Pentax 17 Film Camera Review: A New Film Camera in 2024 (Seriously)

Pros

• Tactile controls and that film shutter click
• Easy to use
• More than a novelty

Cons

• Perhaps a little too simplistic
• Manual(-ish) focus only
• Half-frame limits print size

I certainly didn’t expect to be reviewing a film camera in 2024, but in hindsight, it was almost inevitable. Film photography has seen a resurgence in the past few years, enough so that most of my friends who are into photography also have film cameras. Pentax, one of the OG film camera brands, has seized on this with the 17, its first new film camera in more than 20 years. The compact, mostly manual camera has a delightfully retro design and some clever modern features. 

After several weeks with the camera and a few rolls of film shot and developed(!), I’ve come away liking the camera a lot and understanding why certain decisions were made in its creation. At $500, it might be a little pricey, but then, if you want to shoot film, it’s going to be an expensive hobby, even if you just get the film developed to digital (i.e., no prints). Getting a new film camera also takes the worry out of buying a used film camera.

Perhaps the best aspect of the 17 is that it has unexpectedly renewed my interest in film photography. The 17, and film in general, helps you stay focused in the moment and take better care of your photos. So yes, it’s a film camera in 2024, but it’s also something more.

Specs and hardware

• Resolution: Essentially infinite (It’s film!)
• Format: Half-frame 35mm
• Flash: Yes
• Lens: 25mm (37mm equivalent) f/3.5 pancake

The Pentax 17 is a little large to be considered a true “compact” camera, especially compared with ultra-small digital cameras. Its design is directly inspired by any number of classic Pentax cameras. It’s smaller than a single-lens reflex camera, digital or otherwise, but larger than your typical point-and-shoot. It’s not as long as your average phone and a little more than three times wider. I was able to fit in my back pocket, but it was certainly obvious to me and everyone else it was in there. It does fit nicely in a coat pocket, though.

Perhaps the most interesting, and certainly most controversial among photographers, is that the 17 takes half-frame images. As in, each 35mm frame has two images. With the camera in normal horizontal orientation, it takes vertical images. This is marketed as a benefit for those posting to social media, but I think it’s more useful than just that. Film is expensive. Getting film developed is expensive, and with half-frame images, you get twice as many photos per roll. It’s also not like you’re prevented from taking landscape photos; you just rotate the camera 90 degrees. Granted, it means you look like you’re taking a vertical photo at that point, not horizontal, but the end result is just slightly wider than a typical 35mm photo. 

These half-frame images will be lower “resolution” (as much as that term translates to analog film grain) than full 35mm images, but they offer more than enough detail for social media and standard size prints. You won’t be able to enlarge them as much as a full 35mm image without them looking soft, but I don’t think that’s something a lot of people do. Or at the very least, it’s worth the trade-off for most people.

The 17 has a mix of manual and simplified settings and adjustments. You manually advance the film, which is delightfully tactile. Focus is via “zones.” You select the rough distance of your subject, either by an easy-to-understand icon on the top of the lens or specific foot and meter distances underneath the lens. There’s no fine focus control, just a range. There’s also no manual control for shutter speed or aperture. Instead, there’s a Bokeh picture mode that selects the widest aperture possible, or Slow-speed Shutter mode, which has a long shutter. 

There are additional picture modes that offer similar features, but none allow for specific settings (i.e. f/3.5 at 1/60th of a second). I can see the logic in simplifying the design for those new to photography, though it is somewhat limiting for those wanting something more specific from their photos. There’s more here than an old film point-and-shoot camera, so there’s that.

The optical viewfinder has two LEDs that are the only real indications of potential issues with your photo. If the blue LED is flashing when you first turn the camera on, for example, it’s an indication the lens cap is still on, a more common occurrence since this is not a single-lens reflex; since the viewfinder does not go through the lens, you can still “see” what you’re going to shoot even if the lens cap is on. If that same LED flashes when you press the shutter halfway, it’s an exposure warning. There’s no other light meter, something cameras have had for nearly 100 years.

My biggest complaint is that almost none of the above, including what the different modes mean, is included in the box. There’s the barest of an owner’s manual, but it doesn’t include most of these rather important aspects. Instead, you have to download a PDF guide from Pentax’s website. For a camera that is clearly for beginners, this seems like an odd omission. (For more on the specifics of the camera functions, check out CNET’s Josh Goldman’s Pentax 17 preview.)

Usability and photo quality

I’m old enough that my first camera was film, but I’m young enough that I got all the photos developed to disc (first floppy then CD). I was initially skeptical of getting back into film. The cost, the inability to verify your shot — it all seemed like a big step back. I’d done all that and upgraded to digital. I thought my interest in film from my younger friends was simply because they didn’t experience any of that. A similar nostalgia for something they didn’t experience is what got my generation into vinyl and young people now into cassette players. 

I was wrong, mostly. There’s more to it. For people who grew up entirely in the digital age, having something tangible to share among friends is not to be discounted. This also explains the rise of instant photography a few years ago. The move to actual film cameras is a logical progression, greatly increasing the quality while going one step further: trading instant gratification for anticipation. 

You don’t know what you’re going to get with film, and that’s a lot more fun than I imagined going into this review. If someone just wants to take a bunch of photos, literally all of us have a device on our person that can do that instantly. To capture a moment in a unique way, a film camera can do that and create physical proof that moment happened. Sure, you can also print out digital photos, but there’s something bland about that compared with film. It’s like mix CDs were cool, but they didn’t show the gift of time like making a mixtape. That took hours, compared with just dragging a playlist of MP3s and burning a disc in a few seconds. Film is a physically real thing — start to finish. There’s something special about that in the modern era.

It also forces you to take far more care when taking photos. I’m also a professional photographer, and at any given photo shoot, I take hundreds of photos. For one tour, I took over 1,000. You literally can’t do that with film, not unless you want to go broke paying for developing. Is this shot really worth a photo? Is this definitely the best angle? Maybe a shot is fine for a quick capture for free with your phone, but is it worth actual money and a limited resource? Unlike 20-plus years ago, this amazingly doesn’t feel limiting. You can take the photo for free if you want. For the best shots, the special shots, you capture them on film. You could even take it with both if you want. And then, a few days later, you’ll get the photos back and have a completely different aesthetic to enjoy the moment again. 

I also found myself being in the moment more since my phone rarely came out of my pocket. I was less inclined to see notifications or check social media since it wasn’t in my hand. I’m not one of those anti-phone or anti-social media types, but it was nice reducing that time and either just enjoying my surroundings or looking for a photo opportunity. I don’t feel the same way with my DSLR. Perhaps because that, too, can capture nearly infinite images?  

As far as usability goes, well, it feels like a new film camera. This is unquestionably anachronistically weird. While the top and bottom of the 17 are a magnesium alloy, most of the other parts are plastic. I wouldn’t say that makes it feel cheap, but it looks higher-end than it feels. Once I understood the various modes, the only challenging part was remembering to focus. Thankfully, this didn’t require much guesswork for distances since the icons on the top of the lens are pretty self-explanatory: I’m taking a picture of a person; I’ll select the person! I’m taking a picture of mountains; I’ll select mountains! The final results showed it’s not quite that simple, but more on that in a moment.

Image quality is good, though, of course, a large part of that is what film you use. Slower film, indicated by a lower ISO number, will have less visible film grain but need a lot more light. Faster film (higher ISO) will have more grain and be more usable in a wider range of available light. There’s no “wrong” answer here, though; given the limited settings available for manual adjustment, 400 ISO and higher is likely a safer choice. I love that clean 100 ISO look, though. To each their own.

Overall, I was pleased with the sharpness of the pancake 25mm lens, especially given its size and the cost of the camera. At least when it was in focus. The steepest learning curve for new photographers using the 17, or even veteran photographers returning to a mostly manual camera, is getting the focus right. Because this isn’t an SLR, the viewfinder does not show what the film “sees.” 

The icons on the top of the lens help, but sometimes you might think you’re one icon’s distance away from your subject, and you’re actually another, and the result (you’ll find out days later) is blurry. I highly recommend checking the distances on the bottom of the lens for better fine-tuning of the distance. Some blurry photos are inevitable with any manual camera, but I had more than I expected. If I’d had more time with the 17 than my two-week review period, I’m sure I’d have gotten the hang of it. Alternately, shooting in Auto mode selects a small aperture so more of the frame will be in focus, though that’s not always the photo you’ll want to take.

You can see some more photos from my time with the 17 on my Instagram.

The retro future

The 17 is, for the most part, a fantastic entryway into film photography. It’s easy to use and looks great, and I think the half-frame aspect is smart, considering the cost of film and development. However, and this is my main issue with the 17, its simple design is perhaps too simple. I’m all for simplifying down what is likely someone’s first “real” camera, but there’s no room here to grow. Once someone gets the hang of it, and if they like it, there’s no way to learn the aspects of photography that an even slightly more advanced camera will require. 

For instance, you can’t manually select a specific shutter speed or aperture. There are presets on the mode dial that can do aspects of this, but the actual settings are hidden. There’s an exposure compensation dial, but without a more elaborate light meter, what use is it? Having aperture priority and/or shutter priority modes, with that dial adjusting said settings, would allow people who get interested in photography a way to learn more with the camera they already have.

Maybe that’s asking too much. As you’ve probably gathered, I like the Pentax 17 a lot, and it does most things right. I think people who are interested in getting into film photography should check it out. It’s certainly less risky than a gamble on a 20-plus-year-old film camera on eBay. If the 17 does well, maybe Pentax will come out with a step up that has more manual features for those of us already into photography and for the whole new class who got into it because of the 17. Now that would be very cool.

As well as covering audio and display tech, Geoff does photo tours of cool museums and locations around the world, including nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, medieval castles, epic 10,000-mile road trips and more.

Also, check out Budget Travel for Dummies, his travel book, and his bestselling sci-fi novel about city-size submarines. You can follow him on Instagram and YouTube.