Pentax closer to release of new film camera.

Well plenty of full framed compact cameras around that fit in your pocket and would have thought that was the way to go for a new camera. For newbies who want to shoot film like a digi the ideal solution for film dev costs would be to increase the size of cassettes to say 50 or 60 frames, but erm I'm sure this would be a non starter....and for some reason in the past manufacturers of cassettes and cameras designers settled on max 36 frames and why this was chosen in the first place is an enigma.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Well plenty of full framed compact cameras around that fit in your pocket and would have thought that was the way to go for a new camera. For newbies who want to shoot film like a digi the ideal solution for film dev costs would be to increase the size of cassettes to say 50 or 60 frames, but erm I'm sure this would be a non starter....and for some reason in the past manufacturers of cassettes and cameras designers settled on max 36 frames and why this was chosen in the first place is an enigma.
Click to expand...
With 50 exp available the body would probably be too bulky for easy handling and carrying, plus it may put too much strain on the film transport and cause premature wear.
 
The price will make or break this IMHO. If it's cheap enough people will but it, if it's not they'll buy a used Nikon F3 or whatever, still a cracking camera and a ton of cheapish lens for the old film cameras
 
excalibur2 said:
Well plenty of full framed compact cameras around that fit in your pocket and would have thought that was the way to go for a new camera. For newbies who want to shoot film like a digi the ideal solution for film dev costs would be to increase the size of cassettes to say 50 or 60 frames, but erm I'm sure this would be a non starter....and for some reason in the past manufacturers of cassettes and cameras designers settled on max 36 frames and why this was chosen in the first place is an enigma.
Click to expand...
but this misses the point, that having a brand new film compact shooting half-frame, as opposed to a ff or hf film camera that is at least 25 years old, is desirable. There are many digital equivalents but I have one, I like the idea of a film compact with digital-equivalent electronics but analogue capture and winder. I think they've really understood the zeitgeist.
 
It would take me about five years to get through 72 shots! Or about one evening on a drunken p*** up. I imagine the average youngster would probably fall into the latter category. :D
 
Plain Nev said:
It would take me about five years to get through 72 shots! Or about one evening on a drunken p*** up. I imagine the average youngster would probably fall into the latter category. :D
Click to expand...
LOL and if you wanted to use B/W and colour neg/pos film if would be useful to have two cameras than wait to use up one. Maybe a clever feature on a new camera is a memory so you can swap films and it resets to the frame when last used...donations to me if a good idea o_O
 
Why not just re-release a Super A or ME Super!
 
chivers67 said:
Why not just re-release a Super A or ME Super!
Click to expand...

I imagine it is probably cheaper to make a new compact from scratch than it is to retool a line to make old bodies.
 
They were nice cameras back in the day. The K 1000 too.
 
I've seen it mentioned and I'm not sure how true it is that the sale of Instax film and cameras is the most profitable part of Fujifilm. If that it true then there is some merit in it. I personally prefer film over digital. I admit digital is much more convenient especially on something like a phone where all the editing software and communication side of it is in one box ( maybe cameras should be more like this !) but the convenience makes it rather boring, take 500 shots and one is bound to be good . That said I don't like the cost of using film and then digitizing it anyway.
 
Downhill Specialist said:
That's been done already as I'm sure you know. It was smaller than 35mm though being APS film.
Click to expand...
Well I didn't know that :rolleyes:..but reading on google, Ilford investigated a thinner film for more frames in a cassette but it was abandoned. Anyway filmies will continue to have a problem with the high cost of film and dev and I suppose half frame would help with these costs although IMO it's a crap idea for a new camera and doesn't teach newbies exposure, composition etc etc that we accept here as the best way to use a film camera from 10 to 36 shots.
 
Lovely video! I've never bothered with half-frame cameras, but this one might tempt me...
 
excalibur2 said:
Well plenty of full framed compact cameras around that fit in your pocket and would have thought that was the way to go for a new camera. For newbies who want to shoot film like a digi the ideal solution for film dev costs would be to increase the size of cassettes to say 50 or 60 frames, but erm I'm sure this would be a non starter....and for some reason in the past manufacturers of cassettes and cameras designers settled on max 36 frames and why this was chosen in the first place is an enigma.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it 36 because that’s how long Oscar Barnacks arms were? That’s what I’ve heard anyway. Something about that’s how much film he could pull out and cut. Don’t know if it’s true
 
Nebular89 said:
Isn’t it 36 because that’s how long Oscar Barnacks arms were? That’s what I’ve heard anyway. Something about that’s how much film he could pull out and cut. Don’t know if it’s true
Click to expand...
I don't know whether that story is true, but certainly if the film were much longer than the current roll, it would be much harder to dry after developing!
 
ChrisR said:
I don't know whether that story is true, but certainly if the film were much longer than the current roll, it would be much harder to dry after developing!
Click to expand...
Well often I have 72 shots available by carrying two SLR cameras (one for back up) and have one with 20mm lens and other a zoom with AF, at one time had two cameras around my neck riding a push bike erm that didn't work very well :D ........... for others e.g. A SLR plus a compact camera in your pocket, of course there is always a SLR and mobile phone. o_O But then it doesn't solve the cost of film only Kodak, Fuji or Ilford etc can solve that problem.
 
Last edited:
ChrisR said:
I don't know whether that story is true, but certainly if the film were much longer than the current roll, it would be much harder to dry after developing!
Click to expand...
That sounds to me like a huge urban myth. Oskar Barnak would not had used something as inexact, amounting to virtual guesswork as the length of his arms to measure anything. He would have been far more precise. I obviously don't know exactly, but it is far more likely to have been him or a colleague rolling up a length of film to see how much could comfortably fit into one of the cassettes of the day.

The length of a 36 exp film which I reload into a cassette is 60" or 5 feet. This equates at 54" for the pictures + 6" for the leader and trailer and the 2-3mm gap between frames. That gives me exactly 36 exp.
If he used that measurement of 'arms length' he must have had very short arms. I am not over size and my arm span is at least 6'
 
Well blame Leitz or Kodak for 36 max fames in a cassette:-

####The earliest 35mm cameras used cine film bought in bulk and loaded into the cameras in the dark room; but Leitz introduced a film cassette which could be loaded with 1.6 meters of film in the darkroom, which then could be loaded into the camera in daylight when required. Several photographic suppliers made such daylight cassettes for the user to load from bulk. By the early 1930s film manufacturers also supplied film in disposable cassettes, and in 1934 Kodak created an industry standard by introducing the now-ubiquitous 135 format disposable cartridge along with their Retina cameras.###
 
Rodinal said:
That sounds to me like a huge urban myth.
Click to expand...
...as is the idea that Barnak invented the 35mm still camera.

By the time his patent was granted, there were already several still cameras in production, which used "cinematograph" film, One good source on the subject is Roger Hicks's "A History of the 35mm Still Camera" (ISBN 0-240-51233-2)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top