Adventures in 110
- Date: November 13, 2015
My brother gave me a couple of 110 cameras – aand an . I’ve run a couple of films through them, here are the results.
The results (from either camera) aren’t good. The format is too small, and the cameras are primitive.
Neither camera seems to have read the films’ 200asa speed correctly. Everything is underexposed.
The Agfamatic 2000
While the Agfamatic is really nice to use (more on that here) the reliability and quality of output isn’t there. And the failings aren’t of the charming Lomo variety. The pictures are all too dark, mostly out of focus and generally uncharming.
Also, turns out it’s really easy to get your finger in front of the lens.
Here’s the best of them.
The Pentax Auto 110
The Pentax isn’t lovely to use. It is too small.
Focussing is way too fiddly – though if you sharpen your fingers and bother to fiddle, it can be done accurately thanks to the surprisingly decent viewfinder.
Quite often the shutter jams open (I worked out it can be unjammed by pressing the rewind release button).
The lens and metering is better than the Agfa’s. Some of the results (when the shutter didn’t jam) are sort of OK. But still unlovable.
Film cameras can be lovely. With a Ricoh GR1 you get ease of use, accurate focus, accurate exposure, great resolution and a lovely film quality to the end result.
With these 110s you get none of that.
Then there’s the cost.
35mm is financially viable; pound shop films and a special deal on processing means I get 24 images on CD for £3 all in. So 12.5p an image.
110 costs around £7 for a 24 exposure cassette, and £7 to process as prints (so I have to do my own scanning). 60p an image.
However with both cameras at least 3/4 of the pics were duds (overexposed due to jammed shutter, underexposed, completely blurred) – so that’s more like £2.30 an image.
So shooting 110? Just no.