[rollei_list] Re: OT: Kodak Film Formats
- From: Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:29:20 -0400
At 07:13 PM 7/18/2010, David Sadowski wrote:
>In 1963, prior to the introduction of 126, 127 was the most popular
>film format, period. But once Kodak introduced the Instamatics,
>people stopped buying 127 format cameras.
>
>Yes, Kodak continued making 127 film for many years after that
>(Ektachrome was discontinued around 1984) but that is only because
>there were millions of these cameras already in circulation- but very
>few were sold after 1963.
>
>The main difference between 126 and 127 is, of course, the film
>loading method being much easier and simplified in the newer format.
>Both were generally square format.
>
>35mm was not a primary amateur format in 1963. Most people shot very
>few pictures and if you had a 36 exposure roll in the family camera,
>you were likely to see pictures for more than one Christmas when
>developed.
>
>After the demise of 127, there were no more such traditional roll
>films aimed at amateurs. The Instamatics killed it.
I have no clue where you got the idea that 127
was the most popular format in 1963. 120 outsold
127 by three to one at that time, and 135 outsold
both many times over. 127 was a marginal player
by 1963 simply because 135 owned the amateur
market. Note that the major companies -- Zeiss
Ikon and Leitz and Canon and Nikon, for instance,
never made a 127 camera and all were 135 only
after 1956 when Zeiss Ikon folded the Super
Ikonta III and IV. The only amateur company
which introduced a new 127 camera in the 1950's
was Yashica, and that was effectively dead after
they lost the lawsuit with F&H. 127's days as an
amateur format were prior to and immediately after the Second War.
You are, of course, entitled to believe that 126
was aimed against 127, and that 126 killed
127. But, in the absence of any evidence to that
end, I will simply not share your, eh, fanciful
interpretation and will stick with the mainstream
take that 126 was meant to be a replacement for
828, as all of the evidence shows.
Again, look at the Wikipedia entries. That on
the 127 gives some credence, without references,
to your viewpoint but that for the 126 format does not.
Marc
msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
---
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:
