Interesting 35mm cassette to 126 cartridge adapter

[ChrisPlatt]

Several EU eBay sellers have listed 3-D printed adapters that would appear to allow use of standard 35mm film cassettes in a 126 camera.

Here are a few:

135 35mm to 126 instamatic film adapter cartridge cassette | eBay

126 cartridge reloadable for instamatic camera and box!! | eBay

new design for 126 cartridge reloadable for instamatic camera !! | eBay

If these work such an item could make lots of not-so-old cameras usable once again. 🙂

Chris

 

[KoNickon]

Presumably you'd still have to rewind the film into the cassette in the dark, but certainly that's a minor inconvenience. I have a couple of cameras, the Kodak Instamatic 500 and the Rolleiflex SL26, that I'd love to be able to use with 35mm cassettes. I note the seller hasn't tried the adaptor out with either of those cameras; maybe if he sends me one I can test it with them? 🙂

 

[ChrisPlatt]

The smaller 126 frame will yield more exposures than marked per 135 cassette.
I doubt 135-36 exposure length will fit in the empty chamber side but 24 might.

Chris

 

[Cascadilla]

I don't know how more expensive 126 cameras worked, but as I remember it he basic Kodak 104 Instamatic had a pin that engaged with a hole in the film to make sure of double exposure prevention. Also, there was backing paper with numbers that made the cartridge more or less light proof. Finally, while 126 film was 35 mm in width, the square negative was 28 mm on a side. The image might spill into the sprocket holes of the 35 mm film if these adapters work.

 

[shawn]

It allows you to use 35mm film in a 126 camera, not the cartridge. You have to load these with film in a darkroom or changing bag. You can fit 8 or 10 exposures into them. The unexposed film goes into the smaller side (no spool) and is taped to the takeup spool.

You can download this design on Thingiverse which is what the person selling this may have done. I've used it with the Rollei A26. I wouldn't purchase these directly though, you are going to want to be able to print your own. To fit the A26 I had to tweak the design slightly and then I had to tweak the design quite a bit more for the focus scale to be accurate. The design as is was *way* off for the film plane as the cartridge itself has spacers in it to set film position.

35mm film in one of these may or may not work in your specific 126 camera. Some need the 126 perfs to cock the shutter and/or advance the film properly so it will fire. On the A26 I removed the pin and it was still working properly.

 

[KoNickon]

It allows you to use 35mm film in a 126 camera, not the cartridge. You have to load these with film in a darkroom or changing bag. You can fit 8 or 10 exposures into them. The unexposed film goes into the smaller side (no spool) and is taped to the takeup spool.

You can download this design on Thingiverse which is what the person selling this may have done. I've used it with the Rollei A26. I wouldn't purchase these directly though, you are going to want to be able to print your own. To fit the A26 I had to tweak the design slightly and then I had to tweak the design quite a bit more for the focus scale to be accurate. The design as is was *way* off for the film plane as the cartridge itself has spacers in it to set film position.

35mm film in one of these may or may not work in your specific 126 camera. Some need the 126 perfs to cock the shutter and/or advance the film properly so it will fire. On the A26 I removed the pin and it was still working properly.

The pictures of the adaptors in the links Chris provided show the 35mm cassette loaded into it. No interest on my part in loading the film in a darkroom or changing bag. (I do have some woefully expired 126 but the local store would only develop it -- they won't scan it or print it. But if it's a 35mm cassette, they would I think.) The two cameras I mentioned before do not require film to cock the shutter. (Correction -- there's actually film in the Rollei so I'm not sure about it, but the Kodak 500 definitely does not.)

 

[Freakscene]

Kodak sure did put a lot of effort in over time to make consumer film more convenient than 135, with so many variants, but in the end, 135 outlasted them all…

 

[shawn]

The pictures of the adaptors in the links Chris provided show the 35mm cassette loaded into it. No interest on my part in loading the film in a darkroom or changing bag. (I do have some woefully expired 126 but the local store would only develop it -- they won't scan it or print it. But if it's a 35mm cassette, they would I think.) The two cameras I mentioned before do not require film to cock the shutter. (Correction -- there's actually film in the Rollei so I'm not sure about it, but the Kodak 500 definitely does not.)

All of these ebay auctions are just printing the same adapter design. The design is free to download but I'm pretty sure it wasn't licensed for commercial use. I have printed and used the exact same design. There are no pictures showing a 35mm film cassette in the 126 adapter. 35mm film cassette is literally too tall compared to a 126 cassette. There are pictures showing the adapters loaded with 35mm film such as this one.




As I said above, the unexposed film is wound spooless on the right and the taped to the green take up spool on the left. Obviously the 126 adapter has to be loaded in the dark. After that you can load and unload the camera in daylight. The Rollei A26 doesn't need film to cock the shutter. But disabling the pin does disable the frame counter.

 

[Coldkennels]

Kodak sure did put a lot of effort in over time to make consumer film more convenient than 135, with so many variants, but in the end, 135 outlasted them all…

Because "more convenient" also conveniently went hand-in-hand with "less film for more money" - as well as "locking you into a proprietary and/or patented system". From another thread:

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.

I've been saying this for years, so it's good to have some sort of confirmation from someone who was there.

Kodak may still be thought of fondly from folks who can't let go of Kodachrome, but they really were a truly awful company in many ways.

 

[Cascadilla]

Because "more convenient" also conveniently went hand-in-hand with "less film for more money" - as well as "locking you into a proprietary and/or patented system". From another thread:



I've been saying this for years, so it's good to have some sort of confirmation from someone who was there.

