>>4396569
Economies of scale

>>4396569
Long answer: https://youtu.be/sioAN8w_Ew8?feature=shared
Short answer: because people pay it
Wether it's worth it or not it's for you to decide. I think it is

>>4396569
Because hipsters are retards

>>4396602
Retard alert

>>4396569
But you get twice the photos per roll.
Think of the savings in the long run!

>>4396614
each shot costs more than a digital camera and I can't imagine this camera is so great I'd save cash over the canon point and shoot 35mm I bought for $40

>>4396616
The only reason Pentax made this is because they're owned by Ricoh, who seem to have PTSD from the GXR and K-01 over mirrorless cameras
If they weren't insecure then they'd join Micro 4/3 and release a 110D, in reference to MFT sensors being identical in size to a 110 film frame

>>4396602
Oh whole body is plastic mould, the film guides are plastic, I don't know man. And that internal battery that you have to disassemble half of camera to take it out (soldered terminals). I don't know man.
Also half frame, maybe if you put delta 3200 and push it 6400 and develop it in Rodinal for that extra extra grain to pretend to be Moriyama for one day.
Actually with 72 frames it will be more than a day. I don't know man.

>>4396618
mft seems like a pretty dead market

>>4396624
I don't know what to tell you man. You do you I guess. I don't know man.

>>4396627
Only because panasonic and om are complete niggers who insist on making full frame cameras with m4:3 sensors.

>>4396630
wdym? do you mean to say mft could have had a better niche in the ultra portable segment instead?

>>4396627
>>4396630
>>4396632
I have a pen F and like it because its small, especially with the pancake 20mm its only slightly bigger than a film point and shoot. idk what the point would be if it was as big as a full frame

>>4396630
The OM5 is pretty smol, the issue is the retarded big glass

>>4396618
If they were competent they’d go FF mirrorless and start making medium format again

Mft legit looks exactly like the photos from an iphone 15/16 pro

>>4396642
PENTAX
NIGGA
PENTAPRISM
THEY ARE CALLED LIKE THAT FOR A REASON

>half-frame good
>mft bad
really makes you think

>>4396569
just look at chink-made rollei and what a shitshow that is. It's not possible to make even a barely decent film camera at a lower price when it's nearly a lost technology.

>>4396646
To be fair, half frame is basically APC-S and MFT its 110 film.

>>4396569
It's literally the same as any old re-usable point and shoot minus exactly half the image quality. It's a puzzling buy that's for sure.

>>4396639
Which glass? I know some of the Pana Leica lenses are beefy but in my experience pretty much all the Zuiko lenses are compact for their speed and quality, both premium/pro primes and zooms- the exceptions being the ridiculous niche and uber expensive shit like the "OM" (Sigma) 150-600mm.

>>4396642
Having the handling and flexibility of an actual camera plus straight raws without any forced denoise and AI fill-in and whatnot still makes it worth it to me over a phone, plus the obvious
>spend hundreds on a phone with all the shit I don't want that tries to be two devices at once and might come close to a dedicated camera if everything is perfect and you don't mind AI oil painting
>or use the phone and camera plus lenses I already have

>>4396658
my only guess is the looks and the manual wind/zone focus. I know those were "premium" features and it was cheaper for me to get all electronic cameras from the 80s/90s

>>4396660
If it were manual focusing through a rangefinder or through the lens I would agree about that being a "premium" feature. But as it stands zone focusing is probably the worst way to focus, as every single other manual focusing method includes zone focusing just as a feature of having distances marked on the lens. It's only one step short of just guessing. Autofocus with manual wind would have made for a better experience desu

>>4396659
>pretty much all the Zuiko lenses are compact for their speed and quality
The OM film lenses yes. The zuiko digitals and mirrorless lenses no. They're small for their image quality sure but none of the fast ones are particularly small and none of the small ones are particularly fast.

>>4396660
Yeah, wouldn't you rather have an XA? I sure would. If Oly could put a rangefinder into a point and shoot body 40 years ago why can't Pentax do it now? Embarrassing.

>>4396662
12 rolls shot, including street photography and indoor events with crowds and groups. The only out of focus shots were with the first one, and only because I was experimenting with all modes and forgot to change the distances. You have to be retarded to find it complicated to use. It's easier to miss focus with an AF camera due to automation fails.

>>4396664
How fast are we talking? You've got the 1.8 shorties plus the 1.4 Pros that are small, plus the Panasonic 20 1.4 pancake even.
>tfw weather sealed rerelease of the 12/17/25 1.8s

>>4396696
>f2.8 equivalent "pros"
>bigger, heavier, and softer than sony f2.5s and just a hair smaller than canon rf f1.8s
lmao

the dumb as fuck lenses + most cameras essentially operating at a base ISO of 800 = M43 failed, looks like phone size of snoy

>>4396662
zone focus is dead simple, when I started doing photography i used a konica c35ef which even at f2.8 on full frame i'd nail focus every time

but yeah its not very premium no

>>4396691
isn't it an f/3.5 lens? so a f/7 DoF at the most open? I'd assume it would be hard to fuck the focus with that DoF

>>4396696
with micro43 you need to double the fstop to get the ff equivalent so the 20mm f/1.7 pancake is really a 40mm f/3.5, which isn't that fast, though totally fine for like 99% of shit you would do with it

>>4396703
>though totally fine for like 99% of shit you would do with it
you aren't allowed to be reasonable

>>4396703
its totally fine but so is a phone, and if you dont pixel peep an iphones max resolution and scale everything down to the same 20mp, an iphone 15/16 or decent android phone has basically the same quality as an om-5.

fuji totally mogs m43 now. an x-t5 isnt very big and if you scale an x-t5 to 20mp, the resulting files are as noisy as full frame, and 4x less noisy than micro four thirds with much better color. the x-t5 has m43 grade IBIS and better autofocus and video specs than anything olympus makes, and is overall better than the FF sized $2000 G9II.

once the xe-5 comes out, consider m43 dead and place it in the same category as $100 1" sensor pocket shitters. i can not imagine paying more than $250 for an m43 body even today. it would be idiotic. save up a little more and get a fuji.

>>4396710
autism

>>4396650
>half frame
>aps-c
lolno

>>4396702
F4.5 equivalent if you want to talk in those terms, which still gives a shallow depth of field for portraits, but yes. The thing is that this camera has what's basically a P mode that prioritises a small aperture and shutter speeds of no less than 1/50s if I had to guess, so it will tell you you're under exposing before risking a trepidated shot, but it will always aim for high f numbers for a larger dof. Then the so called AUTO mode ignores the selected focusing distance and forces an f/8-f/11 and a panfocus distance, so everything from 1m to infinity is focused but it's easier to underexpose, and in that case it will trigger the flash accordingly. Finally you can force f3.5 with one mode and 4s long exposures with another one, but that's it. P, long exposure and f3.5 modes are displayed twice, both without flash or forcing it every time.
In my experience the best results come with iso 400 film, specially if it has good latitude like ultramax and XP2. It will keep aperture small and shutter speeds fast without much trouble or the flash going off all the time if you're in AUTO. And with a max f16 and 1/350s it's impossible to overexpose, even in the summer sun in a beach (tested).

>>4396710
Based and correct. Micro four thirds is fully obsolete. The om5 is worth no more than $400.

>>4396642
The whole point of the Auto 110 was being small, a digital recreation could be GM5 size with an SLR shape

>>4396718
it's only that size still because it evolved from the original 4/3 DSLR system. The high resolution sensors from Sharp and Sony are being hoarded to prevent the creation of models that could eat into full-frame sales. if there was no embargo on them, then we'd get an "OM-2" with a 50mp sensor, 8K recording, and 200mp hi-res shot mode

>>4396731
>its a conspiracy!
No one wants m43 because with the same lens speed its the size of a larger system, the companies that make the cameras are incompetent, and the finer pixel pitch demands such sharp lenses that even good glass looks smeary. High res mode on m43 as it is, is totally fucking useless. It looks like CA ridden smeary shit with panasonics best "noctitron".

>>4396731
>full frame users be like: Yeah i totally want softer images with 4x more noise and to spend just as much on worse lenses and worse autofocus
you see we shoot film for that instead of shitty overpriced digishital

>>4396732
Oh please, even though it looks like phone photography you can make it look decent with the high res mode. Besides, anyone using them is really not looking for max quality, rather good ergos and boomer-friendly lens weights. Oly still has the best ergos of any camera tbfh I hope someone copies them since they died after film.

those japs better release a new slr like they said they might

>>4396734
>you can make it decent with this gimmick that still looks worse than less mp on a larger sensor and only works for totally still scenes
Yeah nag. Fundamentally flawed format. Better for phones and surveillance cameras than serious content creation. If i wanted worse IQ i’d buy a samyang lens and raise the ISO.

>>4396701
>>4396691

I didn't say it was difficult I said it was the worst way to focus. To be fair I should have said it was the worst focusing system a camera can, as that's what I mean, which it is. I will say I didn't realise it was a f3.5 lens on that thing. That's pretty terrible for a half frame camera, might as well be a fixed F8 disposable at that point, its only one stop off.

>>4396733
>full frame
>>4396734
>max quality
lol
t. GodFX

>>4396710
>fuji totally mogs m43 now
Depends what you mean by mog. The xt5 is literally double the price of an OM5. None of what you are saying is true. The worst olympus lens is sharper than the best fuji lens, the fuji build quality is awful, the fuji doesn't have weather sealing, the IBIS is worse. The colour is designed to make asian people look white so it makes white people green, so wrong again there. The xt5 is worse than an OM5 and, its not even competing with the om5. It's competing with full frame cameras because fuji knows it can sell ewaste to retarded hipsters. In that market it is the worst camera by a country mile.
>better autofocus
fujifilm doesn't have better autofocus than anyone. everyone knows this.

>>4396745
>Fuji Delusion Syndrome
None of what you said is true besides you not being able to afford a fuji

>>4396762
>Fuji Delusion Syndrome
Oh please, it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that anyone thinks about fuji ever, they're irrelevant and their taylor swift isntants make like 10x more money than their dogshit mirrorless lol. They're just toys.

>>4396742
Get good

>>4396765
>>4396745
Clearly micro fool turders are serial liars. These truth nukes brought to you by the people who say the g9ii has better image quality than a full frame camera lmfao.

>>4396569
Because they spent a billion dollars in r&d to come up with a bokeh switch. It's class leading in that regard, nothing else has it.

>>4396771
>w-w-w-well I might be bald but here's some shit you didn't say
Bahahaha embarassing. The only person I know who shoots fuji got given it as a gift by his wife's boyfriend lmao.

>>4396776
You are legit hysterically seething because you cant afford a fuji

>>4396777
You are legit hysterically seething because you will never financially recover from the purchase of camera you don't even like to use

>>4396745
>>4396765
>>4396776
>>4396780
>there are very clear, objective, technical reasons that fujis are better than any micro fool turd
>fuji market share is growing, micro fool turds is dying
>cue all this nonsensical rage
Just micro fool turder things

You'll be less angry when you finally sell that junk and buy an x-t5 bro

>>4396780
You actually think a $1500 digital camera is a financial disaster? Have you held a job in a first world country even once in your life?

>>4396803
>buy my crop sensor
I shoot canon I don't want you 4 stops of dynamic range e-waste. Post a fuji image with decent foliage detail then we can talk lol.
>>4396804
For someone as obviously financially unviable as yourself yes. Everyone can see that. You look like an idiot denying it.

>>4396804
I won’t spend more than that on a fucking camera. I bout a rucking Leica S2 & 3 lenses, sold all tyat and tried a phase one for a year, only to have fucking Nikon come out with Z glass and get me 95% of the way there for 1/20th the price. Once resale value of the Z7 dropped to $1500, I was done. I’ll never spend more than that on a body again. As newer bodies continue to depreciate, once they cross the $1500 threshold I might pick one up but that’s it. The performance boost to a new Z8 is in no way worth 3000 extra dollars. If Sorny ever hires a designer and makes a camera that isn’t a total turd sandwich in the hand to use, I’ll try another Sony.

>>4396823
> Leica S2 & 3 lenses
> phase one
>poorfags

lol

>>4396831
>if i scan my 120 with a digital camera it looks as good as the digital camera
many such cases

>>4396823
ew, its a “nikon is a real camera” dork. rounded corners and less orange in the UI really activates their neurons hih.

>>4396833
>>if i scan my 120 with a digital camera it looks as good as the digital camera
I have an epsion and negative lab pro

>>4396834
so it looks like camera scanned 35mm, even cooler

just dont pixel peep ;) ($3/frame)

i have a p17 because i have more money than sense and pentax is that quirky guy that you want to succeed despite the fuckups. its fun. things you buy don't always have to be about minmaxing specs and "value" or whatever autistic shit.

>>4396836
looks better than ff digital plus what's the difference when people look at pics on ig or /p/?

>>4396837
I get your argument, but my canon af35m ii does the exact same fucking thing except its full frame

>>4396838
So it actually looks the same and you’re coping, and larping, at the same time

>>4396839
if anything, the af35mii actually does more since it's truly (if poorly) autofocusing, unlike the pentax. i own both. and an multi-tele as well to mix the worst of both ff and hf worlds (picrel not mine) lmao.

>>4396827
>he thinks he's rich cus he has foolji
they're not expensive cameras, they're just expensive for what they are lmao, are u retarded?

>>4396841
I assume the AF35mII shoots as close to max close to like f/8 or f/16 as possible to help the auto focus
>>4396840
nah, the 120 looks better because film looks better than digital and 120 is bigger than 35

>>4396844
ok nophoto. now post that better looking 120 so we can laugh.
>inb4 you dont

>>4396845
you seem super upset on account of you are a gear queer and gay and 120 mogs your toys

>>4396852
>inb4 you dont
Called it

Must be a part of the ongoing m43 cope meltdown

>>4396742
Its one of the best ways to focus. Zone prefocus mdans you're in focus before you're ready to even take the shot.

>>4396803
Sony doesn't own Fuji so why are we getting Sony users pretending to be Fuji users? The only actual Fuji user this obnoxious is Ken Wheeler

>>4396857
Why would you want a camera that can only zone focus when literally every other manual focus mechanism you can do that anyway? Fuck I'm glad retards like you aren't in positions of power anywhere.

>>4396569
I've been considering getting myself a spare film camera (So it would only be used if my main camera would broke down). I am not completely sure what I should get, I've decided to buy some kind of point and shoot. My choice is between this Pentax, a used older point and shoot, or an Ilford Sprite 35 II.
The Pentax is the most expensive and the Ilford the cheapest, both have the advantage that they will definitely last. You can certainly find used point and shoot cheaper than Pentax, but expensive than Ilford, however I'm not sure how durable those cameras will be. However, I believe I would get the best image quality with a used point and shoot. Unlike Ilford, they can adjust shutter speed and aperture and unlike Pentax the image would not just be an half frame.
What should I get guys, has anyone used this Pentax, is it any good?

>>4396864
you could buy like 12 point and shoots and it would be cheaper than the pentax

>>4396691
quick question, does the lens move when you half press?

>>4396863
Sometimes people just want simplicity. Yknow they make uncoupled zone focus lenses for leicas right? And people buy them.

Different strokes for different folks.

>>4396869
Yeah I mean people buy toyotas too. Doesn't make those people not retards.

>>4396870
Imagine having energy to be mad at other peoples preferences.
I wish i had your energy.

>>4396871
I'm not mad about them, I'm indifferent. Maybe a little empathetic. Same way I'm not mad at ants for not being able to do math. It's just how they are. Some people are just retarded. Marcus Aurelius speaks of this.

As far as the energy thing goes, you should put down the based juice and have some red meat. Might help with your hairline and attitude.

>>4396874
Lmao Ive been eating red meat my whole life. Can't imagine living on an edamame diet, I'd prolly be dead by now.

>>4396875
Fuck me I've got no clue what wrong with ya then. Good luck stooge

>>4396879
Nothing's wrong with me. I just dont have the energy to care about other peoples opinions.

>>4396881
Mate you respond to like 50 opinions every hour

>>4396884
Thats not what I mean. Im talking ppl who get really uppity about shit that doesn't matter. Like when >>4396863 started going on a tangent about people in power. Like, who even bothers to pull such a parallel?

>>4396885
What do you mean? That's obviously not the point of the message. He was calling you retarded, which seems to be true.

>>4396888
Maybe he was right.

>>4396868
Yes. It's not a helicoid, it moves the lens to a preset position with an ultrasonic motor. You can see the mechanism in the disassembly video. Word is this camera was developed in modules so that they can viably develop new models by using the parts designed for this one (advance lever, flash, motorized lens, etc)

>>4396894
>ultrasonic motor
SDM motor apocalypse v.2.0 incoming

>>4396891
With every passing day your retardation and lack of understanding of nuance in the English language become more apparent

>>4396951
Good thing I got a whole nother language to use then.
Jävla tönt.

>>4396868
it isn't even a manually focusing camera, its a focus by wire zone focus. when you pick the zone you are just instructing the computer to move the motor when you try to take a pic

>>4396894
>Word is this camera was developed in modules so that they can viably develop new models by using the parts designed for this one
That explains its size but why wouldn't they release the full frame version along side it? Half frame has its niche but it also turns a lot of people off. For a little extra effort they could have made something decent to complement it.

>>4396959
This is an English speaking website type in English if at all. I suggest you actually study English, maybe read a few books (photography related, you could even improve your ability to take pictures)

>>4397095
me gramar ceas beckas pising u of

You can go to/int/ if you feel like writing in börk börk but the last time I checked this is /p/ not /int/

>>4396569
Make it full frame AND I'll buy it for the price.
Make it metal and give it a k mount I'll buy it for 800-1000.

Maybe Fuji has actively intimidated shoppers away from other camera systems for years, and this is how they've grown so quickly

>>4397168
Fuji has released cameras that are pretty on shelves and match purses, especially among east asian women. The vast majority of fuji sales go to china. Chinese fucking love retro twee. It reminds them of the commie gear they were still using 10 years ago.

>>4396569
It's hard to sell a $22 camera for $249, but you can make it $499 and market it as a lifestyle product.

>>4397077
>Half frame has its niche but it also turns a lot of people off.
it won't turn off the intellectual zoomers (of all age groups) who don't even know what half-frame means. These are the same people who don't understand why their film is ruined when they pulled it out of the camera without unwinding.

>>4397285
I don't think you understood the tone of my post.

>>4397285
What does this mean?

>>4396642
>No Pentax 67Z

It would be epic.

https://www.inkl.com/news/a-film-shop-in-amsterdam-is-building-a-compact-camera-with-an-autofocus-similar-to-iphones

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.12 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	200 dpi
Image Created	2025:01:06 11:34:03
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3200
Image Height	1800

>>4397549
Do a 67z that's fully modular for the pros with fuck you money, and 110z mirrorless for the masses

>>4398911
>autofocus similar to iphones
>LiDAR
isn't that what the actual mju used?
I guess it's cool that they're cloning a popular camera but like all these new cameras it's just too expensive

>>4396837
>pentax is that quirky guy that you want to succeed despite the fuckups
i feel so exposed

this was suposed to be the first step. i think they will slay if they drop an slr or a rangefinder

>>4401114
I wish they'd release a rangefinder with a k mount adapter and a couple native lenses so you guys would shut up
Or charge you 1k$ for the body and 500$ for a 50mm lens just to finance the development of a compact and an slr

>>4401114
>>4401135
>pentax
>rangefinder
fucking mongs

>>4401136
Sperg