"Unless I'm missing the point (entirely possible) the volume of usage for 127 must be miniscule by comparison to 35mm and 120 - so it just goes to show that companies can justify continued film production - irrespective of film's so-called "death" - if they really feel like it."
My impression is that 127 for all intents is a dead format. It lives because it falls into an adaptable niche. Yes, there are small quantities of "real" 127 film -- EFKE comes to mind -- but the remainder of the commercially available stock is slit down from larger rolls and respooled, or it's 46mm bulk film rolled in 127 backing. (I believe that Bluefire Murano film is 46mm Portra 160NC.)
But that's what's so good about 127. Spools are plentiful, as is backing paper (or just slit down 120 wrappers). Paterson reels have a click stop for 127 so black-and-white home processing is as easy as 35mm. Commercial labs with dip-and-dunk processors just use their 35mm clips for 127. I don't know about roller-transport machines, but I would imagine there would be a way to run 127 as 120 through a 120-capable roller machine.
As an in-between size, 127 lives because of this adaptability. There are millions of fun cameras (the Brownie Holiday leaps to mind) as well as a select group of truly sophisticated machines (the Yashicas, Ricohs, and Baby Rolleis mentioned earlier, among others).
Generally the cameras aren't much bigger than a similar 35mm shooter, but the resultant image quality from the best of them is far superior. From the worst of them (!!) the image quality is on a par with a Diana without the attendant film waste (4X4 is the natural square on 127 film).
OK, now I need to go shoot some more 127. It's been a while. Film lives!
