Interested in a 35 mm film camera. Not sure I understand the 1/2 frame idea vs the full size.
I want to make prints for others. Thank you Ed Hayes
I want to make prints for others. Thank you Ed Hayes
35MM CAMERA
- Thread starter Eddie
- Start date
I have had several 35mm cameras including two half-frame ones. It's just as it says, a half frame. Same height but half the width. If you are making prints from those negatives then you need a dedicated half-frame carrier or some sort of mask for your enlarger.
You get twice as many frames out of a roll of film, 48 instead of 24 or 72 instead of 36.
Last edited:
I intend to have the film processed at Walgreens if they still do it.
JHZR2
Staff member
There are a lot of them out there. Get an old nikkormat and one of the modified battery holders for the light sensor. Should last a long time.
I have a Nikon FM with 1.4 Nikon lens. Works great. PM me for details.
They do, but most (or all?) locations have eliminated the in-store processing machines and send the film out so the days of one-hour processing are over. It's now several days. (they still make prints in-store, but that is different equipment)
That would be my recommendation also. They last forever, use common batteries and there are a million different lenses available that will fit them.
If you do and it’s half frame you need to tell them so they can note it on the envelope.
Also, you can shoot B&W film and process it at home. Once you have all the gear you need, it costs just pennies a roll and can be a whole new hobby. You can scan the negatives, but it's much faster to just shoot the negatives with a DSLR and a macro lens and invert it in post-processing to make a positive photo.
I shot this with my 1955-vintage Nikon S2 rangefinder camera.
I shot this with my 1955-vintage Nikon S2 rangefinder camera.
Analog recording medium containers.
Last edited:
Grandpa's Goerz Minicord from the early '50s. It takes 16mm film and shoots 10x10mm square images that are astonishingly sharp. This is a subminiature twin-reflex camera with one lens for the finder and another one for taking the picture.
Interesting, but not quite 35mm as the title of this thread.Grandpa's Goerz Minicord from the early '50s. It takes 16mm film and shoots 10x10mm square images that are astonishingly sharp. This is a subminiature twin-reflex camera with one lens for the finder and another one for taking the picture.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,061
No, Mirrorless. I'm 51 and I shoot for ME now but in the 90's I was poor and had to shoot to sell. I sold landscapes to Deck the Walls franchises to pay for my gas, food, beer money. As much as I loved Velvia and Ecktachrome back them, full frame mirorless is such a gem. I recommend you don't handcuff yourself with traditional film.
Also, when you print or need a photobook, look to Printique. I recently came back from a trip to Antigua with the queen and made an 8x10, 20 page hardcover photobook for $60. They are a pro lab....can't beat that cost.
Also, when you print or need a photobook, look to Printique. I recently came back from a trip to Antigua with the queen and made an 8x10, 20 page hardcover photobook for $60. They are a pro lab....can't beat that cost.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,573
I had one of these. I also had the 85/1.4 for portraits. I was bad at photography. Sold it on eBay for more than I paid.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,573
Just mail it to Adorama. Cheaper and better. Or used to be ?
Full size 35mm gives you a 24x36mm negative. Half frame is 18x24mm, then. The "DX" digital sensor is also approximately this size, which might have been part of your confusion.
There aren't a particular lot of half frame cameras out there. Last one I saw was one at a carnival where the hawker would shoot slide film and mount the pictures in a little keychain thingie to try to sell to tourists. Film isn't expensive but processing is, so reducing resolution and increasing grain is probably not worth it.
There are lots of quality SLRs from the 60s-90s on ebay for under $100, particularly from "orphan" brands like Minolta whose lenses don't fit autofocus or digital bodies. You'd want to look out for light leaks from rotten foam and fungus inside lenses. Earlier mechanical models need obsolete mercury batteries for their light meters but you can get light meter apps for your phone to cheat.
Walgreens sends your film off to HQ where it gets developed, scanned, and the negatives are thrown away. The scans are electronically sent to the store where they burn a CD and print prints. This is a fairly common arrangement now. The CD will get you adequate prints but real shutterbugs may consider the process impure.
There aren't a particular lot of half frame cameras out there. Last one I saw was one at a carnival where the hawker would shoot slide film and mount the pictures in a little keychain thingie to try to sell to tourists. Film isn't expensive but processing is, so reducing resolution and increasing grain is probably not worth it.
There are lots of quality SLRs from the 60s-90s on ebay for under $100, particularly from "orphan" brands like Minolta whose lenses don't fit autofocus or digital bodies. You'd want to look out for light leaks from rotten foam and fungus inside lenses. Earlier mechanical models need obsolete mercury batteries for their light meters but you can get light meter apps for your phone to cheat.
Walgreens sends your film off to HQ where it gets developed, scanned, and the negatives are thrown away. The scans are electronically sent to the store where they burn a CD and print prints. This is a fairly common arrangement now. The CD will get you adequate prints but real shutterbugs may consider the process impure.
+2
You can even get some really advanced cameras from the 90s, for very little money. I bought a Nikon N90S back in 1996 for something like $1200 but they're available all day long on Ebay for dirt cheap. That camera and its older siblings the N8008 and N8008S were just one rung below Nikon's pro-level F4 in those days. Similar situations exist for Canon, Minolta etc. Sometimes you need to read up beforehand to see which lenses work on which cameras, but the cameras themselves would be no stranger to anyone used to using a modern DSLR.
I miss film 
I was an early adopter of digital and after all these years I only wish I still had my Olympus OM2n back. I had a variety of fixed Olympus lenses. Olympus dedicated flash unit and the Olympus power winder.
Even as a teenager, I had a Yashika rangefinder that was a better quality camera that I saved up on my own as a teenager.
I loved digital but now as I got older, I don’t know digital images are dime a dozen sitting on hard drives in storage and on photo websites, such as Shutterfly and other places. I don’t even know what to do with the images it’s a chore to go through and delete hundreds of photos and maybe just get 100 or so printed out to leave for my children other than that who’s gonna wanna go through thousands of photos once I’m gone.
This is just me personally, but when I used film, I was much more “focused” on composing the picture and what I was doing because I was using film instead of taking half a dozen shots of something on the digital camera, and just choosing the best one out of them.
It’s kind of weird because not too long ago. I was just on eBay seeing if anybody even makes a film camera anymore and then seeing the used ones on eBay the next question is who does quality developing of 35 mm anymore?
I was an early adopter of digital and after all these years I only wish I still had my Olympus OM2n back. I had a variety of fixed Olympus lenses. Olympus dedicated flash unit and the Olympus power winder.Even as a teenager, I had a Yashika rangefinder that was a better quality camera that I saved up on my own as a teenager.
I loved digital but now as I got older, I don’t know digital images are dime a dozen sitting on hard drives in storage and on photo websites, such as Shutterfly and other places. I don’t even know what to do with the images it’s a chore to go through and delete hundreds of photos and maybe just get 100 or so printed out to leave for my children other than that who’s gonna wanna go through thousands of photos once I’m gone.
This is just me personally, but when I used film, I was much more “focused” on composing the picture and what I was doing because I was using film instead of taking half a dozen shots of something on the digital camera, and just choosing the best one out of them.
It’s kind of weird because not too long ago. I was just on eBay seeing if anybody even makes a film camera anymore and then seeing the used ones on eBay the next question is who does quality developing of 35 mm anymore?
I've used Sharp Prints (out of Eau Claire) for dozens of rolls of film and all have turned out well. It's mail order - you print a label and order form (shipping of the film to them is included), mail the film off, then get a Dropbox link to your pictures a few days later. They've averaged under a week for my orders, including shipping time. (You can have the negatives shipped back to you if you want.) I've tried Walgreens a few times over the years, but it was nerve-wracking as it took far longer than expected, and it totally felt like an afterthought to their business now.
I couldn't be happier with Sharp. Looks like they charge $16 for color/$22 for B&W now.
https://sharpprints.com/film-developing
A few favorites I've taken recently (I enjoy city photography most of all, and shoot Kodak 200, mostly. I have a Canon AE-1 Program that I've been using for four years or so):
Last edited:
Similar threads
