Miserly Film Cameras

John51 · Feb 8, 2018

David Lyga said:
It would be awfully nice if a variety of tank and reel sizes were offered corresponding to different film lengths. How many times I cut film after, say, eight exposures and have to use a full reel! And, if PET plastic bottles offer absolutely NO DRIP, then why cannot tanks, which cost considerably more, do the same? DRIP, DRIP, DRIP. - David Lyga

I fully understand the drip problem. Every tank I had back in the day leaked. Inversions were done over the sink. Using my hand leaked less than the supplied flimsy lid and I trusted to youth and stupidity to protect me from dermatitis. No leaks from the Major II and the top doubles as a funnel. Very well made at a time when bean counters only counted beans and were kept away from manufacturing decisions. Bought mine at a boot sale early 90s after quitting photography because it was only 50 pence and never say never.

Have just had a look at it and 35mm volume is 185 ml. 127 film is 230 ml. No mention on the tank that 35mm is max 20 exposures, which is a bit naughty.

blockend · Feb 9, 2018

E. von Hoegh said:
One thing I discovered with Contax and Kiev, they will shred film at the slightest provocation, it pays to pay attention to the film counter.

As I discovered to my annoyance on the first roll through the Kiev. The camera isn't a natural shredder, unlike some old Zenits acquaintances have owned where the take-up spool wasn't talking to the sprocket cogs. It's the advance dial that feels highly geared, presumably something to do with cocking the shutter blinds on the same capstan as the shutter speed dial. It's not an error you'd commit twice and the Kiev is my go to walkabout film camera, along with the XA3.

Frugality should end with the shooting experience. Shoot as if film were free and save the mean stuff for the loading and development.

RalphLambrecht · Feb 9, 2018

blockend said:
Thinking about the long film leader required by Leica's Barnack cameras, I began to wonder which were the most economical users of film. My test suggests the Olympus XA series may be the Ebenezer Scrooge of the 35mm world.

The distance between cassette and shutter, and shutter and take up spool is tiny.
It requires no leader, film can be cut straight across saving at least two frames.
Because there is no auto advance, a single frame wound from loading covers the exposed film.
If bulk loading, a straight cut allows extra frames from every roll.
For the really mean, extra film can be loaded into the cassette to ensure most of the negative sheet is filled.

Conventional cameras loaded in a changing bag can't out perform my XA3 for film economy. Any other contenders for miserly cameras?

I must admit that the number of frames I got from a roll never concerned me; I actually preferred getting 35 instead of 36 so the film strips would fit better into the archival holders.getting37 would have been a nightmare; Whee to stick the extra frames?

RalphLambrecht · Feb 9, 2018

blockend said:
Thinking about the long film leader required by Leica's Barnack cameras, I began to wonder which were the most economical users of film. My test suggests the Olympus XA series may be the Ebenezer Scrooge of the 35mm world.

The distance between cassette and shutter, and shutter and take up spool is tiny.
It requires no leader, film can be cut straight across saving at least two frames.
Because there is no auto advance, a single frame wound from loading covers the exposed film.
If bulk loading, a straight cut allows extra frames from every roll.
For the really mean, extra film can be loaded into the cassette to ensure most of the negative sheet is filled.

Conventional cameras loaded in a changing bag can't out perform my XA3 for film economy. Any other contenders for miserly cameras?

I must admit that the number of frames I got from a roll never concerned me; I actually preferred getting 35 instead of 36 so the film strips would fit better into the archival holders.getting37 would have been a nightmare; Whee to stick the extra frames?

RalphLambrecht · Feb 9, 2018

blockend said:
Thinking about the long film leader required by Leica's Barnack cameras, I began to wonder which were the most economical users of film. My test suggests the Olympus XA series may be the Ebenezer Scrooge of the 35mm world.

The distance between cassette and shutter, and shutter and take up spool is tiny.
It requires no leader, film can be cut straight across saving at least two frames.
Because there is no auto advance, a single frame wound from loading covers the exposed film.
If bulk loading, a straight cut allows extra frames from every roll.
For the really mean, extra film can be loaded into the cassette to ensure most of the negative sheet is filled.

Conventional cameras loaded in a changing bag can't out perform my XA3 for film economy. Any other contenders for miserly cameras?

