The last film format ever invented?

[sl]

Feb 9, 2009 11:53:38 GMT -5 olroy2044 said:

I must respectfully disagree with you on the 110 being limited to 4x6 prints. I shoot a Pentax auto 110 extensively, and the results are staggering. Of course, it is a very high-quality, top end camera, and was quite expensive in its day. The Minolta 110 SLR was also very high quality, and capable of outstanding results. The knock on 110 and APS in general is that most gear made for those formats is, quite frankly, junk! The poor disk format never had a chance.

With high-end equipment, 110 and APS both are capable of very good results. The biggest issue with both is finding a processor who is willing to deal with the non-35mm format.

Roy

I actually did not mean that 110 is limited to 4" x 6" today, but back in the 1970s and early 1980s it was kind of marginal even for that print size, especially with print film. I suppose you could get good results with slow B&W and Kodachrome, but most of the pocket 110 cameras had quite slow lenses, which made shooting with anything slower than ASA 100 very difficult. The speed coding system of the 110 cartridges was not designed for slower than ASA 100 films in any case.

As for camera quality; there seems to be much more crappy cameras in 110 and 126 than in APS. Most of the APS compacts I have tried have had pretty decent optics and the APS SLRs had some excellent lenses. Of course most zoom compacts have some softness in the corners at wide open aperture, but all in all I have not seen any truly terrible lenses.

Alas, I have been unable to get the Canon Elph Jr, which is supposedly is one of the best APS compacts. Then there is the Contax Tix, but they are pretty rare and still somewhat expensive. I also doubt that the Sonnar is significantly better than the lens of the Elph Jr. The Elph Jr. is also a much smaller and lighter, a true pocket camera.

APS processing is not a problem here, but getting 110 processed is another thing entirely... Processing is available, but it's expensive. I have considered getting the Pentax Auto 110, but the processing problem has thus far prevented me from buying one.

[olroy2044]

I would totally agree with you on results during that time frame, and using the "Pocket Instamatics." However, I was receiving excellent results even then with my Pentax. I used it for my "briefcase" camera instead of the worthless 126 Instamatics that were issued by my Dept.
It was eventually stolen right out of my marked patrol car!*^)%$@

I still have most of the prints and negs taken during that period, and they are good even by today's standards. I don't remember for sure what speed film I was using then, but it was probably Kodacolor 400, which had just hit the market in 110. The 100 film forced the camera to open up wider, and depth of field became a problem.

I replaced it finally about 3 yrs ago with an E--y purchase. It has now developed a light leak--probably from being dropped--(not just once, but twice! )--at an air show. New seals to be installed.

I would like to get my hands on one of the good APS cameras, being a fan of things compact!

Roy

[daveh]

I've just come across this thread.

APS was good for those who would not have considered themselves "proper photographers". Unlike 35mm it was pretty much impossible to load the film incorrectly, or double expose it. Certainly it was more expensive than 35mm to run, but many people only take (or used to before digital) a few frames every-so-often and it wouldn't have seem that expensive to them. It did record date and/or time without it necessarily being stuck on the visible part of the film.

As regards quality against 35mm - yes it's not as good, but most people don't go bigger than 7x5 inch (if they print out at all) and a reasonable APS camera was well capable of that, and larger. The same question about quality was levelled at 35mm when it was first used for still photography.


I have, by the way, got an APS dedicated scanner if anyone has any films that need scanning. The trouble is they didn't upgrade the drivers to work on XP and beyond.

[jayd]

I think APS came to late to succeed not just or maybe even primarily because of digital but because by the time it was actually released 35mm cameras and film processing/printing had improved so much there was no need for it, and as already stated the cameras were little or no smaller than compact 35mms.
Disc now there was the dumbest format ever., clumsy to say the least.
Jay

[Deleted]

I had the top of the line Kodak 110--the Model 60, with a Zeiss lens. Shooting black and white (Verichrome Pan) and developing it in Microdol-X, I could get decent 5x7 prints. Color slides were OK as long as you didn't try to project them larger than maybe three feet wide and that was pushing it. My early 1.6 MPX digital camera produced sharper larger pictures than any 110 camera I ever saw. Most 110 cameras were pretty junky although I do think the average 110 camera was far superior to the average 126 camera.

And you are correct--the disk camera was the dumbest idea ever.

Wayne

[olroy2044]

the disk camera was the dumbest idea ever.

Always thought the "film" looked like a Viewmaster reel! Remember them?

Roy

[daveh]

Jay, I don't think 35mm had anything to do with the demise of APS, other than as the established film format it, 35mm, was the one that survived the onslaught from digital for the amateur and much of the professional market.

Most people that I know who had APS cameras had left 35mm some time earlier. If they were going to move on it would only be to digital. Yes, there might have been the occasional person who 'found film' and expanded in that direction, but I'm sure they were few and far between. My father, say, had come from 9x6 to 6x6 then to 35mm. For ease of use he then went to 126, 110, the infamous disc and finally APS.

Dave.

[grenouille]

There was a time when I always had a Nikon Nuvis S in my pocket, postcard size prints were good and the camera was no bigger than a pack of cigaretts.
Now, in our region, finding an APS roll of film is a problem so the camera stays on the shelf. It was a good idea while it lasted.

Hye

[Doug T.]

Hi All!

This is an interesting thread.
It's possible to reload 110, and 126 cartridges as well as the minolta 16mm ones, so the cameras aren't dead just yet.
As a novelty,disk cameras are ok. Ever heard of a Petal Camera?It used a disk format film.
I wonder what kind of discussions photographers had when they made the transition from glass plate negative to film based.

Doug

[daveh]

They laughed at 35mm when it first came out. Things constantly move on, but the speed of moving on does change, normally getting faster.

Of course, back in the glass plate days photographers were "rolling their own"; perhaps some even making their own cameras (which no doubt were a poor imitation of a Colray camera.)