Kodak Ektar H35 and the quest for the cheapest usable film camera

A few weeks ago I entered a Five Below store and bought their finest reusable film camera, for $7.00. It works, but it’s not better than a disposable camera. And after burning one roll of film, my conclusion was that a beginner to film photography would be better off spending a few dollars more, somewhere between $35.00 and $50.00, either on a new fix focus point and shoot like the Kodak M35 or the Ilford Sprite, or on a used autofocus compact zoom manufactured in the nineteen nineties.

*The Kodak Ektar H35 in its (optional) color coordinated case – the whole set looks much better than a disposable camera.*

I was curious, and started hunting for bargains on the site of Shopgoowill.com.

I found a nice copy of a the Kodak Ektar H35, a reusable, fix focus camera, with its coordinated Grapsa case. The camera sells new for $50; add $15.00 for the case; here, second hand, the starting price of the auction was $9.99, and after a fierce bidding war (just kidding), the H35 became mine for $16.00. Adding handling, shipping and taxes, the H35 cost me just a tad under $30.00.

The Ektar H35 is not made by Eastman Kodak, the name is used under license by Reto, a Hong-Kong based company. The big differentiator, ironically for a product proudly wearing the name of Kodak, is that being a half frame camera, it will save you money on film and processing, by giving you twice as many images on a standard roll of 35mm film.

*The shutter release button, and the ring surrounding the lens to turn the flash on. That’s it.*

The high cost of film and of film processing makes shooting 24x17mm frames very tempting, financially – and since most images are destined to be shared on the small screen of smartphones, the loss of resolution (compared to a full frame 36x24mm negative) is not a real issue.

The H35 is styled like an old Kodak Instamatic, and is technically almost as simple as its remote ancestor – the fix focus 22mm lens opens at f/9.5 (22mm on a half frame gives you the angle of view of a 35mm lens on a full frame camera), and the shutter operates at 1/100 sec. The electronic flash is brought in service by turning a ring around the lens. That’s it. Compared to a disposable or to the original Instamatic, it has a better lens (2 elements, optical grade acrylic), and contrarily to its Kodak predecessor, it’s using standard 35mm film (the Instamatic’s negatives were 28x28mm, from a “126” film pack).

*Two half frame cameras. The Pentax sells for 10 times the price of the Kodak*. *But there is a huge difference in Image Quality*.

For the record, there is new version of this camera, the Ektar H35N, where the lens has been upgraded to include one glass element, and one aspherical acrylic element.

The Ektar is a recent and extremely simple camera – with not much to go wrong – and I was not taking a big risk buying it on Shopgoodwill.

Comparing the images out of the camera (as shot)

*Somewhere in the North Highland neighborhood, Atlanta, GA – Kodak Ektar H35 Camera – Kentmere 400.*

From the same vantage point, the same day, with another half-frame camera, the Pentax 17

*Somewhere in the North Highland neighborhood, Atlanta, GA – Pentax 17 – Ilford Delta 400.*

Shooting with the Ektar 35H

In its coordinated green case, the H35 looks very good. Much better than expected for such a cheap product. The film advance and the shutter release are smooth. But don’t look too close, though – it’s plastic, plastic, plastic. The film rewind crank is filmsy and looks really fragile – how long will it last? The viewfinder (oriented vertically – it’s a half frame camera) looks like the viewfinder of a full frame 35mm camera where two black strips would have been glued left and right: it’s narrow, uninspiring, and makes it difficult to predict exactly what will be in the frame.

*Inman Park Neighborhood – Ford Pickup – Kodak Ektar H35, Kentmere 400*, *as shot*

In all honesty, I really had to make a conscious effort to use the Ektar. It did not come naturally to me, and whatever other camera I had with me that day saw more use than the little Kodak. And if I had no other camera, I still preferred taking the picture with my phone. I never enjoyed using disposable cameras, and the truth is I did not enjoy using the H35 either.

*Somewhere on the Atlanta Belt Line, Kodak Ektar H35, Kentmere 400* – *as shot.*

Image Quality

It took me months to finish a single roll of film, (48 frames on a 35mm roll sold for 24 “full frame” images, remember) and it stayed in my photo sling next to my “camera du jour” without seeing much use. But it gave me the opportunity to use it in parallel with a recent (and much more expensive) half frame camera, the Pentax 17, and with an older and generic point and shoot cameras of the turn of the century, the Argus M5600d.

The Pentax and the Argus are both larger, heavier, but much more interesting to use as cameras. But what about the image quality?

Looking at the B&W negatives shot with the Ektar, it’s obvious that there are huge differences in density from one image to another one – some are extremely dark, some are extremely clear, almost transparent – a consequence of the absence of any exposure control system in the camera. You have to rely on the exposure latitude of the film, on the image enhancing algorithms of the lab’s scanners, and on your ability to massage the picture in post-processing.

Comparing two half frame cameras:

*Lake Clara Meer and midtown skyline – Atlanta – Kodak Ektar H35 – Kentmere 4*00, as shot

and shot the same day from the same vantage point, with the Pentax 17:

*Lake Clara Meer and midtown skyline – Atlanta – Pentax 17 – Fujifilm Acros 2 100 ISO, as shot*

The B&W negatives were not scanned in the true sense of the word, they were simply digitized with a Fujifilm X-T4 equipped with a Micro-Nikkor 55mm lens and the JJC Digitizing Adapter, then imported and inverted in Lightroom with only adjustments to the S curve. The images labelled “as shot” did not benefit for any other enhancement, and represent what the camera is really capable of, before any software filter or any artificial intelligence trickery is applied.

The images are a mixed bag – this Ektar is clearly a sunny-16 type of camera, and the best pictures are taken on a bright day, middle of the morning and middle of the afternoon. Don’t use it for landscapes – even urban landscapes – it seems optimized for subjects in the 4 to 30ft zone and anything beyond that is blurry.

On the other hand, some images – close-ups, street scenes, statues, are “interesting”, and pictures of houses and front yards are generally nice. Go figure.

Even at its preferred focusing distance, the resolution is surprisingly poor – it’s closer to an Holga than to any decent autofocus film camera like the Argus M5600 and its clones. As long as you look at them on the relatively small display of a smartphone, the images look fine. But they rapidly reach their limits, and on an iPad or a 15in laptop display they will look fuzzy, lacking definition and contrast.

On a final note, I tried to use the flash multiple times, and not a single one of the images was even remotely acceptable.

Another comparison – here the Ektar….

*Avondale Estates, GA – Kodak Ektar H35 Camera – Kentmere 400, as shot*

Here, the Argus M5600d

Avondale Estates – Argus M5600d – Kentmere 400 – minor adjustments in Lightroom.

Conclusion

If you’ve read this blog entry that far, you have understood that the H35 is not for me. It may be cute, but it’s still extremely basic, not really better than a single-use, throw away camera.

I was really disappointed by the image quality: displayed on a smartphone, some images can be somehow “acceptable” without ever being great – while some are not even salvageable, except maybe by AI – but what’s the point, then. And on anything larger than a smartphone display, they will generally fare poorly.

To the camera’s defense, I did not shoot with color film, and did not have the film processed and scanned on the Noritsu or Frontier machines of a pro lab – their software apply all sorts of enhancements to the images before saving them as Jpegs, and I’m sure their pictures would look better.

*Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, Atlanta, GA – Kodak Ektar H35, Kentmere 400*, *as shot.*

In other words, it’s not a camera that will give me the type of images I like. But it may work for photographers with different styles and tastes.

Photography is at the same a craft, and an art. If you don’t really care for the “craft side” of this activity, but have a keen eye, good image composition skills, and like your images on the rough side, a fix focus camera like the Ektar, or even a toy camera like a Holga or a Diana may be a good fit – you’ll have to learn how to exploit their limitations and their flaws to create images reflecting your unique vision.

*Little Five Points, Atlanta – Kodak Ektar H35, Kentmere 400, as shot.*

Was I fair in my evaluation of this camera, and is the Ektar H35 that bad?

I believe I was fair. The Ektar was in my photo bag when I was shooting with the Pentax 17 and the Argus, and although I clearly preferred having those two cameras in my hands, I still made a point of shooting one or two images per scene with the Ektar.

The cameras were not all loaded with the same film stock (I was using Fujifilm Acros and Ilford Delta 400 on the Pentax, Kentmere 400 on the Argus and the Ektar), but all three are good films, and the Kentmere gave me results that positively surprised me with the Argus.

The two rolls of Kentmere 400 (the Argus’ and the Ektar’s) were developed together, in the same tank, with Ilford’s Ilfosol 3 at standard dilution, so a botched film processing routine can not be pinned as a cause for the relatively poor quality of the pictures.

I had a peek at the images of the Ektar user group in Flickr. The pictures generally look better than mine, but the images I posted here are as shot, not enhanced by the software of the Noritsu or Frontier scanners used by the photo labs, or by an AI tool. For the sake of the argument, I submitted two of my images to ChatGPT, and after a few adjustments in Lightroom, I got the images shown below. Better, but are they still “my” images, or something else entirely?

Enhanced by ChatGPT for sharpness and contrast, then adjusted with a mask on the young lady to correct under-exposure in Lightroom.

*Enhanced by Chatgpt for sharpness and contrast*

Argus M5600D – A generic long zoom “travel” compact film camera with an American household name

You may have read about my recent experiences with the Five Below Reusable Camera (bought in store, new, for $7.00), and my quest for something a bit better, but in the same price range.

What if I was looking for the cheapest possible option, a motorized, autofocus, long zoom compact film camera of the late nineteen nineties. In other words, something that nobody wants. Could it be a hidden gem?

*A Goko Camera product, sold under the Argus, Concord, Polaroid and Olympus Superzoom logos*

Locating a cheap and working copy of a motorized, autofocus, compact camera made at the end of the nineties is difficult. Autofocus, motorized compact cameras are significantly more complex than a fix focus reusable camera, and most of them did not age well, suffering from all sorts of issues with their electronics, and with the aging of the plastic parts used in the power zoom and in the film advance mechanisms.

The price I was willing to pay ruled out cameras from the big Japanese brands. I found an autofocus, motorized camera with a 38-115 zoom, that according to Shopgoodwill had passed some very basic tests, for $5.00. No bidding war for this one, but hefty handling and shipping fees brought the delivered price to $19.00.

*Argus M5600D – date back and dioptric correction in the viewfinder – a well spec’d camera.*

Its design easily qualifies as “bland”, but the camera is technically elaborate, for a compact point and shoot camera. Its specifications are in line with well considered “travel cameras” like the Olympus Stylus/Epic 115 or the Pentax Espio/IQZoom 115V.

This autofocus compact is branded “Argus”. This glorious American brand was bought in 1990 by a company named Concord Camera Corp, which was distributing generic cameras made in Asia, under the different labels it owned or licensed. Most cameras of the Concord group were very basic and mainly sold under a plastic blister in supermarkets and drugstores.

