Could a 67 III be released in todays market?

ZombieArmy · 10-09-2021, 03:20 PM

I've been thinking about this recently. Given the recent resurgence of film and the complete lack of full frame medium format sensors on the market (due to extremely prohibitive cost) would the 67 have a place in the modern market as an upscale film option for pros and prosumers? I'd imagine something around the kit cost of a 645z, maybe a couple of reissued lenses with modern coatings and maybe even autofocus.

I feel like the 67 is a wonderful tool that gets increasingly difficult to use due to the aging stock and problems. I'm sure Ricoh would never do this but what are your thoughts?

house · 10-09-2021, 03:52 PM

I suggested it a while ago. For the same reasons you did. A question is if modern manufacturing makes it more or less difficult to make and procure components.

A Chinese company will do it soon if its possible.

aaacb · 10-09-2021, 04:11 PM

I think too that medium format cameras may be too complex/expensive to start from scratch today because of parts/supply chains. But I'm wondering what about a film compact.

Ricoh is unique in that it's the only surviving company that made a high end film p&s that is still in demand now: film GR cameras approach the price of the GR III (quick search shows a GR 1v is around $650). Yashica, Konica, Contax, all fetching similar or higher prices used, are all gone.

desertscape · 10-09-2021, 04:48 PM

Considering the amount of people buying into the 67 system in the past six years, there is obviously a lot of demand. I don't believe that it would be a good idea for Pentax to extrapolate on the 67II design, as there seemed to be more weaknesses in that design than in the previous model. An upgraded 67 with an AE prism like the 67II had, would be a good start. They could keep the existing lenses with only a few upgarades necessary, on lenses like the 45mm, the fisheye and maybe the 600mm. Keeping the cost down would be paramount to selling these, as those who are buying the used 67s now, probably would not want to pay $5000 for for a 67III.

zapp · 10-09-2021, 10:51 PM - **1 Like**

😎 happy dreams

texandrews · 10-10-2021, 05:53 AM

I think it's possible. Not a huge moneymaker, though. But I think with a combination of kickstarter and some savvy manufacturing it could indeed be possible as a break even project. the 6x7-6x9 range of film is IMO the low threshold of results that continue to rival the best digital today, and in B+W allows for home processing that's not that taxing. Scanned, these negs look pretty good and will print well into what used to be considered large prints.

**Pål Jensen** · 10-10-2021, 06:06 AM

The short answer is no....

**Eric Auer** · 10-10-2021, 07:20 AM

I dont see it happening. It would not be profitable.

Like the 645 and many other brand "modern" MF SLR's the ones still around are living on borrowed time.
Less people around to fix them, and less parts as well.

If I get another 10 years out of my 645N I'll be happy, but I am in the process of getting one or two more bodies as well.

The best bet for longevity is to use old all mechanical MF folders, from 6x9 to 6x4.5.
They will run forever, if you teach yourself how to fix them.

I did.

Konishiroku Pearl II | Hexar 75mm ƒ4.5 | Kodak Tri-X 400 | Legacy Eco Pro R | Kodafix

City Frame-164 by Eric Auer, on Flickr

**StiffLegged** · 10-10-2021, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by texandrews

I think it's possible. Not a huge moneymaker, though. But I think with a combination of kickstarter and some savvy manufacturing it could indeed be possible as a break even project.

I just can’t understand why a company of whatever name would manufacture a camera system as a break even project, ie not to make any return, any money, but just to cover costs. Vanity?

**Michail_P** · 10-10-2021, 10:18 AM

A break even project? Probably a break even challenge. A niche crowd will always be interested. The rest is predictable. Not so much to think. High-risk choice.

**gofour3** · 10-10-2021, 11:22 AM - **1 Like**

I'd love to see a 67III, but I doubt it will ever happen, as the camera would cost way too much.

We'd all be better off if Ricoh/Pentax actually made parts for the existing 6x7/67/67II cameras out in the wild and would make them available to their authorized repair centres.

Phil.

ZombieArmy · 10-10-2021, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by gofour3

We'd all be better off if Ricoh/Pentax actually made parts for the existing 6x7/67/67II cameras out in the wild and would make them available to their authorized repair centres.

Phil.

I can agree to this. Would be nice if everything was repairable, even at a decent cost.

**rdenney** · 10-15-2021, 09:39 AM - **1 Like**

The 67 variants were manufacturing challenges even when we knew how to make things. They are far too mechanically complex to be produced at anything like a reasonable cost. I do not confuse price and cost, but price does have to be higher than cost or every sale loses money. The 67II was well over $2500 plus another $1200 for the AE prism in '99 when it was introduced, and the cheapest lens (the 105/2.4) was over $1200. We forget this stuff. Expect new production to need to be priced similarly (at the very least) to a new 645Z--when it was introduced. Yes, that means five figures with a lens.

I don't think the film resurgence is ready for pricing like that for a Pentax. (Leica, maybe.)

Fuji may have been the last to introduce a successful 6x7 camera system, and that was the GF670, a fixed-lens folder of far simpler mechanics (and far less flexibility) than the Pentax 67. Fuji is selling their own overhauled pre-owned cameras for several thousand each. The production cost for a camera like that must be a mere fraction of what a new version of the 67 would have to fetch.

And the 67 would have to solve some of the usability problems that owners have to be careful about, the main one being the fragile chain connection between the lens aperture and the TTL prism that requires a specific procedure when removing and replacing the prism. The other one being less-than-wonderful film loading (in comparison to, say, a Rolleiflex, which senses when the film begins and sets the starting point automatically).

Now, if Pentax wanted to cash in on the film resurgence, it would find old 67's in need of repair, overhaul them, and sell them as "certified pre-owned" with a modest warranty. People would pay a lot extra for that certification and warranty. Or, at least go back into production on the most critical parts so that folks like Eric Hendrickson, who is Pentax's best friend in the whole world, don't have to depend on dead bodies to salvage key parts.

Rick "mechanical things are expensive" Denney

desertscape · 10-16-2021, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by rdenney

and the cheapest lens (the 105/2.4) was over $1200.

The 105 was $470 at B&H in March of 1998.

**ffking** · 10-16-2021, 02:38 PM

two things - IIRC, the cameras were largely hand assembled - the never sold enough to do otherwise, so it would involve a lot of training in lost skills - not impossible, but probably too expensive now, and second, it's not just the cameras - even if the lenses were just made to the old designs, they'd have to start from scratch in manufacturing them,and that again would push the prices up - he lack of new lenses for the 645 is an indicator of the likelihood of that... which is a shame, but a harsh reality

10-09-2021, 03:20 PM	#1
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210	Could a 67 III be released in todays market? I've been thinking about this recently. Given the recent resurgence of film and the complete lack of full frame medium format sensors on the market (due to extremely prohibitive cost) would the 67 have a place in the modern market as an upscale film option for pros and prosumers? I'd imagine something around the kit cost of a 645z, maybe a couple of reissued lenses with modern coatings and maybe even autofocus. I feel like the 67 is a wonderful tool that gets increasingly difficult to use due to the aging stock and problems. I'm sure Ricoh would never do this but what are your thoughts?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ricoh GR III Firmware v1.41 Released	kvoz123	Ricoh GR	15	04-28-2021 03:20 AM
K-3 III To Be Released Next Week	FozzFoster	Pentax News and Rumors	422	04-04-2021 04:11 PM
Landscape Could be anywhere, or could it?	Ole	Post Your Photos!	5	04-27-2014 10:56 AM
When did the market fall out of the manual lens market	GregK8	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	34	01-20-2011 08:48 PM
Things that could help Pentax in their Niche Market	Das Boot	Pentax News and Rumors	51	07-08-2008 11:09 PM

10-09-2021, 03:52 PM	#2
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	I suggested it a while ago. For the same reasons you did. A question is if modern manufacturing makes it more or less difficult to make and procure components. A Chinese company will do it soon if its possible.

10-09-2021, 04:11 PM	#3
aaacb Pentaxian Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,725	I think too that medium format cameras may be too complex/expensive to start from scratch today because of parts/supply chains. But I'm wondering what about a film compact. Ricoh is unique in that it's the only surviving company that made a high end film p&s that is still in demand now: film GR cameras approach the price of the GR III (quick search shows a GR 1v is around $650). Yashica, Konica, Contax, all fetching similar or higher prices used, are all gone.

10-09-2021, 04:48 PM	#4
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	Considering the amount of people buying into the 67 system in the past six years, there is obviously a lot of demand. I don't believe that it would be a good idea for Pentax to extrapolate on the 67II design, as there seemed to be more weaknesses in that design than in the previous model. An upgraded 67 with an AE prism like the 67II had, would be a good start. They could keep the existing lenses with only a few upgarades necessary, on lenses like the 45mm, the fisheye and maybe the 600mm. Keeping the cost down would be paramount to selling these, as those who are buying the used 67s now, probably would not want to pay $5000 for for a 67III.

10-09-2021, 10:51 PM - 1 Like	#5
zapp Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,385	😎 happy dreams

10-10-2021, 05:53 AM	#6
texandrews Moderator Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Baltimore Photos: Albums Posts: 3,393	I think it's possible. Not a huge moneymaker, though. But I think with a combination of kickstarter and some savvy manufacturing it could indeed be possible as a break even project. the 6x7-6x9 range of film is IMO the low threshold of results that continue to rival the best digital today, and in B+W allows for home processing that's not that taxing. Scanned, these negs look pretty good and will print well into what used to be considered large prints.

10-10-2021, 06:06 AM	#7
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	The short answer is no....

10-10-2021, 07:20 AM	#8
Eric Auer Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,211	I dont see it happening. It would not be profitable. Like the 645 and many other brand "modern" MF SLR's the ones still around are living on borrowed time. Less people around to fix them, and less parts as well. If I get another 10 years out of my 645N I'll be happy, but I am in the process of getting one or two more bodies as well. The best bet for longevity is to use old all mechanical MF folders, from 6x9 to 6x4.5. They will run forever, if you teach yourself how to fix them. I did. Konishiroku Pearl II \| Hexar 75mm ƒ4.5 \| Kodak Tri-X 400 \| Legacy Eco Pro R \| Kodafix City Frame-164 by Eric Auer, on Flickr

10-10-2021, 08:04 AM	#9
StiffLegged Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2018 Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,620	Originally posted by texandrews I think it's possible. Not a huge moneymaker, though. But I think with a combination of kickstarter and some savvy manufacturing it could indeed be possible as a break even project. I just can’t understand why a company of whatever name would manufacture a camera system as a break even project, ie not to make any return, any money, but just to cover costs. Vanity?

10-10-2021, 10:18 AM	#10
Michail_P Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2019 Location: Kalymnos Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,006	A break even project? Probably a break even challenge. A niche crowd will always be interested. The rest is predictable. Not so much to think. High-risk choice.

10-10-2021, 11:22 AM - 1 Like	#11
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,091	I'd love to see a 67III, but I doubt it will ever happen, as the camera would cost way too much. We'd all be better off if Ricoh/Pentax actually made parts for the existing 6x7/67/67II cameras out in the wild and would make them available to their authorized repair centres. Phil.

10-10-2021, 02:10 PM	#12
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210 Original Poster	Originally posted by gofour3 We'd all be better off if Ricoh/Pentax actually made parts for the existing 6x7/67/67II cameras out in the wild and would make them available to their authorized repair centres. Phil. I can agree to this. Would be nice if everything was repairable, even at a decent cost.

10-15-2021, 09:39 AM - 1 Like	#13
rdenney Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: NoVA Posts: 635	The 67 variants were manufacturing challenges even when we knew how to make things. They are far too mechanically complex to be produced at anything like a reasonable cost. I do not confuse price and cost, but price does have to be higher than cost or every sale loses money. The 67II was well over $2500 plus another $1200 for the AE prism in '99 when it was introduced, and the cheapest lens (the 105/2.4) was over $1200. We forget this stuff. Expect new production to need to be priced similarly (at the very least) to a new 645Z--when it was introduced. Yes, that means five figures with a lens. I don't think the film resurgence is ready for pricing like that for a Pentax. (Leica, maybe.) Fuji may have been the last to introduce a successful 6x7 camera system, and that was the GF670, a fixed-lens folder of far simpler mechanics (and far less flexibility) than the Pentax 67. Fuji is selling their own overhauled pre-owned cameras for several thousand each. The production cost for a camera like that must be a mere fraction of what a new version of the 67 would have to fetch. And the 67 would have to solve some of the usability problems that owners have to be careful about, the main one being the fragile chain connection between the lens aperture and the TTL prism that requires a specific procedure when removing and replacing the prism. The other one being less-than-wonderful film loading (in comparison to, say, a Rolleiflex, which senses when the film begins and sets the starting point automatically). Now, if Pentax wanted to cash in on the film resurgence, it would find old 67's in need of repair, overhaul them, and sell them as "certified pre-owned" with a modest warranty. People would pay a lot extra for that certification and warranty. Or, at least go back into production on the most critical parts so that folks like Eric Hendrickson, who is Pentax's best friend in the whole world, don't have to depend on dead bodies to salvage key parts. Rick "mechanical things are expensive" Denney

10-16-2021, 02:05 PM	#14
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	Originally posted by rdenney and the cheapest lens (the 105/2.4) was over $1200. The 105 was $470 at B&H in March of 1998.

10-16-2021, 02:38 PM	#15
ffking Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: Old South Wales Posts: 6,038	two things - IIRC, the cameras were largely hand assembled - the never sold enough to do otherwise, so it would involve a lot of training in lost skills - not impossible, but probably too expensive now, and second, it's not just the cameras - even if the lenses were just made to the old designs, they'd have to start from scratch in manufacturing them,and that again would push the prices up - he lack of new lenses for the 645 is an indicator of the likelihood of that... which is a shame, but a harsh reality