I know APS is dead/dying, but that should lead to low prices, huh. Never having had an APS camera I'm just a little curious about it, and would like to run a few rolls of film through one and see what comes out.
Something along the lines of the Olympus XA would be great, or even the Stylus Epic. Lens speed preferred over zooming. Is there an APS camera an enthusiast could come to like?
Thanks for any suggestions.
Something along the lines of the Olympus XA would be great, or even the Stylus Epic. Lens speed preferred over zooming. Is there an APS camera an enthusiast could come to like?
Thanks for any suggestions.
P
plexi
Guest
Why on earth would you want an APS camera? Tiny negative=lower image quality.
You crazy man....:bang:
You crazy man....:bang:
I do not think anyone made an APS camera with a classic co-incidence type RF. The "age" had passed. I have a Kodak model 48 "Pocket Instamatic" that had to be one of the last coincidence type RF cameras aimed at the amatuer photographer.
The high-end APS cameras tend to be SLR's; and they are going well under $100 at the outlets.
The high-end APS cameras tend to be SLR's; and they are going well under $100 at the outlets.
pvdhaar
Peter
plexi said:
Very true; there's no substitute for square inches, but then again...
a couple of years back there was an item in a British mag on APS. Instead of moaning about the neg size, they had prints compared from a budget mailer (horrible) and 1hr lab (horrible) with professional lab scan/printing (amazing). Instead of murky shadows, blown out highlights and general fuzzines they made a nice looking print.
It showed that if you are willing to work hard at it, APS is capable of good results .
The true problem is that no-one wants to work hard at it, and most customers don't demand it
S
Stu :)
Guest
Isn't that like asking-
"Is there a decent Kodak Disc film RF?"
Never used APS before, but it was a very smart system. You have three different formats square-ish, rectangle and panaoramic (Correct me if I'm wrong) and the system of changing format was the same as the XPAN/TX-1, you could swap a film out mid roll and when you put it back in the ANY APS camera it would advance to the next unexposed frame. And bit I think is real smarty-pants, the negs where stored inside the film can.
Pitty they only seem to make ISO 200 colour neg film in APS, cause that's all I see in the pro shops and the supermarket. You've got two choices Fuji Superia 200 and Kodak Gold 200.
Stu
"Is there a decent Kodak Disc film RF?"
Never used APS before, but it was a very smart system. You have three different formats square-ish, rectangle and panaoramic (Correct me if I'm wrong) and the system of changing format was the same as the XPAN/TX-1, you could swap a film out mid roll and when you put it back in the ANY APS camera it would advance to the next unexposed frame. And bit I think is real smarty-pants, the negs where stored inside the film can.
Pitty they only seem to make ISO 200 colour neg film in APS, cause that's all I see in the pro shops and the supermarket. You've got two choices Fuji Superia 200 and Kodak Gold 200.
Stu
Yeah, yeah, I know! Thanks for your comments. I think Peter is right. I mostly shoot 6x4.5 and 6x7 formats now, but I still use tiny formats too. The Minolta 16II is long gone, but I've had a few half-frames since the early 60's and have recently added a wide angle lens for my Olympus Pen FT.
I have a pair of Pentax Auto 110's with lenses and flash. Some 20 years ago I shot some photo-art class assignments with 110 Verichrome Pan and made 8x10 prints good enough not to raise questions in class. And just last month I souped my next-to-last cartridge of VP110 in Diafine along with some 35 & 120 rolls. Bigger is better, sure, but small can be fun too.
Stu, the main reason I'd like to try APS is to personally learn how it works. I think the film has a magnetic stripe that stores data about each exposure and can help the camera locate the next exposure after the film has been rewound mid-roll, then reloaded.
And I think this mag stripe also is where the format-choice info is stored. That is, the three film proportions don't actually change what's recorded on the film, no mask like the XPan; it's just instructions to the film processor to make prints either 4x6 regular, 4x7 to match HDTV, or the pano format which is 3.5xsomething. Cropping instructions, in other words. Just looking at the negs, I don't think you could tell whether the shooter had chosen pano or not...
