Hypothetical: a 16mm SLR system camera

Regardless of whether such a product would succeed, I was thinking about what features this sort of camera should have. So here are my thoughts:

- SLR

- Up to 9fps, integrated winder

- Very low noise operation, at least at the lower frame rates

- Vertically traveling focal plane shutter

- Frame dimensions approximately 22.5mm x 12.5mm

- Pin registered for easier scanning

- Both manual focus and AF versions

- Film cassettes similar to APS, 50 exposures each

- Exposure data above the frame, between the sprockets

- Prime lenses up to 100mm can be f/1.4, and zooms can be either f/1.4 or f/2, allowing a large and bright viewfinder

Now, let us consider some ancient wisdom, passed down to me through many hands. How does one become a millionaire? You start with a billion dollars and start a camera company.

There were (at least) two 110 SLRs, one of which has a zoom lens, the other interchangeable lenses.

I don't believe auto winder, I am not sure about the shutter, 110 film cassettes are up to 24 exposures.

I suspect that the market for new film formats is close to zero, but your last line indicates that you

already know that. I don't believe that they sold all that well in their prime years.

What, 35mm film not bad enough for you?!

"..allowing a large and bright viewfinder"

-Except it won't, because the small frame size has to be magnified more. That's why DX DSLRs all have dimmer finders than full-frame ones. A 16mm SLR would be even dimmer.

BTW, your whole list of requirements - apart from the scanning bit - can be easily met, and exceeded, by most M4/3 digital cameras. The tools are already there, so why try to re-invent them in a worsened form?

When the APS (Advanced Photo System) was announced in 1996, I was delighted. Advanced Kodak cine film had previously been announced. This new cine film featured a transparent magnetic coat. Thus the entire width and length could carry sound tracks in high fidelity plus other signals. The APS system was to use this magnetic film technology.

Think about it, the APS System was hybrid, a silver based image coupled with a magnetic coat that could record digital images. The resolution and grain structure was superior. What a combination! Sad news; it failed. The failure was in the costs associated with photofinishers tooling up. We are talking all new automated printers and assembly stations and the like. My 7 labs at Eckerd Drugs were upgraded, an expensive proposition.

So the failure was partly due to costs for the giant photofinishers. The other part was, 35mm point-and-shoot cameras were acquiring chip logic, no need to replace for a nebulous future advance. Also, digital photography was just coming out. APS failed – too bad – it would have been great.

 

(snip regarding APS)

 

So the failure was partly due to costs for the giant photofinishers. The other part was, 35mm point-and-shoot cameras were acquiring chip logic, no need to replace for a nebulous future advance. Also, digital photography was just coming out. APS failed – too bad – it would have been great.

For many years, 35mm was too complicated for ordinary users. Too hard to load.

(Get the little tab in the slot, make sure that the film is moving by watching the rewind knob.)

We had 126 and 110 to make it easier, and then APS.

But somehow after all that, 35mm was easy enough.

Point and shoot 35mm cameras, for ordinary users, became popular.

(Especially as autofocus worked well enough.)

35mm SLRs, such as the AE-1, became popular for more advanced, but still not so

technically inclined, users. (Most often, the autoexposure system worked well enough.)

For many years, 35mm was too complicated for ordinary users. Too hard to load.

(Get the little tab in the slot, make sure that the film is moving by watching the rewind knob.)

 

We had 126 and 110 to make it easier, and then APS.

 

But somehow after all that, 35mm was easy enough.

 

Point and shoot 35mm cameras, for ordinary users, became popular.

(Especially as autofocus worked well enough.)

 

35mm SLRs, such as the AE-1, became popular for more advanced, but still not so

technically inclined, users. (Most often, the autoexposure system worked well enough.)

As you know, 126 and 110 came and went. The 126 system had no pressure plate to keep the film flat. Lot's of optical quality lost. The 110 system improved film flatness, the APS system was nearly perfect - it failed because 35mm cameras gained automation and photofinishers balked when it came to spending the money to modernize.

Stories I remember were that 126 could hold it flat enough.

There is no spring, but the shape is supposed to be able to keep it flat.

I can almost remember the beginning of 126, when most people would think that

using a 35mm camera, or even the usual at the time roll film camera, would be too hard.

There were many simple cameras then, or 127 or 620 film, with no shutter speed

or aperture settings, and fixed focus lens, but Kodak got people who wouldn't have

used one of those, to instead buy an Instamatic. The high end Instamatics have

auto exposure and rangefinder focus, but I am sure they sold many more of the

low end ones. (I do remember Kodak's "Open me first" wrapping paper, for

cameras as gifts.)

But somehow, 20 or 30 years later, people could now use 35mm without trouble.

I suppose cameras with motor wind can also detect when the film isn't moving.

Auto rewind also makes it easier for some people, who can't figure that out.

Canon had QL, but as well as I know, later cameras use the usual tongue in

slot loading.

Somehow the perceived difficulty of 35mm went away after some years.

Think about it, the APS System was hybrid, a silver based image coupled with a magnetic coat that could record digital images. The resolution and grain structure was superior. What a combination! Sad news; it failed.

I think quite a few people really want APS to return. A 16mm SLR would be seen as pretty cool by a lot of people, but they wouldn't buy one, I don't think. APS allows a pretty good balance between size and image quality - more or less. SLR lenses could certainly be adapted to APS cameras, with reduced functionality. Etc. I was against the system when it came out, as I really liked the history and tradition behind 35mm. Now, I wish I had not been so closed-minded. :-)

Stories I remember were that 126 could hold it flat enough.

There is no spring, but the shape is supposed to be able to keep it flat.

 

I can almost remember the beginning of 126, when most people would think that

using a 35mm camera, or even the usual at the time roll film camera, would be too hard.

There were many simple cameras then, or 127 or 620 film, with no shutter speed

or aperture settings, and fixed focus lens, but Kodak got people who wouldn't have

used one of those, to instead buy an Instamatic. The high end Instamatics have

auto exposure and rangefinder focus, but I am sure they sold many more of the

low end ones. (I do remember Kodak's "Open me first" wrapping paper, for

cameras as gifts.)

 

But somehow, 20 or 30 years later, people could now use 35mm without trouble.

I suppose cameras with motor wind can also detect when the film isn't moving.

Auto rewind also makes it easier for some people, who can't figure that out.

Canon had QL, but as well as I know, later cameras use the usual tongue in

slot loading.

 

Somehow the perceived difficulty of 35mm went away after some years.

Loading a 1990's motorized, autofocus, auto exposure 35 SLR usually meant pulling film out to a mark and closing the door, unlike earlier 35's that required more effort and skill. Box cameras that took 127 or 620 film were also a bit more difficult to load, hence Kodak's interest in making cartridge loading cameras. By the 1960's film quality had improved enough that enlargements to 3x5 or 4x6 from smaller format negatives were acceptable to the mass market, even from simple cameras with plastic lenses. I seem to remember that 126 was limited to f/2.8 maximum apertures due to film flatness issues.

 

(snip)

 

By the 1960's film quality had improved enough that enlargements to 3x5 or 4x6 from smaller format negatives were acceptable to the mass market, even from simple cameras with plastic lenses. I seem to remember that 126 was limited to f/2.8 maximum apertures due to film flatness issues.

It isn't so easy to figure out, but for a given shutter speed (hand held), and depth of field, with a smaller format,

you get more light intensity on the film. So, a slower, finer grain, film can be used.

In the 1960's, the LTM cameras my father had used f/2.8 lenses, so I thought that was good.

In 1968, he bought a Canon Pellix with an f/1.8 lens, which I thought was pretty good.

I believe f/2.8 is right for the Instamatic 7xx, 8xx, and Reflex. I would expect that it

is keeping lens cost down, and not flatness, that caused that choice.

(snip)

 

APS allows a pretty good balance between size and image quality - more or less. SLR lenses could certainly be adapted to APS cameras, with reduced functionality. Etc. I was against the system when it came out, as I really liked the history and tradition behind 35mm. Now, I wish I had not been so closed-minded. :)

Both Nikon and Canon made APS SLRs.

I believe both will mount 35mm SLR lenses.

I now have a Canon EF 22-55mm lens, which I understand was built for an APS

camera, but covers full frame. I haven't tried it on any camera, yet.

As I understand it, Canon EF-S lenses won't mount on APS cameras.

The Nikon lens mount does not stop one from mounting DX lenses on full frame

DSLRs or film SLRs, but you might get a circular picture.

I am 54 years old. In the last couple of years I've bought and sold quite a few film cameras, most of them 35mm but a couple were medium format.

