Kodak Pony (Model C)

Hey yall!

A lot has changed since my last update here. We have relocated to Calgary where I am still in the IATSE 669 trainee program. So far so good. We are renting a lovely house and I have my own office/photo studio. Quasi photo studio. It's small and I don't have any strobes or anything but it's more than I had before!

The camera I'm reviewing today is the Kodak Pony, which I purchased at... you know what I don't even remember. It was either at the Vancouver Camera Show & Swap Meet or at a thrift store. Sorry. I'll edit this if it comes back to me.

Anyhow, this camera originally caught my attention due to its design and appearance. You can see in the photo it's got the classic Kodak post-war look going on. This is a model C so it has a shorter lens and faster shutter speeds than its predecessors, and the lens doesn't collapse into the camera.

One attractive thing about the camera is the interface. You can manually select focus (zone focusing), shutter speed and aperture (the iris has 6 blades, which is pretty fancy for a camera like this), and each f-stop is marked with the appropriate lighting conditions for either Kodachrome or Ektachrome film. It also has a shutter cock (but has a system in place to prevent double exposure) and a flash cable jack.

Let me sum this up: it's a pretty simple and light camera, but it's set up to do some more involved things, if you're so inclined. And as I said the iris is nicer than most viewfinder cameras, as are the lens and the shutter (1/300sec is pretty fast for this time/style). I think it's safe to conclude that this was intended to be a mid-range camera for the interested consumer. I would compare it to Canon's Rebel series today: not super expensive but not cheap either, and made for consumers who want more control than a point-and-shoot would offer.

To be honest, I wasn't overly thrilled with the results I got, but it should be noted that I was exposing without a meter (I use the sunny f16 rule which is based on my brain and eyeballs and is therefore SUPER accurate) and my model is a bit beat up. The photos I got look a lot like those from other viewfinder cameras I've used. That being said, the way the shallow focus falls off is really nice, and the lens is actually quite sharp. I was using cheapish colour film, too, so it might've performed better with some nice colour reversal or B&W film.

Have a look for yourself!

till next time

Dad's Lancer

About a year ago I loaded my dad's Ansco Lancer with some Efke R100 B&W 127 format film I got from Blue Moon Camera in Portland, OR. My original idea was to take some amazing photos, get them processed and framed and give them to him as a Christmas present. However, the processing and mailing back and forth of the film took a lot longer than I originally thought it would. And it was way more expensive. And most of the photos didn't turn out as well as I wanted them to.

Moral of the story: it's probably better to develop film yourself if it's a specialty format and you don't want to spend a lot of money.

The germ of the idea still resonates with me, even though my plan totally failed in every conceivable way.

There's something poetic about taking photos with old cameras that were intensely loved at one time. Since I don't make a lot of money, all the cameras I've collected have been gifts or heavily used. They're not worth as much as a mint model, but I don't mind. They've got more energy attached to them.

And I gotta say, even though my venture with my dad's camera was such an epic failure, my heart fluttered when I looked at my prints for the first time. Even though the photos are not that technically impressive, they have a texture of affection that some of my other photos are lacking. Just the fact that the Lancer's little unimpressive lens captured the feeling in the air on that autumn week is really magical to me.

Argus 75

Hello again!

I am starting a new rotation tomorrow so I probably won't be able to update for a little while. Here is my Argus 75, with my zoom groom and Generation X (any Coupland fans? I don't really get the appeal.)

This is a wonderful, beautiful camera, and I absolutely love it. It's also known as the Argoflex 75. Although this has a second lens, like a TLR, it is technically still just a box camera. See here for clarification. It only has two shutter speeds (instant/time) and you can't control the aperture or focus.

Also, the 75 is supposed to take 620 film, but it is very easy to load it with 120 without having to respool it. I just clipped the edges of the plastic spool so that it would fit the camera. It sounds sketchy but it worked fine... the only thing is that you have to be careful when unloading because the paper needs to be extra tightly wound to protect it from the light. It would be wise to store  the exposed film in the foil it came in after unloading until you get it to a lab. You'll see in my photos below that the frame numbers were imprinted on my negatives, but I think this is a symptom of thin lomography backing paper rather than clipping the spool, since this also occurred with my Agfa Clack.

Here is a video showing how to load the camera, although he seems to use an unclipped 120 spool.

One really amazing thing about this camera is the beautiful viewfinder. Because it's not a true TLR the viewfinder is incredibly bright. However, it's also not as accurate as a true TLR, and I think parallax may be an issue. My pictures turned out pretty alright despite that, though. The most difficult thing about using this camera was framing up and keeping the framing consistent while releasing the shutter (which takes a lot of pressure).

just look at how bright this is!

And here are the photos, taken with 100 ISO lomography film.

Minolta Autopak 470

So, I like toys as you can see.

I bought this camera for 10 bucks from a lady who helps people get rid of clutter by selling items for them. It's a 110 camera, which means it takes cartridge film which is 16mm wide and which is generally not available any more. Lomography has started making 110 film again but if you've read some of my other posts you might know that I have a beef with their company (although I keep giving them my money. urgh.) Despite this, you should probably consider the format dead (gasp).

Back in the 90s I used 110 film a lot in my Barbie camera. It was really easy to use because loading cartridges is a snap (ha...) and as you can imagine it was easy to go through a lot of film quickly. I'm not sure why it died out. As far as I can tell it's because the small negatives were harder to enlarge into good quality prints, and there were not a lot of good cameras made to use the film. Think about it like the Virtual Boy... maybe it was a good idea but not well executed, and they didn't release any big-name games for that console, dooming it forever.

I bought some Fuji 110 film off of ebay, and it was fine except that there is only one place in Vancouver that processes it. Furthermore, I asked for prints which ended up being very expensive because they have to scan each frame and print it out since they don't have the carriers for this size any more. You could always just ask for scans, but high quality ones that can be used for prints will still cost you.

If anyone knows a cost-effective way to shoot 110, please let me know. My developing tank only takes 135, 127 and 120 so I couldn't even do a B&W roll at home.

Anyway, this camera seems to have it all. Good optics, a built-in close-up lens, and a removable flash (which I don't have). Its exposure is automatic and it has zone focusing. Of course, it is also very small!

It might be my model, or maybe a combination of the model and my dumbassery, but I had a lot of trouble with this camera. The film advance is a moving piece of plastic which is sunken into the bottom of the camera, and which you push in to move to the next frame. For some reason, mine almost never worked right after taking a photo. It would jam, and then after walking around for a bit with it in my bag, it would work again.

The other thing is that the exposure and focus ended up being really wonky. I used 200 film so maybe it was designed to expose for 400 (very few 110 cameras were designed to detect a film's ISO from the cartridge). The focus may have been a fault on my part, maybe forgetting to double check the zone focusing or something, but in some of the photos it was so far off it doesn't make sense. Also a lot of them were taken in bright sun so the camera should be stopped down and be sharper. I don't know, man.

My overall experience with this one is that it has potential... but I probably won't use it again. My Olympus XA is smaller, lighter and more reliable. And then of course getting the 110 film developed was a whole other trial that I just don't think is worth the time or the money for me, as a girl who is just starting out and doesn't have a ton of expendable income.

You be the judge... These were taken on Fujicolor 200 ISO film, in and around Olympia, WA.

Agfa Clack

Why, hello! This post is about the Agfa Clack, which I saw once on Craigslist, missed out, and then hunted down on ebay because it is just too cute.

Camerapedia has a lot of good info on this camera. To paraphrase, it was cleverly designed with a curved back to get sharper photos despite its simple lens, so it was an inexpensive but good quality camera.

This was the first medium format camera I ever tried! It's a lot of fun and I want to do more... Maybe one day I'll get a big kid 120 camera and get the most out of the larger frame size. However, it has its complications like anything else.

Being cheap and lazy, I decided to buy lomography 120 film from Urban Outfitters instead of ordering some big kid film off the internet. That was a mistake. You'll see in my examples that the frame numbers got imprinted on the negatives. Since this didn't happen with my efke 127 film and I've read that it's a lomography-specific problem I think it's safe to assume that it's because the backing paper on the film is too thin. I've read that lomography 120 film is just rebranded film from other producers but they must put different backing paper on it, so let that be a lesson.

As for the camera's performance, I am really quite pleased with it. When you take the picture, just like with other box cameras, there's no fanfare or hurrah when you release the shutter. So when I got the pictures back I was pleasantly surprised that the photos were pretty sharp, pretty interesting, and maybe there was a little hurrah, just a little quiet one I couldn't hear. And NO I am not on drugs. It's really too bad about the backing paper though.

The Clack has a shutter speed of around 1/30 so 50 ISO film is best. Use a tripod! I took these with 100 ISO lomography film. Not sure what producer makes the film; sorry.

holy lens flare!

Nikon F80

Forgive me, Nikon gods, for the cat hair which I only now see is on my camera...

Seriously though... there has been a serious lack of Nikon content on my blog. I don't really have a leaning either direction in the Canon/Nikon debate, since I use both pretty regularly. That being said, Nikon has done a lot to deserve the respect and fierce loyalty that its fans give it.

Take the F80, for example. Automatic film SLRs don't necessarily need a lot of bells and whistles. For some, all you really need is something that will be easy to use and have a good meter.

I am not a professional and was not using SLRs until the digital revolution, so I didn't follow the changes from model to model. However, I have used both manual and automatic SLRs, both heavy metal and lighter plastic camera bodies, and both Nikon and Canon SLRs of all kinds, for consumer/hobby-level photography.

The F80 compares to other cameras I've used as one of the most pleasant and easy SLRs to operate. I used it exclusively in AE/AF mode, using a Nikkor 28-80mm 1:3.3-5.6 zoom. The exposure and focus all turned out perfect every time, which of course you should expect but every camera is different. I really enjoyed taking it to Edmonton last summer because I could just hand it off to other people to take pictures and I wouldn't have to give them a 5-minute lecture on how to use it. It looks just like a DSLR and on fully auto it works like a point and shoot but one with a much better lens.

In short, for someone who wants a fairly good, but light and simple-to-use camera, the F80 is a solid choice. It would probably be disappointing for big-time pros, but for me it did what it needed to do, and  did it exceedingly well. The advantage of using an automatic SLR over a point and shoot is, of course, a wide array of beautiful Nikon glass to choose from, and you'll still have your other modes if you need more creative freedom.

Ken Rockwell reviewed the F80 (aka the N80) and has all the juice on it from when I was too young to appreciate the finer points of serious photography: please read the review here!

These were taken in Edmonton in the summer of 2012. I forget which film I used... but I will add it on here the next time I dig out the negatives.

Polaroid Colorpack IV

Here is the lovely Colorpack IV Land Camera! I received this from a friend whose parents heard that I collect cameras. It's not in the best shape, and this takes pack film rather than your regular Polaroid/Impossible cartridge, so I have not tested it. However, it's pretty rad looking, and it came with a case and all the manuals, so it's still a great gift.

This camera was produced late 60s/early 70s, takes 100 or 3000 ISO pack film, and has a "cold clip"-- a metal sleeve you can warm up in your armpit to develop your photo in if it's cold out.

Here are some resources:
100-type Polaroid cameras - The Impossible Project
How to use this little guy

Oddly enough, Fuji is still making 100-type film and you can buy it at B&H and other such places.

Again, I haven't tested it but the pack film look seems really unique and beautiful: check out this flickr series done with the Fuji 100 ISO pack film on a Polaroid Colorpack II. It's really quite lovely.

Researching for this post really makes me want to get this thing to work. Back to sanding those battery contacts...