half frame camera opinions?

[francis_sanchez]

<p>Hey folks, Im looking at getting a half frame camera and I wanted to get some opinions on which way I should go.</p>

<p>Olympus FT: common, available good quality lenses that are fast, but the metering system looks user unfriendly.</p>

<p>Konica Autoreflex: decent metering system, stock lenses not so common </p>

<p>This is just what I'm thinking so far. Anybody have thoughts and opinions?</p>

[glen_h]

<p>How about the Universal Mercury II?</p>

<p>It is closer to 2/3 frame or maybe 5/8. </p>

<p>Since it doesn't have a meter, you don't have to worry about the metering system.</p>

[raghu_kuvempunagar]

<p>Zeiss Taxona is worth a look. Not exactly a half-frame camera, but square format on 135 film. Fixed lens and no meter. Small enough to carry in the pocket.</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>The Universal Mercury II was my first camera, and I would absolutely use it again. The shutter is very reliable, and it has almost no kick when firing. If you're using the original coated lens the focus is a little soft but still works reliably even now. The only problem I had is that you have to turn a knob on the front to advance the film as opposed to turning a lever, so taking rapid pictures is a bit of an issue. But otherwise this may be my favorite half frame camera, even counting the Pen F [maybe just because it's so unusual?].<br>

Also of note is the Yashica Samurai, though it is a point and shoot and probably not what you're looking for.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The metering system on the Pen FT isn't really bad, but you do want the later lenses with the reversible aperture rings with "stop down" numbers at the top. But the meter does make the finder dim, the Pen F and FV are twice as bright.<br>

But you gotta take a LOT of pictures to use up a roll of film in half-frame.<br>

The Mercury II is indeed a cool camera, usually found with horrible corrosion on the body, although that's only aesthetic. The frame spacing is strange, a pain to scan. The lens is OK, nothing special. I suppose an adapter to LTM would be straightforward, but I suspect it would need to be custom-made. It would be a sharp camera with a 35mm Summaron or Canon/Serenar on it.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>The Konica Auto Reflex does not have TTL metering. The metering cell is on the outside of the body. This can still work well. You just have to get an idea of what the cell is reading. The very early Auto Reflex cameras had a slightly different mount but very few of those are around. The rest of the Auto Reflex cameras will accept all lenses in Konica AR mount. These are plentiful. I like using an Auto Reflex with the 28mm f/1.8 UC Hexanon as a standard lens. The 28 UC is quite a good lens but is expensive and is often found with oil on its aperture blades. There was a half frame conversion kit made for the Konica FT-1 Motor. With the conversion the camera is called the Pro Half. The Pro Half has more modern metering and the built-in motor (winder). An advantage of the Konicas is that you can get adapters for using other lenses. Konica made adapters for using Exakta, Nikon, M42 (Praktica) and Konica F mount lenses with correct infinity focus. With one adapter or another you can use T mount lenses, Tamron Adaptamatic, Adaptall and Adaptall lenses, Vivitar T4 and TX lenses, Sigma and Spiratone YS lenses and Soligor's proprietary interchangeable mount system. Konica also made an interesting series of half frame RF cameras called "eye." The lettering is highly stylized and looks like cyc. </p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>I use Olympus Pen F with 38mm f 1.8 with handheld meter Gossen SBC 9 volt battery, no needle, lights only. My other lenses are zoom 55-90, Vivitar doubler, T-mount for various lenses as well as Y/S 18mm Spiratone. This is my half frame kit, works well for me!</p>

[SCL]

<p>I had a Pen FT for several years when they first came out...my 8x10 enlargements have often been mistaken for full frame 35mm shots, the lenses are that good in the right hands. By modern standards the viewfinder is only mediocre, and metering is ok once you get used to the EV system markings. If the metering bothers you, just use a handheld incident meter or the Sunny 16 rule. Like others said, it seems to take an eternity to finish up a standard 36 exposure roll (now 72 shots), which is the main reason I sold mine. They used to do half frame slides which was nice with a half frame projector, but I doubt that you would be able to do that today unless you mounted them yourself. Nevertheless, it was a really good camera.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

I used a Pen D1 for years with very good results but after Kodak stopped mounting half frame Kodachrome

slides it was all over for me.

