Two things, one, I agree that it would have had more chance if it was designed to fit 35mm film instead of APS sensors, regardless of matching the sensor size, its main tout was the 3 options for panoramic or 8x10 or 8x12 ratios, however panoramic on such a small area isn't high enough quality for any real good pano, if it had 35mm it would have had a lot more detail.

I'm saying this because I know because I have one of the only (if not THE only) semi-pro camera ever made for APX which was made by canon (I can't get it out but I think it was the canon Xi or iX something like that) It had the normal canon EF mount (and probably can take the EF-S lenses for APS digital rebels I just don't own any of those lenses to try) which means I can throw on my 70-200 2.8 Mk II and shoot rediculous photos. Or if I owned it, the 14mm (22mm on this cropped frame film) prime for a pretty nice super wide pano. I still own the thing and have 2 rolls of APX in the fridge...

My pano shots on 4x(whatever) are grainy, and this was from new film stock at the time... Which is why I say the film wasn't big enough. Could have been the printer system, who knows, I was still in high school and I don't remember where I had it done.

Anyway the point is it could have been better, if the pros could latch onto it, people would have bought in (that's why I think having 35mm film would have been better). But pros mocked it for its small size and that trickled down to people not buying in (except my mom who still complains about wanting to use her elf camera but not having. Film...) maybe I should gift her my last 2 rolls this Christmas?

"...but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong..." ~Dennis Miller


The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk