New 110 Camera

bsdunek · Aug 23, 2012

interestingly, The Lomographic Society has announced a new Diana 110 camera. Guess they are really serious about this 110 thing. Personally, I'm glad because it may keep 110 film available for a while. Check out the new camera at: Dead Link Removed It comes with the standard 25mm lens or in a two lens package with a 12mm wide angle. Wow! an interchangable lens 110 camera - not quite the Pentax 110. Also, I don't see that the viewfinder changes so I guess you're on your own with the 12mm lens.

zsas · Aug 23, 2012

Always a good day when a new analog camera goes on sale! Got a 110 laying around that might get a new lease on life!

nexus757 · Aug 23, 2012

I wonder why they made it to shoot square (presumably 13x13mm)? The original standard is 13x17mm and most cameras actually shoot 13x19mm (which only has to be cropped to 17 if the film was pre-exposed between frames).

Diapositivo · Aug 23, 2012

I think they made it "square" as they are selling it as a "mini Diana" and Diana produces 6x6 (square) negatives. Presumably they thought that a Diana user would have been somehow off-guard if confronted with a rectangular format.

bsdunek · Aug 24, 2012

I thought maybe when they say 'square' they mean not round as in the fisheye 110 camera. The Orca and Color Tiger films are pre-exposed to the 13X17 rectangular format.

Diapositivo · Aug 24, 2012

bsdunek said:
I thought maybe when they say 'square' they mean not round as in the fisheye 110 camera. The Orca and Color Tiger films are pre-exposed to the 13X17 rectangular format.

What do you mean by pre-exposed to a rectangular format? They certainly don't expose frame boundaries in the film do they? They probably expose the film number and such things. I expect all roll film to have a continuous sensitive surface. I mean, just like you can take 4,5x6, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 frames on the same 120 roll film, or just like you can take 24x36 or 24x18 half-frame pictures on a 135 roll, you should be able to take 13x13 and 13x17 on the same 127 cartridge.

bsdunek · Aug 24, 2012

Actually there are frame boundaries pre-exposed on 110 film. See my illustration below. As it is a positive, note the stark white surrounding the image.
As for square format, looking at the reviews on the Diana 110, it does look like it takes square pictures. I would rather it used the entire frame. Of course I'm not going to buy one. I like my Minolta 110 Zoom, my Minolta Weathermatic 110 and my Agfamatic 2000 110.

Diapositivo · Aug 24, 2012

Aaarrggghhhh!

Why this insanity?

Possibly because the images come out with a white border, "à la Polaroid", even though the printer doesn't set the machine for the border?

That also require a certain precision in aligning the white stripes with the actual frame made by the camera. A recipe for problem (supposing that for somebody using a Diana a problem really is a problem).

nexus757 · Aug 24, 2012

Traditional 110 films were pre-exposed between frames, a feature intended to make it easier and more efficient for photofinishers to print: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film
Whether new 110 films such as the Lomography or Fukkatsu releases have similar pre-exposures I have no idea. Kinda doubt it.
I like getting those extra couple of mm's in my Pentax auto 110 using non-perf 16mm film slit from 35mm.

removed account4 · Aug 24, 2012

Diapositivo said:
Aaarrggghhhh!

Why this insanity?

Possibly because the images come out with a white border, "à la Polaroid", even though the printer doesn't set the machine for the border?

That also require a certain precision in aligning the white stripes with the actual frame made by the camera. A recipe for problem (supposing that for somebody using a Diana a problem really is a problem).

who cares if it is square format or rectangular
more people buy film its a good thing.
i like my pentax, i won't be buying the diana,
but it looks nice.

Diapositivo · Aug 25, 2012

It matters. If the film is divided with pre-exposed boundaries that means that the already tiny market for 127 film is to be divided according to the camera you own. You have to buy 127 "for the square format 13x13" or 127 "for the standard format 13x17". And if you own a 127 camera which uses the 13x19 format, you have to find yet another different film. All this really is industrially insane.

Since roll film was invented the sensitive surface is continuous and is the camera which uses the roll freely.

bsdunek · Aug 25, 2012

nexus757 said:
Traditional 110 films were pre-exposed between frames, a feature intended to make it easier and more efficient for photofinishers to print: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film
Whether new 110 films such as the Lomography or Fukkatsu releases have similar pre-exposures I have no idea. Kinda doubt it.
I like getting those extra couple of mm's in my Pentax auto 110 using non-perf 16mm film slit from 35mm.

As my illustration shows - Lomography films are pre-exposed. The B&W I develop myself, so it is on the film.
My 110 cameras actually do have a slightly larger image which shows slightly on the pre-exposed edges. At least for B&W, I too would just as soon have no frames, but I guess I'm too lazy to slit and load my own cartridges.

rhmimac · Sep 7, 2012

Is it still possible to get these 110 colorfilm cassettes developed in a normal C41 lab?

Roger Cole · Sep 7, 2012

Well it's a natural development, isn't it? I mean, the premise of "Lomography" in the first place is using crappy cameras with crappy lenses for craptastic results. Using a tiny format for horrible grain on a plastic camera with a plastic lens should get your results to a whole new level of awful, which will be appreciated by masses of pretentious hipsters.

/snark

EDIT: I know that quality 110 cameras (Minolta and Pentax SLRs for two) were made and capable of quite nice results at reasonable print sizes for the format. Those might be fun to play with, though if I were buying a smaller than 35mm camera I'd go for 35mm half frame. But using such a tiny film on this thing - well, I just don't get it, but as long as folks are having fun with it and buying film, that's fine with me. They probably don't "get" my messing around with a 4x5 on a tripod either.)

Roger Cole · Sep 7, 2012

Diapositivo said:
It matters. If the film is divided with pre-exposed boundaries that means that the already tiny market for 127 film is to be divided according to the camera you own. You have to buy 127 "for the square format 13x13" or 127 "for the standard format 13x17". And if you own a 127 camera which uses the 13x19 format, you have to find yet another different film. All this really is industrially insane.

Since roll film was invented the sensitive surface is continuous and is the camera which uses the roll freely.

You're confusing 127 with 110. VERY different things. 127 is basically roll film like 120 only slightly smaller, about 4 cm across, thus the 4x4cm "baby" Rolleis. Far larger negatives than 35mm and capable of fine results with modern films if the camera is. 110 is a sub-miniature format with the sizes you list.

CGW · Sep 7, 2012

Hilarious. With its teensy flash unit, it's perfect for Bruce Gilden's "Mini-Me."

Joe VanCleave · Sep 7, 2012

Sigh.

The biggest problem I have with Lomo cameras in general aren't the plastic build quality or optical quality or anything like that. For what they are, they're fine. I like the funky square formats and vignetting and all of that.

No, my biggest gripe is exposure control. Almost all of the Lomos, with the exception of the LC-A, you only get one shutter speed and one f-stop, plus bulb. Maybe two f-stops on a better camera. That's it. For what C-41 processing is costing these days, blowing shots because of bad exposure is simply a waste. I'd rather be saving money by shooting a cellphone camera app, even a digital point and shoot.

And don't give me that excuse about color film and its wide latitude. I want the look of a Lomo lens but want to control highlight and shadow exposure.

I've been meaning to do a series of tests with my Lomo and figure out how to use ND filters and fast film to get accurate exposures with a handheld meter, in place of variable apertures and shutter speeds.

I know - maybe it's along the lines of "polishing a turd," but for what film and processing costs, the least we should expect is a decent exposure from a Lomo, especially if you plan on scanning to digital.

Instead of all the colorful new camera models they come out with all the time, how about a real f-stop ring? I'd even be willing to pay a bit more. That's why I haven't purchased any new Lomo cameras in the last few years, you just don't have any exposure control.

<End rant mode.>

~Joe

cliveh · Sep 7, 2012

Apart from format ratio, could someone explain to me the difference between a Lomo camera and a brownie 127?

Roger Cole · Sep 7, 2012

cliveh said:
Apart from format ratio, could someone explain to me the difference between a Lomo camera and a brownie 127?

The Brownie doesn't have light leaks, isn't hard to load, and doesn't fall apart.

Roger Cole · Sep 7, 2012

Joe VanCleave said:
Sigh.

The biggest problem I have with Lomo cameras in general aren't the plastic build quality or optical quality or anything like that. For what they are, they're fine. I like the funky square formats and vignetting and all of that.

No, my biggest gripe is exposure control. Almost all of the Lomos, with the exception of the LC-A, you only get one shutter speed and one f-stop, plus bulb. Maybe two f-stops on a better camera. That's it. For what C-41 processing is costing these days, blowing shots because of bad exposure is simply a waste. I'd rather be saving money by shooting a cellphone camera app, even a digital point and shoot.

And don't give me that excuse about color film and its wide latitude. I want the look of a Lomo lens but want to control highlight and shadow exposure.

I've been meaning to do a series of tests with my Lomo and figure out how to use ND filters and fast film to get accurate exposures with a handheld meter, in place of variable apertures and shutter speeds.

I know - maybe it's along the lines of "polishing a turd," but for what film and processing costs, the least we should expect is a decent exposure from a Lomo, especially if you plan on scanning to digital.

Instead of all the colorful new camera models they come out with all the time, how about a real f-stop ring? I'd even be willing to pay a bit more. That's why I haven't purchased any new Lomo cameras in the last few years, you just don't have any exposure control.

<End rant mode.>

~Joe

What you need then is a simple plastic lens that will mount on a good quality camera. Lots of the large format folks are using simple plastic meniscus lenses with really interesting results. Shouldn't be too hard to cobble something together inside the gutted barrel of and old lens.

Joe VanCleave · Sep 7, 2012

Roger Cole said:
What you need then is a simple plastic lens that will mount on a good quality camera. Lots of the large format folks are using simple plastic meniscus lenses with really interesting results. Shouldn't be too hard to cobble something together inside the gutted barrel of and old lens.

Good idea, Roger. Actually, I've done some meniscus lens photography on LF, using glass lenses or adapted multi-element lenses like binocular objectives and such, using mainly paper negatives. Lots of fun.

But the appeal to me of these small plastic Lomo cameras is their simplicity, cost and use of multi-exposure rollfilm, for uses like street and documentary photography. Think a film version of Instagram or similar iPhone-style camera app. There are some interesting newer Lomo cameras on the market, like the La Sardina line, metal bodied that look like old sardine cans, with a collapsible lens, and come in various decor. Would make a nice carry-around street shooter with fast film. But once again, exposure control is very limited. You'd think Lomo should come out with an accessory pack of ND filters for all of these cameras. After all, selling accessory goo-gaas and film is part of their branding strategy. Hmm, maybe I should contact them about that idea.

~Joe

wblynch · Sep 7, 2012

Brownie 127 gave darned nice pictures. Those cameras served a generation or two of American families (and other markets as well).

The main limitation was fixed focus, shutter speed and aperture that meant most people used them only in daylight or with flash bulbs.

Many of the models had glass lenses.

You can find old 127 Brownie photos posted on Flickr and see that the results were not crappy, like Lomo, at all.

Roger Cole · Sep 7, 2012

Well if you could adapt a simple lens to something like 6x9 folder with a better shutter and a diaphragm that might be nearly ideal. Small and easy to carry, good build quality, adjustable exposure, funky lens results.

Roger Cole · Sep 7, 2012

wblynch said:
Brownie 127 gave darned nice pictures. Those cameras served a generation or two of American families (and other markets as well).

The main limitation was fixed focus, shutter speed and aperture that meant most people used them only in daylight or with flash bulbs.

Many of the models had glass lenses.

You can find old 127 Brownie photos posted on Flickr and see that the results were not crappy, like Lomo, at all.

Agree. My mother has an old 127 Brownie with which I shot the first film I ever developed.

The lens is rather soft, but it's not like a plastic Holga or the like.

nickrapak · Sep 7, 2012

Wait, how did this go from 110 to 127?

New 110 Camera

bsdunek

Attachments

zsas

nexus757

Diapositivo

bsdunek

Diapositivo

bsdunek

Attachments

Diapositivo

nexus757

removed account4

Diapositivo

bsdunek

rhmimac

Roger Cole

Roger Cole

CGW

Joe VanCleave

cliveh

Roger Cole

Roger Cole

Joe VanCleave

wblynch

Roger Cole

Roger Cole

nickrapak

New 110 Camera

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency