[rollei_list] Re: OT: Kodak Film Formats

  • From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:19:03 -0700


----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc James Small" <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:33 AM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Kodak Film Formats


At 01:26 AM 7/19/2010, David Sadowski wrote:
>Ease of film loading was touted as the major advantage of 126 as can >stated in this period ad. Back then, a lot of snapshots had some >degree of edge fog due to improper loading (you were supposed to do it
>in the shade).

127 film is a LOT easier to load than was the 135
film of the era.  If Kodak touted the ease of
loading of 126, it was to show its "superiority"
over 126.  Take a dare:  load your Canon R1 and
then load your Baby Grey Rollei.  See which one
is easier to load --  hint:  Rollei wins, yet again.

Marc

The difficulty in loading 35mm cameras depends a lot on the design of the camera. Certainly cameras with openable or removeable backs are easier to load than the original Leica which reqired guiding the film into a slot. My Nikon F is practically drop-in loading as is my ancient Exakta Varex. I've never found roll film cameras to be difficult to load but then I am fairly adept at mechanical things, there are people who can't make instant coffee without knocking something over (even when sober) so I can imagine that some people would find a Box Brownie hard to load.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
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
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: