Another 110 presentation - Canon 110ED 20

I recently posted a thread about the Kodak Trimlite 48 and was impressed with

the quality of the images it captured. I have been out with my Canon 110ED 20

recently, so I thought I would share some results with those who have an

interest in the 110 format.

 

I have concluded that the Canon produces some of the finest results obtainable

from the 110 format and has the edge over the Kodak f2.7 lens - just.

 

here are the links:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5095262,

http://www.photo.net/photo/5095272,

http://www.photo.net/photo/5095275,

http://www.photo.net/photo/5095276,

http://www.photo.net/photo/5095277,

http://www.photo.net/photo/5095279,

http://www.photo.net/photo/5095281

 

I just wish that cameras such as this were as cheap and easily available as

they are now 25 years ago. My 110 efforts back then rendered my friends and

families faces as coloured smears due to the cheap lens installed (Kodak Ektra

250). The Canon is in rotation with my 35mm gear and I have full confidence in

it.

 

Ian

Wow.

The Canon 110ED is beautifully built inside, almost all metal. The iris is a bit prone to gumming up. I'm shooting a first roll of Walgreen's (Agfa) film in mine. I'm not sure that the RF will be accurate, I messed with it's adjustment looking for the vertical adjustment. (The latter is in the hole in the film chamber.)

 

They aren't all that rare, but that close-up adapter Ian has sure is.

 

If the results are promising, but the RF messed up, I may seek a 110ED 20 to replace it.

 

What's surprising is that it weighs more than an Olympus XA, or your typical Olympus Stylus Zoom. All that metal makes it very heavy. Not really smaller, either. That's what killed 110, the really small plastic 35mm cameras. Well, that and that Kodacolor II really wasn't up to the challenge, but today's films are. (The Kodachrome and Ektachrome 110 films were apparently much better than the Kodacolor II, but nobody wanted slides.)

 

Realize that the 110 negative frame is only 1mm smaller in each dimension than the 4/3 system.

Impressive! Well, that just goes to show what good optics (and a good eye) will do for you. I know that when I shot with my Minolta 110 cameras, I had excellent results, too. Of course, it's always been that way -- a 126 camera with good optics (Instamatic Reflex, or one of those Rolleis) made the best use of that format. Meanwhile millions of basic instamatic box cameras took millions of arguably crappy shots that the snapshot user were generally happy with; to be replaced by millions of disposable cameras (with better optics), etc...

Very impressive - I have a Pentax 110 waiting for a service shutter/aperture blade clean etc - how do you rate them in comparison?

 

Nick

John-

 

You mention the iris problem. Is it that it sticks at f16 whatever aperture you select? If so, I have found that the linkage can jump out of the slot that links the aperture select knob to the actual aperture. kind of fiddly to put back but not impossible...

 

If you focus on infinity and then set the rangefinder screws, the focusing should be near as correct as possible.

 

On a sad note, I was told that Fuji have just stopped making 110 film. Time to stock up and freeze 110 fans!

 

I do wish that I could get some slide film - there is a wonderful 110 projector at the camera stall on the market. A fine Autumn day, some Fuji slide film and my Canon 110 - I can dream can't I?

 

Ian

Hi Nick,

 

Just to answer - the Pentax has a wider range of focal lengths, but I have found that they are perhaps not as good optically as the Canon and Kodak rangefinders, however I hear that there is sample variance, and if you get a good one they can be very good. Mine are not so good (I have 2).

 

I would be very interested to see results from yours when it is serviced - mine have never had this luxury.

 

Cheers-Ian

Great photographs...the last 2 in particular are striking.

I am pretty impressed with my 110 ED. The only thing that got me the last time was a slight overexposure issue. Is there a way to fix that? Walmart did an ok job to scan the 110 fil strip.

Hi Ian,

I'm excited to see your sample pictures because I just acquired a 110 ED20 and am currently putting a roll of Kodak 400 through it. I also have another ED20 on the way as well as a Kodak Instamatic 60. How does the Instamatic 60 compare to the 110 ED20? I love the way the 110 ED20 has such a quality feel, and has so much built into it in terms of features and capability, and am looking forward to putting it to a lot of use. Your photos are very encouraging and beautiful to view. I replied in your last post that I had a Minolta 460Tx and a Vivitar 110, but since reading so much about the Canon, I've become very interested in the 110 format as executed by top-tier 110 cameras. Thanks for the sample photos.

 

Andy

Fantastic work Ian. I think the ED 20 must have been the top of the heap as far as 110 goes. The big suprise to me was that no one provided full manual control of shutter speed and apature on any 110 I am aware of. The full auto exposure craze just took over and made me wonder if any of the camera designers were photographers.

To answer questions - Ralf, if you use 200 speed film, then the overexposure issue should not arise as the camera will expose within the latitude of the film, however if you use Kodak film (400) you will get overexposure. If you do not have the 400 film speed compatible 110ED 20, then place a 2-stop ND filter over the lens. If you are using 200 film, then you may have a camera fault.

Andy, the Kodak 60 is indeed a fine camera, however the results should be the same as those for the Trimlite 48 I posted previously (same Ektar lens). When you use your 60, please do check the protective lens front coated filter with a torch - if you have any 'film' on the inside it must be cleaned off to get best results. If there is any contamination, your shots will have a misty, low contrast look. Cleaning the filter means dismantling the camera (tricky but do-able). I can offer some help with this if needed.

 

Anyway, glad you liked the results!

 

Ian

Hi fellow 110 lovers. I've used both the Pocket Instamatic 60 and ED-20, and can say without hesitation that they're both just plain great. Another excellent Kodak 110 (which unfortunately looks and feels cheap and plastic-ey) is the Ektramax. Its f/1/9 Ektar lens has one aspheric element, and it took better night shots in Rome than did my excellent 35mm Konica Big Mini. The Ektramax, however, has minimal controls, and the flash didn't work in all three of the units that I've seen. But if you can get an Ektramax for cheap (as you might, since it looks pretty cheap), you'll probably be amazed by its performance!

 

Sincerely,

 

Dave

<blockquote><hr><i>I have concluded that the Canon produces some of the finest results obtainable from the 110 format and has the edge over the Kodak f2.7 lens - just.</i><hr></blockquote>

 

I have one of those Canons, but I haven't used it yet (so many cameras, and only ten days to a week... :)

<p>

However, I don't believe that it is possible, with the current state of the art (retrograde as it is) to know one way or the other which lens is better -- the Canon, or the Ektar.

<p>

I have Kodachromes that I shot with my Pocket 60 some decades back, which I not too long ago turned up again. I projected them onto a fairly large white card, to something greater than 11x14 proportions, and the images were stunning. Razor sharp, grainless, and clearly capable of much greater enlargement.

<p>

Unfortunatly, there is <i>no</i> film on the market today (particularly in the restricted selection available in 110 format) that comes even close to the resolution that "old" technology Kodachrome delivered.

<p>

About the only thing we can definitively know <I>today</I> is that both of these fine lenses are capable of outperforming any currently available emulsion.

<p>

It would be nice if Dwayne's would process hand-slit "reloads" of Kodachrome, so that we could get a real taste of what this format is capable of delivering with top notch optics. (It would be nicer still if Kodak were to pull a few cases of bricks out of the "salt mine" and put them up for sale.)

<i>Unfortunatly, there is no film on the market today (particularly in the restricted selection available in 110 format) that comes even close to the resolution that "old" technology Kodachrome delivered.</i>

 

<p>There are a number of E-6 films available today that exceed the image quality of Kodachrome 64. None are available in 110.

 

<p><i>About the only thing we can definitively know today is that both of these fine lenses are capable of outperforming any currently available emulsion.</i>

 

<p>This has been the problem with the 110 format since the day it came out. Kodachrome could take full advantage of the very good lenses in the top cameras. But 110 was a snapshooter's format with delusions of grandeur. When used with Kodacolor II, even small prints were grainy and disappointing. Prints were what nearly all 110 users wanted, so once compact 35mm cameras came out there was no longer any need for 110. The compact 35mm cameras provided much better prints and weren't much bulkier than 110.

 

<p>But as you note, Kodachrome slides could be projected on a large screen and look very sharp and snappy. I have thousands of them myself, and have 8x10 prints of a few of them hanging on my wall (my 4000dpi scanner doesn't have enough resolution for larger prints). The problem was that you needed a special projector to get those results. You could project them in a regular Carousel with 50x50mm plastic adapters, but the distance required to get the necessary magnification made them dim and disappointing on the screen. Snapshooters wanted prints, and the serious photographers who preferred slides didn't want to deal with a special projector and slides in mounts too small to handle or view comfortably on a light box. The amazing thing is that slide film was available for ten years.

 

<p>With the extremely limited range of films currently available in 110, I'm afraid that there's really little use for even the best 110 cameras. Getting good prints of scans from overexposed Gold 400 negatives is a daunting challenge. Unless someone could find a way to slit and perforate some Provia 100 or Velvia 100 and put an appropriate neutral density filter over the lens?

<blockquote><hr><i>

There are a number of E-6 films available today that exceed the image quality of Kodachrome 64.

</i><hr></blockquote>

 

On paper, sure. But on film, Kodachrome's unique acutance provides razor-sharp resolution that no "dye cloud" chromogenic film can duplicate.

<p>

<blockquote><hr><i>

Kodachrome slides could be projected on a large screen and look very sharp and snappy. I have thousands of them myself, and have 8x10 prints of a few of them hanging on my wall (my 4000dpi scanner doesn't have enough resolution for larger prints). The problem was that you needed a special projector to get those results.

</i><hr></blockquote>

 

I have about a half dozen Pocket Carousel projectors. They are incredible little jewels. My problem is finding 110 <I>mounts</i>. No one makes them, no one even seems to have any "old stock" laying around. I've picked up slides, when I could find them at a low enough price, with the idea of recycling the mounts. I hope to either find a way to get slitted Kodachrome processed by Dwayne's, or, if nothing else, slit some E6 and process it myself. (This is all "someday" stuff.)

Also, for making larger prints (larger than those that can be done under the limitations of a 35mm scanner), it might be workable to make "digital interpositives" using a decent digital camera with macro capability and a lightbox. Yeah, heresy, but, it might get more of those Kodachrome bits onto paper that would otherwise require large format internegs (now that direct reversal paper is no longer available).

 

Or, there's always Cibachrome!

<p>My top 110 cameras:<br /> Minox 110s - by a mile ... for the control freak .. very fragile film transporter though<br /> Rollei E110- excellent design, simple to use, outstandingly sharp T* lens<br /> Canon 110ed 20 .... built to last, super quality, nice date stamp gimmick<br /> Vivitar 742 xl ..... a rare rare misunderstood babe, better built than ektramax very smart features.<br /> Ektramax ....... Excellent lens, easy to use, no batteries required (only for flash) very cheap plastic , a bit big.<br /> Minolta slr110 MkII- very solid, great zoom lens when you can get focus right.<br /> cannot forget:<br /> Pentax 110 super: very cute, flexible, but results not as sharp as a few of the above cameras.<br /> Old instamatic 60- If you can find a K type battery<br /> These are the only cameras a serious 110 enthusiast should own. Photo results are quality, not the cheap rubbish most 110 cameras were.</p>