Takkun
Ian M.
As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I've been cleaning out the UW-Seattle Architecture photo lab after the passing of instructor and prolific photographer John Stamets. He acquired a huge number of old cameras, both for actual use and historical value, and this week is the big purge, where sadly a lot of these will be going to the state surplus warehouse.
Today, I found this, heaped under a handful of Nikon D200s and an Exacta. Ill probably be posting more photos of oddball equipment this week, and maybe some shots from this if I can get it working!
JohnTF
Veteran
Play your cards right, and you might have two, along with the kit lenses, the Nikon case, and a brick of film? ;-)
It was a very good idea, just took too long to take to market.
I have some B&W film -- only saw it once-- loved the quality and size of the Elph-- gave one to a friend who got the best pictures he ever got on vacation, and he still bought a digital for those every two year vacations-- figure he will get his investment back in about another ten years.
I printed them in my lab and found you could easily get excellent 11x14 prints from ISO 200 or perhaps even 400 color film.
The promised B &W film turned out to be C 41. No Tri X.
Regards, John
It was a very good idea, just took too long to take to market.
I have some B&W film -- only saw it once-- loved the quality and size of the Elph-- gave one to a friend who got the best pictures he ever got on vacation, and he still bought a digital for those every two year vacations-- figure he will get his investment back in about another ten years.
I printed them in my lab and found you could easily get excellent 11x14 prints from ISO 200 or perhaps even 400 color film.
The promised B &W film turned out to be C 41. No Tri X.
Regards, John
Pablito
coco frío
There's a reason it's called the "junk" bin ;-)
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I still have a Pronea S and a freezer full of Advantix BW, Fuji F100 films. And the APS film holder for my Nikon Coolscan V. The cameras were unfairly disparaged.
G
G
Takkun
Ian M.
I should probably mention to you all that this is actually a very rudimentary DSLR...one that in fact cost more than my D3 when new. All of 3 megapixels!
As for APS, not a bad format, but like 110, suffered from a lack of decent cameras. Combining tiny format with fixed-focus and/or plastic lens cameras is never a great combo.
Also to be seen later: the Nikon D1 buried somewhere in my own closet.
As for APS, not a bad format, but like 110, suffered from a lack of decent cameras. Combining tiny format with fixed-focus and/or plastic lens cameras is never a great combo.
Also to be seen later: the Nikon D1 buried somewhere in my own closet.
John E Earley
Tuol Sleng S21-0174
The wave of the future became a tsunami of fail.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Just early in the game. 3Mpixel was pretty good for its day, and it was a good bit smaller than the DC760 and others of that era. Folks did a lot of work with those cameras.
There were a number of very high quality APS cameras from Minolta, Nikon, Canon, and Contax. The Contax Tix in particular was a gem, the Canon EOS IX also. I did a lot of shooting with those two in the day and made a lot of very satisfying photographs.
What killed APS was the attitude of the photofinishers and the retailers. The photofinishers didn't want to buy new machinery to handle the format, retailers pushed customers to buy 35mm cameras over any competitive APS model.
The biggest pain about it to an enthusiast was that the APS cassette was designed to work best with a photofinishing machine and is annoying to work with in home processing equipment. Given the right processing machine and an automated scanner like the Nikon Coolscan + APS carrier, it is the easiest film camera to work with and really does minimize damage to the film by taking the film handling out of human hands.
G
BillBingham2
Registered User
Do the Junk D200s work? How much? Being finance and digitally challenged sounds interesting...
farlymac
PF McFarland
What sort of media cards does that DCS330 take? That will be another challenge. Some of the early digicams had upper limits on card size, so you might not be able to use anything current in it. Folks do sell older cards on the Internet, but they may be fairly dodgy.
If I recall, these were decent cameras when they came out, but since they were not marketed to consumers, not many were sold. I did see one go to auction once, and it brought more money than I would have figured. A lot more.
PF
If I recall, these were decent cameras when they came out, but since they were not marketed to consumers, not many were sold. I did see one go to auction once, and it brought more money than I would have figured. A lot more.
PF
Scrambler
Well-known
Realising this is a digital cam (did y'all not notice the big Kodak lump on the bottom?) I also wanted to weigh in on APS. IMHO it was killed by 35mm getting just as convenient with auto load/ unload. Labs began printing mini contact sheets just like APS. After that, APS became more cost for lower quality and no benefit. Then digital turned up and wiped the floor with both. It makes the OP camera doubly interesting historically.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
It makes no difference that this is a Pronea; Kodak's sensors did not get up to 24x36 until later - so you could buy a full-sized body but not get any larger of a sensor. If you're into vintage digital, this will do as well as any camera of the era - it's just smaller and lighter.
Dante
Dante
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
The advantage of APS now is that the cameras are junk and so cost pennies when you see them. But you have to have the film in the 'fridge or freezer and a lab that will handle them still.
And when APS cameras fail you have to bin them...
A pity really as many of them were on the right track, like the Contax Tix, the Konica Revio Z3, the Minolta Vectis S-1, the Rollei Nano and so on*. Even the little Kodak T550 was a decent and pocketable P&S. I guess it was because the photographers were still in charge of design and not yet corrupted by the menu loving computer people.
Regards, David
* I never had a high opinion of the Ixus/Elph.
The advantage of APS now is that the cameras are junk and so cost pennies when you see them. But you have to have the film in the 'fridge or freezer and a lab that will handle them still.
And when APS cameras fail you have to bin them...
A pity really as many of them were on the right track, like the Contax Tix, the Konica Revio Z3, the Minolta Vectis S-1, the Rollei Nano and so on*. Even the little Kodak T550 was a decent and pocketable P&S. I guess it was because the photographers were still in charge of design and not yet corrupted by the menu loving computer people.
Regards, David
* I never had a high opinion of the Ixus/Elph.
leicapixie
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144899
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144899
I think that the APS format was the last straw on the camel's back.
Kodak "creating" new film formats, that were getting obsolete,
pretty fast.
Camera companies designing new cameras and being left high and dry.. Same for labs. Retailers feeling same way..
What i can't figger is why if Kodak designed and basically created digital, they should have fallen out the game?
I know Kodak may have wanted 2 things to end..
The Pension base and Kodachrome, for which they paid license rights..When Kodak because of "Sanctions" left South Africa,
over 300 workers were abandoned, the main Kodachrome plant,
for almost all of Africa and the Southern Hemisphere, was ended.
It was the test run for future move..
I began using Ilford at the the time..
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144899
I think that the APS format was the last straw on the camel's back.
Kodak "creating" new film formats, that were getting obsolete,
pretty fast.
Camera companies designing new cameras and being left high and dry.. Same for labs. Retailers feeling same way..
What i can't figger is why if Kodak designed and basically created digital, they should have fallen out the game?
I know Kodak may have wanted 2 things to end..
The Pension base and Kodachrome, for which they paid license rights..When Kodak because of "Sanctions" left South Africa,
over 300 workers were abandoned, the main Kodachrome plant,
for almost all of Africa and the Southern Hemisphere, was ended.
It was the test run for future move..
I began using Ilford at the the time..
David Hughes
David Hughes
Kodak designed and created digital?
DominikDUK
Well-known
David believe it or not Kodak did invent digital photography they also were the first to have a megapixel camera. In terms of color fidelity Kodak chips were hard to beat. Kodak invented quiet a lot of things but wasn't really able to sell the product that was always Kodak's problem they invented the stuff but were only seen as film company. Kodak inkjet printers were also quiet good but nobody bought them because they were made by a Film company.
Takkun
Ian M.
To follow up--
What I meant by decent cameras is that the vast, vast majority of models made for APS were point and shoots with compromised optics. I suppose the same could be said for 35, but there was a huge range of RFs and decent SLRs that we all know and love. I think that, and the lack of options for home/pro lab processing didn't help. The cartridge design was brilliant though.
Yep, the D200s work just fine. But they're state property, so I can't sell them to you.
What I found surprising about the body being a Pronea wasn't the sensor size, but the choice of a decidedly non-pro body. Namely one meant mostly for automatic operation. All the other DCS models I'd heard of were based on the n8008/N90 or the F3.
Kodak did in fact invent digital. Which is why I found it so bizarre they went under because of it. (But let's not start another "fate of kodak" thread)
As for cards, I think it had a 16 MB MicroDrive in a PCMCIA adapter. Next time I'm over there I'll see how terribly corroded the battery chamber is and try to fire it up.
What I meant by decent cameras is that the vast, vast majority of models made for APS were point and shoots with compromised optics. I suppose the same could be said for 35, but there was a huge range of RFs and decent SLRs that we all know and love. I think that, and the lack of options for home/pro lab processing didn't help. The cartridge design was brilliant though.
Yep, the D200s work just fine. But they're state property, so I can't sell them to you.
What I found surprising about the body being a Pronea wasn't the sensor size, but the choice of a decidedly non-pro body. Namely one meant mostly for automatic operation. All the other DCS models I'd heard of were based on the n8008/N90 or the F3.
Kodak did in fact invent digital. Which is why I found it so bizarre they went under because of it. (But let's not start another "fate of kodak" thread)
As for cards, I think it had a 16 MB MicroDrive in a PCMCIA adapter. Next time I'm over there I'll see how terribly corroded the battery chamber is and try to fire it up.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It was more a corporate culture thing. But I agree, there's been enough 'end of Kodak' discussion.
PCMCIA card with 16M MicroDrive is probably right. That was high technology current with the camera's time period. I had one or two of those cards, they worked well although I never had any cameras of that time that used them. They were more expensive than I could afford...
G
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
APS was a great idea, but it came too late
Digital overtook it in less than 5 years
Digital overtook it in less than 5 years
burancap
Veteran
With all of the Kodak and APS sentimentality ... anyone care for both in one package?
Free in the US including shipping to the first PM to make me LOL: a Kodak 4100ix.
Free in the US including shipping to the first PM to make me LOL: a Kodak 4100ix.
pvdhaar
Peter
One big failure was to promote APS as a 'bridge' format towards digital. Obviously it was only that from a manufacturer's point of view, and it was something that couldn't be explained to buyers who asked whether the camera could be used if they later 'went digital'..