110/16mm Camera Image Quality

[Cholentpot]

I believe you need a 40ish for half frame. I know my 30mm Minolta doesn't cover, but that is kind of a special lens. Of course if you are doing small prints then 30ish might cover, but if you are doing small prints you might as well use a 50mm. If you are really determined Olympus made an enlarging lens for half frame. IIRC it was a 38mm. I've only ever seen one though, so good luck. Lol. I do have a 35mm Fuji lens in a weird mount that I assume came off a minilab machine. If I was a machinist I'd make an adapter to try it. It has a really large film side, so it might actually be a full frame lens. I'm assuming it is for half frame though. Maybe one of these days I'll jam it into some foamcore or something and try it.

I've printed to 5x7 with a 50. Looked fine.

The Ektramax definitely looks interesting. It has a max shutter speed of 1/125 unless you can find 400 speed film as it uses the cartridge speed to determine exposure settings. w iso 400 film you get 1/350 to 1/30 in 4 steps.
The Rollei A110 gives you 1/400 sec to 4 seconds steplessly, automatically. It is also much smaller than the Kodak, and much nicer built out of metal instead of plastic.

Here is a nice read:

Small Format Size, Big Format Results: One Ten Camera Guide to 110 Cameras!

...or maybe 11 or more, depending on how you count. Could one of this band of misfits be coming to a pocket near you soon? It's t...

quirkyguywithacamera.blogspot.com

Good thing I've got an A110, good feeling camera so far.

It's easy to build a new one. See https://www.subcompactcam.com/110_replace_kodak_k_7r31_battery.htm

I built one out of tape and silver foil.

 

[Huss]

I'd consider it if I owned one. I'm sure there are a ton of them on-line -- both photos and Ektramaxs.

Nope and no.

Which makes me think either these didn't sell, or are all broken.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Which one are you referring to -- Minolta made three 30mm enlarging lenses:

http://www.subclub.org/darkroom/lenses.htm

There is only one, they just labelled it differently over time or geography IIRC.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Nope and no.

Which makes me think either these didn't sell, or are all broken.

Yeah, you don't see many Ektramax cameras for sale. I just stumbled over one after I already had the Rollei. For the low prices these things can sell for I figured why not? Probably paid like $20 for it. I just think they didn't sell many. I don't think many of them broke because there isn't really anything on them to break. I guess they were pretty pricey back in the day which would have limited their sales.

I'll post some pictures from it if I ever get the camera scanner set up and I can remember what film I shot with it. Camera scans are so much better than film scanners at the small sizes. My Nikon scanner makes 110 look pretty bad (or pretty good depending on how you look at it, Lol).

I saw in that link someone posted that microfilm can be shot in the Ektramax. Might as well do that someday too.

 

[grain elevator]

You don't need fancy. You can just use a 50. If you have a glass negative carrier (you should have one anyway) then it is a piece of cake. You can just make a mask for the 110 neg, or any other size you want. I do that with my Saunders. 4x5 negative carrier and a mask for all the other sizes. I even have one for the Minox.

The 30mm Minolta is probably the best lens for small formats. They aren't too expensive.

30s seem fairly rare in Europe, 50 would be way high up for any decent enlargement, and to me the appeal would be to really bring out the grain with larger enlargements, otherwise might as well use 35mm. Unfortunately subclub seems to be down, can't find more info on alternatives rn. And yes, I should have a glass carrier, but I don't... Those are also rare and expensive-ish, I'll need to just make one, shouldn't be too difficult.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

30mm & 40mm lenses are designed to cover 16mm and half-frame 35mm respectively while giving reasonable working distances and magnifications. You can always use a longer enlarger lens, e.g. a 50mm as suggested. Make the same adjustments as if you were printing 35mm negatives with a 80 or 135mm lens intended to cover medium format. If you're interested in grain, check out this thread.

I've discovered two convenient configurations using a Nikon 1 body (a V2 in this instance) to digitize variously sized 16mm/110 frames. In both cases, the camera lens/hood is in direct contact with the glass on top of the negative so alignment is simple.

Mamiya 16 De Luxe
FPP Sonic 25, DK-60a 1+3 9'


A - 18.5mm f1.8 on 16mm of extension tubes w/ lens hood at closest manual focus gives a minox-ish size crop from a 10x14mm frame. Newton rings!
B - 11-27.5mm@11mm f3.5 on 10mm of extension tubes at infinity focus. Covers 10x14mm pretty well and probably 110 with a slight crop.
C - V800 scan 2400 DPI. Same frame as A.
D - V800 scan 2400 DPI. Same as frame B.

And of course 100% crop from the V800 and the V2.

 

[ciniframe]

You are right, but there are plenty in aperture priority, even with a rangefinder and with a wide range of speeds up to several seconds. Good quality cameras and lenses btw...

Years ago one surprising camera I tried was a Kodak Tele Ektra 2. It had (jogging dim memory) a 22mm and 44mm lens set, both 3 element lenses that I believe were f5.6 and the 44mm could be focused via symbol. It used flip-flash bulbs and I had the bottom end of a used flip flash to set a lower shutter speed if it was dim outside. Bought out of curiosity and played with it for a couple of weeks and then gave it to my sister-in-law. The results for album size prints was excellent. That was about 40 years ago. When Kodak introduced 110 film and cameras the model 60 had as good a lens as any top quality camera and even the bottom of the line model 20 had a three element lens.

 

[xkaes]

Unfortunately subclub seems to be down, can't find more info on alternatives rn.

The SUBCLUB isn't down. I was just over there. Either your ISP, browser, or intermediary server is blocking it. Try another browser like MYPAL or another ISP, OS, etc. It's there -- and has been for over 25 years.

 

[xkaes]

There is only one, they just labelled it differently over time or geography IIRC.

There were three -- first a Rokkor E 30mm f4.5, then the Rokkor E 30mm f2.8 in the Minolta ENLAHEAD, and then the Rokkor-X CE 30mm f2.8. Many people, like you, think they only made the CE version, but there were two earlier models. They also made a Rokkor E 25mm f3.5 for their 16mm cameras.

 

[xkaes]

Years ago one surprising camera I tried was a Kodak Tele Ektra 2. It had (jogging dim memory) a 22mm and 44mm lens set, both 3 element lenses that I believe were f5.6 and the 44mm could be focused via symbol. It used flip-flash bulbs and I had the bottom end of a used flip flash to set a lower shutter speed if it was dim outside. Bought out of curiosity and played with it for a couple of weeks and then gave it to my sister-in-law. The results for album size prints was excellent. That was about 40 years ago. When Kodak introduced 110 film and cameras the model 60 had as good a lens as any top quality camera and even the bottom of the line model 20 had a three element lens.

(1978) The Tele-Ektra line was similar to to Pocket Instamatic series but with two lenses and updated to take the new 400 speed film. This model came with a focusing, three element 22mm (f5.6) lens that had a built-in teleconverter to turn it into a 44mm (f5.6) lens. Shutter speeds from 1/60 to 1/500. Flip cover that turns into a camera handle. Focusing to 5 feet. Shutter speed set by film cartridge. Two position weather dial, sets f-stop. Camera could use flip-flash units or a special electronic flash..

 

[Patrick Robert James]

There were three -- first a Rokkor E 30mm f4.5, then the Rokkor E 30mm f2.8 in the Minolta ENLAHEAD, and then the Rokkor-X CE 30mm f2.8. Many people, like you, think they only made the CE version, but there were two earlier models. They also made a Rokkor E 25mm f3.5 for their 16mm cameras.

Good to know! I've only ever seen the CE version which was also the lens on the enlahead if I am not mistaken.

Speaking of enlaheads, I have the Mamiya enlahead. I made some really sharp prints from Minox from it but the exposures were too long for my impatient self.

One of these days, if I ever get around to it, I'd like to make a dedicated light in a box for my Saunders to print the small negs. I had a Minox neg in there the other night that required a two minute exposure. Snoozefest. And the Saunders has a 250 watt bulb. I figure it would be pretty easy to put together a projection bulb in a tube with some diffusion. Either that or figure out a way to channel that 250 watts to the small size of the negs. Maybe a flexible tube with a reflecting surface on the inside, kind of like those light tubes that are used in houses to get sunlight in hallways and such.

