New 127 film! (?)

[PerfesserKev]

It seems the newly announced Rollei RPX 25 film will be available in 127 (if B&H's advance listing is to be believed).

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1020629-REG/rollei_agfa_210127_rollei_rpx_25_127.html

The price is kind of painful, but that's what scarcity creates I suppose.

Though I've been happy with my Efke stash, and happy re-rolling special order HP5 (thank you Ilford/Harman!) I do get more dust on the film than I'd like with re-rolling or cutting. It'll be nice to have something clean rolled at least for a while.

 

[jstout]

Twenty bucks is more than kind of painful, ... it's agonizing! Maybe the actual price will be different. I would be buying some for my Baby Grey.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Well, when you're the only game in town you can squeeze the gonads just a little harder. That being said, I will probably buy a few rolls if I hear good things about this film. I would never mess with it if I had a plastic piece of junk, but if I had a Baby Rollei, Yashica 44 or the little Topcon version it would be a different story. If you want the plastic Holga effect then just go with a cheap 120 box camera and you'll save money on film. I have a little Zeiss Icarette mod. 500/12 with a fantastic 75mm f4.5 Tessar in a sync'd Cumpur shutter that I will never part with. Folded it's the same size as a pack of cigarettes(if you remember how big that was) only slightly longer and spits out a negative about identical to the 645 format. Now that camera deserves a good film and some of this might be worth a try. JohnW

 

[BradS]

ISO 25 film ??? Totally useless in the 127 cameras I have...

 

[JW PHOTO]

ISO 25 film ??? Totally useless in the 127 cameras I have...

I understand, but some of us could use it. I have Efke R100 in mine right now and think ISO 100 would be better, but I'll take whatever they give us since it's better then no 127 at all. JohnW

 

[Nick Merritt]

What's this about special order HP5 in 127??

 

[railwayman3]

That is expensive ! But having seen the equipment and skill at Ilford needed to produce quality 120 roll film in quantity, I can understand that the small special orders for 127 are going to take time and effort to make, with possible much more handling costs. Another small point is that 127 spools are a neat bit of precision metalwork, not a plastic moulding which can be produced in quantity relatively cheaply once the original moulds are made.

 

[railwayman3]

What's this about special order HP5 in 127??

Wasn't it a run of 46mm bulk film, for users to cut and pack with their own backing papers and 127 spools?

 

[Xmas]

The market for mono 220 is probably larger than 127. But needs new/different machinery, though same plastic spools.

The last of the 220 Trix was not cheap, winding off 24 during a wedding real convenient, alas a memory.

 

[pentaxuser]

ISO 25 film ??? Totally useless in the 127 cameras I have...

If it's useless in Sonora just try ISO 25 in a 127 camera in the North of Scotland from say November to March In fact try it anywhere in the U.K. or most if not all of N Europe

On a more serious note it is incredible that given the simplicity of most 127s and the shutter speed, a maker in Europe would decide to make its first 127 in ISO 25. My wife had a Kodak Brownie 127 and with 400 film in Summer it would just about manage bright conditions photography but ISO25......:confused:

pentaxuser

 

[BradS]

Exactly...my plastic fantastic 127 camera has one shutter speed and two aperture settings (Color and B&W ). Even with Efke R100, it is really only useful outdoors in pretty good sun. I cannot imagine why they would go to the expense and effort to produce a new ISO25 film in an orphan size....why not at least go with an ISO 100 film???? Epic fail.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Most of the better named box cameras had a two speed shutter. What I mean by "two speed" is Timed and Instant, with "timed" being the same as "bulb" or "timed" on a modern camera. So, ISO25 film is more than likely a "Timed" shutter setting film in dim lighting. Set it on a rock or tripod, whichever you have handy! Not very good for kiddie-pet pictures or basket ball games, but useable for landscapes and portraits(if your subject is dead still or better yet, dead ). ISO 200 would be a nice speed! JohnW

 

[PerfesserKev]

This will be Rollei's fourth 127 film and second in B/W. They had a run a couple years ago of the 80S in 127, and it was nice. Only $12/roll! I liked the Efke 100 better because the R80S was too red sensitive for natural skin tones, but it was great to have a second choice.

Part of the reasoning for producing it in 127 may be related to where it is being produced. Hard to say. It could also be that ISO 25 is a perfect Sunny 16 match for a Brownie's native exposure of 1/50 @ f/11 in bright sun. ISO 25 is probably period accurate for most of the old bakelite cameras.

I think this would be fabulous in a Baby Rollei or Yashica 44. Decent lenses to take advantage of the resolution. I use 127 in a couple Nagel folders, and though the lenses are good, they aren't coated. One is a Tessar, they all flare unappealingly when aimed at the sun. Another a Schneider Radionar triplet -- not as much flare, but softer in the corners. They are both zone focus. That adds up to not much need for great resolution on the film. I'd LOVE to see inexpensive film for them, my box brownie and my Eastman Bullet. And at $20/roll that makes a full-frame 127 shot cost $2.50 before development.

That said, I'll buy some and shoot carefully.

The HP5 is indeed from a 50' roll of 46mm un-perforated film ordered in the June custom order. If in the U.S. Freestyle will sell it. Look on the Ilford/Harman site for other vendors. It requires cutting it in the dark and rolling it onto used backing paper and spools. It goes OK, though Murphy plants a speck of ambient dust right on the nose of each roll's best negative. That makes black spots that are darkroom unfriendly. I'd rather have factory rolled film.

 

[PerfesserKev]

For those wanting to know more about the HP5 re-rolling, here's the 2013 announcement. Watch in May for the 2014 announcement: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/page.asp?n=137

And here are some quick deets on the task of rerolling:

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/Publications/Re-spooling 127 film.pdf

 

[pentaxuser]

Part of the reasoning for producing it in 127 may be related to where it is being produced. Hard to say. It could also be that ISO 25 is a perfect Sunny 16 match for a Brownie's native exposure of 1/50 @ f/11 in bright sun. ISO 25 is probably period accurate for most of the old bakelite cameras.

Did you have somewhere in mind where ISO25 is a perfect sunny F16 match for the brownie's native exposure of 1/50 @ f/11? It doesn't seem to be a match for Sonora in California according to a resident there and at all latitudes in the U.K and elsewhere in N Europe at similar latitudes( about 20 degrees North of Sonora) 1/25th in bright sun and no filters may just about be possible. However the number of days on which these conditions exist are small. So at best ISO 25 is just about OK for a very small percentage of days and times(10am - 3pm) on those days.

I can only assume that having taken the decision to make a ISO 25 film the 127 is an adaptation of this film in 120 that might make economic sense at these very high prices if the volumes can be reached.

Starting with a clean slate for 127 films I'd be amazed if ISO 25 would be the chosen speed if a best speed had to be chosen.

Given the investment needed to produce a 127 line I wonder how much cheaper it is to use the new ISO 25 rather than give the new 127 line over occasionally to slitting faster speed film and putting it onto 127 rolls?

Maybe the work involved even in producing a 127 in the ISO 25 film is in fact a loss leader, even at the high prices quoted but from a marketing aspect it is believed that the kudos earned will translate into bigger business overall and be worth the expense

pentaxuser

 

[GRHazelton]

OMG, the price! My Komaflex S needs shutter work, which for a leaf-shutter single lens reflex is COSTLY! Pity, the lens is a quite good f2.8, so with a tripod the 25 ASA wouldn't be any real problem. Arrgh!

 

[PerfesserKev]

>Did you have somewhere in mind where ISO25 is a perfect sunny F16 match for the brownie's native exposure of 1/50 @ f/11? It doesn't seem to be a match for Sonora in California according to a resident there and at all latitudes in the U.K and elsewhere in N Europe at similar latitudes( about 20 degrees North of Sonora) 1/25th in bright sun and no filters may just about be possible. However the number of days on which these conditions exist are small. So at best ISO 25 is just about OK for a very small percentage of days and times(10am - 3pm) on those days.

I've used Sunny 16 with modern cameras and slide film everywhere from here in Colorado, to northern Mali, to bogs in Tierra del Fuego (about as south as you are north) with good result. Of course it depends on lighting conditions and some places have fewer sunny days than we do here. But my thought is mostly that in 1937 when my Bullet was made, for example, ASA 25 was pretty fast film. Surely these old cameras were designed around the film available at the time, not the array we have. And the assumption was that the fixed exposure was flexible enough. But maybe I'm wrong. What was the speed of the ortho Verichrome from then anyway? 25? or 50?

The reason I was speculating on where the film being made having an influence on what they release as 127 is that perhaps it is being coated somewhere that has infrastructure to make and roll the 127 spools whereas the 100 and 400 (and others) do not. Just a wild speculation. Surely they won't be doing it by hand.

I like the loss leader idea. Making 127 film makes me a fan!

And in the end the only reference I've seen to this film in 127 is on the B&H site. Could be a mistake.

 

[gone]

I would recommend a good hood for your lenses PK. In my experience, that's where flare comes from, not whether or not the lens is uncoated. A triplet can be bitingly sharp in the center, where all the action usually is, but you need to stop them down to at least f11. A yellow filter will give you a nice contrast boost too.

This would have been an appealing film if it were at least twice the ISO and half the price. If I'm not mistaken, someone on the web sells 127 film at a somewhat better price. Shoot 4 rolls and spend $80 for film (plus shipping I assume)? Just can't see it.

 

[tjaded]

According to my sources, it is the RPX 100 that will be available in 127. RPX 25 will be 35mm & 120.

 

[JW PHOTO]

According to my sources, it is the RPX 100 that will be available in 127. RPX 25 will be 35mm & 120.

Where did you get that info from?

 

[tjaded]

The U.S. Distributor

 

[JW PHOTO]

The U.S. Distributor

If that's true then it's surely a better match for most 127 cameras. We'll just have to wait and see!

 

[BradS]

According to my sources, it is the RPX 100 that will be available in 127.

I sincerely hope that is the case!

 

[PerfesserKev]

RPX100 would be much more flexible indeed! And hopefully the $20 is for a pair of rolls...

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello,

I've talked about that topic directly with the CEO of the Maco Photo Division, and he said it is an mistake made by B&H.
RPX 25 will not be available in 127 format, but in 135 and 120 format.

Concerning 127 in general:
There is a project in Europe evaluating a new finishing / confectioning line for 127 film. But it is much too early for any statements.
We have to wait and be patient.

Best regards,
Henning