But also more bad ones. :whistling:Quote:
Originally Posted by MattKing
Printable View
But also more bad ones. :whistling:Quote:
Originally Posted by MattKing
I admittedly had to look it up... I've never heard of this camera hehe, I've also never seen one before...
The picture I pulled up from google is this.. .http://dnok91peocsw3.cloudfront.net/...-612x612-1.png
Why does it have 35mm and 127? next to it? isn't it a 110 camera?
Also.... why would more good photo's come from this camera? just because of the sheer number of shots taken with it? I can't imagine110 film delivering images you could blow up very big.
It is the classic 126 camera - square negatives or slides.
Probably the largest selling camera ever, and just about foolproof to use in almost all typical situations.
A camera doesn't have to yield images that "blow up very big" in order to create good or even great photographs.
See this link: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Instamatic_104
Oh 126! Ok those images aren't as bad as 110 then being 35mm so it's just up to the plastic lenses then ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MattKing
~Stone
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
when we were kids we had one of these
http://www.ebay.com/itm/KOOKIE-KAMER...item27cded26ff
best camera ever made ...
Yes I know but that's like saying Advantix could make nice images...Quote:
Originally Posted by MattKing
PE and I went back and forth on this, I forgot to mention to him that I took a roll and shot it recently to prove myself wrong and him right, let me tell you the images are TERRIBLE but I'm going to take my scanner soon and instead of lab scans I'll scan them myself and see if they are any better, but even the 5x7's from the lab look TERRIBLE and I would never use them for anything. So I can't imagine 110 much different, I had a 110 camera as a kid and I've looked at those too and they look the same, all blotchy and "pixelated" it's just terrible. Haha
I admit they didn't make as many good films for those systems as they did for 35mm but damn it's bad LOL
So, I agree to a point but even my 1.2 megapixel digital camera looks better than those advantix shots.
~Stone
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Virginia Schau won the pulitzer prize for photography with a photo taken with a Brownie box camera. So...
[QUOTE=StoneNYC;1432521]Yes I know but that's like saying Advantix could make nice images...
PE and I went back and forth on this, I forgot to mention to him that I took a roll and shot it recently to prove myself wrong and him right, let me tell you the images are TERRIBLE but I'm going to take my scanner soon and instead of lab scans I'll scan them myself and see if they are any better, but even the 5x7's from the lab look TERRIBLE and I would never use them for anything. So I can't imagine 110 much different, I had a 110 camera as a kid and I've looked at those too and they look the same, all blotchy and "pixelated" it's just terrible. Haha
I admit they didn't make as many good films for those systems as they did for 35mm but damn it's bad LOL
So, I agree to a point but even my 1.2 megapixel digital camera looks better than those advantix shots.
126 is not in the same catagory as 110 or Advantix, it was about the same size as 135mm just square and Nikon and Kodak made decent 126 SLRs. Kodak made a few higher end fixed lens 126 cameras with good lens. I always though the flaw was the plastic cassesstt which could distort in hot weather.
I recall reading that the main problem with 110 film was that the cartridge didn't hold it flat enough? With the usual cheap 110 cameras (anyone else have one which was barely bigger than the cartridge itself? I see the Lomo company have got hold of the tooling for them now) this didn't make a lot of difference. Pentax and Minolta made SLRs for the format though, the 18mm and 50mm lenses for the Pentax apparently stack up very well indeed.
In all honesty the price of a good 35mm SLR is now so low that the only reason for using cheap old cameras is, well, if you enjoy using them!
I notice the Seller hasn't demonstrated or qualified is airy remarks with examples.
These novelty cameras using film that is all but extinct can be found in flea markets for about $20, dumped by owners who don't quite know of or appreciate the early pedigree.