|
|
Post by Rachel on Mar 30, 2009 15:21:37 GMT -5
My first foray into APS is this Canon IX7. The interesting thing is that it won't mount my Canon EF-S 18-55mm lens but it will mount my Sigma 10-20mm DC lens with no vignetting. If you are not aware both of those lenses are designed for the Canon EOS small sensor digitals. It will of course take all my EOS film camera lenses.   |
|
|
|
Post by Just Plain Curt on Mar 30, 2009 18:03:28 GMT -5
Interesting, only have classic Canons myself, never found any APS equipment.
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Mar 30, 2009 18:52:07 GMT -5
Hi Rachel,
Nice looking camera.
My only APS camera is a little Canon Ixus FF which I found in a local charity shop in a box among lots of cheap plastic 110 junk. It cost me a huge 50p. It had a battery in it but no film. I thought about getting an APS film just to try it but my local D&P place had stopped processing APS and I didn't bother. So now it's joined my other shelf queens, or perhaps shelf princess would suit it's small dimensions better.
APS was one of the less successful Kodak inspired formats. IMHO it stood little chance against 35mm. It was too expensive to run as a popular snapshot format, and pros didn't take to it because it needed special processing equipment and the image was too small.
Thinking about it - well idle thoughts about it without checking - Kodak introduced many film sizes and formats over the years, some of which fitted only Kodak cameras but offhand, and accepting the massive sales of 126 and 110 snapshot cameras, I can think of only two sizes which lasted more than a decade or so, 120 and 127. 620 was just 120 on a slimmer spool, and died away while 120 carried on.
Yes, Kodak did introduce the daylight loading cassette for 35mm film which is still in use today and which I think did more than any other single factor to make 35mm a film for both professional and mass-amateur use, but it wasn't an original Kodak idea.
Comments anyone?
PeterW
|
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Mar 31, 2009 4:13:29 GMT -5
Thanks for your comments Curt and Peter.
I guess that you are right Peter about APS. I did check that my local branches of Boots the Chemists ( We have three in the city!!) did APS processing. You are correct that it is more expensive than 35mm but I had a yen for trying the format so I'll see how I get on with it.
To others who may not know, Canon EF lenses for their digital SLRs have a slightly different bayonet so you can't mount them on film EOS cameras. It's interesting that Sigma are using the standard EF bayonet for their digital lenses.
|
|
sl
Contributing Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by sl on Apr 1, 2009 17:42:59 GMT -5
Hi Rachel, APS was one of the less successful Kodak inspired formats. IMHO it stood little chance against 35mm. It was too expensive to run as a popular snapshot format, and pros didn't take to it because it needed special processing equipment and the image was too small. Comments anyone? PeterW Perhaps you can call APS "Kodak inspired", but it was not designed by Kodak. APS (IX240) was designed by an international consortium. Fujifilm and the big Japanese camera companies had a major stake in APS and were also deeply involved in the design process. The major failing of APS was that both the minilab makers and practically all photolabs got greedy and charged a big premium for APS processing ability and APS processing. Most labs that process APS still do, despite the fact that with modern minilabs APS processing is not significantly more expensive or time consuming than 35 mm processing. I suppose nowadays their excuse is that APS is a special rare format... |
|
Mark Vaughan
Lifetime Member
I STILL have a pile of Nikons. Considering starting a collection of Ricoh SLRs and RFs.
Posts: 191
|
Post by Mark Vaughan on Jun 25, 2009 19:41:34 GMT -5
I'm a little late here, but wanted to comment on APS. My wife bought a little Canon Elph APS (Advantix) that just never worked out for us. Never was sure if it was the quality of the camera or the quality of the film. We eventually stopped using it and she went digital - I bought her a Nikon Coolpix 5700 - a whole other boatload of issues with that beast... not for here... Our only other digital has since replaced the 5700: A camera not unlike the Canon Elph APS - a Digital Elph. Thing takes WONDERFUL photos (macro included - good for ebay and posting) which leads me to think the original problem was with the APS format.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Jun 26, 2009 6:08:08 GMT -5
Mark ... the IX7 is my sole venture into APS but I can't complain about the images. They are fine and compare well with the results from my other EOS 35mm cameras. I have heard many denigrations of APS but it's not my experience yet. I doubt though that I will invest anymore money in APS cameras as I expect the time will come when the film is unavailable or not easily processable and I think that will be well before the same can be said of 120 or 35mm.
|
|
|
|
Post by drako on Jul 6, 2009 15:22:33 GMT -5
Peter,
Let's not forget the Kodak Disc format ... there was a winner!
;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Jul 7, 2009 13:10:32 GMT -5
Peter, Let's not forget the Kodak Disc format ... there was a winner! ;-) Never had a Disc format camera but were the images any worse than those from 16mm sub-miniature cameras? How did the frame sizes compare? |
|
