Half-Frame lens field of view and crop factor

first-church.jpg

D
first-church.jpg

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Grape Vines

A
Grape Vines

  • sly
  • May 31, 2025
  • 0
  • 0
  • 12
Plot Foiled

H
Plot Foiled

  • 1
  • 0
  • 27
FedEx Bread

H
FedEx Bread

  • 1
  • 0
  • 30
Unusual House Design

D
Unusual House Design

  • 4
  • 2
  • 68

Forum statistics

Threads
197,968
Messages
2,767,400
Members
99,515
Latest member
Omeroor
Recent bookmarks
1

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,677
Format
35mm
I've been shooting a lot of half-frame recently and have noticed a difference shooting half, vs shooting APS or digital crop frame. The crop factor on 1/2 frame doesn't behave the same as APS or digital crop. Using a 50mm on APS or crop sensors gives me a cropped in field of view that seems like I'm shooting a longer focal length. On classic 1/2 frame, that is shooting vertical, it still feels like I'm shooting a 50mm focal but the sides are cropped off if that makes any sense. My field of view is restricted on the sides but my over all sense of field feels the same. It doesn't feel 'cramped' the same way it would on APS or cropped digital. I'm not 100% sure I can express it in words. My 50mm still feels like a 50mm, the 28 still feels 28. I don't get the same feeling on a different crop ratio.
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,398
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
True 'half frame' gives a capture area that is 18mm x 24mm...it is as if you shot 135 format film with same FL, but in the darkroom only printed 18mm x 244mm section of the negative!

An 18mm lens would capture the same FOV (at the same distance) as using 24mm FL on 135 format.
Using a 50mm lens on half frame camera would yield same FOV as using 67mm lens on 135 format camera (lens FL / frame height = 2.78)
 

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
6,712
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
APS-C and Half frame are about the same. The reason you feel cramped with an APS-C digital camera because they make the viewfinder too small.
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,398
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
APS-C and Half frame are about the same. The reason you feel cramped with an APS-C digital camera because they make the viewfinder too small.

...modern cameras squeeze in tons of camera status information surrounding the focusing screen, so the focus screen magnificaiton is usually much less than 0.9x,
 
OP
OP
Cholentpot

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,677
Format
35mm
APS-C and Half frame are about the same. The reason you feel cramped with an APS-C digital camera because they make the viewfinder too small.

Half-frame is cropped different than APS though. It's half the film size, APS is shrunk down all around. I'm getting the same 24mm top to bottom that I don't get with APS.
 

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
6,712
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
Half-frame is cropped different than APS though. It's half the film size, APS is shrunk down all around. I'm getting the same 24mm top to bottom that I don't get with APS.

It doesn't matter how you shrink it. The only thing that count is the width and height dimension of the frame. And the 2 formats are close. You want more top and bottom just turn the APS-C camera vertically.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,267
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Turn your half frame camera 90 degrees, and you will find that the experience will be much closer to the experience enjoyed with the larger APS-C camera.
 

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,704
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
If oriented vertically, the APS-C sensor on my Fuji X-T1 is 23.6mm tall x 15.6mm wide.
If truly half-frame, the image part of the negative would be 24mm tall x 18mm wide, but there may be some small varience among manufacturers. For example, Pentax lists the frame size for their new Pentax 17 half-frame film camera as 24mm x 17mm.

It seems like APS-C and half-frame should be close enough to the same size to generalize and say, any given focal length lens should result in about the same field-of-view on either format. But I have never used a half-frame camera, so maybe there is enough difference to matter, I don't know.

For my APS-C sensor, the ratio of the long side divided by the short side is 1.51, very close to the 1.50 ratio for full-frame. For the Pentax half-frame, the ratio is 1.41, so it is a slightly "fatter" rectangle than APS-C or full frame. And a true half-frame (24mm x 18mm) would be even fatter, 1.33. (As the ratio approaches 1.0, the shape of the frame becomes more square.)
 
OP
OP
Cholentpot

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,677
Format
35mm
I've found the ratio varies from camera to camera. The Univex Mercury is half frame but the frame tends to be wider than the Pen F. Same goes for the Fuji Half. The frame is a bit wider than the Pen EE3.

You're all right though, I think viewing the photo in native vertical makes it seem more natural than looking at an APS sized image.
 

xkaes

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,598
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
Half-frame cameras are unique. Sometimes they are known by other names, such as "single-frame" and "split-frame". The half-frame camera was a natural outgrowth of 35mm film which was initially developed for motion picture cameras -- and 35mm still cameras were a natural outgrowth of the half-frame camera -- all of which may surprise you to hear.

W.K.L. Dickson, in an article that he wrote for the SMPTE Journal in 1933, described his central role in the development of Edison's Kinetoscope and Kinetograph. It gives us a look at how 35mm film and still cameras evolved. Dickson was a researcher for Edison, and was put onto the Motion Picture project in 1887. By 1888, he was able to make some sort of motion pictures using multiple rows of tiny shots on Carbutt's stiff sensitized celluloid.

Coincidentally, in late 1888, George Eastman's company gave a private demonstration of a new product at the New York Camera Club, which Dickson happened to attend. He immediately opened discussions with the Eastman company, and was soon dealing directly with George, who supplied them with many samples of short lengths of Eastman's new flexible film. As Dickson worked with the stuff, he came back to Eastman requesting finer grain, greater sensitivity of emulsion, and greater flexibility of the base. He worked very closely with Eastman to refine the product right from the beginning. Dickson's account gives the impression that the flexible film we know today was developed with a lot of input from the Edison experimenters to meet motion picture needs. He states that he received his first 50-foot rolls of film from Eastman in the spring of 1889, and that:

"All these samples and experiments were made exclusively for us by Mr. Eastman, who took an ever-increasing interest in what we were doing."

The Edison people had to cut and sprocket the stuff themselves, and it is unclear what the exact width these first 50 foot rolls were. Dickson goes on:

"At the end of the year 1889, I increased the width of the picture from 1/2 inch to 3/4. The actual width of the film was 1 3/8 inches to allow for perforations now punched on both edges, 4 holes to the phase or picture, which perforations were a shade smaller than those now in use. This standardized film size of 1889 has remained, with only minor variation, unaltered to date."

So in sum, Eastman's flexible base film was developed for motion picture use from its earliest stages, even before it was publicly announced, by a close collaboration between Eastman and the Edison company, and the 35mm format was standardized as early as 1889. The first still cameras that used 35mm film (approximately 1914) used the same style and format as the movie picture cameras of the time. The film ran vertically in these still cameras and produced images roughly the same as the motion picture format of 1" x 0.75" (25.4 x 19mm). More contemporary half-frame cameras have a format size of 18mm x 24mm, but there are many with variants such as 17mm x 24mm and 18mm x 23mm.
Source: http://www.subclub.org/shop/halframe.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

r_a_feldman

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
163
Location
Chicago, IL
Format
Multi Format
Olympus, for the Pen F, used a factor of 1.414:1 (based on a comparison of the frame areas). APS-C is usually given as a factor of 1.5:1.

Peter Dechert, in his book on the Olympus Pen F series, discusses (p. 19 and Appendix C) five different ways of looking at the factor that range from 1.333:1 to 1.5:1, but he settles on 1.4:1 “As a practical matter … to make calculation simple”.
 

ivan35mm

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2025
Messages
30
Location
Spain
Format
Analog
definitely with the majority here, as i’ve always assumed 1.4x for my yashica samurai x3.0

the 25mm f3.5 lens on the samurai reminds me of a roughly 35mm lens equivalent on 35mm cameras.

regardless, love to see others shooting half frame 😌 such a great format. printing big from half frame photos looks amazing.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
21,496
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
It doesn't feel 'cramped' the same way it would on APS or cropped digital.

Yeah, I understand. Objectively it may turn out to be the same thing, but it can feel differently. I feel that a normal focal length is a little wider or narrower depending on the film format I shoot at (35mm, medium format, large format). Much of that effect is entirely subjective. Funny eh? I can see how it's even more pronounced if you're 'forced' towards portrait on one format and landscape on another.
 

xkaes

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,598
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
The Samurai X3.0 (and later Z models) had a 25-75mm motorized zoom lens, which gives an image size approximately the same as a 35-105mm zoom in full-frame.
 
OP
OP
Cholentpot

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,677
Format
35mm
Yeah, I understand. Objectively it may turn out to be the same thing, but it can feel differently. I feel that a normal focal length is a little wider or narrower depending on the film format I shoot at (35mm, medium format, large format). Much of that effect is entirely subjective. Funny eh? I can see how it's even more pronounced if you're 'forced' towards portrait on one format and landscape on another.

It's subjective I guess. I think also half-frame is cropped on one aspect instead of all around. Has a different feel. I can't make do with a 50mm for walkaround on an APS but with half frame it did just fine.
 

loccdor

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 12, 2024
Messages
1,502
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Part subjective, part geometric.

What I found about half-frame is since I often shoot 35mm in portrait mode anyway, the default being in portrait mode is a bonus.

If you shoot full frame 35mm in landscape and half-frame in portrait, that can be part of the disconnect.
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,398
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
Objectively it may turn out to be the same thing, but it can feel differently. I feel that a normal focal length is a little wider or narrower depending on the film format I shoot at (35mm, medium format, large format). Much of that effect is entirely subjective. Funny eh? I can see how it's even more pronounced if you're 'forced' towards portrait on one format and landscape on another.

Indeed the ratio of 'normal' FL vs. frame's narrow dimension is not very uniform, even within a single format, much less across formats...
  • 135 format 'normal' varies from about 1.875x (vertical frame dimension) with 45mm FL 'normal' to 2.42x with 58mm 'normal' lens
  • MF 'normal' varies from 1.42x (Hassy 80mm with 56mm frame) to 1.6x (Mamiya RB67 90mm with 56.5mm frame) to 1.81x (Pentax 645 75mm with 41.5mm frame)
  • LF 'normal' is 1.63x (150mm FL with 93mm vertical frame)
...so the perception can vary widely simply with the selection of which 'normal' (45mm, 50mm, 52mm, 55mm 58mm were all 'normal' from various manufacturers of 135) to which specific model of medium format camera.
Adding to the perception issue is the fact that some viewfinders view 100% of the actual film image while others only view 90% of the film image.
 
Last edited:

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,511
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
What is a crop factor. What are you cropping? If you print full frame, like many of us do here, there is no crop factor.
 

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
6,712
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
What is a crop factor. What are you cropping? If you print full frame, like many of us do here, there is no crop factor.

The half frame camera or any camera back in the old days didn't have crop factor (I never heard the term back then). The term crop factor was invented when manufacturers made cameras with smaller sensor but use lenses designed for the larger format that was when I started to hear about the crop factor. Some of these cameras had the mirror the same size as the regular 35mm camera. Just a mask in the viewfinder. That's because when people used the exact same lenses they had but the field of view is smaller than before.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom