Would Someone Educate me on 110 SLRs?

Discussion in 'Modern Film Cameras' started by ben_hutcherson, Jan 1, 2018.

  1. I have(and use) 645, 6x6, 6x7, and 4x5. In the past I've been anti-645, but the nifty little Pentax 645 I picked up before Christmas has sort of changed that with how convenient and small it is. I still consider the Rolleiflex one of the most perfect camera designs ever made, and pull out my RB67 when I don't mind the weight. My SQ-A is probably most used on the whole, though. I'm going to shoot a plate or two this afternoon if I feel like braving the cold.

    Still, though, these small SLRs intrigue me.
     
  2. Yes, the Mercury II, not the earlier one.

    The one I have works, though I didn't do any timing tests on the shutter.
    As well as I know, the shutter moves pretty slow, compared to many other focal
    plane shutters.

    One thing, though. Well, I only had one roll through it, but it didn't stop winding at the end.
    There is enough slip on the take-up spool that you can still wind. I suspect that is true
    for many older cameras.
     
  3. HG65.jpg

    Taken with a Mercury II.
     
  4. "In the past I've been anti-645,....."

    - I used to have the same opinion until I realised that I was cropping most of my 6x6 negatives to fit rectangular printing paper, and mentally composing into a horizontal or vertical rectangle.

    I bought a Mamiya 645 and didn't look back - or waste huge areas of film any more. 6x6 only really makes sense with a TLR; and the TLR design makes no sense to me anyway.

    Nowadays the quality of 645 is easily matched by a full-frame DSLR of course, and sub-miniature film camera image quality is totally exceeded by an equally tiny and lightweight digital compact. Or phone camera.
     
  5. On the Hasselblad 500 you can have the A16 back that shoot 645 and how do you change from vertical to horizontal shot? The back revolves?
     
  6. - No. I think you flip the camera on its side and get a crick in your neck! Or shoot sideways.

    The revolving back is a much-neglected facility - and probably we should be thankful. Can you imagine a 6x9 version of the Mamiyaflex TLR with a revolving back? Dr Frankenstein would be proud of such a creation.
     
  7. I tend to use prisms on 645s, but find them too big on anything larger. My Pentax doesn't give any other option!

    Thank goodness for the rotating back on the RB67.
     
  8. Seriously how the heck can you turn the camera and shoot with the waist level finder?
     
  9. I can do it on my Rolleiflex :) . Granted there's no point in it, but still.

    My first Rollei(a Rolleicord Va) came with a 645 frame mask and 16-frame counter. I used it that way for a while-I finally ended up buying a parts camera to get the 12 frame counter. When I did do verticals, I used the action finder and made a mask.
     
  10. I think the little-known 6x6 cm Rectuflex made in Freedonia had a rotating back, didn't it?

    :rolleyes:
     
  11. I like my Mamiyas. I think there would be nothing too wrong about a revolving back 6x9 version. - Yes, it would be a tad bigger and heavier and most likely not my first choice as a touristic camera.
    OTOH: I doubt the revolving back to add much weight to my Technika but believe it makes shooting a press camera hand held more convenient.
    Given a chance I'd happily try a 6x9 or even 4x5" TLR with chimney finder at the usual Mamiya price point.
    I don't like prism finders for two reasons: (Other) people and affordable tripods tend to be too short. + Lifting a camera up to m eye is significantly more work than getting the lens just up to my breast.
    TLR advantages: No need to compose through your orange filter and also no focusing obstacles created by your softeners.
    Shooting RFs instead is of course an alternative.
    No SLR bashing intended; I guess everybody has some somewhere? With the bigger formats view cameras can be a better choice for portability. It is just the lens and the not that great roll holder I have for my Voigtländer Bergheil 6.5x9 that keep me from trying to take more landscape pictures with it.
     
  12. I think D&P processors killed off 110 by putting lazy antisocial people (they were about to sack), who had no concept of quality control, on the ageing 110 line. At its best the Pentax 110 was capable of a good 8x10; a charming little camera.
    Does bokeh actually exist for such a small format?
     
    robert_bowring likes this.
  13. I'm not sure, but isn't your spelling of the camera in error. I think there is a missing letter. Regardless it's a shame that the camera factory was destroyed during their war with Sylvania. I'm a little surprised that no other camera manufacturer copied their innovative folding pocket TLR design.
     
  14. That was the thing about those cameras. They were toys.
     
  15. Yeah
    Who could complain about results like these with my new kitten and me ?
    Freyja-1980-hires-029-110-film.jpg

    Of course I've always been partial to abstract expressionism
     
  16. Just the kind of D&P I got used to.
     
  17. No complaint but your picture does need a tittle otherwise I wouldn't recognize you not even know that it's a kitten.
     
  18. Lack of choices of black & white 110 have caused my interest in the format to wane. Also, none of the 110 cameras would have been able to take advantage of a slow film like Ilford Pan F+ or Rollei RPX 25. Pentax had the best idea, but lack of manual controls doesn't help.. On the plus side the quality of color negative film available is higher, but with fewer choices.
     
  19. I never got to use B&W film with Pentax 110. It just wasn't around much. On whim, I printed a few colour print negs on Kodak Panalure B&W paper, and image quality was so much better than what I had got with D&P colour.
     
  20. Panalure, when it was fiber based was glorious stuff. I used to have a client that brought me 4x5 Vericolor negs of corporate head shots, and printed on Grade 3 Panalure and hand toned they were stunning.

    110 and Kodak disk were a nightmare to handle commercially. The film area was so silly small that your lenses had to be constantly focused or the grain got mushy fast. Manual optical printing or scanning was the only way to get results from them. Disk cameras had the notorious habit of under exposing, and underexposing print film with such a small film area only exacerbated the grain issue. If you could over expose print film about a stop in these small formats they would print decently as long as your printing system was tack sharp.
     

Share This Page