Why did Kodak kill off Instamatic for Pocket Instamatic?

[bob_miller4]

<p>The way people typically held the 110 film cameras while shooting made camera shake almost automatic. </p>

[george_carpenter1]

<p>Will wrote: "...As a former camera seller like George, I have a slightly different take on the camera/film market of the 1970s. The Instamatic and Pocket Instamatic lines of cameras, film and processing were just an extension of the 127/120/620 box camera lineage for the family snapshooter. The 35mm shooter was in a class by himself, and it wasn't a very big one until Canon introduced the AE-1 and began a heavy TV advertising campaign. Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Minolta and Konica all followed suit with easy-to-use, heavily advertised automatic 35mm cameras. Consumers (family snapshooters) no longer believed the 35mm camera to be too technically sophisticated for their casual use."<br>

Yes, I can agree with most of that. However, I am sure, by what you say, that your market and mine were very different. My market sold mostly the low-end stuff. While that was going on, my bother-in-law bought a Minolta SRT101 and I lusted after an SLR like his. I had my Agfa folder and that was going to be my only decent 35mm camera until the 80s, when I bought a Canon F1-N. The 1970s Instamatic Reflex took a lot of pictures, though.</p>

[will_daniel1]

Yeah, I see your point. But I wasn't talking about your market or my market -- rather just trying to generalize the U.S. market in macro from the eyes of a 1970s Pentax sales rep. I loved my Instamatic Reflex, by the way.

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I've always figured that one of the reasons for making formats smaller (e.g. 110 and disc) is because a smaller format uses a shorter focal length lens, making it easier to combine fixed focus and reasonable depth of field with relatively fast speeds at cheap cost.</p>

[parv]

Thanks Marc R for starting the thread, and others for your contributions.

 

(I should have subscribed to this thread much earlier.)

[Two23]

<p>I have worked for Fuji TruColor processing and as a contract rep for Kodak in the past, and have been shooting the old cameras for the past year. My thinking is that Kodak liked to come up with a new film size fairly regularly in an attempt to shake off the competition, and to sell more cameras. They had several film sizes going in the 1950s to early 60s. People did love that 110 for its compactness. Until just last year Walmart carried 110 film even though they hated it. I hated processing & printing it too, but people kept sending in just enough rolls to keep it going. I have a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye Flash and DuaFlex III. The prices Kodak charged for these well styled "toy cameras" was pretty high at the time. These things really weren't much different inside than the cameras they made in the teens and 20s. Few customers really cared about anything beyond a 3x5 print. I sometimes had to print an 8x10 from a 110 (LOL!) and customers were shocked at how bad they looked! A small print hides a lot of blur. I do think it's sad that film such as 116 and a few others that were even earlier aren't available as there are some very substantial cameras made for those sizes. The junky cameras of the 60s and 70s though aren't good performers. They were made for styling. Take a look at a Kodak DuaFlex sometime--they were styled to look like an expensive TLR, but in reality they worked the same as a box camera from the 20s. Do not underestimate the importance to Kodak of introducing new film sizes as a way to pump up both film and camera sales to the general public. They could also sell new processing machines (major money) to film processing centers. I was there when they installed APS volume processors at Fuji TruColor and the cost of those things were just obscene! Not sure the place I worked ever recovered that cost either as digital was hot on its heels. The place has been gone for over 8 years now, but once did 8,000 to 20,000 rolls per night.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>As a lad in the 80's I used a 110 camera and looking back at those prints now they range from 'just about all acceptable' to 'downright terrible'. I blamed the 110 film and small negative area however my recent 110 project where I used top of the range 110's from Canon, Kodak and Minolta yeilded some of the crispest photos I have taken - and I had a really nice 20" print made from my Kodak Trimlite 48. This print displays fine detail and edge to edge sharpness and is a delight to see.</p>

[murray_kelly]

<p>Never had to bother with 110 or 126 when they were at their peak but bought a couple of 110 cameras late;y, mainly because they can be reloaded. The Rollie cameras are top quality stuff with excellent lenses and I checked that the spring on the back pushes the cartridge forward onto the film gate. I have been quite amazed at the detail in long distance shots even with el cheapo C-41 film.The Auto Pentax and Minolta Zoom are in the same category.</p>

<p>From time to time I see unperforated 35mm discussed and it would seem a keen user could reload them, too.</p>

<p>Kodak really were notorious for introducing a 'new' film and expecting other manufacturers to follow suit - and they did. Usually with a better product. The sad story is Kodak then abandoned the format and went on to something else leaving the field for others to pick up. This has finally come back to bite them. Nobody trusts them any more.</p>

<p>I often wonder if the Vest Pocket was intended to go the same way? 127 with 16 on predated the 35mm and kept on for for many years. I have a couple of 127s here. The baby 4x4 is the most popular. Only 12 on, but fun, anyway, but did Kodak actually think it would 'take off' so? I suspect not.<br>

I picked up a Kodak 110 plastic camera for $2 the other day and probably paid too much for it but will play with it using slit film or whatever and just have some innocent fun. Can't expect much for all that money! :-) Would a piece of foam push that cart firmly onto the gate?</p>

<p>I also use 16mm reloads in 110 cassettes - you just have to know the workarounds to use it in certain cameras. 126 is a whole different beast unless you can accept the perf holes.</p>

<p>Thanks for a fascinating thread, one and all.</p>

[murray_kelly]

<p>Never had to bother with 110 or 126 when they were at their peak but bought a couple of 110 cameras lately, mainly because they can be reloaded. The Rollie cameras are top quality stuff with excellent lenses and I checked that the spring on the back pushes the cartridge forward onto the film gate. I have been quite amazed at the detail in long distance shots even with el cheapo C-41 film.The Auto Pentax and Minolta Zoom are in the same category.</p>

<p>From time to time I see unperforated 35mm discussed and it would seem a keen 126 user could reload them, too?</p>

<p>Kodak really were notorious for introducing a 'new' film and expecting other manufacturers to follow suit - and they did. Usually with a better product. The sad story is Kodak then abandoned the format and went on to something else leaving the field for others to continue. This formula has finally come back to bite them. Nobody trusts them any more.</p>

<p>I often wonder if the Vest Pocket was intended to go the same way? 127 with 16 on predated the 35mm with almost the same film area and it kept on for for many years. I have a couple of 127s here. The baby 4x4 is the most popular. Only 12 on, and fun anyway, but did Kodak actually think 127 would 'take off' so spectacularly? I suspect not.<br>

I picked up a Kodak 110 plastic camera for $2 the other day and probably paid too much for it but will play with it using slit film or whatever and just have some innocent fun. Can't expect much for all that money! :-) Would a piece of foam push that cart firmly onto the gate? Easy to experiment.</p>

<p>I also use 16mm reloads in 110 cassettes, as it's the same width and you just have to know the workarounds to use it in certain cameras. 126 is a whole different beast unless you can accept the perf holes.</p>

<p>Thanks for a fascinating thread, one and all.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

A 126 instamatic wasn't a bother, Murray. Compared to the Agfa Clacks, the Baby Brownies and other 'box' cameras that were still very much in use at the time, it was a refreshing new thing that made a lot of difference. The image quality those other amateur cameras produced wasn't that great. And many offered even less control over exposure than the Instamatics did.<br>They were easy to use and produced good photographs. Hence their unparalled success.

[murray_kelly]

<p>Oh yes, QG. There have been all sorts of cameras foist on the public, but we still keep them alive for no reason at all except it's fun. I've got my own lemons here, don't worry. A Bencini 127 looks great but the results aren't too great to match the looks. A Baby Brownie for old time's sake. An Agfa Rapid x 2 (now there's an orphan) You get the picture. Hey - it's all about enjoying yourself and not getting too serious.</p>

[dan_b.4]

<p>Call me cynical if you wish but I believe the purpose of introducing a new film format (as it is with audio recording formats) is to get you to buy new equipment. I'd be surprised if Kodak didn't make a mile-high pile of money off those cheap little cameras. Cheap to buy = even cheaper to make.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>For reloaders I have heard the Kodak 110 cameras needed the single sprocket hole to stop the film advance but the Minoltas didn't need that to stop advancing.</p>

<p>Aside from that, if anyone knows where to unload 5 yellow Minolta underwater 110s, let me know.</p>