The Kodak Vest Pocket and Me.

[Stephanie Brim]

Considering the fact that I would have a hard time finding 127 film where I am and, without a credit card, it would be kind of hard to get any here, I have no idea why I'm keeping this camera. I suppose that it may be because it's a piece of history. I have an older model, still in beautiful shape for its age, and I have most of the original instruction manual and the leather case. I have no real idea what draws me to this camera, but I really want to use it.

Has anyone else used one of these before? Considering the scarcity of 127 film nowadays, is it worth keeping as other than a collector's item?

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Hrm...I've heard good things about the Efke.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I was under the impression that you could respool 120 film onto the 127 film spools and use it. I could be wrong, but I am sure some other members may know for sure.

Bob

 

[Stephanie Brim]

It's too large...at least the TMax that came out of the Meopta seems to be.

 

[phototone]

I was under the impression that you could respool 120 film onto the 127 film spools and use it. I could be wrong, but I am sure some other members may know for sure.

Bob

No, it is 620 and 120 that are the same width, only the spool is different. You can respool 120 onto 620 spools, if you have any 620 spools laying around.

127 is narrower in width. It is inbetween 120 and 35mm in width. You would need a special 127 reel to process it, or use one of those expanding and contracting plastic reels that process anything from 120 to 16mm.

FYI...126 Instamatic Cartridge film and 35mm film are the same width, and can be processed on the same reel. It may be that 110 Instamatic film is the same width as 16mm film, I can't remember.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I thought about seeing if I could find a 127 cartridge and respool 35mm onto it until I could afford to buy the specialty stuff. Wouldn't be quite the right size, but I'd be able to take photos.

 

[wlewisiii]

I was under the impression that you could respool 120 film onto the 127 film spools and use it. I could be wrong, but I am sure some other members may know for sure.

Bob

Bob, you're probably thinking of 620 film - that emulsion and backing paper is the same size as 120 but the spool is thiner and the top and bottom flanges are smaller diameter. It's a reasonably easy task to respool 120 onto the 620 spools.

127 was a smaller film size. The classic format for it was a 4cm x 4cm square on the baby Rollie and Yashica 44 as opposed to 120 and the 6x6 square.

Stephanie, JandC carries 127 as does freestylephoto.biz. And Frugalphotographer.com has it as well (and will take paypal if that is easier for you to use. ) - Maco B&W, color print and even chrome.

Have fun!

William

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

I thought about seeing if I could find a 127 cartridge and respool 35mm onto it until I could afford to buy the specialty stuff. Wouldn't be quite the right size, but I'd be able to take photos.

127 has the paper backing with the frame numbers on it like 120 does 🙂 This will be a problem if you try putting 35mm on the 127 spools ...

dan

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I have not seen 127 film in a long time.

Googled this. Respooling 828 looks possible, instructions also on this site:
http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/KodakFilmSizes.htm

Kodak Bantam, anyone?
http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/KodakBantam_Gallery.htm

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Ah...I keep forgetting about the damn window in the back of the camera. I wonder if I could put tape over that and make it safe to use 35mm film...

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I do not think you can get it light-tight enough without the paper backing. You would also have to load/unload in total darkness. Best to use the backing and spool up some B&W 35mm. Hey, isn't printing with the sprocket holes all the rage now?

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I thought about that and it is kind of a neat look, albeit a very artsy look. And hey...there's nothing wrong with the dark. Besides, I have no clue where to get the backing unless I just cut my old 120 backing to fit.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Well, I kept the paper backing from the 120 film I developed just in case I would ever need it again...so I could cut that to fit outside of the dark room and attach it to the 35mm in the dark room. Then I could use it...I think... :/

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

That would probably work ... the numbering would be off but you could sacrifice a test roll to figure out how many "turns" between frames 😀

dan

 

[VictorM.]

Try to find the numbers for 6X4.5-those will give a pretty good approximation of 127. I wonder if we'll all be doing this in the future with whatever film is left.

 

[Doug]

Stephanie, might be worth a try stringing 35mm film behind a trimmed 120 backing paper. I don't think the frame-number window will be a problem, as that backing paper is nearly opaque. Just avoid direct sun on it, I think it should be fine. I just ran a roll of Portra 160 restrung onto a 620 reel through a camera with red-window, no problem. I made sure to ask the lab to return the 620 reel.

The 35mm film will be narrower than the film gate of the camera, so it will not be well supported between the ends of the opening. And the image will be out into the sprocket holes too... What the heck, it's an educational experiment, isn't it? 😀

Another possibly better but more difficult solution would be slitting 120 film to the right width for 127. It will be longer than necessary, there's still the backing paper question...

FYI...126 Instamatic Cartridge film and 35mm film are the same width, and can be processed on the same reel. It may be that 110 Instamatic film is the same width as 16mm film, I can't remember.

Yes. 110 film is 16mm wide -- occasionally perfed, in contrast to the continuous perforations of 16mm movie film. Same distinction between 126 and 35mm, and I believe 828 is also 35mm wide but without any perfs.

I used to sell 828 Bantam film in the store back in the 60's, and accept it for processing. And I'd take out cameras for familiarization, but the only Bantam cameras I ever saw there were the Kodak Pony, and I had no desire to try one out. Probably would have been educational... in retrospect.

 

[wlewisiii]

Yes. 110 film is 16mm wide -- occasionally perfed, in contrast to the continuous perforations of 16mm movie film. Same distinction between 126 and 35mm, and I believe 828 is also 35mm wide but without any perfs.

I used to sell 828 Bantam film in the store back in the 60's, and accept it for processing. And I'd take out cameras for familiarization, but the only Bantam cameras I ever saw there were the Kodak Pony, and I had no desire to try one out. Probably would have been educational... in retrospect.

I love how educational this place is. I pick up useful tidbits here darn near every time I read a thread. This information on film widths is golden and harder than <bleep> to find even with our fancy pants internet.

The Pnet classic camera forum is good, but the this place is like 2 - 3 levels beyond it. Thank you Doug and everyone else posting here.

William

 

[J.Ed]

I have just processed several rolls of "found" 127. I could spare a spool and backing paper if any one would like to try respooling 35mm to 127.

 

[reagan]

trial

trial

I've loaded and shot a few frames of 35mm into my Flash Bantam. I piled a bajeebus glob of tape over the red window, but will replace it with something more elegant if the results are encouraging. I loaded it in the dark using no backing paper and ------- no spool! What? 🙄 I just rolled up a half-roll of 24 exp Fuji 100, hooked it to the take up spool, stuffed it in there and snapped the back shut. double Ha! 😀 😀 double bang :bang: :bang:

I calculated approx. turns of the knob to the next frame. I wanted to try not using backing hoping in the future to use the limited space in the little rascal for more film. (film + backing = film + film)

I should get scratches yes and possible light leaks yes. This is an experiment. I plan on unloading in the dark and placing the film in a black film cannister. A local lab has already said they'd have no trouble taking care of it from there.

Any [partial] photo at all will determine whether I want to continue the effort (replacing the tape glob with something more secure and light-proof, hunting down/constructing another spool, securing a black bag for loading/unloading, more accurately defining the needed turns to the next frame and ... troubling [if troublesome] my lab buddy to process, etc.

And yes, yes ~ Thank you Doug for the size info. I'll definately use that in the future if there's a Phase Two, maybe trying the 126.

Stephanie ~ if I look at the results of the first shots and say, "Naaaaa. Ain't worth it," I still will probably never get rid of the Bantam. It too seems to be in good shape and just like looking at it peering proudly in between the Zorkis on the shelf.