On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, james apilado wrote:
> One truly classic 828 was the Bantam Special. I found one in the 1960's.
> Soon after, Kodak discontinued 828. I have one roll of Kodachrome in 828.
> I heard that 126 film is very close to 828 in size. That has a paper
> backing. I think you can find some 126 in off brand.
> Thanks for bringing back memories.
No problem... that's such a huge part of photography, isn't it? 126 film
is no longer available, AFAIK. I can use 120 film, but then I'd have to
cut the entire roll to size, while with 35mm film I can just trim the
leader a bit and keep the rest of it the same size. Also, I only have one
828 spool right now, so the unused part of the film is curled up in the
space for it, but not on a spool. I don't think this would work with 120
film, which needs two reels to be loaded, I think. The scotch tape over
the pressure plate got rid of most of the scratches, so I think I'll just
tape some felt or some paper backing over it instead and see what that
does.
When it comes down to it, I'd rather have a camera that takes 35mm film so
that I don't have to modify it at all. The only problem is finding one.
Here's my question: the classic camera I'm looking for has to be very
small and light (my Bantam f4.5 fits easily in my jeans pocket), it has to
be fully manual (shutter, aperture, focus, film advance), it has to be
well built (no plastic cheapies), and it has to be reasonably inexpensive
(say, no more than $100. I'd prefer a folding camera because they're so
cute, and usually more compact, but I'm open to suggestions. My Bantam
actually fits the description very well, but it doesn't take 35mm film.
I wouldn't mind a faster lens, but I can live with a slow one. Thanks!
chris
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
