What camera would have made 4cm x 3cm negatives in the mid to late 20’s?

[bugbugbug]

Going through my grandparents pictures I’ve come across several small contact prints made from un-perforated film negatives of about 4cm x 3cm.

The subject matter suggests that they were taken in Montana sometime in the mid to late 1920s.

So, here’s the question: What camera was available in the U.S. at that time that took the small format negatives on what I assume would be 127 roll film.

Thanks for any help on this.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

The 828 format uses the same basic film stock as 135 film (standard 35mm film), but the film lacks the sprocket holes of 135. The standard image format is 40 × 28 mm.

It was introduced in 1935.

 

[bugbugbug]

The 828 format uses the same basic film stock as 135 film (standard 35mm film), but the film lacks the sprocket holes of 135. The standard image format is 40 × 28 mm.

It was introduced in 1935.

These photos appear to be from before the introduction of 828, (judging from the cars and clothing). Also, the 828 cut negatives that I've seen do have one hole in them that indexed the film each shot, much like the later Instamatic film. These negatives have no holes on the edge and appear to be about half the size of a typical Vest Pocket Kodak negative.

 

[jeffreythree]

Univex #00 probably. Basically unperforated 35mm in a proprietary 6 shot roll format for their cameras. They sold a lot of cheap cameras to make money off those proprietary short rolls and the processing.

 

[bergytone]

I just shot a test roll on a Zeiss Ikon Baby Box Tengor. It uses 127 film but shoots in a 3 x 4cm format. You get a whopping 16 shots on a standard 127 roll. The baby Tengor was made starting in 1930, so it could fit the timeframe. Maybe you can report on the image quality.. that might help determine what camera might have been used. The little Zeiss is typical of a meniscus lens, sharp in the middle, blurry at the edges.

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

If the long side of the negative runs parallel to the edge of the film strip, it is likely 00. If the short edge does so, it is likely 127.