Well, I'd just like to find out to satisfy curiosity! And while doing so, why not use the best and most capable of the APS cameras? I was shying away from the SLRs with interchangeable lenses simply due to their size. But that might be the best answer.
In any case, what are the better choices?
Thanks for your comments. I think Peter is right. I mostly shoot 6x4.5 and 6x7 formats now, but I still use tiny formats too. The Minolta 16II is long gone, but I've had a few half-frames since the early 60's and have recently added a wide angle lens for my Olympus Pen FT.I have a pair of Pentax Auto 110's with lenses and flash. Some 20 years ago I shot some photo-art class assignments with 110 Verichrome Pan and made 8x10 prints good enough not to raise questions in class.
And just last month I souped my next-to-last cartridge of VP110 in Diafine along with some 35 & 120 rolls. Bigger is better, sure, but small can be fun too.Stu, the main reason I'd like to try APS is to personally learn how it works. I think the film has a magnetic stripe that stores data about each exposure and can help the camera locate the next exposure after the film has been rewound mid-roll, then reloaded.
And I think this mag stripe also is where the format-choice info is stored. That is, the three film proportions don't actually change what's recorded on the film, no mask like the XPan; it's just instructions to the film processor to make prints either 4x6 regular, 4x7 to match HDTV, or the pano format which is 3.5xsomething. Cropping instructions, in other words. Just looking at the negs, I don't think you could tell whether the shooter had chosen pano or not...
Well, I'd just like to find out to satisfy curiosity! And while doing so, why not use the best and most capable of the APS cameras? I was shying away from the SLRs with interchangeable lenses simply due to their size. But that might be the best answer.
In any case, what are the better choices?
Last edited:
K
Kin Lau
Guest
There's no mask, so that you do end up with the whole neg exposed, and it just crops @ the processor.
As for mid-roll rewind feature, that only works for the higher end camera's. Many/most of the P&S's did not support this feature.
One of the best features of APS, was the ability to weather-seal the camera, since you only needed a small door to load the film, as oppose to this massive door for 35mm.
Last problem with APS, is if you're using a scanner, most do not have an appropriate holder for the negs, and the special holders for most film scanners are not that easy to find.
As for mid-roll rewind feature, that only works for the higher end camera's. Many/most of the P&S's did not support this feature.
One of the best features of APS, was the ability to weather-seal the camera, since you only needed a small door to load the film, as oppose to this massive door for 35mm.
Last problem with APS, is if you're using a scanner, most do not have an appropriate holder for the negs, and the special holders for most film scanners are not that easy to find.
DougK
This space left blank
Doug,
I have two APS cameras, a Minolta Vectis 200 and a Yashica Profile 4000ix Zoom. They aren't rangefinders but they're good cameras nonetheless. Frankly, I like them both because they are easy to carry and small enough to throw into a pants or jacket pocket. The Minolta I got shortly after college and took everywhere with me. Granted, you're not going to get the fastest lenses in the world but for a carry-along camera, they do just fine. I'm much more likely to carry a smaller camera than a larger one even if I do sacrifice somewhat in negative size, although there really isn't that much difference in size between APS and 35mm half-frame. Overall, prints from my APS cameras have been better, or at least more consistent, than prints from my 35mm cameras simply because of the magnetic strip passing exposure information to the processor. You're also going to find less ability to manually control the camera settings since most APS cameras were designed with the non-serious photographer in mind. Don't buy into the snobbishness you'll see on photo.net; it's another film format like any other. Can you tell I like my APS cameras? I just think they're a blast to shoot with and let's face it - if it's a good image, who cares what you got it with?
Stu, you may want to consider ordering APS film online, there are print films available from Fuji and Kodak in ISO 100, 200, and 400, all of which seem to be easily available here in the US. I also thought I saw a Kodak ISO 800 film when I was in Target the other day, I'll have to go back and check. No slide film that I am aware of or have been able to find, though I remember hearing about it once. I've heard great things about Kodak's new High Definition APS film (also in 35mm), I'll let you know soon what I think of it. Buy in the three-pack; it's cheaper that way.
Doug K.
I have two APS cameras, a Minolta Vectis 200 and a Yashica Profile 4000ix Zoom. They aren't rangefinders but they're good cameras nonetheless. Frankly, I like them both because they are easy to carry and small enough to throw into a pants or jacket pocket. The Minolta I got shortly after college and took everywhere with me. Granted, you're not going to get the fastest lenses in the world but for a carry-along camera, they do just fine. I'm much more likely to carry a smaller camera than a larger one even if I do sacrifice somewhat in negative size, although there really isn't that much difference in size between APS and 35mm half-frame. Overall, prints from my APS cameras have been better, or at least more consistent, than prints from my 35mm cameras simply because of the magnetic strip passing exposure information to the processor. You're also going to find less ability to manually control the camera settings since most APS cameras were designed with the non-serious photographer in mind. Don't buy into the snobbishness you'll see on photo.net; it's another film format like any other. Can you tell I like my APS cameras? I just think they're a blast to shoot with and let's face it - if it's a good image, who cares what you got it with?
Stu, you may want to consider ordering APS film online, there are print films available from Fuji and Kodak in ISO 100, 200, and 400, all of which seem to be easily available here in the US. I also thought I saw a Kodak ISO 800 film when I was in Target the other day, I'll have to go back and check. No slide film that I am aware of or have been able to find, though I remember hearing about it once. I've heard great things about Kodak's new High Definition APS film (also in 35mm), I'll let you know soon what I think of it. Buy in the three-pack; it's cheaper that way.
Doug K.
DougK
This space left blank
Oh, and one more thing...
I'd like to address the comment above that tiny negative=lower image quality. This statement is not necessarily true as written, as it does not take issues such as lens quality into account. What I think can be said is that there is a smaller limit than 35mm film to which you can enlarge an APS image before film grain and such makes the enlargement of unacceptable quality. That statement I would agree with., however to be fair, the same thing could be said about 35mm vs MF, MF vs. LF, and so on.
Doug K.
I'd like to address the comment above that tiny negative=lower image quality. This statement is not necessarily true as written, as it does not take issues such as lens quality into account. What I think can be said is that there is a smaller limit than 35mm film to which you can enlarge an APS image before film grain and such makes the enlargement of unacceptable quality. That statement I would agree with., however to be fair, the same thing could be said about 35mm vs MF, MF vs. LF, and so on.
Doug K.
Last edited:
P
plexi
Guest
dkirchge said:
That`s of course right....
DougK
This space left blank
Sorry Amund, I edited my statement while you were quoting me. I didn't think I was quite clear enough in my original, plus I was a little harsher than I intended.
Doug K.
Doug K.
Last edited:
P
plexi
Guest
Knowing that the the most diehard 4x5 inch potoghraphers refuse to make prints larger than 8x10" , Who are we to argue.?..
DougK
This space left blank
Good point
I just poked around the Kodak website for info on the APS "AdvantIX" film, and found the "magnetic stripe" is actually a clear coating over the whole surface of the film. Wild.
Certainly seems too that the more feature-laden cameras support more of the APS features and data recording.
I also found at B&H that the Nikon Pronea SLR will accept most full-size Nikon auto focus lenses. That's very cool, but the body isn't cheap either.
At B&H the costliest APS camera is the Contax Tix at $630, whew! But it has a fixed-focal-length f/2.8 lens and other nice features. Maybe I can find a cheap used one?
Certainly seems too that the more feature-laden cameras support more of the APS features and data recording.
I also found at B&H that the Nikon Pronea SLR will accept most full-size Nikon auto focus lenses. That's very cool, but the body isn't cheap either.
At B&H the costliest APS camera is the Contax Tix at $630, whew! But it has a fixed-focal-length f/2.8 lens and other nice features. Maybe I can find a cheap used one?
Last edited:
DougK
This space left blank
Doug,
You may also want to poke around your local camera shops. I happened to see a Vectis 200 on the shelf in the shop by my house the other day when I was picking up prints. I commented that I had a camera just like that and the first words out of the guy's mouth were "Want another one? I'll make you a great deal - I can't get rid of the things since digital got cheap." Maybe you can talk someone down enough to make it really worth buying.
Doug K.
You may also want to poke around your local camera shops. I happened to see a Vectis 200 on the shelf in the shop by my house the other day when I was picking up prints. I commented that I had a camera just like that and the first words out of the guy's mouth were "Want another one? I'll make you a great deal - I can't get rid of the things since digital got cheap." Maybe you can talk someone down enough to make it really worth buying.
Doug K.
JohnL
Very confused
An APS attachment is an optional accessory for the Minolta Dual Scan IV, which is a decent current film scanner. I don't have one for mine as I don't have any APS films, but I doubt they are hard to order from B&H etc etc.
It came!
It came!
I found a black Canon ELPH Jr on eBay for $35 BIN and pushed the button... It has a non-zoom 26mm f/2.8 lens. I had specifically searched for this "feature" after noting B&H offering a Contax Tix in APS format with a fixed f/2.8 lens for $630! Thought maybe I could find an alternative a bit lower than that.
I gladly trade varifocal for speed. The zooms were all up in the f/4.8 range at the wide end and a couple stops slower at the long end.
Well, it arrived today and I was surprised how small it is, about the size of a credit card and 1.3" thick. It's thickest at the end with the Canon name to allow the film cartridge to fit.
I couldn't get the film compartment door open. The battery compartment was empty, so I popped a CR2 into the slot and hit the power button, but the film door still wouldn't open. There's a small LCD screen on the top... a box with the number 8 in it and what must be a diagram of the camera showing a battery and a film cart, and across the top a blinking line of dashes.
It occurred to me the diagram could indicate there was film in it, and the number 8 might be a frame counter. Yep! I clicked the button and the flash went off and the motor whirred and the number changed to 9. Well well. Free film.
I walked about the neighborhood with this tiny camera almost concealed in my hand and shot up the remainder of the roll. At 25 the motor started to wind the film back, with the counter going in reverse order. Took a while. It was Fuji Nexia 400.
The camera is "cute as a bug's ear" in my mother's words. It seems to work ok, though the flash goes off on every shot. Shouldn't be needed in the afternoon light with ISO 400 film and f/2.8 available. There's a button on the left with a flash icon, maybe that'll change things.
The film's in for processing, and I'm eager to see on Friday how it turns out... and what is on those first 7 frames!
It came!
I found a black Canon ELPH Jr on eBay for $35 BIN and pushed the button... It has a non-zoom 26mm f/2.8 lens. I had specifically searched for this "feature" after noting B&H offering a Contax Tix in APS format with a fixed f/2.8 lens for $630! Thought maybe I could find an alternative a bit lower than that.
I gladly trade varifocal for speed. The zooms were all up in the f/4.8 range at the wide end and a couple stops slower at the long end.
Well, it arrived today and I was surprised how small it is, about the size of a credit card and 1.3" thick. It's thickest at the end with the Canon name to allow the film cartridge to fit.
I couldn't get the film compartment door open. The battery compartment was empty, so I popped a CR2 into the slot and hit the power button, but the film door still wouldn't open. There's a small LCD screen on the top... a box with the number 8 in it and what must be a diagram of the camera showing a battery and a film cart, and across the top a blinking line of dashes.
It occurred to me the diagram could indicate there was film in it, and the number 8 might be a frame counter. Yep! I clicked the button and the flash went off and the motor whirred and the number changed to 9. Well well. Free film.
I walked about the neighborhood with this tiny camera almost concealed in my hand and shot up the remainder of the roll. At 25 the motor started to wind the film back, with the counter going in reverse order. Took a while. It was Fuji Nexia 400.
The camera is "cute as a bug's ear" in my mother's words. It seems to work ok, though the flash goes off on every shot. Shouldn't be needed in the afternoon light with ISO 400 film and f/2.8 available. There's a button on the left with a flash icon, maybe that'll change things.
The film's in for processing, and I'm eager to see on Friday how it turns out... and what is on those first 7 frames!