driver
Well-known
Is this the appropriate place for APS camera/film discussion?
farlymac
PF McFarland
Seeing as most APS cameras were point&shoot, then I'd say yes. Nikon was one manufacturer that came out with a series of SLRs and lenses. I bought the Pronea 600i last year just to say I had one. Had a couple rolls of Fuji, so I ran one through but never got it developed.
PF
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I think Canon made an EOS slr that used APS too. I remember when APS came out, I was in college and working at a photo lab and Fuji came in an upgraded our machines to handle it (the lab used Fuji minilab machines). Didn't seem to last long before the format died, but the processing was twice as much as 35mm cost, and that turned a lot of people off...then digital came around.
driver
Well-known
Ok. Thanks for the replies.
Picked up a Canon ELPH Z3 and it's such a cool little camera with a backlit display.
24mm is quite a bit larger than half frame so I had to ask.
Once I get some C-41 Kodak B&W, it want to take the ELPH hiking with me.
Picked up a Canon ELPH Z3 and it's such a cool little camera with a backlit display.
24mm is quite a bit larger than half frame so I had to ask.
Once I get some C-41 Kodak B&W, it want to take the ELPH hiking with me.
dtcls100
Well-known
Had an Olympus Centurion, the company’s APS zoom lens reflex. Could select square, rectangular and panoramic photos in advance. Sharp lens, but the tiny film format meant more grain and poorer tonality with larger pics.
The half-frame 35mm frame is about 18x24mm, while APS C is about the same area at 16.7x25.1mm. I have a Canon ELPH Jr, a nifty little rig. 
zuiko85
Veteran
There was so much hype surrounding the introduction in of APS in 1996, but soon digital would take over. The whole format lasted 15 years and cameras were made for less than 10 years.
Funny, but I still shoot 35mm half frame, roughly the same negative area.
Edit; Seems I remember unsold NOS Minolta Vectis APS cameras still available when the film was discontinued.
Funny, but I still shoot 35mm half frame, roughly the same negative area.
Edit; Seems I remember unsold NOS Minolta Vectis APS cameras still available when the film was discontinued.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I'll wish you luck in your search ior the APS B&W. I've a small collection of APS cameras and look for film but have only found two cassettes of the B&W version.
APS was introduced in 1995 or 96 and the film stopped being made around 2010 with the last maker to pull out being Fuji in 2012.
Minolta made a very nice SLR* APS system, Contax made the superb Tix and most makers did at least one but I don't think they all lived up to the hype. My favourites were by Rollei, Kodak, Konica and the above.
Digital forced them out; you could pick up APS cameras for pennies at one time and the shops dumped the film into the bargain bins soon after. It was fun while it lasted.
Regards, David
* They made two APS SLR's the one I bought and like is the Vectis S-1 not the S-100. You can read about the S-1 here:-
https://www.jaymclaughlin.co.uk/blog/2018/9/6/minolta-vectis-s-1-review-1996
Last edited:
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
I have a Canon ELPH tucked around here somewhere and I believe an expired roll of Kodak Advantix B&W which I believe was chromogenic and processed in C-41? I could be wrong.
Anyway, I don't remember ever being happy with the results I got with my APS.
Anyway, I don't remember ever being happy with the results I got with my APS.
driver
Well-known
The half-frame 35mm frame is about 18x24mm, while APS C is about the same area at 16.7x25.1mm. I have a Canon ELPH Jr, a nifty little rig.
Ah ha! So size wise, very similar.
You have this one?
David Hughes
David Hughes
And I call that a Canon IXUS L-1
It's all very confusing...
Regards, David
It's all very confusing...
Regards, David
narsuitus
Well-known
This thread and especially this statement has been very thought provoking for me.
When I shot only film, I had no use for half-frame cameras, APS-C cameras, APS-C film, or images from film smaller than 24x36mm.
However, now that I also shoot digital, I have been very satisfied with APS-C equipment and images. In fact, I have even been satisfied with images produced by digital cameras with sensors smaller than APS-C.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I had a Canon ELPH Jr, Canon EOS IX, and Contax Tix cameras. The ELPH Jr was nice, the EOS IX camera led me to buy a Canon 10D in 2003 when it surfaced at an affordable price (they also made a less expensive APS SLR, the EOS IX Lite), and the Contax Tix was a superb little jewel that I use more than the other two combined. I think I shot about 80-90 rolls of film total in APS (I should count, I have them all ...), and I have the APS film carrier for my Nikon Coolscan V film scanner which automates capturing all of them into high resolution digital scans.
I'll have to go back through my archives and find some photos I made with these cameras. Like all small format film, APS format film has its limitations but that doesn't mean you couldn't do some lovely photography with it.
The downfall of APS as a format came about for two reasons. First and most important was that a photofinishing lab had to invest a lot of money in specific APS film processing equipment in order to provide the full range of services that APS film promised to users. Things like the in-camera format selection were implemented by running markers onto the film frame by frame and you needed the APS specific equipment to read the markers and do the framing properly ... never mind to allow end to end processing and printing while restoring the film to the original cassette. Photofinishing labs balked at the investment cost, which didn't make them love the cameras, so camera shops (most of which had photofinishing labs embedded...) tended to point buyers at compact 35mm equipment instead. As a result, APS film never really got the traction that it could have had.
Then came reason #2, which was the rise of affordable, high quality digital cameras. And the rest is history.
G
I'll have to go back through my archives and find some photos I made with these cameras. Like all small format film, APS format film has its limitations but that doesn't mean you couldn't do some lovely photography with it.
The downfall of APS as a format came about for two reasons. First and most important was that a photofinishing lab had to invest a lot of money in specific APS film processing equipment in order to provide the full range of services that APS film promised to users. Things like the in-camera format selection were implemented by running markers onto the film frame by frame and you needed the APS specific equipment to read the markers and do the framing properly ... never mind to allow end to end processing and printing while restoring the film to the original cassette. Photofinishing labs balked at the investment cost, which didn't make them love the cameras, so camera shops (most of which had photofinishing labs embedded...) tended to point buyers at compact 35mm equipment instead. As a result, APS film never really got the traction that it could have had.
Then came reason #2, which was the rise of affordable, high quality digital cameras. And the rest is history.
G
David Hughes
David Hughes
This is what the Contax Tix could do:-
Taken with my Tix of my wife's Tix or vice versa. The lens hood was a brilliant touch and the lab's could print the aperture used and shutter speed on the back of the print...
Regards, David
Taken with my Tix of my wife's Tix or vice versa. The lens hood was a brilliant touch and the lab's could print the aperture used and shutter speed on the back of the print...
Regards, David
I really enjoyed my tiny black Canon ELPH jr, often carried in a Canon belt pouch, so easily available. I mostly used Kodak BW400CN, a black & white chromogenic (C41) film. Here's my happy endodontist prepping for a root canal...
(actually we're discussing open sports cars)
I bought the camera used on eBay from a teacher, and it had a partially-shot roll of film still in it on arrival. Photos around the school, and I sent them off to the seller later.
(actually we're discussing open sports cars)
I bought the camera used on eBay from a teacher, and it had a partially-shot roll of film still in it on arrival. Photos around the school, and I sent them off to the seller later.
MrFujicaman
Well-known
APS was yet another of Kodak's ideas to sell us less film for more money. Remember the 126 Instamatics, the 110 Pocket Instamatics and the Disc cameras?
When the APS cameras and film came out, I knew a woman who ran the photo counter at a department store. She told me that out of every 100 APS cameras they sold, 98 of them were bought by women. She said as a rule, men weren't interested in them.
When the APS cameras and film came out, I knew a woman who ran the photo counter at a department store. She told me that out of every 100 APS cameras they sold, 98 of them were bought by women. She said as a rule, men weren't interested in them.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Two things about APS, one bad, one good. The bad thing was that even though it was half frame, you didn't get twice as many shots on a roll, unlike when putting a regular 35mm canister in a half-frame camera. The good thing was even though you selected the format of the image for printing, say a panoramic shot (and you better get the framing right) it still exposed a full 18x24 frame from which you could get regular prints from by asking for them, including the user selected cropped ones.
PF
PF
driver
Well-known
Here's the little fart. Worthy enough to be in Canon's Camera Museum.
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film234.html
I understand the limitations of such a format and I accept them.
The one thing that amazes me is the the "MRC" feature. the above link calls it Mud-Roll Change. Obviously, a typo.
If I'm not mistaken, the camera has the ability to forward to the frame that the user left off after changing films on the run. The crowd that these cameras were marketed toward may never even consider using that feature.
Imagine that sort of flexibility with a more familiar format!
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film234.html
I understand the limitations of such a format and I accept them.
The one thing that amazes me is the the "MRC" feature. the above link calls it Mud-Roll Change. Obviously, a typo.
If I'm not mistaken, the camera has the ability to forward to the frame that the user left off after changing films on the run. The crowd that these cameras were marketed toward may never even consider using that feature.
Imagine that sort of flexibility with a more familiar format!
farlymac
PF McFarland
Oh yeah, that was another good feature. If you could remember which roll you still had exposures left on. IIRC they had a surface you could write a note on.
It's been so long since I've even thought of APS cameras, there are lots of things about them I forget. But one other feature they touted was the fact the processed film was always protected inside the canister. But that meant you could only access it with the developing machine, I think.
PF
David Hughes
David Hughes
APS cartridges can be opened but you shouldn't as the film may be undeveloped and spoilt.
At each end of the slot that the film obviously comes out of are two recesses and - if you can find something to fit them - a twist will open the slot.
Then the problem is to find something to turn the spool and the film will come out. There's a long leader to it (about 154mm or a bit over 6") and if you pull too much out you will have a lot of problems getting it back in and aligning the display in the end of the cartridge (marked 1, 2, 3 and 4). At the start of the leader is a sort of notch and the end is slanted slightly.
So you've been warned; there's little point to it anyway. The film looks like 35mm film as do the negatives but the film is about 19mm wide and has no perforations until you get to the first frame and then there are two to each frame. The square holes are at each end of the frame. The number of the film is marked on the label and on the film margin at the leader end.
Regards, David
At each end of the slot that the film obviously comes out of are two recesses and - if you can find something to fit them - a twist will open the slot.
Then the problem is to find something to turn the spool and the film will come out. There's a long leader to it (about 154mm or a bit over 6") and if you pull too much out you will have a lot of problems getting it back in and aligning the display in the end of the cartridge (marked 1, 2, 3 and 4). At the start of the leader is a sort of notch and the end is slanted slightly.
So you've been warned; there's little point to it anyway. The film looks like 35mm film as do the negatives but the film is about 19mm wide and has no perforations until you get to the first frame and then there are two to each frame. The square holes are at each end of the frame. The number of the film is marked on the label and on the film margin at the leader end.
Regards, David