Half-frame conundrum: Canon Demi EE17 or Olympus Pen EED?

I’m choosing between the Olympus Pen EED and the Canon Demi EE17 as my compact half-frame camera for social and casual street photography. Both have fast f/1.7 lenses, auto exposure, zone focusing, and a solid vintage build (which are all non negotiables).

My key dilemma:

• Demi EE17 – shutter-priority auto mode with manual option too, more precise but less forgiving focus. All good stuff but not as easy to hand off to a friend to take a shot for you.
• Pen EED – full auto, easier to focus so can hand to other people to shoot, but slightly less versatile. Also more pocketable.

Feels like the optics are comparable but it’s a trade off between level of control and ease of use to hand to someone else.

What I need help with:

1. Which is the better choice given my use case?
2. Any key factors I’ve missed in comparing them?
3. Other half-frame options that meet my strict criteria (see below).

Thanks and looking forward to hearing people’s responses! I’ve been down such a half frame wormhole the last couple of weeks it’s been almost therapeutic to write this all down!

///

My criteria:

• Half-frame: more economical, allows me to be a little more liberal with shots.
• Excellent lens: fast and good in some lower light conditions.
• Auto exposure: a true point and shoot. Ideally full auto, will settle for priority for the right camera.
• Simple focusing: no rangefinder patch. Zone focusing is fine.
• Metal (or mostly metal) vintage build: not the plastic post-late-70s Olympus XA etc. plastic compact look.
• Small: doesn’t have to be ‘shirt pocket’ small but certainly ‘coat pocket’ small.

The Ricoh Auto Half would meet your criteria, if the meter is working (have one - doesn't work). But that's true of the EED, also (mine also doesn't work). I had a Demi and didn't like it (but it worked). Selenium meters in any such camera are going to be dubious at best. I find Canon lenses to be not as sharp as Olympus lenses in such cameras (I'm sure many will disagree).

Maybe @xkaes will chime in. He knows all about smaller cameras.

I found Canon Demi EE17 a solid performer, though a bit large for a half frame camera. I have no experience with the Olympus, but going by it's specifications, it will be less capable in lower light situations unless you use flash.

Ricoh Auto Half is a favorite of mine, perhaps the ultimate "happy snapper", but it's really best in daylit situations.

Pentax 17 is a fine all-rounder: If you need flash, it's built in, but I've also used it indoors without, with good results. Apparently the top and bottom covers are metal castings, though the camera weighs nowhere near what a vintage chrome-and-brass model would. It's my most-used half frame camera to date.

I had both the EED and the Demi EE17 in my hands, and for me the EE17 was a clear winner, sold the EED.

The Canon has a much better feeling (more metal etc) over the EED. The EED has film advance by wheel on the back instead of advance lever on the EE17, which I prefer. Plus the EE17 works fully manual without battery additionally to the semi-auto mode, the EED doesn't. The EE17 has exposure and distance information in the viewfinder, the EED shows no information.
Both have CDS meters, so not the older selenium ones. Worked fine with hearing aid batteries for me.

Also, regarding the semi-auto of the Demi EE17: Basically I set it to something meaningful and don't touch the setting anymore when shooting in the same situation, the camera does the rest, no need to fiddle much around (setting: sunny day outside, ISO 100-200 film), so I didn't see a huge difference to a full auto camera, and I'd have still the option to adjust if needed. Since the in-focus area is quite large for half-frame, rough focussing is fine with medium aperatures...

Both cameras are about the same size & weight, but if your goal is a "hand-off" camera, the EED would probably be the better choice -- unless you don't mind setting the shutter speed. Without that "social camera" requirement, I'd choose the Canon -- for my own use -- but I prefer the Olympus Pen D3.

Another factor, of course, is price and availability.

For a camera that anyone can use, I'd think about an auto-exposure camera that has a slower lens -- to avoid the focusing issue. The camera will be smaller too. There are LOTS to choose from in this category.

I haven't used the Olympus EED, but I do have a Pen FT. The lens on the Canon EE17 is really really good. Better than the 38mm on the Pen FT. If the Canon had a rangefinder it would be an incredible camera. I find the zone focus to be a bit of a pain personally. If it had a rangefinder it would be such a perfect little camera. Shame they never made one like that. The Pen FT is nice but it is heavy and the viewfinder is pretty dim even with a mirror replacement. It is a difficult camera to focus. I suspect if the focusing screen was replaced with a modern one it would be good, but that is outside what you are looking for.

There is also a Fuji Half 1.9 I think that is the equivalent of the Canon/Oly that you are looking at.

The Canon is a great camera to carry around in your hand. It doesn't weigh much at all. To me the choice is a no brainer.

The downside is going to be the shutter. I picked up a mint one but the shutter was sticky. Tried easy fixes at first but I ended up having to disassemble it and do it right. It has been great after that, but these cameras are pretty old now. Keep that in mind.

xkaes said:

Both cameras are about the same size & weight, but if your goal is a "hand-off" camera, the EED would probably be the better choice -- unless you don't might setting the shutter speed. Without that "social camera" requirement, I'd choose the Canon -- for my own use -- but I prefer the Olympus Pen D3.

Another factor, of course, is price and availability.

For a camera that anyone can use, I'd think about an auto-exposure camera that has a slower lens -- to avoid the focusing issue. The camera will be smaller too. There are LOTS to choose from in this category.

Click to expand...

Thanks so much. I’ve been leaning towards the EED for that reason. And similar to you, were it not for the ‘hand-off-ability’ need I’d actually go for a Pen D3!

The Fuji Half 1.9 is a nice camera except that it relies on a selenium meter. The Fuji TW3 is another matter:

The mid 1980s saw a resurgence of the half-frame format. Yashica produced the Samurai, Konica the AA-35 and Fuji the TW3 in 1985. It is truly a modern-day half-frame. It has so many advanced features it's hard to know which to list as most important. It has two lenses -- a 23mm (f8.0) and a 69mm (f8.0). So you can select a wide angle (equivalent to a 33mm full-frame image) or telephoto shot (equivalent to a 100mm full-frame image). That's why it's called the TW3. It stands for Tele-Wide 3X. There is no "normal" lens. The lens is selected by rotating the front of the camera. Each of the lenses has its own focusing scale. The wide-angle lens focuses to 1.5 feet while the tele lens focuses to 13 feet. A built-in CDS meter controls the exposure in a programmed auto-exposure system setting the f-stop and shutter speed automatically. Shutter speeds run from 1/30 - 1/500, and apertures from f8 - f16. There are no manual settings of the shutter speed or aperture. Film speed is controlled through DX coding from ISO 100 to 1600. But that's not all. The TW3 also has a built-in, pop-up flash, and a motor drive. The film runs vertically, like in the Konica AA-35, so the camera provides horizontal pictures as the standard. Think of it as a cross between the Konica AA-35 and the Olympus Infinity Twin. It has the size and feel of the Konica and the dual lenses of the Twin. What more could you want, except maybe a faster lens? The camera lacks a tripod socket, a cable release connection and a self-timer, but it does have a backlight button and a TV button so that you won't get lines in the picture. The motor drive can be used in single or continuous mode. The camera is obviously designed to be used with ISO 400 speed film in bright conditions, but it is a take-anywhere type of camera. The built-in A2/3 lithium battery is large (about the size of your index finder) and designed to last about five years. At that point, the manual instructs you to take it to a repair shop. Of course, that will cost as much as a new camera. Fortunately, you can do it yourself, if you can locate a replacement battery -- and a soldering iron. On the door of the camera, is a grip that looks like it might be the motor drive. In fact, it is the battery. There are two tiny screws that open the battery compartment. There is no need to remove the covering -- it acts as a hinge. Just unsolder the old battery and insert a replacement. You're good for another five years.

The choice is obvious. Pentax 17.


(and I'm only half-joking)

Selenium meters in any such camera are going to be dubious at best

Click to expand...

I have had god known how many cameras with selenium cells*. I have not had a faulty one yet and they have all been perfectly capable of taking a well exposed photo.

I just buy them with an obvious lens cap or still in an ever ready case and have yet to be disappointed. I have had seized battery compartments from corrosion.

Not saying they are better or anything like that just that i don't really get where them being dubious comes from.

*Not intentionally i often just want to other features of a specific camera.

LargishFormat said:

i don't really get where them being dubious comes fro

Click to expand...

It's ok that you don't find them dubious. That's great.

Back in 1964, I bought a half-frame Pentax Pen EE in a PX in Vietnam. It served me well, and I had no problem with mold or fungus in the body or lens. Back in the states, that little camera continued to serve me well. I sold it many years later as the meter was gone. I see that Pentax has come out with a new half-frame analog camera. If it's as good as my Pen EE it should be a winner for Pentax

hank_chinaski said:

My criteria:

• Half-frame: more economical, allows me to be a little more liberal with shots.
• Excellent lens: fast and good in some lower light conditions.
• Auto exposure: a true point and shoot. Ideally full auto, will settle for priority for the right camera.
• Simple focusing: no rangefinder patch. Zone focusing is fine.
• Metal (or mostly metal) vintage build: not the plastic post-late-70s Olympus XA etc. plastic compact look.
• Small: doesn’t have to be ‘shirt pocket’ small but certainly ‘coat pocket’ small.

Click to expand...

I never liked that much the Demi nor the Olympus Pen EE series.

I am not sure why you really need auto exposure. Setting manual exposure, manual focus and then handing the camera to another person will give you as much (or even more) chances of a better picture.

I have/had the Olympus Pen S2.8, S3.5, W, and D cameras. All of them great, all of them with full manual control. Perhaps the D would be the best in this case.

brbo said:

The choice is obvious. Pentax 17.


(and I'm only half-joking)

Click to expand...

I've tried one but it looked way too much money for what it offers.

For the price they could have put a much better viewfinder. Just to start with the criticism... which could go on and on (why it is so BIG?)