Saturday, February 10, 2024

Don't waste $20 on an onn. camera

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:

DaveW said...

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.