Kodak Ektar H35 half frame camera review part deux!

[Huss]

So I finally developed that roll of Arista 100 that I had shot through it. I was waiting until I had a bunch of rolls to develop cuz I was busy looking busy etc.
As the H35 has a set exposure of f9 @ 1/100, ISO 100 film is really the ideal for outdoor/daylight use.
Interestingly this can be viewed as a camera for snap happy novices, or hard core experts. The hard core types will look at the fixed exposure, then work around the conditions using different films, developers etc.
These artisans will embrace this Kodak and make masterpieces with it! I mean, frankly in bright sunny weather here at the beach, ISO 25 would have been better...

As for the built in flash? Great for daylight and/or in the shade close up fill in. For regular flash use it is effective to maybe just past arm's length, and then you are looking into the deep dark blackness of your subject's soul.....

Ok, Kodak Ektar H35 (in sage green), Arista 100, Cinestill DF96 Monobath.

My final take away? This is a sweet little camera, everyone should have one. And use appropriately.

 

[Huss]

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Nice work Huss (both the review and the photos).

 

[Huss]

Nice work Huss (both the review and the photos).

Thanks!

 

[madNbad]

it really is a stealthy camera. Most people won't notice it and those that do will think it's a toy. Keep up the good work and have fun making diptychs.

 

[xkaes]

Want STEALTH? Want people to think you have a toy, not a camera? Then you're ready for:

or maybe:

 

[Huss]

it really is a stealthy camera. Most people won't notice it and those that do will think it's a toy. Keep up the good work and have fun making diptychs.

Thanks. My only reservation with this camera is that the user has to be careful/gentle loading and unloading it. Like all these 35mm 'reloadable' cameras, they are lightweight plastic beasties not built to be used 'enthusiastically'.

 

[Huss]

 

[gone]

Nice shots, and one of my favorite films. It's interesting that all your shots are in vertical format, which is natural for a half frame camera. That aspect ratio looks pretty good, as good or better than 35mm.

The plastic-fantastic concept took a while for me to warm up to. But a small half frame camera that you can slip into a small sidebag almost like a phone is a great selling point.

 

[xkaes]

Nice shots, and one of my favorite films. It's interesting that all your shots are in vertical format, which is natural for a half frame camera. That aspect ratio looks pretty good, as good or better than 35mm.

If you REALLY like the vertical format of the half-frame, check out the LOMO SUPER SAMPLER. It takes 8 x 24mm panoramic images going across the 35mm roll:

 

[MattKing]

Want STEALTH? Want people to think you have a toy, not a camera? Then you're ready for:

If you REALLY like the vertical format of the half-frame, check out the LOMO SUPER SAMPLER. It takes 8 x 24mm panoramic images going across the 35mm roll:

@xkaes
While these are interesting, it would be better if you could start a separate thread about them, rather than including them in a review thread about an entirely different camera.

 

[Roger Cole]

I had been thinking of getting one and loading it with XP-2+. While it would overexpose in daylight, it isn't harmful. My experience with XP2+ is that it's almost impossible to overexpose in any way that yields unprintable (or scannable, I presume) negatives, and with chromogenic films more exposure means less apparent grain. Of course if one wants the gritty look of real B&W grain from a smaller negative it would be a poor choice for that reason.

 

[Huss]

I had been thinking of getting one and loading it with XP-2+. While it would overexpose in daylight, it isn't harmful. My experience with XP2+ is that it's almost impossible to overexpose in any way that yields unprintable (or scannable, I presume) negatives, and with chromogenic films more exposure means less apparent grain. Of course if one wants the gritty look of real B&W grain from a smaller negative it would be a poor choice for that reason.

Just remember the camera is F9.5 @1/100 sec. Using Sunny F16 that would mean that with ISO 100 film you are already overexposing by 2 stops in bright sunlight. With ISO 400 film you are overexposing by 4 stops.
Serious question - how does XP2 look overexposed by 4 stops?

p.s. just get one. They are fun to use!

 

[Roger Cole]

Just remember the camera is F9.5 @1/100 sec. Using Sunny F16 that would mean that with ISO 100 film you are already overexposing by 2 stops in bright sunlight. With ISO 400 film you are overexposing by 4 stops.
Serious question - how does XP2 look overexposed by 4 stops?

p.s. just get one. They are fun to use!

That's just it - it looks fine. I've done it (accidentally.) Might need a half grade more contrast in printing paper but I bet it would scan fine too. They even say it can be shot from EI 50 to 800 with no change in development. EI 50 is "three stops over" compared to the actual ISO rating of 400 (though I normally shoot it at 200. Like most C41 color negative films I find it benefits from a bit of "overexposure" even in my cameras.) I haven't done it much, but I've had an accidental few frames overexposed that much and they were fine. I don't think 25 would block it up. And for that matter, it's a very rare photo I find that I take in "sunny 16 conditions." Even outdoors mine are usually in open shade, overcast days, something - and the ability to look decent to EI 800 would stretch the usefulness of the camera on the darker end too.

 

[madNbad]

Huss, do you have any Ilford Pan F buried in your stash of film? It would be interesting to see how ISO 50 works in the SoCal sunshine.

 

[Roger Cole]

Yeah, I just noticed on re-reading your comment that EI 25 would have been better for the conditions you shot in. So no, I don't think XP2 would be good for that light - but I think for the light I normally encounter it would be great. Thinking about getting one of these, loading it with XP2, and putting it in my motorcycle saddle bag for any and all occasions. Of course I could put a small but much more capable camera in a saddle bag too. Decisions, decisions.

 

[Huss]

Huss, do you have any Ilford Pan F buried in your stash of film? It would be interesting to see how ISO 50 works in the SoCal sunshine.

I must have some. I gots everything from ISO 1.6 to 3200 (ok the 3200 is actually 1000 but can be pushed to 3200 TMAX and Delta)

 

[Huss]

Yeah, I just noticed on re-reading your comment that EI 25 would have been better for the conditions you shot in. So no, I don't think XP2 would be good for that light - but I think for the light I normally encounter it would be great. Thinking about getting one of these, loading it with XP2, and putting it in my motorcycle saddle bag for any and all occasions. Of course I could put a small but much more capable camera in a saddle bag too. Decisions, decisions.

You should try it w the XP2. If it really is that flexible then it greatly expands this camera's performance envelope.

 

[Roger Cole]

I can absolutely say that XP2 is great at EI 100-200 - better at 200 than 400 in my experience as I said, but it's also a fine film at 400. 800 is kind of acceptable. I'm far less forgiving of underexposure than Ilford seems to be when they claim it's good at 800 (without push processing.) Now if you do your own C41, as I used to and may again, or want to pay an extra buck or two or whatever, it can absolutely be pushed for somewhat better results at 800 up to 1600. But that's not part of the "load one film in the camera and forget about it" appeal for something like this.

 

[summicron1]

I can absolutely say that XP2 is great at EI 100-200 - better at 200 than 400 in my experience as I said, but it's also a fine film at 400. 800 is kind of acceptable. I'm far less forgiving of underexposure than Ilford seems to be when they claim it's good at 800 (without push processing.) Now if you do your own C41, as I used to and may again, or want to pay an extra buck or two or whatever, it can absolutely be pushed for somewhat better results at 800 up to 1600. But that's not part of the "load one film in the camera and forget about it" appeal for something like this.

when XP2 was introduced way back in the dark days of the Reagan administration it was XP1 and touted as something you could expose from asa 25 to 1600, even changing in mid roll, without harm.

Somewhat hyperbolic -- it just has great latitude and doesn't block up in overexposed parts, so you can get at least a printable neg while screwing up by a factor of 3 f-stops or so.

That said, it is BEST exposed at 400 because that puts you right in the middle of the film's tonal range and is very Ansel Adams-ish.

That said, it would be an ideal choice for one of these cameras.

 

[wblynch]

I’ve always wondered about the degree of angst most photographers expend trying to nail the “perfect” exposure. I guess it’s either OCD or some people just need more stress in their life.

I want to get one of these. And for the people fearful of the smaller negative, I recently scanned some instamatic 110 from the 70’s where you could zoom in to people standing 1/4 mile away and still see them clearly.

 

[Huss]

Just shot another roll of C200 in it today. Just goofing around on my bike by the beach. That's what this camera is for - being completely care free and not worrying about the cost of film because 1 36 exp roll gives you at least 72 shots.
Suddenly C200 is $4/roll again!

 

[wblynch]

It’s hard enough for me to get through a normal roll of 36. I would have to use 24 exp. rolls in one of these.

 

[Roger Cole]

It’s hard enough for me to get through a normal roll of 36. I would have to use 24 exp. rolls in one of these.

You could bulk load shorter rolls. It wastes a lot of leader though, and usually doesn't save much if any money.

 

[Huss]

It’s hard enough for me to get through a normal roll of 36. I would have to use 24 exp. rolls in one of these.

Also shot a roll through my Trip 35 at the same time.