I don't remember the name or manufacturer but back when a 6-megapixel DSLR would have cost you a few months rent, my dad bought me some super cheapo digital point-and-shoot that was in plastic clamshell packaging. To further paint the picture for you, the packaging had stock images of a guy skateboarding, some girl jumping in the air, stuff like that. Real promising.
It could hold a whopping 5 pictures at its regular resolution, which was something like 320x240, or 30 pictures at its smaller resolution, which might as well be the size of our dA icons. It had a button to take the picture, two other buttons for erasing pictures and toggling the pathetic resolution, and a little 7-segment display to show how many more pictures you can take. And the pictures were mostly awful.
Boy, some of you young whipper-snappers think you had it bad with your 5MP point-and-shoot cameras from the major names like Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, etc...
Personally speaking, my "young whipper snapper" days are more than 30 years behind me. I hadn't even heard of a digital camera until I had been shooting film for nearly 10 years, and the ones that were available then were jokes. When I looked at the first digital photo I ever saw, it was so bad I couldn't tell what it was. It just looked like a random pattern of squares. The one you had sounds like it might have been an Argus. They used to sell them in department stores out of bins. As I recall, they were 1mp cameras and they cost about $15 or $20. Even Fisher Price makes better cameras than that now.
I've been fairly lucky. My worst camera was my second and last POS, a Sony Cybershot. It didn't matter if the ISO was at the lowest possible value, the photos came out with terribly noisy and had colour distortion. Hated that thing. My first point and shoot was an Olympus, and I loved it. It was a wonderful camera and miles better than the Sony.
'Course, I can never go back now that I have my Mark, Rebel, and Konika
That looks like one of those cameras that CVS pharmacy used to sell from time to time, with the selling point of "free film for life." It was only one step up from a disposable camera and they would only reload that particular camera, but if you could make it last more than a couple of weeks, they'd keep reloading it. Oh, and doing things like changing the battery or loading/unloading it yourself voided the contract.
rustyironmongerFeatured By OwnerDec 24, 2012Hobbyist General Artist
A POS Olympus 5mp point & shoot digital that I have two photos from 2006 taken on it up on dA, and am trying to locate the memory cards with sets taken at an architectural salvage yard and two run-down towing yards full of mostly 1940s-70s American cars between 2004 and 2007, a Konica 35mm point & shoot film camera inherited from my grandfather that some pics were taken on between 2002 and 2007, and my first modern digital that was some kind of Kodak EasyShare first released in 2008. All were pieces of junk that didn't work well, images required extensive editing and correction and even then quality & resolution sucked. No comment on the Albertsons store-brand disposable that I took photos at the Oregon Coast Aquarium with and that the photos from were lost (but will probably turn up in my in-progress move across town and end up digitized/edited/posted to dA if anywhere near decent)
I have an early 70s cheapie Japanese brand cartridge film camera here that was never used, if film was still available and there was more than one lab in the area that still handled cartridge film, I would say that my 1935 Kodak Brownie Junior and 1948 Ansco auto-flash cameras, again never-used vintage items, would have better quality but would be developed by the same (very reputable) lab.
I never tried an Olympus digital p&s camera. My digital point and shoots have all been Nikon and Canon. The Nikons were not very good, but they were not the best. I did at least a little research though, before buying my first one, and never did consider buying an Olympus. Konica made some pretty good 35mm cameras (mostly rangefinders, back in the early 70s, like the Auto S series), but none of them were p&s cameras. Kodak made the Medallists and the Retina series and they have not made a good camera since then (the fifties).
Cartridge film is available in 110 once again: [link] 126 flm is the same size as 35mm film and, if you can buy a couple of old expired film cardridges, you can reload them: [link] Your old film cartridge caemras are still usable.
The Ansco cameras usually have pretty good German lenses (it's the rest of the camera that sucks), so you'd probably get pretty decent photos out of it for as long as it worked (probably not long). the Kodak Brownie Junior uses 620 film, which is available online, or you can roll your own (620 is the same size as 120, but the spindle is different). Both of those cameras can be used.
rustyironmongerFeatured By OwnerDec 24, 2012Hobbyist General Artist
Thanks! I love my Nikon L22 (which survived being dropped numerous times) and L120 even tho they aren't great, I may be receiving either a Nikon P510 bridge camera or Nikon D60 DSLR for Christmas, and I will eventually start using a less pristine but workable Brownie Junior, which I have the manual for in PDF form... that Brownie and the Ansco are to become decorations in my new place...
Hope for the Nikon D60. Nikon makes some of the best DSLRs around, and some of the worst p&s cameras. The problem with the ones I tried is mainly that they use a very cheap and brittle plastic to make the gears that extend the lens. It sheds teeth like a cheap comb if that lens gets bumped. I don't blame you about the Ansco, but I'd want to shoot the Kodak Brownie at least once before it became a shelf sitter.
I don't know what it was. I think it was a Kodak but a model before their easyshare, or a budget camera. The image resolution was something way smaller than 650 x 580, more like 200px. It was small even on a 800 x 600 screen. There was no flash and quality was grainy even under the best conditions. Photos came out blurry and unusable. That would be my worst camera. Runner ups would be some freebee 110 cameras I used as a child. They had light leaks like horrible and photos were grainy. But as a child I didn't think of it as annoying. Other runner ups- goodwill purchased cameras my parents got me as a kid. One was a 35mm camera that had a loos backing and was supposed to auto wind the film. That part was broken. I had to spend some time in the closet winding the film. Because the backing was loose I had light leaks and ruined photos there too.
Yeah, most, if not all, of the early digital cameras sucked ass. Most film photographers laughed at them. The 110 cameras they gave to kids were intended to be used as toys. Some people still like them, although you pretty much have to tape some of them together to use them. The "Lomography" fad is pretty much based on those cameras. I remember when I could buy a Diana plastic camera out of a vending machine for $1 -- they are about $50 now.
"Other runner ups- goodwill purchased cameras my parents got me as a kid. One was a 35mm camera that had a loos backing and was supposed to auto wind the film. That part was broken. I had to spend some time in the closet winding the film. Because the backing was loose I had light leaks and ruined photos there too."
Funny you should mention that, because that is one of the very sorts of things I fix and resell (I do high-quality cameras though). Restored and completely overhauled, they are like new, and they are not cheap. Like these: [link][link][link] They start off looking something like this: [link][link] and end up like this: [link]
What I had wasn't even that good to start with. It was just a plastic snapshot vacation camera. Nothing more than a reusable version of the disposable type. But it was fun to start with and get an idea of composition. In high school there was a photography club. The 35 mm cheapo camera was handy for just beginning. I used to enjoy the dark room, but the meetings were inconsistent and instructor was retiring. Shortly after, they took down that room and made it into another classroom. I didn't get as much time there as I wanted.
Some 5mp BenQ pocket camera which was the first camera I ever owned... but back then it was so amazing! It's strange now, when I look back at photos I had taken with it and I thought those were amazing...
Kodak made a whole lot of crappy cameras. Some of them had surprisingly good lenses, but when they did, they would usually combine that with the absolute worst POS shutter you could possibly imagine. You'd get things like he Signet 35, which has a wonderful Commercial Ektar lens and a Micky Mouse Kodet shutter you'd have to take apart and unjam every couple of weeks. I bought one and modified the shutter (polished out all the rough spots) so it works.
Forgot again... I still didn't explain. 110 film came in sealed double-ended cartridges. You dropped one into the back of your camera, shot your 24 exposures, took it out and dropped in another cartridge. You'd take it to the drugstore, drop it off, and pick up your negatives and prints about a week later. Since the negative for each shot was about 24mm, corner to corner, diagonally, and was much smaller than a 35mm negative (which is 135mm), it only recorded about a quarter of the information you could get on a 35mm negative and the photos tended to be pretty grainy. The lenses on most 110 cameras were not very good either. There were two exceptions to this, the Pentax Auto 110 and the Minolta 110 Zoom; those were the only good cameras in 110 and they were also the only two SLRs in 110 format. Mine was not one of those (although I own a Pentax now). The only way to get a new 110 camera these days is through the Lomography website, which should tell you something (they sell toy cameras). Some of the 110 cameras they sell are little more than a shutter and lens that clips onto a 110 cartridge (they call them keychain cameras). Anyway, the Concords were BUDGET versions of 110 pocket cameras (they were not even as good as the crappy Kodaks). The Lomography people would have loved them, but no one else would.
my first impression of lomo revival is that its part of the "ugly is beautiful, and chic", and cliche as fucking hell about hipsters trying to make every fail idea cool. My stereotypes furthers is this what they are doing after getting done abusing the piss out of extreme wide angle lenses, and wearing their sisters jeans. Hipsters looking for something even more unloved, because they know no one else will like it for quality so they can be there unique little snowflakes they really aren't.
I don't think the 110 format was intended for "art", as much as snapshots, in the pre-digital age.
That's probably why only two cameras were ever made for that format that were any good, and why neither of them is accepted as a Lomo camera. Provided that you don't enlarge them past 5x7 inches, the Pentax Auto 110 and the Minolta 110 Zoom are capable of taking very high quality photos. It's just that you are never going to get an 8x10 photo out of a negative that little; just like you can't get poster sized enlargements out of a 35mm that will stand up to close scrutiny.
Thanks for the information - very interesting, and I've learnt something new. So really, you couldn't have expected much out of a budget version of the good stuff
When something is so natural to you do tend to assume what people know and don't know, but that is acceptable I am 19 years old and I was born into a very different time it seems - a time when film cameras were phasing out quickly - my mother had one of those film cameras which took those small rolls when I was younger, which she used to take photos on family outings. My father has a Minolta SLR which works with film, but I've never used it either.
For what reasons do you prefer film cameras over digital versions?
"For what reasons do you prefer film cameras over digital versions?"
Because I do fine art photography, not commercial, and there are some types of film still available (ultra-high resolution films) that can give me up to 51mp worth of detail with the right lenses. Gigabite film, Efke KB25 and a couple of others can do that. That's assuming that I use 35mm film. If I use medium format, and use the same film, the level of detail captured increases with the negative area, which can be up to 6 times bigger. Large format, with 4x5 inch negatives or larger, can be several times the size of medium format negatives. An appropriate large format camera will allow you to make a print the size of a wall with no blurring and lots of fine detail. Digital cameras can't do that yet, not even $50,000 Hasselblads.
Never had a Holga, but my daughter gave me a Diana fish-eye camera for Christmas once. It’s basically a point-and-shoot in the truest sense: no shutter control, no aperture control. Just spray and pray. I used it once, and I might bring it with me when I go to Curaçao in the spring, just for giggles. I’m also going to bring the digital camera my mother gave me once, which truly is a turd. It’s a 5-MP Olympus P&S that eats batteries the way Chunk eats chocolate bars in the Goonies. I can charge up a pair of NiCads, put them in it and within ten minutes I’ll get the flashing “battery low” warning. Regular non-rechargeables fare no better.
Oh, speaking of "Lomography," if you have a Pentax auto 110 or a Minolta 110 Zoom in storage, you can get it out and dust it off. They are making 110 film again. The manufacturer is Lomography; their b&w film is sold under the name "Orca," and it is ISO 100. I just bought two rolls for testing.
Lomography's color film is sold under the name "Tiger," and is ISO 200. I think that is going to be a problem, because no 110 camera is designed to shoot ISO 200 film. 110 film only used to be available in ISO 100 and ISO 400, with a small tab on the cartridge that let the camera know which ISO film was in the film chamber. After seeing that it was ISO 200, I decided that it might be best not to get any "Tiger" film. I'm looking forward to shooting the Orca stuff though.
That doesn't surprise me. I went through 2 Nikons, didn't like them, and so I did a whole lot of research before buying the next one, my Canon A630 (that was back when an 8mp camera cost $300). The Canon is still going strong and I won't even look at anything but Canon and Sony anymore when it comes to compacts.
Well, my Nikon 2700 and my Nikon 3100 had decent quality, for compacts of their day, but they both did have that issue with the gears that extend the lens. Eventually (with either of those two cameras and several others) you WILL get a lens error message, and then it is permanently broken. Of course I had to find out about this the hard way. I was younger then and just assumed that if it said Nikon on it, then it would be good. Well, they make great DSLRs, but my professional opinion, after getting burned twice, is that their compacts suck ass -- not as bad as Holgas, but there is still some serious ass suckage going on there. After doing my research, HP didn't warrant consideration either.
Ha! Yeah HP was a budget choice. I had no money and wanted a digital camera of some fashion. I'm not displeased since it helped me realize that I liked real photography but it was years after I stopped using it that I went for my first D-SLR.
Well, I started with film, back in the 70s, when no one had heard of a digital camera. My first camera was a Pentax K1000. I bought it at Kmart and picked it out because it looked pretty good and it was on sale. Since then I have owned a bunch of Canons, several Nikons, different Yashicas, Olympuses, Minoltas, Kodaks and a bunch of other cameras and I am convinced that I just happened to pick the very best 35mm manual film SLR I could possibly have chosen for learning photography and I did it entirely by chance. That was the beginning of a long love affair with photography. I still have that camera and I still use it from time to time.