|
Silly Cameras II: The Endless Journey....
I suppose it’s the incredible devaluation. ... I can understand why old film cameras are worthless — those that aren’t actually treasured antiquities — ’cause digital’s so inherently cheaper/better for most purposes. ... But why today’s digital should be so expensive compared to last decade’s — that I still regard as a sacred mystery beyond human understanding, even as I reap the incalculable benefits in ridiculously cheap & cute cameras from the fabled era.
|
The others: DSLR (used canons) Silly cameras I II III IV V VI VII VIII Canon SX20 IS A Bag The Broken SX30 Lumix F27 Canon G1 Olympus sp310 Sony Mavica FD71 & 75 & FD7! Canon A75 Gossen Luna-Pro Kodak EZ Scam Canon G2
6/2/17.
Another day, another silly camera:
the 6/02
Casio 4mp QV-R4
3x zoom. ... I got it for $6 at a junk mart, with a
generic hard-shell
case
and a warning that the battery door was broken. Harshly, I at first
rejected it — but I was wrong,
because it’s one of those rechargeable
doors, which just keeps the bugs out of the compartment or something;
the battery is held-in
with a
tough plastic lever. So I went back and
splurged, got it home, and it didn’t work. ... As
advertised, it
came
with
a charger, which took one look at the included li-on NP-30 battery,
lit-up
for a minute or so, and then extinguished into darkness. I think that
means the battery’s gershtunk — it’s not as if the junk
store promised
a working
battery — so I
spent another $6 to get a plausible
replacement at amazon. ... Oh, I think I see: the seller might’ve
conscientiously
thought the
broken
door had something to do
with
the broken battery....
6/5/17.
And it works! Beautiful pictures. Well, a little greeny, but easily
fixed
in psp9’s 1-step fix.
... Now I will
ponder in the days and
years ahead some cunning trick to make the broken door pretend to be
whole. ... And eventually arrived at the blue
tape
solution. ... So this
and this
report a $499 list price back in the day. ... But way further back in
the
day
I
paid an actual
$513.15 for a much
lesser casio.
Broken Doors: The Blue Tape Solution (?)As I was pondering how to make my QRV4 broken battery door not dangle embarrassingly, I settled for a little while on scotch tape, but then realized “painters” masking tape was much more appropriate — it’s supposed to come off easily, and the effect provides a cheery stigmata of defect, which is much more in the silly camera spirit. ... Specifically “Scotch-Blue Painter’s Tape for Multi-Surfaces #2090”. ... First I used it on the QVR4’s battery door which isn’t actually under any pressure; but then I found that it would withstand springey batteries, too! — particularly after abusive screwdriver treatment. ... For cameras with broken doors where the film is in the same compartment as the batteries, it’s particularly klujey — but even then, the point is, the tape comes off and goes back on pretty good! Googling “fixing broken battery door” I actually found a seemingly-useful & obvious suggestion, which is to use the tripod mount fixture to screw a metal plate there ... & it would look so admirably bailing-wire/chewing gum. ... But in most cases, the blue tape is obviously superior, and my one tripod mount attempt was not inspiring....
... But then again, as the world turned and owenlabs technologies marched on, the ultimate dodgy trick seems to be the cable-tie.... |
... On the back, the CX7530 has a prominent “share” LED/button, denoting the unspeakable menace I’ve already encountered with fear & loathing on my Kodak Z990. The estimable dpreview.com in a “Throwback Thursday” article about a silly Sony camera admits Kodak was there first with this icky-poo proprietary share c--p, although the Sony system is doubtless even more idiotic/fraudulent. ... But the CX7530, like my dubious zoomer Z990 for that matter, is amazingly free of Sony’s typical proprietary battery/film scammery, although I admit I’ve only come to appreciate that fully in my senescence, with the beloved silly cameras.... |
It’s a film camera with computery features: motorized zoom, LCD, auto exposure etc. — a popular format, at least judging by the drifting wreckage in the junk stores. ... It was gershtunk; not that I could tell before I tried it, but I actually paid my $3 ’cause the generic soft case looked like it’d be a good fit for my beloved A650, and so it was, but the plastic bag also included some presumably-stale lithium 3 volt batteries which might come in handy someday — not the CRV3 of the scammy sp310 below — and an unopened 3-pack of the presumably proprietary advantix film cartridges, sell-by 2013, which will never see the light. And an incoherent instruction manual. ... Kodak actually advises us to use a little plastic something on the camera strap — not included in my pitiful remains — for pressing some of the very teeny tiny buttons.
|
1/10/18. And then another! With a broken door, but only $2 ... but probably too much; not quite dead as a door nail — the power LED lights, but nothing else. ... Ah well; perhaps the "Time of Plenty" is only the time of closet-cleaning.... |
The Dead
|
... Then I thought the ultra zoom was bad, but apparently I just wasn’t patient enough when I told the fully-extended zoom to go back; it seems to return after I hold the thing for two or 3 seconds, and always works @ power-off, so I assume it’s just some super-talented Olympus design/programming. And this guy complains about “Occasionally sluggish zoom response”. ... But I have taken a picture! After dousing the tiny fingers of the xD card with deoxit and rubbing it a bit, but at last I have done so and could read it with my xD-qualified multicard reader, and another silly camera triumphantly joins the fray. ... This review says it had a “$499 Est. Street Price”, so I obviously made out like a bandit anyway.... Aquisition PoliciesThe acquisitions policies of the silly camera collection may need review. ... The truth is, I buy Olympus cameras because they’re so scammy, at least the proprietary digital film is outstandingly so. ... But I get Canon cameras, & some others, ’cause they’re so cute, and so cheap in these degraded latter days. ... Both, of course, make beautiful pictures. And surely it counts for something that the silly camera collection now has two generations of Olympus film scammery! Renunciation& then one bright junk store morning — well, really, it was drizzling — I actually passed-over a 1.3mp Olympus. Which, to be sure, was priceless, but I didn’t even inquire, even with its enticing original box. ... And if Olympus is scammy — well, one of the sparkling highlights of the entire silly camera cameras, especially the grand DSLR itself, is the relentless decades-long scammery. ... Which leads-in perfectly to ...
But all is not lost; the camera does use proprietary xD film, and I examined it and discovered four typical junk store pictures, suggesting an obviou$ solution to the BATTERY EMPTY problem: brand new batteries. ... Every 3 or four pictures, no doubt — well they’ve lasted a few weeks at least. ... The web was full of Olympus BATTERY EMPTY stories, and one fellow had a video where he poked-up the little tabs on his battery door, which supposedly made his Olympus behave. And I tried that, but no dice. ... 7/17/17: BATTERY EMPTY again. Eleven pictures, 5 weeks. Olympus scores! ... And now I get to try out my rechargeable CRV3! ... Which worked great. Although the date/time of course required setting; maybe I wasn’t fast-enough.... The remaining puzzle for the silly camera enthusiast is, how’d Olympus work the scam? Since the CRV3 isn’t proprietary? ... Right, they must've supplied the camera with two low-rent alkaline AAs wrapped in cellophane, what’d eke out a picture or two. And the joyous retailers’d sell a “pro” “kit” with a CRV3 recharger, and maybe somehow Olympus horned-in on that? You know, “Official Olympus Rechageable CRV3”? — but no, probably not in 2005. ... But after all, the pitiful camera enthusiast’s getting ripped with the xD film; why shouldn’t he have to buy an expensive battery a week after the purchase? ... And there's even more! — DPreview explains the sp310 shipped without film; it has built-in memory for a few pictures. Which, actually, might've required less power. ... I remember in those distant days I would be so furious when they expected me to buy digital film also — and my innocent ignorant outrage wasn’t so spurious. ... But oh golly, the sp310’s got raw! ... Be still my heart. ... And then I realized I’d neglected the olympus viewer program, which I downloaded from here — search for “olympus viewer”; they wanted my camera’s serial number. Although the free Rawtherapee sees ’em good. And the sp310 takes forever to record the raw. ... But while I was perusing the dubious raw images, I noticed for the first time the seller — or perhaps some innocent passerby — had recorded a tiny movie, of a girlfriend presumably, hiding her face. Touching, really.... But be still, anyway; my heart is glad when the pitiful little machines light-up, even Olympii. ... No matter how stupid/fraudulent. ... And at least it was only $24 (?) at the Purgatory Emporium. 7/8/18. On the occasiona of the successor maybe-working-battery SP320, I turned-on the 310 — which, in the interim, I had equipped with a rechargeable NiMH CRV3-style battery — and it was working great, full green battery. Yesterday. Today, I took the battery out to check what it was, put it back in, and the BATTERY EMPTY mesage marched on. Until I gave it another fully-charged CRV3. I suppose it "works" ... just the battery indicator is certified c--p. And probably neither 310 or 320 actually works with alkaline AAs.... |
The google images I found seemed to minimize
its
“cameraness”,
but I think my
picture But it doesn’t really warm the heart like my smaller less-threatening Canons. The Canon “G” series was apparently intended to be the next-to-the-DSLR camera, which is positive in itself inasmuch as it doesn’t have the ridiculous mirror & mechanical shutter. But it was supposed to be a $tep up from the crummy point ’n’ shoots, and I am anti-fancy and pro-cheap; I want reg’lar hum-drum cameras what the commoners use. ... In summary, the G3’s a fine historical addition to the silly camera collection, but maybe not silly enough. ... Although lookee here in the "Shutter type" it says "Mechanical and Electronic" my emphasis, and I've apparently missed this exciting detail on some other early silly cameras and I am covered with shame.... |
It
was $449 retail in 2003; it was probably $12 (?) at the Buchanan VA
Purgatory
Emporium
where, oddly, I apparently also bought the sp310
—
I’m just guessing the wretched sp310 is the $24 one on
the Purgatory receipt |
6/17/17. And it is whole again. The old battery — which was a replacement, like mine — I thought was dead, but the new battery seems to work fine and the camera lights-up and everything. It is wondrous & dubious: a perfect silly camera. ... Some web chit chat alleged low light was horribly noisy, but I’ll never tell. ... On the other hand, the camera politely demands that I take the lens cover off when I’ve left it on, unlike my zoomer which rudely complains when I stupidly leave it on, and shuts down. ... The F27’s great claim to fame was the fabulous Leica lens which us pitiful photo fan children were supposed to drool over.... So the seller must’ve lost the charger, ’cause the dead Li-on battery it came with seemed to charge up eventually in my replacement charger, ’though it took longer than the two Li-ons that came with the charger — which presumably still had some “factory” charge. ... Subsequent endless turmoil revealed the original battery was defective — it recharges to green OK, but does it in 20 minutes or so, and in the camera shows a low battery. ... Thus the “AS IS” is just honesty, not a cry of scorn at the discarded treasure. ... And I got a wondeful bargain! ... Although it’s true the amazon used page today has the f27 with a charger and original box for $22.04; the next item is the same price without a charger or anything. & TIF!... And after months, I noticed that while the F27 doesn't have raw, it's got TIF, giant uncompressed images even better. And it is vast: a 6mp picture is ~18Mb of TIF — 'jes like like the holy raw! |
|
|
|
My FD71 pictures are kind-of dim — nothing my PSP9 one-step photo fix can’t deal with, but I suppose I’ll tinker with the thing a bit and see. ... So there’s a “brightness” control and turning it all the way up makes the LCD look bright, but the pictures remain the same. The admirable FD71 might be defective; but I doubt it — Sony defects tend to be much more noticeable/destructive, like my video camera that, if you were foolish-enough to turn it off without removing the battery, would rise up in the night and attempt to destroy your 8mm tape cartridge, if not the camera itself, by peremptorily ejecting it. ... Ah but it’s the foto fan who’s defective! I broke down and read the manual, and the brightness control’s for the LCD of course! If I want to change the exposure, I do something with the arrow keys.... EaseBut I must admit, cavorting here with my FD71, I just take a picture and then pop the floppy and look at it on my USB floppy drive — it’s really much more convenient than most of the other cameras. Although I suppose leaving an SD reader plugged-in — i.e., like the floppy — and dealing with the camera’s SD/CF card is almost as good — although only if the camera has a separate door for the film card. ... Like the FD71 has, of course, for its floppy drive. Darkness & the Ćsthetical MacAnd even with an EV (exposure value?) of +1.5 the FD71
pix aren’t that bright — but this was as it was of old, even
with the Canons
— same symptoms, bright OK on the LCD but image actually darkish.
...
And
now in these latter days it occurs to me that it could’ve been the
Macintosh,
which once upon a time had a ridiculous gamma
setting or
something |
Date/Time... But I suppose if I'm becoming a Mavica specialist I should buy a spare battery. And so I did and got a vast 2500mAh replacement which accordingly took more than four hours to charge! And during all the excitement I discovered the charming Mavica date/time cannot be set to an afternoon time! So I must set the clock in the morning! ... Just another crack quality feature of what was once ballyhooed, in a time beyond recall, as the wonderful Japanese-American company. ... Judging by the diskettes left with these things, nobody ever bothered anyway ... but perhaps this's why. Further joyous investigation revealed that it's far worse: it somehow remembers it was set to the wrong am/pm, and retains the error! Or something. ... When I tried to reset the time in the morning, it insisted on pm time! No choice! And note that somehow I managed to innocently set the FD71's time OK. ... So I tried removing the battery for the ritual brain wipe, and the FD75 woke-up with the world-standard 12:00 am, but then when I tried to alter it, it reset itself to pm! But I was able eventually to get it right; I think it has something to do with the direction I try to alter the hour, i.e. when I used the up arrow that worked? And maybe it flipped to pm when I offensively used the down arrow to go from 12:00 AM to 9:00? ... But who knows? That's the wonder of stupid broken software, the magic & trembling mystery. ... I note the manual claims if the clock isn't right it'll insist on you setting it, but they apparently clobbered that early on; it must've been truly infuriating, which is something Sony has achieved amazingly in my life more than once, with ingenious & astonishingly-creative slipshoddery. ... But now I can cavort with two Mavicas! ... What joy..... |
|
It’s a little banged-up, and is missing its “ring” cover — presumably mislaid by the owner when he installed some cunning add-on gadget in the misty past. ... But my 52mm “for Canon A510” attachment gadget — I didn’t own the camera yet, but presumably the adapter fits others in the herd, including now the beloved A75, and I can attach wide-angle and telephoto gadgets with wild impunity! ... What fun we’ll have.... |
|
And I mustn't fail to note the totally-bogus "XGA 0.7mp" resolution it was advertised with, which was what they call "interpolated" — i.e., "bogus". But it's apparently better 'n' that: the "big" pictures actually have more bytes in them — ~167k versus ~82k for the smaller non-bogus — but, I assume, would only appear larger in the bogus scam software supplied with the unit which of course I don't have, never will, and it wouldn't work anyway. In my numerous browsers & paint programs, the pictures appear to be the same size/resolution — 640x480 aka VGA.... ... And then the proud Germans got out of the silly camera biz in 2001; so sad.... |
The ravishing vivicam35 does not — in the golden early days of foto fun scammery, merchants sold cameras whose "film" was volatile built-in memory: battery dies, pictures disappear. This was quite common in the bubble-pack products of Walmart & Target and I try to find some excuse in my heart, but it's hard. ... The Vivicam35, as was typical, included monstrously awful "picture" software, some of which I actually downloaded from somewhere and which of course didn't work, although the usb connection beeped a bit, and the software actually sprang to life in my PSP twain "scanner" thing with some kind of hopeless error — it probably worked for 15 minutes in Vista or something. ... But essentially the camera is a paperweight ... but a very light paperweight, at least without batteries. ... Perhaps I'll try revving it up in my beloved virtualbox XP someday — but no; I've learned sadly VBox doesn't really do XP USB. But it's true I've acquired an actual XP laptop and hope springs eternal, if not real swift. ... These things are still for sale in Walmart @ 9/17 — i.e., scammy cameras with no removable film and still bearing the Vivitar ViviCam mark, although I assume the supplied/required "upload" software has developed considerably in malwaresquery. |
And well worth it: the Luna-Pro definitely has the treasured silly taint — I never had one back in the day with my vivitar which, of course, had a built-in meter, and I wasn't going to pay $70 for something — $510 in real money! And my built-in was almost certainly more accurate.
|
9/16/17.
The pursuit of silliness is not all beer and skittles and for another
non-silly-camera item I had to give
up $30 for a new Neewer
Adjustable LED macro light
and even then I must pursue its wily ways in ignorance and relative
darkness. ... I first saw the ravishing device in a Polaroid
puff
at dpreview, so naturally I went looking ... So I got a mini alligator clip out and touched bits of metal and indeed it got set off. It would've probably got triggered from my proud 'n' looks-just-like-pro DSLR, but that seemed like a lot of work to try, especially since I've more-or-less graduated to the arguably sillier sx20 and perhaps, if I don't forget, the quest'll keep me busy for a little while in paradise. ... There's some kind of flash menu lurking-away in the sx20, and I'm guessing the helpful canonites would not have been so harsh as to make it impossible to fire a 3rd party non-auto flash from the flash shoe — Sony, or Olympus, of course, but not the kindly canonites. ... But that's what makes the silly camera calling so exciting and pointless — who can tell? ... And who cares? ... And it turned-out to be really simple; no stinkin' menus need apply. When I mounted the silly LED macro flash, the Canon flash menu disappeared, it went gray — 'cause of course there were no settings for my pathetic manually-adjusted flash! But it flashed when I pushed the shutter button oh joyous day. ... It's quite possible e'en the scammy brands might do the same, what with competitive pressures 'n' all. ... We understand of course that the picture's appearance is determined by setting the flash's controls/effect, and digital film is cheap and reusable, so all is for the best.... |
The supplied alkalines were of course all but dead, but it works great with two charged-up standard NiMH AAs. But I already had a Kodak NiMH KAA2HR double-AA pack which came with the glorious Z700 which, however, was bereft of a sharing dock and, therefore, was without any way whatever to charge the thing. So, after dremelling-off some battery decay I gave it a whirl in the DX4330+dock, and it's supposed to complete in 2˝ hours and — behold! he cried in rapture — the 2nd of the three charging lights at last lit up! No doubt the 2˝ hour completion rumor in the (still available online) manual may've been for whatever pitiful capacity the DX4330 came with, greatly increased no doubt in the super-modérne Z700 whose battery I was charging. ... And the third LED at last lit, after a few hours.... Easyshare Away...But the share dock picture trickery may have to wait for another life, since in this one the required Kodak software will run no more forever, at least on any of my equipment — but wait! ... How can I be so bleak? ... I, of a hundred derelict computers as well as cameras? ... I've got some Kodak easy-scam share software what I got in connection with my Z990 around 2011 which'll probably work somehow 'n' I could install it on a derelict crate and see what explodes with destruction & brilliance. ... Of course there's still the Kodak USB mystery cable; I have at least one Kodak mystery cable for the Z700 but it doesn't seem to be the one. ... So I bought a specifically Easyshare Dock II cable from an amazon vendor, which sadly failed to arrive apparently due to impaired mail problems — alcohol in the ink, as we used to say in the print biz. Also I got some dubious NiMH batteries, Kodak-style — which, sadly, turned-out to be not Kodak-style enough: the DX4330 has a tiny switch in the battery compartment so the charger won't try and do alkalines and burn the house down, and also of course to make it difficult for amazon vendors to counterfeit the precious things. ... But then another amazon vendor "Insten" managed to supply a working rendition, and the LEDs lit with joy. What ChargeIn my dotage I seem to be pitifully-attracted to the Easyshare obviously-scammy universe: it's so pointless! ... It's so cute! ... I will plug it into my derelict HP desktop and my pictures will appear magically, just by plugging in the camera! Or pressing the button! ... Or something. ... Oh the thrill! ... One of the many fascinating things about this Kodak scammery is a relatively widespread availability of supposedly-Kodak-compatible KAA2HR battery packs — some actually are compatible — but no chargers! Even the docks are scarce on the ground. ... I imagine the pitiful geezetariet yearning for their docks & cameras to work on into the dim fading misty future with their XP-or-worse computers....
|
I can report that neither DPP 3.14.40.0 or DPP4 canon raw programs can read the G2's ".CRW" raw files. Probably DPP 3.something can but callously Canon embargoes old versions. But not to worry: Rawtherapee reads 'em good, and the beloved PSPX. Also the antique silly Canon "zoom" program I scavenged can browse the things, but insists I need Digital Photo Professional to edit them, which of course won't. But all my free browers see CRWs, or at least the little thumbnail "previews" they come with. And my inspiring $99 Photomatix does 'em good, producing transcendent magical HDRs. Or something. ... But I had some trouble taking out the "type II" — aka "thick"? — CF I put into the G2, and when I did, a tiny bug crawled out! ... These are perilous times in which to indulge the silly photography obsession. But eventually I discovered my father's parallel pliers were the ideal tool for the job, and all is good. ... I hasten to note that this is after I pushed the little stud that the CF receptacles are equipped with and which, when pushed, ejects the CF a bit. The parallel pliers were still helpful to get the CF all the way out.... But of course the G2 makes beautiful pictures, and even raw! |
1. I used to have a link to an antique Q&A column which conclusively documented the darkness of the mac, but it has gone with the snows of yester-internet, and googling for "mac images too dark" doesn't work so good because, as we all know, no product can have any faults, and most of all the holy macintosh. ... Anyway, the bad old Mac gamma setting was 1.8, and the good new one should be 2.2 as all reasonable people agree, but from the gobbledygook I find describing display gamma, it appears the 1.8 should've made the Mac pictures too light — oh, right, of course, they'd be too light, so the poor mac fan-thing'd make 'em darker so they looked "right", and then they'd look too dark everywhere else. ... Well, whatever. They were too dark; I was there and I know....