*the MacromaX product range in an Argraph catalog from 2004 – the M5600d is a clone of the Goko AZS1150*

This Argus M5600D was made in Malaysia in the Year 2000 by a major Japanese OEM named Goko Camera. It was virtually identical to Goko’s own MacromaX AZS 1150 AFQ, to Concord’s C3000 Super Macro, and to Polaroid’s 8500Z. More surprising, it looks like it’s almost the same camera as the Malaysia-made Olympus Superzoom 115 of 1999 – the only visible differences being the front fascia and the placement of one or two buttons. Olympus never acknowledged the lineage, but there is no doubt for me that this Superzoom 115 belongs to the MacromaX Z family of Goko cameras. (*)

The M5600D’s lens is proudly labeled Cintar Zoom Japan, with a 6 elements/5 groups design, and a maximum aperture varying between f/3.9 and f/10.8. The camera came equipped with a date back, and has dedicated buttons to control the flash modes, and force the focusing distance to the infinite or to 0.25m. Surprising for a compact camera – there is also a way to set a +1.5 EV exposure compensation.

The M5600D requires an easy to find CR123 disposable battery, and considering the slow aperture of the zoom, should be loaded with 400 ISO film.

So, on paper, this camera looks like a much better photography tool than a reusable fix focus point and shoot.

*The inside of the Argus M5600D is clean and the camera seems well built.*

First impressions

When I received the camera, I was pleasantly surprised. Not that it was in a very nice condition (film cameras of the early 2000s have often seen little use, having been rapidly eclipsed by digicams in the bag of amateur photographers), but that it seemed well built, with an apparent concern for maintainability. I inserted a new battery and a cartridge of Kodacolor 400 (film loading was automated, and easy) and I was ready to shoot.

In the absence of a user manual – which does not seem to ever have been made available as a PDF file – it’s difficult to know exactly what this camera is capable of, but for a point of shoot, it’s exceptionally configurable.

Shooting with the M5600D is a pleasant affair – the camera’s body is large enough without being too big or too heavy, the viewfinder is large and relatively luminous, and the camera responsive. Maybe the lens is horrible and the images are going to lack contrast and resolution, but at this stage, and after having burned two rolls of film, I don’t think that the M5600D is any worse (or any better) than the equivalent models from Olympus or Canon.

*Pentax 17 on the left: $499.00 – Argus M5600D on the right: $5.00*

The proof is in the pudding

I first loaded the camera with a roll of Kodacolor 400, but the lab (it will remain unnamed – I want to give them a second chance) took almost two months to process the negatives. I was getting impatient and then burned a second roll of film (Ilford’s Kentmere 400, a B&W stock I could develop at home).

*Marietta, GA – Argus M5600D – Kodacolor 400.*

A first glance at the developed negatives shows that all the frames of the film have been exposed (no accidental double exposure or blank images), and are regularly spaced. The B&W negatives are beautiful, the images seem correctly exposed and to the naked eye, they don’t look totally blurred or completely out of focus. This Argus is not a total lemon.

Let’s look at the scans.

They’re not bad at all. The exposure is not always perfect and the color scans are rather dull, but a few adjustments in Lightroom (vibrance, clarity) make them pop. Surprisingly, the lens is very good at resolving really fine details and the focus is right on, most of the time.

*Avondale Estates, July 4th – Argus M5600d – Kentmere 400.*

The macro mode is a mystery – pictures of flowers look horrible (the flash was on and if the subject is brightly lit, the background is totally dark) – but I shot a few close-up of cars and the images came up pretty good. As usual for this type of film camera, portraits shot at the light of the built in flash are bad enough to consign you to the dog house for a few days if you have asked your significant other to be your model.

You will have to be a pretty good photographer to win a photography contest with this Argus, but provided there is enough light and you shoot in exteriors, you’ll get very decent and perfectly usable images frequently enough.

*The Manchester Mill (Sweetwater Creek Park, GA) – Argus M5600D – Kentmere 400.*

As a conclusion – is it better than a “reusable” fix focus camera?

Yes, it’s definitely better than a fix focus camera (single use or reusable). There’s no comparison. The images of the M5600D will be correctly exposed, and its autofocus system will deliver much sharper pictures than a fix focus lens set on the hyperfocal. With a lens opening at f/4 at the wide end, it will operate in dimmer environments than a typical fix focus camera, and with a relatively long range of 115mm, its zoom will let the photographer isolate its subject.

Under a fair weather and in the bright hours of the day – it will give you surprisingly good images – but can not compete with a film SLR when the scene is not generously lit, or when shooting sports, or taking portraits in an interior, or macros of flowers, or in all situations when a good cobra flash or a direct control of the shutter speed and the aperture would be necessary.

Its performance envelope is much wider than a fix focus throw away camera, but also narrower than a single lens reflex camera and a set of good lenses. It belongs to this intermediate category which was nicknamed “travel or tourist cameras” for a reason.

*A Mercedes AMG – Argus M5600D – Kodacolor 400.*

I was honestly very surprised by the quality of the images delivered by this Argus M5600d. Unless you’re in love with the “Instamatic” look of the images taken with a single-use camera, a 25 year old motorized autofocus like this Argus is a much better choice.

It might have been a generic South East Asian beige camera, but it was a pretty good one, and I’m curious to compare it side by side with the best point and shoot cameras that Canon were proposing in the nineteen nineties.

Ultimately, the problem of the M5600D (and of all the fully automatic compact film cameras of similar design) is named digital photography. Anything that the M5600d does, a high-end smartphone or a recent digital camera will do better. The Argus has a good viewfinder and the ergonomics of a real camera, but it does not give you more control over your images than a smartphone, and contrarily to a nice mechanical camera, it is not a particular gratifying object to work with.

For $5.00, it’s an incredible bargain, and if you really love shooting film and don’t want to carry a single lens reflex, it’s a much better option than a single-use camera.

*The featured picture – the top plate of the Argus M5600D – the dedicated “macro” key is a Goko MacromaX differentiator.*

(*) Do not confuse the Olympus Superzoom 115 (the clone of the MacromaX AZS1150 and the Argus M5600d) with the Olympus MJU II or StylusEpic 115 (you recognize it by its clamshell body). The cameras have not much (if anything) in common.

For more about the Goko MacromaX series of cameras, and Goko in general – read Mike Eckman’s excellent review of the Goko MacromaX FR-350, and Goko’s “historic” pages: https://www.gokocamera.com/en/legacy-products/

The MacromaX cameras were primarily designed to be sold in developing countries, but were briefly sold in the US (1997 till early 2000s) under the Goko brand, and, badged as Concord, Argus or Polaroid, under labels belonging to Concord Camera Corp. Today Goko are still involved in photography, but have left the consumer market and specialize in cameras used in industrial or lab environments.

https://camera-wiki.org/wiki/GOKO_MacromaX_AZS_1150_AF

Olympus Superzoom 115 Quartz Date – a near clone of the Goko MacromaX 1150 AZS (source: eBay).

Compare with the pictures of the Argus M5600D – all members of the same big and happy family

The Manchester Mill – Sweetwater Creek Park – Argus M5600D – Kentmere 400 – shot at the longest position of the zoom (115mm)

*Jeep Wrangler YJ – Argus M5600d – Kentmere 400.*

Testing Buyee.jp – a (cheaper) eBay alternative to tap the Japanese second hand equipment market?

After years of gradual improvements, eBay has become a very reliable marketplace for buyers of second hand cameras and lenses. It’s been years since I’ve had an even moderately unpleasant experience with eBay.

But eBay is expensive – for the seller (the 13.6% eBay commission is calculated on the total cost of your purchase, shipping and taxes included – which brings it closer to 16% of the value of the sale for seller, in most cases), and as a consequence, for the buyer – because the sellers have to recoup their costs one way or another.

Until last year, a very good option to save money while remaining on eBay was to buy second hand photo equipment from stores located in Japan – the equipment was in very good shape, cheaper than in the US, and could be delivered on your doorsteps in two days – faster than if it had been shipped from the US territory by an American seller. I’ve done it often and never had any problem.

Unfortunately, the introduction of higher tariffs, the suppression of the de minimus exemption (purchases below $800.00 could previously enter the country duty-free), and the suspension of the two day delivery service to the US by the Japanese Post have completely changed the landscape, and buying from Japanese eBay stores has become seriously expensive. To the announced purchase price, you have to add the tariffs themselves, the fees collected by the customs agents (there and here), and the cost of shipping by a premium US carrier.

There does not seem to be a unique answer to those changes for the Japanese stores present on eBay – a few of them advertise an all-inclusive but higher selling price, while the majority keep the price of the item reasonable, but add massive shipping fees to cover the cost of new constraints – sometimes in the hundreds of dollars.

Japanese sellers still keep a big advantage over their American counterparts – a much wider inventory of “interesting” cameras. The Japanese Domestic Market (JDM) often gets the exclusivity of limited series or of specific camera body colors – and some brands with little traction in the US (like Pentax) are also better represented in their home market.

But not all Japanase vendors work with eBay. They can still be reached, and you can tap the seemingly unlimited inventory of the JDM, with the help of Buyee.jp, a proxy buying service.

What is a proxy buying service?

Unless you can read and somehow write Japanese (I don’t), it’s next to impossible to conduct a business transaction directly with a Japanese store. And assuming you do, how are you going to convince a little store in Kyoto or Osaka to go out of their way, take care of all the customs induced hassle, and ship the item you purchased to your end of the world? That’s where Buyee.jp can help:

they operate an English language Web site and offer an English language smartphone app that will let you browse multiple Japanese marketplaces – the search bar is accepting requests written in the latin alphabet, and the responses (in Japanese) are embedded in a Google Translate window, making it relatively easy to understand what’s being offered.
If you decide to purchase a product (or are the successful bidder in an auction), they will take care of completing the transaction on your behalf (you pay Buyee through PayPal), and will start the process of bringing the purchase to your door step: the seller has to ship the product to a local Buyee warehouse, Buyee takes care of packaging (if necessary), of customs and shipping.
Two weeks later, you finally receive the purchased item.

You’re glad Buyee have integrated a translation widget..

The item description is translated by Google. This Fujifilm Klasse is not as nice as hoped

Testing the Buyee service

I sold my Pentax K-5 II a few months ago, to fund the purchase of another camera, but I liked my K-5, and after a while I started feeling some sort of seller’s remorse. I started looking for the next step up in the K-5 family, the K-5 IIs, on eBay, and on Buyee.jp.

That week, there were were three K-5 IIs on the eBay US store, 1 located in the US, 2 located in Japan, with prices (incl. custom duties and shipping) ranging between $300 and $400.

On the Buyee app, I visited the JDirectItems Auction marketplace. There were 13 items for sale, all based in Japan, of course – and priced in Yen. The Buyee app does the conversion in US dollars automatically, which brought their K-5 IIs inside a range starting at $186 and topping at $410, customs duties and shipping not included.

I picked a model rated as “AB-” (the seller was describing it as “a little dirty” and was disclosing that the rear LCD was yellowing). Japanese sellers are generally very conservative in their assessments: judge for yourself from the pictures I took just after receiving the camera.

*A Japanese store’s idea of a “AB-” camera – “a little bit dirty”*…

I placed my bid at $208.00, and won. I had Buyee coupons to redeem (they seem to be very generous with their coupon allocation), and only had to pay $180 for the camera, through PayPal.

The timeline

6/14 – I paid for the item (to Buyee, with Paypal).

6/17 – Item arrived at Buyee.jp warehouse

6/17 – The buyer (me) was informed he had to go in the Buyee app and configure the shipping and packaging options.

There was only one option for shipping to the US: Fedex.

6/20 – After evaluating the packaging of the seller, Buyee decided that there was no need for extra packaging.

I confirmed that everything was OK for me, and Buyee established an invoice for its services: shipment, fees and tariffs and taxes, for a total of $72.00 to be paid through a second PayPal transaction. Which I did the same day.

6/23 – Fedex received the package

6/26 – The Item was delivered to my doorstep

… *with a yellowing rear display (it’s true that the left side of the screen has a yellowish hue – visible on the letters of the menus, but not when reviewing pictures*)

The financials

All in all, I paid $252.00 for this K-5IIs – I suspect a model in an equivalent condition would have cost me at least $300.00 on eBay (assuming I could find one) – so, there’s a net savings of at least $50 on a $250 purchase. That’s significant.

One of the limitations of the Buyee.jp process is that you don’t know the exact amount of the shipping fees and customs duties you will have to pay at the time when you place your bid. You know the exact amount one week after the purchase, when Buyee has received the equipment from the local vendor and worked with their customs agents.

In the case of this camera, the various shipping, handling and administrative fees did amount to $53 – I assume that they’re not proportional to the value of the item, but mainly to its weight. And that they should be more or less the same if I buy another camera or a lens in the future.

US Customs duties are more difficult to predict – and they’re subject to some political uncertainty – but as of June 2026: the exact amount depends on:

the country of origin of the equipment (the country where the final assembly took place, even if you buy from a Japanese store), and on
the exact classification of the equipment in the tables of the US Customs (I believe cameras are under code 9006.530.205).

This camera was made in the Philippines (Pentax assemble their cameras in Vietnam or in the Philippines), and according to the tables of the US Customs, should encur a 10 % tariff (which corresponds more or less to what I paid to Buyee).

Nikon D80 – the CCD-look at its best ?

The “CCD Sensor look” is all the rage nowadays, and after having resuscitated my old Canon Digital Elph SD400 (that still impressed me) and bought a Pentax *ist DS (that one was a disappointment), I was still curious, and eager to reunite with a camera equipped with what is considered the best APS-C CCD sensor ever, the Sony 10 Mpix ICX493AQA. This chip (or one of its a close relatives) was integrated in Nikon’s D200, D80, D40X, D60 and D3000, as well a few models from Pentax (the K10D, K200D and K2000/k-m) and Sony’s early Alpha series cameras (the A100, A200, A300 and their derivatives).

*Nikon D80 – the prototypical “enthusiast” dSLR*.

In this list, the Nikon D80 was the easy choice. To me, it was a known quantity, – a D80 had been my main camera for 8 years – I still have a few Nikon “screw-drive” autofocus prime lenses, and I like the ergonomics and the UI of Nikon’s middle of the range dSLRs. And good copies of the D80 are still abundant, and cheap.

I had briefly considered buying one of the “CCD” Pentax bodies, but they are all significantly more expensive than the D80 (surprising? a supply and demand thing, I presume), and are not known for the quality of their JPEGs (the “CCD look” is a JPEG thing and the Pentax JPEGs were lagging their competition).

*June 2026 – Nikon D80 – Nikon AF 24mm F/2.8 Lens – 200 ISO – the white cladding of the building is not burnt, and the colors pop.*

So, I bought a Nikon D80. And because the goal of this return to the D80 was to produce the most “CCD-like” images possible, I configured it with a Custom Picture profile featuring slightly increased sharpening and color saturation, combined with reduced tone compensation to keep contrast under control. I chose the Color Mode IIIa, fixed the white balance to Daylight, and applied a modest exposure compensation of –0.3 EV.

*Nikon D80 – a very comprehensive set of controls.*

The camera was set to record both JPEG and RAW files, with the JPEGs intended as the primary output and the RAW files kept as a safety net for any images that might benefit from additional processing.

*The original CCD Look: Rome (2008) – Nikon D80 – Tokina 12-24mm – 200 ISO*

Shooting with the D80 20 years after it was launched

When shooting stills (it does not record videos), the D80 is still perfectly usable – it’s reactive, and gets focus and exposure right, as long as there’s enough light – but not too much of it. And compared to modern mirrorless ILCs, it does not look too big – as long as it’s fitted with a small prime lens.

The ergonomics are good, the viewfinder is luminous and large enough, but a long list of limitations shows its 2006 roots:

The limited dynamic range – the control of the highlights is clearly the biggest challenge of this camera (and its sensor), and my camera is set with “highlight warning” as the default playback option. It is generally recommended to expose for the highlights, and – if necessary – to try and save the shadows in post production (starting from the RAW file).
A limited usable ISO range – 200 is the normal sensitivity, anything beyond 800 is only to be used in last resort.
No IBIS (in-body image stabilization)
The 3 points above combine to severely limit the performance of the D80 in low light and make the purchase of a good flash (a cobra with a big reflector) almost mandatory.
The small and poorly defined rear display (2.5in, 230,000 points) makes it difficult to judge quality of a picture before you’re back home and upload the SD Card to a PC.
None of the comforts of modern cameras: no Quick Menu, no Face Detection AF, no WiFi, no Bluetooth, no USB charging, no touch screen, no joystick.
And the usual limitation of the Nikon F system – no native APS-C (aka DX) prime lens except for a 35mm f/1.8, a 40mm f/2.8 macro and a 10mm fish-eye. Nikon never invested in a line of APS-dedicated prime lenses. It is particularly an issue on the wide angle side: you either have to shoot with a DX zoom, or with wide angle prime lenses designed for Full Frame cameras. Both tend to be big and expensive. And it also means that there is no “pancake-style” lens like the Fujifilm XF 18, 23 and 27mm, or Pentax DA Limited 21 or 40mm. Nikon have always expected their most “serious” photographers to shoot Full Frame, and not be too concerned with the size, weight or cost of their equipment.

*The original CCD Look – Rome 2008 – Nikon D80 – Quantaray 55-200 zoom – 200 IS*O

What about the images?

Within the limits of its sensor (limited dynamic range, tendency to burn the highlights and inability to deliver usable images above 1600 ISO), the Nikon D80 used to deliver very nice pictures, with beautiful skin tones and deep blues and greens. Nothing has changed today and the output of the camera is still very satisfying.

The Original CCD Look – Harbor of Essaouira – Morocco (2007) – Nikon D80 – Nikon 18-70 – 400 ISO – the sky is totally burned on the right of the picture, but the blue of the boats is beautifully rendered.

As far as the CCD-look is concerned, I’ve found my benchmark. Of course, a camera from 2006 comes with all sorts of limitations, and cameras a few years younger (like a Fujifilm X100 or a Pentax K-5) will be much more flexible and can be set to deliver images approaching the “CCD-Look”, without any of the limitations of the Nikon D80. That’s what I’m going to confirm in the coming weeks.

*Nikon D80 – the rear LCD display looks much nicer in this picture than in the reality (it’s small and not very defined).*

CCD-look or not, this D80 is nonetheless a very good choice, and a good introduction to conventional photography: Nikon build quality, full compatibility with almost any Nikon lens made since 1977, great ergonomics, great images, long battery life, in a relatively compact package, and for next to nothing. Two weeks after I had bought this nice little D80 for less than $80.00 (shipping and taxes included), I was still receiving offers from competing eBay stores, proposing equally nice D80s for as low as $65.00.

Why (specifically) a D80 and not a D40X or a D60 or a D3000?

In Nikon’s camera line up of the time, there were three levels: consumer, enthusiast or expert consumer, and professional. The D80 was the model dedicated to the “enthusiast-consumers”, that is to say photographers who wanted most of the features and most of the performance of a Nikon “Pro” camera, but did not need a tool capable of shooting 100 frames a day, every day, for five years, in the most demanding environments.

The D40X and its derivatives D60 and D3000 were clearly targeting the mass market, and were made smaller, lighter (and cheaper) than the D80 primarily by abandoning the compatibility with screw-drive autofocus lenses, and trading a pentaprism viewfinder for a pentamirror. The D40X was a very nice little camera in its own right, but 20 years later there is not much of a cost difference between a D40X and a D80 on the used equipment market, and a photographer interested in learning more about the technical side of photography will be better served by a D80.

More about the Nikon D80

The original review of the Nikon D80 in DPReview: https://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/slrs/nikon_d80

A (recent) opinion about the Nikon D80: https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-d80-retro-review/

All images in this series are JPEGS – with minimal adjustments in Lightroom (exposure and highlights, mainly)

*June 2026 –* *Nikon D80 – Nikon AF 24mm F/2.8 Lens – 200 ISO – a Jeep and its ducks – the colors pop.*

*June 2026 – Nikon D80 – Nikon AF 24mm F/2.8 Lens – 200 ISO – the Yarbrough House (built 1880)*

*June 2026 – Nikon D80 – Nikon AF 24mm F/2.8 Lens – 200 ISO – in the neighborhood.*

June 2026 – *Nikon D80 – Nikon AF 24mm f/2.8*

June 2026 – *Atlanta, Poncey-Highland neighborhood – Nikon D80 – Nikon AF 24mm f/2.8*

A few words about the Pentax K-3 III Monochrome

I recently had the opportunity to take a few pictures with a very nice, almost new, Pentax K-3 III Monochrome. Because I shoot regularly with a Pentax KP and like the Pentax “Limited” prime lenses, I was curious about the K-3 III – how much of an improvement was it over a camera of the previous generation like a KP or a K-5 II – and about Monochrome Digital – how different was it from shooting with a film camera loaded with Ilford’s or Kodak’s best?

The Pentax K-3 III Monochrome is essentially a “normal” Pentax K-3 III dSLR, but equipped with an imaging sensor deprived of the usual set of color filters (forming the so-called Bayer matrix) usually present in almost all other digital cameras. In the absence of the Bayer filters, the imaging sensor of the K-3 III Monochrome can’t capture any color related information, only luminance signals.

But a monochrome sensor will capture images with a better resolution and with less noise (for a same ISO sensitivity) than a comparable “Bayer Matrix” enabled sensor, because there is no mosaic of filters between the lens and the sensor to absorb some of the light, and no demosaicing algorithm to reduce the resolving power of the sensor.

“Monochrome” – One of the clues that it’s not a normal dSLR.

KP or K-3 III (the Bayer Matrix version)

The K-3 III Monochrome is in a category of its own – as far as I know, there isn’t another monochrome DSLR currently available on the market. That said, the Pentax K-3 III Monochrome is, in every other respect, a K-3 III fitted with a different sensor. As a result, many of the observations I make about the K-3 III Monochrome also apply to the standard Bayer-equipped, color-capable K-3 III.

Let’s start with the hard facts – the KP was launched in 2017 and discontinued in 2021, and the K-3 III (the “Bayer” version) was released in 2021. The K-3 III Monochrome joined the fray in 2023, and both K-3 III models were still available new as late as last year (all three models are only available on the second hand market now). Apart from the sensor, the K-3 III and the K-3 III Monochrome are virtually identical.

When Pentax were defining the specifications of the KP, they were not trying to propose a direct successor of the Pentax K-3 II which was reaching the end of its commercial life. The KP was deliberately deprived of features generally found in cameras targeting advanced amateurs and pros (like dual SD card slots) to leave room for a more elaborate (and more expensive) camera that would be launched a few years later, the K-3 III. Today, when compared to a K-3 III, the KP has therefore the double handicap of being at the same time older and not as well spec’d.

The KP and the K-3 III are clearly close relatives – with very similar size and weight, and a similar organization of the controls and commands. Even the sensors are not that different (a 24 Mpix of the 2017 generation for the KP vs a 25.7 Mpix from 2021 for the K-3 III).

*The body of the K-3 III Monochrome is entirely … monochrome*

That being said, the K-3 III (and the K-3 III Monochrome) represent a marked improvement over the KP – they have all the features – dual card slot, top plate LCD display and big battery – that enthusiast photographers expect.

And a larger optical viewfinder, with a higher enlargement factor (1.05 instead of 1.0), and a finer and more luminous mate screen. The KP’s viewfinder is very good in its own right, but visibly not as nice as the K-3 III’s, which is probably the best viewfinder gracing any APS-C dSLR camera. Ever.

The K-3 III’s ergonomics are better with a large handgrip and a more easily accessible front dial, but with a leather half case the KP becomes fairly acceptable, at least for me. The battery of the K-3 is larger (1860 mAh instead of 1040 mAh on the KP), but the battery life of the latter, while disappointing for a dSLR, is still in the realm of tolerable for an amateur shooting less than 350 frames per session.

*The user interface is well designed, but more complex that the Pentax KP’s*

The K-3 III is a more recent camera, and like its modern mirrorless competitors, has a touch enabled LCD display. The focusing point is selected with a joystick, and the K-3 III supports low power Bluetooth connections and in-camera USB-C charging.

Lastly, because I only had the opportunity of shooting with my usual screw-drive autofocus lenses, I can’t offer an opinion about the K-3’s autofocus ultimate performance. And the K-3 III being limited to monochrome images, I can’t comment on how the image processing engine of the K-3 III (“Bayer”) renders colors in the JPEGs it generates. Autofocus speed and JPEG quality are both reported to be improved over the KP by photographers who have used the K-3 III with lenses with an integrated autofocus motor.

To summarize, the K-3 III is a better camera in every metric, much closer – at least for stills photography – to the state of the art mirrorless APS-C cameras of the Big Four than the nine year old KP.

*An interior – shot at 1600 ISO – Pentax K-3 III Monochrome, Pentax 35mm f:2.4 AL*

The K-3 III beats the KP on performance, convenience and comfort. And it may very well be the most elaborate APS-C dSLR ever made (fighting for the crown with the Nikon D500). But would it help me deliver better pictures, more frequently?

I bought a Pentax KP last year because I felt that sometimes, I needed a break from mirrorless cameras – I wanted to reconnect with the pleasure of a good optical viewfinder and of a well thought (and simple) interface. That I like the colors of the images delivered by the KP when paired with Pentax’s “Limited” primes is a cherry on the cake.

When you shoot with a K-3 III, the changes over the KP seem more incremental than revolutionary. More “nice to have for an amateur like me” rather than “absolutely, definitively, have to have”.

*Rigid light on a Jeep Wrangler. Shot in a parking lot.* *200 ISO – Pentax K-3 III Monochrome, Pentax 35mm f:2.4 AL*

At the end of the day, it’s about choosing between Very Good and the Ultimate Best. There is no doubt that the K-3 III is a better camera. But for my use case and my style of images, the KP fits the bill. On the second hand market, a nice KP can be found for $600 when a K-3 III (the “Bayer” version) is going to cost at least $1400. A photographer heavily invested in the Pentax K system will be of a different opinion, but as far as I am concerned, I find it hard to justify paying that much for the incremental improvements brought by a K-3 III.

“Monochrome Digital” and B&W film photography

The Pentax K-3 III Monochrome is unique: there are very few cameras with monochrome sensors on the market – only Leica, Pentax and Ricoh have monochrome versions of some of their models, and only one is a digital SLR, the K-3 III.

I hardly shot a hundred of pictures with the K-3 III Monochrome. It does not make me an expert in digital monochrome photography, and I can’t offer a definitive opinion on this camera (I linked two good analysis of the K-3 III Mono at the bottom of this post).

*Foca Universal – shot at 1600 ISO – Pentax K-3 III Monochrome – Pentax 35mm Macro Limited*

But I learned at least one thing in the process: “Monochrome Digital” is not a way to shoot black and white pictures while saving money on B&W film. Monochrome Digital is a different type of medium altogether.

Images taken Straight Out of the Camera (SOC) are at the same time much smoother (no grain, with a larger dynamic range) and much more detailed than B&W film negatives, in particular in the shadows. Images are generally perfectly usable SOC, but are also more malleable and the photographer will be more frequently tempted to play with the tonal response (the S-Curve) than when shooting in color with a digital camera.

Taking advantage of a monochrome sensor will require a specific photographic style, and a specific post-processing workflow. There will be a learning curve before a photographer gets the images he or she can really be proud of. “Monochrome Digital” is definitely a commitment.

I tried to shoot a few urban landscapes, without much success (“it’s not the camera, it’s me…”) but I was impressed by the close-ups I took with a macro lens, and by pictures of interiors. In the right hands, this camera definitely has a huge potential.

*Pentax ME – shot at 1600 ISO – K-3 III Monochrome – Pentax 35mm Macro f:2.8 Limited*

When it was still available as a new camera a few months ago, the K-3 III Monochrome was selling for $200.00 more than the already very expensive K-3 III “Color”. Today, there are very few K-3 III Monochrome cameras available in the second hand market, most of them located in Japan. They typically sell between $1900 and $2300 once tariffs, fees and shipping costs have been added.

dSLRs are now relegated to a small niche, and a monochrome digital SLR is an extremely narrow niche within an already small niche. For a photographer seriously committed to digital monochrome photography, the K-3 III Monochrome is an interesting proposition, easier to use than a Leica M (it’s an autofocus dSLR) and more flexible than a Leica Q or a Ricoh GR (its lenses are interchangeable). But I don’t think I’m ready for it.

Other opinions about the Pentax K-3 III Monochrome

Andy Westlake in Amateur Photographer: “If you’re a Pentax user with a nice set of APS-C lenses, who loves shooting in black & white and has the money to spare, it’s an easy recommendation. It’s a fine camera that will repay you with superb results.” https://amateurphotographer.com/review/pentax-k-3-mark-iii-monochrome-review/

Keith Wee in his blog: “Like the Leica Monochrom cameras, the Pentax K-3 Mark III Monochrome removes the distraction of colour and replaces it with an immense tonal canvas” (https://keithwee.com/2025/12/10/a-first-impressions-review-of-the-pentax-k-3-mark-iii-monochrome/)

More recent content in CamerAgX

*The usual suspect – The neighborhood restaurant (yes, it used to be a Baptist church).* 200 ISO – *Pentax K-3 III Monochrome, Pentax 35mm f:2.4 AL*

*Cine-Kodak Eight-25 (Pentax K-3 III Monochrome, Pentax DA 35mm Macro f:2.8 Limited).*

*Max, French Bulldog (Pentax K-3 III Monochrome, Pentax DA 35mm f2.4 AL)*.

Pentax 17: a compact film camera like no other

I bought another compact film camera. Second hand, of course, you don’t change a winning formula. But not a vintage this time. This one was manufactured in 2024.

I had been intrigued by the recent proliferation of new “semi-premium” compact film cameras. In the $500 to $800 price range. Cameras like Mint’s re-interpretation of the Rollei 35, Lomo’s MC-A and Pentax’s 17. Three original designs, with not much in common, except for the use of a wide angle prime lens and of course, of 35mm film.

I had read the reviews, watched the Youtube videos. And I picked my champion. The Pentax 17. Because it’s different. Reviewers have compared Mint’s AF 35 to the classic Rollei 35 that inspired it, and the Lomo MC-A to the pinnacle of compact film cameras, the darling of the influencers, the Contax T2. Nobody has found a classic camera they could compare the Pentax 17 to.

*Pentax 17* – *note the zone focus icons on the bezel of lens – a mirror makes the selected icon visible in the viewfinder.*

This blog entry is not going to be another review of the Pentax 17. There are enough of them already. And on the whole, they’re positive. Reviewers generally approve of the lens and of the metering system. And when they complain, it’s because they were secretly longing for a modern Contax T2.

For those complainers, the lens and the exposure determination system of the P17 were wasted on a camera that offered the controls of a cheap toy. As if Leica had put their best glass or Nikon their best exposure metering system on a Holga.

The Pentax 17 was not designed to be a substitute to a manual focus SLR or to a rangefinder camera. The goal of its creators was to bring new people to film photography, and, eventually, to force seasoned photographers out of their zone of comfort. Let’s see how I adjust to it.

*Two images in a standard 36×24 frame – it makes digitizing a bit more challenging.*

The context

Pentax at its core is a single lens reflex company – starting with its name – which evokes the pentaprism of a SLR. Contrarily to Canon or Ricoh who came to SLRs after having sold rangefinder cameras in the nineteen fifties, Pentax had never designed or sold any camera that was not a SLR before they launched their first autofocus compact camera in 1982. And contrarily to Canon or Ricoh, they had never sold a half-frame camera either.

For their return to film, Pentax could have made a re-edition of one of their best programmed auto exposure, autofocus, motorized 24×36 cameras. An Espio Mini of sorts. The same, but built with modern electronic components and with a one year warranty. Demand would probably have kept their production lines buzzing.

*Pentax 17 – on the right side of the viewfinder the two “idiot lights” – the connector on the right is for the jack of the remote control*

They chose to start from a blank sheet instead, and targeted an audience with limited experience in “legacy”, conventional photography (that is to say, taking pictures with a stand alone, dedicated camera that consumes film). The Seventeen is something without any precedent in Pentax’s own history (or any other camera manufacturer for that matter). And it could not make everybody happy.

A few words about the specs

You have to consider the Pentax 17 from the point of view of a person who is new to film photography, and whose experience of image capture is often limited to the camera app of a smartphone, and to a few snapshots taken with a disposable camera.

For people aspiring to film photography, the cost of a roll of film, and the cost of having it processed are the first two hurdles to clear. Pentax elected to resurrect the “Half Frame” format – meaning that instead of an horizontal image of 36x24mm, the Pentax 17 captures a vertical image of 17x24mm. Twice as many images on the same roll of standard 24×36 film.

*Pentax 17 – note the unusual modes on the mode dial, and the presence of an exposure compensation dial.*

“Legacy” photographers know how to take care of the exposure, they master the magic exposure triangle (aperture-shutter speed-film sensitivity) and understand how the depth of field works.

