Production span of Kodak 828 "Bantam" film

[MarkS]

Recently I acquired a Kodak "Bantam RF" camera. A beautiful Streamline Moderne device; it's made of Bakelite, mostly, with a 50/3.9 Kodak Anaston lens. It looks to be from the early 1950s and takes size 828 "Bantam" film.
I don't intend to use this lovely artifact, but I was wondering when EK began making this film format, and when they killed it off. IIRC it was paper-backed film 35mm wide, which let you shoot Kodachrome.
I'm sure the camera was discontinued by the time the 126 Instamatics come out in 1963, but how many more years did EK produce 828?

 

[mshchem]

Film sizes and designations - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

camera-wiki.org

Kodak introduced in 1935.

 

[Dirb9]

It looks like Kodak discontinued 828 in 1984-1985, see this contemporary report. I believe the last 828 cameras were made in the early 1960s, so about 20 years after the last camera was made. I wouldn't be surprised if Ilford made 828 as there were a few British 828 cameras in the late 40s-early 50s too.

That Bantam RF is quite stylish, and probably a good performer. Shanghai makes 127 and 220 film, maybe they could start doing 828 or other sizes too...

 

[MattKing]

828 Kodachrome from about 1962 or so.
I'm in the brown jacket in front.
Much of my childhood is recorded on 828 Kodachrome, shot on that very model of camera by my father (also pictured), and most of the slides are still in great shape.

 

[Tel]

I recall (dimly) 828 from the 50s, along with the other formats ending in 28. Somebody in my family was shooting the stuff (I was shooting 127 in my Brownie Starmite) but I'm sure I have some 828 negs in a box my mom left behind. Optimistically, I took a look at Ilford's ULF sale page, but the only roll films listed are 46mm and 70mm. I think I recall them producing more than two sizes in the past, but who knows how long ago that was and what formats they were? And I guess the single-perf-per-frame thing would be enough to prevent most people from using their 828 cameras.

 

[AnselMortensen]

The Traid Fotron camera, sold door-to-door for exorbitant prices, used 828 film factory-loaded into proprietary cartridges to lock customers in to a proprietary processing/printing cycle.
I'm not sure when Traid were active.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

Bantam film was manufactured from 1935-1985 according to this Wikipedia page:

List of photographic film formats - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Paul Howell]

B&H sells respooled Tri X in 828 with paper backing. Not cheap, but those with better cameras within reason, might need to have a negative carrier 3D printed.

 

[MarkS]

Thanks everyone! Just because I was born and raised in Rochester doesn't mean I was paying attention.
The camera I have looks like brand new (as does the case) and there is a sticker inside from a camera shop in Duluth, Minnesota. And If I can actually get film (who would have guessed?) I may have to try a roll.

 

[mshchem]

Not sure if this is the place for this question. A lot of the slides that were sold at tourist spots in the 60's were super slides, 2x2 inch cardboard mounts bigger film size. Was this shot on bulk rolls of unperforated (828) 35mm or something else? Definitely was poorly processed as these didn't keep well.

 

[Paul Howell]

I had a set of Yashica 44s which I used to make supersides on 127 film with was 2X2, I think 828 is more along the size of 125, a square 35mm.

 

[mshchem]

828 Kodachrome from about 1962 or so.
I'm in the brown jacket in front.
Much of my childhood is recorded on 828 Kodachrome, shot on that very model of camera by my father (also pictured), and most of the slides are still in great shape.

That's a terrific picture.

 

[MattKing]

Not sure if this is the place for this question. A lot of the slides that were sold at tourist spots in the 60's were super slides, 2x2 inch cardboard mounts bigger film size. Was this shot on bulk rolls of unperforated (828) 35mm or something else? Definitely was poorly processed as these didn't keep well.

Most likely those were on slide duplicating film. And if they were super slides, they would have been square format and bigger than 828 - 127 film being likely.
My only problem with all the 828 slides I have is that, as the frame is bigger than 135, a 135 dedicated slide copying/digitizing setup doesn't work with them without adjustment or modification.

 

[mshchem]

I had a set of Yashica 44s which I used to make supersides on 127 film with was 2X2, I think 828 is more along the size of 125, a square 35mm.

Aha, yes this is jogging my memory. Thanks!

 

[mshchem]

Most likely those were on slide duplicating film. And if they were super slides, they would have been square format and bigger than 828 - 127 film being likely.
My only problem with all the 828 slides I have is that, as the frame is bigger than 135, a 135 dedicated slide copying/digitizing setup doesn't work with them without adjustment or modification.

Makes sense!

 

[mshchem]

Most likely those were on slide duplicating film. And if they were super slides, they would have been square format and bigger than 828 - 127 film being likely.
My only problem with all the 828 slides I have is that, as the frame is bigger than 135, a 135 dedicated slide copying/digitizing setup doesn't work with them without adjustment or modification.

Is this 46mm?

 

[MattKing]

I had a set of Yashica 44s which I used to make supersides on 127 film with was 2X2, I think 828 is more along the size of 125, a square 35mm.

The standard 828 image format is 40 × 28 mm - a nice step up from 135's 36 x 24 mm.

 

[Paul Howell]

Yeah, doesn't have the sprocket holes for advancing the film, makes full use the films width. I was surprised that it was made as late as 1986.

 

[MattKing]

Is this 46mm?

Yes.
828 has room for the larger short dimension of 28mm because although the stock is the same width as 135 (35mm) there is no need for perforations and less need for space for edge printing.

 

[Roger Cole]

Not sure if this is the place for this question. A lot of the slides that were sold at tourist spots in the 60's were super slides, 2x2 inch cardboard mounts bigger film size. Was this shot on bulk rolls of unperforated (828) 35mm or something else? Definitely was poorly processed as these didn't keep well.

They may have been processed just fine, just shot on the E4 or E3 (depending on time period) Ektachrome of the day. (EDIT: Or as Matt said, and "well duh!" duplicating film.)

Among slides shot in that era only Kodachrome can be expected to still be in good shape (at least of the popular films I'm aware of.)

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

Hey Tel, I moved up from my first camera - a Brownie Starmite! - to a Pony 828 when I was 11. It was my first personal camera with adjustments for aperture, speed, and focus. I shot 828 Verichrome Pan, which I developed and printed myself in parents' darkrooms. I got good results, but with only eight shots on a roll, it wasn't really the most practical camera. Even the old Starmite got 12!

Here's a Pony shot I took of the family dog circa 1967:

 

[Donald Qualls]

I guess the single-perf-per-frame thing would be enough to prevent most people from using their 828 cameras.

I have a Bantam RF and will confirm that it neither needs nor uses the single perf per frame that 828 had. Instead, it has a friction roller (contacting in the "dead" edge where the perfs would have been) that stops film advance.

I think 828 is more along the size of 125, a square 35mm.

Already answered -- most 828 cameras can be made to work with unperfed 35 mm film. In fact, I've fed my Bantam RF with recut 120. Cut to 35 mm width, preserving the 6x4.5 framing track, and the head and tail paper trimmed for length, it just fits on an 828 spool and will give sixteen frames by the green window or, with a Bantam RF, eighteen frames by the advance stop. As long as you have two 828 spools, you can shoot any emulsion available in 120 (and you can cut a 16 mm strip long enough for two short loads for a Minolta or Mamiya 16 from the same roll, and avoid edge markings in your frames).

It seems obvious 126 was derived from 828 -- same 28 mm frame and single perf per frame with paper backing, and the cartridge (perhaps inspired by the Traid ripoff) made loading effortless.

 

[Paul Howell]

My wife used either a Kodak or Rollie 126 with a set of lens. She liked the loading and automation, my only concern was that the cartridge could twist out of alignment if left in a hot car. I think her camera might in be in storage, someday I need to look for it. Unlike 110 I dont think anyone repacks 126.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I had the Kodak branded version of the Zeiss Contaflex 126 briefly back in 1981, but only ever owned one lens for it. Good images for 126, but you'd never mistake them for the best a top quality 35 mm SLR or rangefinder could do -- and they were expensive relative to 126 cameras, but not cheap compared to similarly featured 35 mm SLRs. A product that lacked a real market.

I dont think anyone repacks 126

There are sources for 3D printed cartridges that can be loaded with common 35 mm film, and some folks have managed to open original cassettes carefully enough to reload them (as they do with 110, which is even trickie for both operations). Unfortunately, most of the cameras depend on the film advance stop finger to unlock the double exposure prevention, so getting them to work with unperfed film is a problem, and using them with 6 perfs per 28x28 frame means having to advance, cover lens, and fire the shutter at least three times between frames.

 

[MattKing]

I had the Kodak branded version of the Zeiss Contaflex 126 briefly back in 1981, but only ever owned one lens for it. Good images for 126, but you'd never mistake them for the best a top quality 35 mm SLR or rangefinder could do -- and they were expensive relative to 126 cameras, but not cheap compared to similarly featured 35 mm SLRs. A product that lacked a real market.

By this, do you mean the Instamatic Reflex - the 126 version of the Retina Reflex, and not a Contaflex.