Does this exist?

Josh66 · May 31, 2008

Sorry for the vague title... I couldn't think of a short way to ask my question.

I was wondering if there is a 35mm camera that shoots in a 4x5 ratio.
:banghead: Just as I typed that I realized that there is large format 4x5... Oh well, the question still stands. Is there a 35mm camera that shoots in a 4x5 format?

You would never have to crop for 8x10s, and by my calculations you would be able to fit at least 42 (maybe 1 or 2 more?) frames on a 36 exposure roll.

36 exposures, with 2mm between each frame = 1366mm (I never really realized a roll of film was that long...). If the frame was 24mm x 30mm instead of 24x36 you would be able to fit 42.6875 frames in the same length of film.

...OR, if you rotated it 90 degrees (so the negative was in portrait orientation) it would be 19.2mm x 24mm, and you could fit 62.66 (still accounting for 2mm between negs) of those frames on a 36 exposure roll (would that be a big enough negative to print an 8x10 from?).

Anyway, just wondered if something like that existed in a 35mm format... I don't have any need to go out and get one (but if there was one to be had I wouldn't mind having one), just curious.

Helen B · May 31, 2008

Nikon rangefinders:

Nikon One: 24 x 32
Nikon M, S: 24 x 34
The S2 was 24 x 36

The Nikon One is a little too rare and expensive to ever recoup the cost in film savings!

I don't actually know for sure how many perforations the M and S advance by - but they presumably still use an 8-perf advance. The One could just get away with a 7-perf advance (about 33.25 mm) enabling about two extra frames per film. I think that is one of those good ideas that should have caught on rather than disappeared.

There are half-frame cameras (18 x24), like the Olympus Pen F series. They are very nice, compact reflex cameras. With modern film quality a good 8x10 should not be a problem at all.

My stereo cameras produce square-ish negs.

Best,
Helen

Josh66 · May 31, 2008

Interesting. Thanks Helen, I'll have to read up on those cameras.

christopher walrath · May 31, 2008

You might surf photography swap sites and see if anyone has ever made a reducing flange that mounts in front of the film inside the camera housing that restricts the size of the frame. I'm sure somebody has done something or you might even be able to do it yourself with some sort of non reflective and dark material.

Helen B · May 31, 2008

There are people who modify the film transport mechanisms of certain cameras, usually to increase the number of perforations advanced. Modifying the mask/gate ('field stop') may be simple in comparison.

Half frame (1:1.33) is closer to 8x10 (1:1.25) than full frame (1:1.5) is.

I would be interested to know if there has ever been a production 35 mm camera that has advanced a non-integer number of perforations.

Best,
Helen

Josh66 · Jul 17, 2008

OK, new question...

Is there a fully manual (i.e. no batteries) 35mm camera (available used) out there?

I know I could get a TLR, but is there anything I could load a 35mm canister into and shoot with that doesn't need a power source? Something like a SLR... I don't know a whole lot about cameras before the digital age, but I thought that there's gotta be something like this. I know that a SLR has a mirror that has to be moved out of the way, so I'm not sure if there is one that can do that without electricity... It doesn't have to be a SLR, 35mm is the only requirement I have.

Any ideas?

Jeff Canes · Jul 17, 2008

Should be, with a lot of the older SLR and the battery only worked the light meter (MAYBE can still buy one new SLR and one rangefinder that work like this), not sure of which camera you should look at, stay away from most made after the late 70s

compur · Jul 17, 2008

O|||||||O said:
OK, new question...

Is there a fully manual (i.e. no batteries) 35mm camera (available used) out there?

I know I could get a TLR, but is there anything I could load a 35mm canister into and shoot with that doesn't need a power source? Something like a SLR... I don't know a whole lot about cameras before the digital age, but I thought that there's gotta be something like this. I know that a SLR has a mirror that has to be moved out of the way, so I'm not sure if there is one that can do that without electricity... It doesn't have to be a SLR, 35mm is the only requirement I have.

Any ideas?

There are thousands of vintage 35mm cameras that don't require batteries.

And, many more that only require a battery for the meter but are still
functional (without metering) sans battery.

Josh66 · Jul 17, 2008

compur said:
And, many more that only require a battery for the meter but are still
functional (without metering) sans battery.

I wondered about that... Wasn't sure if they would work without the battery (film advance, moving internal parts, stuff like that).

So something like a Canon AE1, even though it takes batteries, will work without them? (You just won't have a meter.)

Helen B · Jul 17, 2008

There are quite a lot of excellent fully mechanical 35 mm SLRs that only use the electricity for metering, if at all.

First that come to mind, in no particular order:
Leica R6, R6.2
Leicaflex SL, SL2, SL2 MOT (without the motor - it is the most robust version)
Nikon F, F2
Nikkormat/Nikomat FT, FTn, FT2, FT3
Nikon FM, FM2, FM3A
Canon F-1, F-1n
And many many more.

If you don't need an SLR, then there are even more - there are even some that have a battery-free selenium meter, such as the Vitessa L that I carry around most of the time.

Best,
Helen

compur · Jul 17, 2008

O|||||||O said:
I wondered about that... Wasn't sure if they would would without the battery (film andvance, moving internal parts, stuff like that).

So something like a Canon AE1, even though it takes batteries, will work without them? (You just won't have a meter.)

Not the AE-1. It has an electronic shutter so it needs a battery to
function. Same with all the A-series Canons. The Canon FTb has
a mechanical shutter so a battery is only needed for the meter.

That's the criteria: if the shutter is electronic, the camera needs a
battery to fire. If it's mechanical, it doesn't.

Electronic shutters started appearing in the mid 1970s though they weren't
common until the 80s, as I recall.

Josh66 · Jul 18, 2008

Thanks for the help guys.

I have all Canon stuff now, but since I would have to buy new lenses anyway I'm willing to try something different. There seem to be A LOT more Nikons out there than Canons anyway.

The old Nikon lenses fit Nikon's current cameras, right? I think I'll probably go with the F or F2. Looking through KEH's catalog, there don't seem to be many F's in working condition though...

compur said:
That's the criteria: if the shutter is electronic, the camera needs a
battery to fire. If it's mechanical, it doesn't.

I've mainly been looking on KEH's website, their descriptions leave a lot to be desired for someone who doesn't already know all about older SLRs... Often there is no description at all, and when there is one they usually don't say if the battery is used for metering only, or if it also powers the shutter (some items do have this information though)...