110 film is to 35MM as M43rd is to FF?

Started Apr 12, 2013 | Discussions
tko
tko
Forum ProPosts: 10,098
Like?
110 film is to 35MM as M43rd is to FF?
Apr 12, 2013

Okay, I like to cause trouble

But think about it. With all the "is FF dead" posts around, I wonder if anyone remembers 110 film cartridges? Because the negative was exactly half the size as 35MM. Just like M43rd is half the size of FF. I seem to remember they even had some "full featured" 110 camera with enormous zoom ranges (for the times,) and even a SLR complete with motor drive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Auto_110

But who remembers 110 today? Who collects 110 cameras? Who likes the image quality? Which was pretty terrible.

Many people love film and it's capabilities. Pretty high resolution, decent noise. And it was being improved every year. Yet film couldn't overcome the disadvantages of the small format size, because any improvements could be applied to larger formats just as easily.

Most of the people posting here haven't even heard of 110, yet all of us have heard of 35MM SLRs. The larger format--the dinosaur--survived.

Yes, today M43rd cameras are much, much better than 110 film (which was limited to about 5X7 prints.) Such is the march of technology. But who knows what will happen in the future? Will people go for low cost FF or small size mirrorless?

edispics
Senior MemberPosts: 1,468
Like?
Re: 110 film is to 35MM as M43rd is to FF?
In reply to tko, Apr 12, 2013

Partly devised to help ordinary folks load film into cameras more easily. Assumption was that if that process was made easier, more folks would buy the cameras. Sure do remember them, but not fondly. Most recently had to bust the plastic casings to get the negs out to scan. No fond memories. As for comparing 110 to M43? Ouch!!

Probably a better comparison might be to APS film cartridges. For a time there the wee Canons were the cameras to have. How many people wore them around their necks? The diminutive camera sizes that the APS cartridges allowed spawned a whole raft of tiny cameras that some though would revolutionize the industry. Where is APS (film) today?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Macx
Senior MemberPosts: 1,290Gear list
Like?
Nonsense
In reply to tko, Apr 12, 2013

The analogy between film size and sensor size breaks down on so many levels.

The larger magnification needed for small format film like 135 or 110 was a problem because of grain, so if you needed large prints you used medium format or bigger. This isn't really comparable to the situation today.

The practical advantage to a 135 format sensor over an APS sized one or a four-thirds one are often over-stated; and if you're happy with the exposure options available to you on your APS or 4:3 or CX or Q camera, the sensor size isn't really a reason to up-size.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,318Gear list
Like?
Re: 110 film is to 35MM as M43rd is to FF?
In reply to tko, Apr 12, 2013

Well, I'm using 110 film today for a low fidelity landscape project.

 Dave Luttmann's gear list:Dave Luttmann's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS 10D Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ZorSy
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,025Gear list
Like?
Re: 110 film is to 35MM as M43rd is to FF?
In reply to tko, Apr 12, 2013

Though you are actually right about 110 and m43 "frame size", it's not really comparable from technological point of view - things exist along the historical timeline and it's sometimes pointless pulling them out of that line and placing parallel to items elsewhere.

There was never 1/2.5" film frame (though I can remember Kodak Disc being much worse than 110) as there are no 5x7" or larger sensors....BUT, if 110 left behind millions of 4x6 photos of mediocre quality (and bearing in mind it was rather popular with average consumers in its years), look at it as comparable to most FB photos of roughly the same target audience.And then the technology used to capture those photos.

(Apart from FB not being around when 110 format was on its peak....)

 ZorSy's gear list:ZorSy's gear list
Nikon D7100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 2,440
Like?
Re: 110 film is to 35MM as M43rd is to FF?
In reply to tko, Apr 12, 2013

tko wrote:

Okay, I like to cause trouble

But think about it. With all the "is FF dead" posts around, I wonder if anyone remembers 110 film cartridges? Because the negative was exactly half the size as 35MM. Just like M43rd is half the size of FF. I seem to remember they even had some "full featured" 110 camera with enormous zoom ranges (for the times,) and even a SLR complete with motor drive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Auto_110

But who remembers 110 today? Who collects 110 cameras? Who likes the image quality? Which was pretty terrible.

Many people love film and it's capabilities. Pretty high resolution, decent noise. And it was being improved every year. Yet film couldn't overcome the disadvantages of the small format size, because any improvements could be applied to larger formats just as easily.

Most of the people posting here haven't even heard of 110, yet all of us have heard of 35MM SLRs. The larger format--the dinosaur--survived.

Yes, today M43rd cameras are much, much better than 110 film (which was limited to about 5X7 prints.) Such is the march of technology. But who knows what will happen in the future? Will people go for low cost FF or small size mirrorless?

I'd say a better comparison in terms of image quality would be cameras like the D800 being similar to medium format film and m43 being closer to 35mm.

In terms of size though I do think you have a point, its not as if there werent various very small cameras on the market during the days of film, many shot 35mm film yet dispite that the market for larger SLR's didnt vanish.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Eddaweaver
Senior MemberPosts: 2,200
Like?
Re: 110 film is to 35MM as M43rd is to FF?
In reply to tko, Apr 12, 2013

Film had a much more linear relationship between size and quality than digital sensors do. A 110 sized sensor would give decent image quality but 110 film was horrible at all but the best of times compared with 35mm. Trying to scan 110 film is a nightmare.

Another big point of difference between film and digital was film was much more forgiving of lenses delivering light onto the capture plain at non right-angles than digital.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mike703
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,839
Like?
Re: 110 film is to 35MM as M43rd is to FF?
In reply to tko, Apr 12, 2013

tko wrote:

Okay, I like to cause trouble

But think about it. With all the "is FF dead" posts around, I wonder if anyone remembers 110 film cartridges? Because the negative was exactly half the size as 35MM. Just like M43rd is half the size of FF. I seem to remember they even had some "full featured" 110 camera with enormous zoom ranges (for the times,) and even a SLR complete with motor drive:

By 'half' do you mean 'quarter'?  A 110 film neg (and a four third sensor) are 13 x 17mm which are about a quarter the area of a 35mm / FF negative.  So in terms of sizes alone your statement is true.  Must 110 cameras though were pretty rubbish as I recall and the format wasn't really taken seriously... unlike 4/3 cams now.  If someone had bothered to put a good lens and exposure system in a 110 camera it might have been different, but apart from that weird looking Pentax you mention I don't think anybody bothered.

Best wishes

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
veato
Junior MemberPosts: 49Gear list
Like?
Re: 110 film is to 35MM as M43rd is to FF?
In reply to tko, Apr 12, 2013

It seems Lomography are going for a 110 revival  They've made a fisheye 110 camera and are also selling film.

I did have a 110 camera as a kid and the convenience of the cartridge was good but I wouldn't want one today.

I am still slightly fascinated by the Pentax Auto 110 mind you!

 veato's gear list:veato's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Pentax K-5 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lensblade
Forum MemberPosts: 79
Like?
kit size is important
In reply to tko, Apr 12, 2013

I went from DSLR to m43 because the size of the kit (camera plus lens) is important to me. I want something about the size of a classic manual 35mm camera that I can carry about without starting to feel like a pack horse. That said, I don't understand the 'FF is dead' argument. M43 IQ is pretty good, but with current technologies you still can get technically better IQ from larger sensors on bigger cameras if you need it. Just for fun, I take some very amateurish wildlife shots occasionally with my m43 kit, and I am sure a suitable FF DSLR could deliver some better shots for me in those circumstances.