“Creators” used to camera apps did not have to bother with any of that to get great images. Pentax have tried to simplify their task by tying the automatic exposure modes and focusing in interesting (and original) ways:

Focusing (moving the lens assembly) is motorized, in a sort of fly by wire arrangement.
Depending on the auto exposure mode selected by the photographer, focusing can be “automatic” or left to the responsibility of the photographer.
Pentax does not give a lot of information about the “Auto” mode. When the camera is set to “Auto”, it selects a narrow aperture (my guess is something varying between f/8 and f/16), and sets the focus to a point that maximizes the depth of field (another guess: 2.50m). Pentax deliberately don’t use the word “hyperfocal”, but that’s what it looks like. The focus ring is inoperative, but if there’s enough light, subjects located between 1m and the infinity should be reasonably in focus. In the “Auto” mode, the camera behaves more or less like a very nice fix focus point and shoot.
If the Program mode is selected, aperture will vary between f/3.5 and f/16, and the shutter speed between 4 sec and 1/350 sec.
A “Night” and a “Bokeh” modes can be selected to force the camera to use slow shutter speeds in the first case, or to operate at the widest aperture in the second case.
The built-in electronic flash is activated automatically in the Auto mode (of course), but the Program and the Night modes can be selected in either of two versions – one with the flash, one without.
In all exposure modes other than “Auto”, focusing is under the responsibility of the photographer, who will be guided by icons (mountain, group of people, …) or by a conventional distance scale. That’s the so-called zone-focus.

*Inman Park neighborhood, Atlanta. Pentax P17, Fujifilm Acros 2 film.*

The P17 does not offer conventional ways to determine the aperture or the shutter speed (no PASM selector, no aperture or shutter speed ring). What the Seventeen proposes, at best, are indirect ways to influence the aperture /shutter speed combination. Which may be great for beginners: Program if you want some control over the focus and the use of the flash, Bokeh, when you want the blurry backgrounds, Night and Bulb when you want long exposures, and Auto when you want to enjoy an event and not have to think too hard about any of the settings.

*Pentax 17 – it’s not really pocketable and it’s a bit larger than the typical compact-zoom of the 1990s.*

First photo stroll

Contrarily to those reviewers who expected Pentax to release a modern Nikon 28ti, I have no complaint about the appearance or the build quality of the camera – it has obviously been designed, manufactured and assembled with care, with components of quality. The top and base plate are in magnesium, the rings click discreetly when you rotate them, the film advance lever is smooth, the tactile experience is rewarding. The viewfinder is large with bright projected frame lines, and the lens is a glass triplet, treated with Pentax’s most recent “HD” coatings.

I’ve never set the P17 in its Auto, fix focus-emulator, mode. I don’t see the point. Most of my images were shot in the Program mode, a few in Bokeh and a handful with the flash on.

Shoot with the Pentax 17 in Program mode for a few minutes, and a few things immediately strike you:

The two LEDs in the viewfinder keep on flashing – it’s the camera telling you that you have left the lens cap in place, or forgotten to rearm the shutter, or that you should enable the electronic flash. After 60 minutes, the camera has trained you, and the warnings are far less frequent.
The viewfinder shows you an image oriented vertically. Of course you can rotate the camera 90 degrees left or right and compose an horizontal image, but the camera is designed to incite you to shoot as many vertical images as possible.
focusing is un-assisted: on a “normal” camera, you don’t have to think hard about the focus – the camera is either autofocus, or equipped with efficient focusing aids – a rangefinder, a focusing screen, a ring of micro-prisms, a split image telemeter. Here, nothing. You have to determine the focus on your own – with the sole assistance of a few icons. It’s not extremely difficult, but it’s a task you have to accomplish every time you’re facing a new scene.
On a typical photo stroll in the street or in a park, you rapidly take the habit of anticipating, adjusting the focus in advance… just in case what you see 50 ft ahead becomes an interesting scene when you get closer.

*the distance scales (in feet and in meters) under the lens, the zone focus icons above.*

Is it a keeper?

I don’t know if the camera reached its target audience – I only know that Ricoh-Pentax have no plan to follow up with another film camera at the moment.

Like Fujifilm, Ricoh (the corporation, not the team of enthusiasts who are developing new cameras) seem to be happy to have successfully transitioned out of film, and to have survived the contraction of the photography market during the COVID years. They don’t seem to have much appetite for the risks inherent to a return to the film business, that they had worked so hard to escape from.

The Pentax 17 is one of a kind in the current photography landscape. Not because it’s consuming film, but primarily because it involves the photographer differently. It’s a sort of unique combination of characteristics normally found on toy and fix focus cameras, with the build quality, the lens and the exposure determination system of a “serious” camera.

The photographer has no direct control of the aperture or the shutter speed, and only an approximative control of the focusing distance. The limited control over the aperture and the focusing distance naturally leads to simpler compositions, as the photographer cannot precisely manage the depth of field, or take advantage of the longer reach of a non-existent zoom to isolate the subject.

But it would be wrong to assume that the P17 is no different than an entry level film point and shoot – that you can get for $5.00 or less in garage sales. Point and shoot compact cameras are far less involving and could easily be replaced by a smartphone. And the fact is that they were.

The 17’s zone focusing forces the photographer to anticipate how the scene could develop and pre-set the focus accordingly. The camera encourages the photographer to frame vertically, and to pair the images in diptychs. And to use special effects modes like “bokeh” or “night”. To plan. To think. Beyond the pleasant tactile experience that shooting with the Seventeen offers, that’s where the fun resides.

Does it have a future in my photo bag? Definitely – because shooting with the Pentax 17 is a challenge, and an experience that no other camera, past or present, can totally emulate.

More about the Pentax 17 in those pages in a few weeks – after a few more rolls of film.

*Family reunion. The film rewind lever of the 17 is designed to remind old Pentaxians of the ME/MX series*

Why 17?

Along this page, I kept on calling the camera indifferently “17”, “P17” or “Seventeen”. But its official name is “Pentax 17”.

17, because the negative of a half frame camera is 17mm wide.

What’s to like?

It’s different – it’s not “another compact film camera”
It’s different – it has to be used it with intent.
The build quality
The visual and tactile experience
Half frame – twice as many frames for the same cost

What’s NOT to like?

It’s different – and its talent is wasted if you simply use it as a basic point and shoot compact camera, in Auto mode
The mode selector knob: too soft
The frame counter: too small
The half frame negatives – they’re small and require more care (processing, scanning) than larger negatives.

How Much?

The Pentax 17 is still on Pentax’s catalog, and available (new) from major photo retailers for $499. So far pricing has been very solid and nobody is discounting it (you get one or two free rolls of film with the camera, at best). Very few Seventeens are available on the second hand market. When they are, they sell from the high three-hundreds to the mid four-hundreds.

More about the p17

https://www.35mmc.com/17/06/2024/pentax-17-review/

https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/blogs/film-photography-blog/pentax-17-camera-review

https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-17/introduction.html

The featured picture: *the film window is much smaller than usual, and in a vertical orientation. It’s a “half-frame” camera.* *Note the modern (and very efficient) film loading system.*

All b&W pictures below were shot on Fujifilm Acros 2 film, and digitized on a Fujifilm XT-4 body with a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 lens and the JJC digitizing adapter.

*My usual benchmark – the local Bartaco restaurant.*

*A Volvo. The zone focus was set on the right headlight. But without knowing the selected aperture and the exact focusing distance, depth of field is a wild guess.*

*Sweetwater Creek Park – With 100 ISO film and a grey weather, the lens was probably operating close to full aperture and did a very good job (you can even see the float at the end of the line).*

The $7.00, Five Below Reusable Photo camera and its $7.00 film cartridge

For the readers not familiar with the American retail landscape, Five Below is a chain of stores selling “stuff” (cosmetics, candies, gadgets, beach towels, electronics) for really cheap, like $5.00 and below. Not eveything is under $5.00 – the reusable, waterproof film camera, and the b&w film it needs are both priced over that symbolic mark, at $7.00. There is a cheaper version of the same camera. Selling for $5.00. But I elected to spend two extra dollars to get the waterproof variant. It’s the same camera, simply inserted in a transparent waterproof shell.

While I was at it, I decided to splurge and also bought two 10 frame cartridges of Five Below’s 100 ISO B&W film. 10 (yes, ten) frames for $7.00. One roll for the Five Below camera, the other for my benchmark, the Minolta AF-C – an autofocus camera from 1982.

Research on the Web and on ChatGPT did not return any useful information about this film, but $0.70 a frame for a Chinese film of unknown provenance, it’s not exactly a bargain when B&H will sell you a 36 frame cartridge of Ilford’s excellent FP4 for less than $12.00.

It looks like Five Below are applying the tried and tested Gillette pricing technique – sell the razor at cost, and make a comfortable profit on the blades.

*The Five Below waterproof film camera, next to the Minolta AF-C – loaded with the same film.*

The Five Below camera is obviously not an original design. A similar fix focus, 28mm point and shoot camera has been sold (or given away) under various brand names in the past. The camera is almost totally made of plastic, as I doubt that there are more than three metal parts in it. At best a spring in the shutter mechanism. And two small metal rods to keep the door of the waterproof case in place. And not a single part is made of glass.

The lens is a 28mm f/8 piece of plastic (probably a simple meniscus). The shutter is calibrated to deliver 1/100sec snapshots. And, contrarily to all disposable cameras, this one has no electronic flash.

The Five Below film cartridge next to Fujifilm’s Acros II – Note that the leader of the Five Below film is cut straight.

Strangely enough, it does not look as lightly built as most disposable, single use, cameras. Loading the camera with Five Below’s film is surprisingly easy. Maybe it’s thanks to the unusual shape of the film leader. It’s cut straight, when every other roll of 35mm film I’ve seen is tapered. What works well for the Five Below does not work for cameras that expect a tapered leader, like this Minolta AF-C – I had to cut the leader to give it the shape of a “normal” 135 film.

Developing the Five Below film

The only indication provided is that the film has to be processed in D76 chemistry. No other direction is provided. Considering the film is very likely a respooled / unbranded industrial or cinema-derived film, I decided to develop the film for a longer time than what a usual 100 ISO photography stock would require. With my usual Tetenal Parvofin tabs at the “economy” dilution, I opted for a development time of 6 minutes at 26∘𝐶.

The cartridge is made of two half shells of plastic that are clipped together. Opening the cartridge to extract the film does not require a cartridge opener – I simply pried it open with a screwdriver (in a changing bag, obviously).

*Five Below 100 ISO B&W – the empty film cartridge.*

Compared to my usual Ilford or Kodak film, I found the film more difficult to spool on the Paterson spirals – it seems that the film base is made of a clear and rigid type of plastic (probably PET) rather than the triacetate used by almost all 135 film manufacturers – which could explain that the film advance is so stiff on the Reusable, and that I got involuntary double exposures on the Minolta AF-C.

Once developed, the film does not show any marking – the manufacturer will remain unknown – but contrarily to what I was afraid of, the processed negatives look OK, in particular those shot with the Minolta AF-C, which are clearly more defined than the negatives of the Five Below Reusable.

Five Below Reusable – Five Below 100 ISO Film – Sweetwater Creek Park

Two pictures taken from the same vantage point at the same time – the photo taken with the Five Below Reusable is dull compared to the image taken with the Minolta.

The total length of the film strip is 19in 1/2 (49cm), but unless you load the camera in a dark room and only lose one exposure to the loading process, it will be difficult to get 10 exposures out of the roll of film (I got 7 on each of the cameras, but I could have probably squeezed 9 exposures out of them had I been less risk adverse).

I also lost one exposure in the middle of the roll shot with the Five Below camera (the shutter probably did not fire), and one to a partial and totally involuntary double exposure on the Minolta (which is a very reliable camera, normally). The unusual stiffness of the film may have caused it, but I suspect that the real reason is that the film had not been spooled regularly.

Five Below vs Minolta

The Minolta AF-C is a fine camera. The film advance is smooth, the viewfinder large and accurate, with a clearly defined projected frame, and the 35mm f/2.8 lens is true to the premium positioning of the camera when it was new. The auto-exposure system and the autofocus did their job and the negatives are correctly exposed and as sharp as the film permits them to be.

The Five Below Reusable Photo Camera fared better than I expected. The viewfinder is poorly implemented (it shows you the angle of view of a 40mm lens, when the lens is actually a 28mm), and the word “resistance” was invented to describe the film advance ratchet wheel. Not a pleasant experience, but you still get usable negatives in the end. The negatives lack density – which clearly points to under-exposure. The camera has no way – manual or automated – to adjust the shutter speed or the aperture to the luminosity of the day, and on the day I took the pictures, the weather was overcast. The negatives are also mushy, the lens is definitely not a champion of sharpness: the image quality is low without being unacceptable, but there is no light leak and the frames are evenly spaced on the film.

As a conclusion

The “Five Below Reusable Photo Camera” looks cool in its pale blue color, and the little lobsters are fun. It’s deprived of a flash, and will only be usable outdoors, by good weather. On the beach, or practicing water sports. If you lose it or drown it, no big deal – you’ve only lost $7.00. Some of the issues I observed – the very stiff film advance, in particular, were probably caused by the film, and are not to be blamed on the camera.

I have no idea of the life expectancy of the camera – you will certainly be tired of it before it gets tired of you. Kodak, Ilford, Yashica and a few other propose much nicer reusable cameras (with a flash) for approximately $50.00, and a patient buyer will be able to score a very good motorized, autofocus compact zoom camera made in the nineteen nineties by Canon, Minolta, Nikon or Pentax for less than $35.00 (shipping and handling included) on their favorite auction site.

Lightroom settings with Five Below 100 ISO film

Left – the Five Below 100 ISO film reacts like “normal” B&W film – Right – there are better low budget options that this Five Below camera

The resulting images will be much better, and the price difference between the different models of cameras becomes negligible once you start considering that a photo lab will charge you many times the price of the Five Below camera to simply develop your first film and print 10 images.

As for the Five Below B&W 100 ISO film, in a good camera, it will deliver images which are not bad at all, with decent sharpness and contrast. There is no light leak, no dust, and all images are usable. But I can’t recommend it.

The PET base, those short 49cm strips, the absence of any film marking or processing direction, the straight cut leader, the same clipsable plastic film cartridges used by photographers spooling (not very well) their film at home, everything points to a low budget scrap recycling project. For the same price you can get a 36 frame roll of Ilford’s Kentmere 100. As such, this Five Below film is massively, obscenely, terminally overpriced. To be avoided.

The Five Below Waterproof case and the camera that goes inside. The pictures of this blog post were taken with the camera out of the waterproof shell – no need to add another layer of plastic between the scene and the film.

More recent content in CamerAgX

*Minolta AF-C – Five Below 100 ISO – Sweetwater Creek Park*

Carrying all that gear – three sizes of camera bags

A “camera bag” search on amazon.com returns 40,000 references. And there are 70,000 camera bags for sale on eBay.com. Camera bags come in all shapes and forms, attempting to cover the needs of a nature photographer hiking at 18,000 ft as well as those of a street photographer carrying a rangefinder camera and 2 prime lenses in the public transportation system.

From left to right: *Manfrotto Advanced backpack, Pentax DSLR Sling 2 and Moment Balance sling 7 liter*

At this stage, I’ve settled on three camera bags, corresponding to three use cases:

a photo dedicated, “formal”, back pack: the Manfrotto Advanced MB MA3-BP-T (capacity: 24 liters). It replaces a Tamrac Tradewind backpack designed to meet an approaching set of requirements, that had reached the end of its life during one my recent travels.
a medium sized photo dedicated sling, the Pentax DSLR Sling 2 – Model 85231 (no more than 12 liters in my calculations)
and a smaller hybrid Every Day Carry (EDC), a sling bag with removable compartments: the Moment Balance Sling (capacity: 7 liters).

*How to wear a sling photo bag – front or bag (Source: shopmoment.com)*

Back pack and sling bags

Back packs have two shoulder straps, and will let you carry more weight and for a longer time than sling bags. Photo dedicated back-packs are generally designed to carry up to eighteen pounds, but retrieving the equipment typically requires to remove bag from one’s shoulders and place it on the floor. And carrying expensive equipment behind your back makes you a target for thieves in crowded settings.
Sling bags have only one strap, and can be carried in the back or in the front of the body, or in any position in-between. Carrying the bag in front of you addresses the “thief problem”, and grants an easy access the equipment (to change a lens for instance) without having to remove the bag and drop it on the ground. But because there is only one strap crossing the front of the chest, slings have a reduced ability to carry heavy loads.
The imagination of the marketing teams of the manufacturers of photo equipment is limitless, and all sorts of “hybrids” between conventional backpacks and slings exist.

*The perfect use case of a sling photo bag – taking the camera from the bag while walking.* (Source: Shopmoment.com)

The Manfrotto Advanced MB MA3-BP-T

it’s a true back pack, but designed for photographers. Finished in a dark (charcoal) and water repellent nylon-polyester blend, it’s more formal than casual, more urban dweller than overlander.
The main opening is lateral, but there are two shoulder straps. A photographer with a bit of upper body flexibility can slip their left shoulder out of the strap, letting the backpack hang from the right shoulder and making its contents accessible on the fly. This can work if the load is light, but in most cases, retrieving a lens still requires taking the bag off and setting it down.
the bag is large with a 24 Liter capacity – there is room for a 15in laptop and/or tablet (in two separate compartments), 1 or 2 dSLR bodies, a few lenses, batteries and power bricks. The photo equipment section is divided in four main configurable compartments, and a small bundle of clothes or toiletteries (one or two tee shirts, underwear, a toothbrush) can be carried in one of the compartments if the photographer is capable of travelling really (really) light. But there’s definitely no room for a jacket, a sweater or a beach towel if you’re also carrying photo equipment. There is a large pocket on the opposite site of the bag where a tripod can be stored, or a water bottle if you trust it not to leak.
Compared to a backpack like the Tamrac Tradewind 24L, the Manfrotto Advanced will carry much more photo equipment, but will not be as good at carrying change clothes and toiletteries. The two bags are equally comfortable if not too heavily loaded (you can keep them on your back for a whole day of sightseeing if you limit the payload to a few kilograms), but will strain your back if you load them at full capacity.
Fully loaded, they are at their best when travelling or commuting between two photo opportunities. In a plane, they’re narrow and flat enough to fit under the seat in front of you when the overhead bins are full.
As far as I know, Manfrotto bags are not sold in the US, but they are available in Europe and in Japan. I paid the equivalent of $110 USD for mine, which is a tremendous value for a very well built piece of luggage.

A more rugged alternative to the Manfrotto – the Tamrac Tradewind 24L backpack – good for a laptop, fresh clothes, a camera and two or three lenses (here an older model – the current models are black).

The Pentax dSLR Slingbag 2

It’s a typical photo dedicated, vertical, mid sized sling bag. There are equivalent models in the product lines of Thinktank, Lowepro, Mindshift, Tarion…
This bag is not available from Pentax or from big photo retailers anymore – there are a few new old stock (NOS) items on eBay, selling for approximately $80.00. Mine came with the Pentax KP I bought second hand from a thrift store.
There are three compartments – the one in the middle is the largest and will be for the camera and one lens, the top and the bottom compartments are smaller and will store accessories (like a flash or a charger), and maybe one or two small lenses in the bottom compartment. There is a mesh pocket on the right side of the bag, but in my experience anything you place in that pocket will fall as soon as you carry the bag as a sling.

This Pentax dSLR sling should have been named Pentax APS-C dSLR sling.

An interesting characteristic: the strap is central and the bag can be carried on the right or on the left shoulder, even if the opening of the central compartment is designed for photographers wearing the sling on their right shoulder. And it comes with a removable waist belt to keep the bag in place when cycling.
There is no reliable info about capacity – my estimate is around 11 or 12 Liters.
11 liters is rather capacitous: it fits an APS-C dSLR like the Pentax KP with its battery grip, or Fujifilm X-T4, both with a trans-standard zoom or a prime lens. The bag still has enough room for at least another zoom, another prime, a charger, a few batteries and a cobra flash. A full frame body and its pro-lens hardly fit, and the weight more than the volume becomes the problem.
The bag was designed in the early 2010s, and at that time Pentax had not imagined that photographers could not survive without a tablet or a bottle of water. There is no compartment – and no room – for any form of portable computer (maybe an iPad mini or a Kindle, but nothing larger than that), and no external compartment where even a small 500ml / 16.9 OZ bottle would fit.
The bag is comfortable as long as it’s not too heavily loaded (1 body, 1 prime, 1 standard zoom is the sweet spot). If you start adding a battery grip or a pro zoom (a constant aperture f/2.8 monster), the payload becomes a bit too heavy for the sling form factor (the strap compresses the chest) and it becomes difficult to carry the bag for more than a few minutes.
The “Pentax” branding, the black and grey colors and its general shape clearly indicate it carries photo equipment. And you can’t carry a bottle of water or a 9in tablet in it. But if you can live with those limitations, it’s a very good compromise for photographers on the move.

*Sling or backpack – it’s* *pretty obvious which one will be more comfortable on long walks. (Source: backpackies.com)*

Moment Balance Sling Bag (7 Liter)

This one is clearly designed with photographers in mind, but is not photo dedicated. There are lots of pockets for non-photo stuff, including a compartment for a standard 9in iPad (it’s a tight fit) or a Kindle. The central compartment is padded and lined with Velcro, and a removable divider will separate the camera body and its main lens, from a second lens. An elastic pocket under the bag is the ideal place for a water bottle. The Moment Balance Sling is fairly versatile: it can be used as small every day carry (EDC) if you carry some photo equipment, or as a large capacity EDC after you remove the compartment divider and leave the camera at home.

The sling as you carry it – the equipment is very easy to access.

The only part of this bag which is rigid is the removable divider of the main compartment- remove it and fold it, and the bag can be stored flat when not in use.
There is enough room for an APS-C camera like a Pentax KP or a Fujifilm X-T4 (without their battery grip), with a maximum of two compact lenses (one mounted on the body, the second next to it in the bag). I would not try to carry a pro full frame dSLR with a f/2.8 constant aperture zoom – the combination is too big, and above all too heavy.
Sling bags are designed to move easily around the torso of the photographer, but that very characteristic can be a serious drawback if you’re riding a bicycle – the Balance Sling comes with second strap equipped with a magnetic buckle, that will help stabilize the whole setup and keep the sling on your back while you’re on the move.
The Moment Sling is the perfect bag for a photo stroll – with the bag opening right in the front, there is little risk of equipment falling on the ground when you attempt to change a lens.
Lastly, the Moment Balance does not shout “photo equipment inside” – in fact, with its soft structure, its elastic mesh pockets at the front and its “moss” color, it looks like a tired surplus army bag and does not attract attention (it’s available in “sable” and “black” if you don’t like the military surplus look). That being said, it seems well built, with components of quality.
At $120, it’s pricey for what it looks like, but it does the job it’s been designed for.

*The Moment Balance Sling in “moss” color – note the soft structure, the two mesh pockets at the front, and the mesh tunnel at the bottom of the bag – perfect for a 500ml bottle of water*

Conclusion

There is an abundance of form factors on the marketplace – from high capacity backpacks with a bottom compartment that can be flipped laterally (for accessing the gear while hiking), to slings only large enough for a compact point and shoot camera.
Generally speaking, sling camera bags sacrifice the carrying capacity for the ability to be opened on the fly, while still wrapped around the body of the photographer.
More than the volume of the gear, its weight is the enemy – slings are OK if you carry one APS-C body and 2 lenses – they may still be OK-ish with a small mirrorless full frame camera, but in that case you should avoid carrying a large and heavy zoom. I can’t imagine carrying a full frame dSLR and a large aperture zoom in the Moment Balance. Even a full frame dSLR is a tight fit for the Pentax Sling, unless it’s paired with a small wide angle prime and not much else.
Even if the weight and the volume are contained, there is no guarantee that the sling will be comfortable (I returned a PGYTech sling because the body of the bag was too rigid and was pressing on my back, and the narrow strap was compressing my chest).
Backpacks like the Manfrotto are ideal to carry lots of equipment with elegance between two photo shoots, but too big for street photography and – if loaded to their maximum capacity, for a 5mi hike in the hills;
Small slings (6 or 7 Liter) are ideal if you can survive with a camera body, two small lenses and a bottle of water. They’re perfect for shooting in urban settings and for street photography. Larger slings (10 to 15 liters) will contain more equipment, but all slings become a pain to carry if you load them with more than a few pounds of gear.

More recent content in CamerAgX

Backpacks or slings – Tokyo – Sensō-ji – Fujifilm X-T4.

Photo stroll with the Moment Balance and a Fujifilm X100T camera.

A sling is compact enough not to draw attention, not even in museums (here the Dolce Gabbana exhibit at Miami’s ICA). Fujifilm X100T.

The last dSLRs with CCD sensors

The first generations of dSLRs from Konica-Minolta-Sony, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax were all built around CCD image sensors. Then, around 2006, the camera makers started integrating CMOS sensors, and within a few years CCD sensors were history.

My recent review of one of (if not THE) best dSLRs with a CCD sensor: the Nikon D80.

Today, some photographers compare the images they get from their modern cameras (all equipped with CMOS sensors offering a very broad dynamic range and reaching very high ISO sensitivities without much noise), with the images they were taking with the best cameras of the CCD era, and they like the photos taken with the old cameras better. What is so special about CCD sensors, and why have they disappeared if they were so good?

A cenote near Cozumel – Pentax *ist DS – July 2007 (6 Megapixels CCD sensor)

Why CMOS won

For all the hype surrounding CCD sensors, they had reached their peak in the 2006-2009 years – the last CCD sensors from Kodak and Sony were either unreliable or performing poorly above 800 ISO – and the technology of CMOS sensors had much more potential.

In 2006, camera makers started switching to CMOS sensors because they saw three main advantages in them:

a much lower power consumption – we now tend to forget that the CCD’s high power consumption and the related heat dissipation were major engineering issues at that time,
a much faster data acquisition,
a potential for higher ISO performance and wider dynamic range.

Live-view (composing the photo on the rear LCD of dSLRs), video capture in available light and mirrorless cameras were only made possible by the generalization of CMOS sensors, and would have been next to impossible with the CCD sensor technology.

Why this love for CCD sensors ?

In a few words, photographers tend to believe that images captured with a CCD sensor equipped camera are more “film like”.

Venice - gondoliers — The film look? – *Venice – Gondoliers in the sun set. Nikon FE2. Fujicolor 400 film*

I suffered for you and watched half a dozen Youtube videos where the authors are comparing the pictures taken with some of the best CCD equipped dSLRs with images taken with the CMOS equipped cameras that immediately followed. The conclusion is that if you make a serious apples to apples comparison on RAW files (same brand of camera, same lens, same resolution), there may be a difference, but really minimal. Images taken with a CCD may have a bit more punch, a bit more contrast, and the transition between colors may be more abrupt than on images captured with a CMOS. But again, the differences are marginal, only visible to pixel peepers.

So, if the RAW files are to a large extend similar, where is the perception coming from, that CCD sensors deliver more natural images than CMOS sensors? Could it be that the supporters of CCD sensors are only shooting JPEGs?

CCD and CMOS are different technologies, and their noise characteristics are not the same. They also behave differently in presence of strong highlights (the tone curve of images captured with a CMOS sensor is linear, as opposed to film and, to a lesser extent, CCD, which have a more S shaped tone curve). At the beginning of the transition from CCDs to CMOS sensors, camera vendors had more experience dealing with the noise patterns and tone curve characteristics of the images coming from CCDs than from CMOS sensors, and as a consequence their JPEG rendering algorithms were giving more “natural” (understand crowd pleasing) results when starting from the raw data of CCDs.

The CCD bias of the JPEG Rendering engines did not last. Camera manufacturers learned how to take advantage of the larger dynamic range and the lower level of noise of CMOS sensors to deliver images that mimic film behavior more closely than CCD sensors ever did.

The generalization of CMOS also allowed a raise in the pixel density of the sensors, and with it the end of the need for an “anti-aliasing” filter (the Nikon d800e launched in 2012 was the first dSLR deprived of an AA filter). By 2014, the “new normal” was a camera with a 16 to 24 Megapixel sensor and no anti-liaising filter, capable of a much higher real-life resolution than a 6 or 10 Mpix CCD operating behind an anti-liaising filter. No wonder a photographer upgrading from an early dSLR was a bit surprised by the “surgical” nature of the JPEGs.

*Venice, on Dec 25th 2010 – Shot with a Nikon D80 and a Sigma 18-125 lens.* (10 Megapixel CCD Sensor)

So…

The “CCD look” was a JPEG thing.
the “film like” look of images captured with CCDs was the result of lower resolution sensors, thick anti-liaising filters, and above all a product of the JPEG image processing algorithms used at that time.
With modern cameras, “film like” behavior can be emulated to a much higher degree than what the JPEG engines of the cameras of 2005 could do. Film emulation (or Picture Styles or whatever the camera manufacturer calls its brand of JPEG rendering recipe) is not only good at mimicking the tonal response and the colors of film, but also its grain.
Now that every camera maker is proposing some form of “Picture Control” or film simulation to customize the output of their JPEG rendering engine, it’s remarkable that nobody is proposing “CCD emulation”. Maybe it was not so much of an issue after all?
CCD equipped cameras are still available on the second hand market, are generally very cheap, and will give your images the full CCD look if it’s what you’re after.

CCD equipped compact cameras

The compact (point and shoot) cameras of the early days of the digital migration are the ones delivering images closer to the film look, probably because of the low resolution of their image sensor and the very consumer oriented tuning of their JPEG rendering engine. I’m still impressed by the “Barbie at the beach” look of the JPEGs of my old Canon S400 Powershot (Digital Elph or Ixus).

Compact cameras switched from CCD to CMOS sensors later than dSLRs – the last models being launched around 2011.

*Miami Beach in 2004 – Canon Powershot S400* (4 Megapixel CCD Sensor)

CCD sensor equipped dSLRs

With the exception of sensors manufactured by Kodak for the Leica M9 (which had very significant long term reliability issues), there is no Full Frame CCD sensor, and only one APS-C sensor with a resolution higher than 10 Megapixel (a 14 Mpix APS-C sensor only used by Sony on the Alpha 280/380 series, which had a reputation of being no good above 800 ISO).

Because of the technical characteristics of CCDs, there never was a CCD equipped mirrorless camera, or a CCD equipped dSLR offering real Live-View capabilities (the Sony Alpha 350/380/390 used a second, dedicated sensor in its viewfinder to offer Live-View). The last dSLRs equipped with CCD sensors were launched around 2010 (Nikon D3000, Sony Alpha 290 and 390).

Let’s focus on the 10 megapixel cameras from Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and Sony:

Nikon D200, D80, D40X, D60, D3000 – they all share a 10 Megapixel CCD sensor of the same family. The D200 is often considered the best CCD equipped dSLR ever, but it’s a big and heavy camera designed for pros. There is little difference between the D40X, the D60 and the D3000 – all three are entry level dSLRs designed for beginners and amateurs. The D80 sits in-between. A Nikon D80 was my main camera for years, and I’m still impressed by the quality of the pictures I took with it (I love the D80’s JPEGs).
Olympus was the first camera maker to take advantage of CMOS sensors to offer Live View in a limited fashion (on the E330 in 2006). The e400 of the same year is their last dSLR with a CCD sensor (a 10 Megapixel sourced from Kodak). Like the Nikon D200, the e400 has a legion of enthusiastic fans and is comparatively expensive second hand.
Pentax K10D, K200D, K-M, K-2000 – the K10D is the big semi-pro camera, the other models are smaller and more amateur oriented. The 10 Megapixel Pentax dSLRs are generally appreciated for their beautiful RAW files, but reviewers complain about their comparatively poor JPEGs, which may not be great if you’re after the CCD look.
Sony a100, a200 and a300 series – all are the successors of Konica-Minolta 5D. The 100 and 200 series are very conventional amateur oriented models, the models of the 300 series offer Live-View capabilities thanks to a second dedicated image sensor.

Canon is absent from that list. For their line of dSLRs, they made a very early bet on CMOS – I believe that the EOS-1d of 2001 is their only CCD-equipped dSLR. Note that they kept on integrating CCD sensors in their line of digital point and shoot cameras until 2011.

Venice - Nikon FE2 - Fujicolor 400 — *Venice – Nikon FE2 – Fujicolor 400 – Dec. 2010*

The value of cameras on the second hand market tends to be driven primarily by the sensor resolution – and 10 megapixels is considered so low that all the cameras of this list can be bought for less than $150 (the Nikon D200 is the most expensive, the oldest “amateur” models being the cheapest at $50.00 to $70.00). Interestingly, 10 Mpix CCD compact cameras like the Canon G12 or the Nikon P7100 currently sell for more than the best 10 Megapixels dSLRs. Nikon D200 included.

Venice, Dec 2008 – Nikon D80 (CCD Sensor)

Atlanta Aquarium – Canon Powershot S400 (CCD Sensor)

Pentax KP – Quirky grip design – great camera (Part Two)

The Pentax KP – an APS-C Digital SLR competing in the same category as the Nikon D7500 and the Canon 90D – was presented in a recent blog entry. It was sold between 2017 and 2021, and was spec’d to slot between the “amateur” oriented Pentax K-70/KF, and the very expensive Pentax K-3 Mk III.

The K-70/KF and the K-3 have bodies which are very conventional for dSLRs (and make them easy to live with), but the design of the KP is reminiscent of the manual focus SLRs of the eighties (and of the very successful Fujifilm X series mirrorless cameras), which creates some ergonomics and battery life challenges.

Without a direct legacy in the current Pentax line-up, the KP remains a very interesting proposition for Pentax shooters – with a 24 Mpix sensor and a processing engine of recent design, it is still up to date when compared to mid level APS-C mirrorless cameras. In fact, in terms of image quality and high ISO performance, it’s only second to the much more expensive K-3 Mk III in the Pentax APS-C line-up. And contrarily to its K-3 biggest brothers, it has an articulated rear display, which makes composing the image in “Live-View” mode easier.

*High Falls State Park, GA – Pentax KP – Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited*

Shooting with the KP : the optical viewfinder

Because it’s Pentax’s main differentiator, the optical viewfinder of their dSLRs is the object of the utmost care – and the truth is that – for an APS-C camera, the KP has a very good OVF. The specs sheet reads like a dream come true. The OVF’s pentaprism is made out of glass, it covers almost 100% of the captured image, with a magnification factor of 0.95x and an eye relief of 20.5mm. The focusing screen is fine and bright enough to let you set the focus “manually” with pre-autofocus era lenses.

It’s still an APS-C (meaning cropped sensor) camera, which makes some of the figures of the specs sheet misleading – the announced magnification factor of 0.95x would translate into a relatively mediocre 0.63x on a full frame dSLR (a Pentax K-1 or a Nikon D780 reach 0.7x, and the very best full frame cameras 0.76x). The viewfinder does not exactly give you the immersive view you get in the OVF of a professional full frame dSLR – but composing your pictures through the viewfinder of the KP is still a very pleasant experience – it is large and luminous enough to let you judge how the image will look like without having to double check the rear digital display all the time – it’s very significant step up over the “dark tunnel vision” experienced with the entry-level dSLRs from some other manufacturers.

There is no electronics to introduce a delay between what happens on the scene and what you see on the focusing screen, and – for whatever reason (I know, old habits and old age…), I find it easier to mentally project the final image when I compose on the focusing screen of an optical viewfinder rather than on the LCD panel of an electronic viewfinder.

Shooting with the KP: The third control wheel

Like cars, cameras are software defined those days. Everything can be configured and menus have become incredibly long and complex. The KP is not different, but Pentax has introduced one trick to make the photographer’s life easier, the “third control wheel”.

On a relatively compact camera like the KP, the real estate where to place dedicated buttons and switches is limited, and the quantity of options and settings offered in the menus can be overwhelming.

There are settings for which no dedicated physical control is available but that you may wish to change without having to dig deep into pages and pages menus. That’s where the third control wheel – the so called “smart function dial” comes into play.

The “smart function dial” is a big knob on the top plate that can take one of six positions – three pre-defined by Pentax, and three user-defined. Imagine you’re in front of a high contrast scene – you know you’re going to need to set the camera to HDR mode, but don’t know how to configure it. Place the big dial on the HDR position, and rotate the third control wheel at the far right of the top plate to select the desired HDR setting. Take the picture, review the result, then simply rotate the third control wheel left of right to select another HDR setting, and repeat until you get a picture you like.

*The “smart function dial” with its “AE-HDR-CH/CL…” markings is paired with the unmarked control wheel on its right. A very good idea, nicely implemented.*

In my experience, the real value sits with the user configurable functions, C1, C2 and C3. I’ve set C1 to change the exposure compensation value. If I’m facing a scene difficult to evaluate, I position the knob on C1, and use the third wheel to circle through the different exposure compensation values. Similarly, I configured C2 to easily switch from an ISO value to another.

The third control wheel may seem gimmicky, or redundant (I could also access the exposure compensation or the ISO settings using a dedicated key and the second control wheel or the Info page on the rear display), but it saves time if you need to change a parameter frequently or if you’re trying different options when facing a complex scene, and I ended up using it a lot.

Not so good: Battery life

Well, it’s not brilliant. Not as bad as a Fujifilm X-H1, for instance, but not great at all, and frankly disappointing for a dSLR. Because there was no room in the KP’s body for the large battery of the K-5/K-3 series, Pentax used the small 1050 mAh battery introduced in 2010 with the K-r, and typically coming with Pentax’s entry level models (it’s still being used in the KF). For reference, the K-5 and the K-3 use a 1860 mAh battery, delivering almost twice the capacity.

The KP is begging to be used in Live View Mode (why would Pentax have specified a tiltable rear screen otherwise), which increases the power consumption and makes the choice of a small battery even more puzzling. When Nikon dSLRs can easily shoot 1000 pictures on a charge, the KP is struggling to deliver more than three hundreds (it’s rated at 420 shots per charge by CIPA, which seems pretty optimistic). Be sure to have one or two charged spare batteries with you, or the battery grip attached.

The battery grip accepts one lithium battery (either the small type of the KP/KF or the large type of the K-5/K-3) and its capacity comes in addition to the battery already in place in the body of the camera, effectively doubling the total battery capacity (with the small KP/KF battery) or almost tripling it (with the large K-5/K-3 battery).

*Apart from the KP, only the full frame Pentax K-1 has a tillable rear display – it tilts forward….*

The Live View mode and macro-photography

This is not a mirrorless camera, and even though the image sensor has photosites dedicated to phase detection autofocus, they are only mobilized when shooting videos, and not when taking still images.

Therefore, when in the Live-View mode, the KP won’t have the speed and reactivity of a good mirrorless ILC (to shoot sports, wild life or other moving subjects, use the optical viewfinder, that’s what it’s here for). But on relatively static and evenly lit subjects (landscape, interior photography, macro photography), the autofocus of the Live View mode works extremely well.

On other subjects (moving objects or people, scenes with strong highlights), it struggles, and hunts vainly for focus (I’ve read it performs better with recent lenses equipped with an internal focusing motor). On earlier Pentax models, Live-View looked like a clunky afterthought. Here, it’s well implemented but only usable with a limited type of subjects.

Image Quality

I don’t know if it’s the camera, or the prime Pentax 35mm Macro “Limited” prime lens . Or the combination they form. But I’ve been really pleased and genuinely impressed with the quality of the images.

The images (RAW and JPEGs) are correctly exposed, with pleasing colors, they show an impressive dynamic range, and need very few adjustments – no need to play with the exposure, the highlights or the clarity sliders to get pictures you can be proud of. And it’s true for landscapes, for interiors, for pictures of objects, when composing through the optical viewfinder and on the rear display in Live-View mode.

You can see Pentax dSLRs as obsolete pieces of machinery, and you would have a point when it comes to their live-view or video capabilities, but as far as still image quality is concerned, they’re perfectly up to date.

*“Only time will tell” – on the trail markers of the Sweetwater Creek Park (GA), interesting messages are often written by visitors. I saw this one long after the picture was taken.*

A mirrorless killer?

No way.

The KP is a niche product. You shoot with a KP either because you’re a committed Pentax dSLR photographer and will not consider any other camera system, or because from time to time you want to enjoy to experience of composing your images through an optical viewfinder, with a camera whose user interface you can configure in depth and to your liking.

Objectively, compared to the best mirrorless ILCs, the KP’s autofocus is not as capable (it only offers face detection in live view, for instance, not when composing through the optical viewfinder), the autofocus in the live-view mode only works well with relatively static and evenly lit subjects, video capture is comparatively primitive and most surprisingly for a dSLR, battery life is sub-par (recent mirrorless cameras do better). As for the ergonomics, it’s an acquired taste – the KP is extremely compact (smaller than a Fujifilm X-T series for instance), but also heavier and not as pleasant to hold if paired with its small grip.

Image quality is extremely good and pictures have a pleasant “Pentax Touch”, but the best mirrorless cameras are no slouch either, and nowadays a lot can be accomplished with presets and filters in image editing software. Last by not least, the vendors of APS-C mirrorless cameras – Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon or Sony – all have a significant market presence and a clear product roadmap, which can’t be said for Pentax.

So, what’s left? The thing that mirrorless cameras can’t offer: the direct, immediate view of the scene through an optical viewfinder. That, and the fact that the user interface is so rich in buttons, knobs and control wheels that the camera can be configured to work exactly like you feel it should. The KP is a genuine pleasure to shoot with and naturally pushes the photographer to explore and experiment.

Except to pay between $550.00 and $750.00 for a used KP located in the US. Pentax cameras used to have a much stronger following in Japan than in America, and most of the used KPs are located there. They will be subject to tariffs and fees if imported into the US. Tariffs and fees may (or may not) be included in the announced shipping costs. It’s a point to validate before placing the order.

More about the KP:

DPReview: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-kp-review
Pentaxforums: https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-kp-review/introduction.html
PentaxUser: https://www.pentaxuser.com/review/pentax-kp-dslr-review-1038
Kobie MC on Youtube: https://youtu.be/N5fAc45_UdE?si=iMBC23n53vBdcwA9

For a similar budget, should you buy a used K-3 Mk II or a used KP?

The KP is a more modern but somehow quirky evolution of the K-3 Mk II. Its image sensor is more recent, its image processing engine more elaborate, and it will deliver marginally nicer pictures, particularly at high ISOs. The third control wheel is also unique to the KP, and more useful than I thought.

The tiltable rear screen is in my opinion the main reason to prefer a KP over a K-3 II. It makes the camera easier to use for macro photography, when shooting with a wide angle lens or from the hip in the street, all situations where the live-view option can be put to better use with a tiltable LCD. Alternatively, its more conventional design is the main reason to prefer a K-3 Mk II, in particular if you shoot with long and heavy lenses, and believe that the tiltable rear screen is going to make the KP too fragile in the long run.

K-3 Mk II or KP, it’s up to you – but be warned: it may whet your appetite for an even more modern take on the classic Pentax optical viewfinder camera theme, the K-3 Mk III.

CamerAgX – a new life for old gear

Gear

Kodak Ektar H35 and the quest for the cheapest usable film camera

Argus M5600D – A generic long zoom “travel” compact film camera with an American household name

Testing Buyee.jp – a (cheaper) eBay alternative to tap the Japanese second hand equipment market?

Nikon D80 – the CCD-look at its best ?

A few words about the Pentax K-3 III Monochrome

Pentax 17: a compact film camera like no other

The $7.00, Five Below Reusable Photo camera and its $7.00 film cartridge

Carrying all that gear – three sizes of camera bags

The last dSLRs with CCD sensors

Pentax KP – Quirky grip design – great camera (Part Two)