Which obsolete film formats do you want brought back?

I don't really see why you would want 126 film back. It's basically 35mm film in a funny cartridge. You'd be better off to continue using standard 35mm.

Magnum closed their film processing lab 3 years ago.

Partly because I like trying out different old cameras, and would like to try out those no-frills, el cheapo, point-and-shoot Instamatic cameras of the 1960s. I suppose I could find someone to put 35mm film in an old 126 cartridge, but I don't have any friends so I wouldn't know who to ask.

On a different level, how about 118 film? I've got a camera from the 1910s which uses the format. The format was discontinued in the 1960s. Similar to 120 but larger. Long-obsolete obviously but I would like to try out the camera itself.


Have you played Atari today?

Fair enough, good luck with finding them. I would think you could adapt film for a 118 camera if you were keen. Modern sheet film of a larger size could be cut up (in a dark room) and put in a simple frame to fit in the camera. You'd only get 1 shot at once, but at least you could see what the results look like.

I have a really old twin lens refelx I'd like to try again at some point when I get round to it. I think I'd have to make film for that.

My first camera took 126 film! :D

I never cared for 110 film. I had a Minolta 16QT, which took a proprietary film cassette. It was a pain to get and develop the film, but the camera was smaller than 110 cameras. A poor man's Minox. :)

Would I want that film stock again? No, thanks. The little digital pocket camera that I use for every day carry now does so much more! I like the 20X zoom and the ability to shoot 1080p video--my old 16mm camera couldn't do that!

Video is nice, but the image quality for stills is poor on all small digital cameras.

o r a n g e
b l u e

Compared to what we got using 16mm negative film and the hasty drug store film processing of the '70s and '80s, it's positively brilliant!

16mm perhaps, but 35mm film is still way ahead of compact digitals in terms of quality.

o r a n g e
b l u e

That may be, but that strays into "apples v. oranges" territory.

My compact camera is roughly the size of my old Minolta 16QT; apples to apples. I couldn't afford a 35mm SLR camera back then. In that respect, the "quality" of having a photo always trumps having no photo! By the same token today, having my pocket camera at hand all the time is batter than having my DSLR bag at home because of its bulk and the expense of its contents.

Then there's the fact that I can shoot video. One more camera bag that I don't need to lug around just in case that once-in-a-lifetime shot comes around. In my small city it's stringers like me who provide fully half of the breaking news footage to local TV stations. Once again it's better to have any camera than no camera.