Continuing the 127 film discussion ...

From my Kodak book, 127 film was introduced in 1912 along with the

Vest Poket Kodak camera. The film was so named because it was the 27th

roll-film size since Kodak began its numbering system in 1895. 101 was

the first roll film, apparently.

 

The original V.P Kodak gave 8 photos that were 1/58 x 2 1/2.

eek -- I mean, 1 5/8 x 2 1/2 (inches)

adding to the Trivia Trove, 127 gained some popularity in the mid-1930s in a 'half frame' format (1 1/4 x 1 5/8), competing with early low priced 35mms like the Argus A. Half-127 gave a camera and frame size similar to 35mm but didn't need a mechanical frame counter so the cameras could be made cheaper than the 35mm competition. The square format came in the 1950s with the little TLRs, though I think there were a couple of square-127 cameras before the war.

 

:)=

Please doctor, why do I find things like this interesting ?

Just curious: how sharp are those 4x4 TLR lenses from the top makes like Rollei? Theoretically higher than the 120 cameras.

You are absolutely correct sir! Interesting timing on this post, I just picked up a couple of 127 film cameras this weekend. One I've wanted for a while is the Vest Pocket Kodak Model B. This is a small, truely 'pocket' folder that features four aperture settings (supposedly f11-f32), two shutter speeds (instant and time) and three different lens types available. It came with either a single Meniscus, Periscopic or Kodak Doublet lens configuration, and a VP Rotary shutter. Back in 1925 you could pick one up for about five bucks. The doublet version would set you back eight dollars. The 127 rolls yields eight 4x6cm negatives. This is the Autographic version which also has a metal stencil that was used to write notes on the film itself. There is a little slide window on the back. This was the precursor to today's date/time stamping on film.

 

I haven't had a chance to clean it up, so I'm not sure exactly which lens I have. It's either the Meniscus or the Doublet. I'll find out once I get it apart for a cleaning and lube. The Periscopic version actually has 'periscopic lens' written on the face plate, so it's not that version. I'm looking forward to placing some Maco 100 in this little gem and putting it through its paces this weekend.<div></div>

The other 127 find was an Agfa A-8 Cadet box camera. This was like finding a puppy that needed a home. It's single little meniscus lens looked up at me with its sad eye and I just couldn't resist. It needed a good home and some TLC to bring new shine to its coat and snap to it's shutter. I could tell it was malnourished and hadn't enjoyed any film in a while. The poor little guy needed to be fed. I haven't picked out a name yet, but my Cadet will soon be scampering around, pointing and clicking before you know it. With two speeds, instant and time, and a single aperture, it won't be playing with the big dogs, but I think this old dog could still learn some new tricks.<div></div>

Continuing on this note,....Yashica 44....since we are talking about sharpness, how does this one compare with the 127 film vs a Mat with 120? Just curious...(yes I know sharpness is in the eye of the beholder) Thanks! Mark

The little folder is pretty TW, but that Cadet just plain cute. Wonder how much 127 we have to but before the price starts to come down? Hmmm.

I'm afraid I may end up finding out.

My Sports Rolleflex 4x4 from 1938 has a 2,8/60 Tessar, and it takes excellent sharp pictures. Too bad Efke doesn't make R50 or R25 in 127. R100 is a very good film, but too grainy for larger prints.

The first camera I owned was a small Univex, sold by Rexall drugstores for 19 cents. It used a size 00 film which was smaller than 127, made by Gaevert if I remember correctly. Does anyone know the actual dimensions?

I have a really nice, old Goerz Tenax 127 VP folder with a 7.5cm

Dogmar- The problem is the compur shutter wasn't working-so I "fixed" it, and now it's toast.

 

 

If anyone has a shutter that size for sale,I'm in the market for one.

My Komaflex is very sharp. Can't comepare it to other cameras in any objective way, but it's good.

 

:)=

"The first camera I owned was a small Univex, sold by Rexall drugstores for 19 cents. It used a size 00 film which was smaller than 127, made by Gaevert if I remember correctly. Does anyone know the actual dimensions?"

 

00 film is 828 film on a special spool designed only to be used by Univex cameras.

828 film is 35mm, without the sprocket holes.

My first camera was Kodak Baby Brownie (127 film)