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.
Originally Posted by Neanderman
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.
Originally Posted by elekm
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.
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).
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
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.
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!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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!
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.
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]
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.
Originally Posted by wheelygirl
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.