Help with the use of an old camera

By the way: Kodak tried to replicate that success later, introducing yet another format, 110.

Didn't turn out quite as well as 126.

126 was not meant to standardize things, but to bring the old slogan back to life: you push the button, we do the rest.

It was a very great succes. Enormous.

But not meant per sé to end the plethora of different film formats.

 

By that time, simple cameras were available in a large number of formats,

though a few were more common than others. Traditional roll film cameras

weren't so hard to load and use, but it was still possible to do it wrong.

 

With 126, there is pretty much no way to get it wrong. It won't go in

upside down or backwards. Also, 126 cameras commonly had double

exposure prevention, something easy to get wrong on previous roll

film cameras.

 

While roll films were common for ordinary users, loading 35mm cameras

was considered too hard. Only experts could do it reliably.

(Including checking that the rewind knob moves.)

 

It does seem to me that 126 got many people away from using

simple cameras with 127, 620, 120, 116, and 616 film.

 

The Canon AE-1 managed to sell many on the SLR and 35mm film,

who previously might not have thought they could do it. Also, about the

same time, simpler 35mm cameras came out, including ones with

no settings at all. (Fixed shutter speed, aperture, and focus.)

 

I am not so sure why people could suddenly do it then, but

couldn't do it earlier.

Unless I'm mistaken, someone made a sophisticated 126 camera - can't recall the manufacturer. Anyone remember?

Were you thinking about the Rolleiflex SL26

 

Interchangeable lens systems were also found on:

 

> Kodak Instamatic Reflex

 

> Contaflex 126

 

I think those three, are the only three.

 

WW

Were you thinking about the Rolleiflex SL26

 

Interchangeable lens systems were also found on:

 

> Kodak Instamatic Reflex

 

> Contaflex 126

 

I think those three, are the only three.

 

WW

Got it in one! The Rollei is the one I remembered.

I think the Rolleiflex was the most noted/talked about at the time: that's the one I remembered instantly when you made the comment.

I also remembered that Kodak made a 126 format camera that had interchangeable lenses.

 

When I went searching for the Rollei's correct nomenclature I came across the Contaflex. Cursory research reveals they are probably the only three.

 

WW

A bit more here:

 

126 cameras with quality – Italian Film Photography

 

Pentax made a very nice 110 ILC.

Ricoh made a 126 SLR with interchangeable lenses, the Ricoh 126C-Flex TLS, based on the 35mm TLS. I saw one on the auction site the other day but didn't bid as it had bits missing.

Unless I'm mistaken, someone made a sophisticated 126 camera - can't recall the manufacturer. Anyone remember?

There were also a couple of more sophisticated cameras for 110 film. Both Pentax & Minolta made interchangeable lens systems for the format.

 

I use the lenses from my Pentax auto110 on digital, the tiny 24mm/2.8 (only 12.7g) is great fun and nearly covers APSC. The 18mm/2.8 vignettes badly on APSC but covers MFT and at under 30g is also a pretty small lens. Their quality is far more than would have been needed for the 110 film I used briefly back in the day. The body has an excellent viewfinder but the quality of 110 film is not enough to tempt me into shooting film with it today.

One small addition. Before opening the camera to load it with film, look at the red windows to check that the buyer wasn't so kind as to have already loaded a roll!

 

Also, it looks like this is the type of folding camera where you have to slide the front standard into position yourself, as opposed to a 'self-errecting' design where it unfolds when you open the camera.

 

Try squeezing the two chrome pins together under the lens and pulling. The front standard with lens and shutter should slide forward and click into place, extending the bellows. There may be several marked positions along the rails for focussing.

 

There may already be an exposed film in the camera , if so rewind and try developing it , you may just get something interesting.

There may already be an exposed film in the camera , if so rewind and try developing it , you may just get something interesting.

p.s.

 

My Bad , My Bad.

It is probably not necessary to rewind , I last used a roll-film camera when I was about 12 years old :D :D :D.

Cheers.

Talking of the various film formats, when I was doing my own darkroom work, I could never understand why many cameras produced negatives of a 2:3 ratio, or else square, wheras the vast majority of papers, certainly from Agfa, Ilford or Kodak, were around the 4:5 ratio (10x8, 20x16, etc) - the closest to a full 35mm neg which I can recall was the en-print (3 1/2 inches by 5 1/2 inches, or 7:11 ratio), which meant either some of the original negative could not be printed, or else after printing the unused portion of the paper had to be trimmed off. I know the 'better' enlarging easels had adjustable arms, so that the paper was held flat and any margins could be individually selected.. Apologies if this has been covered before, but was there any reason or rationale behind this apparent discrepancy ?

Talking of the various film formats, when I was doing my own darkroom work, I could never understand why many cameras produced negatives of a 2:3 ratio, or else square, wheras the vast majority of papers, certainly from Agfa, Ilford or Kodak, were around the 4:5 ratio (10x8, 20x16, etc) - the closest to a full 35mm neg which I can recall was the en-print (3 1/2 inches by 5 1/2 inches, or 7:11 ratio), which meant either some of the original negative could not be printed, or else after printing the unused portion of the paper had to be trimmed off. I know the 'better' enlarging easels had adjustable arms, so that the paper was held flat and any margins could be individually selected.. Apologies if this has been covered before, but was there any reason or rationale behind this apparent discrepancy ?

The 2:3 aspect ratio for 35 mm was a decision made by Leica, I think, to increase the quality of 35 mm negatives. The standard aspect ratio for 35 mm movie film was 4:3 (1/2 the size of a Leica negative) until after WW II when movies began to compete with television and went to wide screen formats and color film. The paper sizes were set earlier when 4x5 and 8x10 cameras predominated so the aspect ratios of film sizes and paper sizes were closer.

The 2:3 aspect ratio for 35 mm was a decision made by Leica, I think, to increase the quality of 35 mm negatives. The standard aspect ratio for 35 mm movie film was 4:3 (1/2 the size of a Leica negative) until after WW II when movies began to compete with television and went to wide screen formats and color film. The paper sizes were set earlier when 4x5 and 8x10 cameras predominated so the aspect ratios of film sizes and paper sizes were closer.

 

Many thanks, @AJG - that explains things perfectly, except why paper sizes were not changed to fit in with the changed negative ratios !

Many thanks, @AJG - that explains things perfectly, except why paper sizes were not changed to fit in with the changed negative ratios !

It's interesting to me that the paper manufacturers thought that 35 mm photographers would be happy to crop their images to fit the paper, but in my experience the larger the piece of film that photographers use the more carefully they frame in the camera to get exactly what they want in the final picture and no more. Most of my students, when presented with 4 blade easels that easily enable printing the full frame without cropping, aren't interested in the extra effort and continue to print with regular 8x10 single size easels. I'm not sure why that is but my comment is based on 20 years of teaching experience.

I am not sure it is the real reason, but it seems that the standard frame sizes, like 5x7 and 8x10, are designed such that with an appropriate width matte, the picture shape has the golden ratio.

 

At one point, some were making prints and frames in 7x10, which is close.

 

Can't really blame it on Leica, as the roll film formats from years earlier have 3:2 ratio.

 

120 backing paper is numbered for 8, 12, or 16 shots per roll, for 3:2, 1:1, or 3:4.

Conveniently 2, 3, or 4 frames, respectively, fit in a slot of the usual negative holder sheet.