Reviews of Disposable Cameras

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Greg Hansen, May 17, 2006.

  1. Greg Hansen

    Greg Hansen Guest

    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?
    Greg Hansen, May 17, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Greg Hansen

    Annika1980 Guest

    Is there a good source that discusses disposable cameras?

    I had a very good article about disposable cameras but I threw it away.
    Annika1980, May 17, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Greg Hansen

    Advocate Guest

    How long have you been waiting to use this pun?
    Advocate, May 17, 2006
  4. Greg Hansen

    Jeremy Guest

    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?
    Jeremy, May 17, 2006
  5. Greg Hansen

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    You can simply apply the word "mediocre" to all of them, and there'll be
    I have used disposables, there are times when having a 'valueless' camera is
    a major plus, sure the image quality with all of them is weak, but that
    doesn't mean they have no uses or cannot produce interesting photographs, I
    have submitted a few images to the Shoot-in that were made using Kodak
    Joseph Kewfi, May 17, 2006
  6. Greg Hansen

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, May 17, 2006
  7. Greg Hansen

    Joseph Kewfi Guest


    Yes, they're more interesting than your "sharp, technically correct"
    Joseph Kewfi, May 18, 2006
  8. Indeed. A friend of mine buys a bunch of them and throws them in a plastic
    bag. He takes them tubing down the Apple River in Somerset, WI. If anybody
    has been there, you would know why he wants to take pictures.
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 18, 2006
  9. Greg Hansen

    DunxUK Guest

    I agree. And since most of them out-perform the cameras used by Louis
    Daguerre let's agree all his images were worthless shite too. Why
    anyone used cameras before multicoating was perfected beggars belief!
    DunxUK, May 19, 2006
  10. Greg Hansen

    Jeremy Guest

    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.
    Jeremy, May 20, 2006
  11. Greg Hansen

    Greg Hansen Guest

    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
    Greg Hansen, May 20, 2006
  12. Greg Hansen

    DunxUK Guest

    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.
    DunxUK, May 20, 2006
  13. 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 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..!
    mark.thomas.7, May 20, 2006
  14. Greg Hansen

    Jim Guest

    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, May 20, 2006

  15. 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.
    Rusty Shakleford, May 21, 2006
    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.