Why did the APS technology/format not work out, in your opinion?
I have a friend who bought a Canon APS camera in 2000, and I was expecting the format to be popular among snap-shooters because of the convenience of loading/unloading, and the choice of formats (regular, panorama, etc.) at the flip of a switch.
If anything was in the sights of digital from the gitgo it was APS. If it wasn't for digital. it might have lasted even longer than disk film.
That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
I have a Minolta S-1 APS SLR with a zoom and a macro lens. Actually, it's not a bad camera for fun stuff, and in panorama mode, it's a blast. If you shoot the C-41 B&W Kodak film, you can always make your own prints (the cartridge actually opens easily once you know how), on B&W paper.
I agree, it was DOA against digital. The same sized cameras (Digital Elph vs Canon Elph) that used APS as P&S, are now replaced by their digital offspring. I note that my Minolta S-1 now has a very similar-looking non-relative, the Olympus E-volt 330, which has a sideways prism and body shape like the S-1.
Half-frame -- my Olympus Pen D is a wonderful piece of work.
The biggest thing going against APS unfortunately is that almost everywhere it is more expensive to process & print than the equivalent 35mm film. When Kodak announced in the UK that they were dropping APS cameras (but not film) that triggered a big post mortem in the photographic press. One of the biggest amateur labs in the UK (the Bonusprint group) said the problem was that when the format was developed by Kodak & its APS partners they did not consult with the photofinishing trade and the resulting product was inherently more expensive to process than 35mm. A great pity and of course digital P & S cameras have put another nail in the coffin but at the moment you can still get cameras, film, processing and scanning to CD, so it's worth enjoying its benefits while you can!
Originally Posted by sensanjay
Miffed a little!
I was in my local lab one day and I spotted this incredible sunset coming out of the printer, it was big too 24x16. When I asked who took and what with, in my imagination picturing some wonderful piece of kit, I was told some dude took it as a snap with an APS while on holiday.
The week before I'd just bought a Bronica, I'll let you imagine the discusting look on my face....
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
We should all be thankful for the Disc and 110.
Originally Posted by ElrodCod
Both formats were developed because of the need for small P&S cameras, that were easier than 35mm for the casual snapshooter to load and unload.
(in fact, 126 was designed with the same idea in mind, but the square format resulted in 3 1/2" x 3 1?2" prints (at the time) that didn't appeal to people, the cameras weren't that small, and they had film flatness problems)
In order to make 110 and, in particular, Disc film practical, Kodak and others had to put a significant amount of resources into developing wide lattitude finer grain films.
All of our modern colour films owe a lot to that work.
All of which reminds me that my Dad used to shoot 110 Kodachrome, and sometimes still shoots 110 print film. Somewhere, I still have a 110 slide projector in storage (I think). It made for great presentations, because it would fit in a small briefcase, and a filled slide tray was tiny! You could even get Kodak to duplicate your 35mm slides down to 110 size, for that purpose.
I better be careful that I don't accidently post this in the Large Format forums!
I picked up one of those projectors recently, along with a bunch of slides - the quality is surprisingly good. I can respool cut down slide film without too much problem, but need to figure out where to get 110 slide mounts! Any ideas?
Originally Posted by MattKing
(ironically 127 slide mounts are no problem at all!)
Don't write off 110 till you've shot 110 in a Pentax or a Rollei.