Rangefinderforum.com

Rangefinderforum.com (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/index.php)
-   Half Frames / Subminiatures (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=84)
-   -   Do 1/4 frame cameras exist? (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169946)

luz_sandeman 11-10-2019 23:51

Do 1/4 frame cameras exist?
 
Hello! Do 1/4 frame cameras exist?

Like something which has 4 small lenses or moveable lens to make a 35 mm frame into 4 smaller frames of 3:2 ratio (or similar), for more economical shooting and also nice big grain...

I know of Lomography cameras called "action sampler" which is kind of what I want, or the "supersampler" with 4 small plastic lenses next to each other, but I think those cameras have really ****ty optics, fixed focus, you can't change the exposure time or anything, they're just toy cameras... Or did they make like a "luxury sampler" with good lenses etc...? :)

Was anything like what I'm looking for made in like the 60s or 70s or something with actual glass and not plastic? :D

I'm thinking also of getting a half frame camera, been reading here on the forums and googling some. Preferably a half frame rangefinder to get accurate focus but they seem very rare and thus more than expensive. So I'm thinking of maybe getting a Yashica Samurai because of ease of use?

Best regards! Thanks in advance for the help! :)

bullterrier 11-11-2019 00:10

looks interesting,almost like the old nokia phone i got from my wife

joe bosak 11-11-2019 04:28

Do 1/4 frame cameras exist?
 
What about Minox 8mm, Kiev 16mm, Pentax/Minolta 110 cameras? Decent quality lenses, small film format. Not sure about film availability.

There's also the nimslo and nishika lenticular cameras, but they probably aren't what you want - assuming you want to choose each frame.

Ambro51 11-11-2019 05:56

Yes. The View Master Personal Camera done that. Cheap on eBay, the special cutter costs 3x the camera! http://www.vmresource.com/camera/camera.htm

luz_sandeman 11-11-2019 06:14

thanks for the tips! but i want to use 135 mm film since it is more readily and cheaply available, and mostly because it's a lot cheaper to develop and scan, because of the automation and standardisation i guess....


sorry maybe i should've specified that i want to use only 35 mm film :/

luz_sandeman 11-11-2019 06:17

thanks!!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambro51 (Post 2923150)
Yes. The View Master Personal Camera done that. Cheap on eBay, the special cutter costs 3x the camera! http://www.vmresource.com/camera/camera.htm

wow! maybe this is exactly what I'm looking for? will read about it more when I have time. it seems pretty advanced mechanism. Did you hear anything about the risk of malfunction? Any personal experience?

So it creates duplicates right? theres gonna be 2 identical small images from every shot, with just some parallax" difference due to the different lenses?

Doug 11-11-2019 14:01

Tessina... Tiny twin-lens reflex that shoots 14x21mm on 35mm film, smaller than half-frame and not much larger than 110 film (14x17, which is essentially your quarter-frame size)
See some info at our RFF host's site.

https://www.cameraquest.com/tessina.htm

luz_sandeman 11-12-2019 02:02

cool, but does it take normal film ?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug (Post 2923268)
Tessina... Tiny twin-lens reflex that shoots 14x21mm on 35mm film, smaller than half-frame and not much larger than 110 film (14x17, which is essentially your quarter-frame size)
See some info at our RFF host's site.

https://www.cameraquest.com/tessina.htm


Thanks for the tip! this is a really cool camera! But...the main reason i wanna use 35 mm film is easy obtainment and cheaper price etc...and the main reason i want to shoot smaller frames is to get more exposures per film roll.


So I would like to ask (cant find the info easily):
- How many exposures would this Tessina get on a normal 36 frame 35 mm film roll?

- Do I need special film? It seems there is some special loader? So I have to buy this separatly and cut up the roll of film? :0 Does it take a lot of time?

Phil_F_NM 11-12-2019 04:03

How about finding a Konica Auto-Reflex? The first one with the - in the name. It is a switchable full frame / half frame 35mm camera. Amazing lenses that range from 15mm up.
Aside from that, you could get a 16mm motion picture camera that does single frame for stop motion and get 4000 images per roll but you have to use 16mm film. Heck, even a 35mm MP camera like an Eyemo will still shoot half frame and you'll get ~1500 images per roll.
Phil Forrest

zuiko85 11-12-2019 06:22

Is this for a project? To save on film? Just wondering what you are hoping to accomplish with the camera. The Action Sampler exposes all four frames with each shot so film is used at the same rate as usual.
If this is just about economy then half frame is the most practical. For most photography not having a rangefinder on half frame viewfinder type is usually not a problem with the short focal length lenses found on such cameras. I’ve seldom had out of focus shots on my Olympus Pen that has focusing by scale down to 2 feet on a 28mm f3.5 lens.

If you would like to focus closer and more accurately get a clean Olympus Pen F and the standard 38mm f1.8 that will focus down to 14 inches with reflex viewing.
The original Pen F has a plain matte focusing screen and is the easiest Pen SLR to focus accurately, in my opinion.

zuiko85 11-12-2019 06:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM (Post 2923352)
How about finding a Konica Auto-Reflex? The first one with the - in the name. It is a switchable full frame / half frame 35mm camera. Amazing lenses that range from 15mm up.
Aside from that, you could get a 16mm motion picture camera that does single frame for stop motion and get 4000 images per roll but you have to use 16mm film. Heck, even a 35mm MP camera like an Eyemo will still shoot half frame and you'll get ~1500 images per roll.
Phil Forrest

I have, and occasionally use Minolta 16 cameras. The 10x14mm frame is smaller than 1/4 frame but I never enlarge more than 12x on 5x7 paper. Yep, the prints are grainy, especially as Iím using Eastman 16mm Double-X. But, after obtaining enough cartridges over the years to amortize their cost, even paying $60 for a 100ft. roll, Iíll get over 60 rolls out of that so $1 per roll of 20 exposures.

And of course, I develop and print myself.

sepiareverb 11-12-2019 06:52

Nimslo made 4 tall exposures across a slightly wider 35mm frame. But at the same time, so no film savings. Not the most stellar lens, but not really terrible.

Tim Gray 11-12-2019 08:44

Nickelodeon Photoblaster. Can’t remember if it does 4 individual exposures of if they are chained together.

wwfloyd 11-12-2019 09:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by sepiareverb (Post 2923376)
Nimslo made 4 tall exposures across a slightly wider 35mm frame. But at the same time, so no film savings. Not the most stellar lens, but not really terrible.


4 tall exposures across 2 roughly standard 35mm frames -- essentially 4 half-frame images of the given scene.

Ambro51 11-12-2019 13:24

You know, a Stereo Realist can be “single shot” and will give you 58 incredibly detailed images on one roll. 23x24 mm. The Realist is the BEST $50 camera on eBay.

luz_sandeman 11-13-2019 23:11

single shot? why not 72 ?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambro51 (Post 2923443)
You know, a Stereo Realist can be “single shot” and will give you 58 incredibly detailed images on one roll. 23x24 mm. The Realist is the BEST $50 camera on eBay.

Ah ok so it works with single shot? But still "only" produces 58 images? on a 36 frame roll?

Hmm in this case I think I would prefer a half frame camera since then u get 72 images on one roll?

Its all about getting a maximum amount of exposures on each roll, sorry maybe I should've been more clear about this.

This new camera I'm getting is for me taking pics of a friend's band and they ABSOLUTELY have to get analog pics (very hip yes) ;). But the pics are only really for posting online, fb, instagram and so on. So that's why I think a smaller format will suffice well enough and even produce more of the grainy analog feel that they like.

luz_sandeman 11-13-2019 23:17

I love the idea of this camera! :D
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Gray (Post 2923398)
Nickelodeon Photoblaster. Can’t remember if it does 4 individual exposures of if they are chained together.

Haha, I'm thinking now I really have to get a nickelodeon photoblast ! I read about it and it DOES make individual exposures, no change of settings though, but it has a flash...

Thanks for the tip man, maybe this is what I've been looking for, and i love the toy look of this camera, i mean - it IS a toy! Ironic...

luz_sandeman 11-13-2019 23:22

The goal of this...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by zuiko85 (Post 2923371)
Is this for a project? To save on film? Just wondering what you are hoping to accomplish with the camera. The Action Sampler exposes all four frames with each shot so film is used at the same rate as usual.
If this is just about economy then half frame is the most practical. For most photography not having a rangefinder on half frame viewfinder type is usually not a problem with the short focal length lenses found on such cameras. I’ve seldom had out of focus shots on my Olympus Pen that has focusing by scale down to 2 feet on a 28mm f3.5 lens.

If you would like to focus closer and more accurately get a clean Olympus Pen F and the standard 38mm f1.8 that will focus down to 14 inches with reflex viewing.
The original Pen F has a plain matte focusing screen and is the easiest Pen SLR to focus accurately, in my opinion.

Nice that you're curious :) i will tell you!

Its all about getting a maximum amount of exposures on each roll, sorry maybe I should've been more clear about this.

This new camera im getting is for me taking pics of a friends band and they ABSOLUTLEY have to get analog pics (very hip yes) . But the pics are only really for posting online, fb, instagram and so on. So that's why I think a smaller format will suffice well enough and even produce more of the grainy analog feel that they like.

I did it for 2,5 years now maybe 5-6 times. And I got this idea since i was sick of the cost of developing and scanning, we always did full frame before maybe 2-3 rolls every time...money money money....

Im thinking either getting this ridiculous nickelodeon photoblaster that was mentioned, or maybe yashica samurai cause i guess it will produce better pics...

Do you have any experience with above 2 mentioned cameras?

luz_sandeman 11-13-2019 23:26

movie camera!?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM (Post 2923352)
How about finding a Konica Auto-Reflex? The first one with the - in the name. It is a switchable full frame / half frame 35mm camera. Amazing lenses that range from 15mm up.
Aside from that, you could get a 16mm motion picture camera that does single frame for stop motion and get 4000 images per roll but you have to use 16mm film. Heck, even a 35mm MP camera like an Eyemo will still shoot half frame and you'll get ~1500 images per roll.
Phil Forrest


well this was a new thought, to actually use a movie camera to capture stills....but how would i scan so many pictures? i dont develop myself... i mean where can i buy this film roll that this eyemo could use? it must be a very very long roll? isnt that expensive? and the cost to develop and scan should be pretty high?

Dralowid 11-14-2019 01:33

I have a cupboard full of movie cameras and yes, you would find processing and film costs high. Most labs offer frame by frame scanning too. The cameras, on the other hand, are mostly very, very cheap. A fairly common 16mm camera like a Bolex H16 is a wonderful thing but bulky. 8mm cameras are obviously much smaller but the image is hard to work with. There are plenty of specialists on the net.

zuiko85 11-14-2019 03:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by luz_sandeman (Post 2923695)
Nice that you're curious :) i will tell you!

Its all about getting a maximum amount of exposures on each roll, sorry maybe I should've been more clear about this.

This new camera im getting is for me taking pics of a friends band and they ABSOLUTELY have to get analog pics (very hip yes) . But the pics are only really for posting online, fb, instagram and so on. So that's why I think a smaller format will suffice well enough and even produce more of the grainy analog feel that they like.

I did it for 2,5 years now maybe 5-6 times. And I got this idea since i was sick of the cost of developing and scanning, we always did full frame before maybe 2-3 rolls every time...money money money....

I'm thinking either getting this ridiculous nickelodeon photoblaster that was mentioned, or maybe yashica samurai cause i guess it will produce better pics...

Do you have any experience with above 2 mentioned cameras?

For your situation 35mm half frame is still the best bang for the money if, and this is true with any film camera, if you are willing to do your own processing and scanning. Outside film processing will drive cost to very high levels, the “ money money money “ you mentioned and are trying to get away from. With half frame you can shoot two 36exp rolls and come away with 150 exposures if you are careful loading the film.
Do you want to shoot color or B&W or both?

sepiareverb 11-14-2019 03:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwfloyd (Post 2923405)
4 tall exposures across 2 roughly standard 35mm frames -- essentially 4 half-frame images of the given scene.

Thatís right, nearly two frames wide, thanks for the correction. Iíve not pulled out the Nimslo in decades.

luz_sandeman 11-14-2019 04:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by zuiko85 (Post 2923711)
For your situation 35mm half frame is still the best bang for the money if, and this is true with any film camera, if you are willing to do your own processing and scanning. Outside film processing will drive cost to very high levels, the ď money money money ď you mentioned and are trying to get away from. With half frame you can shoot two 36exp rolls and come away with 150 exposures if you are careful loading the film.
Do you want to shoot color or B&W or both?


Im gonna shoot color since i dont wanna mess around at home with the b&w chemicals. also this band's look really needs color. there's a place where i can get development and scanning in okay resolution for about 20 usd per roll. and i usually buy the rolls for like 3 usd. i think that's ok price since i dont do this so much that i wanna get a scanner myself. save me some time....

wwfloyd 11-14-2019 05:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by luz_sandeman (Post 2923720)
...there's a place where i can get development and scanning in okay resolution for about 20 usd per roll. and i usually buy the rolls for like 3 usd. i think that's ok price since i dont do this so much that i wanna get a scanner myself. save me some time....

Have you asked if they will scan 1/2 frame? That would be your key to practicality, here. They may balk, or increase the price. If they balk, ask if they will scan as full frame (2 half frames per scan) -- you could then separate them in editing. This would bring an issue if the images of a paired scan have different lighting, where the equipment would choose one auto compensation, where separate scans would make each one better.

I've read your goals. But... I keep wondering. Shooting live action can be challenging, especially if you have to work in poor lighting -- which would seem likely. Sticking with 35mm would give you more flexibility for cameras that could more easily make good shots. You want grain -- push the film, or shoot faster films. You can get plenty of grain. That still leaves you with higher cost. But, that may be the right cost, if you end up not getting what you want with half frame.

Tim Gray 11-14-2019 06:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by luz_sandeman (Post 2923694)
Haha, I'm thinking now I really have to get a nickelodeon photoblast ! I read about it and it DOES make individual exposures, no change of settings thouh, but it has a flash...


Thanks for the tip man, maybe this is what I've been looking for, and i love the toy look of this camera, i mean - it IS a toy! Ironic...

I only have one photo from it up on Flickr, and can confirm it does make individual exposures.

https://flic.kr/p/3JRdCf

zuiko85 11-14-2019 07:36

Looking at Photoblaster sample pictures I would guess that built in flash has a maximum range of 8~10 feet with ISO 400 film. So, if you are any farther away from the subjects the pictures will be too dark to make out. Outdoors in good light it should be ok, but of course the small frame and simple plastic lens will limit resolution.

Maybe it would just be better to get a used Olympus E-PL2 with the kit lens, set the art filter to 'grainy film' and shoot all day long for almost no cost.

As for not shooting analog for real, well.....just don't tell anybody.

retinax 11-14-2019 07:39

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...d.php?t=169205 you'll especially want to read post 11

luz_sandeman 11-15-2019 02:32

yep scan half frame at same price
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wwfloyd (Post 2923732)
Have you asked if they will scan 1/2 frame? That would be your key to practicality, here. They may balk, or increase the price. If they balk, ask if they will scan as full frame (2 half frames per scan) -- you could then separate them in editing. This would bring an issue if the images of a paired scan have different lighting, where the equipment would choose one auto compensation, where separate scans would make each one better.

I've read your goals. But... I keep wondering. Shooting live action can be challenging, especially if you have to work in poor lighting -- which would seem likely. Sticking with 35mm would give you more flexibility for cameras that could more easily make good shots. You want grain -- push the film, or shoot faster films. You can get plenty of grain. That still leaves you with higher cost. But, that may be the right cost, if you end up not getting what you want with half frame.

Yep the first thing I did was to ask my lab about if they scan half frame, they do it at the same price, in the way that you said - 2 frames at the same time so i'll just have to work a little in PS with the images I want to crop out and use.

Very interesting input with the machines auto comp. I didn't really consider this! I guess I could try to think of it when shooting, like keeping track of which is the first and last in the pair, if you know what I mean...

The thing is, im not a pro. This band usually "pay" me by buying me some food and a beer. They're my friends and I just do this for fun and to be helpful. But I still wanna get nice results that suits their style.

I see your point about full frame, it's just not that serious, lower costs are more essential. Plus the look of this band and their online "style" kinda fits with crappy image qual. weird white balance and all that. It's just supposed to look VERY analog, so stick out in some way. i dunno if it does but....

The thing with these toy cameras is that their ridiculous small apertures could make very very dark images on already expired film...but flash is included ;)

luz_sandeman 11-15-2019 02:40

WOW 16 lenses!!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by retinax (Post 2923763)
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...d.php?t=169205 you'll especially want to read post 11

Thanks! this was VERY interesting info. Will copy it here for ease of remembering exactly what was said:

"Akshully I think it is, because the 8 lens kamera's only options are slow, medium or fast sequential captures. While the 16 version also allows single shot captures so you can mix and match 16 unique images on the two frames of film before it advances the film.
It's also nicer because it has a physical lens cover that moves out of the way when you use it, while the 8 shot version shoots through a clear filter. So do cameras like Nikonos, Fuji Work Record, Nikon ActionTouch etc etc so there isn't an actual issue with that but I just like the idea of the 'solid' lens cover on the 16 version.

The 8 shot version is manual advance and rewind, while the 16 is automatic."

Above is about the fujifilm rensha cardia cameras.

luz_sandeman 11-15-2019 02:44

kitchen pics right ?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Gray (Post 2923743)
I only have one photo from it up on Flickr, and can confirm it does make individual exposures.

https://flic.kr/p/3JRdCf

Ahh but these images look totally OKAY! from this toy - wow, i thought it would be blurry as fog.

And im looking at the correct pics, right? the four pics from a kitchen scene? (im guessing its from the same 35 mm frame?)

luz_sandeman 11-15-2019 02:52

they would know ;)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by zuiko85 (Post 2923762)
Looking at Photoblaster sample pictures I would guess that built in flash has a maximum range of 8~10 feet with ISO 400 film. So, if you are any farther away from the subjects the pictures will be too dark to make out. Outdoors in good light it should be ok, but of course the small frame and simple plastic lens will limit resolution.

Maybe it would just be better to get a used Olympus E-PL2 with the kit lens, set the art filter to 'grainy film' and shoot all day long for almost no cost.

As for not shooting analog for real, well.....just don't tell anybody.

haha thanks you dont know how many times i told my band friends that we could just shoot digital instead and make it look analog :) but they are adamant it has to be analog. they have this whole 80s look and sound. i helped them shoot a video a few weeks ago using old VHS tape recorders.

and they would know if it was analog or digital, they normally pay for the development costs anyway :D im just a pair of hands and a pair of eyes. ok maybe a bit more.

yeah the f/8-11 or whatever it is, is really my main concern about these toy cameras. it could be so very very dark. and i think fixed 1/100 shutter, i mean i can handhold 1/30 reasonably well...so even darker still.... I will read up on some different models when I get the time!

thanks a lot for the help all u guys! this thread has expanded my knowledge about what is OUT THERE in terms of weird cameras in just a week or less :D

leicapixie 11-16-2019 03:34

The OP has a problem, his clients (non-paying) are the tail wagging the dog!
The "look" of film easily done with older digital point and shoot cameras..
One needs CCD not CMOS sensor.. reason i bought old DSLR Nikon-50.

Half frame is nice, esp. if under 30 and can see the negative.:D
I used 1/2 Frame when i had 4x5 enlarger (8x10 better) making multi prints..
Note i still shoot film and it's not expensive!
Consider your time, the band, transportation, snacks and drinks, etc..
Kentmere less costly but harsh look in 400.
HP5+ superior tonal scale..plan your images with sketches.

I used a Pentax Optio 3.5MP for media esp internet.!
I have an old Minolta P/S that does horrible color BUT B/W that fooled many..
It's many years now but I never worked out Minolta-Sony-Konica menu..:angel:

Lee Rust 11-19-2019 14:22

The 4 lens Lomo camera is crude but fun. I've got one! However, for quality results plus film & processing economy, I think 1/2 frame 35 is the way to go.

luz_sandeman 11-19-2019 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by leicapixie (Post 2924143)
The OP has a problem, his clients (non-paying) are the tail wagging the dog!
The "look" of film easily done with older digital point and shoot cameras..
One needs CCD not CMOS sensor.. reason i bought old DSLR Nikon-50.

Half frame is nice, esp. if under 30 and can see the negative.:D
I used 1/2 Frame when i had 4x5 enlarger (8x10 better) making multi prints..
Note i still shoot film and it's not expensive!
Consider your time, the band, transportation, snacks and drinks, etc..
Kentmere less costly but harsh look in 400.
HP5+ superior tonal scale..plan your images with sketches.

I used a Pentax Optio 3.5MP for media esp internet.!
I have an old Minolta P/S that does horrible color BUT B/W that fooled many..
It's many years now but I never worked out Minolta-Sony-Konica menu..:angel:

yeah sometimes u just gotta do something for someone else if you ever expect people to do stuff for you sometime ;)

Ahaa! so there's something about CCD:s ? :D i guess i can see what u mean. i use an old 2005 pentax compact camera(its gotta be ccd) for party pics (i dont care if it gets smashed), and i guess it kinda looks like the 80s/90s in the pictures.... what is the explanation?

luz_sandeman 11-19-2019 14:46

yeah :)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Rust (Post 2924843)
The 4 lens Lomo camera is crude but fun. I've got one! However, for quality results plus film & processing economy, I think 1/2 frame 35 is the way to go.

yeah I see your point! exactly these toy cameras seem crude but fun. how is the 4 lens lomo-cam to use at like a party (dark indoors), is it the one with flash? asking cause the high f numbers kinda scare me...f8-11? seems dark for even a cloudy sky sometimes....

yeah half frame seems like a sweet spot between economy and quality! :) and also 144 pics on one roll is almost too much. sometimes u dont wanna take that many pics in one go....but 72 is reasonable....

Im currently thinking of getting the half frame yashica samurai (anyone knows if the automatic exposure algorithms work O.K.?) or can you control the flash at all? to make sure u always get the flash? ive just started researching this camera didnt get the time yet...

Lee Rust 11-22-2019 11:03

My Lomo doesn't have a flash, so it's a daytime thing.

As for 1/2 frame, I would suggest one of the several versions of Olympus Pen viewfinder cameras. They're small and dependable, but you may need an external flash or exposure meter. My favorite is the Pen S, although I do have a Pen FT reflex and Univex Mercury II as half-frame alternates.

I've never actually seen a Samurai. From what I've read it seems very interesting but maybe a bit too electronic to be reliable after more than thirty years.

luz_sandeman 11-23-2019 00:30

half frame rangefinder.....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Rust (Post 2925446)
My Lomo doesn't have a flash, so it's a daytime thing.

As for 1/2 frame, I would suggest one of the several versions of Olympus Pen viewfinder cameras. They're small and dependable, but you may need an external flash or exposure meter. My favorite is the Pen S, although I do have a Pen FT reflex and Univex Mercury II as half-frame alternates.

I've never actually seen a Samurai. From what I've read it seems very interesting but maybe a bit too electronic to be reliable after more than thirty years.


Ahh yeah a lot of people recommend these pen cameras. (But they don't have autofocus right?) Of course i know about them-but here's a thing i didn't write i guess:
My whole starting to think about a new analog camera is about getting either a rangefinder or something with autofocus. I have been using a pentax K1000 for some years and im just sick of having to focus manually with an SLR and hardly seeing where the focus is. (and also getting a half frame camera cause the people i shoot for only use the pics on instagram and fb anyway)

The perfect thing for me would be a half frame rangefinder, but I already researched that and some models seems to exist only in very small numbers, VERY expensive. if u dont have any tips?

But very good point about the electronics maybe not working anymore in a 1988 camera. if i buy it i will get it shortly before a shooting session so i can try it out immediately and check all the functions and complain on ebay if its not fully functional.

leicapixie 11-23-2019 00:41

The CCD is older, almost always made by Kodak.
It resembles FILM in "look". Color like Kodachrome.
It is a digital image so it's not film really..
Cost can be almost zero..my DSLR with lens $75..
It has sensor marks, easily photoshopped.
1/2 Frame really not need auto-focus.
The "apparent" extra depth of field, esp in small prints.
Point and shoot auto focus are cheap, focussing and exposing,
slower than watching redwoods grow!
No matter your reason, everybody is worth their labor!

luz_sandeman 11-23-2019 01:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by leicapixie (Post 2925549)
The CCD is older, almost always made by Kodak.
It resembles FILM in "look". Color like Kodachrome.
It is a digital image so it's not film really..
Cost can be almost zero..my DSLR with lens $75..
It has sensor marks, easily photoshopped.
1/2 Frame really not need auto-focus.
The "apparent" extra depth of field, esp in small prints.
Point and shoot auto focus are cheap, focussing and exposing,
slower than watching redwoods grow!
No matter your reason, everybody is worth their labor!


ah ok will read more about ccd:s, then :)
sensor marks??
Yeah i dont care so much about the slowness, its gonna be faster than my eyes - i can assure you :) as long as its reasonably reliable. I mean i wouldnt think in this way with street photography for example - which is really my main thing. Im just sick of telling my friends to "wait while i do the focussing" as soon as we switch positions...

PŠl_K 11-23-2019 10:51

For quality images on a small format, it's hard to beat Minox or the Minolta 16mm. Next step up is Pentax 110.

Has the Nickelodeon Photoblaster been mentioned? Obviously a toy, it is possible to make "movies" with its 4-shots per frame format.

Don't cringe when you see it. It's actually interesting.

https://www.lomography.com/magazine/...n-photoblaster


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:57.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.