Question:
I realize that 35mm is the "standard" since it has been there and available for so long. APS is the new kid on the bloc (replacing other formats like 110). 35mm seems to have better quality in the larger prints (larger than 8×10), APS has ease of use. I was told that in Japan, APS was now the number 1 camera format (is this true?). Also in North America it appears that APS sales are now around 30% of all camera sales (with the bulk of the rest going to 35mm). This seems remarkable considering APS has been out only for a few years. In the meantime, APS and 35mm both offer viable alternatives.
In terms of "number of new cameras sold this year", neither of these stats would surprise me; the P&S market is considerably larger than the SLR market on a units sold basis. -Todd — Todd & Sharon Peach Seattle, Washington http://home1.gte.net/tpeach/NoPlaceLikeHome.htm
Response:
APS may overtake 35mm for Point and Shoots, but I don’t think that will happen with SLRs because 1. the smaller the film size, the more limitations it has 2. millions of serious amateurs and pros have invested in lots of good stuff on 35mm SLRs…..there is no advantage for them to change over! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Will APS overtake 35mm? Perhaps, but not everywhere. I would still bet that eventually, digital photography will be the standard of choice, but that is many years away. In the meantime, APS and 35mm both offer viable alternatives.
Response:
Years ago it was 828, then 126. More recently it was 110 and then Disc film. All of these cameras are now in the attic near the 8-track tapes and 45’s. In a couple years, the APS cameras will be there too, so choose a model which includes a cigarette lighter or leaf blower, so it has a use when the film is no longer being sold or processed. Against all odds, 35mm, 120/220 and 4×5 are all going strong and getting stronger. I see our local Comp USA has added an aisle of 35mm cameras near the digitals. Viva L’Emulsion!!!
Response:
Years ago it was 828, then 126. More recently it was 110 and then Disc film. All of these cameras are now in the attic near the 8-track tapes and 45’s. In a couple years, the APS cameras will be there too, so choose a model which includes a cigarette lighter or leaf blower, so it has a use when the film is no longer being sold or processed.
As a kid growing up in the 1960s, I remember 126 film sized "Instamatics" being quite popular and nothing short of a marketing success. While the image quality was not so hot, due to the small negative size and lack of a pressure plate to hold the film flat, people were generally quite pleased with the results. The American consumer wants convenience, and will give this priority over quality every time. The marketing contests of Beta vs VHS, IBM clone vs Apple Macintosh, etc. amply demonstrate that consumers really don’t give a flip about quality. The 126 Instamatics were supplanted by the 110 format not because there were objections to the picture quality of 126, or because 110 offered superior picture quality – because it didn’t. The reason 110 replaced 126 as the preferred consumer format was because of market saturation. The 126 cameras were low cost and very durable. In short order, everybody who wanted a camera had one – which caused new cameras sales to drop off to nothing. The reason the 110 film format was introduced was simply to spur new camera sales. 110 cameras were conspicuously smaller and more pocketable than 126 cameras, ergo – more convenient. And there were no complaints about degraded image quality. Consumers don’t care about image quality. It wasn’t poor image quality that caused the 110 format to be abandoned, it was once again market saturation. In short order, everybody who wanted a 110 camera already had one – and sales of new cameras diminished. The marketers of APS format make no promise of improved image quality over the small formats that went before it. Instead, the marketing is geared toward an increased level of convenience. APS cameras offer effortless film loading – as though the 110 and 126 cartridge cameras were difficult to load, which they weren’t. All APS cameras offer autofocusing, as though manually focusing a camera is difficult – which it isn’t. Personally, I doubt the consumer market will ever become saturated with APS cameras – simply because they all take such lousy pictures. The autofocusing does not work well, so people will keep buying more expensive models in hopes of finding one that actually works performs as advertised. The built-in flash units cause the highly objectionable "red-eye" effect. So people will continuously keep replacing their cameras in hopes of finding one that has "effective" red-eye reduction. So while the auto-everything, APS cameras offer the maximum in convenience – they take terrible looking pictures, even worse than their 110 and 126 format predecessors. But this is the formula that keeps everybody happy – maximum convenience for consumers, combined with poor picture quality which keeps consumers active in replacing their cameras with newer, more expensive "improved" ones. I suppose one might call it consumer fraud, but so long as the stock market keeps rising – who cares? Personally, I don’t think people really care if their pictures look like crap. I think most would be just as happy operating a camera with no film in it. If people really want good pictures, they hire a professional photographer. The APS camera serves the same function as a Gameboy for adults. It is a high tech gadget with flashing lights and whirring motors, never intended to take good pictures but imminently satisfying to play around with – challenging and frustrating not unlike a video game. If you can actually get a good picture occasionally – you win the game. People will never tire of wasting their money on these things. Gene Windell
Response:
I do believe you are dreaming in technicolor if you think APS will go away shortly. Every year sales are on the increase, this year in Japan the APS format outsold 35mm format. It is only a matter of time for this hits North America. You sound like the old LP fellows laughing at the CD format. Well guess what, they aren’t laughing anymore.
I agree, everyone I know who’s bought a new compact in the past couple of years has gone for an APS (this is in the UK). As for the APS SLR’s – has anyone ever bought one? …and if so, WHY? Syman.
Response:
Anyone who says that 110 format cameras produce better results than APS cameras has simply never used an APS camera. I agree, everyone I know who’s bought a new compact in the past couple of years has gone for an APS (this is in the UK). As for the APS SLR’s – has anyone ever bought one? …and if so, WHY?
One of my friends purchased an ELPH, loved the picture quality, and purchased the IX SLR as a result so he could use other lenses. It takes great photos. He subsequently also purchased a Nikon Nuvis S when his wife took the ELPH as he continued to want a compact for times when it was inconvenient to carry the larger SLR. He’s not a photographer, just wants convenience and ease of use, but also wants high quality photos. Godfrey
Response:
It’s not really about photos at all. As someone once said, it’s ALL about wooing women. That’s why I want one of those narly Elph cameras. Rockin’, dude!!! A little song A little dance A little chainsaw down your pants
Response:
More recently it was 110 and then Disc film. All of these cameras are now in the attic near the 8-track tapes and 45’s.
A couple weeks ago, I saw new 110 cameras sold at Target. Unbelievable. — Help! I’m trapped in a Chinese computer factory!
Response:
So while the auto-everything, APS cameras offer the maximum in convenience – they take terrible looking pictures, even worse than their 110 and 126 format predecessors. Well, you had me interested in your comments until the above line. The you lost all credibility. Saying that APS make worse picture than 110 is simply nonsense. As a person who used 3 different 110 cameras in the past, and am presently on my second APS, your statement is simply no true.
No, but everything else he said IS. JeffD
Response:
As we welcome a new millenium with all of its opportunities, I would like to avail myself of the opportunity to be the first to tell you to take your asinine comments and FUCK OFF! Paul – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s not really about photos at all. As someone once said, it’s ALL about wooing women. That’s why I want one of those narly Elph cameras. Rockin’, dude!!! A little song A little dance A little chainsaw down your pants
Response:
So while the auto-everything, APS cameras offer the maximum in convenience – they take terrible looking pictures, even worse than their 110 and 126 format predecessors. Well, you had me interested in your comments until the above line. The you lost all credibility. Saying that APS make worse picture than 110 is simply nonsense. As a person who used 3 different 110 cameras in the past, and am presently on my second APS, your statement is simply no true.
