Is APS totally dead?

[Kodachromeguy]

I have no idea why this size was selected but I can guess. Kodak, as you know, had the first patent on the digital camera. That is on record. They had whipped up some camera designs with Canon and Nikon and were trying to tie it all together with the lens compatibility noted above.

Other than that, I have no suggestions.
PE

Are any of the lenses from the higher-end APS film cameras useable on APS-size digital cameras? I know that Olympus Pen F half-frame lenses are popular, and some sell for serious $$. But I can't recall ever reading if Nikon Pronea or other brand APS lenses are being used. As an extra note, ultrafineonline (Photo Warehouse) lists many APS emulsions on their web page.

 

[MattKing]

I have a Canon EF 22-55mm zoom lens that was actually designed for a Canon APS film camera, but works quite well on Canon full frame film cameras (with okay results in the corners of the frame).
It performed quite well on the Canon APS-C digital bodies I had previously.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Are any of the lenses from the higher-end APS film cameras useable on APS-size digital cameras? I know that Olympus Pen F half-frame lenses are popular, and some sell for serious $$. But I can't recall ever reading if Nikon Pronea or other brand APS lenses are being used. As an extra note, ultrafineonline (Photo Warehouse) lists many APS emulsions on their web page.

Some Nikon lenses can and some cannot. It has to do with the extension of the lens into the camera and the prism IIRC. But then, some Nikon film lenses can be used on their digital cameras to good effect.

PE

 

[jtk]

Aps carts don't hold film flat and can't be scanned without mechanical grief by proper (ie Nikon) scanners. Kodak insisted on taking that bad idea even further down is corporate rat hole with "disc"...which it announced to labs as a photographically lousey money maker.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, this was not a Kodak idea. It was a joint idea of several manufacturers. It was not always Kodak's fault.

Disc came before APS. The film, as manufactured, never came up to the quality expected from R&D results. If it had, it would have survived and grown.

PE

 

[jtk]

Well, this was not a Kodak idea. It was a joint idea of several manufacturers. It was not always Kodak's fault.

Disc came before APS. The film, as manufactured, never came up to the quality expected from R&D results. If it had, it would have survived and grown.

PE

Disc was announced by Kodak AFTER APS. Kodak was self destructive in that it tried to convince labs to invest in disc machinery ($10K), explaining in written announcement (which I saw) that they knew it was crap but that, happily, certain customers were so blind they wouldn't notice and would, after all, have to pay for many more prints than they would have with APS. And Kodak DID see digital coming. Shareholders should have dismantled Eastman Kodak and sold the residue on eBay.

Kodak's moron/villains knew about digital sensors and recording, bought and crushed a digital video company to protect their fabulously profitable and wasteful high speed camera film business (high speed burned phenomenal amounts of film for NASA and defense dept while Kodak's own digital video system could have saved taxpayers billions). \\

Kodak was no worse in its way than was Polaroid, whose biggest corporate client was South Africa, which demanded Polaroid photos in the legally required IDs of every non-white.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Disc was announced by Kodak AFTER APS. Kodak was self destructive in that it tried to convince labs to invest in disc machinery ($10K), explaining in written announcement (which I saw) that they knew it was crap but that, happily, certain customers were so blind they wouldn't notice and would, after all, have to pay for many more prints than they would have with APS. And Kodak DID see digital coming. Shareholders should have dismantled Eastman Kodak and sold the residue on eBay.

Kodak's moron/villains knew about digital sensors and recording, bought and crushed a digital video company to protect their fabulously profitable and wasteful high speed camera film business (high speed burned phenomenal amounts of film for NASA and defense dept while Kodak's own digital video system could have saved taxpayers billions). \\

Kodak was no worse in its way than was Polaroid, whose biggest corporate client was South Africa, which demanded Polaroid photos in the legally required IDs of every non-white.

Disc was released in 1982. APS was released in 1996.

 

[MattKing]

Disc was announced by Kodak AFTER APS. Kodak was pre-Trumpian in that it tried to convince labs to invest in disc machinery ($10K), explaining in written announcement (which I saw) that they knew it was crap but certain customers were so blind they wouldn't notice and would, after all, have to pay for many more prints than they would have with APS. And Kodak DID see digital coming.

