[rollei_list] Re: OT: Kodak Film Formats

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 126 was decidedly not meant to replace 127;  it was meant to replace 135 in
> amateur circles.  The format failed due to the inability to secure a flat
> film surface, though quite a few nice cameras were made in this format.

When 126 hit the market (1962 or 3), 127 had been the most popular
film format and the Instamatic was a huge success.  While ultimately
it didn't stick, in the early 1960s it was a big hit and
single-handedly put 127 and any other similar film formats on the road
to amateur oblivion.

Prior to 126, film loading was the biggest stumbling block for
amateurs.  With Instamatic, you simply popped the cartridge into the
camera and started flipping the advance lever, until the thing stopped
automatically.  The public loved it.

It had square format just like most 127 cameras did.

135 was not much of an amateur format in the early 1960s.  Even an
Argus C3 took a level of expertise with cameras that most people did
not have back then.  The big explosion in 35mm photography happened
later with the Canon AE-1s, and the development of auto exposure and
auto focus.

I should also mention that it is not just "Eco-Nuts" who do not want
heavy metals flushed down our drains.
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: