New 110 Camera

[Roger Cole]

Thread creep.

 

[MattKing]

The 127 Ektachrome super slides I shot on my first camera, a Brownie Starmite, projected really well.

 

[wblynch]

It's exciting that there are new 110 films available now!

 

[Diapositivo]

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.

You are right, I wrote 127 and I meant 110. I was surprises those new 110 rolls were pre-flashed with frame boundaries. I actually would be surprised just the same for any format.

 

[nickrapak]

You are right, I wrote 127 and I meant 110. I was surprises those new 110 rolls were pre-flashed with frame boundaries. I actually would be surprised just the same for any format.

All 110 film, even the old rolls, were pre-flashed. I believe it has to do with the cheap meniscus lenses in most 110 cameras. Since the lenses were low-quality, you had a distinct loss of sharpness in the corners; so much that people in tests complained. Instead of using better quality lenses, Kodak put frame boundaries in in order to prevent photofinishers from using the softer edges of the image.

 

[Diapositivo]

All 110 film, even the old rolls, were pre-flashed.

But how could it be possible then that some camera generated 13 x 17 mm and some others 13 x 19 mm? (I must have read this somewhere).

Also that means that Lomography created a 110 square frame cartridge which is not compatible, if I get it right, with all the 110 cameras already existing.

If they had produced a "non pre-flashed" 100 cartridge the same cartridge would work on all cameras.

Thinking about it, this has to do with the "registration pin".

If a 13 x 17 mm camera mounts a 13 x 13 110 cartridge, and it uses the "registration pin" for film advance, the result is going to be a disaster in any case because a 13 x 13 110 cartridge will have its registration pins at a distance slightly above 13mm while a 13 x 17 110 cartridge will have them at a distance slightly superior to 17 mm.

13 x 19 cameras were probably designed to ignore the registration pins, I guess.

 

[bsdunek]

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.

So, what you need is one of these => http://www.amazon.com/Holga-60mm-Le...47132209&sr=8-2&keywords=holga+lens+for+nikon

They are also available for Canon and in other focal lengths.

 

[nickrapak]

But how could it be possible then that some camera generated 13 x 17 mm and some others 13 x 19 mm? (I must have read this somewhere).

Most (if not all) 110 cameras generated 13x19mm images. This is then masked to 13x17.

 

[Arctic amateur]

If a 13 x 17 mm camera mounts a 13 x 13 110 cartridge, and it uses the "registration pin" for film advance, the result is going to be a disaster in any case because a 13 x 13 110 cartridge will have its registration pins at a distance slightly above 13mm while a 13 x 17 110 cartridge will have them at a distance slightly superior to 17 mm.

You're assuming that a cartridge preflashed for 13x13 (if such a thing exists) would have different perforations than a cartridge preflashed for 13x17. As the example photos clearly show, this Diana 110 camera simply puts a 13x13 image in the 13x17 image area. Lomo doesn't make a special kind of 110 film just for this one camera.

 

[Diapositivo]

I see.
So it's the worst of both worlds: image surface is smaller, but number of images per roll is the same.
This must fit well in some way with the Lomography style