|
The 127 cameras that I used on occasion were the Baby
Rollei, the Yashica 44 and a Sawyers model. All TLRs. I can't
remember any serious cameras that were not TLRs. There was the very
interesting Kodak Bantam Special which used 828, which was a very
similar size. and was a folding rangefinder with art deco styling.
This format seemed to offer nothing of real value to shooters. The
image was only slightly larger than 35mm and the film was in shorter
lengths and had clumsier loading. The image was certainly not up to
med format standards so there was little point to using the format. Don karl shah-jenner wrote: Don Roberts asks: So where do you classify 127? Just curious. I'd forgotten about 127! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/127_film In Australia my recollection was that it was considered a miniature format, a competitor to 35mm. The cameras themselves were probably in part responsible for this attitude, though a 4x6 is so close to 645 as to suggest no difference. Mind you, European books and magazines of the 50's and earlier often refered to 120 as miniature format, 4x5 was medium format then but small, medium and large are kinda subjective. If I go by the standard of what is most commonly used here these days in Oz by the majority, my 35mm is large format. All those 5x4mm sensors make my camera look HUGE! karl |
