In rec.photo.darkroom Scott Norwood <snorwood@redballoon.net> wrote:

That's exactly why. They don't even have to be decent ones.
They fit their purpose the last 25 years: producing small
3x4" prints to show around on bithdays or other family events.
There foolproof.
Maybe it was a present.
It has been with them in Rome, Paris, NY, SF, Honeymoon
and took pictures of baby's fist step, fist day at school,
Grandpa's 80th bithday. Sentimental.
So a lot of folks keep their 110.
A lot of people only stoped using their Instamatics
because 126-film isn't availiable at WalMart anymore.
Most of those use disposables nowadaaays.

Chris.

The Pentax Auto 110 SLR was more than just decent IMO...

but even that sort of begs the question

Everybody loves obsolete gadgets!

The Pentax Auto 110 was a very good camera by any standard.  It produced
images on 110 film (13x17 frame, just about 1/4 of the 35 mm frame) that
were better than most of the simpler 35 mm cameras of the day (late
1970s, early 1980s) and better quality than a lot of the lower end (not
even counting disposables and their close relatives) even today.  Sure,
it was a lot more camera, and a lot more money, than the 35 mm cheapies,
but it was also much smaller; it nestled nicely in the hand, and a full
kit with four lenses (normal, wide, tele, and zoom) plus a
tele-extender, would fit in a case not much bigger than a 6x9 cm folding
camera, closed.

In fact, though, 110 pretty well killed the subminiature formats --
Minolta, Yashica, and Mamiya produced compatible 16 mm cassettes and
cameras for them starting in the late 1950s, and did reasonably well
with them (they had good lenses, for the most part, and many were fully
adjustable, though focusing was always inconvenient due to size and the
very short travel needed to focus a moving lens).  When Kodak came out
with 110, it was a case of the cuckoo pushing the other chicks out of
the nest as it grew -- and then flying away when the quality of most 110
cameras disappointed users, most of whom never saw the images that could
be made with a Pentax or Minolta SLR or even the higher end adjustable
viewfinder cameras for 110 (some of which, in the early 1980s, had
features Minolta had put into their 16 mm cameras prior to 1970 -- but
were easily twice the camera size).

When public interest in 110 waned, the other submini formats (except
Minox) were gone -- Minolta continued to produce film until the mid-90s
that could be used in some Yashica and Mamiya cameras as well, but the
others, the Rollei 16, the Steky, even the Soviet 16 mm SLR had been
driven from the market by 110.

Now, Minox is the only still film format smaller than APS still in
production, and that's only because the manufacturers, supporting 70
years of their history (and with the backing of a deep pocketed
corporate parent) continue to purchase bulk film, mostly from Agfa, and
slit it for their cassettes.

I don't recall 110 images as being a lot worse than 126, given similar
levels of camera -- and I've had pictures from my Minolta 16 cameras
that would give a half-frame 35 mm a good run, or outdo a 35 mm
snapshooter.  But Kodak had to stir the pot again, thinking people
wanted still smaller cameas -- and so Disk was born, with flat cameras
(that presaged modern digital designs), tiny negatives that weren't
supported by anything resembling the lens quality of the Minox (which
uses the exact same image size, 8x11 mm, but in much more compact
packaging) and printed on mass market quality equipment -- and still
managed to show up the limitations of the film, more than those of the
camera.  And with 110 now orphaned, once Kodak quit producing those
cameras, and Disk deservedly circling the drain, other companies quit
producing 110 cameras in droves -- even the few good cameras among them.

Now, it's a fair amount of effort just to find a lab that will process
110 film, at least in the United States.

I just got off the phone with them.  They threw the box of them in the
dumpster a week ago.

If you have any other source, let me know....
--scott