The Nikon D800 is a really interesting camera because it seems to offer almost medium format capabilities on a FF sensor. Is it just the resolution that matters, or do sensor size (width x height) and the corresponding size of the lenses have a bearing on how the image looks? If these physical dimensions do matter, then if production costs fall we may see more 'medium format' equipment on the amateur market. I'll probably stick with m43, but an affordable  camera that produces a big-format look for landscape work would be tempting.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ulric
Senior MemberPosts: 2,574Gear list
Like?
Re: 110 film is to 35MM as M43rd is to FF?
In reply to MoreorLess, Apr 12, 2013

MoreorLess wrote:

I'd say a better comparison in terms of image quality would be cameras like the D800 being similar to medium format film and m43 being closer to 35mm.

Much better.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nikkorwatcher
Contributing MemberPosts: 684
Like?
Re: 110 film is to 35MM as M43rd is to FF?
In reply to tko, Apr 12, 2013

110 was geared to the cheap end of the market. I actually have some fine moments captured on 110 by the technologically challenged. If they had been given a more sophisticated camera I think the odds were evens they might have missed that moment while they were fumbling around.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
steephill
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,963
Like?
High quality 110 cameras
In reply to mike703, Apr 12, 2013

Rollei, Canon, Minolta and Minox all made high quality 110 cameras (RF and SLR) as well as the Pentax 110 series. Kodak also made some good RF cameras as well as the Extramax which had a 25mm f1.9 lens and manual exposure controls only with no meter!

-- hide signature --

Steve
www.pbase.com/steephill

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mike703
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,839
Like?
thx for info Steve (n/t)
In reply to steephill, Apr 12, 2013
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum ProPosts: 33,949Gear list
Like?
The "good enough" bar moves...
In reply to tko, Apr 12, 2013

tko wrote:

Okay, I like to cause trouble

But in a good way.

But think about it. With all the "is FF dead" posts around, I wonder if anyone remembers 110 film cartridges? Because the negative was exactly half the size as 35MM. Just like M43rd is half the size of FF. I seem to remember they even had some "full featured" 110 camera with enormous zoom ranges (for the times,) and even a SLR complete with motor drive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Auto_110

But who remembers 110 today? Who collects 110 cameras? Who likes the image quality? Which was pretty terrible.

Many people love film and it's capabilities. Pretty high resolution, decent noise. And it was being improved every year. Yet film couldn't overcome the disadvantages of the small format size, because any improvements could be applied to larger formats just as easily.

Film did do that. It just never got down to the 110 level.

There was a time when film was so bad that you couldn't do any serious photojournalism or a major event with anything smaller than a 4x5, and the Speed Graphic was the king. I have to admit, they were marvels of clever engineering, to get so much capability into 4x5s while keeping the size and weight down. Film companies and camera makers struggled to get medium and miniature format accepted.

Then smaller film got "good enough" and medium format replaced the 4x5 at weddings, while 35mm ate the PJ market.

Several smaller formats failed. 16mm never really took off. 110 had a brief day in the sun, and APS almost made it, except that the competition switched from film sizes to film vs. digital.

Most of the people posting here haven't even heard of 110, yet all of us have heard of 35MM SLRs. The larger format--the dinosaur--survived.

Alligators, turtles, sharks...

Yes, today M43rd cameras are much, much better than 110 film (which was limited to about 5X7 prints.) Such is the march of technology. But who knows what will happen in the future? Will people go for low cost FF or small size mirrorless?

No matter how low cost FF gets, smaller formats will still be cheaper. Right now, we say "low cost" as meaning under $2,000, and that's for a medium format body that has the feel of a $150 film body, like a Nikon N75. Really "nice" cameras are a lot easier to make when you move towards a "split" that doesn't involve pouring 90% of the budget into the sensor.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Nikon D3 Nikon D2X Nikon D90 Nikon D100 Canon EOS 5D Mark II +42 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
steelhead3
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,815
Like?
Re: The "good enough" bar moves...
In reply to Joseph S Wisniewski, Apr 12, 2013

The problem with 110 was the cassette, which wasn't very good at making a tight flat plane.  I still have my pentax auto 110 slr kit and it had very good (tiny) lenses that makes m4/3 look like a behemoth.  The pictures would be inconsistent because of the cassette problems.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
FractalFlame
Regular MemberPosts: 159
Like?
Re: 110 film is to 35MM as M43rd is to FF?
In reply to tko, Apr 12, 2013

35mm was 24 × 36 mm.

110 was 13 × 17 mm

That is NOT "exactly 1/2 the size" - it's about a quarter!

Half of each dimension = 1/4, not 1/2 over all.. it's a common misconception.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John1940
Contributing MemberPosts: 930Gear list
Like?
Re: The "good enough" bar moves...
In reply to Joseph S Wisniewski, Apr 12, 2013

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

tko wrote:

Okay, I like to cause trouble

But in a good way.

But think about it. With all the "is FF dead" posts around, I wonder if anyone remembers 110 film cartridges? Because the negative was exactly half the size as 35MM. Just like M43rd is half the size of FF. I seem to remember they even had some "full featured" 110 camera with enormous zoom ranges (for the times,) and even a SLR complete with motor drive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Auto_110

But who remembers 110 today? Who collects 110 cameras? Who likes the image quality? Which was pretty terrible.

Many people love film and it's capabilities. Pretty high resolution, decent noise. And it was being improved every year. Yet film couldn't overcome the disadvantages of the small format size, because any improvements could be applied to larger formats just as easily.

Film did do that. It just never got down to the 110 level.

There was a time when film was so bad that you couldn't do any serious photojournalism or a major event with anything smaller than a 4x5, and the Speed Graphic was the king. I have to admit, they were marvels of clever engineering, to get so much capability into 4x5s while keeping the size and weight down. Film companies and camera makers struggled to get medium and miniature format accepted.

Then smaller film got "good enough" and medium format replaced the 4x5 at weddings, while 35mm ate the PJ market.

Several smaller formats failed. 16mm never really took off. 110 had a brief day in the sun, and APS almost made it, except that the competition switched from film sizes to film vs. digital.

Most of the people posting here haven't even heard of 110, yet all of us have heard of 35MM SLRs. The larger format--the dinosaur--survived.

Alligators, turtles, sharks...

Yes, today M43rd cameras are much, much better than 110 film (which was limited to about 5X7 prints.) Such is the march of technology. But who knows what will happen in the future? Will people go for low cost FF or small size mirrorless?

No matter how low cost FF gets, smaller formats will still be cheaper. Right now, we say "low cost" as meaning under $2,000, and that's for a medium format body that has the feel of a $150 film body, like a Nikon N75. Really "nice" cameras are a lot easier to make when you move towards a "split" that doesn't involve pouring 90% of the budget into the sensor.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

Very interesting discussion, TKO and JSW. Thanks.

-John1940

 John1940's gear list:John1940's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Morris Sullivan
Senior MemberPosts: 4,198
Like?
Re: 110 film is to 35MM as M43rd is to FF?
In reply to FractalFlame, Apr 12, 2013

FractalFlame wrote:

35mm was 24 × 36 mm.

110 was 13 × 17 mm

That is NOT "exactly 1/2 the size" - it's about a quarter!

Half of each dimension = 1/4, not 1/2 over all.. it's a common misconception.

Technically true, but a bit pedantic. For example, if you type in a percentage on a photocopier it works in linear dimensions. I think if you asked the average person for a print half the size of an 8x10 you'd likely get a 4x5.

The image area factor is typically mentioned in discussions of light gathering ability, because if you are discussing linear resolution then 110 would be about half the size of 135.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DaveOl
Senior MemberPosts: 1,716
Like?
Re: The "good enough" bar moves...
In reply to John1940, Apr 12, 2013

Before there were 110 or disk cameras the 126 cartridge camera existed.  I don't remember how big the film size was, but it was a lot larger than the 110 or disk formats. They were probably easier to use than the APS_C film cameras too.  Film and camera manufacturers just keep coming up with different things to sell, but not always good.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads