110/16mm Camera Image Quality

wjlapier · Dec 10, 2020

I'm curious to know what some folks know from experience the image quality from some specific 110/16mm cameras. Canon 110ED, Minolta 110 Zoom, Rollei A110, Minolta 16 II, and Mamiya 16 Automatic.

I shot with the Minolta 16 II, and I'm not sure it's my scanner film holder, but I wasn't too impressed. Really cool little camera and actually fun to shoot--not fun to load film into! I have the Canon and Minolta 110 cameras and still need to finish the film in them before I can develop, scan and review.

Cholentpot · Dec 10, 2020

You need to stop the lens down on the 16II to get sharp stuff.

Minolta 16 II

Kodak Instamatic A110

Pentax Auto 110

Scanning can be challenging. I'm scanning with a DSLR and macro lens. I'm happy with the sharpness for what the film is.

Donald Qualls · Dec 10, 2020

The other thing to be aware of with the Minolta 16II is that the lens is focused for hyperfocal use, like a box camera -- best focus is around 8-10 feet. If you want a distant scene to be sharp(ish) you'll need to either stop down to f/8 or smaller, or mount the 0 auxiliary lens. The 10x14 mm negative doesn't help here, either -- I get much better results with my Kiev 30 and 303, which have a focusing lens (triplet type) and almost double the negative area. Still, you can get good images from the Minolta, if you follow the above steps.

xya · Dec 10, 2020

look at the size of the negative. it's only a quarter of the 35mm film. so there are limits. but there are good 16mm and 110 cameras. I have made a site about them for comparison at http://www.subcompactcam.com/ if you take the smallest of them and compare them to the smallest 35mm film cameras, the choice is easy, the 35mm win, their film is easier to get and easier to get developped http://www.135compact.com/

as I do b&w film myself, I still like my subcompacts...

Cholentpot · Dec 10, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
The other thing to be aware of with the Minolta 16II is that the lens is focused for hyperfocal use, like a box camera -- best focus is around 8-10 feet. If you want a distant scene to be sharp(ish) you'll need to either stop down to f/8 or smaller, or mount the 0 auxiliary lens. The 10x14 mm negative doesn't help here, either -- I get much better results with my Kiev 30 and 303, which have a focusing lens (triplet type) and almost double the negative area. Still, you can get good images from the Minolta, if you follow the above steps.

Kiev is not as good with shooting film with perfs. Minolta shoots such a small negative that it will avoid the perfs.

wjlapier · Dec 10, 2020

Here's a few from the Minolta with only the UV filter.

Kinda grainy I thought.

Donald Qualls · Dec 10, 2020

Cholentpot said:
Kiev is not as good with shooting film with perfs. Minolta shoots such a small negative that it will avoid the perfs.

Kiev avoids the perfs perfectly if you load them on the bridge side of the cassette. Load them on the other side, and they'll be in your images a couple mm.

xya · Dec 10, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
Kiev avoids the perfs perfectly if you load them on the bridge side of the cassette. Load them on the other side, and they'll be in your images a couple mm.

are you sure about it? I only tried it once, and there was about a half of a mm of the perfs still visible in the film area. since then I usually slice my film from 120 film rolls...

ic-racer · Dec 10, 2020

Best results with micro cameras are pretty much wide open, obtain correct focus for the lens (that might be fixed as Donald pointe out) and stabilize the camera or use very fast shutter speed.

blockend · Dec 11, 2020

You need scrupulous technique when dealing with sub-miniature formats. There's no technical reason for the image to be soft, after all expensive lenses were sold for half frame cameras, as well as micro four thirds and Olympus's Q digital cameras. In every other way from the shot, to development and printing, there's no room for sloppiness. The sub-miniature group has examples of what mini formats are capable of, given sufficient care. If you can find any, transparency film and a sturdy tripod was the way to determine the image quality limits of the camera.

ciniframe · Dec 15, 2020

Definitely with the Minolta 16II you need the ‘0’ lens attached for best aperture shooting, around f4 or 5.6, to get good definition in the distance. The 16II is set to 2.5M (about 8ft.). Try shooting a detailed subject at F4 at that distance to see if the lens is good on your sample. As far as grain is concerned, well after all, a 5x7 enlargement is already 12X.....so, no surprise that it gets obvious when viewing a print 12 to 18 inches away.
On my 16II the ‘0’ lens is practically glued on for 90% of the time. That auxiliary lens is a negative .25 diopter and brings prime focus to 10M, close enough to infinity as makes no difference.

ic-racer · Dec 15, 2020

A while back I started a thread seeing if anyone opened up the film channel of a Minolta 16 to get a bigger image on the film. I wonder if the lens would cover. It is a shame that the Minolta 16 (not the QT) gives an image not much larger than Minox.

ciniframe · Dec 15, 2020

ic-racer said:
A while back I started a thread seeing if anyone opened up the film channel of a Minolta 16 to get a bigger image on the film. I wonder if the lens would cover. It is a shame that the Minolta 16 (not the QT) gives an image not much larger than Minox.

I’ve thought about that option also. Of course one has to disassemble the 16II to gain access to the film gate. That is not too difficult and I’ve had them apart several times. If memory serves there just isn’t much space to open up the film gate on a 16II because the edges are rounded, so that the flat part where the pressure plate sits is barely 16mm wide. Since the horizontal opening is already 14mm then the very most it could be opened is 2mm, if that. In a Minolta 16 film cartridge the space between the feed and take up is 21mm so that space allowed Minolta to have a horizontal opening of 17mm in the QT and MG-s for the larger 12X17 frame of those cameras. But the film gates in those cameras must be a different profile than in the earlier cameras.

ic-racer · Dec 15, 2020

I was thinking of opening it up the vertical direction, toward where the sprocket holes would be (but use non perforated film).

I actually have a roll of film fixing in my Jobo now from a Minolta 16 and a roll of Minox in the Jobo too, so I can compare the image size and quality directly.

ciniframe · Dec 15, 2020

There is also another option besides the ‘0’ lens to attain better focus for distant scenes. It involves disassembling the camera and removing the washer(s) where the lens seats on the inner frame. In one camera I took apart there was one washer that miked just over .006in. Calculations indicate that for a 22mm lens focused at 2.5M it would need an extension of about .0074 so, removing that washer should be focus out to 40-50ft., again close enough to infinity as makes no difference. This is not a conversion that is easily reversed so the camera mostly would be for distances of 15ft. and beyond or for 1.3m and .7m you could still use the #1 and #2 close up lenses. The 16II is usually priced so that one could have two cameras, one regular and one modified, just don’t forget which one is which.

Or, you could just get a Kiev 30 and skip all the forgoing monkey business.

Donald Qualls · Dec 16, 2020

ciniframe said:
Or, you could just get a Kiev 30 and skip all the forgoing monkey business.

Or a QT. Nicer to handle, has a tripod socket (on the end, commonly used for a wrist strap) and, IIRC, provision for a cable release, as well as (sort of) manual exposure even if the electronics are dead (2-speed shutter is all mechanical based on the exposure lever). A good bit bigger than a folded Kiev 16mm, though.

Cholentpot · Dec 16, 2020

ic-racer said:
I was thinking of opening it up the vertical direction, toward where the sprocket holes would be (but use non perforated film).

I actually have a roll of film fixing in my Jobo now from a Minolta 16 and a roll of Minox in the Jobo too, so I can compare the image size and quality directly.

How'd you get a roll into a Jobo? I'm stuck with yankee clippers.

ic-racer · Dec 16, 2020

I use the Jobo 16mm reels in a 1500 tank. The 16mm reels are pretty nice they each will hold two rolls.
I also have a Jobo reel for Minox.

ic-racer · Dec 16, 2020

ciniframe said:
Or, you could just get a Kiev 30 and skip all the forgoing monkey business.

Very nice, I need to get one!

I just found a ten-year old spool of 100 feet of Double X 7222 Negative single perf. I processed a roll and base is 0.4 which is very reasonable. I need to load up some Minolta cartridges. I got all my cartridges from an ad in Shutterbug back in the 1980s. I think I have about 20 of them.

The images are overexposed, for some reason I thought the 100ft roll was Cine-X (which I use in my Bolex and I rate at about 80) Maybe I should have read the label first, rather than after processing and checking the base density.....the Double X is EI 250.

The Minox film is HP5 which I split.

Cholentpot · Dec 16, 2020

ic-racer said:
I use the Jobo 16mm reels in a 1500 tank. The 16mm reels are pretty nice they each will hold two rolls.
I also have a Jobo reel for Minox.

The fabled 16mm reels...I think I saw a few on Ebay going for $40 a piece. I bought three Yankee tanks instead for $10. Upside to the Yankee clippers is that you can fit a standard Patterson reel on top of the Yankee reel and develop 16mm and 35mm in one shot.

As for getting two on one reel. How?

xya · Dec 16, 2020

you can make 16mm reels easily yourself from jobo 35mm reels http://www.subcompactcam.com/110_16mm_jobo_reel_diy.htm

ProgramPlus · Dec 16, 2020

Cholentpot said:
The fabled 16mm reels...I think I saw a few on Ebay going for $40 a piece. I bought three Yankee tanks instead for $10. Upside to the Yankee clippers is that you can fit a standard Patterson reel on top of the Yankee reel and develop 16mm and 35mm in one shot.

Hadn’t thought about that. Great idea.

ProgramPlus · Dec 16, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
Or a QT.

Or the MG-s. I believe the regular MG is 14mm however. The MG-S is a really nice camera. Is doesn’t have the adjustable focus of the QT but the build quality and heft of the camera is a big step above the other Minoltas.

Donald Qualls · Dec 16, 2020

Correct, the 16 MG is the same 10x14 frame as the 16, 16II, and 16P (the plastic "chocolate bar" model). MGs was essentially just a frame size upgrade on the MG -- same operation, same capability, but 12x17 instead of 10x14. I think the only Minolta 16 model I haven't owned is the plastic one. Never had an MGs or QT with working meter, though.

Cholentpot · Dec 16, 2020

ProgramPlus said:
Hadn’t thought about that. Great idea.

Gotta watch it though. It just fits so you need to make sure there's enough solution to cover the top reel. Otherwise you'll get surge marks and stuff.

110/16mm Camera Image Quality

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency