Any cheap 110 cameras with sharp lenses? Other than Pentax Auto 110?

[ProgramPlus]

Anyone know what aperture produces the sharpest images from a Minolta 16ii? I have the add on lenses so I’m less worried about depth of field issues.

I’d also like to experiment with smaller apertures on my Pentax Auto 110 lenses using holes punches in tape unless someone knows of a more elegant solution.

Also, the Instamatic style range finder 110 cameras like above, is there a an accepted “king of the hill” with regards to sharpness and features (doesn’t have to be Kodak). Thanks

 

[Donald Qualls]

The Minolta 16II has a triplet, so diffraction becomes the limiter; I'd expect it'll be in a similar range to the Instamatic 50 and 60 -- f/5.6 or so. Those very short focal length lenses get into tiny physical aperture size at fairly wide relative aperture (f stop) -- large format lenses are often at their best between f/11 and f/22, depending on focal length and DOF requirements; 50mm normal lenses for 35mm cameras are usually best around f/8; a 22 to 28 mm lens on a 16mm camera -- for that Minolta I'd guess f/5.6 (I wouldn't go as far as f/4 on an f/3.5 lens; get too close to wide open and edge quality will override diffraction considerations), instead of the f/4 that might be better in the Instamatic 50 and 60 with their f/2.7 lens.

 

[Huss]

Just loaded a cartridge into my Rollei A110.

I've had great results with the Lomo 110 film - including 'enjoying' the spirit spheres that occasionally appear due to too thin backing paper...

Currently shooting Fukkatsu 400 film. I bought a bunch on close out from BlueMooncamera, and I'm hoping for the best. The results from the first cartridge were terrible (the film was outdated but still), but I'm hoping it was a developing error.

 

[ProgramPlus]

Thanks for that answer Donald. Very helpful.
I have some of the Fukkatsu too that I haven’t used. So Recently expired when I bought it that I didn’t think it would be a problem. Disappointing to hear that you had poor results.

 

[Huss]

Thanks for that answer Donald. Very helpful.
I have some of the Fukkatsu too that I haven’t used. So Recently expired when I bought it that I didn’t think it would be a problem. Disappointing to hear that you had poor results.

I'm hoping it's a one off, as others have said their's was fine. I will soon find out!

 

[Cholentpot]

Advantage of the Instamatic 60 is that it can be reloaded with unperfed film. If you slit your own film from 120 it's pretty cheap.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Advantage of the Instamatic 60 is that it can be reloaded with unperfed film. If you slit your own film from 120 it's pretty cheap.

Not least because you can get three 16mm strips (and keep the edge markings out of the frames) wide, and get two 20 exposure rolls from each of those. That's six reloads from a roll of 120.

Now if only there were 110 carts that were easy to reload...

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Just loaded a cartridge into my Rollei A110.

I've had great results with the Lomo 110 film - including 'enjoying' the spirit spheres that occasionally appear due to too thin backing paper...

Currently shooting Fukkatsu 400 film. I bought a bunch on close out from BlueMooncamera, and I'm hoping for the best. The results from the first cartridge were terrible (the film was outdated but still), but I'm hoping it was a developing error.

I've shot two rolls of Fukkatsu 400- the first one had some magenta tints to whites (mind I shot it during the winter). the second didn't, but I haven't color corrected that one yet so I can't say for sure.
I also tried a fukkatsu bw 100, but the roll came back blank.

edit- here's a good portion of my fukkatsu roll- shot on a not so sharp vivitar tele 603
https://www.lomography.com/homes/th...s/871958061-fukkatsu-400/photos?order=popular

 

[Cholentpot]

Not least because you can get three 16mm strips (and keep the edge markings out of the frames) wide, and get two 20 exposure rolls from each of those. That's six reloads from a roll of 120.

Now if only there were 110 carts that were easy to reload...

Once you get the hang of reloading it's not too bad.

My way of shooting 110 is to try to get through the roll as fast as I can. I don't reaaaallly trust 110, so I don't try to build a multi week story on a roll.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've been reloading Minolta 16 for years -- I had a few cassettes on hand when I found out Minolta wasn't loading them any more, and after one failed attempt to get a lab to return the cassette, I stopped shooting that format until I could process my own. Those are easy, because they're designed to be reloaded. Even when the cameras were in production, Minolta included instructions on how to reuse the cassette. But there are no Minolta-format cameras (that I know of) that have a lens as good as the 60, or a rangefinder.

 

[ciniframe]

Another thing I discovered about Minolta 16 cassettes is that you can use them without the bridge between the feed and take up sides. I had a cassette with a broken bridge sitting in my ‘junk’ box for a decade. So, one day the thought came to me, why not cut off the bridge entirely, clean up the breaks, and try it out without the bridge. At least in my 16II the roll ran through fine.
Of course, sample of one doesn’t necessarily mean much but......interesting none the less. So, if you accidentally break the bridge on a Minolta 16 cassette you *probably* can still use it.
Another advantage is the feed an take up chambers can now be pushed together until loading and will fit in a 35mm plastic film can for dust proof storage.

 

[Cholentpot]

I've been reloading Minolta 16 for years -- I had a few cassettes on hand when I found out Minolta wasn't loading them any more, and after one failed attempt to get a lab to return the cassette, I stopped shooting that format until I could process my own. Those are easy, because they're designed to be reloaded. Even when the cameras were in production, Minolta included instructions on how to reuse the cassette. But there are no Minolta-format cameras (that I know of) that have a lens as good as the 60, or a rangefinder.

Yankee clipper tanks.

Yes, they're cheap and annoying but they work. I can't find any other way.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I haven't turned it up since restarting my photography, but I have a tank I made from ABS drain pipe with a displacement core that will process a Minolta 16 roll (up to about 30 frames, at least) in around 60 ml of solution. No futzing with getting microfilm that feels like reel to reel magnetic tape into a spiral in the dark, either; tape down one end, wrap helically around the tank core, tape down the other end, into the tank, cap on, and its light tight.

 

[ProgramPlus]

With regards to reloading 110 cassettes there is a guy who put up a video on YouTube a few months ago where he walks you through it. One thing he does that seems obvious but that I wasn’t doing was to scrap the backing paper. Makes it easier to load and you can get more film into the cartridge. You have to tape over the little window. In the back to not have a huge light leak however and then I guess you have to count your exposures.

I’ve been using the Yankee clipper tank. I love the reel, hate the tank. One thought I had was to buy the metal 110 reels. You see then on EBay pretty often. I think you could stack two of them into a standard 35 mm metal tank and develop 2 rolls at once.

 

[ic-racer]

Anyone know what aperture produces the sharpest images from a Minolta 16ii? I have the add on lenses so I’m less worried about depth of field issues.

I’d also like to experiment with smaller apertures on my Pentax Auto 110 lenses using holes punches in tape unless someone knows of a more elegant solution.

Also, the Instamatic style range finder 110 cameras like above, is there a an accepted “king of the hill” with regards to sharpness and features (doesn’t have to be Kodak). Thanks

The QT is nice because QT stands for Quarter Frame. The best aperture would be one less than that of 35mm (which is f8). So f5.6 for the QT. The thing with the other Minolta 16 cameras is that they have a much smaller image on film. In that case I'd use f4. Again this is if you want the sharpest image and you are on a tripod.
Either way avoid f16 unless you want a special effect, more like a pinhole camera, where everything is kind of in focus but not really.

Also, don't overlook Minox. The LX camera, which was the top of the line, can be had pretty cheap these days. The Minox image is not that much smaller than that of a silver Minolta16.

 

[Donald Qualls]

One thought I had was to buy the metal 110 reels. You see then on EBay pretty often. I think you could stack two of them into a standard 35 mm metal tank and develop 2 rolls at once.

Save your money. I have (or had, I may have given them away) two of those, and never could get film into them, even in the light.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The QT is nice because QT stands for Quarter Frame.

The MGs was the other Minolta with the larger 13x17 frame. The other thing the QT has is a focusing lens (scale focus) -- the MGs had the same fixed focus with slide-in portrait lens as the MG. The QT is kind of usable without a battery (or with dead electronics, like mine), but because the shutter goes from fast at (IIRC) f/8 to slow at f/5.6, there's a 3 stop range between those two settings, instead of one stop -- and it's right in the middle of daylight (between partly cloudy and open shade) for ISO 100 film.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

My grandfather used to use a Minolta 110 Zoom. As I recall, it was a pretty good camera—an SLR with a decent fixed zoom lens and adjustable exposure that shot 110. I think it eventually developed a shutter problem, but he used it for years.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I always wondered why Minolta put all the money into cameras for 110 and none of that the technology they developed there ever trickled back to their own 16mm format cameras. But of course it was because by the time 110 had been out for a couple years, it had more market volume than all the other 16mm formats combined; Minolta's management could see that their format was doomed, probably from the moment Kodak offered a 16mm camera.

 

[ciniframe]

For developing I bought on ebay an old Yankee Master tank. Better made then the newer Yankee Clipper tank and has 2 adjustable reels. Mine has never let me down. For a while I had a Minolta 16mm tank, made out of bakelite, the lid broke when I dropped it. It was no longer light tight and had to be discarded.

 

[ProgramPlus]

IC-Racer,
Thanks for the explanation. I shot my first roll of cut Kentmere through my Minolta 16ii with disappointing results. Not very sharp at all plus other issues. I didn’t use any add on lenses so I tried to shoot at high f stops to maximize DOF.
Got a roll in the camera now and will try some with the no 0 lens and using a light meter instead of Sunny 16

Donald, I tried the metal 16 mm reel once. It was more difficult that the plastic reel but maybe with more practice.... we’ll see.

 

[ProgramPlus]

With regards to cutting 120, does a cutter need 4 blades? 3 16mm strips from the middle and the edges get cut off? I made a cutter for 35mm that works well but sounds like cutting 120 is more economical

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I used to process 110 with a stainless steel reel that fit a standard tank. I think it had the spiral on just one side and there were just four spokes on the bottom side to keep the film in place.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The QT is nice because QT stands for Quarter Frame. The best aperture would be one less than that of 35mm (which is f8). So f5.6 for the QT. The thing with the other Minolta 16 cameras is that they have a much smaller image on film. In that case I'd use f4. Again this is if you want the sharpest image and you are on a tripod.
Either way avoid f16 unless you want a special effect, more like a pinhole camera, where everything is kind of in focus but not really.

Also, don't overlook Minox. The LX camera, which was the top of the line, can be had pretty cheap these days. The Minox image is not that much smaller than that of a silver Minolta16.

View attachment 259330

I can second the suggestion of the LX. The lens on it is phenomenal.

 

[Donald Qualls]

With regards to cutting 120, does a cutter need 4 blades? 3 16mm strips from the middle and the edges get cut off? I made a cutter for 35mm that works well but sounds like cutting 120 is more economical

If you want three strips, yes, you'd need four blades, 16mm apart (you could actually get 4 strips, 15.5 mm wide, which would work, but two would have edge markings that can get into your images). You'll get three 16mm strips and a pair about 7mm wide with the edge markings. I used to get my 16mm strips by cutting 127 and loading the leftover, coincidentally 16mm wide, into my Kiev cassettes. If the original film edge is toward the cassette bridge, the edge markings (which stay on the strip with that cut) will go where the cine sprockets would, so don't interfere with your images (much).

So, yes, cutting 120 is a lot more economical than cutting 35mm -- you can get just barely four Minolta reloads out of a 135-36 cassette (it's twice as long as a 120). You could get two across if you can find unperfed 35mm film in an emulsion you want to use.

Cutting 120 and using half length strips, or getting four loads out of 135-36, requires careful loading of the Minolta cassette -- the strips will be around 15 inches, where the originals were 18. The originals, however, left at least two inches of film still in the supply. You'll also see some spacing issues -- original Minolta film was apparently made from cine stock, same as 35mm for thickness. All the Minolta format cameras, as far as I know, use turns-counter advance system, with a cam to adjust the length advanced as the film builds up on the takeup spool. If you cut 120 (slightly thicker than 35mm), you may see your frame spacing increase as the film runs -- or you may see it decrease, because modern film is thinner than what was available when the Minolta 16 and 16II were designed (and the Kiev Vega was an exact copy of the 16, while the 30 and 303 were evolutions from the Vega). If your spacing is decreasing, wrap a layer of masking tape onto the spool before attaching the film -- you can adjust this, with experience, to get the spacing to remain reasonably constant through a cassette.