 

[Huss]

 

[xkaes]

The first Minolta 30mm f2.8 enlarging lens was designated E Rokkor because it was a child of the 1960s, and designed for B&W negatives. The CE Rokkor-X 30mm f2.8 appeared later with the Rokkor-X line of lenses in the 1970s for the Minolta XK camera. At the time, Minolta was only selling the QT and MG-s 16mm cameras. The CE stands for "Color Enlarging". Unlike their predecessors, the CE lenses were now designed for color enlarging which included the improved multi-coating of the Rokkor-X line of lenses. The CE lens is not the same lens as in the ENLAHEAD even though they are both 30mm f2.8 optics.

Would you consider the MINOLTA W. ROKKOR - HG 35mm f2.8 of 1959 to be the same lens as the MINOLTA MC W. ROKKOR-X 35mm f2.8 of 1975? They are not twins. Brothers? Sure!

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Spotted about 45 minutes ago...

Minolta 110 Zoom SLR Mk ii.
FPP Sonic 25; DK-60a 6'

Digitized with the J5 18.5mm on tubes.

And the same frame scanned on the v800 -

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Happy 4th!

Celebrate with a macro auto-panorama -

Minolta 110 Zoom SLR Mk ii, single extra advance.
Double-X @ 200; DK-60a 6'

 

[Cholentpot]

I just finished a roll of Fuji 100 attempting fireworks photography with an Instamatic 60. I guess I'll see the photos someday when I batch develop.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Now that's a high degree of difficulty... what were the exposures like?

The J5 will capture an entire 110 frame using a 12.5-75mm TV lens adapted from C-mount. The optics are filthy but its just too damned convenient an option for camera scanning 16mm frames.

Same frame with the 18.5mm on tubes for comparison:

 

[Cholentpot]

Kodak Fling, Tri-X, HC110 Dil B 10 min.

Here's a crop which I suspect it's supposed to be cropped to,

And the best shot of the roll,

I think next time I need to export smaller sized images. But hey, at least you don't have to zoom for 100% crop.

 

[xkaes]

Kodak sold a lot of different FLING cameras -- 110, 35mm, disposable, reusable, etc. Care to enlighten us?

 

[Cholentpot]

Kodak sold a lot of different FLING cameras -- 110, 35mm, disposable, reusable, etc. Care to enlighten us?

This is the 110 thread so assume it's the 110 version

The film it came with was useless so it was reloaded with some Tri-X.

 

[Huss]

This is the 110 thread so assume it's the 110 version

The film it came with was useless so it was reloaded with some Tri-X.

That is a beautiful camera.

 

[Cholentpot]

That is a beautiful camera.

Some Hussy sent it to me.

 

[Cholentpot]

Minolta 16 II, '0' filter, Kodak HQ Link, Rodinal 1:175 stand 1 hour.

Cap came off the receiving side of the cassette when I removed from camera. I stuck my thumb over the chamber but a few frames got fogged. Surprised the whole thing wasn't burnt.

 

[xkaes]

This is the 110 thread so assume it's the 110 version

The film it came with was useless so it was reloaded with some Tri-X.

OK, the sprocket holes threw me off. So you cut some 35mm down to 16mm, right?, and reloaded a FLING. Was is a pain to reload? Does it have a 110 cassette of some sort inside? I've reloaded 110 cassettes but never a single-use 110 camera. Just curious.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Minolta 16 II, '0' filter, Kodak HQ Link, Rodinal 1:175 stand 1 hour.

Cap came off the receiving side of the cassette when I removed from camera. I stuck my thumb over the chamber but a few frames got fogged. Surprised the whole thing wasn't burnt.

Blam, that's a great combo. I had a similar cap incident with some ektachrome and there was some fogging but most frames weren't ruined. The film winding must be tight enough to form the littlest bit of a 'daylight spool' on the receiving side.

The grain & tonality remind me of a panchromatic version of FPP Sonic 25 (3378) which I've been shooting as of late. I've mixed up stock solutions of D-23, DK-60a, and D-19 to go along with last year's champion, a new gallon of Xtol, in hopes of squeezing flatter negatives out of this film. Great stuff if you can deal with its ortho-ness; a yellow filter might help.

Minolta MG-s, shutter priority
FPP Sonic 25; D-23 stock 8'
V800 scan & J5 digitization



First attempt with this combo to see the effect on contrast / density. Not as contrast-taming as I'd hoped, some uneven development (I'm looking at you, yankee clipper), and shadow speed suffers as well. Great middle tones though. The house and adjacent roof blew out much faster than the blue sky, which is odd. Maybe I need a UV filter.