Thread: Fwiw
View Single Post
Old 06-22-2011, 08:06 PM   #36
oltmannd
Senior Member
 
oltmannd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post

My dad's stuff really kills me. At some point in time, during 1949, he switched from what I would assume was his parents' 620 or 120 camera with a passable lens in bright sunlights, to a plastic 127 camera that took pictures on a half a frame (to get twice as many images on a roll). Thus, I cannot share any of my dad's pics from late 1949 to about 1952, when he seems to have switched to a better 127 (still bad, but at least there is sometimes something there). Then he got a TERRIBLE 35mm, that actually had a worse lens than the second 127, so while 1952 and 1953, I have some stuff to share, 1953 on, it pretty much goes back to completely useless, all the way until 1976 (mind you, he did not shoot a single train picture in the late 1950s or any of the 1960s).
It was always amazing to me that each generation of mass-market cameras was worse than the previous. The 127 film camera weren't too bad and the film size was decent. Then they repackaged the film into a cartridge - 126 film, but the cartridge wouldn't keep the film as "in plane" as when it was a loose roll you loaded in -- and they made the cameras even worse quality. Fixed focus, F8, crappy lens. Everything guaranteed to be fuzzy, except maybe a person standing 15 feet away in the sun. People gobbled up the 126 film cameras, so Kodak upped the ante - the 110 camera. A crappy camera combined with ridiculously small film. Now, that 15 foot portrait looked as crappy as everything else. Then end of the line of this progression of stupidity was the disk camera. Film even smaller than 110 film! A 4x6 snapshot was beyond it's reach.

It wasn't until the consumer SLR makers jumped into point and shoot 35mm cameras that the average Joe could afford to purchase, and carry around, a camera that could produce a decent image.
oltmannd is offline   Reply With Quote