Single use cameras. Are there any good(ish) ones?



T

Tim Downie

Guest
I'm taking part in a race in April and I'd like to take a disposable camera with me. Are any brands
better (or "less bad") than others?

It's going to be used to photograph the Speyside Way en-route. Should I consider a disposable
panoramic camera?

TIA

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email. Please support rheumatoid arthritis research! Visit
http://www.justgiving.com/pfp/speyside or http://www,justgiving.com/speyside if you're a UK
tax payer.
 
"Tim Downie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm taking part in a race in April and I'd like to take a disposable
camera
> with me. Are any brands better (or "less bad") than others?
>
> It's going to be used to photograph the Speyside Way en-route. Should I consider a disposable
> panoramic camera?
>
> TIA
>
> Tim

I've had good results from both Fuji and Kodak disposable cameras. The Fuji underwater camera was
very good, and might be handy if it rains? It also takes decent images when not in water. When I say
good images, they're as good as images I've seen from cheap normal film cameras, especially for the
price (£5-£10?)! Obviously, I'm not saying that they're as good as images from an expensive D-SLR
cameras or anything, but you know what I mean.

Good luck!

Ste
 
Tim Downie wrote:

> I'm taking part in a race in April and I'd like to take a disposable camera with me. Are any
> brands better (or "less bad") than others?

I'm probably biased, but I seriously doubt that any disposable camera is worth using if you want
half decent photographs. If you want reasonable quality at the cheapest price, why not buy a 35mm
compact? They're dirt cheap now, even with a zoom lens, and they're very small and light. For the
price the quality is way better than any digital camera. You can get zoom compacts for as little as
£50. Plenty of waterproof models too.

> It's going to be used to photograph the Speyside Way en-route. Should I consider a disposable
> panoramic camera?

Disposable panoramic? Never heard of them. Any more details?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
From what I've seen, a disposable beats the pants off digital at twenty time
the price. But then that's not necessarily the point. Being able to take a
decent number of pictures on one set of batteries might be, though.
ste mc © <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tim Downie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> berlin.de...
> > I'm taking part in a race in April and I'd like to take a disposable
> camera
> > with me. Are any brands better (or "less bad") than others?
> >
> > It's going to be used to photograph the Speyside Way en-route. Should I consider a disposable
> > panoramic camera?
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > Tim
>
> I've had good results from both Fuji and Kodak disposable cameras. The
Fuji
> underwater camera was very good, and might be handy if it rains? It also takes decent images when
> not in water. When I say good images, they're as good as images I've seen from cheap normal film
> cameras, especially for
the
> price (£5-£10?)! Obviously, I'm not saying that they're as good as images from an expensive D-SLR
> cameras or anything, but you know what I mean.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Ste
 
Paul Saunders wrote:
> Tim Downie wrote:
>
>> I'm taking part in a race in April and I'd like to take a disposable camera with me. Are any
>> brands better (or "less bad") than others?
>
> I'm probably biased, but I seriously doubt that any disposable camera is worth using if you want
> half decent photographs. If you want reasonable quality at the cheapest price, why not buy a 35mm
> compact?

Mostly weight. It's a 50K race and I'm not planning on carrying too much. I've already got a drawer
full of 35mm compacts but they're all heavier than plastic disposables. I also might lose or drop it
on the way. There is also a small APS camera kicking around but it's not wide-angle.

> They're dirt cheap now, even with a zoom lens, and they're very small and light.

But I don't want a zoom. I'd rather have a true wide-angle lens.

> For the price the quality is way better than any digital camera. You can get zoom compacts for as
> little as £50. Plenty of waterproof models too.
>
>> It's going to be used to photograph the Speyside Way en-route. Should I consider a disposable
>> panoramic camera?
>
> Disposable panoramic? Never heard of them. Any more details?

Well, I was asking around today and it would seem that there are several disposable "panoramic"
cameras available, but they're all APS ones that only crop a standard focal length image.

For an example of what I'd really like see:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=details&sku=KCDCWF

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email. Please support rheumatoid arthritis research! Visit
http://www.justgiving.com/pfp/speyside or http://www,justgiving.com/speyside if you're a UK
tax payer.
 
Tim Downie wrote:
> I'm taking part in a race in April and I'd like to take a disposable camera >> with me. Are any
> brands better (or "less bad") than others?

In the USA Kodak do, or did market a single use camera with a particularly good lens. It
sells/sold at a premium price but the results are/were noticeably better than those from lesser
single use cameras.

I don't know if it ever made it to the UK.
 
Mark Dunn wrote:

> From what I've seen, a disposable beats the pants off digital at twenty time the price.

But not at 200 times the price! ;-)

> But then that's not necessarily the point. Being able to take a decent number of pictures on one
> set of batteries might be, though.

Yes, that's an issue for long trips, as is storage space. Canon reckon on 450-600 shots with one
lithium battery (G3, 300D etc) even with use of LCD (but not too much use as I discovered one
weekend). Even if the battery lasted that long I'm currently limited to only 100 or so shots in RAW
mode with 768 meg of memory. Although I'd prefer to avoid fragile microdrives, they're pretty cheap
now and a 1 gig microdrive would give me an extra 140 shots for those longer trips.

Anyone know the best place for flash cards and microdrives at the cheapest prices?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
Supplementary question.

Has anyone any experience with any "true" wide angle disposables? (As opposed to the cropped
panoramic APS format cameras).

A quick google turned up this:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=details&sku=KCDCWF

I haven't found it in the UK yet and $32 dollars for shipping is a bit steep.

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email. Please support rheumatoid arthritis research! Visit
http://www.justgiving.com/pfp/speyside or http://www,justgiving.com/speyside if you're a UK
tax payer.
 
Tim Downie wrote:

>> why not buy a 35mm compact?
>
> Mostly weight. It's a 50K race and I'm not planning on carrying too much. I've already got a
> drawer full of 35mm compacts but they're all heavier than plastic disposables.

True, but are a few ounces that critical? My tiny Olympus XA weighs only 225g, just double the
weight of the 113g disposable you mention below. Is 4 extra ounces that big a deal? (4 extra ounces
for an excellent quality camera in this particular instance)

> But I don't want a zoom. I'd rather have a true wide-angle lens.

The XA has a 35mm lens I think, there's a different XA model with a 28mm lens.

> Well, I was asking around today and it would seem that there are several disposable "panoramic"
> cameras available, but they're all APS ones that only crop a standard focal length image.

So they're not really panoramic then. Technically the Fuji 617 isn't panoramic either when used with
a standard focal length lens. They should specify "panoramic format" as opposed to true panoramic.

> For an example of what I'd really like see:
>
> http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=details&sku=KCDCWF

Looks very nice, especially if it really is a 17mm lens. Probably horribly soft in the corners
though, with ghastly grain from the ISO 800 film included. Pity you can't get a proper compact with
a lens like that, it would be a shame to throw it away after use.

But again, if it's designed to be thrown away, the lens is going to be **** anyway. It's really a
question of how much you value image quality, and I'm not talking about great quality compared to
average, I'm talking about mediocre (cheap compact) compared to atrocious (throwaway - quite
literally).

But as I said, I'm probably biased.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:41:06 -0000, Paul Saunders wrote:

>Mark Dunn wrote:
>
>> From what I've seen, a disposable beats the pants off digital at twenty time the price.
>
>But not at 200 times the price! ;-)
>
>> But then that's not necessarily the point. Being able to take a decent number of pictures on one
>> set of batteries might be, though.

The limiting factor with a disposable is one roll of film. The major advantage of a disposable is
light weight, there's not much more to them than a box with a lens and film in it.
>
>Yes, that's an issue for long trips, as is storage space. Canon reckon on 450-600 shots with one
>lithium battery (G3, 300D etc) even with use of LCD (but not too much use as I discovered one
>weekend). Even if the battery lasted that long I'm currently limited to only 100 or so shots in RAW
>mode with 768 meg of memory. Although I'd prefer to avoid fragile microdrives, they're pretty cheap
>now and a 1 gig microdrive would give me an extra 140 shots for those longer trips.
>
>Anyone know the best place for flash cards and microdrives at the cheapest prices?

Did you know about this gizmo that copies the contents of a memory card to CD-R?

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/disc_steno.html

There is a new version (CP-200) that will span cards over the capacity of a single CD-R over
multiple discs and play DVDs and the images on CD-R through a TV.

See also http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/wilderness.shtml
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
 
Phil Cook wrote:

> The limiting factor with a disposable is one roll of film. The major advantage of a disposable is
> light weight, there's not much more to them than a box with a lens and film in it.

True. Surely it shouldn't be too difficult to design a reusable lightweight box with a lens that you
can put multiple rolls of film into. Smaller than existing compacts I mean.

> Did you know about this gizmo that copies the contents of a memory card to CD-R?
>
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/disc_steno.html

I didn't. Sounds interesting. Not sure I'd want to carry one of those plus blank CDs though.
Probably good when car camping but doesn't appeal to me for backpacking.

> See also http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/wilderness.shtml

A bit more adventurous that my short trips. A few flash cards would probably suffice for me, and
affordable instead of the CD writer. Perhaps the CD writer would be good for a longer trip with
occasional visits to the car (i.e. camp wild for a few days, drive to a different spot, camp wild
there for a few days, etc.).

Or buy a camper van and a laptop!

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
Paul Saunders wrote:
> Tim Downie wrote:
>
>>> why not buy a 35mm compact?
>>
>> Mostly weight. It's a 50K race and I'm not planning on carrying too much. I've already got a
>> drawer full of 35mm compacts but they're all heavier than plastic disposables.
>
> True, but are a few ounces that critical?

When you've run 50k, come back and tell me whether you'd rather carry a 4oz or an 8oz camera. ;-)

Regards,

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email. Please support rheumatoid arthritis research! Visit
http://www.justgiving.com/pfp/speyside or http://www,justgiving.com/speyside if you're a UK
tax payer.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Downie <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Mostly weight. It's a 50K race and I'm not planning on carrying too much. I've already got a
>>> drawer full of 35mm compacts but they're all heavier than plastic disposables.
>>
>> True, but are a few ounces that critical?
>
>When you've run 50k, come back and tell me whether you'd rather carry a 4oz or an 8oz camera. ;-)

How about an Olympus MjuII at 135g (+ film and a CR123A battery)? It's very small, doesn't need a
separate case, and has a fast 35mm lens.

Richard.
 
> > But then that's not necessarily the point. Being able to take a decent number of pictures on one
> > set of batteries might be, though.
>
> Yes, that's an issue for long trips, as is storage space. Canon reckon on 450-600 shots with one
> lithium battery (G3, 300D etc) even with use of LCD (but not too much use as I discovered one
> weekend). Even if the battery lasted that long I'm currently limited to only 100 or so shots in
> RAW mode with 768 meg of memory. Although I'd prefer to avoid fragile microdrives, they're pretty
> cheap now and a 1 gig microdrive would give me an extra 140 shots for those longer trips.
>
> Anyone know the best place for flash cards and microdrives at the cheapest prices?
>
> Paul

Buy a Muvo2. Best way to get a 4GB Hitachi Microdrive for $200.

Eric
 
> Yes, that's an issue for long trips, as is storage space. Canon reckon on 450-600 shots with one
> lithium battery (G3, 300D etc) even with use of LCD (but not too much use as I discovered one
> weekend). Even if the battery lasted that long I'm currently limited to only 100 or so shots in
> RAW mode with 768 meg of memory. Although I'd prefer to avoid fragile microdrives, they're pretty
> cheap now and a 1 gig microdrive would give me an extra 140 shots for those longer trips.
>
> Anyone know the best place for flash cards and microdrives at the cheapest prices?
>
> Paul

BTW there are multiple versions. You want the 4GB version of this

http://us.creative.com/products/product.asp?category=3&subcategory=20&product=8980
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back