Heads up, new 110 color film

<p>Looks like LOMO now has color film in 110 cartridges. The price is the same as their B&W, $7.90 a roll. Unlike the B&W these cartridges have a window in the back and so are paper backed and presumably exposure numbered. As usual no connection etc. etc.</p>

<p>Yep word on the DL has it as Lucky 400 color.</p>

<p>According to the Lomo site it's ISO 200. But 400 color negative film can usually be shot at 200 with no net effect on the prints. The little extra exposure might even make better prints.</p>

<p>Shooting ISO 200 at 400 is one stop less exposure not extra.</p>

<p>Could you folks explain to me what the attraction of these sorts of cameras are? I've spent my photographic life pursuing nice cameras with sharp lenses (which I could never have afforded while growing up) and that seems the polar opposite of the LOMO movement. </p>

<p>I used 110 once upon a time and was not ... umm... enriched by the experience.</p>

<p>I have a nice Minolta 110 zoom. I like to use my collection from time to time. I have been slitting my own film for it for years but it is nice to see others can use their cameras who don't have access to a splitter or the know how to do things like I do. Why do some people shoot Minox? For the challenge and the fun.</p>

<p>David,<br>

You have asked a very interesting question. My boss was asking me about moving to Leica M9 today. He is a competition winning bird photography enthusiast who has many letters after his name and judges at many club competitions. I shoots with full frame Canon for his competition work. However, for fun he loves Polaroid lifting, shooting with Holga and many a cheap older film gear. I have a lot less money to spend and while not entirely happy with my DSLR based photography, I shoot mainly medium format film through ancient Zeiss Ikonta folders mostly. <br>

Is there an answer to your question in the paragraph above? I doubt it! What I am trying to say is that for many photography is not about image making, winning competitions, making prints, displaying their work or anything remotely interesting as that. Some just like the act of shooting with interesting cameras. I recently spent an entire day in London shooting with my mobile phone and to be precise, an app called Retro Camera. It was immense fun!</p>

 

<p>Larry, that is reversed. If it is ISO 400 but rated at 200 then you are giving it one more stop exposure. But really, matters not, in many cameras there was limited exposure control. In the most basic only one shutter speed and one aperture. Your Minolta 110 zoom is much more sophisticated of course.</p>

<p>David, subminiature formats have long held a small but loyal following. This was more so in the film days when regular cameras were constrained as to size by the film they used. A Minox IIIs or Minolta 16II or MGs could slip in a pocket and with care, record quite acceptable small prints. For some, it is just the challenge to realize the best print quality you can from such a small negative. I see from your profile that you now use high quality digital cameras and I'm sure you can attest to their capabilities. However, ultimate resolution and large prints are not the be all and end all to photography. If it were we would all be shooting with 36MP cameras. Why does anyone pursue any hobby? Because for them, it's fun. No more complicated than that in most cases.</p>

<p>PS; didn't see the post directly above mine before I pressed the send button.</p>

<p>I was referring to you saying that lomo said it was 200 ISO not 400ISO.</p>

<p>"According to the Lomo site it's ISO 200.</p>

<p>Great news. I have a complete Pentax 110 system that needs a workout. David if you can find one of these, you might try it out. So small, so cute, yet excellent sharp interchangeable lenses.</p><div></div>

<p>I cannot understand the Holga fasination.<br>

I have my wife;'s old brownie hawkeye which is much better.<br>

gene M. cameras with newer film will do better as the holga/.diana.</p>

<p>Reminds me of a man who went to Hong Kong and saw in a window genuine Peterson vise-grip pliers.<br>

Knowing places in the usa sold cheap copies that did not work<br>

he asked the store owner<br>

" Only Americans will buy something that does not work""<br>

One example is the scenex a small 828 camera really crappy and several copies if instamatics including the one that just "snaps on" a 126 cartridge.<br>

Everbody, it seems made some really crappy cameras.<br>

My first was a metal 120 6 x9 trapazoidal shaped camera<br>

they made a scraping noise as the film was advanced.<br>

yes it was the film being scratched ( what a design).<br>

But my Baby Brownie special was a better camera.<br>

9127 ) </p>

<p>and the new breed of cheap cameras are even worse.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film</a></p>

<p>They don't mention it here but I recall the reason 110 often looked so lousy is because printing the small negative required specific equipment which your average photo finisher didn't have so what you ended up with were grainy lousy prints. There are some cool high end 110 cameras out there though.</p>