Half-frame cameras have garnered a bit of a cult following – enough for Pentax to make the Pentax 17 half-frame film camera (which we love) and for Fujifilm to make the X half, which is more of a digital ‘tribute’ to half-frame cameras than a faithful replica.
Film cameras have become a big thing among photographers trying to recapture the feel and mood of analog media, and the camera designs that went with it. Check out our guide to the best film cameras to see a long list of all the new film cameras on the market, and some classic oldies that are definitely worth seeking out on the used market. If you're new to all this, we also have a guide to camera film sizes and types.
The basic principle of a half-frame analog camera is that it uses regular 35mm film, but instead of capturing images horizontally using the 24mm height of the film and a horizontal width of 36mm, it captures images vertically, so they're 24mm high and 18mm wide (or 17mm if you allow for the extra gap between the half frames).
You get twice as many shots on the roll as they're roughly half the size – and the camera takes vertical rather than horizontal photos (of course, you can rotate the camera to swap from vertical to horizontal if you need to).
You do get twice as many exposures on a roll of film, which sounds like a cost saving, but then you have to find a lab that will do half -frame prints, and printing will cost more because there are more prints.
But by a strange twist of fate, half-frame cameras are particularly well suited to social sharing because they match the vertical orientation of mobile devices in a way that camera makers of old could never have anticipated.
Back, then, to the Kodak Ektar H35N. This is an improved version of the Ektar H35 we reviewed in 2024, replacing that camera's plastic lens with a glass one. We weren't over-impressed with the Ektar H35 at the time, but since then we've been swept along by a huge surge of interest in analog photography, so maybe this improved point and shoot Kodak deserves a second look.
Where half-frame cameras have so far been a somewhat expensive hipster fad, the Kodak is about as cheap as it’s possible for a camera to get. It’s also extremely crude, and is essentially no more sophisticated then a disposable single-use film camera.
The difference is that you can open the back to load and unload film, and you can swap out the single AAA battery for the flash. If you don’t use the flash, you don’t need the battery.
And in case you’re wondering what kind of exposure system it has and how the focusing works, it doesn’t really have either. It relies on the huge latitude of analog negative films to capture images in daylight ranging from bright sun to heavy overcast, and indoors you simply have to use the flash and stick to close-range subjects. The harsh flash look is really trending right now for its retro vibes, and this little Kodak does it brilliantly.
The focus is fixed. The lens has an aperture of f/11, so it has enough depth of field for distance of 1m and beyond, depending on how much sharpness you expect. This camera is all about the look, not technical precision.
This may not sound like the kind of camera you could be even remotely interested in, but hold on. You do have to shoot in the right kind of light (daylight or with flash), and you do have to trust your film to deal with degrees of overexposure and underexposure which would send a digital sensor into a tailspin. But you adapt surprisingly quickly. It’s a simple camera designed to do a simple job, and it does it brilliantly. If you could even contemplate using an Instax, this is cheaper and gives you much bigger and better prints with all the same character and more.
Bottom line? I started out in film photography and I know the limitations of analog film and its particular charm. The Kodak H35N took me straight back to simpler times and simpler cameras. I thought I would hate it, but I loved it.
Kodak Ektar H35N: price
- $64.99 / £67 (around AU$98)
- Factor in the cost of developing and printing – half-frame is more specialized and expensive
The Kodak Ektar H35N is a cheap camera! Its price is a million miles from the (expensive) sophistication of the Pentax 17 half-frame camera. The Kodak is also very basic. In fact, you can think of it as a bit like a disposable camera that you can re-use. It's available in a variety of colors and styles, and at a typical price of $64.99 / £67 (around AU$100), it’s a cute, inexpensive buy.
It’s crude, but at this price you probably won’t care. Do factor in the cost of developing and printing, though. You’ll need to find a lab that will process film from half-frame cameras, and the cost of prints will double – after all, there are twice as many per roll of film!
Kodak Ektar H35N: specs
Format: | 35mm half-frame |
Lens: | 22mm f/11 (approx. 30mm effective) |
ISO: | ISO 200 or 400 film recommended |
Focus: | Fixed at approx. 1m-infinity |
Flash: | Built in |
Exposure: | Auto plus bulb |
Battery: | 1x AAA (for flash) |
Viewfinder: | Optical, direct vision |
Size: | 110mm x 62mm x 39mm, 110g |
Kodak Ektar H35N: design
- Plastic build but looks smart
- Simple controls (well, no controls really)
- No issues with film loading, shooting and rewinding
- Small but effective optical viewfinder
The Ektar H35N might be lightweight plastic, but the front panel has an attractive metallic finish that looks rather smart. Kodak has a knack for making cheap cameras look rather better than they are.
The lens is surrounded by a switch to activate the flash mode. This was extremely stiff on my review sample, so not exactly as convenient as it should be. To one side of the lens there’s another switch for the built in ‘star filter’. Is this useful? Possibly.
On the top, there’s not much to see at all. There’s a big shutter release, a cable release socket for bulb exposures – so you can actually do night shots if you don’t mind estimating how long you need to hold the shutter open for – and there’s also a frame counter to let you know how many shots you’ve taken.
Round the back it’s all semi-matte black plastic. There’s a somewhat stiff and vague switch at the side for opening the back to load and unload film, but you do not want to open the back accidentally, so it’s no bad thing if it is a little fiddly.
Once the film is loaded you use a thumbwheel at the bottom left to advance the film. In standard film camera style, you can’t take a shot until the film is wound on and the shutter is cocked – and once you’ve taken the shot, you have to wind on again to re-cock the shutter. It’s foolproof. And, plastic or not, the film advance and shutter release worked perfectly.
Even film loading is straightforward. I had to pull out just a little more of the film leader to engage properly with the take-up spool, and then I did my usual thing after the back was closed, which is to take up the tension on the rewind crank and check it’s turning as I advance to the first frame. It worked fine.
You know when the film is at the end because you can’t wind on any further, so you press a button in the base to disengage the film transport mechanism, and wind it all back into the film canister with the crank handle.
The Ektar H35N might be cheap, but mine worked fine, with no film jams, no accidental double exposures, and no dramas at all.
Kodak Ektar H35N: performance
- Good picture quality
- Surprisingly tolerant to changing light
- Nice vintage flash look
- Good colors and contrast (I used a good lab)
I started out in film photography before switching to digital right when digital cameras first came in – and there are a few things I'd forgotten about shooting with film.
First, there's nothing quite like opening a pack of prints from the photo lab and looking through them. It doesn’t matter what kind of monitor you have on your desktop – I have a 27-inch 4K BenQ – or what kind of phone or tablet; a digital display is simply not the same as holding a stack of prints in your hand and going through them one by one. Maybe you don’t care – that’s fine – but for me it was a reminder of just how much value simple physical objects can have.
Of course, you can get your digital camera or smartphone images printed too. But they don’t look like this. Digitally-captured images are so technically superior that there’s almost no comparison. By contrast, my images from the Ektar H35N were softer, with crushed shadows and a faint ethereal glow characteristic of analog color negative films. I review photo-editing software as well as cameras, and I haven't yet found a film simulation or plug-in that can give quite the same look.
And here’s the thing. Imperfect and murky as they sometimes are, the photographs from this camera are just like the ones in the photo albums of your mum and dad, your aunts and uncles. The Kodak's images have a kind of connection with these old photos.
Have you noticed that we’ve all got pictures separated by a great digital divide, when digital cameras took over from film? Your digital photos have a clinical ’now-ness’ that separates them from these older analog photos. Does that make sense? The Kodak H35N, for all is cheapness, crudeness and its limitations, shoots in that older style, and fits right in with your analog family archives.
No, I’m not going to shoot with it every day. My photography is digital now. But that doesn’t stop me from appreciating just what this cheap little Kodak does, and what it brings back that perhaps we'd forgotten.
Should you buy the Kodak Ektar H35N?
Buy it if…
You want to get a taste of the analog look
The Kodak Ektar H35N is so cheap there’s nothing to lose. Film, developing and printing can be expensive, but you can still just try it once to see if it’s your thing.
You want a break from digital overload
Once you’ve got the film loaded, the Ektar H35N is incredibly simple to use. There are literally no controls – you wind it on, look through the viewfinder, press the shutter button.
You want album- or frame-ready prints
This is the beauty of analog negative film – prints come as standard. There's nothing like the anticipation and satisfaction of opening a packet of prints fresh from the photo lab.
Don’t buy it if…
You’re expecting high-quality art
The Ektar is a snapshot camera, pure and simple. The prints you’ll get back have that classic lo-fi snapshot look. You could scan the negatives, but you won’t be printing them big.
You want to learn about analog photography
You won’t learn anything from this camera. It’s as basic as a camera can get, with no shutter speed, aperture or focus control. You might, however, learn how amazingly tolerant film can be.
You’re looking for a classy classic camera
The Ektar H35N looks cute enough, but this is not a camera you’ll want to show guests at a dinner party or flash around at photo meets (unless you like winding people up).
Also consider
The Pentax 17 is a ‘proper’ half-frame camera; in other words it has a good lens, proper focusing and exposure controls, and is built to last. If the Ektar H35N inspires you, the Pentax is the obvious step up.
If you like your photography truly hands-on, get the Lomography Konstruktor F (best film cameras), a plastic 35mm camera you have to make yourself. It’s cheap to buy, though a little challenging to make (yes, I’ve made one).
The Olympus Trip 35 (in our best film cameras round-up) is an all-time classic 35mm compact with auto exposure, zone focusing and a selenium metering cell around the lens that requires no batteries. A good used one won’t cost the earth and will give you great results.
How I tested the Kodak Ektar H35N
- I tested it in different lighting conditions, inside and out
- I checked the flash illumination in low light
- I assessed how well it coped with subjects near the camera
- I also checked that the film transport/rewind worked properly
I took the Kodak H35N on a series of days out and family outings, as well as testing it out in different lighting conditions at home. I used it on bright sunny days, overcast days, the gloom of late afternoon in October and even at dusk with flash.
It’s not like a digital camera where you can check to see what’s worked straight away. Instead, you have to trust in the inherent latitude of color negative film, and a big part of this test was to find out just how many prints I would lose, which makes a difference when you’re paying for developing and printing.
I tested how easy it was to load and unload films – a key point for novice analog users – and the reliability of the film advance/shutter release mechanism. I also tested the in-built flash and even the ‘star filter’, choosing shots with the sun in the frame or showing through trees.
I chose typical ‘snapshot’ subjects that families might shoot, but also the kind of compositions made popular by Lomography and its legions of analog fans. Could you really use a cheap camera like this for this kind of anti-mainstream retro-graphy?