[rollei_list] Re: OT: Kodak Film Formats

  • From: Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 17:31:33 -0400

At 04:43 PM 7/18/2010, David Sadowski wrote:
>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.

Well, allow us to disagree. I have never heard that Kodak developed 126 to replace 127 -- in fact, 127 sales went on and on through the 1960's and 127 film remains available a decade after 126 went belly up.

You make much of the difficulty in loading film. 127 is substantially easier to load than was 135, and the loading woe 126 was meant to solve was the problem many amateurs encountered with 135 -- this is before the days of easy-load cameras. I have never heard a single complaint about loading 127 film from anyone, even my mother.

126 is 135 in an instant-load cartridge. So I have always heard it described and, having dissected some 126 cartridges, so it is. It is a modern development of 828 but, then, 828 was Kodak's effort to stamp out 135.


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

Other related posts: