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:
How Many Cameras do you Own?
-
A
- Thread starter BrowniesAreCool
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy For parts/broken nikon bodies and lenses
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
Sold FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Royal Soft Focus 150mm f/4.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
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..
I've always thought that rather than introduce a new and smaller format every 10 years (126, 110, Disc, APS) with associated cameras and film processing equipment, they should've taken the 35mm width and created a format with an image area larger than 24mm x 36mm -- maybe with narrower sprocket holes. This would be similar to how Super 8 evolved from regular 8mm.
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.
APS just doesnt make much sense. It has to be marketing or what you say above Gerald. Same goes for all the different cartrages (some of them close together in size).
I just don't buy into the whole save film to save money theory. Per square inch film has to be pretty cheep in terms of manufacturing cost. I'd bet infact, there is much more cost in packaging a unit than there is in the product itself.
Not a theory. When I was working at Kodak we were told that. It was one of the paths to increase profitability.
MattKing
Moderator
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!
And 110 made smaller cameras very practical. Along with smaller film boxes, cheaper shipping of inventory, etc., etc.
Disk film was an attempt to make them even smaller, with poor success.
APS was logical if you understand that it was intended to be a long term bridge for the transition to digital. As it turned out, that transition wasn't long term at all.
None of those changes were aimed at serious enthusiasts. They were aimed at the point and shoot crowd, who liked one hour photos. In every case (with the exception of disk film) there were higher end possibilities. As an example, I have a fair number of quite beautiful 110 Kodachrome slides that were shot using a higher grade Kodak 110 camera by my father. I also have a couple Kodak Pocket projectors to project them with.
And 110 made smaller cameras very practical. Along with smaller film boxes, cheaper shipping of inventory, etc., etc.
Disk film was an attempt to make them even smaller, with poor success.
APS was logical if you understand that it was intended to be a long term bridge for the transition to digital. As it turned out, that transition wasn't long term at all.
None of those changes were aimed at serious enthusiasts. They were aimed at the point and shoot crowd, who liked one hour photos. In every case (with the exception of disk film) there were higher end possibilities. As an example, I have a fair number of quite beautiful 110 Kodachrome slides that were shot using a higher grade Kodak 110 camera by my father. I also have a couple Kodak Pocket projectors to project them with.
The cassette solved the loading issue, but the 126 format was an inferior choice.
Why not put 35mm film in a similar cassette (with a decent pressure plate) and have an image area of 30mm x 45mm?
Easy to load and a significantly larger image area. Everyone benefits.
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 [EDIT: I meant 110] 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 [EDIT: 110] 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.
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 [EDIT: I meant 110] 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 [EDIT: 110] 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.
Last edited:
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.
Anyway, down to 5 film bodies. F, F2AS, F3P, F4, and FM2n.
+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).
That' a great choice, but consider also the F-1N. (uppercase "N").
Interesting. Well, both are great cameras. Owned both. The Nikkormat definitely feels more solid, though. But the FTb operates more smoothly in my opinion (less shutter and mirror jerk), and i'm partial to the partial metering pattern.
I like the Nikon F2 and Nikkormat EL more than the Nikkormats FT*, but in any case (however) 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.
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.
I learned photography with a Kodak Instamatic 126 camera shooting Kodachrome. I eventually moved to 35mm because I kept reading it was better, and I preferred the rectangular format. My photographs did improve, but it was probably more due to experience than better equipment. 110 cameras would fit easily in a pocket, but I never owned one as the slides didn't project as well as 126 and 135. I've owned 2 APS cameras, but neither really took advantage of the technology. Neither supported changing film mid-roll and the different aspect ratios made storage difficult so it really didn't appeal to me although my underwater APS camera worked well, was easy to load, and never leaked and the Canon ELPH I bought for my wife was easy to carry around.
My mother has a small folding 127 Kodak camera that belonged to her mother. When folded, it is actually smaller than most 110 cameras. Unfortunately, one of the tricks to making it that small was eliminating a proper viewfinder and many of my grandmother's photographs were poorly framed (usually with heads chopped off).
My mother has a small folding 127 Kodak camera that belonged to her mother. When folded, it is actually smaller than most 110 cameras. Unfortunately, one of the tricks to making it that small was eliminating a proper viewfinder and many of my grandmother's photographs were poorly framed (usually with heads chopped off).
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.
A lot of cameras worth repairing these days are not repIrable for lack of a repairman.
MattKing
Moderator
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).
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).
I think you may be participating in some revisionist history
Hey, if it's not true then it's just an alternate fact.
Hmmm -- when I posted in 2012 I said 18; not sure exactly how accurate that was. But I just counted 23, having added at least 4 since then (including a previous and the current iPhone). Two are stuffed; the 1963 vintage Konica FP which I can't really justify attempting to get repaired, and the other -- uh -- "electronic" beastie (Canon A80 -- has a sensor problem), the rest work. They range from an 8x11mm Minox B up to an 8x10 DWThomas Pinhole Macchina Fotografica. I gave some seldom used Canon FD gear (A-1 and FD 35-105 f/3.5 Macro) a bit of a workout this past Saturday at the Women's March in DC (along with an iPhone 6S on a BlueTooth selfie stick to get up above the crowds a bit! 
)
)
Last edited:
My FT2 currently has a f/3.5 lens on it, so the viewfinder is dimmer than with a reasonably fast normal lens. In daylight or bright light I can see the selected shutter speed in the display. At home in dim light I have to tilt the camera to see the shutter speed in the viewfinder.
Hmmm... interesting. I have no such song nor can I point to even a year where that transition occurred.
...assuming it has occurred.
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.
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).
Well said MattKing.
The AE-1 is certainly repairable as any other camera. Mine had been repaired by my tech, at one point in time (the string that connects the ISO dial with the metering system, broke).
The change in construction was to go for modular construction, as you note. Which makes dissasembly easier. The opposite is a camera such as the original Leicaflex: Zero modular construction and repairmen have fear of having to work on it. Not impossible, just more laborious.
Yes, but young people can and do learn how to do this job. The resources are out there on the internet for everyone who wants to learn it. For example i'm 35 and in the last 5 years i've learned many topics in camera (and lens) repair, and can do my own repairs. I still rely on my camera tech for more complex stuff, but such stuff I would be able to do as well if i had more specialized tools (that can be ordered, btw), and more time...
I have 115 cameras. Most work some are in need of repair.They range from a Kodak #4 bull's eye to an Arca Swiss 8x10 to a #5 Cartridge Kodak to a Fuji GL690 etc. I'm constantly trying to decide which ones I want to keep and use and which ones I should get rid of. In the end I just keep them all and when the repair cost becomes too much, then I make the final decision.
Doug
Doug
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.
How many? It seems to me about 50 or 60 cameras. If I counted them, it could turn out to be more. This is not counting the ones that have been shipped but haven't arrived yet. Most of them will be used in specific projects. Only a few are destined for a shelf.
| 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:  |