Kodaks moron/villians knew about digital video, bought and crushed a digital video company to protect their fabulously profitable and wasteful high speed camera film business (high speed burned phenomenal amounts of film for NASA and defense dept while Kodak's own digital video system could have saved taxpayers billions). Kodak was no worse in its way than was Polaroid, whose biggest corporate client was South Africa, which demanded Polaroid photos in the legally required IDs of every non-white.

Disc format introduction - 1982
APS format introduction - 1996

 

[Photo Engineer]

Disc was announced by Kodak AFTER APS. Kodak was self destructive in that it tried to convince labs to invest in disc machinery ($10K), explaining in written announcement (which I saw) that they knew it was crap but that, happily, certain customers were so blind they wouldn't notice and would, after all, have to pay for many more prints than they would have with APS. And Kodak DID see digital coming. Shareholders should have dismantled Eastman Kodak and sold the residue on eBay.

Kodak's moron/villains knew about digital sensors and recording, bought and crushed a digital video company to protect their fabulously profitable and wasteful high speed camera film business (high speed burned phenomenal amounts of film for NASA and defense dept while Kodak's own digital video system could have saved taxpayers billions). \\

Kodak was no worse in its way than was Polaroid, whose biggest corporate client was South Africa, which demanded Polaroid photos in the legally required IDs of every non-white.

See the above posts. I stand by my comments.

PE

 

[AgX]

Aps carts don't hold film flat and can't be scanned without mechanical grief by proper (ie Nikon) scanners.

What do you mean by "APS cards"? APS slides?

Once processed APS negative film was returned spooled back into the APS cassette, not so much different to, over here, getting your negative film back rolled and put into a cylindrical box (as alternative to film strips being returned in paper envelopes).

 

[trendland]

See the above posts. I stand by my comments.

PE

Netherteless you are right PE - Disc format was a mistake ! What are we talking about :

File photo 1982

with regards

PPS : APS was the much bigger mistake of ALL (Film manufacturers,camera manufacturers, labs)
But the origion idea was not soo bad (more space from film format - is always a good idea)
But at last it was the oposite = much less space! And of course the plan was much much too
ambitioned (to replace 135-36 format)!
All players saw THE SOLUTION FROM APS : camera manufacturers saw the need to produce new
models , new lenses, Film manufacturers wanted to sell more and more films, labs saw a chance for total automation! And all these players had the idea : beside digital will come the play is going on!
And they all became right : The players may have changed
but the play is going on : Amatheuric shooters are willing
to spent money for each nonsense!

So PE seriously : If decisions would had made from engeneers we perhaps would have a different
sight at APS today : A system with new cassette and a film format 60% more in comparison
to 24x36 without perforation - wy not?
A baby 4,5 x 6 format would give nice quality with modernest films of latest generation!
Because this inovation is "State of the art" from Kodak engeneers out of the year 1901!

 

[jtk]

What do you mean by "APS cards"? APS slides?

Once processed APS negative film was returned spooled back into the APS cassette, not so much different to, over here, getting your negative film back rolled and put into a cylindrical box (as alternative to film strips being returned in paper envelopes).

Please re-read. I said "APS carts." I've got a bunch of them (excellent Canon APS camera).

I don't understand why a photographer would tolerate "getting your negative film back".

I was wrong about which was first...disc came before APS.

 

[AgX]

I still do not understand what "APS carts" are.

And yes I as photographer want my negative film back after processing.

 

[MattKing]

I still do not understand what "APS carts" are.

APS cartridges, I expect.

 

[AgX]

Thank you!

 

[jtk]

I still do not understand what "APS carts" are.

And yes I as photographer want my negative film back after processing.

We're not quite on same wavelength but we agree to some extent. 1) I don't know why people send film away. 2) Some labs now assume that you don't want your film back when you order "process and print" unless you specify that. The answer, if you are really an analog-lover" is to process and print your own. IMO

 

[benveniste]

Some Nikon lenses can and some cannot. It has to do with the extension of the lens into the camera and the prism IIRC. But then, some Nikon film lenses can be used on their digital cameras to good effect.
PE

None of the IX-Nikkors could be used on APS-C digital cameras "as-is." With a couple of them it was supposedly possible to cut back the rear faring and use them on non-Proneas. Looking at the two I own, it seems plausible for the 30-60mm, but the rear element of the 60-180mm f/4.5~5.6 seems like it would still extend too deeply into the camera. Given the both the build and optical "quality" of these lenses, I can't see it being worth the time or effort to try.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, and that was my point.

Nikon did make lenses that required that the mirror be locked up before use (attachment) to prevent problems with the rear element of at least one wide angle lens comes to mind.

PE

 

[mshchem]

God only knows why anyone would want to bring back APS. Of course there are some that don't see the obvious need for Kodachrome .

 

[AgX]

We're not quite on same wavelength but we agree to some extent. 1) I don't know why people send film away. 2) Some labs now assume that you don't want your film back when you order "process and print" unless you specify that. The answer, if you are really an analog-lover" is to process and print your own. IMO

APS was meant to make it easier for the common consumer and advanced amateur. In this it succeeded.
And these sent their films away.

APS was not meant for people as us. Though with the neccessary knowledge and tools we can handle the film as usual. This means extracting it from its cassette (cart as you say), process it, store it as strips and enlarge it.

 

[trendland]

2) Some labs now assume that you don't want your film back when you order "process and print" unless you specify that. IMO

jtk - let me state : That is the todays most strange issue (you mentioned the procedure of labs in the US)!
In Europe AFAIK it is not such worse with labs! I don't remember to be ask :" Can your negatives come in the trash after printing"?
But I should add : A print is not the priority for me! The negatives I have a need of!

Prints can be made comercially from different price classes in all formats! Prints I can made by my own in darkroom (from different conditions of quality!)!
If a print is not good - it is no armageddon! It can be always make better again!
If a perfect made print (so much perfect like I am able to make from own workflow) is hanging
at a wall and gets accidentely broken (I can't indeed not remember such case) but if it would happen : it's a case of low costs to make a new print!
Normal costom made prints (the cheap ones in 9x13cm) are worthless for me! I sometimes order it if I can't find the time for film development! Then I got a c41 film with allways 9x13 prints from
bad quality! The prints are a cheap alternate of contact prints in color!!
I have a good first overview about what I shot!

So theoretically my lab could ask me :" Have you finished to look of your prints? Can the prints
come in the trash now?"

Seriously jdk - in most cases they could come into trash then! I remember many films
with trashy shots! But in most cases some shots are fine (3 - 4 out of 36 AND 4- 5 out of 120film) So I am an extreme Film waster with 35mm film!!
But not with 120film!

Of course I give that exclusive "contacts" in 9x13 not in the trash because I payed for!

But a serious print is for me above 20x30 and for just one of that prints I have a need of more
than 100 shots!

So it is an Armageddon if I am just missing one single film! Perhaps that single film with that shot of the month!
And there is not the smallest consolation if a lab would tell me :
"Sir ceep calm you have the prints - how lucky you - we print accidentely in 5x7 (inch)!"

with regards!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Bad as Disc system prints were, at least the format enabled one to say "I shoot 8x10." That's how large its film negative images were. Of course, in mm, not inches.

 

[trendland]

Bad as Disc system prints were, at least the format enabled one to say "I shoot 8x10." That's how large its film negative images were. Of course, in mm, not inches.

Just translate 8 x 10 into Megapixel and we have to wait a full decade!
But I have some doubts if there will ever be a sensor sized 6 x 9 (in cm)!
The reason is from the technical side today = problems in manufacturing! Expensive costs!
But in future there is the next problem (a much bigger problem) :
Todays people are much to weak to transport a camera from more of max. 800g!
The simple reason for IPhone succsess !

And a part of APS philosophy = smaller sized cameras from less weight!

I am serious worried how people can transport their vacation baggage in 10 years!

Perhaps one should only remember this here (concerning camera weight) :

.....feeling!


with regards

 

[Luckless]

Bad as Disc system prints were, at least the format enabled one to say "I shoot 8x10." That's how large its film negative images were. Of course, in mm, not inches.

Well,... Now I kind of want to make a large format "Disc System" camera, mostly "For the LuLz" as some would say... Should squeeze into something less than 40" across, and be good at drawing a crowd if shooting in public.

Could sell ad-space on the camera even...

 

[trendland]

Well,... Now I kind of want to make a large format "Disc System" camera, mostly "For the LuLz" as some would say... Should squeeze into something less than 40" across, and be good at drawing a crowd if shooting in public.

Could sell ad-space on the camera even...

Start crowdfounding for......!

with regards