Prior to two years ago, I had purchased a total of two film cameras in my life not counting disposables. What's astounding to me is that I remember nothing about them except that I accidentally left one on a beach, - which is why I bought the 2nd one.

These two purchases would have been made between the very late 80's - after I had graduated from college to the mid 90's by which time I had already decided that my next camera was going to be a digital camera. They would have been decent but not high end point and shoots because compactness and affordability was what was important to me in those days. I was more into technology and video back then than still photography.

I'm fairly certain that these cameras had motorized film transport and auto or fixed focus. I don't remember loading film to be a big deal. Maybe one advantage 35mm had over the cartridges in the minds of typical consumers was that I think 110 was limited to 24 exposures.

It's highly likely that one of my very first rolls of film out of that first camera I bought was scanned to a photo CD. About a year after I graduated from college I went on a canoe/camping trip in the BWCA. Though I don't remember for sure, I may have bought my first camera for that trip. I do know that I had pictures from that trip put on a photo CD which I still have.

Even as a guy in his mid-50's, my first forays into photography as an adult I had already started dipping my toe into the digital waters.

As a kid I had a mild interest in photography. At the age of 12 or so I asked my Mom for a "good" camera for Christmas. I didn't want anything else. While "good" to me meant SLR, "Good" and maybe most importantly "within budget" meant Polaroid One-Step and a bunch of film packs to my mother. That event tempered my interest in photography for awhile. I was gracious and took lots of pictures with it, but it wasn't what I had in mind at all and basically quit using it within a few years.

The KM Narciss is an SLR for 16mm film. AFAIK only 35mm lenses were made for it, but you could get an adapter to use the 39mm-mount lenses from the early Zenit cameras.

It's here at Camera-wiki (where, at time of writing, no images are displaying because of some change at Flickr; the links still go to Flickr ok)

My uncle gave me his standard-eight cine camera, which has a cable socket for single-frame exposures. I'm never going to do stop-motion animation, but I have thought about trying it as a still camera. Need to think about the developing.

I have a lot of pictures, mostly slides, from my college years. Much of them dorm activities and such. When I was younger, I could only afford black and white, but have a lot of negatives from those days. In college, I could afford slide film and processing. Mostly on a Canon rangefinder borrowed from my father. I even did some E6 processing in the student darkroom. (That was when E6 was new.) I also have black and white negatives from college years, as each dorm got some pages in the yearbook, and needed black and white prints for that. Too hard to do that from slides.

Near the end of college years, I had a 50 foot roll of Tri-X for the yearbook pictures. The last roll was still in the camera at the end of the year, after the yearbook was sent out for printing. That roll stayed in the Canon rangefinder in my fathers closet for 30 years, when he found it and sent it to me. By that time, I had a home darkroom (tiny, built by the previous house owner) to develop it, and scanners to scan it. I am not sure how many pictures current college kids take, but I did pretty well 40 years ago.

Both Nikon and Canon made APS SLRs.

 

I believe both will mount 35mm SLR lenses.

 

I now have a Canon EF 22-55mm lens, which I understand was built for an APS

camera, but covers full frame. I haven't tried it on any camera, yet.

 

As I understand it, Canon EF-S lenses won't mount on APS cameras.

 

The Nikon lens mount does not stop one from mounting DX lenses on full frame

DSLRs or film SLRs, but you might get a circular picture.

I have a Nikon Pronia 6i, which feels and handles a lot like something like the N75 although it's smaller(think like D40/D3x00 size). It's actually quite a capable camera, and is fully compatible with AF-S and G lenses-VR will "hum" and drain the battery but not work.

There is another model Pronea, whose name I'm drawing a blank on at the moment, that does not allow as much user input and also looks much more toy-like. The 6i seemed target at the "advanced amateur" market, although it can be set to dumb things down a fair bit also.

As a side note, the kit lens that with it, designated IX-Nikkor, was actually the first "G" lens. It's a "screwdriver" focus lens, but doesn't have an aperture ring. It also extends into the mirror box further than any 35mm SLR or any DSLR(whether DX or FX) can tolerate with the mirror up.

I've managed to put one roll through it, although I didn't have such good results as it was badly expired with unknown storage conditions. I have one loaded in it now that's a bit newer, and I also set +1 EC, so we'll see how it does(there's no way to override the ISO it reads from the cartridge, or at least not that I can find). In any case, I've actually used my 14-24mm f/2.8 a fair bit on it. It's a shame it can't work with AF-P lenses, as the 10-20mm AF-P would seem a good match for it.

Also, I'm glad that Nikon DX lenses will at least mount. I use the DX 10-20mm AF-P on my FX cameras(or at least my D600 and D800) as a lighter ultra-wide alternative to the 14-24mm f/2.8. It vignettes very, very slightly at 13mm, and that is gone at 14mm.

I have a lot of pictures, mostly slides, from my college years. Much of them dorm activities and such. When I was younger, I could only afford black and white, but have a lot of negatives from those days. In college, I could afford slide film and processing. Mostly on a Canon rangefinder borrowed from my father. I even did some E6 processing in the student darkroom. (That was when E6 was new.) I also have black and white negatives from college years, as each dorm got some pages in the yearbook, and needed black and white prints for that. Too hard to do that from slides.

 

Near the end of college years, I had a 50 foot roll of Tri-X for the yearbook pictures. The last roll was still in the camera at the end of the year, after the yearbook was sent out for printing. That roll stayed in the Canon rangefinder in my fathers closet for 30 years, when he found it and sent it to me. By that time, I had a home darkroom (tiny, built by the previous house owner) to develop it, and scanners to scan it. I am not sure how many pictures current college kids take, but I did pretty well 40 years ago.

Yes, you definitely did and I regret not taking more (some) pictures back then. My post got long but the succinct version is that APS came out at the dawn of the digital age and was doomed to failure for that reason alone. It was introduced in 1996 and the Apple QuickTake had already been out for two years.

Consumers moved to 35mm film from cartridge film in the 80s and 90s (I believe) because motorized transport made it easier to manage and the format was associated with higher quality photos than what you got with cartridges. Also 35mm Point and Shoots had gotten smaller and lighter which took away a significant advantage that 110 cameras had enjoyed. An Olympus XA is just as pocketable as a Kodak Ektralite.

The KM Narciss is an SLR for 16mm film. AFAIK only 35mm lenses were made for it, but you could get an adapter to use the 39mm-mount lenses from the early Zenit cameras.

Thanks very much for letting me know about this - I've never heard of it.

BTW I used to shoot Super 8 and occasionally I'd take single exposures. Like many, I considered the possibilities of 8mm film as a medium for still photos. In a limited way it made sense, especially for a very narrow AOV.

IMO 16 mm film, and I had a subminiature for a number of years, isn't worth the trouble. You can get decent wallet sized prints, but not much more. As Glen mentioned there were a couple of sophisticated 110 cameras - I have a vague recollection that someone came out with one that had a couple of lenses - may be wrong on that. Even the best of those was constrained to small prints.

I remember my cousin having a Pentax 110 with a handful of lenses that fit in her hand!

There are some for sale, although they're calling this one a medium format 110 camera.

Pentax Auto 110 Medium Format SLR Film Camera Body Only for sale online | eBay

As you know, 126 and 110 came and went.

Yes, that is true; but when they were at their peak, they were really successful. APS might have done so, but it was just too late as alan says.

Yes, that is true; but when they were at their peak, they were really successful. APS might have done so, but it was just too late as alan says.

And yet 120 film, introduced in 1901, is still going strong at... 120 years old

My first year of darkroom photography was with a Yashica TLR that my family had, and not used for many years.

But 120 and 620 are still a little small. (My first actual roll developed was a roll of VP620 that I found in

a trash can at Butchart Gardens. That was practice for my rolls of VP120.)

I think that Christmas, when I was 9, I got a Vivitar 35mm enlarger, and so did more 35mm photography

after that. The next year, I inherited much photography equipment from my grandfather, including

some 35mm cameras. (I once made a cardboard negative holder for square 120, but could only

enlarge part of the negative.)

Seems to me that 116 and 616 are enough bigger that contact prints don't seem too small.

Though as you say, 6x9cm is bigger than 6x6cm.

Yes, contact printing size is the reason that 116 was so much more popular than 120 into the early 1950's. Then there were the "rich folks" shooting 122 (3-1/4" x 5-1/2"). The vast majority of the vintage streetcar pictures (taken by trolley fans) are on 116 size film.

The Kodak Vigilant and Monitor were the last "fancy" Kodak cameras that came in 620 and 616 size. The Tourist and Tourist II were 620 only.