Fuji Half Frame Film Camera

[tomb]

How awesome it would be if Fuji made a half-frame film camera that worked with their existing lenses? Is such a thing possible? Obviously it would have to be a rangefinder. Has this been discussed? I currently carry an XE-1 and an old Nikon FE2 in my bag but it would be oh so sweet to have a Fuji film body and need only one set of lenses.

[Larry Bolch]

Of course, the X-cameras are the same format and size as film half-frame cameras. You may well be the only person on earth who would buy a Fujifilm half-frame film camera. There are good reasons why Fujifilm may not respond to your desire. 

 

Over the decades, film has improved very slowly. In the past two decades, there has been little incentive to improve it at all. My gorgeous art deco Olympus FT was the epitome of half-frame, but even with the superb lenses, the print quality was appalling, even compared to ordinary 35mm. Back then, size REALLY mattered.

 

On the other hand, sensor quality has made jumps in orders of magnitude. According to the great photographer and printmaker Ctien, m4/3 caught up to 6×9 film about six years ago. This could be nit-picked, but the fact is that digital lusts for nothing that film gives. Film has a cost, processing has a cost and printing has a cost. Only if your time has no value, time too has a cost.

 

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/03/when-will-micro-43-equal-medium-format-film-we-have-the-definitive-answer.html 

 

Then there is the obvious. No matter the format, the total cost of ownership goes up with each exposure when shooting film. Film has its cost, processing has its cost, printing has its cost, and then there is time. Processing colour film yourself requires precise timing and temperature. Negative film is a bit forgiving, but slides—the equivalent of shooting JPEGs—is not. Temperatures regulated to ±¼° and disaster if you fumble. Kodachrome offered no processing options. Successful printing in the fume-room means years of practice and vast quantities of materials—and time. With Photoshop and an Epson photo printer, a day in the fume-room is reduced to 15 minutes or less with the result assuming maximum skills, approaching colour separation/dye transfer printing more than direct colour.

Again it can be argued, but an APS-C or full frame image is now well past what medium format offered back in the film era and approaching large format. It may be well worth mentioning that large format lenses showed appalling numbers when tested upon standard laboratory standards. With an 8×10 contact print, it simply did not matter. With a photomural, it also did not matter, since it was viewed at a distance. Our Fujinon lenses can match or beat the lenses that were sold during the film era. Compared to the best of that time, our lenses are bargains.

 

If you want decent image quality, forget the smaller formats. Medium-format may equal or exceed m4/3. Our APS-C and full frame are in the limbo between medium and large format. Decades back, shooting the breeze with my working colleagues, I recall wanting a 35mm sized camera that shoots 8×10 quality images. I am old, but I may well shoot with one in my lifetime.

[milandro]

Paraphrasing this famous quote by Frank Zappa about Jazz, Analog  photography isn't dead it just smells funny.

 

There aren’t many people who would buy a film camera these days and even less people who would buy a NEW film camera at a price that would have to be higher than any secondhand camera and many lenses ( cheap as chips) which you can buy at any thrift store these days.

 

The intrinsic quality of digital photography is now so high that I cannot imagine anyone doing this for any other reason than nostalgia , zen (I can see you writing a book “ Zen & Analog Photography”) and  or perhaps snobbism.

 

I know several people who still shoot film but realistically ( besides a certain number of hipsters who do this for hipsters reasons) most shoot Large Format (which I used to do and a lot of it) and are into ancient printing processes which require huge negatives to do Contact printings.

 

I still remember fondly my  8 x 10 Tachihara  with a 240mm made of Cherry wood and brass which I’ve sold to the tragically passed away Belgian photographer Marc Lagrange.

[Tikcus]

The way a darkroom print looks is something that is hard to replicate on a inkjet printer.

 

I recently spent several hours in the darkroom, playing with selective development; I did not use film I inverted the portrait I wanted to use, and printed to an acetate, then placed the acetate on a piece of light sensitive paper and exposed to light (using enlarger).
Using a paintbrush I applied developer to the part of the image I wanted to develop, then stopped, fixed, washed.

 

Could I have done the same thing in photoshop? maybe, using masks etc. and it would have been quicker/easier, but not as fun and would not look the same.

 

Back on topic, although I enjoy using a darkroom for black and white work. I don't enjoy using film, using a digital camera guarantees you have a useable photo, film there is always the risk that the film does not develop correctly and adds considerable cost for 32 photographs.

 

tldr:

 

If you want to play in the darkroom, i'd recommend using your Fuji-x camera, and printing to an acetate

[milandro]

The thing is that the two methods, analog and digital photography, look the same but aren’t. But that is not what OP came to discuss.

 

He wanted to know whether Fuji could produce a film camera which would use all the digital technology and lenses of the X cameras and use film instead of a sensor.

 

Despite the survival of the remaining few, shall we call them “ last Mohicans “, who stick to using film for reasons of their own, that market is now such a small one that no large corporation is really interested in developing a new product to fit in that niche.

 

It is possible that a small corporation could do it but not for a camera as complex as an X camera stripped of its digital intestines.

 

IF... something even remotely similar to this could interest a company it would have to be lomography.com which already sells a number of cameras and lenses catering for the public of aficionados and hipsters alike.

 

http://shop.lomography.com/nl/cameras?utm_source=shop&utm_medium=cover&utm_campaign=cameras

 

Although the price point would have to probably exceed what they are selling at the moment.

[tomb]

The point of shooting film in this context wouldn't be absolute image quality.  It's not like I'm printing my film images at poster size or anything.  I understand the limitations of half-frame negatives.  As to cost of film, developing, etc. I already incur those costs with my Nikon.  One could argue that a half-frame camera actually decreases these costs since I get twice as many exposures for the money.  The point here is getting the authentic look of a film exposure rather than a digital one, or a digital one modified to resemble film, while continuing to improve my ability as a film photographer.  (I surely have plenty to learn.)  I'm not a nostalgic film purist.  I carry a Fuji and love shooting digitally.  But I also love the film look, especially black and white.  If I could carry one set of lenses for both a film camera and a digital camera it would make me happy.

 

As to the cost of the camera body itself, I think it could be kept reasonable if kept simple.  I don't need a digital viewfinder.  I don't need a digital control panel.  I don't even have to have autofocus.  I just need an optical finder with selectable frame lines, a built-in meter, and a Fuji lens mount.  As an added bonus, and one I personally would pay for, it would be great to incorporate some version of Fuji's optical viewfinder so that I could have only one set of framing lines for the current lens, autofocus capability, and an aperture priority mode like my FE2.  But I'd still be happy without those extras.

 

When talking cost, you also have to factor in the cost of two sets of lenses.  The cost of one set of my used Nikon D-series primes ought to at least equal the cost of a theoretical Fuji film body.

 

Probably my solution is to wait for Nikon to produce a decent mirrorless camera.  Then I can use my Nikon lenses for both and still get the benefits of accurate aperture control and autofocus when I want them.  (I have a Nikon to Fuji adapter but rarely use it.)  But in the digital world I prefer Fuji images and bodies to Nikon, so I am just wondering if it's even possible and if, as a couple of you have pointed out, I'm the only one.

 

Thank you for your suggestion Tickus, I will keep that in mind.

[milandro]

I really don’t think that fuji will ever go that way.

[deva]

My guess is that the likelihood is somewhere right around 0.

 

Even if there was a market, which there isn't, Fuji could not compete with the huge number of cheap used film cameras/lenses currently available. My first camera was a Pentax ME Super. Pentax made a variety of quality SMC lenses. It is a small, light kit with fine optical quality. You could buy the camera with a 50mm lens for like $40 and add a couple more lenses. Total cost for a capable kit $150... $100 if you are not in a hurry. 

[tomb]

I guess I am the only one.  Oh well, have to wait for Nikon to get their mirrorless act together . . .

[CRAusmus]

Considering that companies like Nikon are still producing film cameras, I don't see why they couldn't.  With the re-emergergence of film's popularity, it might even be prudent for them to do so.  All that being said, Fuji has made it quite clear they don't want to be involved in film anymore.  You never know though.  We still work diligently to get them to not discontinue their pack film, or at least sell they machinery to Impossible, which last I heard they refused to do so.  Film is still a very large part of my photography.  I hand roll and develop my own, so cost is minimal, chemicals, substrate and time is all it costs me...

[drocco]

Well,in 2014 Leica released a new analog M-Model, the Leica M-A. Sells in Germany for around 4K €. But I don't think Fuji will do something similar.

[milandro]

Fuji has stoppend any relationship with analog cameras long ago.

 

Besides, using lenses meant for digital (let’s not forget that all digital cameras correct digitally the output of any lens with electric sensors) on an analog camera wouldn’t necessarily deliver the same results. The opposite, as declared in an interview By Mr. Takashi Ueno, is also not the case.

 

https://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/06/30/interview-with-mr-takashi-ueno-from-fujifilm-tokyo-why-dont-fujifilm-make-full-frame-dslr/

 

 

“...Firstly, the angle of light that film and imaging sensors can receive differ from each other. Film can receive light at the slanted angle of up to 45 degrees without any problem, but in case of the digital camera, the light needs to be as perpendicular to the sensor as possible. Slanted angle light causes mixed colors and therefore the real colors sometimes cannot be reproduced. In order to receive the light perpendicular to the sensor, it is important to make the rear glass element on each lens as big as possible to put the light beams parallel from the outlet of the light to the sensor. Finally, the back-focus distance should be shortened as much as possible to eliminate the degradation in image quality..."

[cabriotec]

Hallo everybody, I stumbled upon this thread while I was surfing and wanted to add my 2c. With a flange to sensor distance of 17,7mm the native Fuji lenses would have to be about 10mm closer to the film when using a LTM body. The diameter of the bayonet is probably quite a bit bigger than 39mm. To get the lenses further back in the camera body you would have to do a bit of cutting about on the front side of the camera chassis. There are many LTM cameras around, with some going for almost nothing (Russian Feds for example) and I suppose it could be an interesting little project to find out if it is possible. You would need the camera-side bayonet, attached to a plate and somehow recessed by 10,1mm into the front of the camera. Tricky but not impossible, where there's a will there's a way! This does not mean it would be half frame (unless you get a half frame version e.g. Leica 72!!) but I suspect the resulting pictures would be full height (the picture circle of the lens is uniform so the film would not be exposed only at the sides) and so perfectly usable. There would be quite a few detail problems like the lens release mechanism,but thats the challenge of a project like this. I've just mounted my Sony QX1 to the Ricoh Teleca 240 binocular camera and it works well.

 

Many regards

 

Chris Clark

Edited February 6, 2018 by cabriotec