Jump to content

Why is APS so disliked?


Recommended Posts

<p>Reading back through the past threads whilst researching APS I seem to find an almost universal dislike for the format.</p>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>I really just don't undesrstand why it is so unpopular here amongst enthusiasic photographers, and whilst I also enjoy 35mm work, I greatly enjoy other formats like 110 and APS. I have listed the complaints that I have noted and answered them below.</p>

<p>Smaller film size: APS is smaller than 35mm. This seems to be the major problem for people, but why are they being compared? Hawaii is smaller than Siberia, but no-one compares them as rivals. See APS as something totally different from 35mm, see where the 16:9 ratio can be exploited and enjoy the wonderful technological marvels that are APS compacts.</p>

<p>APS 'tax': After speaking with my photo shop, it is now the same price for D&P and scan to CD for both 35mm and APS. This is now common practice in most shops I have found. The taxation is over.</p>

<p>Grainy/worse results: If I stand in the same place and use the same lens and film on my Pronea and 35mm SLR I see the results are the same for both formats. The APS shows less of what I am aiming at, but the results are the same - in fact the thin base of the APS film yeilds sharper results.</p>

<p>In my opinion there is nothing to get upset about concerning the APS system, and I would really like to know why it has been shunted to the 'washed up' section of photographic gear.</p>

<p>Your input welcomed.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>APS point and shoots made a big splash back in the day because they were able to be very small and had all the features of bigger 35mm cameras. This was before digital P&S became just as small with even more features. Remember the millions of Canon Elphs that were sold? The Elph singlehandedly made the system succeed. I had two Elphs and still have one. APS point and shoots were also marketed as both a camera and as jewelry, advertisments showing cameras hung on a chain around a woman's neck. Back then, a small size such as that for a camera was a very big deal. The APS SLRs never took off, because where was the big reason to buy one? They were about the same size as 35mm SLRs, and just the film format didn't give enough of a reason to buy one.</p>

<p>It is shunted to the "washed up" section because that's what it is. At the time, just having a system succeed in the P&S format wasn't enough to keep it going, and now that we have very small but yet capable digital P&S, APS surely isn't going to make any comebacks. Some people also likened its smaller negative than 35mm as a step backward, kind of like the other failure- disc film. This was of course an unfair comparison, but it was said. Another factor was that other than Canon, I can't recall any serious advertising budgets spent by other manufacturers. It was even said at the time that the Canon Elph was such a strong seller that other manufacturers just ceded the APS format to Canon and didn't even try to dethrone them.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>APS was, as mentioned, somewhat given to Canon, but Kodak also made a significant investment in it's future with APS.</p>

<p>The issues that I saw with APS were:</p>

<p>1. Lack of control - the APS cartridge didn't allow the photographer to load their own film - which many shooters have been doing for ages.</p>

<p>2. With APS you shoot the whole roll or nothing - with 35mm - you could shoot a partial roll - rewind and reload and then latter go back to the partial roll.</p>

<p>3. APS got a bad rap for it's wierd (to 35mm shooters) crop aspect.</p>

<p>4. Negatives were kept in the cartridge - One man's boon is another's bust - There was not an easy way to get at the negatives to check them.</p>

<p>5. Lack of a "serious" camera in the format - Nikon, Canon, etc... never introduced a "Pro" level APS body. With digital you almost immeadiately had the D1, Kodak Digital Versions, etc... All aimed at the Pro photographer.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The smaller film size is a poor argument. People will go to a smaller size if it is more convenient. Look at scene of photographers at sporting and other events up to the late 1950s. What cameras are they using? Speed Graphics with an occasional Roliflex thrown in. No one can argue that the image quality would be better from blow ups made from the smaller 35mm film frame as compared to the large format and medium format films, especially considering the grain of film in those days. So why the switch to the poorer, smaller format? Convenience. Thirty-six frames per roll, no need to carry film holders, and various telephoto and wide angle lenses could easily be changed out. If APS had been invented before 35mm, you can be sure that it is what most film photographers would be using.

 

Many people did use APS cameras. It was very good for the point and shoot crowd. Ten years or so ago, I went into a convenience store in a small town in MA to buy 135 film. They had lots of APS film but only Kodak MAX in 135.

 

As said, film point and shoot cameras, including APS, have been supplanted by digital point and shoot cameras by the "I need a camera to take birthday, vacation and backyard barbecue pictures" crowd.

James G. Dainis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>David:</p>

<p>With APS, you could take a partial roll, remove it, return it later and it went automatically to the next shot after the one where you left off. That was very convenient compared to what you do with 35 mm film that is partially completed.</p>

<p>The weird crop size is equivalent to the 4/3 of DX in digital, yet most digital cameras today are the DX format.</p>

<p>APS was created by a consortium made up of Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Fuji and Kodak. Timing was a killer because it came out just minutes ahead of digital. What we did get was better film grain as well as some other improvements in speed and quality with the speed.</p>

<p>Conni</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never shot APS but it sounds like the problems with half frame 35mm. I had a great little Pen D and when Kodak would mount half frame Kodachromes all was well. Then the shutter slowed down, Kodak stopped mounting slides and the Pen D is gathering dust (in pieces) in a shoe box. If I ever get it working it would be fun to scan film strips and see how good the results are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Constance has the key factor:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Timing was a killer because it came out just minutes ahead of digital</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was just too late in historical terms to catch on.</p>

<p>Except, of course, that most digital single lens reflex cameras are pretty close to the APS size, if people would just stop worrying about 1.6X and the like "conversion" factors.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I am understanding the multiple posts I have been seeing lately.

 

When there's no response back from P.net, one tends to try punching the button over and over, sort of like a chimp in a room full of buttons.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>David's a bit wide of the mark, as Conni pointed out. Apart from the rewind issue, I guess David also missed the elegant little system cameras Nikon and Canon rolled out--the latter being especially nice.Limited film choice was less an issue than the processing shortages APS shooters now face--very few labs bother processing it in early 09. The original Canon Elph was quite a good p&s camera.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Some innovations never seem to take off - Kodak Disc cameras, Foveon sensors and APS film cartridges. The small frame size of APS film makes it hard to take seriously. The cameras did not take standard, 35mm lenses and the rewind cartridges make it hard to process or scan. At this point in time, about any 3MP P&S will take better pictures at a fraction of the cost. Both APS film and processing are increasingly difficult to obtain.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Doesn't seem like there's a lot of point contending that it wasn't so bad when its user base almost universally walked in favour of other options. No matter what the theoretical arguments, its kind of difficult to get past that. </p>

<p>We had a couple of APS cameras here. For us, they coincided with the period when my family found it hardest to get a simple 6x4 print that looked decent. Never mind all the little tricks like taking a part used film out and having it pick up at the same point. The basic is recording an image good enough to make a decent print. 35mm did that much better than APS.</p>

<p>I shall remember APS as yet another lame Kodak-led initiative to persuade its customer base that worse was in fact better. Like all the others it failed and contributed to the low ebb of their fortunes and reputation today. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Your History is all wet.<br /> <br /> APS came out AFTER digital cameras arrived.<br /> <br /> It was the last film Bastard format invented.</p>

<p>Saying APS was before digital is abit flawed.<br /> <br /> It *IS* probably correct that the 50 percent penetration of users had not been reached yet.<br /> <br /> Saying APS came out before digital is like saying there was no color TV in the 1950's or 1960's or even early/mid 1970's; since the 50 percent point has not been reached yet.<br /> <br /> Joe Six pack often got an APS camera for Christmas of 1996 or 1997 or 1998 ; and after a few rolls went back to regular 35mm P&S cameras.<br /> <br /> For many folks paying 25 to 50 percent extra for APS processing went over like a turd in a punch bowl.</p>

<p>*It really does not matter* if YOUR local store processed APS or sells Premium beers the same as 35mm or Budwiser.<br /> <br /> *In many places* APS processing WAS ALOT HIGHER; and thus the hatred was not over quality; it was just it cost more for prints; thus many folks went back to 35mm.</p>

<p>As a camera store manager said in Thousand Oaks; "APS is an abortion; a last gasp in creating a bastard format."<br /> <br /> APS camera our after digital cameras were used by many of us; almost a decade . APS came out in about 1996. Photoshop 3 came out in 1996. I used Photoshop 2.5 on a PC before that; and Photoshop 1 on a Mac before that. My Aldus Photostyler 1 came out about 1991; my Photostyler version 2 in 1994. Our 35 megapixel Phase One scans back was bought in 1996; the same year APS was released. We had a digital scanner for B&W back in the late 1980's. I shot product assembly images in the early 1990's with digital; and ccmailed them to a plant in Bangkok and Singapore. In the LA area realtors shot images of houses with early VGA digitals in the early 1990'sand placed them on our or their own BBS for clients to view houses. This *all* occured before the APS product was designed; or dreamed up.<br /> APS was hawked as the end all when others like Casio were *poo-pooed* with their VGA cameras.<br /> <br /> Again in many places APS cost more for prints; sometimes 50 percent more. STUPID marketing chaps seemed to think that common folks would embrace a new bastard film format that cost more for prints.</p>

<p>In every thread about APS some APS lover will jump in and state where they live in Riverdale APS cost the same as 35mm for prints; ie cost per print the same with processing. It is not like this everywhere; and where it is/was 25 to 50 percent more folks BALKED at the costs; thus they went back to regular c41 35mm P&S cameras. It seems finance and money are hard to fathom for many; but easy to understand by Joe Six pack! :)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I still have my Canon Elph LT, the only fim camera that I've actually used in the past several years, having converted to Digital otherwise. The only reason why I've used it is because I can use it in the panoramic mode and get 4" by 10" prints for the same price as 4" by 6" ones. Neat little camera!</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Interesting comments. I see mention of Disk. Now, that was one format that was bad - I tried so hard to get a good result, but even my elderly neighbour saw the grain and fuzz.</p>

<p>In case you are wondering my interest in the format, it is because I found an old AP magazine (1994) with a full article on the format and how it would be implemented. This got me remembering the racks of APS compacts I used to see in the shops and the films to go with them. Remember Kodak HD100? Fuji IX100 slide film? Fuji Nexia 800? I am speaking to shop staff, friends and colleagues to pick their brains. Some are still using the format, some have never heard of it and some have almost forgotten.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I stand corrected on the removing a partial roll remark. The APS camera that I had bought for the in-law's didn't allow that.</p>

<p>I do however stand by the lack of a "Pro" body for APS film. Nikon did not (unless I'm missing it) release an A series body to give Pros APS. They kept right on chugging with the 35mm F series and the D series for Digital.</p>

<p>No one will every mistake one of the Nikon APS SLR's for a Pro body.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When APS came out, I went out and brought a new Minolta with 30-60mm lens. Shot in standard "C" mode using fuji film the 4x6 prints were pretty good; the colors were soft and subdue which i sometimes like. But when i went to pay for the prints, i was SHOCKED! About 3X more than from a 35mm camera. And if you shot in Panorama Mode ("P") - then you almost need to get a loan from the bank to pay for it. That pretty much did it for me - along with the fact of limited film types and speed.....<br>

I still have the camera; a relic of the past.....</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Regardless of the timing, the point remains valid that it was a doomed format because it was a new FILM format in a world moving to digital. I'm personally trying to remember just what digital cameras were available in 1996 when APS was introduced. As I recall, the Canon DCS 1 and 3 were only just introduced in 1995 (circa 1.3 Mpx), and were certainly not competitors of the APS format for inexpensive amateur photography. The Powershots were around, but were pretty low-res (0.5 Mpx) for anybody interested in prints.</p>

<p>Kelly, can you tell me what cameras you had in mind?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Another thing it did (at least the cameras I have), is print f stop, film speed, etc between each frame.</p>

<p>I have a lot of APS film in my film freezer. I bought a lot of Fuji sepia APS film in Japan. It was not available here and I liked the appearance. I never tried the slide film because I didn't use it in 35 mm either.</p>

<p>There is no evidence that the format was ever aimed at any other than the amateur market so there wasn't a question of a pro body.</p>

<p>While procesing was/is spendy, the format solved problems for amateurs who wouldn't load 'real' film in a camera and so had no photographs. I bought a small Nikon P&S for my secretary for that very reason. She happily took family pics. Now she has a small digital of some kind but won't take the card to get photos made so while she looks at them once in a while on her computer at the office, she has nothing at home. For her, it worked pretty well. </p>

<p>Maybe those five companies would have been better off to work on a 35 mm film cartridge that amateurs could rop in like APS.</p>

<p>Conni</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Before APS there was 126 also called Instamatic from Kodak. (not terribly smaller than standard 135 film actually. I could use 35mm Nikor reels as I recall) The cartridge worked well and sold well for a lot of amateurs and since it took no loading and no winding back it got to the processor and the plastic cartridge was recyclable. Its biggest drawback from the photo press was the alleged lack acceptable film plane registration with no pressure plate behind the film. I personally did not confirm that as a problem with lenses up to F.2.8 anyway and f 2.8 was considered "fast' at the time. It lasted a long product cycle, by the way with what some find to be the perfect format, a square. Now almost forgotten and Kodak finally stopped selling or making the 126 size even in single emulsion about three years ago or so. I used it at one time with Ektachrome and it worked fine enough for documenting family and small enough for trips.</p>

<p>Some quality cameras were eventually made for it by big names. 126 had a long run as these things go. And Kodak knew what it was doing back then.</p>

<p> </p><div>00Skht-115913584.jpg.d6f903ecb0ea8e6396c12dfd17f76e77.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The reason that most camera stores hate it (at least the ones that have labs in them) is that it's a major PITA to deal with. Processing APS requires all kinds of special tools to deal with the cartridges. On a really busy day, seeing a roll of APS come through is enough to set off a panic attack! There's a (very expensive) machine that's required to transfer the undeveloped negs into a special canister that is put in the normal C-41 processor. And this very expensive little machine jams about 1 out of every 4 times (I've used at least 8 different ones, they all have about the same failure rate). Which then requires that you stop and put the machine into a dark box/bag and physically remove the offending film. Which requires a couple more little tools (that you can never find because you hardly ever use them-we used to tape them to the inside of the dark box) and a whole lot of finesse and a lot of imagination. Re-loading the film into it's canister after it's been processed requires another very expensive little machine that only works slightly better.</p>

<p>So once you start dealing with a roll of APS, you have to be prepared to not stop to deal with anything else (like customers) because the odds are that you'll be stuck in the dark box for 15 minutes. The workflow for APS isn't so bad if you do a lot of it (at least 20 rolls a day) because then you have a chance to master the black magic that it requires. And it's easier to keep track of all the tools if you actually use them occasionally. However, it's a very expensive setup that a lab needs to be able to process APS between the initial equipment costs and the consumables like special leader cards, small plastic tools, and processing cartridges.</p>

<p>I have no doubt that a lot of the negativity surrounding the format comes from lab operators who bash on it in hopes of never seeing another roll of it ever come through their labs! Add this to the fact that I've never seen an APS camera with manual mode (which kills it for me).</p>

<p>I went through the Kodak training on the APS system just before they rolled it out. Back then, we loved it! The APS system was great for all of our customers that forever seemed to be bringing us blank rolls to develop because they couldn't load a roll of 35mm to save their lives. The quality of the APS film is actually much better than 110mm. A special emulsion was developed for the APS system to help make up for the reduced negative size. Later, that emulsion was used for 35mm film as well and so the gap in quality between the two formats opened up again. The APS system was a beautiful system in it's time, it's just that it's time was shortened considerably when consumer grade digital prices came down far faster than anticipated. Kodak actually said to us at that point that they expected digital to be the next big thing in consumer cameras, but that it was "at least a decade off on the horizon". Oops.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yeah, the killer for APS was that it cost more.<br>

The image quality was worse, it cost more to buy the film and print it, and the cameras were only slightly smaller than the smallest 35mm cameras... why the heck would any of that be a good thing? The handling advantages were good for really inexperienced users, but that's hardly something that severely limited 35mm film.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>JDM; in 1996 there was the 35 megapixel scan back for 4x5; 4 megapixel backs for Hassleblad; and pro slrs with 1.3 megapixel. A VGA camera ie 480x640 was considered to be a low end pro or a high end amateur rig. Many amateurs used 1/4 VGA then ie 240x320. The Kodak/NIKON DCS ie a digital Nikon F3 stems from 1991; a 1.3 megapixel rig.<br>

The Apple quicktime digital camera was used by many folks; it was VGA and out in early 1994.<br>

The Casio QV-10 came out in 1995; it has a LCD monitor. (This is one of the first consumer digitals; it is not the more recent casio with the same name). It was just 240 by 320 pixels. With the QV-10 one had an LCD screen to peek at ones digital images just shot; it was out and used by realtors before APS was released. The images were good enough for an advert/listing in a newspaper; or showing what the jist of what the house llked like on a Realtor's BBS.<br>

You have to remember that most modems were still 14.4 then; many folks still had 9600 and 2400. In 1997 I bought a 28.8 modem for about 250 bucks for our BBS; a later upgrade chip for 33.3 was about 50 bucks.</p>

<p>35mm and 828/Bantum and 126/Kodapak are ALL 35mm wide; thus a lab say for B&W could use the same 35mm reels for hand /tank processing.</p>

<p>With 110 /mini Kodapak it is 16mm wide; thus a Nikkor reel for 16mm works; even one from 1950. Even an adjustable Yankee reel from 1960 has a 16mm detent for HIT cameras and otehr small 16mm stuff.<br>

<br /> APS really was never made for home processing; it is 24mm wide. One really never had any real B&W films; ie non c41 stuff either; it was talked about and never really marketed.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The Pronea 600i (6i elsewhere, I think) does have manual mode as well as aperture, shutter and program modes.</p>

<p>It also has a 11/2" x 11/4" LCD screen on the back to read and make settings. There are 7 buttons to make settings with. If you just saw the back, there is no way you wouldn't think it was digital unless you were close enough to read all the buttons, Even so, some of the buttons are extent on digital cameras today. The body is about the same size as a D40.</p>

<p>It took me a while to dig out batteries for it from my stash in the spare fridge but it started right up. I'll thaw some film and give it a whirl if I get time next week.</p>

<p>Conni</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I knew some people who used the APS format and really liked it. My best friend and my parents to name two. It was a convenient format for many people. </p>

<p>I never used it personally and most of my experience with it was in a lab. From that point of view, I hated it. Unlike Kirsten we didn't have the benefit of a machine that would extract the film into the cartridges, possibly due to the problems they had. We pulled every one in the black room using the impossibly tiny little tools, about the length of a mini sharpie but half the diameter with a little nub on the end about the width of a pencil lead that we had to get in the tiny cartridge holes in the dark. I got pretty good at it after awhile but it was still a huge pain. If possible, we would pool it until there was a bunch and then go pull it all at once, spending thirty minutes in the black room and then emerging into the bright light of the lab like some kind of cave troll. We put it back in the cartridges by hand too. That is an art in itself. The C-41 machine was old and would eat it sometimes. The printing machine was new and would either eat it or refuse to pull it at all. I would say that about half the time I had to pull the film back out of the cartridge and feed it manually. The cartridges were also kind of fragile and would break. The standard size prints were grainy to me most of the time, I want to say they were 4x7 but I could be remembering wrong. The few eight inch enlargements we did never were really a match for 35mm. We had this customer who used it and would bring in 5-8 rolls at a time and always needed them in an hour, triple prints with a cd. She was a very sweet person but I always got a slight pain in my head when I saw her coming in. :) </p>

<p>I think for the average person who just wanted to have easy snapshots it was fine, but digital just overtook it too quickly in price and quality.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...