Some necks around here say that...

Personally, I'd love a square format 35mm! Don't think my scanner would have an issue, as I just load strip film in the holder and put each frame through manually...but Tenax IIs and Robots seem hard to come by these days.

(the idea that a half-frame scan gives a far superior image to a modern DSLR seems like lunacy, however...)
 
Last edited:
Since the arrival of digital, many photographers shoot many more pictures, so 72 frames are not the problem they were.

On the other hand, I have one if the finest half-frames ever made, the Pen W. If I want to shoot lots of frames, the M8 makes more sense.

And I'd rather have a camera that can go to twice the size of a Pen W without loss of quality, and with interchangeable lenses, e.g. an MP.

The camera that killed half-frame was arguably the Rollei 35. Half-frame size, full-frame quality. Sure, a Rollei 35 with 35/2.8 lens is a wonderful fantasy, but that's all it is: a fantasy.

This is a common problem with RFF members: imagining that the camera they want (half frame film in the 21st century) would be popular enough to justify a sane manufacturer considering it. Add to this their totally unrealistic price expectations, such as the $1500 ZI Digital Full Frame, and you can see why so few manufacturers try to answer the criticisms that are made against them.

Tashi delek,

R.
 
AgentX said:
(the idea that a half-frame scan gives a far superior image to a modern DSLR seems like lunacy, however...)
Click to expand...

You could do it...

Shoot with a wide in a DSLR in b&w, with tripod, and use the center half for a 8x10 print from file.

Now, film is not about scanning... Shoot with panf50 the same scene with tripod: don't scan: enlarge optically half center frame to 8x10.

I was coursing my career on photography during the years it started to be impossible to get optical prints because even for pro labs it was easier to get rid of enlargers and all the wet stuff... That 300dpi thing is gross, vulgar, inferior, fuzzy and crap, compared with film results. Even small digital prints look sooooooo soft... I miss bright eyes and tack sharp eyelids we had on wet days in our small prints.

I guess I won't be allowed to say here that a contact 8x10 print from nineteenth century is sharper than DSLRs...;)

Ten years ago I enlarged for myself a 35mm frame of Technical Pan film by Kodak to 1 meter aiming my enlarger to the wall. Sharp! Even though mine was not the best enlarger! You try your file to one meter and compare... They are not even close... I know what I am talking about.
 
Last edited:
For my pocket camera I've settled with a Leica IIIa with a 50/3.5 Elmarit or a 25/4 Skopar - that seems small enough and I'll accept the compromise of a full-frame image and having to reload every 36 exposures...

A brand new mini-R3A would be fun, but little more than a novelty.

Oh, and I agree with Roger - the EP-1 demonstrates what is currently possible for a £700 digital equivalent of a classic camera and it's near (though clearly not) perfect. How well will it sell in practice at that price point competing with dSLRs?
 
It is really surprisingly funny from a philosophical point of view, that the idea of a small quality camera has been directly converted -on this thread- into a "use dslrs" thing.

As funny too, as all those saying "just a bit below 35mm, we are converted into crap".

Wrong and wrong. I think it's time to let this thread pass.
 
Last edited:
Austerby said:
For my pocket camera I've settled with a Leica IIIa with a 50/3.5 Elmarit or a 25/4 Skopar - that seems small enough and I'll accept the compromise of a full-frame image and having to reload every 36 exposures...
Click to expand...

I guess you're right... A Leica III with the Elmar is another thing! VERY VERY small... Another size, smaller than more modern rangefinders. And no compromises in format as you say... You've hit the point.
 
Last edited:
You could also try a Bessa R and a CV 35/2.5, lighter than a Leica III and not that much bigger. A great combo.

And of course, there's Minolta CLE and the M-Rokkor 40/2. Great camera, great lens, not very big.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
It is really surprisingly funny from a philosophical point of view, that the idea of a small quality camera has been directly converted -on this thread- into a "use dslrs" thing.

As funny too, as all those saying "just a bit below 35mm, we are converted into crap".

Wrong and wrong. I think it's time to let this thread pass.
Click to expand...

Are you really dense, or just as crazy as you seem?

No one has said "use dslrs." Some of us have just taken issue with your ridiculous statements about the quality of film vs. digital, especially regarding tiny film formats. I'm wondering if you're not thinking of experiences with early digital gear instead of the latest stuff? (Your use of the past tense implies this, although you could be talking about yesterday instead of, say, 8 years ago...)

No one has denigrated the quality of film, whether half-frame or large-format sheet. (I use it, too! Of course I love it.) But your blanket statements about its superiority (in a half-frame format, no less) are ridiculous. If half-frame film was so much better than a $15k digital back on a Hasselblad, why the hell aren't all pros shooting with Pen Fs?

We all use the equipment that best fits our needs and desires. I can't understand your incredulity that no one else is interested in a new half-frame system, or even your overall point...

The half-frame cameras gave us more pictures per roll with a smaller size camera than 35mm. They made nice enlargements up to a certain size. A digital compact gives you that today (regardless of your blanket statements about their quality), but it can hold thousands of images in a tiny card instead of 72 per roll.

What digital can't do, or at least do particularly well, is make a classic gelatin-silver print. If that's what you want, digital won't ever fill the need.
 
AgentX,

That digital wound in your speech has been bleeding for over a decade now. It's a massive wound, don't feel alone!

I insist, digital is not the subject on this thread, start another one.

Some of us are talking about a smaller camera, not even about film formats qualities.

My film shots -or anyone's- are fantastic in any format. Didn't mean to offend anyone's tumbling religion. It's just that digital never came to the place we all thought it would do.

Smaller rangefinders: post on that, please.
 
They made the Rollei 35 a looong time ago.

But Ok, yeah, if Bessa made a Leica-CL sized camera, I'd be interested too. (I'm shooting film...)
 
Isn't one if the most important things a collapsible lens? REALLY collapsible, like an old Elmar, or even a Rollei 35, not just slightly collapsible? Or even a collapsible camera, like a Retina? Comparing my IIIa/Elmar, Retina IIa and Pen W, the Pen is actually the blockiest and least comfortable. An M2 with the Elmar is surprisingly small, though, and reassuringly solid.

I have to say that I didn't see anyone sayng 'use a DSLR' elsewhere in the thread, but I will say that as 24x36mm is pretty marginal next to a good 6x7cm or bigger neg, it's no surprise that 18x24 is even more marginal; about half as good, in fact, as 24x36mm.

Cheers,

Roger
 
I know the camera I was thinking of does not exist. AgentX, the Rollei has few lenses, none of them real fast for selective focus, no rangefinder so scale focus, and honestly I use 1/1000 and 1/2000 constantly wide open under the sun. 1/500 is a thing from a century ago. Maybe if we had ISO2 film... Roger, collapsible lenses may be one of the keys, yes... I totally disagree with the way you transform "pretty marginal" into "half as good"... In that order of things, you could then state soon that as you bought a new 8x10 view camera, your photographs are now one hundred and twenty something times better than before. And better than HCB's ones, to say a name related to a marginal format...

Again the misconception of "bad quality just below x milimeters".
 
Juan, here's the deal: You think that a new 1/2 frame camera would be a good idea. A few people agree with you, and a few more do not. After the pros and cons have been expressed, continuing this discussion beyond that and trying to convince the opposing group that it is or is not a good idea is like trying to argue with someone into enjoying a food they do not like.
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
In that order of things, you could then state soon that as you bought a new 8x10 view camera, your photographs are now one hundred and twenty something times better than before. And better than HCB's ones, to say a name related to a marginal format...
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous misinterpreation of Roger's (and others') point and if you don't understand why, there's no point discussing this topic with you. I once heard someone say "don't argue with crazy because crazy always wins".
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
Again the misconception of "bad quality just below x milimeters".
Click to expand...
No, it's not a misconception. There's an old saying (originally from boxing, but borrowed early in the 20th century for photography) that "a good big 'un will always beat a good little 'un." For technical quality, this is undeniable. It's not a question of bad quality, but of poorer quality. You can't really dispute this when talking about technical quality.

Aesthetics are another matter, and different cameras encourage different ways of working. You can get pictures with a Leica that you can't get with an 8x10, and that you could only get with difficulty on roll film. But there's nothing you could shoot on a half-frame, or a small format digital rangefinder, that you can't get, easier, with an existing full-frame 35mm camera or M8/M8.2.

Smaller formats also bring diminishing returns. A half-frame camera can't be half the size of full-frame, especially if you want a coupled rangefinder: the finder itself just isn't going to get much smaller than what you find in a CL, for example. This is why a Retina IIIc/C is a lot bigger than a IIa. The controls have to be big enough to use, and the markings big enough to read: don't forget how fiddly the Minox 35 was.

I can see at least two possible reasons why the camera you describe doesn't exist. One is because you probably can't make a metered, manual-focus, interchangeable-lens camera, with a good (brightline, parallax adjusted) finder in any format, film or digital, much smaller than a Leica CL. The other is that even if it were possible, the demand would be very low indeed in a world where you can buy second-hand CLs, screw-mount Leicas, Retinas and so forth.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Thanks, FrankS... I am really not in a need to convince unknown people on "a smaller, lighter rangefinder would be nice for my neck 'cause I hang two or three..." Lot of us will show our dark by now agreement when buying the new, real camera. Rogrund, a shame that CL and CLE are not easy to service and repair, and CLE doesn't meter in manual, that's terrible for me.

It is Voigtlander who could do it, but not by now, because making that camera implies a lot, from a new beginning as they did by the end of the 90's, and for sure they're busy planning the next step WHERE they have so very well established.

Something like a CL with 1/2000 and maybe for small screw lenses -a collapsible one- to remain into 24x36 would be attractive...And serviceable, as in production. After half a century many CLs are coming down. But yet I think that redesigning a whole line for a smaller format could be something. If I was wrong with this, time will tell.
 
Get it simple, Roger:

I carry two Bessas and an SLR, and I don't carry three Hassels with "good 6x6".

Soooooo simple.

And believing that 18x24 is noticeably different from 24x36, surely IS a misconception. That format allows normal shooting and enlarging.

This is nonsense... Is it that any of you has enlarged beautifully half a good frame?
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
I can see at least two possible reasons why the camera you describe doesn't exist. One is because you probably can't make a metered, manual-focus, interchangeable-lens camera, with a good (brightline, parallax adjusted) finder in any format, film or digital, much smaller than a Leica CL.
Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...

Agree with you. Along with Mr. A's posting before, real good points concerning the real subject... Thank you, Roger!
 
Juan, maybe you would like to share some of your pictures? Do you have a gallery here on RFF or elsewhere? It would be nice to see some of your work! :)
 
Rogrund said:
Juan, maybe you would like to share some of your pictures? Do you have a gallery here on RFF or elsewhere? It would be nice to see some of your work! :)
Click to expand...

Of course, that's what my shots are for, and thanks for the invitation!

This last weekend I shot with a rangefinder for the very first time in my life, so as soon as I print (already developed, so shots are there!) the two rolls (Neopan1600 and PanF50) I'll post here two or three images I remember clearly, maybe next week. I'll scan prints. I used the 15 and the 40. Also, yesterday I made a simple fast street test to "see" the 15, that was with APX100, focusing at .5,1m,2m,3m and infinite, every focusing distance at 4.5, 8 and 11, for a total of 15 images to check when things come into focus. I'll just scan negatives for that and post them too. The real shots were at Florida Cemetery, in the suburbs of Barcelona. Shooting is strictly forbidden there, and after the first shot with the 40, the guards discovered me and gently took me out. I hope, as many enemies I am making here with my words, I make friends with my photographs...;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom