It's About Time

The Phochron XA shutter tester and a Kodak Duex

In issue 3 of Monochrome Mania, I provided estimated shutter speeds for most of the cameras that I listed. At the time, I had not tested the speeds with my shutter tester - The Phochron  XA. I probably should have done so before publication, but it just didn't happen.  One of my readers asked me if I had checked the speeds or used the ones given in the literature. The ones provided in the various sources are what I used, because they are the benchmark numbers that provide a basis from which to work from.  I don't expect any of these cameras to have the same shutter speed across all examples.

Today, I went and tested a number of my toy cameras. I repeated each shutter activation 6-10 times, and got an average speed.  The numbers listed below don't mean that every example of a camera will have the same speeds, but you can compare what I found with the published speeds and go from there. All shutter speeds from my test are given as the average.

120 Cameras (Listed in the same order as in MM#3)

The Diana

DIANA

First up is the mighty Diana, and the shutter speeds of the original versus the Lomography Diana + are definitely different. The original Diana shutter speed was given at about 1/60, and the Diana + at 1/100 sec.  Here's what I found.

• Original Diana - 1/130 sec 
• Banier - Diana clone - 1/140 sec
• Diana + No. 1 - 1/72 sec 
• Diana + No. 2 - 1/190 sec

HOLGA

I realize that I didn't provide a shutter speed for the Holga, but it's considered to be about 1/100 sec.

• Holga 120N - 1/170 sec 
• Holga 120S No. 1 - 1/171 sec
• Holga 120S No. 2 - 1/155 sec

DEBONAIR 

The number typically given is 1/60 sec.  My example has an average speed of 1/36 sec.

Agfa Isola I

AGFA ISOLA I

The literature says the shutter speed is 1/30 sec.  Mine has a speed of 1/32 sec., which is certainly within the tolerances!

ANSCO SHUR SHOT 

The typical speed provided is about 1/35 sec.  My example has a shutter speed of 1/50 sec.

SPARTUS FULL-VUE

The shutter speed given is about 1/60 sec.  My example's shutter speed is 1/53 sec.

620 Cameras

ANSCO PANDA

The shutter speed given was 1/30 - 1/50 sec., and my example has a shutter speed of 1/35 sec.

KODAK BROWNIE BULL'S EYE

The instant shutter speed is supposed to be around 1/50 sec, and my example has a shutter speed of 1/38 sec.

KODAK DUAFLEX III

My Duaflex III witha Kodar lens has a shutter speed of 1/48 sec

KODAK DUEX 

The Duex shutter speed is supposed to be "about 1/30 sec," and my example's shutter speed was 1/66 sec.

Beacon 225

BEACON 225

My example of the Beacon 225 has a shutter speed of 1/60 sec.

IMPERIAL MARK XII

Posted shutter speeds are in the 1/30-1/60 sec range. My example has a shutter speed of 1/63 sec.

IMPERIAL SIX TWENTY

My example's shutter speed was 1/50 sec.

IMPERIAL REFLEX

I guess my example's shutter must be a bit fast, as the shutter speed was 1/106 sec.

Photak USC Reflex III

USC REFLEX III

My example of this camera has a shutter speed of exactly 1/60 sec.  

I did not test all of the cameras that are in Monochrome Mania, as some have film in them, and the construction of some makes it difficult to do a speed test.  Your examples my be different from what I found for my cameras, or they may be the same.  However, I think that even if they were fresh from the factory, there would still be variance in the shutter speeds. These are not precision cameras, so do not expect precise shutter speeds.  My biggest surprise was with the Diana and Holga cameras. I did not expect the Holga speeds to be over 1/150 sec, nor did I think that the Diana+ examples would be so different.  However, as I have said before, the variance in performance of those cameras makes them ideal candidates for owning several, as they seem to have individual character. 

The Magic and Allure of Toy Cameras

Just a few of the cameras in Monochrome Mania #3

If you have been following this blog for a while, you have probably seen a few recent posts about 620 and 120 low-fi cameras.  Whether you want to call them toy cameras, crappy cameras, low-fi cameras, or plastic fantastic wonders, is up to you. I’m sticking with toy cameras, because it’s a pretty simple term, but also a bit misleading.  To some, the "toy camera" conjures up a child’s toy that doesn’t really take photos, sort of like one of those Fisher-Price cameras with the rotating images.  That’s not what I am talking about here, or in my new issue of Monochrome Mania #3, "The Magic and Allure of Toy cameras." These are cameras that lack a lot of the controls that we typically use in our photography, or have at best, a reduced amount of functionality.  That puts box cameras, plastic brownies, Dianas, Holgas, faux-TLR Duaflexes, and a bunch of other simple cameras under that umbrella. That lack of precise control is what makes them alluring, and you can make magic with them. 

Some of the crowd that attended the 2007 Cheap Shots exhibit

The work for this latest zine actually started in 2007, when I typed up a partial manuscript for a book on toy cameras.  I had just hung my "Through A lens Softly" show at Pierpont Commons at the University of Michigan, and I was also in the planning stages of an exhibit by members of the Ann Arbor Crappy Camera Club, called "Cheap Shots." While I had been using a Holga since late 2001 and an original Diana a little after that, it wasn’t until the formation of the Ann Arbor Crappy Camera Club in 2006, that I really became encouraged by the use of these cheap cameras. Finding kindred souls just as the digital onslaught was underway was a propitious event that influenced my creativity and social circles.  While I am no longer living in Michigan, I still keep in touch with my Crappy Camera friends.

The many iterations of Kodak "Brownies" not all are 120/620.

The manuscript sat dormant until 2019. As COVID-19 eliminated many of the activities that I had planned, I knew that working on a toy camera issue for my new zine Monochrome Mania would occupy my time.  What I soon realized, was that if I was going to expand the selection of cameras, I needed to go on eBay and purchase camera models that I once owned so that I could photograph them as well as run film through them. At one time, I probably had well over 250 cameras in my house in Ann Arbor, and over the course of a decade, sold off a lot of the ones that I had lost interest in, were shelf queens, or were just unrelated to my photographic interests at the time. Luckily, the market for cheap Bakelite cameras is not an expensive one, and I was able to procure ones that I felt should be in the issue. I limited the scope to medium-format toy cameras for a reason -- 120 and 620 film cameras offer the largest negatives, and one gets all the benefits of cheap lenses. There are quite a few models to choose from, as well.  I left out 127 cameras even though there were hundreds of models made. The film just isn’t readily available, and that made little sense to include them. I do plan on doing a follow-up issue with 35mm toy cameras sometime in 2021.

I don’t know how many hours I spent on writing and rewriting the text for this issue, but the text went through several iterations, and several people received copies to read for any errors of fact and readability. My wife Adrienne is my copy editor and found places where I needed to be more clear.  I was also busy trying out cameras and re-spooling 120 onto 620 spools into October, before I felt that I had enough cameras to include in the issue. In searching for examples from the various models, I ended up going through all my filed negatives back to 2002. It turns out that I had scanned very few of those older negatives because I had made prints of some of them for shows, and the early work really pre-dated the explosion of social media. I found myself scanning in hundreds of negatives, and in doing so, found a good many excellent images that I had forgotten about. I realized that I had nearly 100 negative sheets from my Holgas alone. Another plus for film, as looking only for digital files would have been a real difficult task.

sample pages from MM #3

So, the issue "The Magic and Allure of Toy Cameras" is now available.  It contains reviews of over 20 cameras with historical information, tips on using them, how to modify them, and a multitude of images taken with these cameras.  Every camera reviewed is one that I have shot.  With over 100 figures, this zine is filled with photographs in its 36 pages.  I think it’s one of the best pieces of writing that I have done, and people that have already received a copy are really enthusiastic about it.   At $12 in the USA (which includes shipping) it’s one of the best bargains you’ll ever find.  

Erwin, TN, Spartus Full-Vue

You can order from my marketplace on Square -- links are to the right, and if you live outside of the USA, there are additional order options.  Like all of my issues of Monochrome Mania, this is a real, tangible, in-your-hands item. I do not offer digital versions. If you love film cameras, or know someone that does, this makes a great gift for yourself or others!

Imperial 620 camera

Is the Diana+ Glass Lens Worth It?

In 2015, Lomography introduced their 75 mm glass lens unit for the Diana+ series of cameras.  Like anything from Lomography, you have to wade through the hyperbole and decide if the latest and greatest thing from them is worth a dent in your checking account.  As lenses, go, it's relatively inexpensive - $49 from Lomography, and perhaps cheaper from resellers.   I acquired mine last year, and initially, I used it with the Diana to Nikon F-mount adapter.  Results were okay, and certainly better than the plastic meniscus Diana lens.  After all, the Diana + glass lens has three coated elements!  It's also a much better built unit than the plastic lens.  Everything about it seems to be more robust.   To use it, you unlock the plastic lens from the barrel, and replace it with the new lens.  Easy.  However, even with a 35 mm frame, you lose the vignetting effect that the lenses give on 120 film.  I finally replaced the old lens on my Diana+ with the new glass lens, and shot a roll with it a few weeks ago.   

I like the Diana+ Glass lens a lot.  I used the smaller frame mask in the camera, which is about 42 mm square, same as the original Dianas.  I did not see much vignetting, so the next roll will be used with the larger mask, to give a 46.5 mm square.  One of the things I enjoy about the Diana+ is its ease of use and versatility.  Lomography gets full marks for taking a fairly basic toy camera and making into a system.

Here are a few scans from the negatives. All but one are from the Vance Birthplace Historic Site near Weaverville, NC.  I used expired Kodak Tmax 400.  It had been a while since I had used the Diana+, and now it's back in my bag for more adventures. Is the Glass Lens worth it? I think so.  

on my deck.

Send in the Clones

Many people are familiar with the Diana Camera, that cheap 1960-70s plastic camera that was made to be a promotional gift/prize. However, as we now know, the camera became an icon of photographic artistry, as seen by David Featherstone's The Diana Show (1980, The Friends of Photography, ISBN 0-933286-17-1), and Nancy Rexroth’s book, Iowa (1975, reprinted 2017, University of Texas Press, ISBN 978-1-4773-1041-0).   The vignetting, aberration, and peculiarities that varied from camera to camera made the Diana a cult camera. While the Diana does feature some modest controls, its overall construction is fairly flimsy, and certainly not as well-constructed as the much-later Holga. To remedy some of the aberration from the cheap plastic lens, the film mask was made to be about 4 x 4 cm on 120 film. The bonus was that gave us 16 negatives from a roll. You’d think that such an inexpensive camera would be ignored for what it was, but instead, several companies made clones of the camera.

Hong Kong was the place where all the cheap cameras were made before China opened up to the World, and the Diana and subsequent clones, made in Hong Kong, represented the then lassiez-faire attitude towards copyright and trademarks. It’s possible that the same factory turned out most of the clones, but we’ll probably never know. The Great Wall Plastics Company in Hong Kong produced the Diana at least until about 1980, and it's safe to say that the concurrent clones probably lasted into the 1980s.

While not at all in the same league as the collectible fake Russian Leicas, there are a number of people that do collect the Dianas and the at least 70 named copies provide a lot to explore. Being cheap plastic, the cameras don’t sell for a whole lot. Of course, there are modern Dianas, the Diana +, made by Lomography, that took the original design and improved upon it, and these should not be confused with the Hong-Kong variants. Until the Lomography-made Diana + came out, vintage Dianas were selling for over $50. I remember an estate sale that I was helping with in 2007, and the deceased hoarder had plastic bags of unopened original Dianas that he picked up at flea markets, etc. We thought that was quite the find at the time.  A few years ago, my friend Marcy Merrill sent me a box of Diana clones that she picked up at a camera swap.     Not all of the clones are identical in performance. The Lina and the Pokey have only a shutter button, with molded plastic tabs on the lens barrel that are there only to give the appearance of other controls, taking the craptastic quality to an even lower level.

The original Diana (lower center) and clones. The 21st century Lomography Diana+
is right above the original.

What prompted this essay was my use of a Banier camera, so similar to the Diana, that it’s pretty much an exact copy. I had started a roll of vintage Verichrome Pan on it in 2018, and pulled it out of the drawer the other day and finished shooting the rest of the film. I developed the film in D-96 for 8 minutes, and the negatives came out very well. A few examples are shown below.

Bill Schwab (center), Photostock 2018

Saluda, NC 2020

Saluda, NC 2020

Fairview, NC, 2020

Saluda, NC 2020

If you are out shooting with a Diana or a clone  nobody will ever take you to be a serious photographer. However, as we know, it’s all in how you use the tools, and the Diana can be used to take some quite memorable and engrossing images.  The original Dianas are even better than the Holga if you want to pursue low-fi photography. As in "better", I mean more aberration, light leaks, and more “atmosphere.” The Diana + is certainly a better made and more reliable camera than the original, but it lacks the craptastic plastic uniqueness of the original.

There are still many of these clones on eBay, and because of the Lomography Diana + and Diana-mini (which can make 24mm square negatives on 35mm film), the prices of the clones vary greatly.  New Diana+ cameras sell for more, and the older clones and original Dianas sell from $10 and up.    To get an idea of the names of Diana  clones, check out http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Diana.

In short, there is a reason to use the Diana, and the results may be something that will lead you to explore how the camera affects not only the images you take, but the subsequent interpretation of them.  It's not always clarity of image that we  seek, but clarity of ideas, and the toy cameras can lead one down a path where reality is bent and shaped by a plastic lens.

Michigan State Fair, 2006

Protest, 2006

Black Rocks, 2007

flag, 2018

King Cone, 2006

Greenfield Village, 2008

Medium-Format Fisheye Fun

I have no doubt that there are "Lomography haters" out there, but whether one loves or doesn't love the Lomo folks, there is no denying that they have introduced some fun into film-based photography. I reviewed the new Diana+ quite a while ago, and yes, it's a cheap plastic camera, but I saw that they had cleverly added some features, such as the pin-hole and removable lens. Now, I see where their design has paid off. Back in October, I purchased the 20mm Diana Fisheye lens (as well as the Nikon SLR adapter, but that's another review) from Lomography online store. I felt it was a pretty cheap accessory with a potential big fun factor.

I give big kudos to the Lomography people for their colorful packaging and fun aspect of their products. Really, there is no understated yellow and black box here. The box contained the 20mm fisheye lens, a cleverly-designed accessory viewfinder, front and rear lens caps, a carry pouch, and instructions. The accessory finder easily attached to the Diana+ camera, as did the Fisheye lens. I suspect the finder is the same as the one on the 35mm Fisheye 2 camera. It gives a pretty good approximation of what you'll get with the new lens.



The lens close focuses to within a foot of the camera, which is pretty darn cool, though most of my shots have been made of subjects 2 meters or more from the camera.



OK, so it looks cool and funky, but how does it work? Let me first say that I think the image quality surpassed my expectations. Second, to get the full circular fisheye effect, you need to remove all the masks and shoot full-frame (12 exposures). Otherwise, the negatives will be cropped a bit. Third, this is a lot of fun to use.



I took a bunch of images back in mid-October, and these pumpkins were among my favorites. I took some shots for World Toy Camera Day, and this one of the top of the spillway at Barton Dam is kinda neat. You can see the bridge in the background.


The Diana Fisheye lens ought to be great for shooting in tight spaces. Sure you will get fisheye distortion, but if that effect appeals to you, then go for it!

Take in my garage at the studio night for the Ann Arbor Area Crappy Camera Club.

Overall, I would rate the 20mm fisheye as one of those accessories that justifies the purchase of a camera. There is no doubt that the Diana+ is a fun camera. But, having a circular fisheye image on 120 film is a real blast. I can't wait to make some darkroom prints from some of those shots.