Last Updated on 07/07/2025 by Nilofer Khan
Nearly a year ago, I finished our Pentax 17 camera review. And back then, I gave it an Editor’s Choice award. The Pentax 17 is the camera that finally made me empathize with Mets fans. You see, when I was much younger, I’d root for the Yankees because I knew that I’d always get lunch money when betting against my friends. And quite often, it was the only way that I knew that I’d eat. If the Yankees are about results, the Mets are about unconditional love. So is film photography. Even more so — so is Pentax. I never ended up buying the Pentax 17 — I’ve got way too many film cameras already and don’t need any more. In fact, I don’t even shoot anywhere as much film as I used to. But after a year, I finally got back the film I shot — and so this update to our review is very worth it.
You can check out our full review at this link. If you want to purchase one, check it out at Amazon or at Blue Moon Camera. Blue Moon Camera provided the Phoblographer with the film scans free of charge and is the preferred film partner of the site. We strongly recommend that you folks use them as they’re one of the best options you can get in America.
Thoughts a Year Later
I’ve had a lot of time to sit back and reflect on this review. When I got the Pentax 17 in for testing, I was so incredibly excited that something like this exists. And to this day, not much else on the market has come to challenge its throne. Beyond that, Pentax is putting a pause on production at the moment. Plus, the world is what it is right now — do I really need to go more into that statement?
If I bought this camera a year ago, I probably would’ve never used it — and that’s because I’m even more firm in my beliefs about it. I’m the photographer who has a vast amount of film cameras already in my closet. My Hasselblad 500 series, Leica M6, and my Fujifilm Natura are the cameras that I use the most. I don’t even use my Nikon SLRs all that much anymore.
Why?
I’ve got to be really honest here — I’ve become lazy. I like the immediacy that retro digital cameras give me and the looks that I can get from digital presets are very satisfying, not only to me, but to paying clients. But at the same time, it isn’t authentic. My laziness is due to the fact that the demands of the world today absolutely drain me. I’ve got loads more energy than lots of other people I know and interact with, but I don’t have it in my time budget to really shoot film all the time. At 38 years old, time is something I realize I’ve been wasting a lot.
I’m an extrovert — all of my hobbies and things that I do on the side eventually involve other people. Even when I read physical magazines, I end up getting together with friends to have brainy discussions about what I’ve read.
If I took the time to learn how to develop film in my windowless bathroom and the process of scanning wasn’t so reliant on having laboratory-level cleanliness, I’d probably do it much more often. And I’d probably even invite friends over to make it into a party of some sort.
But there’s also another side to this: film gives me a much more authentic look that I didn’t even know really could still exist. And when you shoot those smaller formats, they look so much more like photos from a time long forgotten.
There’s even more truth to this too — digital caught up.
And here’s the other thing: film hasn’t been anywhere as exciting as digital has — and digital isn’t even all that exciting anymore. I truly crave new film emulsions and new processes that make film photography stand out. Like for example, why haven’t companies tried to remake PolaChrome? With 3D printing these days, I’m sure folks could do it and even make backs for various cameras to work with it. Just imagine a Leica M6 spitting out Instant prints? I’d be all over it.
I’m updating this review specifically with images that I shot a year ago. Would I buy this camera today? No. But I’m happy that it exists for an audeince that’s far newer to photography and that doesn’t really care about more manual controls.