If my math is correct, that is a total of 5 pocket cameras you have bought. And I suspect there are some things about your current APS that you find objectionable – which will lead you to buy an even more sophisticated and expensive APS camera in hopes of overcoming those objections. This is the type of consumer that the camera manufacturers love. If your first 110 camera had been one of the top quality models, such as the Canon 110ED or the Rollei A110, you would probably still be using it and could have avoided buying the 4 subsequent cameras. The best pocket camera I ever owned was an Olympus XA with the A11 flash. Out of several hundred rolls of film, I never had 1 single picture that was out of focus. This is undoubtedly because the camera has an excellent rangefinder and a manually focusing lens. The aperture preferred autoexposure system was quite accurate, and never failed even 1 single time to give me a satisfactorily printable negative. The tiny A11 flash never 1 single time gave me a picture with "red-eye," even though it had no red-eye reduction feature. Yet the Olympus XA is barely larger than a pack of cigarettes – smaller than any 126 Instamatic and only slightly larger than an APS camera. So why did the Olympus XA go out of production? Same reason as all the others – market saturation. The point was reached where everyone who wanted an Olympus XA already had one – and there was no reason to buy another. In order to stay in the camera manufacturing business, Olympus had to convince consumers that manually focusing a camera was difficult – and that autofocusing would be more convenient and therefore make them happier. Likewise, they had to convince consumers that manually winding the film was difficult, and that a "motor drive" was required. Etc., etc, etc. Thus, the Stylus and Stylus Epic were born and the manufacturer stayed in business. Yet the manually operated XA will consistently outperform the Stylus Epic or the Yashica T4 if excellent results on every shot is the criterion. Gadgetry such as autofocusing and "red-eye" reduction virtually guarantees brisk future sales, simply because these techologies can never be improved to the point where they work as well as advertised. But hope springs eternal, and the cash register keeps ringing as each new year offers "new and improved" models of cameras which are based on the same fraudulent concepts – that computerization results in improved picture quality. Perhaps if my ballpoint pen was computerized I would be a better writer? But then, who cares about my writing skills so long as my ballpoint pen can entertain me with whirring motors and flashing lights. What I’m suggesting is that consumer camera design was optimized and perfected about 15 or 20 years ago, and the technological developments that have been introduced since then have done nothing to improve average picture quality – and serve no purpose other than to keep the factory smokestacks pumping. I speculate that the average photographer can get as many "keepers" from a roll of film by using a single-use, throw away 35mm camera as he can get by using a fully computerized APS (or 35mm) P & S camera. Gene Windell
Response:
APS will likely overtake 35mm in the consumer realm. The picture quality is as good as the photographic abilities of that market, at least up to standard print size. Pros and high-end amateurs will still use 35mm (or larger) format. Actually, I think many medium format photographers will start using 35mm bodies more as digital becomes more prominent on the pro level. — Brandon – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I realize that 35mm is the "standard" since it has been there and available for so long. APS is the new kid on the bloc (replacing other formats like 110). 35mm seems to have better quality in the larger prints (larger than 8×10), APS has ease of use. I was told that in Japan, APS was now the number 1 camera format (is this true?). Also in North America it appears that APS sales are now around 30% of all camera sales (with the bulk of the rest going to 35mm). This seems remarkable considering APS has been out only for a few years. Will APS overtake 35mm? Perhaps, but not everywhere. I would still bet that eventually, digital photography will be the standard of choice, but that is many years away. In the meantime, APS and 35mm both offer viable alternatives.
Response:
shortly. Every year sales are on the increase, this year in Japan the APS format outsold 35mm format. It is only a matter of time for this hits North America.
There are a lot of things which sell well in Japan which don’t here. When was the last time you bought a Video CD? I think that film and processing prices in the US will have to go down for APS to do significantly better here, esp with small cameras like the Olympus Stylus Epic around. — Better living a beggar than buried an emperor.
Response:
From what I’ve noticed, the average photo has a useable life of less than 10 secs. before it’s thrown back in the bag and into the closet. What’s the difference what camera was used, or film. Kodak will do anything to sell less film at higher cost. Disc was a master stroke. I believe people mistake Kodaks intentions as having something to do with photography, as opposed to pure marketing, and convincing people that something good will happen if they buy something, anything. It’s my feeling that people are so inundated with new products, that they’re bordering on meltdown when it comes to learning to operate all this garbage, and just don’t have it in them to read any more instruction books. Will APS last? Of course not. The engineers either come up with someting new or lose their jobs. Maybe multi-auto composition, where you choose Ansel Adams, or Edward Weston, or Phillipe Halsman, and the stupid thing searches out and approxamates one of their photographs from an on-board memory bank. They could evan market a genius chip. Only $19.95. And a real reach would be a video showing how to load film. Nah. Bob Hickey
Response:
I couldn’t agree more. The Japanese market is totally different than here. For example, DVD is selling like hotcakes in the US, but has still not caught on that well in Japan. I like APS, but 35mm is still a better value here. Only when it becomes more price competitive will APS begin to over take 35mm in the US. Phil Voss – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – shortly. Every year sales are on the increase, this year in Japan the APS format outsold 35mm format. It is only a matter of time for this hits North America. There are a lot of things which sell well in Japan which don’t here. When was the last time you bought a Video CD?
Response:
Gene What a negative charged post. Yes, 828, 126 and 110 are gone or going. Yes many aps point and shoot cameras do take crappy pictures and do exhibit red eye. I see a use for 35mm as well as aps and believe that the threat is not extinction of aps from 35mm but less usage of both formats when digital really cranks up and offers comparable (not close to) quality. I personally have many 35mm cameras, 2 N90s bodies, N8008s, Canon AE-1, Kiev IV, Minolta Mark II SLR 110, all of which I use with assorted lenses and flashes. I use them all because they are fun but the one I pick up the most for just fun times is a Nikon Pronea 6i. Coupled with my fine Nikon lenses, the new emulsion of Fuji Nexia and good quality developing, I find myself taking it more and more for non-critical work. I do lots of birding and wild life and I have several large enlargements taken with the Pronea–much bigger than 8X14 full frame size. I do not find the red eye to be a problem at all with this camera, and if I do, I just slip on one of the SB series of strobes and away I go. I love the indexing, the ease of retrieval and I do have a Kodak 300FD scanner which does an amazingly good job of scanning these supposedly inferior negatives. I also use a Nikon LS2000 for scanning slides and negatives of my 35mm, but you know, with the so called inexpensive adapter, you seem to get lower quality scans than with the dedicated Kodak scanner which was all of $255.00 out of my pocket. I feel that anyone who predicts the future is treading on shaky ground. I imagine that there are still some Y2K nuts in the mountains with 55 gallon drums of water, hand cranked radios (to listen to NASCAR), belts of ammunition and stashes of guns and one day they may rue their predictions. Suffice to say I will continue using my 110 SLR until film is discontinued, I will use my Pronea until it is banned and I will still use my 35mm. Hell, occasionally, I might just shoot something with my Mamiya 645 (which if I remember correctly was the wave of the future when it first came out. Photography is a personal thing—most of us do it to please ourselves and we will probably never be published, will probably never win a Pulitzer prize and in the long run, it is ourselves, not you or anyone else who needs to be pleased by the pictures. Mel
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Years ago it was 828, then 126. More recently it was 110 and then Disc film. All of these cameras are now in the attic near the 8-track tapes and 45’s. In a couple years, the APS cameras will be there too, so choose a model which includes a cigarette lighter or leaf blower, so it has a use when the film is no longer being sold or processed. As a kid growing up in the 1960s, I remember 126 film sized "Instamatics" being quite popular and nothing short of a marketing success. While the image quality was not so hot, due to the small negative size and lack of a pressure plate to hold the film flat, people were generally quite pleased with the results. The American consumer wants convenience, and will give this priority over quality every time. The marketing contests of Beta vs VHS, IBM clone vs Apple Macintosh, etc. amply demonstrate that consumers really don’t give a flip about quality. The 126 Instamatics were supplanted by the 110 format not because there were objections to the picture quality of 126, or because 110 offered superior picture quality – because it didn’t. The reason 110 replaced 126 as the preferred consumer format was because of market saturation. The 126 cameras were low cost and very durable. In short order, everybody who wanted a camera had one – which caused new cameras sales to drop off to nothing. The reason the 110 film format was introduced was simply to spur new camera sales. 110 cameras were conspicuously smaller and more pocketable than 126 cameras, ergo – more convenient. And there were no complaints about degraded image quality. Consumers don’t care about image quality. It wasn’t poor image quality that caused the 110 format to be abandoned, it was once again market saturation. In short order, everybody who wanted a 110 camera already had one – and sales of new cameras diminished. The marketers of APS format make no promise of improved image quality over the small formats that went before it. Instead, the marketing is geared toward an increased level of convenience. APS cameras offer effortless film loading – as though the 110 and 126 cartridge cameras were difficult to load, which they weren’t. All APS cameras offer autofocusing, as though manually focusing a camera is difficult – which it isn’t. Personally, I doubt the consumer market will ever become saturated with APS cameras – simply because they all take such lousy pictures. The autofocusing does not work well, so people will keep buying more expensive models in hopes of finding one that actually works performs as advertised. The built-in flash units cause the highly objectionable "red-eye" effect. So people will continuously keep replacing their cameras in hopes of finding one that has "effective" red-eye reduction. So while the auto-everything, APS cameras offer the maximum in convenience – they take terrible looking pictures, even worse than their 110 and 126 format predecessors. But this is the formula that keeps everybody happy – maximum convenience for consumers, combined with poor picture quality which keeps consumers active in replacing their cameras with newer, more expensive "improved" ones. I suppose one might call it consumer fraud, but so long as the stock market keeps rising – who cares? Personally, I don’t think people really care if their pictures look like crap. I think most would be just as happy operating a camera with no film in it. If people really want good pictures, they hire a professional photographer. The APS camera serves the same function as a Gameboy for adults. It is a high tech gadget with flashing lights and whirring motors, never intended to take good pictures but imminently satisfying to play around with – challenging and frustrating not unlike a video game. If you can actually get a good picture occasionally – you win the game. People will never tire of wasting their money on these things. Gene Windell
Response:
Well, you had me interested in your comments until the above line. The you lost all credibility. Saying that APS make worse picture than 110 is simply nonsense.
Not necessarily. APS cameras are generally much more sophisticated than older 110 cameras. I know a lot of them were fixed focus, single shutter speed, and you depended on printing to get something out of it. This worked a lot of the time, if you accepted so-so results, because they were engineered so that most pics happenned to be usable with their single shutter speed. Now look at your average APS camera. It’s autofocus… so unless you pointed it at the right thing, your subject will be out of focus. (Maybe you jerked as you hit the button.) It has a slow zoom lens, and autoexposure, and most give you little warning you’re going to be using a low shutter speed, so you’ll have a very blurred image. If you turn on the weak flash, you’ll get a good pic if the subject is within range, otherwise it’ll be terribly underexposed (or really blurry). Of course, if you know a little about your camera you can avoid its limitations and take better pics than 110, because both your camera and the film is much better. But a lot of people don’t know that much about their cameras, and may actually get worse pics, because those limited cameras are designed to work well with no knowledge from the user or in the camera. Same principle as the one-time-use cameras. — Man has never reconciled himself to the ten commandments.
Response:
I have two cameras, one 35mm SLR and an APS SLR. APS will stay because, unlike the last formats you mentioned which produced images that were downright terrible, APS produces decent images. But APS will never rival 35mm in quality and flexibility (just look at all the speeds 35mm comes in). APS will stay because it is easy to use also and the cameras made for it are small and have cuteness appeal to the general public. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Years ago it was 828, then 126. More recently it was 110 and then Disc film. All of these cameras are now in the attic near the 8-track tapes and 45’s. In a couple years, the APS cameras will be there too, so choose a model which includes a cigarette lighter or leaf blower, so it has a use when the film is no longer being sold or processed. Against all odds, 35mm, 120/220 and 4×5 are all going strong and getting stronger. I see our local Comp USA has added an aisle of 35mm cameras near the digitals. Viva L’Emulsion!!!
Before you buy.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I do believe you are dreaming in technicolor if you think APS will go away shortly. Every year sales are on the increase, this year in Japan the APS format outsold 35mm format. It is only a matter of time for this hits North America. You sound like the old LP fellows laughing at the CD format. Well guess what, they aren’t laughing anymore. I agree, everyone I know who’s bought a new compact in the past couple of years has gone for an APS (this is in the UK). As for the APS SLR’s – has anyone ever bought one? …and if so, WHY? Syman.
I bought an APS SLR because it was on SALE, and also I wanted the convenience of changing film speeds, black and whites…mid-roll. I also want being able to load quickly and easily because I’ve missed many good photo ops while I was loading new film in my 35mm SLR. I also like the data imprint on the back of my pictures showing film speed, aperture, shutter speed, flash used, etc. But with all that, I will never get rid of my 35mm SLR because of the better quality it produces with enlargements and the print can come with a MATTE finish. APS is fine if all you want is standard 4×6 prints and glossy finish. Before you buy.
Response:
From what I’ve noticed, the average photo has a useable life of less than 10 secs. before it’s thrown back in the bag and into the closet. What’s the difference what camera was used, or film. Kodak will do anything to sell less film at higher cost. Disc was a master stroke. I believe people mistake Kodaks intentions as having something to do with photography, as opposed to pure marketing, and convincing people that something good will happen if they buy something, anything.
Hey Bob, that kind of talk puts corporate profits and stock prices in jeopardy. Unless you plan to rely on Social Security to keep you from starving to death in your old age, the growth of your retirement plan requires you to encourage people to BUY!, BUY!, BUY! Our whole economic system is based on people buying things they don’t need. Otherwise, a massive labor surplus would develop and lead the world into depression. Otherwise Bob, yours was a damned fine post. Gene Windell
Response:
Gene What a negative charged post. Yes, 828, 126 and 110 are gone or going. Yes many aps point and shoot cameras do take crappy pictures and do exhibit red eye. I see a use for 35mm as well as aps and believe that the threat is not extinction of aps from 35mm but less usage of both formats when digital really cranks up and offers comparable (not close to) quality.
Hi Mel, I appreciate your sentiments, and don’t disagree with anything you said in your entire post. I also am something of a camera collector, and as much of a gadget freak as any member of this Newsgroup. I didn’t say that APS cameras are not cute and fun little toys to play around with, because they are. I am a professional photographer, and lately I’ve had several non-photographer friends who bought new, computerized Point and Shoot cameras in both APS and and 35mm format. All have been both amazed and disillusioned by the poor quality of the pictures these cameras provide. They were assuming that computerization assured that all their pictures would be perfectly focused and perfectly exposed, which has not been the case at all. My first 35mm camera was a Canon Canonet GIII which I bought in the Army PX in Vietnam, about $45 as I recall. Though I knew absolutely nothing about photography at the time, my very first roll of film yielded every print which was perfectly focused and perfectly exposed. Why was this level of performance possible 30 years ago, but not in the present? That is my gripe about computerized cameras – they simply don’t perform as advertised, and usually lead to disappointments. I sincerely believe that if I was just starting out today as a beginner, and all there was to choose from were these computerized cameras which perform so unpredictably, I would never have developed a serious interest in photography or become a professional. Best wishes, Gene Windell
Response:
As for the APS SLR’s – has anyone ever bought one? …and if so, WHY?
Yeah, I bought a Minolta Vectis S1. So I could have a very small, full-featured, sturdy/damproof, camera which would not take up too much room in my tankbag. The lens options, for it, I chose were; 22-80 and 80-300mm zooms. Its a very attractive package. Now that I’ve gotten a film scanner, I’m able to screw around with, and enlarge some of the great images I’ve taken. Bottom line, I’d do it again. When I’m not riding the bike or have more room, I’ll carry the F100… Regards — Stephen Syrotiak Southern Connecticut http://pages.cthome.net/stephen
Response:
I agree, everyone I know who’s bought a new compact in the past couple of years has gone for an APS (this is in the UK). As for the APS SLR’s – has anyone ever bought one? …and if so, WHY?
I bought a Vectus S-1 – I had had a number of APS P&S cameras before and was realy impressed by the picture quaility and I loved the choice of formats (yes, I am perfectly aware P is a cropped negative. Think of it as a low cost enlargement). I had also played with a few 35mm SLR’s but found them too large for my needs. The reason I went with the APS is that I wanted a camera that a could easily change film speeds with, was lightweight, and at least splashproof if not water proof – I do a lot of hiking, and lost my last APS P&S to a watery end in a canyon when I dunked it by accident. I’ve been really happy with my choice so far, the S1 has a great lens and takes fine pictures. I love the full manual control possible with the camera to really let you learn how a camera really works, but I also appreciate the fully automatic mode for when I just need to take a picture quickly or I need someone else to take a picture of who can’t be trusted to fiddle with any kind of manual setting! Kendall kgel oot.com
Response:
And these same folks will get lousy pictures with their point and shoot 35mm also– for the same reasons — they point their autofocus on the wrong thing, and they are too far away from their subjects for the flash. Just look at a night sporting event and see how many flashes keep popping off in the stands. Look at a fireworks display and see how many idiots think that #1 their flashes will reach the fireworks and #2 that you can light up light with light. — Michael Weinstein MD |"Those who cannot remember Nashua, NH | the past are condemned to | repeat it." – Santayana – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Organization: Optimum Online Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.equipment.35mm Well, you had me interested in your comments until the above line. The you lost all credibility. Saying that APS make worse picture than 110 is simply nonsense. Not necessarily. APS cameras are generally much more sophisticated than older 110 cameras. I know a lot of them were fixed focus, single shutter speed, and you depended on printing to get something out of it. This worked a lot of the time, if you accepted so-so results, because they were engineered so that most pics happenned to be usable with their single shutter speed. Now look at your average APS camera. It’s autofocus… so unless you pointed it at the right thing, your subject will be out of focus. (Maybe you jerked as you hit the button.) It has a slow zoom lens, and autoexposure, and most give you little warning you’re going to be using a low shutter speed, so you’ll have a very blurred image. If you turn on the weak flash, you’ll get a good pic if the subject is within range, otherwise it’ll be terribly underexposed (or really blurry). Of course, if you know a little about your camera you can avoid its limitations and take better pics than 110, because both your camera and the film is much better. But a lot of people don’t know that much about their cameras, and may actually get worse pics, because those limited cameras are designed to work well with no knowledge from the user or in the camera. Same principle as the one-time-use cameras. — Man has never reconciled himself to the ten commandments.
Response:
: As for the APS SLR’s – has : anyone ever bought one? …and if so, WHY? :
: Yeah, I bought a Minolta Vectis S1. : So I could have a very small, full-featured, sturdy/damproof, camera : which would not take up too much room in my tankbag. The lens options, : for it, I chose were; 22-80 and 80-300mm zooms. : Its a very attractive package. Now that I’ve gotten a film scanner, I’m : able to screw around with, and enlarge some of the great images I’ve : taken. : Bottom line, I’d do it again. When I’m not riding the bike or have more : room, I’ll carry the F100… It’s not at all surprising to me that the participants on a 35mm newsgroup might have their reservations about giving any credit to the likes of APS. Part of this is that we’re each somewhat protective and defensive about whatever camera format we’ve already invented our monies into. That’s pretty natural, and in some cases takes an experienced photographer — with more faith in skills than equipment — to rise above such things. And then there’s the history of using smaller camera formats. Many of us, I imagine, are suspect, when our earlier experiences might have come from using 110, 126, or disc cameras. And this is not to compare APS to these, but only to say that APS has understandably come into an arena of reasonable historic prejudice. And still another part of our reluctances is that a good many of us perhaps haven’t realized just how much film quality itself has advanced over the years. It’s somewhat akin to overlooking the growth of one’s children when we see them from day to day. Only when we deliberately stop for a moment might we realize that things have changed an grown. So many of us are reluctant about APS. And all the more so because it’s "the new kid on the block," and we’ve seen others (110, 126, disc) come and go. I’ve tried APS. And the initial results were surprisingly reasonable. And I’d venture they’d be all the more so if used with a good camera like the Minolta Vectis SI mentioned above. But to be honest, I haven’t taken the dive in myself partically because I haven’t seen a great advantage over 35mm, and even if it exists, I’ve yet to see it justify my reason for putting out several hundrend $$$$ for a new camera, and dealing with a new format which, in the long run, might probably do more to further complicated life rather than simplify it. But I’m sure there are others who will defend this small format to the hilt. And perhaps rightly so. C.J. — C.J. Morgan
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.