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*

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.