The best film camera money can buy?

[StoneNYC]

I admittedly had to look it up... I've never heard of this camera hehe, I've also never seen one before...

The picture I pulled up from google is this.. .http://dnok91peocsw3.cloudfront.net/inspiration/143026-612x612-1.png

Why does it have 35mm and 127? next to it? isn't it a 110 camera?

Also.... why would more good photo's come from this camera? just because of the sheer number of shots taken with it? I can't imagine110 film delivering images you could blow up very big.

 

[MattKing]

It is the classic 126 camera - square negatives or slides.

Probably the largest selling camera ever, and just about foolproof to use in almost all typical situations.

A camera doesn't have to yield images that "blow up very big" in order to create good or even great photographs.

See this link: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Instamatic_104

 

[StoneNYC]

It is the classic 126 camera - square negatives or slides.

Probably the largest selling camera ever, and just about foolproof to use in almost all typical situations.

A camera doesn't have to yield images that "blow up very big" in order to create good or even great photographs.

See this link: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Instamatic_104

Oh 126! Ok those images aren't as bad as 110 then being 35mm so it's just up to the plastic lenses then


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[removed account4]

when we were kids we had one of these
http://www.ebay.com/itm/KOOKIE-KAME...839?pt=US_Vintage_Cameras&hash=item27cded26ff
best camera ever made ...

 

[StoneNYC]

It is the classic 126 camera - square negatives or slides.

Probably the largest selling camera ever, and just about foolproof to use in almost all typical situations.

A camera doesn't have to yield images that "blow up very big" in order to create good or even great photographs.

See this link: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Instamatic_104

Yes I know but that's like saying Advantix could make nice images...

PE and I went back and forth on this, I forgot to mention to him that I took a roll and shot it recently to prove myself wrong and him right, let me tell you the images are TERRIBLE but I'm going to take my scanner soon and instead of lab scans I'll scan them myself and see if they are any better, but even the 5x7's from the lab look TERRIBLE and I would never use them for anything. So I can't imagine 110 much different, I had a 110 camera as a kid and I've looked at those too and they look the same, all blotchy and "pixelated" it's just terrible. Haha

I admit they didn't make as many good films for those systems as they did for 35mm but damn it's bad LOL

So, I agree to a point but even my 1.2 megapixel digital camera looks better than those advantix shots.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yashinoff]

Virginia Schau won the pulitzer prize for photography with a photo taken with a Brownie box camera. So...

 

[Paul Howell]

Yes I know but that's like saying Advantix could make nice images...

PE and I went back and forth on this, I forgot to mention to him that I took a roll and shot it recently to prove myself wrong and him right, let me tell you the images are TERRIBLE but I'm going to take my scanner soon and instead of lab scans I'll scan them myself and see if they are any better, but even the 5x7's from the lab look TERRIBLE and I would never use them for anything. So I can't imagine 110 much different, I had a 110 camera as a kid and I've looked at those too and they look the same, all blotchy and "pixelated" it's just terrible. Haha

I admit they didn't make as many good films for those systems as they did for 35mm but damn it's bad LOL

So, I agree to a point but even my 1.2 megapixel digital camera looks better than those advantix shots.



126 is not in the same catagory as 110 or Advantix, it was about the same size as 135mm just square and Nikon and Kodak made decent 126 SLRs. Kodak made a few higher end fixed lens 126 cameras with good lens. I always though the flaw was the plastic cassesstt which could distort in hot weather.

 

[PentaxBronica]

I recall reading that the main problem with 110 film was that the cartridge didn't hold it flat enough? With the usual cheap 110 cameras (anyone else have one which was barely bigger than the cartridge itself? I see the Lomo company have got hold of the tooling for them now) this didn't make a lot of difference. Pentax and Minolta made SLRs for the format though, the 18mm and 50mm lenses for the Pentax apparently stack up very well indeed.

In all honesty the price of a good 35mm SLR is now so low that the only reason for using cheap old cameras is, well, if you enjoy using them!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I notice the Seller hasn't demonstrated or qualified is airy remarks with examples.
These novelty cameras using film that is all but extinct can be found in flea markets for about $20, dumped by owners who don't quite know of or appreciate the early pedigree.

 

[cliveh]

I must admit that although I own about 10 beautiful cameras, their are two I would still like to own, but would probably not use very much. One is a Reid & Sigrist and the other is a Zeiss Bulls Eye.

 

[Yashinoff]

126 is not in the same catagory as 110 or Advantix, it was about the same size as 135mm just square and Nikon and Kodak made decent 126 SLRs. Kodak made a few higher end fixed lens 126 cameras with good lens. I always though the flaw was the plastic cassesstt which could distort in hot weather.

Nikon made a 126 SLR? I know Ricoh did, and so did Zeiss Ikon and Rollei.

 

[MattKing]

126 had the same problem with film flatness as 110.

But folks, it isn't the camera that makes good photographs!

I have seen an absolutely fabulous poster sized (30" x 40"?) print from disk film and a basic Kodak disk camera.

 

[Yashinoff]

I have seen an absolutely fabulous poster sized (30" x 40"?) print from disk film and a basic Kodak disk camera.

Of what? Grain and blur?

 

[MattKing]

Of what? Grain and blur?

Of someone who worked for Kodak Canada. It had been taken a couple of years previously when he was clowning around with some friends. It was presented to a crowd of several hundred at his surprise retirement party - after he had worked for almost 50 years for Kodak Canada.

For many years early in his career, he was known as "Mr. Kodak" in Western Canada, because he was the only Kodak representative in the western half of our country.

It was presented to the room by the president of the company, who did acknowledge that the print had required some fairly careful work at Eastman Kodak's labs in Rochester. The image information was there though in the negative and was retrievable with reasonably skilful and careful work.

This was all before digital.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]

This was all before digital.

Then what happened ...?

 

[MattKing]

Then what happened ...?

By that, I meant that this was before there were digital techniques available to "enhance" the results - about 1984, I would guess.

 

[StoneNYC]

By that, I meant that this was before there were digital techniques available to "enhance" the results - about 1984, I would guess.

Still, you could probably duplicate it onto a larger piece of film and then print that image, giving you a finer grain look than the original image even if it didn't actually increase the quality at all, it would "appear" to be a finer grain than the reality of it all ... basically, old school extrapolation

 

[Yashinoff]

Still, you could probably duplicate it onto a larger piece of film and then print that image, giving you a finer grain look than the original image even if it didn't actually increase the quality at all, it would "appear" to be a finer grain than the reality of it all ... basically, old school extrapolation

It would probably have to be done something like that. You would have to have an extremely contrasty negative to make a print that large directly enlarging from the original negative too.

 

[Someonenameddavid]

I was working photo retail when the disk camera came out and all the salesmen preordereda personal employee discount one: until we saw the real life photos and then we let other people buy the cameras. No problem with film flatness though. Crappy lenses and grainy film just like most Kodak consumer stuff.

 

[Paul Howell]

Nikon made a 126 SLR? I know Ricoh did, and so did Zeiss Ikon and Rollei.

My bad, I was thinking of the Zeiss or Rollei.

 

[elekm]

Zeiss Ikon had a couple of 126 cameras. One was a very simple point and click model with a Frontar lens, while another is the more complex "Contaflex 126" -- an SLR with a cloth focal-plane shutter and interchangeable lenses. You can argue easily that the Carl Zeiss-branded lenses were much better than the body.

Rollei had the Rollei A26, which was a push-pull affair similar to the A110/E110 cameras. The A26 has a scale-focus Sonnar lens and a bolt-on flash unit with a sealed rechargeable battery.

The Rolleiflex SL26 is a compact SLR with interchangeable Pro-Tessar front elements (akin to the Zeis Ikon Contaflex 35mm SLRs). It has a Synchro-Compur leaf shutter with match-needle manual exposure.

The camera packs a frightening large number of gears and components into a small body, all just begging for some kind of breakdown.

I think that the Rolleiflex SL26 is the best of the four that I mention here, and the A26 isn't too far behind. I'd really like to test the Contaflex 126, but I've given up on trying to find a working body.

 

[StoneNYC]

Zeiss Ikon had a couple of 126 cameras. One was a very simple point and click model with a Frontar lens, while another is the more complex "Contaflex 126" -- an SLR with a cloth focal-plane shutter and interchangeable lenses. You can argue easily that the Carl Zeiss-branded lenses were much better than the body.

Rollei had the Rollei A26, which was a push-pull affair similar to the A110/E110 cameras. The A26 has a scale-focus Sonnar lens and a bolt-on flash unit with a sealed rechargeable battery.

The Rolleiflex SL26 is a compact SLR with interchangeable Pro-Tessar front elements (akin to the Zeis Ikon Contaflex 35mm SLRs). It has a Synchro-Compur leaf shutter with match-needle manual exposure.

The camera packs a frightening large number of gears and components into a small body, all just begging for some kind of breakdown.

I think that the Rolleiflex SL26 is the best of the four that I mention here, and the A26 isn't too far behind. I'd really like to test the Contaflex 126, but I've given up on trying to find a working body.

You mention finding a working body? Are you saying its easy to get 126 film?


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GarageBoy]

The Contarex...
Beautiful lenses attached to a klunky hunk of a camera

Annoying meter interlock on the bullseyes (it doesn't let you choose EVs out of it's metering range), heavy, bulky, not reliable, takes 5 PhDs and a Swiss watchmaker to repair/overhaul
Does look pretty, though

 

[elekm]

I still have some 126 that I bought several years ago. And I've given some thought to refilling a 126 cartridge with 35mm using this method.

 

[StoneNYC]

I still have some 126 that I bought several years ago. And I've given some thought to refilling a 126 cartridge with 35mm using this method.

Seems simple enough.

I like image perforations sometimes so I would donut but have no 126 nor a camera... working on a 127 right now since I have a roll in my freezer lol


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk