Most of the cameras I've ever seen that used 110 film were little more than reusable disposable cameras (much like Lomography's cameras, actually), so I doubt the ISO discrepancy will make much of a difference for 98% for the people buying it.
Well, Pentax and Minolta both made a camera that was of similar quality to a good 35mm SLR and they did it in 110 format. The thing is, 110 is not 35mm and you are not going to get 8x10 photos out of it. People seem to expect that, and it is not reasonable. You can get good 4x6 photos out of it though.
Gosh how I hated 110 format , I think I hate it more than you hate Holga's
I have a 110 format SLR that will do ISO 200 ,not that I ever have as I have never even used the camera and its been in storage for over 20 years.
I cant even remember what brand it is now but I think it is a Pentax and I doubt it would even work after so long.
Anyway as for the ISO 200 film , if it is just C41 then I would not worry about it as one stop really makes very little difference and the only people who would see that difference are people like you and me and I am not about to use any 110 film.
On the positive side it is great to see some one making new film
I don't think it was a Pentax, because I have the only decent Pentax 110 film camera (Pentax Auto 110) and it won't shoot anything but ISO 100 or ISO 400. There was an Auto 110 Super, but Wikipedia says that the super didn't shoot at ISO 200 either. I sold my Minolta 110 zoom a while back; maybe that is the one that shoots in ISO 200. Everything else is utter crap and it wouldn't matter what it shot in. Yep, Wikipedia says that is the one: [link]
The biggest problem with the 110 format was that most of the cameras were utter crap. You could buy a Minolta 110 zoom or get a Pentax Auto 110 and those would give you pretty decent photos, but that was about it. Oh, and you always had to use ISO 100 film, because the ISO 400 film was pretty grainy back then and most photos couldn't really be enlarged past 4x6 inches. If everything worked out just right, 5x7 prints were about as big as you could ever hope for -- on a good day.
As for the ISO 200 film, if it was being shot at ISO 100, I'd probably notice. Maybe if I shot it at ISO 100 and pushed it a stop, ... but then I'd probably run into the grain problem again. I think I'll stick to ISO 100 Orca for now. In order to shoot it, and have it come out right, I'd have to get a Minolta 110 Zoom camera.
Don't think it was a Minolta but in truth I have no idea now , I found it in a pawn shop and only got it out of curiosity , I never did put any film through it , it was not a zoom either and all black body . I had forgotten all about it until this thread and I doubt it would be any good now.
The difference in ISO would be noticeable with B&W films such as you and I use and would be a very big difference if using slide film to the point that it would not work at all without special processing however C41 process has an huge exposure latitude and in 110 format it is far greater than any camera that is using the film. C41 can not be pull or pushed processed and all ISO's process in the same chemistry at the same time ( I like C41 and it is no more difficult to process than B&W )
If using B&W or slide film then it would just be a matter of processing accordingly however unless every frame on that film was exposed evenly then you are going to have some variation in exposure from frame to frame and this may be a lot more than one stop, this is not a problem when you have a shutter speed dial and aperture ring.
I just realized there is(was) a film format that I hate more and that was the APS
The Pentax Auto 110 was called that for a reason: it was autoexposure only (no exposure controls); it didn't have a manual mode. I have a Pentax Auto 110 sitting here in front of me now and there is no way to set the exposure. If it was an SLR and had exposure controls, it could only be a Minolta 110 Zoom, because there were only two 110 SLRs ever made.
Oh, the photos would come out with C41 (you're right about the exposure latitude), but the contrast would be either too high or too low. C-41 process film most certainly can be pushed and pulled. The developing machines have settings on them (N+1, N+2, N+3, N-1, N-2) specifically so you can do that.
APS, disc, 8mm, and a few more were failed formats. The ones I hate just because of format are 8mm and disc. Those were too little to be useful for anything. Actually, APS was not a bad idea, with exposure correction being automatic for each individual frame, but once again, they insisted on treating a smaller format than 35mm just like 35mm and it isn't. 8X10 inches is the edge of the envelope for most 35mm cameras; that is as big as you ever should go with a lens that is not extraordinarily good. APS was 24mm and they were blowing up photos to 8x10. Of COURSE they were not as good as 35mm photos. They should never have been enlarged to more than 5x7!
BTW, a lot of these guys on DA are using what amounts to APS cameras. Several digital camera sensors are 24mm.
Yes I did forget about the N1, N2 etc on minilab machines however this is some what different than push-pull in the sense it has nothing to do with the film ISO, I have only ever developed C41 by hand and never used a minilab and it has been around 10 years since I have done any colour film work at all.
The only thing I did not like about APS , 110 etc was the negative size and it appeared that we as consumers were being constantly pushed into using smaller and smaller negatives.This also seems to be happening with digital with cameras getting smaller sensors
One format I did like was 126 and my very first camera was a Kodak Instamatic 126, nice size negs and so simple to use that even I as a 7 year old could run a roll of film with most of them in focus and decently exposed. I really have no idea what film or what the ISO was at the time and at that age I was only using whatever film that was given to me. I still have a few of the B&W negs but I disposed of a lot of colour negs from the 60s and early 70s, none of it really had a lot of information left on it and it was a hazard to have around. The B&W film was mostly Ilford 100 and that is all I know about it and I also think it was made in Australia them days when Ilford did have a plant here but that is really a bit before my time, I know Ilford did make photo paper here and I remember seeing a "made in Australia " on a film box but that could have just meant the box was made in Australia, Ilford no longer manufacture anything at all in Australia ( neither does any one else )
I have had plenty of "auto" cameras but I have never found them to be to accurate or to have a very wide latitude, nothing wrong or bad with this as and it was fine for general happy snaps as intended , people like you and I tend to get to critical with cameras that cant keep up with our needs.
I have noticed and remarked on the fact that film photography started out as all large format, went to medium format and then to small. Kodak tried steering us to smaller yet, and while nobody would buy it in film, they have swallowed it whole in digital. In digital cameras, sensors are getting smaller with more megapixels, which isn't going to work out very well unless they can come up with a completely new technology. Eventually, as sensors keep getting smaller, things like sensor overlap, chromatic abberation and so on will require more and more precise lenses and will run into a wall, when an economical lens can not be made precise enough to keep up with the rest of the technology ($10 cameras with $50,000 lenses). Cameras have also gone from wood to metal to plastic, which I don't like.
There are several defunct formats that I liked. 116 was good for example, and I would love to have had the chance to shoot in 122 (4x5 rollfilm). Even 127 was nice for snapshots from TLRs (and plastic film developing reels are still set up for it).
Most of my life I have been a longtime fan of Kodak color film. Fuji is good for some things, but I learned on Kodak and can do quite a lot with it. "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." With b&w I preferred Agfa APX. I never have liked Ilford much.
Yes, as you get better at whatever you do, you usually look for better equipment.
4x5 roll film would have been GREAT ,, never new it even existed.
The reason that people are accepting digital's with smaller and smaller sensors is because most people would not have a clue about sensor size and a lot of them probably don't even know what a sensor is let alone its size, you may find this hard to comprehend but there really are some people out there that think all a pro photographer needs is an iPhone.
I don't know why they are making sensors smaller and smaller without really improving the technology and until they find a replacement for silicon ( mores law) they will not improve a great deal in the next 50 years apart from them getting larger.
Yes I can see there being $10 cameras with $50,000 lenses as well as the larger sensors that will cost 100K but will not need as good a lens. Who knows where digital will lead in the future and it is something I care about as I can see my self using digital in the future, as much as I hate to say it film is getting to be way to much work now , not the using of film but the logistics involved it getting it.
I have always liked Portra film and my fave was the 160 VC or the NC for portrait work and 6 x 4.5 medium format would enlarge to 50 x 60 cm (20 x 24) with no visible grain , been some time since I used it though.
"4x5 roll film would have been GREAT ,, never new it even existed."
Heck, I vaguely recall that Kodak might have made a 5x7 rollfilm camera at one time. I'll have to check. Yep, they did. I see I was wrong about the number of the 4x5 roll film though, it was #109, #110 and #123 roll film. Strange that 110 film later became one of the smallest formats available when it started out as one of the largest.
I love Portra film for color, Velvia for supersaturated color, Tri-X for tricky lighting, T-Max 100 for controlled grain effects (takes a LONG time to master that one), and Efke for invisible grain. The ones I really miss are Agfa APX 25 and Kodachrome 25. The so-called "replacements" for those all fell flat on their faces. I also miss Oriental papers in their original formulas; there hasn't been anything that good since they changed it. Their paackages used to say "The best paper on earth," and it used to be true; it was the go-to paper for many pros. There was nothing that looked as good as a toned print on Oriental paper made from ISO 25 film. It's about the same as everyone else's paper now though. I switched to Agfa paper right after they changed the formula for the emulsion, but that was discontinued too. I haven't found anything as good since.
APS was a terrible idea and, if you were working in a one-hour lab at the drug store, the worst part of your day. My friends who were working in labs back when it was sold still bemoan the hassle it was to print.