disposable cameras

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by PCportinc, Aug 2, 2003.

  1. PCportinc

    PCportinc Guest

    I've used these many times and have had good results.
    I buy them 2 for $4, each has 27shots. good focus,
    nice clear pics, small, no need to wait until the autofocus
    or the flash is set. I cant tell if a photo was taken with a $300 SLR
    or a disp CVS $2 camera! I mean these are beauties! any opinions
    of them?
     
    PCportinc, Aug 2, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. PCportinc

    Lyle Gordon Guest

    The lens actually doesnt focus it is just a plastic element set to a
    hyperfocal distance with a small aperature and if you can't tell the
    difference then you were either making postage stamp sized enlargements or
    you need glasses. Try enlarging one to 4' x 6' then you'll be sure to see a
    difference.

    BTW $300 is quite cheap for a good SLR

    -Lyle Gordon

    PS if the 2$ disposibles work for you continue with them.
     
    Lyle Gordon, Aug 2, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. PCportinc

    Bhup Guest

    never laughed so much ..
     
    Bhup, Aug 2, 2003
    #3
  4. For what it's worth, my opinion is that some people's standards are lower
    than other's.
     
    Skip Middleton, Aug 2, 2003
    #4
  5. PCportinc

    Ron Todd Guest

    Well, the Kodak MAX HQ resolves about 44 lpm. I've tried 5x7
    enlargements from a HP S20 and the results were excellent. I've tried
    8x10 once and the results were acceptable, good viewed at normal
    distances. I would think, overall, they are good enough if one is
    careful what they do.
    *****************************************
    Boycott list:

    Belgium, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, PRC, Iran, Syria,
    Hollywood, San Francisco, Massachusetts, New York City, Sierra Club, ACLU,
    Movies of the first blacklist, Turner, Madonna, S. Crowe, Dixie Chicks, Cher, U2, rapp,
    Trudeau, W.Miller, Disney, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, CNN, PBS,

    Sometimes the only influence you have is to say, "No, I'm not buying."
     
    Ron Todd, Aug 2, 2003
    #5
  6. PCportinc

    LeitzBoy Guest

    DISPOSABLES R GREAT!
    keep shooting!

    k.
     
    LeitzBoy, Aug 2, 2003
    #6
  7. PCportinc

    Polytone Guest

    TROLL!
     
    Polytone, Aug 2, 2003
    #7
  8. My Hi-Matic kicks more than just disposable butt!!

    Bill Tallman
     
    William D. Tallman, Aug 2, 2003
    #8
  9. PCportinc

    Brian Guest

    Disposable camera have their good and bad points.

    Good:
    Cheap to replace if stolen or damaged..
    Handy to have if you suddenly need a camera.
    Simple to use.
    No need to load with film.

    Bad:
    No high speed when tsking action photography
    Can't zoom in on the action
    No wide angle to get everything into the picture
    No choice on the type of film
    Can't refocus the camera.
    No control over exposure
    No close up photos of flowers and insects etc.
    Pictures are not as sharp as those with good quality lens.
    Enlargements are not sharp.
    Can't put camera on a tripod.

    Looks like there are more bad points than good points.

    Regards Brian
     
    Brian, Aug 2, 2003
    #9
  10. PCportinc

    Dave Guest

    You've got to be a TROLL, this is a ridiculous comment. Look again.
     
    Dave, Aug 2, 2003
    #10
  11. PCportinc

    Colyn Guest

    Colyn, Aug 2, 2003
    #11
  12. Just right for you.
     
    Joseph Meehan, Aug 2, 2003
    #12
  13. PCportinc

    Jan Keirse Guest

    Not necessarely. If you consider me 5 years ago a disposable camera would not
    do much worse work than a 1000$ SLR. I mean, if you can't use it, and you don't
    make big prints, you don't zoom,... The type of camera you need depents on how
    you look at photography. I mean, there are quite an amount of people knowing
    nothing about photography having an SLR but just using it as a disposable
    camera, maybe not even knowing how to zoom! For them, in reality, the SLR is
    just biger and havier. I wouldn't like to be limited to a disposable camera, as
    I don't like being limited to the cameras I now have (still have to buy my first
    SLR :'(). When I didn't know what aperture was, I didn't really have a reason to
    buy a SLR, it would just have been bigger than my point and shoot. Now that I
    know what aperture is, and its influence on the photograph, and what shutter
    speed is,... this changes the picture. But if I hadn't been interested in
    photography as much as I am, and hadn't I read books on it and... I probably
    would never have had a reason to buy a SLR. Whats the use of a SLR if all you
    want to capture is a memory, a snapshot? And maybe you should find out what
    lomography is ;-) Its a completely different view on photography, and surely the
    result wont be as artistic, but is it a wrong view?
     
    Jan Keirse, Aug 2, 2003
    #13
  14. PCportinc

    Alan Browne Guest

    Within their limitations, they can take good photos. The point is they
    are severely limited, so can't be used over a wide variety of
    siturations. Try shooting a closeup, or a shallow depth of field
    shot....or a dozen other situations that require contol of the camera...
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 2, 2003
    #14
  15. His other camera is digital.
     
    drhowarddrfinedrhoward, Aug 2, 2003
    #15
  16. PCportinc

    stan Guest

    All the pros I know are going for them. Buy them by the case. Sell all
    the junk $1000 cameras and your golden. People are then more impressed
    with your photography. Not wowed with the latest dslr you bought. I think
    they have revolutionized the professional end of photography
    Stan
    Visual Arts Photography
     
    stan, Aug 2, 2003
    #16
  17. PCportinc

    Gordon Moat Guest

    One professional photographer uses these for almost all his work. His
    name is Terry Richardson. You can often find his work in The Face, Dazed
    & Confused, WYWS, Another, and similar lifestyle/music magazines.

    Just over a year ago, a book on Italy was published in which all images
    were captured using disposable cameras. The ideas of the photos, and
    some good editing, resulted in a very well put together book. While I do
    not recall that photographers name, the book was a good launch to a
    career for him.

    Basically, if you can do nice images with a disposable, almost any
    camera would work well. It is the idea and vision expressed in each
    image that creates interest, not the type of camera.

    However, disposable cameras are limited. At some point, you might find
    you outgrow their limits, and find a need for other ways to express your
    vision. Also, there are much better films available for regular cameras
    that are not available in disposable cameras.

    Photography has become an expensive hobby for some, but it does not need
    to be that way. There are many excellent low cost cameras, and some
    really low cost used gear. There are some great cameras from the 1970's
    and 1980's that you can get off EBAY for less than the shipping costs.

    I have a couple low cost cameras that I think are easy to carry, meaning
    I often have a camera with me. The camera you have is better than one
    left at home, or one you cannot afford. It is better to create photos,
    than to wish you had a better camera, so go out and take some photos.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>
     
    Gordon Moat, Aug 2, 2003
    #17
  18. PCportinc

    Dave Guest

    As I re-read my comment, I guess I was a little harsh. Just like those
    guys who shoot with the Holga, disposables have a following. Also, I think
    it takes special skill to get something out of a very limited camera. I
    obviously don't have the skill to get what I want out of a disposable, but
    skills would grow if I put the time into it. I have used various disposable
    waterproof cameras on canoe trips. I had major exposure problems, lots of
    trouble with flare, light fall-off, and lack of sharpness. For creative work
    that doesn't value those qualities I guess it would be fine.

    Dave
     
    Dave, Aug 2, 2003
    #18
  19. PCportinc

    Scott Guest

    Regardless of the positive / negative debate, 2 for 4$ ?? Never seen them
    that cheap around here.
     
    Scott, Aug 2, 2003
    #19
  20. PCportinc

    PCportinc Guest

    nd if you can't tell the
    I've never enlarged any photos taken with disposables. I get standard size
    photos which are the same quality as taken with SLRs. I did have a photo of me
    taken with a disposable with a cobra. I shall have it enlarged and will see.
     
    PCportinc, Aug 2, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.