Kodak was good at inventing odd film sizes such as 127, 828, 620, APS, disk. ... Ufnortunately not for any nobility of purpose. Most of them did not survive for very long but some like 127 and 620 were very popular..
Last edited:
Back in the 1990's, when APS was introduced, I remember silently thanking all the millions of people who bought point-and-shoot cameras because their usage of film helped drive and fund further film development.
As for plastic cameras, most of my life I bought and used the professional Nikons (F to F4), Leica M's, and Hasselblads. Yet one weekend I became enamoured with a camera that I'd often reviled: a Canon Rebel (a 'G' aka 500N). I found it fun and easy to use, I enjoyed its features and modes, and the photos with its inexpensive 50/1.8 were really very good. From this life lesson, I've learned not to despise any camera.
Kodak was good at inventing odd film sizes such as 127, 828, 620, APS, disk. ... Ufnortunately not for any nobility of purpose. ...
The whole reason for reducing the film format was to save the film, paper [as appropriate] and save silver. Every improvement in grain size was used to reduce formats and save money.
An interesting theory. However it does not explain 110, 126, 828, and 620 which are the same size as existing films at the time. The resolution of disk cameras is awful, no improvement there. Film processors were forced to change equipment for 126 cassettes, disks and APS film. I have read articles that the idea was intended to hurt the competition who were forced to play catch up.
An interesting theory. However it does not explain 110, 126, 828, and 620 which are the same size as existing films at the time. The resolution of disk cameras is awful, no improvement there. Film processors were forced to change equipment for 126 cassettes, disks and APS film. I have read articles that the idea was intended to hurt the competition who were forced to play catch up.
Anyone who ever worked in camera stores when 126 became popular would know why it was introduced - the people who had difficulty loading and unloading 35mm film were legion!
...
You need to try a Canon... Too much N*** stuff can be bad for your health. You know, having to twist the focus ring in the wrong direction, having to mount/unmount lenses in the wrong direction and so...
Here's my guide to Nikonitis therapy
If you like ____ Nikon camera, switch to ____ Canon camera to avoid Nikonitis.
Nikkormat FTN/FT2/FT3 ----> Canon FTb
Nikkormat EL -----> Canon EF
Nikon FM ----> Canon FTb
Nikon FG ----> Canon A-1 or T70
Nikon EM ----> Canon AV-1 or T50 or even T80
Nikon F -----> Canon F-1
Nikon F2 ----> Canon F-1 or F-1n (your choice)
Nikon F3 ----> Canon New F-1
Nikon FE2 ----> Canon New F-1
Nikon FM2 ----> Canon New F-1
Nikon F4 ----> Canon T90
Nikon FA ---> Canon T90 or the T70, which is as ugly as the FA but not as advanced.
Nikon FM10 ---> Canon T60 (heh)
Note: If in doubt, choose Canon New F-1.
IMHO For 126 the reason was not just the easiness to load it, but the easiness of the square format. People did not have to decide in which way to orient the composition.
When printed on a normal rectangular paper the printer could print 2 images, one in full format and another smaller by its side. That allowed you to cut the image and give one of the two to a friend. Great for couples. I remember, as a child, those "double prints" of 126 on rectangular paper.
127 was the result, for what I know, of the chasing of woman's handbag, the idea being that woman always have with them a handbag full of stuff, and if you manage to put a small camera in it, then a lot of "instant" photography will result. Light and small 127 cameras could in theory claim some room in a handbag with some success.
Photodisc was probably a perfidious way to try to have a substantial monopoly on the format, or to sell machinery to laboratories. It coincided, IIRC, with the introduction of "T-grain" films allowing a smaller film format but the grain was in any case excessive and that was probably one of the main reasons of the well-deserved failure.
APS was an attempt to allow you change film (switching from colour to B&W, or from normal sensitivity to high sensitivity) which is very interesting, and to adopt, on the same roll, different formats (not very bright or useful, as it was all cropping, but that's it). The inclusion of magnetic information should have helped the photofinishing process as well. Good idea but badly executed. The small format conflicts with the "advanced" features that might be more needed in "advanced" photography rather than casual photography.
Thanks, but I'll pass. Started out with a Pentax H3v, which, like Nikon, focused the correct direction.
The only Canon body I may pick up is an F-1 or F-1n with a 50/1.4 SSC. That's all.
Owned an FTbn, which I found to be an OK camera, but not on par with the Nikomat FTn that shared the bag with it. Definitely a lot cheaper, though.
+1
Diapositivo, your posts are always excellent, complimenti!
Only missing link is that 110 was a successful attempt to shrink 126 for creating more compact cameras (and selling less area of film for similar price...)
Something that made sense considering the advance to come in film emulsions during the seventies. (110 film introduced 1972).
Thanks for the compliment. Very kind of you!
When I wrote 127 above, the small format fighting to find a place in woman's handbag, I was actually referring to 110, but I got confused.
I will correct it to 110 to make the post clearer.
The Canon AE-1 tipping point I mentioned also refers to the shift to a disposable mentality and the waste involved. Previous to the AE-1, most cameras when broken could be repaired. Subsequent to the AE-1, most broken cameras are thrown away. Not sure why the AE-! has come to represent that point for me, but it's like a particular song during your formative years that you'll always remember as representing the change from child to adult.
I think you may be participating in some revisionist history.
... my best image was made using a black Nikkormat FT2 that looked so beautiful, sounded beautiful and felt so solid, despite the awkward ergonomics of the shutter speed lever, the difficulty of knowing which shutter speed you're at, and the rather dim viewfinder.
... it's like a particular song during your formative years that you'll always remember as representing the change from child to adult.
lack of a repairman.
frank
I think you may be participating in some revisionist history.
When the AE-1 came on the scene, it was eminently repairable. If something broke, the broken sub-assembly could be swapped out with a new sub-assembly.
The change that was brought in by the AE-1 was a great increase in mechanization of the assembly process, with an accompanying great increase in production volumes and the accompanying economies of scale. For what the AE-1 offered, it was tremendously inexpensive, and it was also easily purchased - lots of stores had lots of them. The entire transition to what became the norm - most "serious" photographers had a 35mm SLR - was to a great extent the result the introduction of the AE-1 (followed by its competitor's response to it).
That worries me too. I don't know any pro repair people who work on film bodies who are very far below retirement age. They're great, enthusiastic, experienced and ... looking to retire before long.
I've owned a Nikon F,F2,and F3 in the past Flavio, and indeed worked at a professional dealers selling them for several years, but at this time in my life the Canon F1n and New F1 are all the cameras I want and need.Seal of approval!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?