APS..? yes

Discussion in 'Modern Film Cameras' started by stuart_templeton, Oct 23, 2017.

  1. Before the death of APS (assassinated by digital), by pure curiosity, I bought a little Konica and used it a lot with pleasure. Then I found a Canon-IX body, ridiculously cheap, and tried it with my EOS lenses. Of course, I got fair results, and finally adapted also the standard zoom of my Canon 300D to it. Although said to be fit only for the digital sensor of the 300D, it did not vignet with the APS. Here two pictures :

    the camera with this lens :


    and an example of the result :


    Last edited: Nov 21, 2017
  2. I had a little Canon APS camera for a while, and it was, if nothing else, beautifully made, a solid little brick, and it made decent pictures. What irritated me most about APS was that the supposed advances were either not actually there, or not developed. So for example, the local processors just printed the film without any of the information that was supposedly recorded, and the format differences were not actually format differences on the film. With the electronic operation, it seems silly that panoramic format was still done simply with cropping rather than an actual wider negative. I liked the pocket size of the little Canon, but it wasn't really much smaller than, say, an Olympus Stylus, so without any of the advances actually occurring except for the ability to rewind partway through a roll, it wasn't worth the extra expense of the film.
  3. I've run one roll through my Pronea, but haven't had a chance to drop it by the lab(it's not super far away, but far enough that I tend to wait until I have at least a half dozen rolls-I have about that many now, but haven't had the time).

    In any case, I'll probably opt for just process+scan. I asked about what they could do as far as data on prints, and they told me that they could do things like exposure date if they printed on their Frontier. This lab never makes prints for me, but they also said that they PREFER printing on their Noritsu since "it gives better color" and mostly use the Frontier for scanning but that if I wanted data they'd do it.

    BTW, mine were all done as APS-H. As I'm sure you all know, APS-C and APS-P are accomplished just by "tagging" the frame with instructions to the printer to only print part of it. I'd rather get all the frame and crop after(and frankly I'd rather start with the ~4:5 a/r of APS-H). The lab did, however, assure me that if they printed the Frontier would print with the tagged crop.
  4. I like the APS and willing to pay extra for it but it's too small. If only Kodak has used 35mm film stock. To save film they could make it 24x32mm and it would be great.
  5. The film is 24 mm wide, and has three image formats: H for "High Definition" (30.2 ×16.7 mm; aspect ratio 16:9; 4×7" print) C for "Classic" (25.1 × 16.7 mm; aspect ratio 3:2; 4×6" print) P for "Panoramic" (30.2 × 9.5 mm; aspect ratio 3:1; 4×11" print)
  6. But it's smaller than 35mm which is the small format.
  7. The film is 24mm wide the same as 35mm. The tiny Canons were very handy when my children were small and I couldn't be encumbered with a lot of gear. I still have a couple of cameras and a bit of fim. 35mm reels will work for processing..
  8. I picked up a Pentax efinaT at a local charity shop, last week. A replacement battery cost more than the camera. It has an unfinished film in it, which I'll finish, and then I need to see if there is a local processor for APS.
  9. 35mm film is pretty darn close to 35mm wide. The image is 24mm because the sprocket holes eat up so much real estate.

    APS is a BIT more economical in terms of film area, since you get close to 17mm wide on a 24mm strip. Still, I think you're going to be fighting to reasonably get it on a 35mm reel.

    Your best bet for home processing is going to be an adjustable plastic reel. The cheap Yankee reels-despite all their other downfalls-are good for this kind of stuff. They will go down to either 8 or 16mm, so finding an intermediate spot for 24mm wouldn't be too difficult.
  10. Well, my first tests were a bit of a disappointment.

    This was shot on Advantix 400 that expired in 2008. Scans are from the lab as I don't have a good way to scan them myself.

    This roll was shot in a Nikon Pronea 6i, and I left it set to APS-H. I think the first photo was with the 24-70 lens that came with the camera(the oddball one that sticks way back into the camera) and the second was with the 14-24 2.8.


    58700024 copy.jpg

    Here's a shot from my D800 taken the same day. My Velvia shot in an F5 also looks good.


    If I try this again(I do have some more film) I'll probably dial in +1 e/c for all shots.

    Alternatively, I might try hunting down some 100 speed film, and hopefully a BIT newer. The grain-or I should say dye clouds-is quite visible on even these low-res scans from a Frontier, so I think there's some definite improvement to be had.

Share This Page