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Hi Francis. Two very different cameras, but both do work well, and of course the Konica is rather huge for a half frame. The Pen F or FT may be a better choice if you are just interested in shooting half frame as the camera is very compact and nicely designed.<br>

I wouldn't worry about the metering too much as both cameras are getting on and it will be hard to find one with a reliable meter anyway. I actually have both of these cameras and can tell you that lenses are much easier and cheaper to obtain with the Konica. The 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 on the Konica make wonderful short teles on half frame too. The camera though, is quite big and bulky, not that it troubles me.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

Although fixed lens, the Canon Dial 35 is interesting. Shutter priority or manual, scale focusing, and a spring motor that

advances the film.

[francis_sanchez]

<p>The first thing I have to say to everyone is thank you so much for the plentiful, helpful and numerous responses. I really didn't think I was going to hear this much...especially this fast! Wow thanks! So from what I'm hearing so far it still sits with the Oly and the Konica. I'm not a super knowledgeable photographer. My brain largely lies in cine and older cameras are a bit fuzzy. If I could get a Nikon F3 with half frame I's be super happy. From what I'm hearing, the Konica ft-1 Half Pro (terrible name) is sounding awesome. So do the Pen FT and the Autoreflex use external reflective meters? There is a real draw to the Oly for having that 40mm at 1.4 because getting an equivalent focal length and speed from another manufacturer is going to be tough I'm thinking. I'm also guessing the Half Pro will be stupidly expensive. Anybody know where I could find a copy of the conversion kit instructions for this camera??</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>A good friend used the Pen F for many years and even made 16 x 20 enlargements of decent quality (as seen from his many prizes at our camera club during the 80s and 90s). Provided you find one in excellent working order, and as inferred from what Stephen, Paul and Charles have said, you probably cannot go wrong with that choice. </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The Pen FT has trhough-the-lens metering, but it's based on half-silvering one mirror in the finder system, so it makes the finder rather dim. It also doesn't have any way to know what aperture the lens is set for, so you set the shutter, read the meter in the finder (numbers starting at 1), and set the lens aperture to the same number. The number represents the number of stops from wide-open that you want the lens (plus 1).<br>

The Pen FT is dependent on mercury batteries (long since banned) for accurate metering. There are alternatives to that, none are ideal.<br>

The original Pen F has no internal meter. There was an external meter that could clip to the front of the shutter speed knob. Awkward, and also dependent on mercury batteries. But the finder is brighter than the Pen FT.<br>

The Pen FV has the same mechanical design revisions as the Pen FT, but leaves out the meter. So it also has the brighter finder.<br>

The Pen lenses are getting expensive, since there are adapters for the mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras with APS-C and 4/3 sensors, so there's now a "digital" market for them.</p>

 

[robert_bowring]

If I remember correctly Alpa also made a half frame slr camera. The only downside is that if you were able to find one I am sure it would

be crazy expensive.

[yockenwaithe]

<p>I think you're thinking of the Alpa 11si- and it is uber expensive [but then again it IS an Alpa so what do you expect], but some may argue that their quality surpasses even Leica [though finding someone to repair them is a hell of a task] so it's worth looking into if you have 3-4 grand to drop on a camera you'll likely just buy as a collector's item</p>

[francis_sanchez]

<p>So does the Konica Pro Half (yeah I saw I reversed that) show aperture and shutter speed in the viewfinder and suggest aperture with the current light conditions? Yeah Alpa will be expensive but it won't give me some modern tech that I would like. Anybody know what the Pro Half should be going for? I'm trying to find an ex-Konica service centre to see if I can find the instructions that were sent with the FT-1 half frame conversion kit. That would be very helpful atm. Anybody know anyplace that's still around?</p>

[glen_h]

<p>http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Pignons/Alpa-11si.html</p>

<p>says $1700 to $1800 for average condition. The colorful ones are much more.</p>

[Julio Fernandez]

<p>Maybe you have already decided on an SLR; but if you have some flexibility on that option I would consider getting a Pen D first, any one of the series, to evaluate if you like the half frame format before investing in a reflex system.</p>

<p>The D series was designed for serious photographers. It has excellent optics and is very handy. You have to guess the focus distance, but that is not really hard, and with 32mm focal length there is a lot of DOF for margin. The quality of the pictures will be similar to the best lenses in the F, not to say better. The camera is much simpler than the F and therefore it is more likely to be found in good condition. I am not aware of a better results / price relationship for half frame cameras.</p>

<p>A note for your consideration. The whole point of half frame is shooting a bit more and saving on film, but you do have to be ready for the processing. Many labs will not print half frame, and if you scan yourself, many scanners (for instance the Epson V600) will not automatically recognize the half frame format, forcing you to select and scan individually each of those 72 frames. BTW 72 frames is a lot in a roll, you may want to use shorter loads.</p>

 

[kirk_strauchler]

<p>I had the Konica, but as Canon is my go-to 35mm (full frame) system, I don't think I even used it before I unloaded it for a ridiculously large amount of money. IMO, the full size of the Konica defeats (one of the ) the purpose of half-frame; size. <br>

I used a Fujica Mini, which was a neat little camera, and took good images, until the aperture control got messed up, rendering it useless.<br>

Then I got myself a Canon Demi S, which I find to be a great camera, and produces very good images. Meter works fine, and I enjoy(ed) using it. Only 'downside' was a fixed lens, so I decided to go to the Pen series.<br>

I was going to get the Pen F, but found out for about 1/4 the price, I could get the FT with a broken meter, so I went that route. All of the half-frames, and most cameras from it's vintage have meters that are only good guesses anyway, and I either shoot sunny 16 or use a handheld meter, so I didn't care whether the meter worked or not. I also figured how dim could the VF be? <br>

I'm loving the FT! I have the 25mm f/4, 38mm f1.8, and the 100mm f/3.5. The 25mm is on it 90% of the time, and the other 2 only occasionally. All the lenses are great. I'm eyeballing the 42mm f/1.2, even though I really don't have a pressing need for one.<br>

I also bought the clip-on meter that was mentioned above, but it doesn't fit on the FT. Oh well. If I had an F, after looking at the meter, I wouldn't use it. Too fiddly.<br>

The VF may be dimmer, but it is certainly adequate. It's not like it's too dark, and I find it to be no problem.<br>

One other reason I opted to not get the F, was that it is double-crank for frame advance. Seriously? I know I'd probably end up only cranking once, and have to advance again before the next shot. I just think a double crank advance on a half frame is a bit silly. <br>

So by giving up a (slightly?) brighter VF, and gaining the single crank advance, the FT was a no brainer for me, especially when the cost difference was considerable (not that these are insanely priced). <br>

The cool looks of the Pen series, along with the huge system accessories and high quality lenses available makes me a Pen fanboy in the half frame genre.</p>

[kirk_strauchler]

<p>Not to be argumentative, but the OM-1 is not remotely the same size as the Konica. </p>

<p>Konica Autoreflex 145.5mm x 94.5mm x 88.5mm, and weighs in at 910g (with 50mm 1.8)<br>

Olympus OM-1 136mm x 83mm x 81mm, 680g (with 50mm 1.8)<br>

Olympus Pen F 127mm x 62mm x 69mm, and a lightweight 695grams. (with the 38mm f/1.8)</p>

<p>So the Konica is roughly 20mm wider, (almost an inch), larger is every direction close to an inch, and weighs 215g more (about 7.5 ounces). </p>

<p>The Konica Autoreflex also doesn't look nearly as cool as the Pen! :-)</p>

[francis_sanchez]

<p>Size isn't an issue. I'm curious if it's possible to convert an F3! That's me being crazy...</p>

[francis_sanchez]

<p>I'm wondering about a hack...!</p>

[frank_lapinski]

<p><strong>FT-1 Pro Half</strong><br>

I have one up, I have numerous accessories including the flash, lenses and remote trigger. Make an offer.<br>

http://newyork.craigslist.org/lgi/pho/5516066736.html</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>By their style alone, these cameras are probably more aptly listed in "Modern" than "Classic", but they are worth consideration. They are all what are known as "bridge cameras".<br>

http://www.photo.net/modern-film-cameras-forum/00YvJm <strong>Yashica Samurai</strong><br /><a href="/modern-film-cameras-forum/00YqZO">http://www.photo.net/modern-film-cameras-forum/00YqZO</a> <strong>Chinon Genesis II (GS-8</strong>)<br /><a href="/modern-film-cameras-forum/00Yk4S">http://www.photo.net/modern-film-cameras-forum/00Yk4S</a> <strong>Ricoh Mirai</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

The Mercury II is normally dead on arrival, and I wouldn't want to deal with one. The earlier versions, no more reliable, should be avoided because they won't take regular 35mm film.<strong><br /></strong></p>