Kodak may still be thought of fondly from folks who can't let go of Kodachrome, but they really were a truly awful company in many ways.

There was also the joy of having a molded plastic pressure plate in each cartridge, which precluded really fast lenses due to film flatness problems. The fastest lens I am aware of for 126 was the 50 mm f/1.9 Xenon for the Kodak Instamatic Reflex. As I recall, a 50 mm f/1.4 wouldn't have been a reliable possibility due to this issue.

 

[KoNickon]

All of these ebay auctions are just printing the same adapter design. The design is free to download but I'm pretty sure it wasn't licensed for commercial use. I have printed and used the exact same design. There are no pictures showing a 35mm film cassette in the 126 adapter. 35mm film cassette is literally too tall compared to a 126 cassette. There are pictures showing the adapters loaded with 35mm film such as this one.


View attachment 4831386

As I said above, the unexposed film is wound spooless on the right and the taped to the green take up spool on the left. Obviously the 126 adapter has to be loaded in the dark. After that you can load and unload the camera in daylight. The Rollei A26 doesn't need film to cock the shutter. But disabling the pin does disable the frame counter.

OK, I'm a dope. I was looking at the pictures in one of the links above and mistook the 35mm adaptor for 120 for this item. Stupid. This solution here still involves taking the film out of the canister. Not sure my local developer would accept anything other than in a 35mm cassette.

 

[Coldkennels]

Doesn't this adapter mean the film has to run along a 3D printed surface?

Sounds like a good way to get a whole heap of scratch marks to me.

 

[shawn]

Doesn't this adapter mean the film has to run along a 3D printed surface?

Sounds like a good way to get a whole heap of scratch marks to me.

Yes, to a 3d printed surfaces and not necessarily for a whole heap of scratch marks. If this were done with resin printing that can be extremely smooth right off the printer. For FDM printing they can be smooth too but depending upon how well a printer is tuned can impact this somewhat, along with where the Z axis seam is and such too. If you compare the pictures in the different auctions you can see very big differences in print quality.

You can also post process a print to make it smoother. On these adapters with my old printer, printing PLA, I ended up lightly sanding the insides of the spool areas and esp around the light seal area as hard/sharpish edge there wasn't terribly smooth off the build plate. I put several rolls through these as I was dialing in the spacers to get focusing correct and hadn't seen any problems with scratches. If printed in ABS they could be vapor smoothed which can make it extremely smooth.

I've printed many dozens of 120 film based cameras and never had an issue with scratching. Most of the contact area on those is against the paper backing of course.

 

[KoNickon]

Yes, to a 3d printed surfaces and not necessarily for a whole heap of scratch marks. If this were done with resin printing that can be extremely smooth right off the printer. For FDM printing they can be smooth too but depending upon how well a printer is tuned can impact this somewhat, along with where the Z axis seam is and such too. If you compare the pictures in the different auctions you can see very big differences in print quality.

You can also post process a print to make it smoother. On these adapters with my old printer, printing PLA, I ended up lightly sanding the insides of the spool areas and esp around the light seal area as hard/sharpish edge there wasn't terribly smooth off the build plate. I put several rolls through these as I was dialing in the spacers to get focusing correct and hadn't seen any problems with scratches. If printed in ABS they could be vapor smoothed which can make it extremely smooth.

I've printed many dozens of 120 film based cameras and never had an issue with scratching. Most of the contact area on those is against the paper backing of course.

"I've printed many dozens of 120 film based cameras and never had an issue with scratching. Most of the contact area on those is against the paper backing of course."

You've printed cameras??

 

[shawn]

Yes, I licensed Graham Young's Kraken 6x12 panoramic camera design and upgraded parts of it and designed some additional upgrades. I also designed 6x17 and 6x24 versions of the camera and lens cones and print/sell them.

As an example a 6x24 with a Nikon 180mm f5.6. Printed in ABS with wood infused printed grips that were sanded/stained.

I have a bunch of the cameras in the wild and no issues with film scratching, haven't seen it ever on any of the rolls I've shot too.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

There's always sandpaper...

Chris

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Kodak sure did put a lot of effort in over time to make consumer film more convenient than 135, with so many variants, but in the end, 135 outlasted them all…

I don't think convenience was their foremost aim. They were more interested in creating and cornering a new big chunk of the consumer market. I mean really, is it that hard to load 35mm film? I think they just took a page from the 120/620 playbook and updated it with marketing hype about convenience.

 

[shawn]

I don't think convenience was their foremost aim. They were more interested in creating and cornering a new big chunk of the consumer market. I mean really, is it that hard to load 35mm film? I think they just took a page from the 120/620 playbook and updated it with marketing hype about convenience.

Yup, really the Gillette razor/blade model applied to photography.

 

[Freakscene]

I don't think convenience was their foremost aim. They were more interested in creating and cornering a new big chunk of the consumer market. I mean really, is it that hard to load 35mm film? I think they just took a page from the 120/620 playbook and updated it with marketing hype about convenience.

Selling convenience whether it was real or not, I guess. I have 110, 126 and Disc cameras lying around somewhere, must say I don’t really like any of them much.

Marty

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Selling convenience whether it was real or not, I guess. I have 110, 126 and Disc cameras lying around somewhere, must say I don’t really like any of them much.

Marty

I must confess that, during the heyday of 126, I had a Rollei SL26 and loved it. I think that was the high point of 126 camera design, a real beauty!