[rollei_list] Re: OT: Kodak Film Formats
- From: "Robert Creason" <rcreason-1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 17:38:21 -0600
I remember that Mercury, but I always wondered how well that small image
size would work out. I was always struggling to get a good sharp print from
the C3. Of course starting with a better taking lines than the C3 had would
have been a good start. But it was a fun time.
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of RM WISER
> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 4:59 PM
> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Kodak Film Formats
>
> Robert, I have about the same outlook as you plus owning a C-3 that I used
> extensively.I briefly owned an Exacta VX but never mad it to a Lecia.
Prior
> to owning the C-3, I had a Universal Mercury 2 but I could not afford the
> half frame color film processing expense. (72 exposures)
> Roger
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Creason" <rcreason-1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 5:44 PM
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Kodak Film Formats
>
>
> I think I have to disagree on the comments about the Argus C3. I bought
my
> C3 in 1948 after my Argus A2 was stolen. It was a great camera, but
hardly
> required any expertise to operate. I probably run a few miles of Plus X &
> Kodachrome through that one. Read the manual in an hour, practice focusing
> for 5 min. and you are good go to go. The C3 and the Kodak RF35 were both
> popular with amateurs at that time. My dream camera then was either an
> Exakta or Leica II or III, but those were only for the rich folks. Come
to
> think of it, I guess the Leica is still only for the rich folks. :)
> Bob C
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of David Sadowski
> > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 2:43 PM
> > To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [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
> > //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
> ---
> 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
>
> ---
> 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
---
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:
