35mm cameras and 36 exposure cassettes.

cliveh · Aug 20, 2015

I know you can get reloadable cassettes and 20 shot sizes, but the cassette size must play a vital role in 35mm camera design and dimensions. Would a camera designed for a 10 shot cassette of a smaller diameter provide thinner camera dimensions and preferable tactile handling? A question for Oskar, were he still alive perhaps.

Prof_Pixel · Aug 20, 2015

The only cameras I remember that used a smaller cartridge were the old Agfa Karat folding cameras.

See http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Agfa_Karat

Hatchetman · Aug 20, 2015

828 film rolls are smaller and thus camera is smaller even though photo frame is larger due to no sprocket holes.

Xmas · Aug 20, 2015

The cassette came second the prototype was loaded in dark and had 50 shots, the cassette reduced this to 36.

But lots of people fit grips or mini grips cause the cameras are too small.

AgX · Aug 20, 2015

Prof_Pixel said:
The only cameras I remember that used a smaller cartridge were the old Agfa Karat folding cameras.

See http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Agfa_Karat

The type Karat idea was revived as type Rapid to face the type Instamatic, and also as type SL.

Latest idea in small cassettes was type APS.

Ian Grant · Aug 20, 2015

Prof_Pixel said:
The only cameras I remember that used a smaller cartridge were the old Agfa Karat folding cameras.

See http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Agfa_Karat

They weren't really any smaller - very marginal, dispensing with a casing completely which Kodak did much earlier with 828 which is the same width as 35mm but has a backing paper and a thinner film base and much tighter winding (narrower spool) was. Later repacked in a cassette as 126 and the cameras were still quite small compared to many 35mm cameras of the same era.

I don't think people now realise how big a revolution 126 was to the bottom end of the photography market, it really took reasonable quality to the masses, I never had a 126 camera but my mother did, and having her old 127 Brownie camera got me first processing films and printing.

But back to the OP's question a 50mm standard lens limits the overall size, unless you use a retro focus design, which would be expensive, the lens is the limit on depthe from back/film plane to front of the lens, which is why many compact 36mm cameras have lenses of around 38mm-40mm.

Ian

removed account4 · Aug 20, 2015

[video=youtube;pWyJfdob0a4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWyJfdob0a4[/video]

John Koehrer · Aug 20, 2015

cliveh said:
I know you can get reloadable cassettes and 20 shot sizes, but the cassette size must play a vital role in 35mm camera design and dimensions. Would a camera designed for a 10 shot cassette of a smaller diameter provide thinner camera dimensions and preferable tactile handling? A question for Oskar, were he still alive perhaps.

Obviously this is a "what if?" question
Presuming your'e starting from scratch there's no reason why not. Smaller film cartridge, shorter f/l lens, and a bit of
nano technology could give a thinner camera. Heck make it flexible or foldable while you're at it.
Preferable handling? EH! With a minimal thickness body wouldn't you need something like a wider/thicker base to stabilize the camera wouldn't you?
Consider a smart phone size camera using 35mm film

Ian Grant · Aug 20, 2015

jnanian said:
[video=youtube;pWyJfdob0a4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWyJfdob0a4[/video]

Yeah, Crimson were once one of my favourite bands, then I saw them and we all walked out, this was when they'd recovered

Ian

Theo Sulphate · Aug 20, 2015

Ian Grant said:
I don't think people now realise how big a revolution 126 was to the bottom end of the photography market, it really took reasonable quality to the masses, I never had a 126 camera but my mother did, and having her old 127 Brownie camera got me first processing films and printing.

As a kid, I started with rolls of 127 film and the 126 cartridge was so convenient: no threading the take-up spool, no winding for the next frame number, etc.

Of course, as an 11 year old, I didn't know anything about film flatness or image size.

But now I do wonder why in the 1960's onward no one introduced a cartridge or size larger than 35mm for use by non-hobbyists or beginning amateurs.

Chan Tran · Aug 20, 2015

I like the APS cassette very much except for the smaller film size. It has lots of good features.

Bill Burk · Aug 20, 2015

Tessina used a smaller 35mm cartridge. Shows the direction this could have gone.

But I liked the 72 shot Ilford film back when it was available. When rolling my own, I always tried to cram in a few extra shots. Even if it meant I had to use that Ilford reel to develop the roll later (because a normal reel wouldn't hold the extra film.

I like the APS cassette too, because the cameras can be so small.

And I would have liked to have seen more 127 size cameras and greater success in that format because I think it's a great compromise of large size negative and small roll...

removed account4 · Aug 20, 2015

Ian Grant said:
Yeah, Crimson were once one of my favourite bands, then I saw them and we all walked out, this was when they'd recovered

Ian

must have been the momur that got them all. sorry for the extreme bummer.

jeffreythree · Aug 20, 2015

Universal' s Mercury and Mercury II are good at showing what could have been since the II was modified to accept 35 mm cartridges instead of a proprietary #200 roll film of the same film length. It grew 1/4" taller and wider, and had to add all the mechanisms (weight/complexity) in order to rewind it back into the cartridge.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 20, 2015

There was the Tessinaa wrist cameras that used very small cassettes reloaded with 35mm film.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessina

AgX · Aug 21, 2015

Ian Grant said:
They [types Karat, Rapid, SL] weren't really any smaller - very marginal,

These cassettes were lacking the rewind-stud, which made them lesser in height in first case. But also no longer necessitated at camera side the rewind bolt coming from above.

