Trivial question

[Actor]

With a gauge of 46mm would the old 127 cameras be considered medium format?

 

[Big Mike]

I don't know if there is a specific size at which you call something Medium Format or not.
I think that most people would say that anything bigger than 35mm film is MF or LF.

Do they still make 127 film? I think I saw that there were a few places where you could buy some...but it was a specialty.
Or can you just re-roll 110 film onto the spools of a 127 camera?

I've got one or two old Brownie Hawkeyes that are 127 I think.

 

[Dwig]

With a gauge of 45mm would the old 127 cameras be considered medium format?

127 is a film size and not, in and of itself, a format. As worded, you question is meaningless.

That said, the original 8 shot per roll format such as that used by the first 127 camera, the Vest Pocket Kodak, is very close to the same size as the 16 and 15 shot per roll 120 formats. The later two have long been considered "medium format" and are over twice the size, by area, than 35mm full frame (double frame). I would certainly consider my Vest Pocket Autographic a medium format camera.

On the other hand, the not really "standard" but not all that rare 16 shot per roll 127 format, as shot by my Foth Derby, is hardly any larger than 35mm and would not quality as "medium format". I wouldn't classify the 4x4cm 12 shot per roll 127 format as "medium format" either since it is most often used with the intention of cropping to a rectangular image, the square image being a convenience that avoids the need to rotate the camera.

 

[Actor]

Do they still make 127 film?

Efke still makes it. I think they are the only one. You can buy it from Freestyle.

Or can you just re-roll 110 film onto the spools of a 127 camera?

No. 110 is 16mm wide; 127 is 46mm wide.

 

[Paul Ron]

4x6.5 is not much different than 6x4.5 format. MF.

 

[Actor]

127 is a film size and not, in and of itself, a format.

I disagree. 127 is a format, i.e., a standard set of specifications which insure compatibility between film and camera. The film size, 46mm, is only one of the specifications. Others are the designation of 127 as roll film, the size of the spools, the location and spacing of frame numbers on the paper backing, etc. There is nothing in the format which is 127 units wide, long, thick, etc. It is only an index number which identifies the format.

 

[Dwig]

127 is a film size and not, in and of itself, a format.

I disagree. 127 is a format, i.e., a standard set of specifications which insure compatibility between film and camera. The film size, 46mm, is only one of the specifications. Others are the designation of 127 as roll film, the size of the spools, the location and spacing of frame numbers on the paper backing, etc. There is nothing in the format which is 127 units wide, long, thick, etc. It is only an index number which identifies the format.

You fail to distinguish between the film specifications and the image format. The 127 specification is primarily a mechanical specification for the film and its packaging, spool & paper backing. None of this is related to "format" which is the size of the image made. In discussing what is or isn't "medium-format" its is only the image size that counts. The film size is not part of the issue.

The only aspect of the 127 specification that has anything at all to do with format is the printing of standard frame numbers on the paper backing. In the case of 127 there are two "blessed" formats, the 8 shot 4x6.5 and 12 shot 4x4, proving that even at any stretch there is no single 127 "blessed" format; there are two rather different sizes. The less common 16 shot format is generally termed 4x3cm, in round numbers, and is hardly larger than conventional 35mm double-frame (aka full frame). In fact the Foth Derby, one of the first to shoot 16 per roll, actually exposed a smaller 24mm x 36mm area, definitely not "medium format".

The bottom line is that you can not define "medium format" in any reasonable way using film size as a metric. Its the image size that is the sole determining factor. The answer to the OP's original question is "yes and no depending on the image size a particular camera uses". My Kodak Vest Pocket Autographic and VP Exakta (VP Exakta - Camerapedia.org) would qualify as MF cameras, but my Foth Derby (Derby - Camerapedia.org) would not.

 

[Big Mike]

No. 110 is 16mm wide; 127 is 46mm wide.

My Bad, I meant 120 film.

I think that what I was thinking of, was re-spooling 120 film onto 620 spools...not 127. I've got a camera or two that takes 620 but I've never shot with them.

 

[christopher walrath]

So, are we considering 127 to be BRUNCH? (No, once I typed it even I didn't get it) Between 35mm and MF? Well, like Mike alluded to, probably included in the medium format class as it is bigger than 35mm.

 

[compur]

Obviously, 127 is medium-rare format.