110/16mm Camera Image Quality

[ProgramPlus]

The other main difference between the MG and MG-S is selenium meter vs cds.

I said I wasn’t going to gamble on a camera with a selenium meter but I might keep an eye out for an MG. I believe you can shoot manually whereas the EEii cannot I believe. I’ve also been reading up about getting selenium meters working or replacing with a cell from a calculator. Might be a fun project to try.

 

[ciniframe]

Or a QT. Nicer to handle, has a tripod socket (on the end, commonly used for a wrist strap) and, IIRC, provision for a cable release, as well as (sort of) manual exposure even if the electronics are dead (2-speed shutter is all mechanical based on the exposure lever). A good bit bigger than a folded Kiev 16mm, though.

My experience in QT’s, 4 for 4 mechanically inop, makes me consider the Kiev 30 a better choice with a greater chance for it to be found working. Any QT or Kiev 30 sold on ebay, my only source, are mostly sold as ‘condition unknown, as is’ so you take a chance that it even works, you could burn $40 easy and at my stage of life I’m too cheap to chance that.
Actually, it seems all the Kiev’s seem to be coming out of Ukraine and I’m not so sure about recovering your money if you get a bad one.

 

[ic-racer]

The fabled 16mm reels...I think I saw a few on Ebay going for $40 a piece. I bought three Yankee tanks instead for $10. Upside to the Yankee clippers is that you can fit a standard Patterson reel on top of the Yankee reel and develop 16mm and 35mm in one shot.

As for getting two on one reel. How?

Just like loading two 120 rolls. Load the first one all the way the the center and push down the little red clip that keeps the films from overlapping. Then load the second one.

 

[Cholentpot]

Just like loading two 120 rolls. Load the first one all the way the the center and push down the little red clip that keeps the films from overlapping. Then load the second one.

Interesting. No red clips on any of my reels.

 

[wjlapier]

you can make 16mm reels easily yourself from jobo 35mm reels http://www.subcompactcam.com/110_16mm_jobo_reel_diy.htm

not sure it’s this site but I made my own 110 reel from a Patterson reel. Works just fine.

 

[eli griggs]

Is anyone here using a 25mm enlarging lens for their 110/16mm negatives?

 

[ic-racer]

I have this 25mm Rodenstock and a 30mm Rokkor-X CE, but my 45mm Apo-Componon is sharper. But I can't make very big enlargements with the 45mm.

 

[Cholentpot]

Is anyone here using a 25mm enlarging lens for their 110/16mm negatives?

Contact prints only!

 

[Donald Qualls]

When I find it in my boxes of stuff, I have an Enlahead with a (so-so) 28mm lens.

 

[eli griggs]

A 25mm F4 "Voss' lens in a 39mm mount.

No so fancy but gets the job done.

I wonder if Leitz ever made a anti-Newton spacer for 16mm films for the Valloy II, seeing how popular half frame/miniature films were at one time.

 

[eli griggs]

I have this 25mm Rodenstock and a 30mm Rokkor-X CE, but my 45mm Apo-Componon is sharper. But I can't make very big enlargements with the 45mm.

View attachment 261728

Which enlargers are you using this lens with?

 

[ic-racer]

Which enlargers are you using this lens with?

That 25mm fits in that recessed board on a D5500 Omega. The Rokkor CE 30mm is designed with an extra long flange focal length, so it can fit enlargers without a recessed board. I found that a glass carrier is a must with these little negatives.

 

[blockend]

Contact prints only!

As someone who likes small prints, 110 contacts might stretch my enthusiasm for diminutive photographs!

 

[Donald Qualls]

As someone who likes small prints, 110 contacts might stretch my enthusiasm for diminutive photographs!

So you won't be visiting the Minox tintype gallery?

 

[Cholentpot]

As someone who likes small prints, 110 contacts might stretch my enthusiasm for diminutive photographs!

Come on, can't you see yourself giving out 16mm contact prints as a business card?

 

[blockend]

So you won't be visiting the Minox tintype gallery?

If they handed out a magnifying glass at the front desk, I so would!

Come on, can't you see yourself giving out 16mm contact prints as a business card?

Good idea!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Ought to be able to move up to 828 or half frame 127 for a business card. If you want to go small, give out Stanhopes -- 8mm frame (about a quarter Minox, give or take) permanently mounted in a magnifying viewer.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I have a Mamiya enlahead that I don't need anymore if anyone is interested. I made a Minox carrier for it too. I thought the lens was plenty sharp with Minox negs but the times on my Saunders were long. It would be better on smaller enlargers. I wouldn't mind taking the lens out of it but I don't think it is possible with my enlarger.

I found the Minolta CE Rokkor-X 30mm to be pretty good but not as good as their other enlarging lenses. I just cleaned mine, so maybe it will be a little better next time I use it. Not a lot of choice for enlarging small negs though. The nice thing about the Minolta lens like ic-racer mentions above is the lens is very recessed so it can be used on a regular enlarger. I've used it on my Leitz Focomat before to enlarge Minox and it worked well. I also tried mounting a lens from a Yashica Atoron but the result wasn't very good, at least seen though the grain magnifier.

I knew someone twenty something years ago that had a show and had some Minox contact prints. I don't know how you could cut a mat that small.

 

[ic-racer]

We could have a whole thread on how to print these little negatives using 'conventional' enlargers (not Minox enlarger or enlahead). Here are just a few topics:

1) Good border masking. Even a 5mm border of light around a Minox negative will significantly lower printing contrast. Make a tight mask.
2) Film Flatness: In the negative carrier, the film needs to be as flat as in the camera. Read up on the film gate of the Minox and act accordingly. Usually one can use a double glass carrier.
3) Exposure in the camera: Diffraction occurs at a certain orifice diameter due to the wavelength of visible light. Usually the effects are visible in prints at around 5mm. I use 5mm as a guide for the smallest setting on the camera. Since over-exposure can destroy a negative that needs high magnification for printing, neutral density filters are frequently needed for outdoor work with faster films.
4) Magnification: Increasing magnification when printing lowers the effective aperture. The diffraction visible in the prints is related to the effective aperture. Think of it as the increased magnification making the diffraction more visible. So one needs a lens that can deliver good performance wide open or stopped down just a little. Good thing is that any grain magnifier will show it. The sad observation with a grain magnifier can be that the grain is all mushy from the start (wide open) and any stopping down makes the grain even go away.
That is the paradox of enlarging these negatives. That 25mm lens is only good for 4x5 prints. To make an 8x10 or bigger one needs something like the 45 APO-CompononS HM wide open. For this to work one needs a very tall enlarging column.

Shooting, developing and printing Minox and 16mm still makes 8x10 photography seem simple.

 

[blockend]

Shooting, developing and printing Minox and 16mm still makes 8x10 photography seem simple.

When a spot of dust can be as big as the subject's head, I tend to agree. I've found 35mm to be exacting enough, while admiring those who attempt micro formats.

 

[wjlapier]

From a Mamiya 16 Automatic, Kodak Double XX, D76 stock:









I think the lens is better on this camera than the Minolta 16 II from my initial test. Shots are mostly 1/200th f/5.6 at infinity or the tiny circle for hyperfocal which is supposed to be from 6ft to infinity. The Forward photo was estimated at 6 ft and shows decent in focus and sharpness. I'm thinking of slitting some 100ISO color film to test for less grain.

 

[ciniframe]

From a Mamiya 16 Automatic, Kodak Double XX, D76 stock:









I think the lens is better on this camera than the Minolta 16 II from my initial test. Shots are mostly 1/200th f/5.6 at infinity or the tiny circle for hyperfocal which is supposed to be from 6ft to infinity. The Forward photo was estimated at 6 ft and shows decent in focus and sharpness. I'm thinking of slitting some 100ISO color film to test for less grain.

The Mamiya has a focusing lens that can be set to infinity, that *probably* makes most of the difference that you see between the two cameras.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'd be very surprised if any submini camera other than a Minox with Complan or Kodak with Ektar has anything other than a triplet (Ektar might be a triplet in the Pocket Instamatics, too) -- barring, of course, the plastic toy 110s with plastic meniscus and likely a periscop in one or two models of Hit-type. Probably safe to say if it can be focused, and has adjustable aperture and shutter, it's a triplet (or just possibly a Tessar type).

Some triplets are better than others, of course -- the better ones compete well with a genuine Zeiss Tessar; the cheaper ones are barely better than a periscop (and there only due to front-element focusing vs. the unit or fixed focus of periscop types).

 

[ciniframe]

The Rollei 16 had a Tessar, and of course the Kodak Instamatic 50 and 60 you mention had 4 element lenses. But the Rollei 16 was a big beast, probably the same volume as a Rollei 35, just in a different shape. Never handled or even seen one but the Mec 16 might have had a premium 4 element lens. Your Kiev 30 has a triplet but it is unit focusing which probably is better for mid or close up pictures than front element focusing.

 

[xya]

the edixa 16 has a 4-elelement xenar and the mec 16 even a 6-element lens. I have not tested the rollei 16 yet. http://www.subcompactcam.com/