But indeed later constructions showed that even type 135 cameras can be smaller than type Rapid ones.

Xmas · Aug 21, 2015

The M5 needs ISO cassettes with lugs to rewind from below, the exakta different but still bottom rewind...

blockend · Aug 21, 2015

Ian Grant said:
I don't think people now realise how big a revolution 126 was to the bottom end of the photography market, it really took reasonable quality to the masses, I never had a 126 camera but my mother did, and having her old 127 Brownie camera got me first processing films and printing.
Ian

My mother also had a 126 Instamatic, purchased from a Players cigarette token catalogue! 126 may have made things easier, but it signalled a decline in the quality of family snapshots. Ours were taken a 120 box camera from pre-war well into the 1960s. With the arrival of the Instamatic the rich tones of roll film shots was substituted for blurrier, grainier, 126 enlargements, but my mother loved the idea of colour because it was "real" (though her early Instamatic shots were all black and white).

While 126 cartridge was the limit of her race to the bottom, other members of our extended family went for 110 pocket cameras and their images bear no comparison to the box camera photographs of forty years previously. I suspect the same decline was evident in most non-enthusiast photo albums. I can still recall my mother taking her box camera to the local chemist to be loaded and unloaded and have him fit another film, which would be about 1967. You push the button, we do the rest stuck in the consciousness of people who thought photography was a dark art decades after the phrase was coined.

I still recall looking inside her empty box camera as a child, in the same awe one might inspect a magician's or an alchemist's prop, expecting some photographic spirit to emerge and jump out at me for daring to peer within its workings.

RobC · Aug 21, 2015

Ian Grant said:
Yeah, Crimson were once one of my favourite bands, then I saw them and we all walked out, this was when they'd recovered

Ian

Sacrilege!!!

blockend · Aug 21, 2015

Rambling on I forgot to make my original point. The bulk loader I use provides 42 frames if I go from 0 to 0 on the counter. This goes into the cassette without scratching the film and fills a normal 7-slot glassine negative sheet. 36 frames is one of those arbitrary numbers based on historical precedent. I'm sure a 50 exposure cassette could be devised with only modest enlargement of the camera's film chamber. I've never tested the maxim capacity of a film spiral, but it's more than 42 frames.

elcabezagrande · Aug 21, 2015

The Ansco Memo cartridge holds 24 exposures, while the Agfa Karat cartridge holds 12.

Ansco Memo cartridge (left), Agfa Karat cartridge (right) by Mike Novak, on Flickr

Gerald C Koch · Aug 21, 2015

blockend said:
Rambling on I forgot to make my original point. The bulk loader I use provides 42 frames if I go from 0 to 0 on the counter. This goes into the cassette without scratching the film and fills a normal 7-slot glassine negative sheet. 36 frames is one of those arbitrary numbers based on historical precedent. I'm sure a 50 exposure cassette could be devised with only modest enlargement of the camera's film chamber. I've never tested the maxim capacity of a film spiral, but it's more than 42 frames.

The 42 frames on the dial includes 6 frames for a leader and also a tail. So effectively 36 exposures.

If you were to shoot Eastman 52222 as I do you would find that only 30 exposures will fit into a cassette without binding. How many frames you can load depends on the thickness of the film specifically the film base. This varies considerable between film types from microfilm to cine film.

blockend · Aug 21, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
The 42 frames on the dial includes 6 frames for a leader and also a tail. So effectively 36 exposures.

No, I get 41 or 42 frames of Fomapan 100 plus leader and taped end in a reusable plastic cassette. It isn't a tight fit, and doesn't give an empty slot in the negative sheet or worse, a single frame occupying one slot which I find really annoying. Foma is one of the thicker emulsion and lies dead flat, unlike TX-400.

blockend · Aug 21, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
The 42 frames on the dial includes 6 frames for a leader and also a tail. So effectively 36 exposures.

No, I get 41 or 42 frames of Fomapan 100 plus leader and taped end in a reusable plastic cassette. It isn't a tight fit, and doesn't give an empty slot in the negative sheet or worse, a single frame occupying one slot which I find really annoying. Foma is one of the thicker emulsion and lies dead flat, unlike TX-400.

AgX · Aug 22, 2015

elcabezagrande said:
The Ansco Memo cartridge holds 24 exposures, while the Agfa Karat cartridge holds 12.

The Karat cassette and its successors can technically hold more film, but the system necessitates the camera to block releasing after a certain number of exposures, as the film end can't be fixed in the cassette.
For one reason or the other one decided on 12 exposures.

That is 12 @ 24x36mm, more at other aspect ratios with successor cameras.

35mm cameras and 36 exposure cassettes.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency