Some necks around here say that...

Juan Valdenebro

Juan Valdenebro

Truth is beauty
Local time
2:13 PM
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
4,353
I was wondering if any forum member share this opinion... Thanks for your ideas!


When I saw the new Bessa III medium format rangefinder, I thought “Beautiful!... And folded it's not too big... Could it be pocketable?” and also thought “What a joy for landscape!...But although it can look old (good thing) for common street people, it might look a bit annoying too, because of the bellows, size and shape, etc...” so I ended up not having the pleasure of owning one... By now!


Then today I was checking half frames and didn't find anything close to what I have in my cameras... So my half frame dream of finding a smaller M2 black with a reduced 40 1.4 looks like will haunt me at night for some more months...


Finally, I made myself the question I ask you: CV designers have made top quality tools for over a decade of success now, so why haven't they adventured in the profitable bussiness of a smaller camera for everyday and everybody?


Some days ago I saw that very journalistic shot of Cartier-Bresson “about to work” used to promote CL sales: he has several cameras hanging from his neck, one of them a CL. Times change, and with modern film and lenses I bet he would get better images in half frame today than he phisically could back in the 50's with the Ms.


I would pay for that camera more than I did for my R4M, and I guess I would end up having at least three of them... Three mini M2s with pancakes on one's neck may feel and look more like being on vacation on the beach in wind happiness wearing a sea shell necklace...
 
Maybe you are confusing the leica CL with the Olympus PEN series?

The PEN cameras, wether P&S or SLRs were half frame. The Leica CL is a full frame (24x36)mm camera.
 
And about image quality... No one can deny that for 95% of our final displaying media, the quality of both formats is basically identical. If I need more for landscape I don't bring a RF, I bring a Hassel with the 50, a tripod and flip the mirror before shooting at F11 with efke 25, and that's the end of the story, I guess... But that happens so few times compared with hanging cameras... What matters A LOT to me is that one only lens like that wide for example with three basic Series 9 filters weights MORE than two Bessas with fast lenses, and for sure FAR MORE than three half frame Bessas with wide, normal and tele. Not only talking about a new line of tough mini Bessas, what would be a beautiful vice and a very healthy one for our necks, but also talking about not feeling tired at all and catching more keepers we can miss because of lens changes...
 
Last edited:
Half frame cameras are crap, I don't really see why anyone would want one.

If you want a smaller camera than a Leica or a Bessa, get a Hexar AF or a Contax T/T2/T3.

The weight and size (of a Leica M say) is something that I think people should learn to deal with if they want compact size with excellent quality.

You can make all kinds of compromises but if the tool doesn't do it's job at the other end then what's the point?
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Some days ago I saw that very journalistic shot of Cartier-Bresson “about to work” used to promote CL sales: he has several cameras hanging from his neck, one of them a CL. Times change, and with modern film and lenses I bet he would get better images in half frame today than he phisically could back in the 50's with the Ms.
Click to expand...

Roland H, I didn't mention the CL as a half frame. I was trying to show a photographic conscience accepting and taking advantage of smaller cameras, even owning "better" ones, that's all. Some people even these days refuse using a CL just because they are not as durable or completely mechanical as an M3... ANY of HCB's best images would have exactly the same artistic value had he shot them in half frame. And that same image in any of those formats would express himself with the same power. AND both would be practically identical in most print sizes too.

Regards,

Juan
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
ANY of HCB's best images would have exactly the same artistic value had he shot them in half frame.

Regards,

Juan
Click to expand...

I disagree. I already feel too much of HCB's catalog is BELOW standard as far as technical quality goes, and those 'shortcomings' are a significant part of why i don't hold him in such high esteem. Too many of his pictures are 'soft,' poorly focused, or exposed badly and compensated for in printing. Doing the same thing with half a negative would only exaggerate those issues.

I also don't understand why you'd want three 'mini' cameras with pancakes hanging around your neck on a vacation. Three cameras of any size is too cumbersome. Wouldn't just one better-spec'd camera be more efficient? Imitating a 1940s war correspondent doesn't seem like the best use of vacation time : ) More of this make sense if you never plan to print beyond 3" x 5", but why go to all the trouble to squint at such small images?
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
I also don't understand why you'd want three 'mini' cameras with pancakes hanging around your neck on a vacation. Three cameras of any size is too cumbersome. Wouldn't just one better-spec'd camera be more efficient?
Click to expand...

Not only on vacation (that I didn't say) but everyday.

The second answer is no. If you don't appreciate the "40s journalist" I mentioned, ask another.

Sharpnes is not a little less important than what you think. It just is not important in the end.

As another great photographer said, "Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor blade." Know who said that? Bill Pierce. Ask him, he's well alive and around!

Smaller cameras! Mr. Barnack, where are you? Defend me, please...! :)
 
Last edited:
Benjamin said:
Half frame cameras are crap, I don't really see why anyone would want one.
Click to expand...

I'll throw in a few potential reasons:

- twice as many shots per roll
- greater depth of field for a given FOV and f stop
- lenses are phyiscally shorter for a given FOV and f stop
- most half frame cameras allow shooting in portrait format by 'default'

So I think they make sense if you don't make big enlargements (OR like big grain in same sized enlargements), like the vertical format, and don't like spending money on film and processing.

I bought a Pen D recently to give the format a whirl for the first time. Good fun, but personally I would not recommend it over an Oly XA.
 
The Olympus Pen cameras from the 1960's were not crap. I wish that I hadn't sold my Pen S and Pen W but the Pen W at least had become too valuable to resist an over $400 offer. The half frame negatives are no problem to print and today's films are a lot less grainy than the films forty years ago.

If you print on 8X10 paper you really can't see much difference at all with half frame. The negative is 18mm wide. Full frame gives you 24mm, so the smaller negative only requires 1/3 more magnification. As for the "too many frames" argument, go in the darkroom, open the camera, and cut off the exposed length, then trim a new leader on what's left.

If anybody wants to get rid of an elderly crappy Olympus Pen I'll pay shipping.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
Smaller and lighter cameras are better for me because I carry and use them, unlike big heavy cameras. That much of this thread I can agree with. But it's all relative. Full frame 35mm is already pretty small; I wouldn't ever bother shooting a smaller film format. I put up with DX in digital for convenience, but it's a far cry from what I'd call "good". A small 4x5 field camera is my idea of relatively compact gear for real high quality output. Put an optical finder on Oly's EP-1, and make it simple to use in manual or maybe AE mode, and give it really nice RAW files at a wide range of ISO's, and maybe you'd have something. Until such a camera arrives, my carry around camera is an OLY XA or an M.
 
I'm not sure how the original post was misunderstood. It's pretty simple... due to advances in film and printing, you can get a better quality 8x10 print from half of a 35mm frame now, than you could from a full 35mm frame forty years ago. So, wouldn't it be interesting to see some adventurous firm like CV market a tiny good-quality half-frame camera?

I think it'd be very interesting. I'd buy one if it had a quality, classic-signature lens that went down to f1.4 or so. And the whole package cost under $300. Heh.

Unfortunately, with the relatively decent quality of many sub-$300 small-sensor digital cameras that are much more pocketable than a camera with a 35mm cassette could everbe, I see the market as being far too small to make it worthwhile to design and produce.
 
Olympus should start making a big deal about a "Limited Edition Fifty Year Anniversary Olympus Pen" in a velvet lined teakwood box. (And a plain one for those of us who'd actually use it.)

Looking back at my contact sheets it's amazing just how well we used to nail the exposure without a meter. A Gossen Lunasix was as big as the camera! I never took it along, just the camera in my pocket.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
 
I'm pretty sure the OP meant necks that get sore carrying heavy cameras by their neck straps.

As for me, full frame 35mm film is as small as I want to go. Even with that, I sometimes feel film format let down and wish I had a medium format camera with me. The small full frame 35mm cameras are not much bigger or heavier than the 1/2 frame cameras, so there is little or no benefit in size and weight, only the drawback of a smaller frame of film.

If I want a really small camera, and I'm not concerned about ultimate technical quality, and I want more frames per roll of film like a 1/2 frame camera gives, that's when a digital P+S camera works for me.
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
WE??? have learned?
This thread's on photography, not on cheap irony. If it's interesting, by now has not depended on your attitude. You are kindly invited to share a real input.
Click to expand...

Hehe, I think it is your unclear English, Juan, that has slowed the cycle of communication :)

Frank, I am 100% with you, MF or 35mm, and portability is important. How do you feel about LF? I am not into it because of the weight of keeping the 4x5 or 8x10 around my "neck" :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom