of 90s. The worrisome part was the shutter got jammed after 3 rolls, as most vintage half frame cameras are crap, but this pentax looks well built.
The H35 was a hit. Pentax wants to follow a successful model in an industry that was abandoned more than a decade ago.
I don’t know, first glance, Hey great! but really, why? Is it going to produce great pictures? I have film cameras I love and I’m not shooting w them. For what? A personal project, maybe. But I don’t see spending hundreds to thousands a year on film, processing and printing, and the time that takes. It’s cute tho.
In my case as a Pentax and half frame lover this concept is a dream... But is really ugly.
Not a camera guy but this came up on my feed. Is this good or bad? How does it compare to that of Canon and Sony? My minimal understanding is that Sony is the best and Canon excels only in like color or something, and Nikon isn’t even worth mentioning.
This isn’t trying to compete with anything the other cameras manufacturers currently have out, this is a film camera which the others don’t currently offer
So the pictures wouldn’t be stored on a SD card like digital cameras today, they would need developed in a red room or an equivalently dark room?
It uses a fresh sensor for every photo.
Yes, shot on film and then developed giving you negatives. Most places that develop film will offer you digital scans but some people still use photo paper in a dark room to keep the entire process analog
If you are processing your own film, you only have to load the film into the processing tank (on a reel) in total darkness. You can do that in a changing bag or a totally dark room. It takes like 2 minutes or so. Then you process the film in normal room light by pouring chemicals in and out of the developing tank, which is light-tight. I’ve done it many hundreds of times. The “red room” is for making black and white prints because black and white printing paper is generally not sensitive to red light while film is.
[удалено]
Why? I wouldn't zone focus with anything lower anyway
[удалено]
Film is the wrong format anyway if you care about low light performance.
I just saw civil war and the protagonist was shooting film at night with fast moving subjects, no flash and getting award winning shots. Was this not realistic?
I’m assuming sarcasm? I shoot film professionally, and boy it gets challenging when lighting drastically changes. Like, “Do we really want to go inside right now? I literally put in a roll of Portra 160!”
And developing the film using body temp, lol.
3.5 is fine on a film camera if you know how to pick your scenes and compositions. This camera has a flash on it anyway. If you want to shoot in the dark dark, just get a modern digital camera.
It’s a big step up from the last half frame camera that was released in 2022 from Kodak with a 22mm f9.5
That's normal for cheap film camera. 25mm F3.5 on half frame is nearly equal to 40mm F4 lens I had on my first film camera many years ago.
Why? And don't get me wrong, I actually shoot film as well. My most used film camera is even a half frame. But you can find an abundance of decent used film cameras. And it's not like their new camera is benefiting from any sort of technological progress like digital would. It's a box with a mechanical timer and a lens. And we've already figured out optics a long time ago. What I'm hoping for is that this doesn't come back to bite Pentax in the ass as a failed venture, that's all.
Why would someone want a brand new film camera with brand new parts rather than an older camera of dubious provenience and maintenance history?
People can be a bit intimidated by the entire scope of film cameras available, there are lots of cameras that look like rubbish but are actually cherished as excellent and vice versa, not to mention always having the chance of something not functioning quite right without a casual observer being able to tell if it is fatal to the camera or something you can work around. So there is definitely a market that would spring for a new production quality film camera that is not a "toy" like most new production film cameras thus far could uncharitably be referred to. Additionally, the first to market (even if no-one else is racing) gets to enjoy the novelty factor. I am absolutely certain this thing will sell well even if most units sold will be used to shoot 1-2 rolls and then put on a shelf or sold, and as much as I detest the field, this thing is going to be prime influencer fuel. All this, for Pentax, equals in a pretty good chance of tidy profits without massive risk. As for development, I wouldn't stress about it. We've already gone through a cycle of having lots of manual controls on top of the camera evolve into a digital menu hell only to evolve back into lots of controls on top of the camera, not to mention actually going back toward digicams after thinking they were well and truly dead under the trample of SLR's. Sometimes what is seen as higher tech is not intrinsically better.
Mind you, by "higher tech" I'm not talking about things such as UI but rather the difference between a modern sensor vs. a sensor from 20 years ago. All this while film has remained more or less the same across its history and that leaves the camera, which in the case of film photography matters very little. And unless the lens is exceptional, then it doesn't stand out. But I am speculating since we don't know what the final product will be like.
Have you tried to buy a film camera recently?
Got my latest one from Japan three months ago. It's an Olympus Pen F from somewhere between 1963 and 1966. Why do you ask?
I have a Pen F rather enjoy it. The main point is the used market has been kind of insane for film cameras with even beat up ones or ones with issues commanding at least high asking prices. I think the market for something new really is there.
I thought about it for a day and put a deposit on a pre-order. I’m a bit excited about a new 35mm camera. I want to support them and hope they continue to bring out more models as planned. My old Nikon Fa and beloved Mamiya 6 still hold my heart but my old half frames and Olympus trips that hardly work will be blown away by this release. Can’t wait to play with it.