Help Choosing a Sub-Compact 16mm Camera

Brentwood Kebab!

A
Brentwood Kebab!

  • 0
  • 0
  • 26
Summer Lady

A
Summer Lady

  • 0
  • 0
  • 31
DINO Acting Up !

A
DINO Acting Up !

  • 0
  • 0
  • 23
What Have They Seen?

A
What Have They Seen?

  • 0
  • 0
  • 32
Lady With Attitude !

A
Lady With Attitude !

  • 0
  • 0
  • 34

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,758
Messages
2,780,506
Members
99,700
Latest member
Harryyang
Recent bookmarks
0

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
What are your radio interests?

I'm active on local 2m repeaters and an afternoon rag chew net, and interested in QRP DX (but don't have an antenna that would make it work, nor the Morse skill to go with it).
 
OP
OP
Cholentpot

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,743
Format
35mm
Hi,
My dentist is an underwater sportsman and does spearfishing. I showed him my Minolta QT and his response was, "Why would you mess with that when any cheap cellphone would take better pictures?" I said "For the same reason some people would spend 40 or 50 thousand on a boat to fish when the market sells a wide range of fresh fish for a few dollars a pound." No response!
Terry


Donald,.
I've enjoyed your posts. However, my Rollei 16 only needs single side perfs, and my Edixa doesn't even need them, as it uses a takle-ip spool, while the Rollei 16 does not. What are your radio interests?
Terry
w4aon

What is better?

I think my 110 photos look nicer than my cellphone photos.
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Why go underwater to get the fish? Most buy fish at the store. He is crazier than us...
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Why go underwater to get the fish? Most buy fish at the store. He is crazier than us...

And most of those guys don't even eat what they spear.

Still, there's more information in a 35mm frame (on quality film, with a good lens, shot from a tripod) than in a cell phone image, at least from a couple years ago. Megapixel count isn't everything; many of those "50 megapixel!!" cell phones are interpolating from a quarter that physical sensel count, or not worse.
 
OP
OP
Cholentpot

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,743
Format
35mm
And most of those guys don't even eat what they spear.

Still, there's more information in a 35mm frame (on quality film, with a good lens, shot from a tripod) than in a cell phone image, at least from a couple years ago. Megapixel count isn't everything; many of those "50 megapixel!!" cell phones are interpolating from a quarter that physical sensel count, or not worse.

Not to turn this into a Vs thread but photography is a medium of vision. My eyes see a photo, 110/16mm is technically lower res than a cellphone but that's not the point. The photo looks nice, I'm not shooting film for the resolution. I'm shooting for the unique look and experience.

Why write with a fountain pen when a word processor will do a better job every single time?
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Why write with a fountain pen when a word processor will do a better job every single time?

Well, as it happens, I use fountain pens, and have a couple from the 1940s, even 1930s, in working condition (but the one I carry every day is a modern one that cost me about $2). Kind of the same idea as shooting with old film cameras -- they're repairable, and they do a certain job in a way I find more comfortable (I hate ball points, too much pressure required to make them write properly).

I don't shoot 16mm much any more -- I've gotten addicted to big negatives. However, even at lower resolution than my cell phone camera, I'd rather have negatives and prints to start from, regardless where the images wind up. Just more comfortable (I will admit, I'm starting to get old; turned 60 a few months ago).
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
I went through a period where I was actually using my iPhone instead of my Minox. I have a high-end 27" Mac screen and Makro-Planar lens on my Rollie 6x6. I even laser aligned the screen to my lens and used this as a film recorder for the iPhone images. Thing is they were all pretty poor. The images look ok on the tiny iPhone screen, but they make poor 8x10 enlargements compared to a 35mm film camera of even 16mm camera. Thus my current interest in this thread. I got a new battery for my Minox LX and about 30 empty cassettes, but no film splitter at this time.

I also tried printing straight from the iPad or iPhone screen by sliding the device into the negative stage, but those prints were very bad also.
iPhone-iPad Enlarger.jpg
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Yep, I've seen this demonstrated on YouTube. The screen resolution (not to mention operating system related limits, like auto-sleep) place a limitation on what you can produce this way. With fine-grain film you can get better prints from a Minox negative, easily. Even with grainy fast film, for that matter.
 
OP
OP
Cholentpot

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,743
Format
35mm
Well, as it happens, I use fountain pens, and have a couple from the 1940s, even 1930s, in working condition (but the one I carry every day is a modern one that cost me about $2). Kind of the same idea as shooting with old film cameras -- they're repairable, and they do a certain job in a way I find more comfortable (I hate ball points, too much pressure required to make them write properly).

I don't shoot 16mm much any more -- I've gotten addicted to big negatives. However, even at lower resolution than my cell phone camera, I'd rather have negatives and prints to start from, regardless where the images wind up. Just more comfortable (I will admit, I'm starting to get old; turned 60 a few months ago).

I was taught to write using calligraphy pens and I'm a relative young'n. My writing habits were abysmal and the powers that be tried to rectify it by teaching me to write with a nice pen and flowery script.

It didn't work.

I'm still president of chicken scratch, so I'm thankful for word-processors. I do appreciate a nice pen though.

I was never sold on the idea of resolution. It's not that a tiny negative is better or worse, it just is. It's a different look for a different job. It's not for everyone but that's fine. It never was.
 

ciniframe

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
803
Format
Sub 35mm
Well, as it happens, I use fountain pens, and have a couple from the 1940s, even 1930s, in working condition (but the one I carry every day is a modern one that cost me about $2). Kind of the same idea as shooting with old film cameras -- they're repairable, and they do a certain job in a way I find more comfortable (I hate ball points, too much pressure required to make them write properly).

I don't shoot 16mm much any more -- I've gotten addicted to big negatives. However, even at lower resolution than my cell phone camera, I'd rather have negatives and prints to start from, regardless where the images wind up. Just more comfortable (I will admit, I'm starting to get old; turned 60 a few months ago).
Ah, big beautiful negatives. I finally have a couple of serviceable Kodak Tourist cameras, one of the top lensed model, the Anastar, and one of the bottom model with a 100mm f8.8 triplet. I call that one my ‘bare bones’ 6x9 and have loaded it first. Modified the feed chamber to take 120 but left the takeup unchanged since I have plenty of 620 spools and do my own developing anyway.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Heh. I've got, let's see, five or six 6x9 cameras (one has masks for 6x4.5 as well), ranging from Ansco Shur-Shot Jr. (as simple as a camera can get -- not even a B setting) to my go-to, Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera with 105/4.5 Anastigmat. Plus a pair of nearly identical 9x12 plate cameras, a 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic, and a first version Graphic View (also 4x5).

Still, there's a place for small cameras. I've got a 127 half frame folder that's barely bigger than a folding 35mm, an actual folding 35mm that's smaller than a Rollei 35 (barely bigger than a Minox 35), a Rollei 35 (which I think might need some work on the film transport), and of course a few Minolta and Minolta-compatible 16 mm cameras. And I keep looking at Minox on eBay. A good Minox negative can produce quite acceptable 8x10 prints -- that's about 25x enlargement, quite a test of all parts of the system -- but in no way will those carry the level of detail you'd get in the 2x enlargement from a 4x5 negative (never mind a contact print from 8x10).
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Just in my last printing session I was doing 6x9cm images. I found an old 6x9 negative and, due to the characteristic rebate markings, knew it was from one of my Tourists, rather than my Horseman VH-R. The camera was on a tripod and was taken after I had calibrated the lens focus for infinity.
I printed it and it was extremely sharp from corner to corner. I had forgotten the main reasons I gave up the Tourist for the Horseman were, no need to re-spool, rangefinder focus and interchangeable lenses. Image quality improvement was not one of the reasons.
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
This thread has been inspiring to me. Guess what I found under some frozen dinners in the freezer? An un-opened 100ft single perf roll of Kodak 16mm DOUBLE-X Negative Film 7222 film! It is 8 year old, so I'm not sure how well it will work. Time to load up some Minolta cartridges!

I also found the 18 year old remains of a 16mm Single Perf ILFORD HP5 negative 100ft spool. That is no longer made, but I suspect it is fogged bad due to the speed and age.

The other new thing I'm doing, is based on a thread here, I'm using my iPhone slow-mo function to test shutters. I recently overhauled and tested two Argus Bricks and found the top 3 speeds all were only 1/100.

When I overhauled the shutters on my Minolta 16 cameras, I never could tell how well those top speeds came out. The indicator goes all the way to 500 on those. So I want to test those shutters with the iPhone and see.
 
Last edited:

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
The Double-X should be fine after eight years in the freezer. The HP5 (old HP5, not HP5+, right?) might be as well. I'd develop the first test in HC-110, L-110, or Ilfotec HC, for its anti-fog properties. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Unless you've got the camera disassembled to some extent, you probably can't test the Minolta shutters in transmission; none of mine have a pressure plate that comes out of the camera (i.e. the film slips into a slot, like a bottom-loading Leica). Fortunately, the Minolta 16, 16II, and Kiev Vega, 30, and 303 have a shutter in front of the lens that's easily visible, so you can video from that side. Other Minoltas I have (MG, MGs, QT) have the shutter inside the camera, where it's harder to see, and no simple way to introduce light from behind short of partial disassembly.
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Good call on that pressure plate issue not being able to shine light through the camera. I have one in front of me now. However, the shutter is in front of the lens, I I'll try to video the shutter itself and see how that goes.
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Actually the HP5 is HP5 PLUS. I don't know if you were into 16mm still at the time, but when that film came out in 16mm single perf negative, I was very excited to have a state of the art 400 ISO film without having to split 35mm. Thing is, at the same time I just got into Large Format, so I never shot all 100 feet of it. Maybe 50 feet still left in that roll.
 

ciniframe

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
803
Format
Sub 35mm
I have 100 ft of 16mm Tri-X but I found it has a remjet backing, one more step in developing but all the information found so far makes it seem fairly simple.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Actually the HP5 is HP5 PLUS. I don't know if you were into 16mm still at the time, but when that film came out in 16mm single perf negative, I was very excited to have a state of the art 400 ISO film without having to split 35mm. Thing is, at the same time I just got into Large Format, so I never shot all 100 feet of it. Maybe 50 feet still left in that roll.

That's real HP5+ then, ISO 400 in still, unlike the ISO 200 of the movie version of Tri-X (Tri-X Reversal). Most of my 16mm has been on microfilm stocks; with the right developer and stock you can get EI 64-80 and still have nearly grainless results even in a 10x14 mm frame.

I have 100 ft of 16mm Tri-X but I found it has a remjet backing, one more step in developing but all the information found so far makes it seem fairly simple.

I've seen videos on YouTube. Just a sodium carbonate bath with vigorous agitation, followed by multiple changes of water rinse, also with vigorous agitation, until the water runs clear. And then, apparently, some scrubbing (base side only!) with your fingers after the film comes out of the tank, but what's left after the initial carbonate bath won't come off in your developer -- and if you're doing reversal, you can combine the scrubbing with the reversal exposure. In commercial processing, as I understand it, there would be air/water jets directed at the base side within the dark processing machine environment to replace the physical scrubbing.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom