Prototype MINT 35mm Film Camera

[Pál_K]

It's sad that Kodak and the camera companies didn't innovate to get the most out of the 135 format prior to digital photography.

We had full frame 24x36mm to start with and from the 1970's onward we got successively inferior formats: 126, 110, disc!, and APS.

When film photography was at its peak usage, the late 1980's - early 1990's, that would've been the time for something truly new: improve the usable image area. Kodak did this in 1965 with Super-8 (with less area for sprocket holes, more image area). Similarly, with 35mm film a new format could have been created with narrower sprocket holes and an image area of perhaps 28x42mm (same ratio as 24x36); this would give 1176 sq mm compared to 864 sq mm. Yes, new machinery would be needed to perforate the film, new cameras, new lenses, but they did that anyway when they chose the inferior formats. At least with 28x42, there is better image quality.

 

[armadsen]

Photo walks are a social event as much as anything. Our local camera club does them, though not with anywhere near 100 people, and I've gotten some shots I love on them. I went to a film specific one in Brooklyn last fall with a lot of people. As you might expect, the group tilted young, though there were several gray haired people too. I didn't take any prize winners, but I got some quick portraits of people I met on the walk that are now fond memories. Mainly, I sure had a blast meeting people, checking out cool cameras, etc. Not everything in photography is about the final print...

Our local camera club is not film specific, but on our walks, I'd say it's roughly 60/40 film/digital. I see all kinds of cameras. Mostly SLRs, but also rangefinders and P&S. Again, the club is by far mostly young people (20s and 30s). I'm 38 and quite possibly the oldest regular attendee.

 

[Cascadilla]

It's sad that Kodak and the camera companies didn't innovate to get the most out of the 135 format prior to digital photography.

We had full frame 24x36mm to start with and from the 1970's onward we got successively inferior formats: 126, 110, disc!, and APS.

When film photography was at its peak usage, the late 1980's - early 1990's, that would've been the time for something truly new: improve the usable image area. Kodak did this in 1965 with Super-8 (with less area for sprocket holes, more image area). Similarly, with 35mm film a new format could have been created with narrower sprocket holes and an image area of perhaps 28x42mm (same ratio as 24x36); this would give 1176 sq mm compared to 864 sq mm. Yes, new machinery would be needed to perforate the film, new cameras, new lenses, but they did that anyway when they chose the inferior formats. At least with 28x42, there is better image quality.

While I agree that Kodak could have done that, the trend was to make cameras smaller and lighter which implies smaller film sizes. The great advances in the quality of color neg films stemmed from the development of the disc cameras--the idea was that if the film was capable of making "acceptable" 4x6 prints from such a tiny negative then they would sell millions of cameras and rolls of film along with lots of new processing equipment. Unfortunately for Kodak, Japanese manufacturers saw that the new 35 mm films were much better and that it was possible to make smaller and lighter cameras with automatic focus and exposure that would satisfy the average user at a price point that people would be willing and able to pay. And in the long run, digital was coming for film anyway. Newer, high quality formats probably wouldn't have survived the onslaught of Canon Rebel DSLRS, etc. regardless of how good it was. Kodak was always about mass markets, not the ultimate image quality, at least after cameras like the Extra and Medalist of the 1940's were discontinued. Good enough was the watchword, not make the best in the world, at least as for as cameras and lenses were concerned.

 

[Coldkennels]

And in the long run, digital was coming for film anyway. Newer, high quality formats probably wouldn't have survived the onslaught of Canon Rebel DSLRS, etc. regardless of how good it was. Kodak was always about mass markets, not the ultimate image quality, at least after cameras like the Extra and Medalist of the 1940's were discontinued.

I'm not so sure about that.

As far as I was concerned, early digital cameras were awful things, with low quality output, poor storage capacity, and terrible overall UX (I remember using one early Kodak digital camera that had so much shutter lag you couldn't really take a photo of anything that was moving). Couple that with the fact there were vast swathes of the population that weren't even remotely digital-ready in the 90s and early 2000s, and film definitely still had a place for much longer than it ended up having.

The problem was Kodak was heavily pushing APS on everyone, and APS was even worse than the digital cameras that were available. I found my old APS prints from that era a couple of years back; god-awful grainy things. And it was so much more expensive than 35mm! I genuinely got better and more pleasing photos from 35mm disposables than the fancy APS point-and-shoot I owned.

All APS really did was make film look bad and make even the worst of the early digital compacts look good. It was a dumb move, and I swear it only came about due to Kodak's greed and seemingly eternal desire to get people to pay more money for a smaller amount of film - while locking people into another semi-proprietary system at the same time. I genuinely suspect APS is the reason people seemed to think film is inherently "lo-fi" - it was the last experience most people had with film, and it definitely left a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouth.

Of course, we all know how things played out now - the smartphone was inevitable, and the decline of film was always going to happen. But I think if APS had never existed, early digital cameras wouldn't have seemed so appealing, and maybe film would have stuck around that bit longer.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

It's sad that Kodak and the camera companies didn't innovate to get the most out of the 135 format prior to digital photography.

We had full frame 24x36mm to start with and from the 1970's onward we got successively inferior formats: 126, 110, disc!, and APS.

When film photography was at its peak usage, the late 1980's - early 1990's, that would've been the time for something truly new: improve the usable image area. Kodak did this in 1965 with Super-8 (with less area for sprocket holes, more image area). Similarly, with 35mm film a new format could have been created with narrower sprocket holes and an image area of perhaps 28x42mm (same ratio as 24x36); this would give 1176 sq mm compared to 864 sq mm. Yes, new machinery would be needed to perforate the film, new cameras, new lenses, but they did that anyway when they chose the inferior formats. At least with 28x42, there is better image quality.

The one thing 126, 110, disc, and APS have in common is convenience, or at least the perception of it on the consumer's part. These formats targeted amateurs for whom sharpness and traditional standards of image quality were secondary or even non-existent. How many times were you shown prints by friends or relatives in which the subject was an unrecognizable blur? The point was to make an image as easily and quickly as possible.
Such was the case with early cell phones as well, and although the resolution has improved vastly, people will still make a shot with a 28mm-equivalent lens in which the subject is lost in a huge expanse of...whatever. It's the act of shooting itself that amateurs are drawn to.

 

[Pál_K]

Well that is crazy talk! You guys make it sound like Kodak was trying to get as many people to burn through as much film as quickly as possible and... and...

 

[Coldkennels]

Well that is crazy talk! You guys make it sound like Kodak was trying to get as many people to burn through as much film as quickly as possible and... and...

Actually, the opposite! As many rolls as possible... but the smallest possible amount of film.

I didn't even realise how small APS film was compared to 35mm until I cracked open a cassette in 2017 or 2018. Borderline hilarious. And we were paying a premium for that!

 

[aw614]

I remember the APS ads back as a kid in the 90s, something about the ads drew me in and made me think it was better than 35mm. I do recall wondering why my parents never got an APS camera and why were we still using the larger film point and shoots back then. Kodak marketing back then got me there haha.

It was a bit crazy, but in a fun way. (I'm in Florida, so that's kind of normal here.)

I saw a few people with multiple cameras, but don't recall seeing any point-and-shoots. Maybe some have them as concealed carry backups. Like they say in the military: two is one and one is none.

Was this the photo walk in Tampa? I wanted to attend one back in early July, but I was up in NY at the time for a family vacation.

 

[jsrockit]

Photo walks are a social event as much as anything. Our local camera club does them, though not with anywhere near 100 people, and I've gotten some shots I love on them. I went to a film specific one in Brooklyn last fall with a lot of people. As you might expect, the group tilted young, though there were several gray haired people too. I didn't take any prize winners, but I got some quick portraits of people I met on the walk that are now fond memories. Mainly, I sure had a blast meeting people, checking out cool cameras, etc. Not everything in photography is about the final print...

But these groups are very camera centric and generally not photography centric. That's ok of course sometimes. At least for our camera meet-ups, we did it at a bar and drank beers while looking at cameras. Those who were left at the end, would go photograph.

 

[jsrockit]

I didn't even realise how small APS film was compared to 35mm until I cracked open a cassette in 2017 or 2018. Borderline hilarious. And we were paying a premium for that!

Well, half frame 35mm is 18x24mm and APS was (See Below) ... not a huge difference. 110 (13x17mm) and Disc (8x10mm) were A LOT worse and were in use way before APS. So, you could say it was a step UP from those formats rather than a step down from 35mm since those users were the target audience. By the way, disc film was smaller than Minox film! That was the true ripoff! At least Minox cameras were cool.

EDIT:
The film is 24 mm wide, and has three image formats:

• H for "High Definition" (30.2 × 16.7 mm; aspect ratio 16:9; 4×7" print) (1.25 crop compared to 36x24mm full frame)
• C for "Classic" (25.1 × 16.7 mm; aspect ratio 3:2; 4×6" print) (1.44 crop compared to 36x24mm full frame)
• P for "Panoramic" (30.2 × 9.5 mm; aspect ratio 3:1; 4×11" print) (1.36 crop compared to 36x24mm full frame)

The "C" and "P" formats are formed by cropping the 30.2 × 16.7 mm "High Definition" image. The full image is recorded on the film, and an image recorded in one aspect ratio can be reprinted in another.

That was the advantage that was marketed to people.

 

[raydm6]

I still have my Canon ELPH APS camera and a roll of Kodak B&W Advantix (I think Chromogenic) film somewhere around here although I don't ever recall taking a memorable photo with it.

Looks like The Darkroom still offers processing:

110, 126 & Advantix (APS) - The Darkroom Photo Lab

Film Developing for 110, 126 and Advantix (APS) Film by Mail. Send us your film and receive your negatives with a free online web gallery perfect for sharing your precious memories. Optional high-resolution photo scans and USB drive are also available.

thedarkroom.com

 

[Godfrey]

It's sad that Kodak and the camera companies didn't innovate to get the most out of the 135 format prior to digital photography.

We had full frame 24x36mm to start with and from the 1970's onward we got successively inferior formats: 126, 110, disc!, and APS.

When film photography was at its peak usage, the late 1980's - early 1990's, that would've been the time for something truly new: improve the usable image area. Kodak did this in 1965 with Super-8 (with less area for sprocket holes, more image area). Similarly, with 35mm film a new format could have been created with narrower sprocket holes and an image area of perhaps 28x42mm (same ratio as 24x36); this would give 1176 sq mm compared to 864 sq mm. Yes, new machinery would be needed to perforate the film, new cameras, new lenses, but they did that anyway when they chose the inferior formats. At least with 28x42, there is better image quality.

Kodak actually did this "larger than 35 35mm format" in their 828 cameras long before digital existed. But they made it a roll film camera with a short load capability only ... to match what people did with their film cameras then ... and it didn't succeed against the standard 35mm format.

I think 35mm format, based on the original "movie film" format medium, were developed quite nicely by the time digital came along, and the incremental increase of a couple of mm more film area wouldn't have made a darn bit of difference. Think about it ... to up from 24x36 would have needed recomputing all new lenses, etc. Huge costs. And film became better and better, to the point where 35mm film obviated larger formats for most work.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Personally, I'm delighted with the notion of a new quality compact 35, but completely disinterested in an AF-only camera. I can focus my Rollei 35S with extreme precision, even wide open, without any need for AF complexities and fallibilities. I spend more time fussing over focus with all of my AF only cameras then I ever do with a manual focus lens.

I like the option of AE (preferably aperture priority automation) with sufficient EV compensation in addition to manual exposure settings.

I sure as heck don't want the equivalent of an Olympus Stylus .. a lovely little camera, but I can buy four of them in perfect operating condition for $100.

I'll follow Gary's blog and enjoy seeing what he comes up with. I own the MiNT InstaKon RF-70 and recently got one of the new InstantFlex TL-70 Plus cameras ... both are very nicely done cameras, albeit a bit more plastic in feel than I'd really prefer. Making something at the quality feel level of a Rollei 35S or Voigtlander Perkeo II, or Rolleiflex T, is probably beyond the financial resources (and price point requirements) of a small company like MiNT.

G

 

[jsrockit]

Making something at the quality feel level of a Rollei 35S or Voigtlander Perkeo II, or Rolleiflex T, is probably beyond the financial resources (and price point requirements) of a small company like MiNT.

G

I would assume so. However, it should be, based on the photos, pretty decent in quality. An huge and important step up from those plastic one shutter speed cameras that everyone seems to release these days.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I remember the APS ads back as a kid in the 90s, something about the ads drew me in and made me think it was better than 35mm. I do recall wondering why my parents never got an APS camera and why were we still using the larger film point and shoots back then. Kodak marketing back then got me there haha.

Was this the photo walk in Tampa? I wanted to attend one back in early July, but I was up in NY at the time for a family vacation.

Yes, this was the photo walk that Coastal Film Lab set up with Cinestill. Andre Domingues from Cinestill (and from the Negative Positives podcast) was there. He's a nice guy and it was fun to meet someone who I had been listening to on podcasts for years.

Coastal posted some photos from the photo walk here:

Cinestill x Coastal Film Lab Downtown Tampa Photowalk — Coastal Film Lab

 

[agentlossing]

As I see it, the advantage in an AF camera, as long as the AF is fast and accurate as it sounds like it will be, is in being able to use larger apertures than when zone focusing. This widens the available film which can be used for things like street photography without pushing. I learned this from my Soviet LC-A with a sub-400 fastest film speed for its automatic exposure system, meaning that if the light isn't bright, I'm zone focusing with both a slower shutter and a wider aperture. Not an easy way to get sharp shots. But if we get f2.8 or larger with good AF, there's a much wider shooting envelope than shooting f8 on a zone focus camera. And I say this as someone who likes to zone focus (I do this all the time with my GRIIIx, where high-ISO results are quite good).

 

[Pál_K]

Well that is crazy talk! You guys make it sound like Kodak was trying to get as many people to burn through as much film as quickly as possible and... and...

That was supposed to be amusing. Didn't translate.

... Think about it ... to up from 24x36 would have needed recomputing all new lenses, etc. Huge costs.

Likewise for 126, 110, Disc, APS. Some people thought getting people to buy more equipment was part of the intent. APS even put a huge costly burden on labs which processed film. They weren't happy.

...by the time digital came along, and the incremental increase of a couple of mm more film area wouldn't have made a darn bit of difference...

But at the time of 126, 110, etc., it would've been significantly better: compare 24x36 (864 sq mm) vs 28x42 (1176 sq mm), that's a 36% increase in image area.

But, you and others are correct in stating the main idea was to make loading film and using the camera as easy and less-complex as possible was the main goal of Kodak and others.

 

[Mackinaw]

The problem was Kodak was heavily pushing APS on everyone........

APS wasn't just Kodak; Fujifilm, Canon, Nikon and Minolta were also involved in its design.

JIm B.

 

[Cascadilla]

I'm not so sure about that.

As far as I was concerned, early digital cameras were awful things, with low quality output, poor storage capacity, and terrible overall UX (I remember using one early Kodak digital camera that had so much shutter lag you couldn't really take a photo of anything that was moving). Couple that with the fact there were vast swathes of the population that weren't even remotely digital-ready in the 90s and early 2000s, and film definitely still had a place for much longer than it ended up having.

The problem was Kodak was heavily pushing APS on everyone, and APS was even worse than the digital cameras that were available. I found my old APS prints from that era a couple of years back; god-awful grainy things. And it was so much more expensive than 35mm! I genuinely got better and more pleasing photos from 35mm disposables than the fancy APS point-and-shoot I owned.

All APS really did was make film look bad and make even the worst of the early digital compacts look good. It was a dumb move, and I swear it only came about due to Kodak's greed and seemingly eternal desire to get people to pay more money for a smaller amount of film - while locking people into another semi-proprietary system at the same time. I genuinely suspect APS is the reason people seemed to think film is inherently "lo-fi" - it was the last experience most people had with film, and it definitely left a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouth.

Of course, we all know how things played out now - the smartphone was inevitable, and the decline of film was always going to happen. But I think if APS had never existed, early digital cameras wouldn't have seemed so appealing, and maybe film would have stuck around that bit longer.

I agree that early digital cameras were poor instruments for making photographs. I worked with an early Kodak digital camera for a client and was amazed at how bad it was for the price ($2000 if I remember correctly), in the late 1990's. But I don't think that APS contributed much to the decline of film. I agree that the quality was marginal but it was sold on the basis of being convenient not on being a rival in quality to 6x6 or larger formats. The other aspect of the timing of the digital takeover was the increasing adoption of computers by home users. This meant that more people had a way of looking at their pictures at home almost immediately and without further expense. No film format can touch that, no matter how much better the image quality might be. Millions of mediocre Polaroid prints testify to the appeal of instant gratification.

 

[Godfrey]

...
But at the time of 126, 110, etc., it would've been significantly better: compare 24x36 (864 sq mm) vs 28x42 (1176 sq mm), that's a 36% increase in image area.

But, you and others are correct in stating the main idea was to make loading film and using the camera as easy and less-complex as possible was the main goal of Kodak and others.

Yes, the *area* increase seems larger, but that's because it's always a square-function of the linear dimensions. You're only making the frame +4 x +6 mm larger, which isn't much to speak of in linear terms, and is typically as much as what's lost in a photofinisher's negative carrier and printing mask anyway.

And remember that neither 126, 110, Disc, nor APS film formats ever impacted the sales and development of classic 24x36 35mm format cameras or films at all, except in the purely amateur market. All of those were intended for use by amateur photographers for whom a snapshot quality image was all that was sought after. Much like the Minox 8x11, which was originally intended by Walter Zapp to make wallet-sized prints, these smaller format cameras were purely amateur use equipment and not intended to compete with 35mm beyond that audience. Ease of use and convenience for a couple dozen pictures per year was the intent.

It's fantastical to consider these equipment formats as peers to a Leica M6 or Nikon F6... Or, for that matter, to the original Rollei 35 and 35S. 😉

G