h a l f b a k e r yOK, we're here. Now what?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
35mm TLR
plastic half-frame 35mm twin-lens reflex camera | |
The half-frame 35mm camera has a couple of good points, one of which is having the ability to take up to 72 pictures with a single roll of film. The problem is, if you use the camera "upright" the pictures are very "vertical," that is, taller than wide. You can hold the camera "sideways" when taking
pictures, but that shows up another fault- typically they have dinky, poor viewfinders. Another good point is that the negatives are still larger than 110 format.
The twin-lens design solves the dim viewfinder problem and the "vertical image" problem. Making it out of plastic would make it affordable.
There have been a couple of 35mm TLRs in the past; they're now very expensive "collectibles."
I'm not aware of any half-frame 35mm camera now on the market, and no 35mm cameras, full-frame or half, in TLR design.
[link]
|
| |
Uh, like any time you can say, "There have been a couple of <insert idea here> in the past" then that means it was baked a couple times in the past... ? |
|
| |
ooohyeah! Nice big viewfinder with ground glass and magnifier and *manual focus* ... (drooling & muttering about brain-free nogoods that make autofocus-only cams) |
|
| |
There have been full-frame 35mm TLR cameras in the past (metal, expensive, and now rare). Presently none are made. I don't know if there has ever been a half-frame 35mm TLR, certainly never an inexpensive plastic "consumer" one. |
|
| |
There probably has never been a half frame TLR, but there is the Tessina, which takes 14x21mm frames on normal 35mm film, but in special slim cassettes. It is very tiny, jewel-like and beautiful, takes good pictures, and is probably handy for spies. The view is still vertical(!) but with an accessory prism the camera is easy to use in either orientation. They stopped making them some years ago, but you can still find used ones. Of course, it ain't cheap. There was also a 16mm TLR, very nice to use and small, but here the negative size really is tiny (Goerz Minicord). Any TLR (e.g. the pre-war ZI Contaflex)in which the viewing screen size differs from the negative size is tricky to design, as you have to move the two lenses at different speeds when focusing. This means that a cheap half-frame TLR will need clever design if the viewing/focusing is not to be a struggle for the user. |
|
| |
I was actually thinking of something like a plastic, half-frame 35mm version of the Rollei Grey Baby TLR, which uses 127 roll film. 127 film is hard to find and pricey, and the only fellow I know who owns a Grey Baby would sooner part with his wife and his Irish Setter than his beloved "little" camera.
In spite of my dislike of roll film, I own and use several 127 roll-film cameras; one of my favorites is a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye Flash model camera- because of the very bright waist-level viewfinder.
I prefer 35mm for the ease of loading and the fact that I can shoot 36 frames on a roll, and I like the idea of a 35mm half-frame camera because I could shoot 72 frames between reloading. |
|
| |
What is the purpose of the dual-lens design? Is it to take an upper and a lower picture? If you're trying to reduce the picture to half size in both dimensions, perhaps you could shoot the top of each frame while winding the film out of the cartridge and then turn the film around to shoot the bottom of each frame as it's wound back into the cartridge. That would allow 144 pictures on a roll of conventional 35mm film. |
|
| |
If something was baked in the past but is now unavailable, how does one satisfy his desire for a fresh baked or at least half baked goods? |
|
| |
[supercat]: A twin-lens reflex camera uses one lens as a viewfinder and the other as the objective. I've never seen the point; they seem to have the disadvantages of both SLR and viewfinder cameras, and the advantages of neither. Perhaps [Ian Tindale] would care to expound further. |
|
| |
[angel] Not quite "the disadvantages of both". A TLR gives you a much more accurate view of what you're going to take a picture of than a rangefinder (but not as accurate as a SLR), and still allows you (like a rangefinder) to see through the viewfinder while the shutter's open (unlike an SLR). That said, TLRs are also bulky and the lenses cost a lot (twice as much glass), and I sold my Mamiya C330 TLR when I wanted to buy a decent DSLR. |
|
| |
So essentially, they have no cut-and-dried advantages; they are simply things to be enjoyed for what they are? Nothing wrong with that. |
|
| |
Would it be possible to construct a camera's optics so that the aperture is far enough away from the lens that a mirror could be placed around the periphery? The SLR movie cameras I've seen reflect light from the center of the aperture, for the viewfinder, which means the viewfinder will be in clearer focus than the film image. Stealing light from the perimeter of the aperture would mean that being out of focus would blur the viewfinder worse than the film (ergo, if you're viewfinder's in focus, your film will be too). |
|
| |