Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,617   Posts: 1,647,692   Online: 805
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,368
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Neanderman View Post
    Is that they way it happened? I was thinking APS pre-dated digital imaging (as we know it today...) and that the digital sensors were designed after the APS formats.

    (I'm not questioning you -- this just sounds backwards to how I -- perhaps wrongly... -- remember it. :-) )
    Kodak had in-house sensors made at their facility before the APS format. I remember handling them. At the time, they were working with the electronics industry on a format for the camera sensor and decided on the current size, which is APS in aspect and size.

    APS was being designed at about that time as well. They were both aligned and issued probably about the same time. It may well be that the APS came first, but the size question was resolved and set for both. I have no idea why they chose the format they did for these.

    PE

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by elekm View Post
    Nikon, Canon and Minolta made APS SLRs.

    Nikon had two Pronea models -- the 6i and the S. I have the S, and it's a nice little camera.

    Canon's was the IX or something like that. Minolta made the Vectis.

    APS predated digital by a couple of years. APS first, digital SLRs second -- not the other way around. In fact, most believe digital killed APS.

    Processing costs for APS generally are abnormally high. I wonder how long it will be before APS film is no longer available and processing is no longer offered.

    Actually APS (1996) postdated the DSLR(1991) by a number of years. However APS never had much in the way of serious gear available for it, all the APS SLR's were low/mid range units for the consumer market. Nobody ever made a semi-pro or pro APS body. And the advent of market-ready P&S Digital withing a couple years of APS really killed off the APS market, while processing costs limited growth prior to that.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Kodak had in-house sensors made at their facility before the APS format. I remember handling them. At the time, they were working with the electronics industry on a format for the camera sensor and decided on the current size, which is APS in aspect and size.

    APS was being designed at about that time as well. They were both aligned and issued probably about the same time. It may well be that the APS came first, but the size question was resolved and set for both. I have no idea why they chose the format they did for these.

    PE
    The most common digital format currently (DX Format, 16x24mm) is not an APS format, although it is similar in size to APS-C. Canon does use the APS-C format for their 1.6x crop bodies, and borrows the APS-H designation for their 1.3x crop bodies (which aren't actually APS-H as they use a standard 2:3 aspect ratio).

  4. #14
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,368
    Images
    65
    I measured an actual APS frame on some film and got 19.05 x 30.16 mm which is very rough as I don't have a metric caliper and so converted from fractions of an inch.

    I think we are close enough to demonstrate the point that this near correspondance in size was no coincidence. Otherwise, why have APS smaller than 35mm by such a large factor? IDK, as it required a lot of lens redesign and etc. But the same lenses can be used on SLR APS and Digital cameras. That was one long term goal AFAIK.

    I have a Pronea and a D70 and can interchange lenses.

    PE

  5. #15
    Brac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    631
    All the "instamatic" formats had SLR cameras made for them so none of them were confined to just "box" type cameras, though agreed the SLR cameras weren't intended for professionals (though at least one UK professional made a speciality of producing pictures on 110 Verichrome Pan film - I have examples of his in a book on professional photography).

    In the 126 size, SLR's were made by Kodak, Ricoh, Rollei & Zeiss Ikon. The APS SLR's by Minolta are very nice cameras (I haven't used the Canon or Nikon models). I think the format will be around for a few more years and in the UK Asda's processing prices are very reasonable and they will also put the photos on a CD-ROM if you wish. It's a pity they came in just when digital cameras were beginning to take off. They go very cheaply on ebay!

  6. #16
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,090
    Images
    56
    Amazing!

    Wonderful expositions on the history (obscure) and utility/failure of APS as a film system.

    But did anyone else here remember that Wheelygirl was asking a practical question?

    Wheelygirl - if you are still even reading this thread - just remember to get 35mm DX film for your camera.

    Sometimes - simple answers are sufficient and cleverness only creates confusion!

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,057
    On the consumer market, there were no digital SLRs using APS-sized sensors for the general public. They might have been in development, but they weren't affordable.

    Consumer digital cameras with tiny sensors and VGA resolution (0.3MP) were about $600 in the mid-1990s.

    I think I recall a pricetag of $25,000 or so for an early Kodak digital SLR -- not exactly an off-the-shelf item.

  8. #18
    wheelygirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    [for now] Arizona, U. S. A. [near future?] "Land of Enchantment"[NM]
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    204
    Images
    14

    Wow, and. . .

    Thank you all--especially George!
    When I download my Pentax P3 manual from the Web, I panicked just a touch:o when I read of the use of the DX film--I thought, "I not only have to buy b&w, but also this 'specialized' film, for this camera!! "

    Thanks for all the info about both DX & APS films. I'm indeed alot less panicked!!:rolleyes:
    [FONT=Verdana]"the real truth of a photographic image is in its ability to evoke emotion."--Bryan Peterson[/FONT]
    [COLOR="DarkOrchid"]My Muse wheels Herself about in a wheel-chair![/COLOR]

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by wheelygirl View Post
    Thank you all--especially George!
    When I download my Pentax P3 manual from the Web, I panicked just a touch:o when I read of the use of the DX film--I thought, "I not only have to buy b&w, but also this 'specialized' film, for this camera!! "
    I've got a Pentax P30t, which is closely related to the Pentax P3, although I'm not sure of the exact differences. The manual for mine specifies that it takes DX-coded film from ISO 25 to ISO 1600, in 1/3-stop increments (e.g., ISO 25, 32, 40, 50, 64, 80, 100, etc.). This covers almost everything available today, but the camera won't work right with some exceptionally slow or fast films. I recommend you double-check your manual; yours might support a slightly different range of film speeds. Also, I've run into a few cameras that only support full-stop film speeds (e.g., ISO 25, 50, 100, etc.). I doubt if Pentax would have released an SLR like that, but it's best to check it if you intend to use something like Kodachrome 64 or Ilford FP4+ 125.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,083
    I am still using the 35mm camera that's why I am here. I like almost everything about APS except for 2 things.
    First, it's a smaller format than 35mm and because of that I can never get the same quality as 35mm.
    Second, the silly 3 frame size option. The standard non crop frame size is too wide for most uses.
    The thing that killed APS is really digital because there are a number of people like myself who would like APS but don't go for it because of the smaller format. Others would like it for the P&S aspect of it but those found a much better convienient in the P&S digital.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin