i think it died because leica never came out with a half frame camera ...
i love half frame and think its a great orphaned format ...
Oooops, I think a neuron is firing up a memory of reference to a pre WWII half frame Leica body - Perhaps a Leica aficionado will confirm or deny this
But more seriously, I doubt if the lack of a mass produced half frame Leica (single frame, meaning 4 sprocket pull down) really made a lot of difference, I feel it was because 35mm still photography was well established by the time the half frame 18x24mm format was introduced - What would life have been like if half frame, standard 35mm motion pic' format, had been the first mass produced one?
Anyway, a half frame with a moderately wide angle lens would be very useful to me at the moment, or find a working Minox 35mm, as a notebook for my LF work - Yes, I know the compact digi' argument, but I have logical reasons for wanting a tiny film camera
Just look at me, I'm killing myself in the darkroom for 6 month now printing 20 36 exposure films from my last project. Killing and I mean it. But I'm after perfection and I print my best ones @16x20 and even 20x24. Imagine my place with such prints laying around drying. Some on the floor, on all the tables, on all surfaces.
Yes, my keeper rate is high. Now
Imagine a crazy nut like myself having to go through 72 frames x 20, 30 or 40 every 3,4 or 6 months.
And since I love grain and the tonality from 35mm negs, I guess I'd love my half-frame shots even more.
I was on the fence many times to buy half-frame cameras but i didn't because of that.
Hi John - Hope this does not send you spiraling into the 7th circle of GAS, but have a peekie-poo at the middle window on this otherwise unassuming IIIa! Just what do we suppose is going on here!?
J
Originally Posted by jnanian
i think it died because leica never came out with a half frame camera ...
i love half frame and think its a great orphaned format ...
Hi John - Hope this does not send you spiraling into the 7th circle of GAS, but have a peekie-poo at the middle window on this otherwise unassuming IIIa! Just what do we suppose is going on here!?
J
oh crap ..
its nice to be wrong
thanks jon + grumpy old man
at least we know half frame didn't die because of ... leica :P
john
Les chaussettes de l'archiduchesse sont-elles sèches? Archi-sèches!
If Kodak had been able to produce something like the New Portra in 1970, it would have made a tremendous difference for half-frame. As it was, the emulsions of the time were great for snapshots, but amateurs couldn't get the great results they were used to on the format, because of the photo-processors not having the capability and because emulsions just weren't good enough. Ironically, because emulsions are so much better now than they were then, the Pen series film cameras are a fantastic deal.
You get APS-C level quality in a tiny package, and get 48-72 photos per roll. For those who process and scan their own negatives, quite good results can be had from a Pen, and while film savings are negligible, process and chemical savings are not negligible. For a PEN, I would shoot Portra 160, 400, 800, Velvia 50 and 100, and Ilford film through it for maximum image detail. It's nice for portraits, as it has a comfortable portrait orientation. Depth of field is deeper than you're used to for 35mm, but it's very usable. It's better than 110, better than those horrible disk cameras Kodak built, and you hardly have to carry any film, as one 36 exposure roll will last a whole day of tourism for the average photographer, or half a portrait shoot for the pro. No motor, so you're going to have some thumb exercise.
I understand that with some work you can modify one of those trendy APS / half-frame digital things to run genuine film through it. I haven't tried the modification myself yet, though.
Its funny, but half frame is an actual full movie frame, 35mm is a double frame of that. So technically half frame cameras are full frame, and 35mm cameras are double frame then! lol
I really do like my Canon Demi S, its the only half frame camera I have. Its nice for sequences 2-3 frames wide. But at times its challenging to print. I use an adjustable glass neg carrier to fit them, and many times you have to block out a frame when doing a sequence and apply different times and dodge/burns. Then lens on it is ok, but large enlargements are impossible, just not enough information to print big with.
Also like others have pointed out, 72 frames can take awhile, esp when you are stuck on the same film speed or a small range of film speeds like 100-200, or 400-800.
I would like to get another half fame camera, either one like a older version such as a Mercury or a version like the Pen F/FT. Those would seem fun to use.
I think the downfall is that smaller full frame 35mm cameras were invented that were smaller and better than these half frame cousins. The Olympus RC I have is about the size of the Demi, but its much easier to use, with lots of upgrades, and most importantly the lens on it is very good, much more so than the demi. The focusing is much more accurate as well, rangefinder patch vs zone.
Now, time to get back and finally finish my 72 frames lol, its the only camera I have to use a bit of tape to write on the loading date, and film type/speed im shooting at.
Adv Reply
Originally Posted by jnanian
