It's not retro - it's just old

Another one with new leatherette. Found this beauty on a flea-market.

Meter was not working and it turned out the galvanometer was broken.

Found a junker after months of search (and it was just as expensive as

the almost working one), transplanted and adjusted the light meter

unit. I still had two front pieces of leatherette but they looked

ugly.

 

Anyhow, most of these old 'demi' (18x24) cameras offer little

advantage over full-frame cameras. The size and weight of this one is

almost identical to that of the Olympus 35RC full-frame camera. Only

advantage is the faster lens (f/1.7 30mm), but it has no rangefinder,

just scale focussing and symbol focussing indicator in the viewfinder.<div></div>

I tried half frame in the late 'sixties with a Pen F SLR but I didn't get on with it all that well. I remember thinking, when they launched APS, that it was 'half frame mark 2' and, as we know, it fared no better than the first attempt.

 

I strongly suspect that the killer for half frame was the launch of the Rollie 35 and that the Minox 35, with the help of the Olympus XE, hammered the nails into the coffin lid. Mind you, it was almost a case of infanticide as Olympus also killed off the Pen F's market with the launch of the OM1, which was a whole lot more camera in a not much bigger package.

Apart from the policies of camera manufacturers, I seem to remember that the main factor that killed half-frame was the evolution of the respective prices of film, and developing/printing. Half-frame made (some) sense when film was expensive and processing relatively cheap, and it ceased doing so when the situation reversed. It's a bit like the film cutter inside the Exaktas. These were professional/scientific instruments, and yet can you imagine a professional photographer or scientist wanting to remove a partially exposed film but not being in a position to waste the remaining exposures?

I've just bought a Fed Mikron. It is, like Winfried's, almost exactly the same dimensions and weight as a full-frame Olympus Trip, and has most of the same features (a better shutter though, and a faster lens). So far, I like it, but I've yet to see the output.

I guess half-frame is only attractive if film is seen as expensive, or is hard to get. A lot of the earlier half-frame rollfilm cameras turned up in the 30's and wartime, didn't they? 35 mm arose from an alternative approach, adapting cameras to use cine film, which still boils down to using less film per picture. A lot of young amateurs with limited pocket money.

 

The Mikron 2 was full-frame.

All considered discussion aside: it is a scream to use a non-focussing Pen EE and pull a bunch of half-frames out of the

wash...and make sharp 4x6 prints. (Of course, I want to use every

format under the sun JUST BECAUSE.)

 

Wish I had a Canon Demi...passed up a white one and kicked myself

when I later met a guy who'd bought the thing.

I have always admired Olympus for the ability of the PenEE to deliver negs of superlative quality - pin sharp.

 

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=23387084">

I have sold two half-farme cameras the past few years, including an Olympus Pen EE and a Canon Dial35. Now I use an Olympus Pen S and Pen F. The former one does not have a rangefinder and it is very small.

I just broke out my trusty Pen FT for a week of hiking in the Rockies. As always, it was a joy to carry this miniature marvel, and getting 78 shots from a roll of VS let me go at least a day without changing film. The best part is the unbelievably tack sharp, high contrast photos! It convinced me to retire the 35-70mm f:3.5-4.5 zoom on my OM and go back to primes.

I always liked the idea of getting 72 shots without reloading. That was way more than I cared to try and print in one night.

 

-Paul

Which is sharper 'pin sharp' or 'razor sharp', I wonder.

If it isn't "tack sharp" perhaps it is G sharp?

pin sharp = razor sharp = tack sharp = very sharp