seany65
Well-known
DS Colour Labs in the UK do 110/126/35mm/120 mono and C41 and E6 colour with Dev+scan or Dev+print+scan. They do a range of print sizes not just 5x4 for 110/126.
They did tell me they'd have no problem printing 24mmx24mm negs (I was awaiting an Altissa Altix III when I asked).
I've yet to ask if they 35mm half-frame and how they'd go about it - 2 photos on one 6x4 print or one photo per 6x4 print?
I'm sure there's a shop in Carlisle that does 110 and other sizes, but that's only from remembering a leaflet that came with some film I bought from them on ebay, so I could be wrong on the location.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Peak Imaging up in Sheffield (UK) will do 110, too. It's a bit hidden away on their website (under "old film rescue": https://www.peak-imaging.com/category/59-old-film-rescue), but alongside the usual 35mm, 120 and 220 options, they do 110, 126, 127, 620 and APS. Prints are "gloss paper to their relative format of 5"x3.5" or 5"x5"."
Incidentally, these guys charge no different for E6, C41 or black and white. They're my favourite guys to send film to for that reason.
Incidentally, these guys charge no different for E6, C41 or black and white. They're my favourite guys to send film to for that reason.
Useful info here about film sources and processing. I have three of the Pentax Auto 110 SLRs; interesting comparison to see one set next to a Pentax 6x7! And a challenge to self-process. I've shot a bunch of Kodacolor in mine, but back in 1983 I was taking college art dept photo classes and one quarter I used Verichrome Pan in a 110 for class assignments. Tried to squeeze maximum quality out of it. The ISO 125 film was exposed as dictated by the camera, developed in Ilford Perceptol 1:3 in water, 10 min 75 deg with water pre-soak. Using a Minolta 30mm enlarging lens on my Beseler 67 enlarger I made the best 8x10 prints I could manage. In the classroom exhibition I was quiet about technical details and nobody ever criticized the quality of the prints. I'm pretty impressed at what this little thing can do, but I still favor medium format...
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
A photo I made a few years ago on another website when I got my KX. I didn’t have enough room to show the SP500 and H3v.
Attachments
seany65
Well-known
Sorry to "necropost" yet again, but a few minutes ago I opened a a kodak Ultra 400 (exp 2009) and the tab down the right hand side went almost all the way. I'd expected it to stop halfway, so I opened a Sakura (made in EU) 200 (exp 2009), a Tiger 200, an Orca 100 and a Fuji Superia 200 (exp 2005) and ALL of them have what look to be identical tabs down the right hand side (with label facing me). The tabs on the Lomo films seem to be a little bit thicker from front (label side) to back (film side). I can see no other differences.
I am officially confused.
I am officially confused.
skucera
Well-known
We're digging back into 30-40 year old knowledge that I haven't thought about for years, but I seem to remember that cameras that could handle newer, faster, 110 films only starting in 1977 or so. Starting with the introduction of 110 film in 1972, the first 110 cameras only took slow films, 64 ASA for Kodachrome slide film and 100 ASA for color print film and 80 ASA for panchromatic B+W print film.
Sometime around 1977 or so some nicer 110 cameras started using a pogo switch to sense "fast" film speeds using that cut-out in the end spine on the cartridge that you mentioned. After I got a Pentax Auto 110 for Christmas in 1980 I read in a camera magazine in the library that Kodak's specification didn't specify the exact speed of the fast film. Some "fast" film was 200 ASA and some was 400 ASA. The difference was apparently handled automatically in print machines after developing the film. The film had enough exposure latitude if the newer 110 camera adjusted its exposure a little using that cutout pogo switch.
I sometimes hope that some retired design engineers from Kodak or the many camera manufacturers could comment on their experiences with designing 110 film and 110 film cameras, but that all happened decades ago. Most of those engineers are probably dead by now. Too bad, really.
Scott
Sometime around 1977 or so some nicer 110 cameras started using a pogo switch to sense "fast" film speeds using that cut-out in the end spine on the cartridge that you mentioned. After I got a Pentax Auto 110 for Christmas in 1980 I read in a camera magazine in the library that Kodak's specification didn't specify the exact speed of the fast film. Some "fast" film was 200 ASA and some was 400 ASA. The difference was apparently handled automatically in print machines after developing the film. The film had enough exposure latitude if the newer 110 camera adjusted its exposure a little using that cutout pogo switch.
I sometimes hope that some retired design engineers from Kodak or the many camera manufacturers could comment on their experiences with designing 110 film and 110 film cameras, but that all happened decades ago. Most of those engineers are probably dead by now. Too bad, really.
Scott
seany65
Well-known
Thanks for the info skucera. I believe Kodak also didn't actually specify what speed they considered "slow", so the minolta 110 slr mk2 saw it as 100asa (as mentioned in their brochure for the camera) and it seems the Minox 110s saw it as 64asa. That's alright for print films but there was at least one 64asa slide film, so how would that have come out?
Hmmm, so the print machines automatically adjusted for the density of the print whatever speed the film was? So what would be the point of any camera being able to adjust its exposure depending on the film speed? What if a fast film was over exposed to give the same density as a 100asa normally exposed film, how would the machine know?
Hmm, in that case would there be any difference in the prints, even if the machine couldn't automatically adjust?
Would there be any point in using a camera that has a wide range of exposures it can give, if the machine is going to adjust the print exposure anyway??
What's the meaning of Life, the Universe and everything?
Hmmm, so the print machines automatically adjusted for the density of the print whatever speed the film was? So what would be the point of any camera being able to adjust its exposure depending on the film speed? What if a fast film was over exposed to give the same density as a 100asa normally exposed film, how would the machine know?
Hmm, in that case would there be any difference in the prints, even if the machine couldn't automatically adjust?
Would there be any point in using a camera that has a wide range of exposures it can give, if the machine is going to adjust the print exposure anyway??
What's the meaning of Life, the Universe and everything?
skucera
Well-known
The upshot of pushing film and under- or over-exposing prints was that sometimes I got some really underexposed prints back from the developer, with the graininess that you'd expect. This was all the more obvious because the negatives were small, so there wasn't any leeway for blowing up prints past 5x7.
Surprisingly, because slide film was less expensive and developing slides was less expensive too, I tended to shoot lots of slides back in college on my little Auto 110 and with my Weathermatic 110. The slides tended to come out beautiful, and evening slide shows in my co-op among my artsy housemates tended to get lots of surprise and compliments on what my tiny cameras could capture. Kodachrome was amazing; I miss it dearly.
I didn't answer your question looking for your approval or disapproval. I simply shared my experience from decades ago. Experience later in my career, working with one of Kodak's leading color scientists 25 years ago taught me that sometimes Kodak went to amazing lengths to do things right, and sometimes they cheated on aspects of film design, chemistry, developing, and printing that they calculated wouldn't grossly affect the outcome of the customer's use of their cameras, films, or development services. However, sometimes they miscalculated badly. For example, the color scientist I worked with was tangentially associated with the fiasco that was the Kodak Disc camera system. He admitted that the idea to save money on film costs by going to tiny negatives was wholly triggered by bean counters, and Kodak product managers erred by not listening to poor focus group feedback and launching the system anyway. Nobody collects Disc cameras or film for a reason... they suck. 110 sucked a little too, but the convenience of having a camera that could fit in your pocket was alluring. There are gadgeteers like me who really enjoyed tiny cameras even if they made tiny prints. Check out the Minox enthusiasts for an even more extreme example. If you don't want to work with the limitations of 110 film, the modern dearth of 110 developers, and the crappy quality of modern 110 films, then feel free to go back to 35mm. Nobody is holding you against your will in this 110 thread.
Also...
The meaning of Life is that life always finds a way.
Scott
Surprisingly, because slide film was less expensive and developing slides was less expensive too, I tended to shoot lots of slides back in college on my little Auto 110 and with my Weathermatic 110. The slides tended to come out beautiful, and evening slide shows in my co-op among my artsy housemates tended to get lots of surprise and compliments on what my tiny cameras could capture. Kodachrome was amazing; I miss it dearly.
I didn't answer your question looking for your approval or disapproval. I simply shared my experience from decades ago. Experience later in my career, working with one of Kodak's leading color scientists 25 years ago taught me that sometimes Kodak went to amazing lengths to do things right, and sometimes they cheated on aspects of film design, chemistry, developing, and printing that they calculated wouldn't grossly affect the outcome of the customer's use of their cameras, films, or development services. However, sometimes they miscalculated badly. For example, the color scientist I worked with was tangentially associated with the fiasco that was the Kodak Disc camera system. He admitted that the idea to save money on film costs by going to tiny negatives was wholly triggered by bean counters, and Kodak product managers erred by not listening to poor focus group feedback and launching the system anyway. Nobody collects Disc cameras or film for a reason... they suck. 110 sucked a little too, but the convenience of having a camera that could fit in your pocket was alluring. There are gadgeteers like me who really enjoyed tiny cameras even if they made tiny prints. Check out the Minox enthusiasts for an even more extreme example. If you don't want to work with the limitations of 110 film, the modern dearth of 110 developers, and the crappy quality of modern 110 films, then feel free to go back to 35mm. Nobody is holding you against your will in this 110 thread.
Also...
The meaning of Life is that life always finds a way.
Scott
seany65
Well-known
Skucera, it seems I've annoyed you in some way, if so I apologise, it's that I'm a bear with very little brain and am trying to get my head around the idea that I've got that it doesn't seem to matter what film speed the camera can see or use but the print machine will print it out however it feels, even printing every film as if they are all one speed but compensating for the exposure in each print. If that's the case, why would any camera maker make a camera that can see different speeds?
It's a bit much for me.
Anyway, I got some new SR44's earlier today so I did a bit of an experiment. I took a couple of readings without a film in my 110 slr mk2, and with a kodak 400 in it. The ones with the kodak in gave slower speeds. I then tried an Orca 100, and the readings were the same, eg. as if both films were 100asa. So I cut some of the right-hand tab off the kodak and put it back in and now the readings give the same speeds as if there's no film in. I had previously compared readings from a Nikon F301 set to 400asa, with lens set at 50mm and it gave the same readings as the 110 zoom slr mk2 without film in, so I'm pretty sure the camera now thinks a "fast" film is in it.
So with any further 400asa films I could leave the tab alone and expose at -1 stop to expose the film at 200asa as if it's 400 that's been given more exposure to compensate for being expired, or I could trim the tab off and expose at +1. To my tiny brain it seems this could be the best way, as it leaves open the chance to normally expose at -/+0 and use up to -/+2 stops in various lighting situtations, but this idea is still a little muddy/vague to me.
It's a bit much for me.
Anyway, I got some new SR44's earlier today so I did a bit of an experiment. I took a couple of readings without a film in my 110 slr mk2, and with a kodak 400 in it. The ones with the kodak in gave slower speeds. I then tried an Orca 100, and the readings were the same, eg. as if both films were 100asa. So I cut some of the right-hand tab off the kodak and put it back in and now the readings give the same speeds as if there's no film in. I had previously compared readings from a Nikon F301 set to 400asa, with lens set at 50mm and it gave the same readings as the 110 zoom slr mk2 without film in, so I'm pretty sure the camera now thinks a "fast" film is in it.
So with any further 400asa films I could leave the tab alone and expose at -1 stop to expose the film at 200asa as if it's 400 that's been given more exposure to compensate for being expired, or I could trim the tab off and expose at +1. To my tiny brain it seems this could be the best way, as it leaves open the chance to normally expose at -/+0 and use up to -/+2 stops in various lighting situtations, but this idea is still a little muddy/vague to me.
seany65
Well-known
If anyone is interested, there's a Brit-based seller on ebay with some kodak 64asa 110 slide film for sale. I got my Fuji Superia 200 from him.
skucera
Well-known
Seany, I'm a little envious. I own a great many 110 cameras, but I haven't found a 110 Zoom SLR Mk. 2 yet. I have a Mk. 1, which is cool looking. I'm an inveterate camera junky, and curious little cameras always catch my eye, but I just haven't seen a Mk. 2 for sale locally yet. Hmmm... maybe I should check out eBay....
Scott
Scott
seany65
Well-known
Skucera, where are you? I've just done a quick search of PicClick UK (actaully ebay, but with all the results on one single page across the entire screen which you scroll down). There's one in Austria for £50.52, there's one in Canada for £70, one in Germany for £123, one in the UK for £129, another for £144, another for £60, another one for £80 (no battery cover) and anther one for £175. I've not read the descriptions to any lenght, especially the foreign ones.
All a far cry from the £35 inc p+p I paid for my first one, which I sent to a penpal a while ago.
A brit ebay seller called "cliffpr" has one that I sent back, which had a wobbly/dodgy exposure correction dial which wouldn't just "drop in" like they are supposed to, but you had to press it down, and I noticed a very thin odd "patch" on the front edge of the lens which stretches from just below the "25mm" to just below the "1:" of "1:3.5". I've yet to hear back from him about what he thinks it is and whether he'll give a refund. I'm hoping that if he thinks niether of those things is a problem he'll realise that he'll be able to sell it again and give me a refund. So there may yet be another brit-based mk2 for sale.
All a far cry from the £35 inc p+p I paid for my first one, which I sent to a penpal a while ago.
A brit ebay seller called "cliffpr" has one that I sent back, which had a wobbly/dodgy exposure correction dial which wouldn't just "drop in" like they are supposed to, but you had to press it down, and I noticed a very thin odd "patch" on the front edge of the lens which stretches from just below the "25mm" to just below the "1:" of "1:3.5". I've yet to hear back from him about what he thinks it is and whether he'll give a refund. I'm hoping that if he thinks niether of those things is a problem he'll realise that he'll be able to sell it again and give me a refund. So there may yet be another brit-based mk2 for sale.
skucera
Well-known
Seany, I'm near the Pacific coast of the US, in the state of Oregon. I checked out eBay, and found only four Mk. 2's in the US or Canada but none of them are indicated as tested and working. There are several listed from Japan too, and a couple from the UK, but all of these were quite expensive. I put in an automated search so I'll bide my time.
Thanks,
Scott
Thanks,
Scott
seany65
Well-known
I have, in the past couple of minutes, just found out that there are TWO versions of the 110 zoom slr mkii. After several years, lol.
1) Presumably the first version, has a normal letter "o" in the word "Minolta" on the front of the pentaprism.
2) Presumably the second version, has the "Minolta Logo" in place of the letter "o", the Logo being a filled circle with 4 clear horizontal lines running through the middle of it.
I don't know if there any other differences, but I've seen a mention that it can take the angle finder V and on another site that it can take the angle finder Vn. There's also mention that it can't work without a film in, but mine can - I tried it at different apertures and fired the shutter and got different shutter speeds, some much slower than the official 1/4 second, rather like the nikon fe can go longer than the official 8 seconds. I've also seen mention that the 1/60 speed in the finder has it's own led and a separate one for speeds between 1/60 and 1/4, but my first didn't and my preset one does not have this separate 1/60 led. It would also seem a little "crowded" at 1/60 if it did have more than one led there.
I'd like to find out if there were any changes other than the "o"/"logo", so if anyone has any actual, real, info. please post, it would be much appreciated.
1) Presumably the first version, has a normal letter "o" in the word "Minolta" on the front of the pentaprism.
2) Presumably the second version, has the "Minolta Logo" in place of the letter "o", the Logo being a filled circle with 4 clear horizontal lines running through the middle of it.
I don't know if there any other differences, but I've seen a mention that it can take the angle finder V and on another site that it can take the angle finder Vn. There's also mention that it can't work without a film in, but mine can - I tried it at different apertures and fired the shutter and got different shutter speeds, some much slower than the official 1/4 second, rather like the nikon fe can go longer than the official 8 seconds. I've also seen mention that the 1/60 speed in the finder has it's own led and a separate one for speeds between 1/60 and 1/4, but my first didn't and my preset one does not have this separate 1/60 led. It would also seem a little "crowded" at 1/60 if it did have more than one led there.
I'd like to find out if there were any changes other than the "o"/"logo", so if anyone has any actual, real, info. please post, it would be much appreciated.
seany65
Well-known
I've managed to look at two different manuals for the slr mkII, one has illustrations of a camera with the "o" in the name and the other with the symbol in the name, and both have the same viewfinder photo and neither "version" has a single led for 1/60 and another for 1/60 to 1/4. There is only one slightly elongated led for speeds from (and including) 1/60 - 1/4.
Both manuals tell of it being able to take the Magnifier Vn, Angle finder V and the Eyepiece corrector Vn.
Hmmm, did the angle finder Vn come out after the demise of the slr mkII? If not, why would it not be able to take the angle finder Vn if it could take the other Vn things?
By they way, if anyone is thinking of getting an slr mkII, don't believe anyone, including Minolta, that says the X and B settings are mechanical. They are not, the camera still needs the batteries to fire those speeds. What Minolta should've actually written is that those settings are not metered. Why they would change the shutter firing arrangement from the mark 1 I don't know, it seems it's shutter actually is mechanical at X and B. See, not advances take you forward.
Both manuals tell of it being able to take the Magnifier Vn, Angle finder V and the Eyepiece corrector Vn.
Hmmm, did the angle finder Vn come out after the demise of the slr mkII? If not, why would it not be able to take the angle finder Vn if it could take the other Vn things?
By they way, if anyone is thinking of getting an slr mkII, don't believe anyone, including Minolta, that says the X and B settings are mechanical. They are not, the camera still needs the batteries to fire those speeds. What Minolta should've actually written is that those settings are not metered. Why they would change the shutter firing arrangement from the mark 1 I don't know, it seems it's shutter actually is mechanical at X and B. See, not advances take you forward.
skucera
Well-known
Interesting, Seany, interesting.... Nice to know that about the non-mechanical "mechanical" shutter. Good to keep in mind.
Scott
Scott
seany65
Well-known
Skucera, do you ever go on "Etsy"? If so there's a yank seller offering a mkII for £98.75/$125.45. Here's a link in case you'd like to consider it:
www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1623776574/minolta-110-zoom-mkii-mini-slr-japan
I'll have to test the link though,as the actual one is very long.
Edit: The link worked. I must say though, that the two photos in the listing that the seller says were taken using the camera seem a little too good, maybe a bit 'shopped?
www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1623776574/minolta-110-zoom-mkii-mini-slr-japan
I'll have to test the link though,as the actual one is very long.
Edit: The link worked. I must say though, that the two photos in the listing that the seller says were taken using the camera seem a little too good, maybe a bit 'shopped?
skucera
Well-known
Seems ingenuine. Are we to expect that this seller in the UK took this camera to both Cambodia and the US to take these pictures?
Scott
Scott
seany65
Well-known
Skuce, the seller is in the US. On the right hand side, just above the little green bit which has "etsy offsets carbon emissions..." it has "Dispatches from the Unite States". At the bottom of the listing, it has "more from this shop" and some photo link. I've just clicked on the "HeyCoolCamera" link, (they seem to be based in California), which I believe is the name of the etsy shop that is selling the mkII, and they seem to hahve quite a collection of stuff.
Of course I can't say if the shop is legit or not.
Of course I can't say if the shop is legit or not.
seany65
Well-known
I've just been looking through the HeyCoolCamera shop on Etsy, and while they do have some interesting cameras, (and have some from makes I've never heard of : "Lordox", "Ultrafex", "Monte 35", "Mansfield Skylark 35" anyone else?), I get the impression that it's possible they trawl the iinterwebnet to find photos that have been taken with other examples of some of their cameras. I could of course be totally wrong with that impression.