Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,898   Posts: 1,584,369   Online: 720
      
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 101
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    858
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    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
    It gets better: at this very moment, Camera West has a half frame M4-P in stock, for a mere $22,995. Save those pennies...

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    263
    The half frame died because Olympus killed it with the OM1

    Not much bigger than the Pen FT and an awesome viewfinder

    David

  3. #23
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area (Albany, California)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,251
    Images
    1
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  4. #24
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,581
    Images
    46
    I started thinking maybe the Kodak Instamatic, Pocket Instamatic and Disc cameras took market share from the people who would have shot half-frame.

    But then I hit on something.

    It must not feel right to shoot verticals. Now I'm not saying it's wrong to make a camera with a natural portrait orientation. I know the mark of a professional is a good variety of portrait and landscape shots that would make it easier for the Art Director laying out magazines. Not every shot can be a double-truck.

    But if half-frame cameras had been made to comfortably shoot in horizontal orientation, it might have taken off.

    It might have been exciting to be able to mount motion-picture lenses on your still camera and get essentially the same shots the cinematographers were taking.

    Think about it, nobody makes a vertically-oriented d camera... even though there's no mechanical constraint.

  5. #25
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area (Albany, California)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,251
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    I started thinking maybe the Kodak Instamatic, Pocket Instamatic and Disc cameras took market share from the people who would have shot half-frame.

    But then I hit on something.

    It must not feel right to shoot verticals. Now I'm not saying it's wrong to make a camera with a natural portrait orientation. I know the mark of a professional is a good variety of portrait and landscape shots that would make it easier for the Art Director laying out magazines. Not every shot can be a double-truck.

    But if half-frame cameras had been made to comfortably shoot in horizontal orientation, it might have taken off.

    It might have been exciting to be able to mount motion-picture lenses on your still camera and get essentially the same shots the cinematographers were taking.

    Think about it, nobody makes a vertically-oriented d camera... even though there's no mechanical constraint.
    There's been some argument that d cameras should have square sensors but too many peeps are used to standard 35mm shaped horizontals.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  6. #26
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,021
    The Konica AA-35 ran its film horizontally.

    http://www.subclub.org/shop/konica.htm

  7. #27
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by tony lockerbie View Post
    Film wasn't that good back in the seventies, you could really tell the difference in quality. Having worked in the photo finishing area at that time though, the main reason that people didn't like them wasn't a quality issue, but it simply took too long for them to finish a roll....remembering that a lot of folks thought that 12 exposures were too many! Also, 72 prints made a big hole in the weekly budget.
    Still, there is a lot to like about the cameras, especially those from Olympus as you have found. I have a Pen D,the EE3 like you and the lovely Pen F with a few lenses. The pen F has, of course been re-birthed as a Digital, so popular was it's design.
    ^^^ Considering the fact that the smaller format APS film cartridge came out after emulsions had more chance to improve (1990s), yet the public turned its back of the APS format, just as it turned its back on the 110 format in the 1970's, the quality was not sufficient.

  8. #28
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,486
    Images
    20
    The Bronica 645 RF and the standard version of the Linhof 220 are vertically oriented cameras. The design of the Linhof 220 with its pistol grip seems inspired by the RCA studio microphone of its era.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  9. #29
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    I'd say:
    People could have better quality prints using a camera the same size or smaller, with more models to choose from, which cost the same or less than half frame cameras, while using film that costs the same amount of money.
    Plus, Canon and Nikon didn't make one after the 1970s (?).

  10. #30
    John Austin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern Forest Region, Western Australia
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    521
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
    Hoooray!!! - Wooo-Wooo-Wooo - I think single frame (the alternative name when half frame was introduced, which I remember) was a great idea - Only having to change films 3 or 4 times a day in each of three Nikon F bodies would have been great in the mid 1990s

    Any now you are all remembering that your unloved tiny single frame cameras need a new home, I am looking for one to work with - Please donate one to me for postage, obviously not the high value PenF, but something small and easy - I pre-accept the derision I will receive when I am out working with 10x8" and single frame on the same job

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin