Reading mode: Light Dark

Half frame--Why????

Go to last post
B

Bill-in-KY

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
340
Reaction score
213
I just saw "half frame" mentioned again, and I thought I'd ask this question. Why is there any interest in half-frame cameras? Isn't 35mm small enough? I used 110 long ago and that was a mistake. I used a lot of 35mm film, and wish I had used 120 instead. Bigger film is better. No question about it, in my opinion. So, why is there a new interest in half-frame cameras, and their production? Makes no sense to me. Seems that people would want to use at least 35mm film.
 
Solution
LouMeluso
One reason half-frame gained popularity was that it extended the time between changing rolls. This, along with their compact size, was important to photojournalists covering fast-moving events. Olympus even paid W. Eugene Smith to promote their cameras. Crisp 8x10 prints could be made, which covered almost all publication needs for newspapers or magazines. See my discussion of my Oly Pen-F with examples here:

Bill-in-KY said:
I just saw "half frame" mentioned again, and I thought I'd ask this question. Why is there any interest in half-frame cameras?
Click to expand...
Twice as many shots per roll, and potentially smaller cameras/lenses.
Bill-in-KY said:
Isn't 35mm small enough? I used 110 long ago and that was a mistake. I used a lot of 35mm film, and wish I had used 120 instead. Bigger film is better. No question about it, in my opinion. So, why is there a new interest in half-frame cameras, and their production? Makes no sense to me. Seems that people would want to use at least 35mm film.
Click to expand...
You might want to recognize that 'image quality' in photography is not everything, and it never has been.
 
Last edited:
Quite a few people like sub-miniature formats. I like 110, particularly on a decent camera, and half frame really isn’t that small. I remember when the Pentax 17 was launched Analogue Wonderland (a film store in the U.K.) did some prints of photos from the P17 to A3 size. I don’t ever really print anything to bigger than that ( tbh I don’t have walls big enough ! )
 
When the half frame 35mm format was (re)introduced for film cameras, smaller size and better economy were the main benefits claimed. The latter is much more important now with the every-increasing cost of film and processing...
 
Others have given you some valid reasons why they like half frame. So to balance the discussion here are some reasons why I have always avoided half frame.

Film price may be cheaper per frame but overall there is minimal saving unless one develops and scans/prints one’s own.

I admit to getting impatient when I have to wait until I finish off all 36 shots on full frame so having to wait until I finish off all 72 is not for me.

I prefer to shoot landscape so the portrait orientation of half frame is not for me.

Other opinions will vary.
 
In general I agree. Maybe the only reason for the renaissance is nostalgia, or novelty.

My experiments with half-frame decades ago were frustrating. I think there was a niche for a) vacation snaps where you'd typically be printing no larger than 4x5" and b) certain press photography and event coverage where prints would be small and low resolution, and the film was the cheapest part of the equation so it didn't matter if the roll was not completely finished before developing.

It amazes me that the Olympus Pen family had such a wide range of lenses and accessories! It was a really well rounded-out system. I'm not sure who all those lenses etc. appealed to. But I've had fun adapting some of those lenses to Micro 4/3, and even fooled around with them on my Fuji GFX where, quite obviously, the coverage is not complete :)

Best wishes,
Sterling
--
Lens Grit
 
I personally like a landscape orientation also. However, besides the reasons already mentioned, the vertical format is now similar to how most people use their smart phone camera.
 
Anyone wanting to use half frame for landscapes ( :-) ) should take a look at the various Yashica Samurai ( https://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Yashica_Samurai_X3.0 ). The film travels vertically rather than horizontally so it’s the same orientation as normal 35mm. The only downsides are that they look like a 1980s camcorder, and come in two flavours, left handed and right handed. If you’re serious about it you probably want the X3 rather than the X4, as it’s much easier to replace the clock battery in the X3. Of course there is a APS version if you want a slightly bigger negative :-)
 
Bill-in-KY said:
I just saw "half frame" mentioned again, and I thought I'd ask this question. Why is there any interest in half-frame cameras? Isn't 35mm small enough? I used 110 long ago and that was a mistake. I used a lot of 35mm film, and wish I had used 120 instead. Bigger film is better. No question about it, in my opinion. So, why is there a new interest in half-frame cameras, and their production? Makes no sense to me. Seems that people would want to use at least 35mm film.
Click to expand...
Emulsions always improve, which is who film sizes tended to go smaller.

Half-frame was very popular in Japan - there is a case for saying that it is the native 35mm format, as the original cine film was shot with the perforations against the short sides of the frame.

I'm told Kodak were not keen on half-frame, and would not produce half-frame slide mounts for their films... a cynical bit of me wonders if they wanted to sell more films, rather than letting people get 72 frames on a roll.

People do get very good results out of 110 and 16mm - I've seen some amazing stuff from tiny Minox formats.
 
One reason half-frame gained popularity was that it extended the time between changing rolls. This, along with their compact size, was important to photojournalists covering fast-moving events. Olympus even paid W. Eugene Smith to promote their cameras. Crisp 8x10 prints could be made, which covered almost all publication needs for newspapers or magazines. See my discussion of my Oly Pen-F with examples here:

 
Solution
Yes. The emulsions were the sensors and they kept getting better. So, it was very reasonable to work with vintage cameras, even a Tessar formula lens, with modern emulsion and get wonderful results.
 
Gesture said:
I personally like a landscape orientation also. However, besides the reasons already mentioned, the vertical format is now similar to how most people use their smart phone camera.
Click to expand...
Yes, The reason for the popularity of the vertical format is quite obvious and has to do with how individuals naturally hold a rectangular shaped phone.

Portrait orientation images, both stills and video, quickly became the preferred choice for the vast majority of people in the world as their phone is the only way they create and consume such content.

Will this trend eventually cause human facial anatomy to evolve to having one eye above the other? :-)
  • John
 
Bob Janes said:
Bill-in-KY said:
I just saw "half frame" mentioned again, and I thought I'd ask this question. Why is there any interest in half-frame cameras? Isn't 35mm small enough? I used 110 long ago and that was a mistake. I used a lot of 35mm film, and wish I had used 120 instead. Bigger film is better. No question about it, in my opinion. So, why is there a new interest in half-frame cameras, and their production? Makes no sense to me. Seems that people would want to use at least 35mm film.
Click to expand...
Emulsions always improve, which is who film sizes tended to go smaller.

Half-frame was very popular in Japan - there is a case for saying that it is the native 35mm format, as the original cine film was shot with the perforations against the short sides of the frame.

I'm told Kodak were not keen on half-frame, and would not produce half-frame slide mounts for their films... a cynical bit of me wonders if they wanted to sell more films, rather than letting people get 72 frames on a roll.

People do get very good results out of 110 and 16mm - I've seen some amazing stuff from tiny Minox formats.
Click to expand...


7bae6de2f9654a64b9bf49adbbca8fce.jpg
 
Overrank said:
Anyone wanting to use half frame for landscapes ( :-) ) should take a look at the various Yashica Samurai ( https://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Yashica_Samurai_X3.0 ). The film travels vertically rather than horizontally so it’s the same orientation as normal 35mm. The only downsides are that they look like a 1980s camcorder, and come in two flavours, left handed and right handed. If you’re serious about it you probably want the X3 rather than the X4, as it’s much easier to replace the clock battery in the X3. Of course there is a APS version if you want a slightly bigger negative :-)
Click to expand...
yes about 16% larger but does anyone still print APS and who makes the film ?
 
Overrank said:
Anyone wanting to use half frame for landscapes ( :-) ) should take a look at the various Yashica Samurai ( https://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Yashica_Samurai_X3.0 ). The film travels vertically rather than horizontally so it’s the same orientation as normal 35mm. The only downsides are that they look like a 1980s camcorder, and come in two flavours, left handed and right handed. If you’re serious about it you probably want the X3 rather than the X4, as it’s much easier to replace the clock battery in the X3. Of course there is a APS version if you want a slightly bigger negative :-)
Click to expand...
Apart from the Canon Demi 35 there were at least another 3 horizontal frame (landscape) half frame cameras. I have never seen those other 3 but it is interesting the the somewhat similar Taron Chic and Yashica Rapide (NOT identical...) both came out in 1961



d9cb210f1c354475bf9801a9b3b633e3.jpg



6d07fb1924ff4ac8a98a5b281c2db7f1.jpg
 
Bill-in-KY said:
I just saw "half frame" mentioned again, and I thought I'd ask this question. Why is there any interest in half-frame cameras? Isn't 35mm small enough? I used 110 long ago and that was a mistake. I used a lot of 35mm film, and wish I had used 120 instead. Bigger film is better. No question about it, in my opinion. So, why is there a new interest in half-frame cameras, and their production? Makes no sense to me. Seems that people would want to use at least 35mm film.
Click to expand...
yes , al those points make perfect sense TO YOU...and this is the crucial difference, there are other people don't think like you.

As already mentioned, image quality is not always the most important part , in fact Lomophotography (for one example) proves that thepretty much the opposite is paramount for some and , here is the funny bit (to me...) a LOT of the film resurgence for the amateur/hobbiest is due to those Lomo enthusasts.

Yes, believe it or not to some fun and novelty comes before the need for sharp poster prints...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Question Question
Film format (history) question
Replies
19
Views
464
Heritage Cameras
Heritage Cameras
Overrank
RGB light for film scanning
Replies
17
Views
2K
Bob
B
E
Film scanning with digital camera: autofocus / manual focus settings?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
5K
Easy Lee
E
R
Scanning Slides and Negatives with Negative Supply Equipment
Replies
4
Views
1K
RickKr
R
S
I changed my mind, maybe
Replies
6
Views
348
Sam in Hawaii
S

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top