I don't own any 110 film camera myself ( anymore - I owned one, when I was little boy ), but I just read in a newsletter, that 110 slide film is back
No idea, for how long it has been discontinued, because it was not even available anymore when I got my first 110 camera about 40 years ago ( we called them "Pocket Kamera" in Germany ) ... but it is back ... just in case, somebody is interested in these news
That's wonderful! There were a lot of good, quality 110 cameras made in the past, and it's a wide field for collecting Roy has a thing for the Pentax Auto 110, I'm sure he'll be very happy to hear that.
Not sure it is intended for slides! Sounds like it's intended for cross processing to colour negative uses. 110 slides were always a specialist area, so few people used them, it had died off even before the general demise of 110......but then any film for 110 must be a good thing! Stephen
There were a lot of good, quality 110 cameras made in the past, and it's a wide field for collecting Roy has a thing for the Pentax Auto 110, I'm sure he'll be very happy to hear that.
I am happy, that my information is of some use. At the time, I had such a 110 film camera as a little boy, I always wanted to use slide film. I can't say exactly why, but slide film always had a different charm for me. Maybe, because you can see the results immediately without a second process ... either photo paper or scans ( to make the actual picture visible ). Still now, I prefer transparency film where it is possible. If the scan from the lab is crap, I can at least point on the slide and say: Hey buddy, that's how it should look like
I have a few 110 slides of San Francisco in the 1970s. You can't blow them up to a decent size. 110 film is simply too small.
I can imagine that. I still have the pictures in my mind, which I took with my 110 film camera. On 9x13 cm paper, they already have been quite grainy and 10x15 didn't make much sense.
However ... I might consider shooting a 110 slide film at least once in my life There are always some 110 cameras in the junk box of my favorite cameras shop. Does the quality matter at that film size ?
Last Edit: Jan 25, 2013 4:43:36 GMT -5 by olroy2044
As Doug says, I have long been an aficionado of the little Pentax Auto 110 SLR, so much so that I rate it my favorite camera of all time. I have a fairly complete kit with all the lenses that Pentax offered for it, with the exception of the little zoom. I also never got the 1.7X tele converter offered by Soligor.
The only reason that I stopped using it is that quality processing became impossible to find at any kind of reasonable cost. I still have a quantity of 400 Kodacolor vacuum-packed and frozen.
I never shot any transparency film with it, but have no doubt that the camera would have done a good job with it.
You can't blow them up to a decent size. 110 film is simply too small.
I would have to respectfully disagree with Wayne about this. I have numerous 8X10 prints from this camera that are virtually indistinguishable from good 35mm prints, and far better than those from anything but a good rangefinder or SLR. Pentax claimed that quality 11X14 prints could be made from this camera. I never tried that, so cannot speak to the accuracy of that claim. The negative is roughly half the size of a full frame 35 (actually about 47%) so it is about the same size as the sensors used in the currently popular 4/3 system.
Does the quality matter at that film size ?
It ABSOLUTELY does! The biggest issue with the 110 format was always the quality of most of the cameras made for it. In word, the vast majority were CRAP! Only a few were worth taking home. Kodak's high end "Pocket Instamatics" weren't bad, and neither were the higher end Minoltas.
But to utilize the full capability of the film, one had to use either the Minolta SLR's (there were two versions, both with permanently mounted zoom lenses) or the Pentax Auto 110 or 110 Super, both of which were full system cameras. It seems to me that Zeiss also built a high quality 110. Perhaps Hans is familiar with that one.
My one quibble with the Auto 110 is the total lack of exposure control. It is a totally automatic program camera. The 110 Super addressed this by adding backlight compensation for at least a modicum of control.
Here is a link to a short slide show I put together showing some shots from my Auto 110. The last shot in the series shows the issuers with the processing. The artifacts in the image are scratches in the negative which were there from processing. The shot of the large house is about a 25% crop from a 70mm shot.
I have a fairly complete kit with all the lenses that Pentax offered for it, with the exception of the little zoom.
I suppose you're referring to the 20-40mm, no? They show up every now and then on ebay, but they are usually snatched in no time, probably by four-thirds users (who seem to love these little lenses).
I have the whole kit myself, including the 20-40 zoom and a winder with a still-intact battery door – Pentax dropped the ball on this! I merely have it as a collectors item. I haven't shot 110 since... since I can't remember when, but it was probably 30 years ago, when I borrowed my dad's Minox 110S (and broke it in the process :)). I might buy a roll of this new slide film and take the kit for a ride.
Yep, that's the one. The only one I ever saw in person was in a local SA store, and that was after the camera was retired, and I couldn't justify the cost.
still-intact battery door – Pentax dropped the ball on this!
And How! I never used the winder other than just to try it. Too slow and noisy.
Clark Color Labs still process 110 film.
Thanks, Doug. Email for mailers is on the way!
I've noticed that the lenses for these cameras have been increasing in price since the advent of the 4/3s systems. Glad I got mine while they were still cheap! ;D I see adapters for various 4/3 cameras readily available on EBay.
Last Edit: Jan 25, 2013 17:21:36 GMT -5 by olroy2044
I also have the Pentax 110 zoom and 3 other lenses along with 2 bodies, one is the clear version where you can see the mechanism. Back when it was new, I bought the whole system at one time, kept it for a few years and later sold it along with lots of other now collectible cameras to pay for my wedding and honeymoon. It was my second marriage and I guess I was trying to show off. One of those things that you so wish you hadn't done. Cameras are gone but I still have the wife.
I have one of the 25mm standard lenses bought from Eaby , very cheap, for use on M4/3, but they do have a strange issue, they have no aperture iris at all, making them only usable at full aperture on the adaptors.
They are very sharp lenses, but the DOF is minimal when on M4/3, as they have no iris, full open only operation.
An aperture iris was built in to the body of the Pentax 110, which simplified the shutter mechanism and all the lens have the same aperture max, so the auto exposure was eased with lens changing. It was clever designing, the arrangements of the iris shutter, and the lens could only be done on a format of 110 size, scaled up to 35mm it would have made a very large bodied SLR.
Pentax was let down badly by Kodak, as they altered the ASA of films made for 110, and they generally did not support 110, making the very same mistakes with Disc film.
It was indeed clever designing, because, in fact, there was no separate aperture iris at all! The shutter and iris were combined in one set of blades which only opened to the appropriate "f-stop" when fired. Rather than increasing the overall size of the camera body, it made possible (at least in part) the tiny size of the 110 Pentax, even compared to the Minoltas. The shutter is a multi-bladed affair which opens from the center, much like a conventional aperture iris. This does, however, result in some strangely shaped openings visible when viewed from the rear, but the image quality does not seem to be affected. The design did limit the top shutter speed to 1/750, and the programmed shutter was biased toward speed. This was an advantage because the diminutive camera was difficult to hold steadily.
This same type of shutter design was used in other high quality cameras, in particular, the Oly XA series, and is quite effective.
There is one aspect of the shutter set-up that I really don't understand. I have always thought that more iris blades led to smoother rendition of "out-of-focus" areas. The lack of a true bulb setting makes it difficult to tell for sure, but the shape of the opening seems to indicate only 4 blades, yet the "out-of-focus" area is quite nice. When "stopped" down depth of field is quite adequate.
I would almost sell every piece of gear I own to buy an interchangeable lens digital camera set up the same way, that would utilize the Auto 110 lenses to their full potential! ;D
HEY PENTAX! ARE YOU LISTENING? ;D
P.S. HATE the term "bokeh!"
Last Edit: Jan 26, 2013 12:03:17 GMT -5 by olroy2044
Oh how I agree, it is abused, misunderstood, and used as an excuse for poor lens aberrations in the image.
The original meaning was the 3D effect of a sharp object jumping out of a out of focus background. The business of the shape of the iris is often confused, it is more often the way the corrections in the lens occur that gives the effect.
Lomo has a lot to answer for.... bring back Ansel Adams........and F64.
It used to as confused in the 1970's with talk about soft focus, the difference between a soft focus lens and a lens with a greasy filter fitted.
Gauze and other lens front softening does not act in the same way as a true soft focus lens, it alters the way highlights bled into dark areas, whereas the other way round, very subtle, but people used arguments against the expensive soft focus that were plainly wrong!