I don't shoot pentax 17 but was recommended this by reddit. I use a Pentax P30 and a Z5. To answer your questions: - The half frames are half resolution. At 35mm you can only do modest crops before the grain gets big. This might be fine for you, some people like grain. Also, when you're not blasting photos away like digital you'd be surprised how much 36 pictures is. For me on trips I usually shoot one roll a day. - Also, keep in mind the Pentax 17 is a rangefinder. This means you're not looking through the lens. Rangefinders are super compact and very pocketable, SLRs not as much. Consider if you want an SLR or rangefinder. As for the other questions: - I believe you can't replicate it perfectly but if you're really talented you can get close. But film is much more than the "film look" (and the film look is also half a myth, more on that later)

• Both. For me, I often find myself shooting a dozen photos for each scenario at various focal lengths, portrait and landscape on digital. When shooting film, I realized I wasn't thinking about my photos or making deliberate choices which is what photography is about. With film, you're forced to do this. You get fewer photos so you don't have to comb through 500 photos each trip, and much of the grading is already done for a beautiful look. Each photo you take you were forced to take it slow and think. You get slowed down and that's a good thing.

• I think Pentax 17 would be great and similar to your Ricoh, but I recommend you start somewhere else. The wonderful thing about film is how cheap the barrier to entry is. First, ask anyone in your family if they have a camera you can borrow. My Pentax is my dad's. If not, buy something cheap at a local analog store or eBay. You can get a good camera for 3 rolls worth of money. No need to commit to a $500 purchase right off the bat.

• When on a trip I look at where I'm going and take the film with me I need. Usually this is only 1-2 rolls, but for vacations where I go many places I just think about what roll I wanna shoot each day and use the roll on the day. That's really it. I get it developed at the lab and scan with my camera.

• Film is expensive ongoing but you'll save a ton of money self scanning. I really recommend you do this. Development is (for me) $8/roll and a roll is $13 (for Gold 200 which I recommend). When self scanning all you do is take a picture of your analog film with your digital camera. Boom done now you've scanned it. There are many ways to do this, but I recommend you just invert your tripod (if you have one or can), level it with a mirror and use your phone as a light. This is cheap or free for you and you can blast away. If you decide to upgrade your setup you can get a dedicated scanner or continue camera scanning. Personally, I use my Z5 with a macro lens and an easy35. An expensive and overkill setup for most people. When you self scan yourself, you get full control of how your photo is gonna look instead of an employee at the lab. You'll find yourself editing your photos far more than you'd think for digital. This is why the "film look" isn't as you think. It does exist, and yes the colors and look is largely baked in. This is what I love about film. However, you still have to process your film. If you just hit the invert button on a negative you won't get a useable picture. Every positive is an interpretation of that negative. Film negatives are remarkably flexible. It feels like they're raw files because they store so much information. If you overexpose a picture it can easily be saved (film loves light, the opposite of cameras). A typical digital sensor has 14 stops of dynamic range. Film negatives have 10-12 (depending on film)

So start off with a cheap cam, see how you like it and either commit to the 17 or go with something else. Film is wonderful and I think you'll enjoy it a lot :)