Camera Talk

It wasn't too long ago that a person who was using an adjustable camera at a social occasion would often get a question from somebody using a simple one, "What's a good camera to get?". I never quite knew what to say and I made big mistakes when I tried to answer; I recall telling someone that the Agfa Rapid system was the wave of the future! It must be even tougher when a manufacturer has to decide to use capital to develop, make, and market a camera. Mr. Maitani narrowly missed getting his company, Olympus, to make the Pen; but, when it was brought out and sold, not only Olympus but many other Japanese companies saw the sales of the Pen and jumped into the half-frame market. Then, I suppose, developers came up with variations so that their model would be a little different or a little better and get a share of that market. But where do you stop? I'm sure that there are skilled and knowledgeable people today who could teach a course about that; I'll just stop at this point in these comments to explain why I'm talking about product development in a post about the half frame Canon Demi EE 1.7 that dates from 1966.

A look at the specifications and performance of the EE 1.7 would convince you that it must stand near the top of HF cameras: a six-element 1.7 lens that is sharp and pleasing; CdS meter that works well; a choice between automatic or completely manual exposure; all the little things that allow you to do more than snapshots--filter ring, wide range of shutter speeds (including B), cable release socket, auto exposure adjustment (2X and 4X)--, rugged construction, and the capacity to make a large print from an 18x24mm negative or to crop such a negative severely. There's no rangefinder (I don't know of a vf HF that has one), but there is a focus zone readout in the viewfinder and a detailed scale on the lens. No wonder that Canon considered it the top of the Demi line. But, oops, as I see it, there's something missing, that certain something that makes a potential user say, "I really like that!". Maybe it's the fact that it's big and blocky, bigger than the full-frame OIympus RC, for example. Maybe it's that all the features and ruggedness make it heavy and awkward, not likely to be pocketed, and there are no strap lugs. Maybe it's just a matter ot tastes that are beyond disputing. Anyway, as I see it, the Demi EE 1.7 has to stand out for its features and results, not for any special attraction that will make you want to use it; tastes differ, though, so maybe after nearly 50 years, the EE 1.7 would be just the thing for a film user. You get 72 good frames from a 36 exposure load and you can confidently use some of those many frames in situations that require features that simpler cameras don't have.

The following examples of photos from the EE 1.7 are all black & white-- I haven't used it much for color in the past and winter arrived before I could make some current ones. The first one is only to show the quality of the lens; the other show natural scenes in low light and urban ones in bright light.
(Photos 1-3 made on Kodak TMax 400 developed in D-76, 1:1)

Detail of Wooden Play Structure Backwater Sandbars at Dusk
Twin Points at Dusk (Photos 4-5 made on Agfa APX 100 developed in Rodinal)
Green Line Construction on University Avenue, St. Paul. Green Line Construction at Snelling and University, St. Paul. Bill Delehanty

[edited 11/24/15 to restore photos lost due to server problem]

Bill,

Those are excellent images and show the quality of that little camera. A six-element 1.7 lens on such a camera is unique, and the corner-to-corner sharpness is amazing. I've never been a half-frame buff, but if I were, that camera would be attractive to me.

May I also say that I appreciate the quality of your prose.

Has it really been two years since I have shot a roll of film? I should be ashamed....

Best regards,
Dennis

A very nice article on the Demi, Bill. The lens is awesome.

In 1964-6 the field was full of HF, or so it seemed. As a teenager, I remember watching the displays in photo stores and wondering what was happening - all those viewfinders in portrait orientation? Had the Japanese gone crazy?

Is the Demi the alter ego of the Dial?

Some may think it looks odd, but it sure beats my Mercury II for looks. And it's got a CdS meter to boot! It's been on my list of cameras to acquire someday. Very good sample shots, Bill.

PF

Dennis, Julio, and Phil-- Thanks for your comments. I like Julio's idea of seeing the Demi as the alter ego of the Dial! I've now gone through the lesser-known, non-Olympus half frame cameras that I'm acquainted with. I do have an Agfa Optima Parat, but I bought it used and I suspect that a previous user did some damage trying to work on the lens from the inside-- I wasn't able to get many sharp images from it, though it's a well-made and well specified camera. I really couldn't say much about it. I could get into the Olympus hf cameras, but they are pretty well known, I think. I have just about finished putting my collection of negatives in order, so maybe I'll search for some photos that I can post, without talking much about the camera I used. Or I can get busy taking more photos. We'll see. There's plenty of time to think about it in a northern winter. Thanks again.

Bill Delehanty

The quality of the lenses on these older cameras never ceases to amaze me.

Some really good examples here.

George

Bill, I really like the Optima Parat. I've shot a lot with it, and I've always been pleased with the photos (except when I miss the focus).

I'm impressed with what you've done. I don't know enough about the Canon half-frames, but the more I see, the more I like.

That's quite some camera! Has a great lens for sure : those pictures are really good.
I like the wooden play things very much. Nice write-up too. Thanks for sharing.
Benny

George, Mike, and Benny:
Thanks for your comments; I still get surprised sometimes when I see what the hf format can do. And, Mike, I'm glad to hear about your Optima Parat. I felt bad when I discovered that mine had possibly been jimmied at the rear of the lens, but I didn't do anything about it. The shutter release placement caused some camera shake for me and I guess that I thought that might be the problem. Time passed and now I'm not even sure if I still have the Parat . If I do, I'll put it on a tripod and expose some film to test the "camera shake" theory. Stay tuned...

Bill Delehanty

A follow-up to the last post: I do still have my Optima Parat and I tested it recently. I used flash for some frames, tripod and cable release for others, inside and outside exposures--softness showed up no matter what I did; it can't just be the result of camera movement. I should repeat, though, that the camera shows unmistakable signs of careless tinkering so the flaw is unique to the one I have; other examples should be fine as Mike reports.