Reviews of Disposable Cameras

Jeremy wrote:
" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeremy wrote:


You can simply apply the word "mediocre" to all of them, and there'll be
not
much need to do multiple reviews.

Honestly, who would bother studying reviews of low-end stuff like that?

I agree. And since most of them out-perform the cameras used by Louis
Daguerre let's agree all his images were worthless ****e too. Why
anyone used cameras before multicoating was perfected beggars belief!



Why are you comparing apples to oranges? Disposable cameras may be
utilitarian, but they do not represent the level of quality that would be
considered even barely adequate for a serious shooter. They serve a purpose
for use by the Great Unwashed, but nobody would read comparative reviews of
cameras in that class.



They might not read comparative reviews, but they ask the guy behind the
photo counter for a recommendation. There are name brand and store
brand, some with 400 speed film and some with 800, some with zoom
lenses, underwater cameras, one that proudly advertises the two-element
lens. I haven't used enough of them often enough to form an opinion,
and at what they pay me I'm not sure how much of my own money I want to
put into it. I'll steer them toward something with 800 speed film
unless they know they're going to be shooting in sunlight or they'll
want enlargements. It all seems to look fine on 4x6 prints.

When I went to DC I didn't want to lug around something big and heavy
that I cared about, so I got a disposable that I could put in my pocket.
It lacked versatility, but other than that I can't complain about my
4x6's.

I'm not. As camera quality increases 'serious shooters' always up their
definition of the minimum quality deemed acceptable. If images from
anything less are unacceptable, obviously everything taken by those who
came before fall into that category. The results from many disposable
cameras outshine the equipment used by pioneers; if they had been
available in that day they would have been used in preference by
'serious shooters'. Even Picasso threw away his easel when he got his
hands on a Fed 2.

I love the old Goon Show recordings (not sure if this will make sense
outside the UK) and when they recently broadcast them on BBC7 I still
tuned in and loved. I can't imagine the sort of person that would
refuse to listen to them solely because they weren't in stereo.

Anything that encourages ordinary people to pick up a camera and start
taking pictures is great! And they get just as much use from consumer
advice as the rest of us and belong equally in this NG. Now pick up
your rattle and put it in your pram.

Well put Dunx.

While I can't help the OP, I can speak from some experience with a Fuji
Marine disposable that I sent on a world trip, to several photographers
in different countries, each of whom took a single snap. (See 'chain
cammie' threads on www.photo.net) After nearly a year, including
several plane trips and presumably quite a few xrays.., it came back to
me. In general, the images were very good, and a couple of them were
quite stunning. Contrasty? Yes (although poor printing didn't help - I
plan to film scan them when I have time..). A little distorted at the
outer edges? Yes. Sharp across most of the image field? - surprisingly
so. Sadly I don't have them posted at the moment while I am replacing
my webpages, but if you ask nicely..

Yes, when I want pin sharp images at 11x17 or more, out come the big
guns, MF if necessary. But I do not denigrate disposables (while i
don't use them often, I carry a tiny 4Mp p&s when i don't feel like
lugging a big camera). And I would suggest some folk go back to their
roots from time to time to keep their feet on the ground.

Lastly, the original post did not indicate anything other than wanting
to know which were the better ones - so as an answer, I would suggest
the Fuji Marine is a pretty good example (Fuji 800 is a very good film
for that speed), and being able to submerge it is pretty cool... The
only problem I noticed with being in an underwater case was that the
shutter was very indistinct - it was difficult to know if it had
actually fired. But it had..!

On 2006-05-17 14:11:47 -0400, "Jeremy" said:


"Greg Hansen" wrote in message
...
Is there a good source that discusses disposable cameras? Like shutter
speed and aperture, repeatability of shutter speed, lens quality, any
color filtering (underwater cameras?), and whatever else there might be
to say about them?


You can simply apply the word "mediocre" to all of them, and there'll
be not much need to do multiple reviews.

Honestly, who would bother studying reviews of low-end stuff like that?

They are however, better than the 110's and other assorted cameras used
for snapshots for years.

I have found most serve the purpsoe quite well.
--
Jim

Greg Hansen wrote in :

Is there a good source that discusses disposable cameras? Like shutter
speed and aperture, repeatability of shutter speed, lens quality, any
color filtering (underwater cameras?), and whatever else there might be
to say about them?


I would say that they are a great improvement over the old Kodak Instamatic
cameras, and the like, simply because the lens element hasn't been abused
for six or so years, and wiped off with a sandy towell 14,000 times etc.

They dont compare to a well maintained slr just because they are more
limited as far as adjustments such as depth of field, or light regulation.
The same is true with point and shoots.

If you are one of the many that can't be botherd with taking care of
equipment, they are a great option. They wont match the other guy with the
nice slr, but any picture is better than no picture. The camera you have
with you when something happens is the very best camera at that moment.

That said, in ten years, when you see the defects in the pictures that
would have been better done with an slr (or medium format, or view camera)
you will likely be wishing you had spent the money, time, and effort on a
real camera.

My .02, and worth less in many places.