I must admit that the number of frames I got from a roll never concerned me; I actually preferred getting 35 instead of 36 so the film strips would fit better into the archival holders.getting37 would have been a nightmare; Whee to stick the extra frames?

blockend · Feb 9, 2018

David Lyga said:
if PET plastic bottles offer absolutely NO DRIP, then why cannot tanks, which cost considerably more, do the same? DRIP, DRIP, DRIP.

The Patterson system is much improved from the earlier iteration, whose seal was entrusted to a grey plastic ring, but still far from watertight. Some cheaper tanks use the older Patterson model, with the same results. I find the gauge of plastic sturdy enough for the 600ml 2 x 35mm roll tank, but flimsy for anything larger. My 1200ml tanks succumbed to early deaths, even a light tap to displace bubbles can crack them, and a fall will kill a tank outright. The largest models lack the structural integrity for the job at hand. Making them twice as thick would help, though Patterson would sell many fewer.

blockend · Feb 9, 2018

RalphLambrecht said:
I must admit that the number of frames I got from a roll never concerned me; I actually preferred getting 35 instead of 36 so the film strips would fit better into the archival holders.getting37 would have been a nightmare; Whee to stick the extra frames?

The glassine sheets I've used since the 1970s have always had seven slots, six frames long. I must have hundreds of empty sleeve slots, or ones containing a single frame. The aim is to fill as many of those gaps in future without compromising the film. A miserly camera and bulk loaded film should easily see 40 frames without overloading the cassette, and a full house is a possibility.
Ignore the error messages Ralph, it's a software glitch.

Negative file binders are one of the biggest rips offs. They are barely any larger than a ring binder from the local stationers for a pound or two, but cost 5 to 10 times the price.
I have some transparent sleeves which are five frames deep, mostly from lab developing, and a few clear six frame sleeves but I've never trusted their archival properties. They are undoubtedly more convenient as you can contact print without removing the negatives, but I read somewhere years ago they were prone to keeping in damp.

AgX · Feb 9, 2018

blockend said:
The glassine sheets I've used since the 1970s have always had seven slots, six frames long. A miserly camera and bulk loaded film should easily see 40 frames without overloading the cassette, and a full house is a possibility.

Both is my experience too.

Sirius Glass · Feb 9, 2018

Getting the 37th slide was never a problem. I get 36 exposures which fit nicely into 6 negatives per row of six PrintFile rows. If you only have space for 35 negative, you need to change the type of PrintFile page to 6 of 6.

Cholentpot · Feb 9, 2018

RalphLambrecht said:
I must admit that the number of frames I got from a roll never concerned me; I actually preferred getting 35 instead of 36 so the film strips would fit better into the archival holders.getting37 would have been a nightmare; Whee to stick the extra frames?

I double up...

I told you I'm cheap!

That or I find some empty slots on other sheets. Sometimes I shoot shorts.

E. von Hoegh · Feb 9, 2018

blockend said:
As I discovered to my annoyance on the first roll through the Kiev. The camera isn't a natural shredder, unlike some old Zenits acquaintances have owned where the take-up spool wasn't talking to the sprocket cogs. It's the advance dial that feels highly geared, presumably something to do with cocking the shutter blinds on the same capstan as the shutter speed dial. It's not an error you'd commit twice and the Kiev is my go to walkabout film camera, along with the XA3.

Frugality should end with the shooting experience. Shoot as if film were free and save the mean stuff for the loading and development.

The Contax design has the advance knob turning 360 degrees with pretty good mechanical advantage and not too much "feel", a typical SLR has an advance lever stoke of 180 deg. or less.

cooltouch · Feb 12, 2018

Cameras I've used which I've felt used a minimum amount of leader have been my older Canons that have the QL feature. I have QL17s and FTbs that have this feature. Cool thing about it is it works reliably and speeds up the process of loading film. But also because of the way it works, it minimizes the amount of leader needed to get a roll going in the camera. And one habit I got into many years ago -- especially with the QL cameras -- was to take my first pic at frame 0. Two cranks of the film winder brings you to 0, which is enough to put an unexposed frame into position, even when it's frame 0.

Regarding film tanks, I have a recent vintage Paterson "Super System 4" tank that will hold two 35mm or one medium format roll. It has a wide mouth with a good tight cover, and is, of course, light tight with the cover off. With the cover in place, it does not leak at all. It replaced an older Jobo unit I have of the same capacity that leaked to an annoying amount. The plastic "gasket" has gotten too hard to work properly in the Jobo. I even contact Jobo, telling them I needed to buy a replacement gasket. Their response? My particular model was too old, apparently, and they do not offer replacement parts for it anymore. Now, you know, it seems to me that Jobo should realize that it's only after a tank gets to be a certain age when the part becomes necessary. But if they aren't going to supply replacement items for it because it's finally gotten old enough to where it needs them -- well, what in the hell good are they for, anyway?

No more overpriced Jobo stuff for me. I'll stick with my Paterson tank, thank you very much.

Arklatexian · Feb 12, 2018

John51 said:
I fully understand the drip problem. Every tank I had back in the day leaked. Inversions were done over the sink. Using my hand leaked less than the supplied flimsy lid and I trusted to youth and stupidity to protect me from dermatitis. No leaks from the Major II and the top doubles as a funnel. Very well made at a time when bean counters only counted beans and were kept away from manufacturing decisions. Bought mine at a boot sale early 90s after quitting photography because it was only 50 pence and never say never.

Have just had a look at it and 35mm volume is 185 ml. 127 film is 230 ml. No mention on the tank that 35mm is max 20 exposures, which is a bit naughty.

I used steel tanks "back in the day" and still do at times and yes, they did and do leak. Early on, I kept a roll of plastic electrician's tape near where I loaded the tanks and once the film was loaded and the tank lid was put on, I took the tape and taped the lid to the tank. You still had/have to hold the cap on when inverting the tank during processing but the tank does not leak where the tank and lid join. As to squeezing an extra frame on to a 36 exp. roll. That is wasted effort. The effort should be to get that once in a lifetime shot on one of the 36 exposures.......Regards!

alanrockwood · Feb 12, 2018

Here's a thought about miserly film cameras. This would apply if you load your own cassettes from a bulk loader. What about loading the roll slightly short, so the "extra frames" just bring you up to 35 or 36 frames, or whatever the desired number would be? This would be a way of getting an extra shot or two from a roll without getting too many shots on a roll for convenient storage.

pentaxpete · Feb 14, 2018

How I get around the waste of 'auto-load' cameras, and even for 'manual load' cameras -- I cut a strip of spare waste film to the width of the 'leader' and tape it front and back with narrow strip of 'sellotape' being careful not to get it over a perforation hole as it CAN mess up on auto-load cameras -- then I have had 40 frames from a 36 exposure film.

mikemgb · Feb 14, 2018

I'm always a little worried that when I'm being miserly the first frame will be partly fogged but I have just learned to get 38 frames out of my M2 and it sounds like I should be aiming for 39 or 40 out of my XA2.

elmartinj · Feb 14, 2018

Sometimes my oly mju gets me 39 frames when I'm lucky

nosmok · Feb 15, 2018

I find that I like a 20 exposure roll the best in 35mm, so exercising my cheapness means trying to get as many 20exp rolls out of 100ft as possible. As for 828 film, one can get 9 exposures on an 828 factory 8 exposure roll reloaded with unperforated film, 10 if you do it perfectly, but avoiding overlaps in the field requires a more complicated winding scheme than I"ve yet learned (1-1/4 turns for the first 4 exposures and 1 turn for the rest works well-- probably could go 7/8 turn after 7). Currently, I'm grinding out the film gate of a Flash Bantam to 44mm across, then will use 120 paper's 6x4.5 numbers for at least 12 exposures of golden-ratio 7:11 goodness. Onward into the weird!

blockend · Feb 16, 2018

nosmok said:
Currently, I'm grinding out the film gate of a Flash Bantam to 44mm across, then will use 120 paper's 6x4.5 numbers for at least 12 exposures of golden-ratio 7:11 goodness

Respect!

blockend · Feb 16, 2018

pentaxpete said:
How I get around the waste of 'auto-load' cameras, and even for 'manual load' cameras -- I cut a strip of spare waste film to the width of the 'leader' and tape it front and back with narrow strip of 'sellotape' being careful not to get it over a perforation hole as it CAN mess up on auto-load cameras -- then IView attachment 195438 have had 40 frames from a 36 exposure film.

The leader even has images on. You'd have to line up your leader sprocket holes with the film sprocket holes exactly to avoid snatching, or going into Err mode for automatic cameras?

Miserly Film Cameras

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency