CamerAgX » the APS format

The Minolta Vectis S-1: APS done right?

xtalfu — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:20:08 +0000

I don’t have this camera anymore. I’m afraid it ended its life in the trash can – not economically repairable – a few years ago. But I used it for years, I liked it a lot, and it’s too bad that no digital SLR available today is as light and portable as the Vectis S-1 was.

Minolta Vectis S-1 - The gun metal version was sold in Europe, but not in the US.

Launched in 1996, it was the only SLR system designed from scratch for the APS format. It inherited the best features from the Minolta mid-range 35mm cameras of its time, and exploited the new functionalities of the APS format to its full advantage. Built around a new, specific and very modern mount, the Vectis cameras and lenses were far more compacts than conventional 35mm SLRs, and than the APS SLRs developed by Canon and Nikon.

Single Lens Reflex cameras (SLRs) need a moving mirror, and the moving mirror needs room, which imposes a flange focal distance of approximately 45mm on 35mm cameras (44mm for the Canon EF, 46.5mm for the Nikon F mount). The diameter of the mount, on the other hand, is closely related to the size of the film (it’s roughly equal to the diagonal of the film – 44mm for the Nikon F mount, for instance). Both Canon and Nikon decided to make their APS cameras compatible with the large range of 35mm lens they had been selling for 10 years or more, and designed their APS SLRs around the same dimensional constraints (flange focal distance, mount diameter) as their standard 35mm offerings. Logically, the cameras could not be significantly smaller than their 35mm counterparts.

On the contrary, Minolta took the risk of making the Vectis S-1 totally incompatible with its own 35mm lens system – and opted for a shorter focal flange distance (38mm) and for a smaller mount diameter, without any mechanical linkage between the camera body and the lens. The body and the lens could be made much smaller, but Minolta had to develop a whole range of new lenses, and ended up supporting two totally incompatible product lines.

Lighthouse of the Pointe St Matthieu (near Brest, France)-by default APS cameras shot in APS-H format (16x9 proportions)

One could debate endlessly about who did the right thing, Minolta or Canon-Nikon. Minolta’s risky strategy did not pay off – the sales of the Vectis cameras proved disappointing, Minolta lost its independence and had to merge with Konica. But Canon or Nikon’s more prudent approach did not work either, altough they did not lose as much money with APS as Minolta did. Learning from the experience, Canon, Konica-Minolta and Pentax all decided to retain their 35mm mount on their new dSLRs with APS-C sensors. Only Panasonic and Olympus, with no legacy of 35mm AF SLRs, decided to use a smaller form factor with their Four-Thirds and Micro-Four-Thirds formats.

Minolta Vectis S-1 - Rear View - Viewfinder on the left. The film door is on left side of the camera (not visible on this picture). Courtesy of www.collection-appareils.fr

The design of the S-1 was very innovative in two important areas: it was not using the conventional central pentaprism, but a series of mirrors leading to a viewfinder implemented at the very left of the body – leaving space for the nose of the photographer, and the camera, its lenses and its accessories (such as the external flash) were all weatherproof, forming a compact, lightweight and reasonably rugged system that could even be brought in mountain expeditions.

The rest of the camera was in line with the advanced-amateur class of products of the time (P, A, S, M modes, Matrix and Spot metering, passive autofocus) and took advantage of all the new functionalities brought by the APS format – the ability to pre-select one of three print formats when taking the pictures being the most important. Some compatibility existed between the accessories of the 35mm cameras of the manufacturer (Maxxum or Dynax) and the Vectis: the flash system and the remote control could be used indifferently on both lines of cameras.

The user experience was very pleasant. Minolta cameras of the AF era have always been very pleasant to use, and the Vectis was no exception, provided you put the right lens on the body.

Unfortunately, the kit lens – a 28-56mm f:4-5.6 zoom, was not something Minolta should have been proud of. Poorly built, if proved fragile, and the quality of the pictures it produced was far from impressive. Mine broke rapidly, and I replaced it with a much better 22-80mm lens, which was correctly built, and could produce great pictures – with the right film in the body. APS’ promoters had decided that 200 ISO would be the “normal” sensitivity, but APS used a smaller negative than 35mm, and the quality of the enlargments from 200 ISO film never convinced me. The 100 ISO film, on the contrary, was very good. On a good bright and sunny day, with a good lens and 100 ISO film, APS could compete with 35mm.

My Vectis was defeated by one of design flaws of APS: the fragile automatic film loading system. A tiny piece of plastic broke in the camera, preventing the film door to open. Having it repaired was not an option. I sold the lens, and trashed the camera.

Today, the Vectis S-1 still has fans, ready to pay prices in excess of $150 for a camera. I liked mine as long as it worked, but with 100 ISO APS film now unavailable, I would not spend my money trying to get another one.

Good camera, flawed format. RIP.

More about the Minolta Vectis S-1
camerapedia.org: la page du Vectis S-1
collection-appareils.fr (site in French)

Portsall harbour at low tide (near Brest, France)

Nikon Pronea S

xtalfu — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:54:58 +0000

Launched in 1998, the Pronea S is Nikon’s second and last APS SLR. Nikon rapidly lost interest in the APS format, and refocused its R&D (and sales) efforts on the more promising Coolpix digital cameras. With its smaller image format and lenses, the Pronea can be considered a remote ancestor of the vastly more successful Nikon D40.

Nikon Pronea S (with the built-in flash deployed and a Nikkor AF 24mm lens)

Apart from the fact it’s using APS film instead of more conventional 135 (24x36mm) film, there is nothing really remarkable about the Pronea S. Its characteristics are aligned on the other mid-level amateur cameras of its time.

It benefits from the advantages brought by the APS format (smaller size than 24×36 cameras, choice of three aspect ratios for the prints) but it also suffers from all the limitations that ultimately caused the demise of the APS format.

In a typical Nikon fashion, the Pronea S preserves some form of compatibility with the large family of Nikkor F lenses: in fact, modern AF and AF-S lenses work perfectly on a Pronea. However the IX-Nikkor lenses, designed specifically for the Pronea and its smaller APS format are absolutely incompatible with the rest of the Nikon bodies: the back of the IX lenses protrudes so far in the reflex chamber that it would be on the trajectory of the reflex mirror of a 24×36 SLR.

Both use the F mount, but an IX lens can only be mounted on a Pronea body

The back of the IX lens protrudes much more in the reflex chamber than the back of a Nikkor AF or AF-s lens

The resale value of the Nikon Pronea S is very limited. Mint (if not new) cameras and lenses can still be found, and they generally sell for a few dozens of dollars. They can be collected as curiosities, but their usage value is limited: Kodak and Fuji may cease manufacturing APS film rapidly, and the IX-Nikkor lenses are absolutely incompatible with any “normal” Nikon body.

Nikon Pronea S

Nikon Pronea S (back)

Nikon Pronea S

Olympus OM1n / Nikon Pronea S (Side)

APS SLRs in a few words

APS SLR cameras are smaller than a comparable 24×36 autofocus SLR with a built-in flash, but the Pronea S is larger than an older SLR such as the Olympus OM-1
The choice of films was already very limited when the format was supposed to be the next big thing: practically, color print film from Kodak and Fuji in 100, 200 and 400 ISO declinations was the only thing you could get. Now that the format is near extinct, only 200 ISO film is available.
Compared to a 24×36 image, an APS image is 56% smaller. APS requires higher enlargement ratios, which makes film grain more visible.
The film loading mechanism of APS cameras is fragile. The film can stay trapped in the camera if one of the little plastic parts holding the cartridge in place breaks.

Olympus OM-1/ Nikon Pronea S / Cartridge

For more about the Pronea S

Another point of view about the Pronea S, courtesy of Ken Rockwell.

The APS Film Format

xtalfu — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:31:12 +0000

Harbor of Porsall, Britany (France). Minolta Vectis S1

135 (24x36) and APS format cartridges. The APS cartridge is more “intelligent” than the conventional 135 film container. An icon at the bottom of the cartridge shows the status of the film (new, partially exposed, totally exposed, processed) and a magnetic strip at the back of the film records the camera’s setup and the user’s preferences, in particular the form factor of each print (APS-C, H or P)

In 1991, Kodak, Fuji, Canon, Minolta and Nikon started working on a new film format, designed to address all of the supposed shortcomings of the 135 (24x36mm) format and bring a new lease of life to film before its replacement by digital technologies.

The development of the new format took longer than expected. The APS film format was officially launched in 1996, but greedy corporate executives tried to force higher prices on consumers and botched the commercial launch.

Digital cameras became viable earlier than when everybody had anticipated, and early as 1998, the camera manufacturers had come to the conclusion that the APS format was a lost cause.

The most emblematic APS camera, the Canon Elph (known as the Canon Ixus in Europe) was superseded by the first Digital Elph in 2000. In 2002, all the cameras manufacturers had reverted to 24x36mm or gone digital, and APS was dead.

APS Index sheet - Costo - July 2008 Index sheets were an APS innovation, soon available also to 24x36 film users. Note that some vignettes show crop lines. The images will be printed in the APS-C format (3x2 form factor). The other images will be printed in the default APS-H format (16x9 form factor). Another crop format, APS-P, was used for panoramic pictures, but is not shown on this index sheet.

Bad timing is often advanced as the main reason for the failure of APS, but it’s not the only one. Kodak and the big processing labs first positioned APS as a premium – understand more expensive – product. Processing an APS roll was 50% more expensive than a 135 cartridge, and the prints, although delivered in large and fancy boxes with index sheets, were generally not as good as what you could get with a conventional 24×36 camera. The smaller film format (the APS film surface area is only 56% of 135 film) and the decision to make 200 ISO the new standard film speed (amateur 135 film was usually 100 ISO) were primarily to blame for the lower quality of the prints.

To make the situation worse, APS cartridges once exposed were not that easy to get processed: deliberately or not, Kodak and Fuji had left the small processing labs and the minilabs out of the APS equation, and the films had to be sent to a few big processing plants. As a result, it was impossible to get APS prints in less than 48 hours. The situation improved over time, the premium charged for APS disappeared, but the harm was done and APS never recovered from a botched launch.

APS Cameras

When APS was launched, very few cameras stood out: most were a simple adaptation of tried and tested 24×36 designs to the particularities of the new film format. Canon is probably the only manufacturer who developed an original concept with the Elph/Ixus. The model was very successful, and its modern digital derivatives are still selling like hot cakes nowadays.

Minolta Vectis S1 The Minolta Vectis S1, with a 22-80 f:4-5.6 zoom. The 28-56 kit zoom was fragile and crappy and the 200 ISO film a bit grainy, but with a decent lens like this 22-80 and a slower 100 ISO film, the S1 formed a compact package and produced very nice pictures. The lens mount was specific to the camera, and the lenses can not be reused on so the called APS-C digital cameras produced in recent years by Konica-Minolta or Sony. This Vectis ended in the trash can (drop-in load mechanism broken) but the lens still had some value and was sold on eBay a few years ago.

Canon, Minolta and Nikon also launched APS SLRs. Minolta bet (and lost) the farm on a brand new line of Vectis S cameras (new bodies, new lens mount, new lenses), while Nikon and Canon proposed a few dedicated APS lenses on two new bodies but retained the lens mount of their 24×36 product line.

In terms of features, the three manufacturers positioned their cameras above the entry level 24×36 SLRs and priced them like advanced amateur 24×36 models. Their high price, compounded with the inherent quality challenges presented by the small film surface and the absence of slide or black-and-white film greatly limited the impact of the APS SLRs on the market, and retailers soon tried to get rid of them at fire sale prices.

Buying an APS camera today – even for a few dollars – is a very bad investment. While it’s very likely that 135 film will still be used and processed for many years to come, the future of APS is dimmer. The user base was never that large to begin with, and the category of users which composed the APS constituency has migrated to digital by now.

The last APS cameras were sold – new – in 2002, and I would not be surprised if Kodak and Fuji pulled the plug on APS in the next 2 years. Some of the cameras are interesting curiosities, but the drop-in load mechanism – which was part of the standard – is very fragile and does not age well.

Pointe St Matthieu - Britany (France) July 2003 - Minolta Vectis S1

For more about the APS film format

Another point of view on the APS debacle, courtesy of Ken Rockwell.