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

[ProgramPlus]

Still trying to shoot a roll of film that came in my Minolta Ps. Seems like the nature of the cartridge is that you don’t know if it’s a brand new roll or maybe just has 1-2 exposures left.

Also got an MG-s off EBay. I was a little worried about the crusty looking battery left in it but a replacement LR44 and it seems to work. The meter reacts like you’d expect but we’ll see how accurate it is. The roll of film in this camera is used up. I might develop it just to see what’s there. I’ve still got a Minolta 16 qt on the way too.

 

[Donald Qualls]

that Ps should have a frame counter somewhere -- as you noted, you can't look at the cartridge and tell if it's ready to start, stopped at 20-21, or somewhere in between. Of course, most of the counters after the 16II had automatic reset -- if you've opened the film door, the counter likely reset to zero. I'd just assume the film in your Ps is exposed, "found film" and develop it so you can reload the cassette and start fresh with known film.

I've hardly used my small-frame Minolta 16s since I found the larger frame versions (MGs and QT, plus the Kiev 30 and 303). Almost double the negative area in the same size camera, and the QT has focusing (as do the Kievs).

 

[ProgramPlus]

Got my QT in the mail. It’s in good physical shape but unfortunately not fully functioning. Winds a bit rough but the shutter works on 1/250 speed but hangs open on 1/30. Taped to lr44 batteries together and along with a penny made good contact but the electronic appeared dead. I opened up the camera and with a couple drops of machine oil got the operation smoother and it appears both shutter speeds now work reliably. Cleaned up some corrosion in some of the electronics and now the “O” lights up (over expose or 1/2 of “ok”), but no “K”. So, I think I reached the end of my diagnostics. I’ll just have to use it manual. Oh well

 

[ciniframe]

Just completed my 9.2mm / 15.5mm slitter for 35mm film. For a long time I’ve used a two strip cutter for my IIIs Minox and single strip 16mm cutter for my Minolta 16. But the waste with the 16mm was always annoying. Now I can slit film for both formats and only leave the unusable perfs as scrap.
I go with a 19 inch strips that is good for 20 exposure with the Minolta and about 30 with the Minox.
With the Minox I don’t bother advancing the 50 exposure counter back to ‘0’ when loading a cartridge, feels like too much unnecessary wear on the old camera, just write down where I start and slip the paper in the case.

 

[ProgramPlus]

I'll be making another slitter too. I made one that cuts 35 mm film to 16 mm but there is a lot of waste. Because of discussion earlier in this thread I thought about either making one that cuts 120 or else one cuts 16mm and 9mm for minox and giving away the minox film since I don't yet have a camera that takes that size film.

 

[Huss]

Rollei A110, Lomo Orca 100

 

[Cholentpot]

Rollei A110, Lomo Orca 100

Very nice. Could pass for 400 speed 35mm.

 

[Huss]

Rollei A110, Lomo Orca 100

 

[Huss]

Very nice. Could pass for 400 speed 35mm.

Thanks! Well, as long as you're not going for big prints!

 

[Cholentpot]

Thanks! Well, as long as you're not going for big prints!

Print as large as you'd like. Just tell people to stand back...

 

[Donald Qualls]

Reload with XP2 Super and you won't have to worry about the grain at ISO 400. Probably best if you process your own C-41.

 

[ProgramPlus]

Impressive pics for 110. As said above, looks like it could be 35mm

 

[Cholentpot]

Reload with XP2 Super and you won't have to worry about the grain at ISO 400. Probably best if you process your own C-41.

I have a roll of BW400CN hanging waiting to scan. Shot it in my Auto 110. I wonder what it looks like...

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've used that. It produces good images, and it can be bleach bypassed like XP2 Super, with similar results. I like XP2 Super better, but that's because I'm always thinking about darkroom prints, and XP2 Super prints easily on regular multigrade (B&W) paper, while the Kodak products are masked like most C-41 films, to be printed on RA-4 (and then you have to go through the whole filtration balancing process just to get a clean B&W image).

 

[Cholentpot]

I've used that. It produces good images, and it can be bleach bypassed like XP2 Super, with similar results. I like XP2 Super better, but that's because I'm always thinking about darkroom prints, and XP2 Super prints easily on regular multigrade (B&W) paper, while the Kodak products are masked like most C-41 films, to be printed on RA-4 (and then you have to go through the whole filtration balancing process just to get a clean B&W image).

To be honest I've not even thought about printing 110 images. They're as disposable as it gets for me.

 

[ic-racer]

I honestly don't know what a 'disposable' image is. I have never head the term before.
At least in film photography, the negative is an intermediate to the final art form, though, some have used negatives themselves as the art.
I prefer to lith print my tiny negatives. The grain in the paper, blends with the grain in the image in a way that I find pleasing.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've printed from Minolta 16 (10x14 mm, barely more than half a 110 frame) and gotten good results. You need to start with an intention to print -- use very fine grained film, for instance (high speed microfilms, for instance), develop with speed gaining and/or low contrast developers, use the best camera you can find/afford. You probably need a very short focal length enlarging lens (I've used a 50mm at times, with better results than the 28mm Enlahead I have somewhere, due to lens quality) or an enlarger with a tall column -- but it's very possible to get high quality 8x10 prints from the 10x14mm Minolta frame, if the negative is a good one. Easier, in my experience, than getting a high quality scan with the equipment I had last time I was shooting submini regularly.

Beyond that, an enlargement of a film like Plus-X Negative (cine film) to 8x10 will have the same kind of grain you'd get from Double-X or classic Tri-X in 35mm on the same print size -- or an enlargement from microfilm stock can carry the detail and quality you'd get from Verichrome Pan, Plus-X, or FP4 Plus in 35mm. In a camera that will fit in a shirt pocket.

Kiev 30 and 303 are my favorite subminis. Good lenses, scale focus, fully manual exposure. No provision for tripod or cable release, but they're better cameras than a Minolta 16 II, and have approximately the same frame as 110 if you use single perf (correctly oriented) or unperfed film -- and the cassettes are designed to be reloadable.

 

[Cholentpot]

I honestly don't know what a 'disposable' image is. I have never head the term before.
At least in film photography, the negative is an intermediate to the final art form, though, some have used negatives themselves as the art.
I prefer to lith print my tiny negatives. The grain in the paper, blends with the grain in the image in a way that I find pleasing.

View attachment 261074 View attachment 261075 View attachment 261076 View attachment 261077

Disposable as in using questionable film, not expecting much out of it and scanning only not bothering to print.

 

[ProgramPlus]

Anyone shoot Kodak 7266 Tri Ex reversal film in 16 or 8mm? Someone on the local CL has some for sale at a pretty good price. What iso do you shoot at? Someone online mentioned shooting as 100, but it says it's good for indoor use, indoor lighting and might be prone to overexposure in bright sun light. Traditional develop with Rodinal?

Per Kodak "If processed as a negative material by conventional methods, the film will yield satisfactory results, although there will be some loss in speed and an increase in granularity."

Good stuff for the Minolta 16s or the Auto 110 or move on (in comparison with Orco or Kentmere)?

THanks

 

[Donald Qualls]

Loss of speed due to negative processing is likely to be about one stop, so EI 200(ish), and increased grain will make it comparable to Double-X Negative. Works fine in 16mm cameras, but you'll get grain that looks like 1960s vintage Royal X by the time you get a 5x7 print. Not a bad thing, but you need to be aware, match the film characteristics to your subjects.

 

[ciniframe]

About the Kiev, Minolta cassettes will also fit, they just have a larger core. Had a Kiev 30 but it was not as good as resolution as my
16 II, maybe just my sample but I was cautious about getting another just to find out.
Wow, four out of four inop QT’s and a fuzzy Kiev 30, I sure know how to pick em.

 

[ProgramPlus]

Were the QTs “untested” EBay buys? The two I have both had the same issue with the switch that activates the meter. The chrome switch behind the aperture wheel, when depressed touches a little metal tab that in turn makes contact with the negative battery terminal. Corrosion gets on that metal tab that needed to be cleaned up.
If you want to make a run at fixing it, it’s a pretty simple camera. One screw at each end and the top comes off. Some of the levers and gears get a little sticky and a drop of machine oil got them moving smoothly.
I’m not brave enough to get into the lenses etc.

It’s not all good. Although I got the electronics to come to life, one QT says everything is overexposed and the other underexposes significantly. Using 400 iso film if I set the iso to 50, it exposes pretty well. I feel better knowing it COULD be used but prob won’t use it much. I did however cut some 400 film today and loaded it up. Also reloaded a 110 cassette for the Pentax too.

 

[ProgramPlus]

Thanks for your thoughts on the Kodak 7266 Donald. Seller on CL has 2 (100) foot rolls for $25 each. Considering tax and shipping charges to buy online I think $25 is about 1/2 price. Gotta think about whether it’s worth the drive to get it.

 

[ciniframe]

Were the QTs “untested” EBay buys? The two I have both had the same issue with the switch that activates the meter. The chrome switch behind the aperture wheel, when depressed touches a little metal tab that in turn makes contact with the negative battery terminal. Corrosion gets on that metal tab that needed to be cleaned up.
If you want to make a run at fixing it, it’s a pretty simple camera. One screw at each end and the top comes off. Some of the levers and gears get a little sticky and a drop of machine oil got them moving smoothly.
I’m not brave enough to get into the lenses etc.

It’s not all good. Although I got the electronics to come to life, one QT says everything is overexposed and the other underexposes significantly. Using 400 iso film if I set the iso to 50, it exposes pretty well. I feel better knowing it COULD be used but prob won’t use it much. I did however cut some 400 film today and loaded it up. Also reloaded a 110 cassette for the Pentax too.

I only bought one QT off of ebay, the shutter was inop and I thought, 'okay, I'll just open it up and clean out the shutter and everything will be fine, but no, an overly complex internal construction that was obvious was one way assembly meant to be discarded when it failed. The other three QT's were at a photo show, on two the shutter was jammed and on the other the focus tab was stuck tight. This was after the ebay purchase so I thought, hmmm, 4 out of 4 not working, that does not bode well. I couldn't care less if the meter was not working, wouldn't use it anyway. Only interested in the mechanicals.
On the Kiev 30 everything was working fine, but the negs were just too soft, not in contrast, but in resolution. Side by side, my Minolta 16II with the "0" lens attached produced finer detail, using the same film.
I don't believe in luck or fate, so perhaps it was just outside the normal probability curve. I would feel more comfortable trying another Kiev 30 than a QT.

 

[Cholentpot]

I only bought one QT off of ebay, the shutter was inop and I thought, 'okay, I'll just open it up and clean out the shutter and everything will be fine, but no, an overly complex internal construction that was obvious was one way assembly meant to be discarded when it failed. The other three QT's were at a photo show, on two the shutter was jammed and on the other the focus tab was stuck tight. This was after the ebay purchase so I thought, hmmm, 4 out of 4 not working, that does not bode well. I couldn't care less if the meter was not working, wouldn't use it anyway. Only interested in the mechanicals.
On the Kiev 30 everything was working fine, but the negs were just too soft, not in contrast, but in resolution. Side by side, my Minolta 16II with the "0" lens attached produced finer detail, using the same film.
I don't believe in luck or fate, so perhaps it was just outside the normal probability curve. I would feel more comfortable trying another Kiev 30 than a QT.

My Kiev is pretty sharp. Only issue I have is the PC is wobbly and I can't use a flash with it. Come to think of it the whole camera is wobbly but it still is capable of sharp images.