Walmart’s Simple 35mm onn. Camera
I confess, I made a trip to WalMart- that store that just sucks the life out of you. I had to, so that I could acquire one of the cheapest simple-use 35mm cameras available. After seeing photos of the onn. camera online, I decided that it was time to give one the Random Camera Blog test. So, I went and bought it for $19.98, and the best thing is that includes a 27 exposure roll of ISO 400 color film. So really, the camera is something like $13 + plus the $6.98 for a roll of film. All good, I suppose, considering that cheap Kodak M35 is over $40, and that’s without film. This is what I thought BEFORE seeing the results, so read further.
What’s in the box - a well-packaged camera, with the roll of film inside but not yet loaded onto the take-up spool, a lanyard for carrying, and a brief printed manual. There’s also a QR code to see an online version of the manual. It appears that onn makes other cheap digital devices and accessories, and they are based in China.
Camera features:
- 28mm f/8 lens - focuses from 1 meter to infinity
- 1/120 sec shutter speed
- thumbwheel film advance
- rewind crank recessed into take-up side
- optical viewfinder
- on/off switchable flash
The 27 exposure roll of film was in one of the newer 2-piece plastic cassettes that we’ve been seeing from a number of sources, especially Lomography. Of course, I was curious to know exactly what that 400 iso film was.
I shot with the camera over a couple of days - mostly in downtown Asheville and Weaverville. That’s the beauty of a little point and shoot camera - it can be put in a pocket and ready for use at any time. After I shot the roll, I dropped it off at Ball Photo for development. I picked up developed the film and was rather surprised to find that the roll was not typical C-41 color print film, but Eastman 5207 - also known as Vision III 250D. Of course, the remjet had been removed prior to spooling the film. First, the rounded sprocket holes indicated it was a cine film, and the film rebate told the rest. Normally, I would not have a problem with using 250D, but in this instance, it was advertised as 400 ISO film, and as I saw on the film scans, a true 400 ISO film would have been preferred. What I don’t know is how fresh that 250D is, as the film base looked more magenta than I remembered.
Oh, the scans…. I scanned this roll with my Epson V700, like I have for hundreds of rolls, and I have to say, this film is expired. The images were muddy, and every single exposure, even those in bright sun, needed adjustments and correction.
Here is a selection of images from the roll:
this one had fade correction applied in addition to the usual adjustments |
Objects that were about 10 feet away or so seemed to be the sharpest. Now, at this point, the acrylic lenses in simple-use cameras have been around for a long time, and the manufacturer went to extra trouble to make the lens on this camera subpar. Maybe it’s the f/8 aperture, but to be honest, that should also have resulted in sunny exposures to be brighter. Compounded with the outdated 250D film, what I ended up with was disappointing. You need to have slightly lower standards of expectation for a simple-use camera, but this one even failed to meet that.
I would not even recommend this as a gift to someone wanting to start out with a simple to use film camera. They will be disappointed.
So, save yourself $20 and DO NOT BUY THIS CAMERA!
Addendum, 02/11/24
In my Instagram post about this camera, it was pointed out to me that the film has the date 2023 - which I had overlooked, so the film isn't outdated. The same person from Reflx_Lab also stated that the weird color was probably due to an improper treatment to remove the remjet layer. Because the "remjet layer was removed, and C-41 process used, the ISO is higher - 400." I still stand behind my statement that the 250D is NOT a 400 ISO film, no matter what process was used. Whoever is filling those film canisters with 250D and not using a true ISO 400 film is shortchanging the customer.
1 comment:
Thanks Mark for taking the time and cash to review this dubious camera. I think sometimes bloggers forget that negative reviews are just as valuable to the photo community as the highly positive reviews. I have seen many positive reviews in comment sections but without many examples attached so who knows what motivated their positive reviews. Your film being fried seems a common experience. Being one of the biggest retailers, I wish Walmart would have a better option as many first time buyers will encounter this camera and get turned off by it. I know the allure of just sharp in the middle and soft vignetted corners, but this just does not seem to even supply that. Another option I often see that people want reviewed is sold at Five Below - it is so bad that I would say don't bother with that one. And the film they sell being $5.50 for 10 exposures! Everyone should just go to a thrift store and buy a decent p&s. Or get the Reto Ultra Wide and Slim which runs circles around this. And they aren't even this expensive if you look around a bit. Or get one of the decent Ilford/Kodak models.
Post a Comment