Results from Canon 110 ED and Fuji Superia

[Ian Rance]

Hi,

 

I am often reading about peoples views on 110 cameras of various

makes, and about are they any good or not, however I thought that I

would post two recent images taken with mine for those who have not

seen 110 results, or are interested to try a 110 camera perhaps.

 

See: http://www.photo.net/photo/4390428

and: http://www.photo.net/photo/4390365

 

Whilst I read alot about peoples experiences with their 110's, I

rarely get to see the results, so I am resetting the balance a

liitle here. The Canon 110 ED is well made and mine was made in

1975 - and still working very well. It is a pleasure to operate and

I have my photos developed a Jessops - who also offer a high

resolution scan CD at the time of processing.

 

My thoughts on 110 photos are that despite the grain when seriously

enlarged, they still have a place in today's photo world - mainly

due to the fact that when using a good film and camera, the pictures

look very colourful and vibrant - moreso than alot of digital

cameras that are alot more expensive.

 

Anyone else have any 110 photos to share or an opinion?

 

Ian, UK

[ted_marcus1]

I shot quite a bit of 110 in the 1970s. I used a Kodak Pocket Instamatic 60, known for the sharpness of its f/2.7 Ektar lens. Using Kodachrome-X and Kodachrome 64, the best of the slides were sharp and fine-grained enough to project on a 50x50-inch screen. Scanned at 4000dpi (4.7 megapixels), they're good enough for 8x10 prints. A drum scan at higher resolution might be able to produce 11x14s of the very sharpest slides. I have <a href="http://www.tedsimages.com/text/eurfd.htm">a collection of 70 of those slides</a> on my Web site, though the versions there don't have enough resolution to judge the quality.

 

<p>Looking at your pictures at their largest size confirms my long-held suspicion that the real limitation of 110 was (and is) the available color negative films. Your pictures are definitely sharp, but they're really too grainy for significant enlargement. Noise-reduction software like NeatImage or Noise Ninja would probably help a lot. The original Kodacolor II was pretty awful, with grain often all too visible even in 3.5x5 prints. Despite substantial improvements in film technology since 1972, an enlargement from a 13x17mm negative is going to be grainy without digital intervention. Kodachrome was far from grainless, but its image quality was good enough for enlargement. If it were possible to put today's Provia or Velvia into a 110 cartridge, you could probably do some serious work with your camera.

 

<p>I'll have to disagree about "a place in today's photo world" for 110 cameras. That place vanished around 20 years ago when compact 35mm point-and-shoot cameras became widely available. Those aren't much bigger and heavier than 110 cameras, and aren't that much more difficult to load. But their image quality is so much better that it's obvious even to the casual snapshooter. The arrival of the 35mm point-and-shoot also coincided with Kodak's discontinuation of 110 slide film, which permanently deprived 110 cameras of any ability to produce colorful, vibrant, and fine-grained images.

 

<p>You do have to give Kodak's executives at the time a lot of credit for their visionary imagination. They believed they could create a new camera system that could meet the needs of both the snapshooter and the more serious photographer. For the former they provided inexpensive cameras with surprisingly sharp lenses; for the latter they provided the Pocket Instamatic 60, Kodachrome and Ektachrome slide film, and even special projectors for the 30x30mm slide mounts. Although 110 slides were capable of very good image quality— photo magazines at the time featured double-page spreads made from them— they never caught on; in hindsight the reasons are very obvious (they became particularly obvious when I reached Bifocal age and started having trouble squinting even at 35mm slides). Despite the lack of popularity, 110 Kodachrome slide film remained available for over 10 years. Today's executives would probably kill it after three weeks of unspectacular sales. 110 might have represented the last hurrah for Kodak as a visionary company. Their next batch of executives replaced 110 with the utterly abominable Disc Camera, followed by the utterly pointless APS.

[andrew robertson]

Good for you guys. I have found that Superia does well even from the small negative of a

Minox.

 

Is there any way to load 110? I suppose you'd have to break the cartridge. If you can get

specialty ultra-slow B&W film for your 110 camera (or Minox) huge enlargements are

possible, especially if you have a decent lens.

[ted_marcus1]

110 film is a unique 16mm format with one perforation per frame. Cameras have a little sensing arm that locks the film advance when the perforation reaches it. Loading a 110 cartridge would probably require a custom-built film slitter to cut down 35mm film and put the perforation in just the right place.

 

If I remember right (from when I used to process my own 110 Verichrome Pan 30-odd years ago) the film isn't attached to the paper backing with tape. The cartridge is designed so that film advance locks just after the end of the film winds onto the takeup spool. So there was no need to break the cartridge. -- merely stick a pencil or similar object through the back of window that showed the frame number, push it to free the paper, and then pull the paper and film out. There was surely some kind of specialized attachment to the processing machine to do that.

 

I would imagine that reloading would involve removing the film from an existing cartridge, then threading the new film back into the supply area. Probably painstaking work.

[User_502260]

I have a modest collection of 110 cameras. It includes a Pentax Auto 110 with four lenses, an original Minolta 110 Zoom SLR and a host of bar shaped cameras. My favorite? A Kodak Trimlite 48. I paid $1 for it more than 10 years ago. The battery had to be ordered from Radio Shack's battery depot in Texas. It cost $11.

 

When I was in college I worked at General Photo in Boston. The owner of the store, Milton Mishara, took me along to a Pentax dinner. I saw 11X14 display prints which were made on 110 size Kodachrome. They were beautiful. I have never seen any 110 work done to that high standard since then. A good friend who lives in Japan and who worked in the U.S. on several stints for Konica had a Minolta 110 SLR Mark II. He sent his film to a lab which used Konica equipment and the results were very good.

 

I still use my 110 cameras sometimes and I send the film to Clark for processing. The original small prints are nothing to write home about but 5X7 prints ordered later are quite good. I agree that the potential of 110 was never realized because the quality of processing for it was so poor. Once Kodak introduced its first T-Grain color print films in the early 1980s a window of opportunity was opened for quality 110 images. That window was closed a few years later when AF 35mm point & shoot cameras became popular.

 

I still have 126 film in my freezer but processing options for that format are even more limited.

[ted_marcus1]

<i>I still have 126 film in my freezer but processing options for that format are even more limited.</i>

 

<p>126 film is 35mm wide, so any lab with a standard 35mm processing machine should be able to process the negatives (or slides). The minimum-wage teenagers who staff the minilab at the local supermarket, laundry, or bowling alley probably wouldn't know how to break the cartridge, extract the takeup spool, and remove the film from the backing paper, but a large wholesale lab should certainly have someone who can do that. Getting full-frame square prints might require sending the film to a large wholesale lab that still has the right negative holders. But any minilab should be able to make prints that crop a few millimeters off the top and bottom.

[anthony_armstrong]

I travelled a lot on business in the late 70s & early 80s and I usually took a Voigtlander 110 with me - it had a sharp f5.6 lens. Loaded with Kodak colour negative it produced reasonable 4x6 prints. yes they were grainy and not able to be enlarged but at least it was in my briefcase or pocket at all times so I captured many memories that would otherwise have been lost so I owe Kodak & 110 film a debt of gratitude.

 

Then I discovered a cheap full frame 35mm camera imported by Hanimex into the UK. It had a zone focus, 3 element lens that opened up to f2.8 so I could take pictures inside a museum without flash - the 110 was history for me!

 

When APS came on the scene I lusted after the Canon elph/ixus but it was too late to market and by then there were plenty of pocketable full frame 35mm cameras (I still use the Oly stylus epic) with easy loading so why bother with the extra cost and lower quality of APS?

 

I am lucky to own the Contax T2 and T3 which are just a little too heavy for the pants pocket but can be squeezed into a jacket pocket without dragging the jacket down too much. With those two cameras technical quality is never an issue - they are as sharp & contrasty as any SLR prime lens!!

 

Today, of course, for all round useability in a pocket camera you cannot beat a small digital camera. On this point I disagree with Ian. At 6 megapixels there is probably more detail than 110 film could capture and the colour accuracy is better than film while you can tune the contrast and saturation to be as "vibrant" as you wish, either in-camera or on the computer afterwards.

 

A digicam now resides permanently in my briefcase as the modern functional equivalent of a 110 film camera - taking the everyday snapshot when the SLR is just too much to carry. I don't believe that there is a place in today's world for 110 - even with the superb Canon 110 ED camera. I love film and still process my own 35mm black & white. In the past I also reloaded Minolta 16mm cartridges and also used a Yashica Atoron (Minox cartridges) so I can claim to be a fan of subminature formats. However I have to admit that, today, digital is just better all round for everyday snapshots.