Graflex.org

[t.r.sanford]

I'm not aware of any rollfilm format that yielded 2½x3½ in. negatives, nor does the "Sizes & Packings" entry in the "Focal Encyclopedia" show one. My guess is that the continental 6.5x9 cm. cameras, when used for rollfilm, were fitted with 120 backs making 2¼x3¼ in. negatives.

My point was that a good deal of latitude should be given to anyone's definition of a "normal" lens -- F&H "Rolleiflex Automats" used 75mm. lenses, Kodak put a 78mm. lens on its "Chevron," American TLRs often had 85mm. lenses, the Russians supplied a 90mm. normal lens for the first edition of their "Praktisix" knockoff, and so on and on.

In the '50s, there was a certain amount of chatter in the photo magazines about the desirability or otherwise of defining a 35mm. focal length as "normal" for 35mm. cameras, since it's more suited to the sort of small groups that are the subject of so many snapshots -- the Minolta "Autowide" addressed that market, and has been vindicated by today's point-and-shoot cameras, which from what I can tell, seem often to be fitted with 38mm. lenses.

Back in the day, as you well know, 135mm. lenses were widely regarded as "normal" for 4x5 press cameras. I wouldn't throw dead cats and tomatoes at someone who regarded a 190mm. lens as "normal" for the format, as a "Super D" user might.

Rather than the classic definition of a normal lens as one whose focal length equals the frame diagonal, might it not be more useful to define it as "a lens not so wide nor so long as to require special care in avoiding apparent perspective distortion"?

[Dan Fromm]

[t.r.sanford]

I read, many years ago, that the "normal lens" definition for movie cameras is different, since cinematographers tend to avoid static pictorial views (even when we see a landscape, the camera usually is panning across it), and so angular coverage usually is not an especially desirable attribute of a lens. Thus, the "normal" FL for movie lenses is greater. My few experiments with 8/8mm., in the distant past, using a 5.5 mm. WA lens, convinced me that this is true -- even if it does not deal with what makes a lens "normal" in the first place!

It occurred to me last night that, if one could make a really accurate frame counter, one might get ten exposures 2½x3½ ins. on 116 or 616 rollfilm; if one could get 116 or 616 rollfilm ("If we had some bread, we could make a ham sandwich, if we had some ham...").

[Dan Fromm]

[Nick]

A while back J&C claimed they would have 116 film. I hope they do since I've got a camera to use. Either that or I'll have to hand roll 70mm film.