[…]

Actually it would be the same shape but in a different orientation. I’m not a mechanical engineer so I might be completely wrong, but if you put the film advance on the new top of the camera it would perhaps need only one more gear to deal with the change of orientation. The rewind crank doesn’t need to be on the new top.

Making the camera square would do away with that. In fact using a square negative 24x24 would give you 54 frames per roll.

A lot of people now like to see the sprocket holes in the picture, postmodernly drawing attention to it being film, so making the frame mask switchable might be an interesting option.

In the video he talks about using zone focusing on the camera. I wonder if he means click-stops on the focus ring, or perhaps on a dial, with symbols for the type of shot, eg headshot, head and shoulders, cowboy, full-length, group/wide shot, landscape etc. That could also be used to determine the exposure settings in conjunction with the orientation of the camera, favouring a larger aperture for closer portraits to increase background blur, and a smaller aperture for wider shots using the hyperfocal distance to give the greatest depth of field.

Am 04.03.24 um 10:53 schrieb Bob W PDML:

But it wouldn't look like what those youngsters expect a film camera to
look like.

The only times I ever see this term is when people describe the way the
Horizon panoramic camera is focussed or rather isn't. It has no
focussing control. Instead it's fix-focussed somehere mid-distance
between here and infinity and you have to stop down to get whatever you
want to be sharp into focus.

Ralf

--

Ralf R. Radermacher  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
Blog  :http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com
Audio :http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf
Fotos :https://www.fotocommunity.de/user_photos/770012

It’s a technique that was necessary before rangefinders were standard on cameras, and is still quite widely used by street photographers, using the hyperfocal distance to ensure maximum depth of field.

Manual lenses are generally marked with the hyperfocal ranges for different f-stops.

Some, such as the thread-mount Leica 50mm Elmar that I have, use a mark to line up focus at 10ft/3m so you can be ready to snap à la sauvette. At f8 everything is in focus from 7.5 feet / 2.something metres to 15ft/4-5m.

At 3m the vertical 35mm frame covers the height of a normal door - perfect for when you’re pouting into a mirror for a full-length selfie. It might be a bit different for a half-frame camera.

Old school paparazzi relied on this to get their flash-subject distance right. They set their cameras, focus and flashes in advance and pressed the button only when their target was positioned correctly in the finder. The human figure becomes the scale for all the camera settings, something I expect Le Corbusier would have approved of.

I had 2-3 different Minox 35 GT 35mm cameras many years ago. Many. I don’t know if it was the proper technical term, but I always thought it had a zone focus system.
Depending on amount of light available, I set f/ to /5.6, 8/, or 1/11, usually used an ISO64 film, sometimes ISO200. Auto exposure.

One handed, I could pull the camera from my pocket or handlebar bag or from the carabiner on my gear sling (rock climbing), open the flap-down lens cover, adjust the focus zone to some approximate point on the dial (2…3…5…10m...Infinity), look through the uncoupled viewfinder to compose, shoot a frame or two, close the cover, return the camera to pocket… Wonderfully simple to use, produced good results. Then I got more serious about SLRs and longer lenses, etc. Today I do have a Ricoh GRiii which has many of the same characteristics as that Minox, and I usually have it with me even when I am primarily working with one of my real cameras. I can see the appeal of a new film camera of this type.

Stan

Minox 35... I still have my Minox 35GT-E, which I purchased new in 1998. It is a lovely camera and has made many great photos for me. I've currently got it loaded with some Tri-X and may take it on my two-week excursion to the Right Coast tomorrow.

Regards terminology, cameras like this, the Rollei 35, the Voigtländer Perkeo II, etc, are "scale focus" cameras ... they have no rangefinder or TTL viewing system, you focus by setting a distance on the focusing scale.  A true "zone focusing camera" is even simpler than this: the focusing scale has no distance markings, just symbols to indicate far, intermediate distances, and close up.

Zone focusing is a technique that can be used with any camera that has a distance scale on the focusing mechanism. A DoF scale on the lens provides a lot of convenience but isn't strictly necessary since you can use a table of aperture-distance to focus zone with just a distance setting and known aperture on the camera.

With the Minox 35 and Rollei 35, for quick shooting, I leave the aperture at f/11 and just have to remember two distance settings to be able to cover the normal shooting range from around 1.5m to infinity (close: 1.5m to 3.5m, far: 2.5m to infinity, approximately). It's very easy to be very very fast making this setting and makes most AF systems look lethargic by comparison once you have it down.

And obviously, when you want to use a large lens opening and are working in close, you have to measure or become much more accurate at estimating distance. Accurate estimation comes with lots of practice... and once you get it, it is instantaneous and unambiguous. :)

It seems to me that most people today just want the camera to do all this for them, and then they fuss over focusing mode and targeting the precise subject, complain when it doesn't do exactly what they thought, etc etc. The speed and control that scale focus and zone focusing techniques lend to the picture making process is why I will likely always remain a retro-grouch and love using my antiquated cameras. :D

onwards, G

Am 04.03.24 um 16:06 schrieb Stanley Halpin:

2 to 3 because they kept failing? My 35GT has been repaired a few times
because of shutter probs until I eventually gave up on it.

Still, a lovely little camera and capable of great results if it
happened to work properly. It's sitting on my retired cameras shrine.

Here's a photo I took with it:

https://www.fotocommunity.com/photo/fuehrerstandsmitfahrten-fotoralfbe/44923299

Wish I had something digitlal with the same dimensions and picture quality.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
Blog  : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com
Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf
Fotos : https://www.fotocommunity.de/user_photos/770012

I had “2 to 3 Minox 35…” I remember for sure it was at least 2. I had one, it was fine, a newer model was introduced with some feature that intrigued me, I think the camera store gave me a trade-in discount when I bought the 2nd. It seems that there might have been a 3rd, but I don’t have the records nor the memory to be able to verify.

Stan

Am 04.03.24 um 19:38 schrieb Stanley Halpin:

Ah, I see. The 35GT had a certain notoriety for shutter failures. Mine
was a present to my father from his colleagues when he retired. I still
have it complete with the original box, the docs and the little flash unit.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
Blog  : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com
Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf
Fotos : https://www.fotocommunity.de/user_photos/770012

Am 04.03.24 um 21:16 schrieb Marco Alpert:

My guess would be as long as they take to find the next new big thing.
This isn't about value or usability. It's about spontaneity, as in
spontaneously spending money for the next craze.

As long as this camera keeps them happy for, say, half a year or 4 rolls
of film until it ends up in a drawer with all their other no longer
fashionable gadgets, it certainly will fit the bill.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
Blog  : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com
Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf
Fotos : https://www.fotocommunity.de/user_photos/770012