The Pentax 17 – a Holga without the light leaks?

The Pentax 17 is an interesting camera – developed by a team of enthusiasts who did not want to make an “autofocus compact of the nineties” reedition, but were trying to bring a new generation of “image people” to film photography. By “image people”, I mean smartphone photographers and all sorts of creators of reels, videos and movies.

Whether they succeeded or not is still open for debate – as the owner of the Pentax brand, the Ricoh Corporation, has more or less dismantled the team at the origin of the 17 and has not announced any plan to extend the experience to more models.

*Pentax 17 – P & Moonlight with Flash off, Bokeh, P & Moonlight with Flash on – a very unusual set of exposure modes. Manual film advance, and no DX coding.*

But to me, the Pentax 17 is the most original of the film cameras recently released. I already reviewed the Seventeen a few months ago. This time, no detailed analysis of the camera – just a few comments on how the 17 is changing my approach of film photography.

In “Auto” mode, the Pentax 17 can be used as a half frame fix focus point and shoot – a sort of Kodak Ektar H35 equivalent, but with a better build, a better lens and an automatic exposure determination system. But what’s the point, and why pay $499 (list) for a camera emulating a fix focus point and shoot?

*Pentax 17 – Ilford Delta 400 – Atlanta, on the Belt Line – “Northern White”, by David Landis*

The other option is to leave the “Auto” mode, and start playing with zone focus, and with modes giving more control to the photographer (Program, Bokeh, flash and flash-less Night). And tinkering with the exposure compensation dial. Or even trying voluntary multi-exposures. Then, the Seventeen ceases being a point and shoot, and becomes a camera inviting the photographer to have fun experimenting.

Not that experimenting is easy – the Pentax 17 is a film camera, with a clear viewfinder and no shutter speed or aperture indication. You can only guess – vaguely – what the image is going to look like when, a few days or weeks later, you will process the roll of film. Because you don’t have any form of feedback when you take the picture.

Of course, being a film the camera, it does not keep a log of your settings, and does not write EXIF metadata. The only way to progress in your knowledge of the camera is to keep a little notebook, and record the settings of each series of images after you’ve pressed the shutter button. This way you can understand what works, what does not, what you did right, and what you did wrong.

*Paris, bassin de l’Arsenal – sept 2026 – Pentax 17 – Kodak Portra 400*

Caveat emptor

With modern digital cameras the sensitivity does not matter anymore as far as IQ is concerned – you won’t see much of an image quality degradation until you reach 6400 ISO. At least. Film has not really progressed in the last 25 years. 200 to 400 ISO is still the norm, 800 to 3200 the exception. And beyond that, nothing. Shooting with 100 ISO film reminds you that photography is literally “drawing with light”, and that when there is not enough light, drawing becomes pretty tough.

It’s also a camera without any form of image stabilization. Which coupled with the limited sensitivity of a typical amateur film, makes the use of an electronic flash generally necessary indoors. I’ve always hated the built-in flash of compact cameras, and the P17 is not going to change my feelings. The light is flat and unflattering – don’t shoot a portrait with the flash on – if you want to remain in good terms with your model.

*Piedmont Park, Atlanta (Myriad, by Gregor Turk) – Pentax P17, Fujifilm Acros 2.*

Half frame has its good sides, and its bad sides. 72 views on a roll of film, it’s liberating. If you process and scan at home, you can shoot for less than $0.25 a picture. The bad side is that 72 views, that’s a lot of pictures for a single roll of film, and if you’re not a prolific shooter, you may have to wait for a while before the frame counter reaches 72.

If you trust a lab with your negatives, the development cost won’t change, but you’ll have to be prepared to pay more for the scans than if you had sent a roll of film shot with a normal, full frame, 35mm camera: the lab has to scan at least 72 images instead of 36. My go-to lab, the Old School Photo lab, is asking an extra $8.00 for scanning a half frame roll, for example.

A half frame negative is small (half the size of normal 35mm frame, of course), and grain will be much more noticeable than on a “full frame” film camera. Fine grain film will be preferred, and processing and digitizing will require more care than when shooting on 36x24mm frames.

I had good results in black and white with Fujifilm’s Acros 2, and with Ilford’s Delta 400. I was less impressed with Kodak’s Portra 400 – the grain was very visible. I would have to shoot with a very fine grain film like Kodak’s Ektar 100 to get an idea of the ultimate capabilities of the Pentax 17 with color film. In any case, the performance of the lens far exceeds the resolution power of the film.

Exposure determination works reliably most of the time – it is relying on average weighted metering – except when facing the sun (you can try your luck with the exposure compensation dial – I never tried).

Lastly, the 25mm focal length of the lens would translate into 37mm on a full frame camera, somewhere between a moderate wide angle and a short standard. You have to zoom in with your feet, and as Robert Capa would have said, if the picture is not good, it’s because you were not close enough.

As a conclusion

I wrote a few months ago that the P17 would be a challenge – and I can confirm it still is. It’s much easier to get technically good pictures with a smartphone or a digital camera.

And if you shoot film and have already learned the basics of photography, a good Single Lens Reflex camera, autofocus or not, will be easier to use and will have a much wider performance envelope.

So, why shoot with a P17? First, It’s a very nice camera to work with. It is well built, falls perfectly in the hands, and the film advance lever is a pleasure to operate. All in all, it’s an extremely pleasant user experience.

If you forget the “Auto” mode – which is the insurance policy for the days you don’t want to think too much about your images – the Pentax 17 is a great way to go back to the basics – anticipate, get close to the subject, keep the backgrounds simple. And when you start being comfortable with the rules, it will let you break them.

*Nice, sculpture by Andrea Reggio. Pentax 17. Kodak Portra 400*

In a way, it’s bit like a Holga – not for the build quality (the Pentax does not leak light and the shutter performs consistently), but for the daring attitude it expects from the photographer. With the Holga the image is defined at least in part by chance – light leaks, capricious shutter, lens imperfections, involuntary double exposures – all combine to give you, sometimes, images that you will love.

With the P17, the camera is not technically flawed and does not malfunction randomly. But the Seventeen is asking you to take a chance and play with the settings without giving you all the information you would need to get “the” perfect image (almost) every time.

The Pentax 17 breaks the mold. It’s more involving than a true point and shoot camera, not as easy to control as a good film SLR, and it gives me the motivation to dare images I would not have tried to capture on a more conventional camera or a smartphone.

*Pentax 17 – zone focus in any mode except for “Auto”*

*Pentax 17 – the zone focus symbols are engraved at the top of the lens barrel, but a conventional distance scale (meters and feet) is available in the lower section of the bezel.*

Pentax 17 – Ilford Delta 400 – Elizabeth St, Atlanta

*Pentax 17 – Ilford Delta 400 – Krog St, Atlanta*

*Pentax 17 – Ilford Delta 400 – Little Five Points, Atlanta*

Nice, Villa Massena – Pentax 17 – Kodak Portra 400

*Atlanta, Cabbagetown neighborhood. Pentax 17. Kodak Portra 400*

More recent content in CamerAgX

What could a future Pentax digital SLR look like?

On September 6, Ricoh (the owner of the Pentax brand) published a communique, making the end of Pentax’s current line of dSLRs official, and vaguely announcing they were working on a new and significantly different series of models, to be made available in the mid-term.

Very little was written about those new models, expect that they would still be digital, single lens reflex cameras, that the K-Mount lens legacy would be preserved, and that Pentax’s design goal was to let photographers “experience the distinctive enjoyment of SLR photography and discover the wonder of photography itself.”

The context

That Ricoh has made official the end of their current line of the dSLRs hardly came as a surprise – it was obvious that Pentax had stopped manufacturing the K-1, K-3 III and the KF a little while ago, and were just shuffling the remaining inventory around to meet the punctual demand of some of their importers or major retailers. And it’s likely that Canon and Nikon are in the same situation, cleaning inventory rather than really manufacturing new digital SLR bodies.

*Pentax K-3 III Monochrome – the most recent of the recently discontinued Pentax dSLRs.*

But contrarily to Canon, Nikon (and Sony) who have successfully transitioned their interchangeable lens camera business to mirrorless, Ricoh and Pentax have failed to propose an attractive mirrorless camera system:

the Q series with its ultra-small sensor was an interesting proposition, but the line stopped after the fourth iteration,
The K01 (an attempt to create a mirrorless body using the K-Mount lenses) was a dismal failure.

*Pentax K-01 (image: Tokumitu, in Flickr: https://flic.kr/p/bsYQ2X)* – *an (unsuccessful) attempt to create a mirrorless camera supporting the K-Mount – March 2012.*

Ricoh-Pentax are far too small (in the world of interchangeable lens cameras) and far too late to launch a new, proprietary mirrorless camera system. Which condemns them to find a way to convert a new population of younger photographers to their vision of photography, while preserving the building blocks (optical viewfinder and K-Mount Lenses) that will be increasingly unique in a world dominated by mirrorless cameras.

In multiple interviews, the Ricoh product managers have stated that they believe that Pentax’s DNA is about providing a gratifying user experience (with an optical viewfinder and tactile commands), and prioritize the “feeling” over the absolute performance (two examples: the unique rendering of their Limited prime lens series, and the so-called “Pentax Touch” of their JPEGs).

So clearly…

whatever they prepare will be different from a K-1 or K-3 or KF (in other words, don’t expect a K-1 III or a K-3 IV),
will be based on a new concept,
but will still be a “reflex” camera with an optical viewfinder,
and will be somehow compatible with at least some of the K-mount lenses.

And, considering that Ricoh’s priority is to bring a new generation of users to photography (“everyone with an interest in photography” as per the official communique), I assume that some consideration will be given to ease of use and affordability.

*Nice (France) – Fontaine du Soleil (Pentax KP, HD Pentax DA 21mm Limited).*

Considering the options

dSLRs don’t sell in any significant volume anymore – and in order to attract a new generation of users to their future digital SLRs, Pentax will need to address problems that their own current dSLRs (as well as Canon or Nikon’s) are not capable of solving.

How are Ricoh’s product managers expecting to bring new users (fans of smartphones, action cams and vlogging) to something which still has an OVF and supports K-lenses?

Let’s consider the problems left unsolved by the current generations of dSLRs, mirrorless systems and smartphones:

What the remaining dSLRs and the mirrorless camera systems don’t solve:
- Uploading the images to online photo cataloging services and social media – it requires a connected smartphone and remains cumbersome,
- The images may have more ultimate potential than the pictures taken with a good smartphone, but out of the camera and for casual use, won’t look as nice as photos taken with an iPhone or an Android device relying on computational photography and AI,
- They’re still big, heavy, and increasingly complex to configure,
The current smartphones deliver flattering images with ease, and solve the photo-cataloging and social media integration problems, but offer a poor user experience to photographers:
- no viewfinder, no tactile commands, a slippery soap bar shape, requiring two hands to be operated – they’re not designed for photography,
- They offer a limited artistic control over images (no direct control of shutter spped or aperture, too much AI, too much computational photography…)

*Pentax K-3 III Monochrome – optical viewfinder, Pentax K-Mount, monochrome imaging sensor, rich but complex user interface – a niche within a niche*.

So…. for a camera company trying to convert a new generation of users to their approach of photography, there are two routes: they can try and solve all the problems related to the capture and distribution of images, or stay as far as possible from the definition of smartphones, embrace the KISS principle and focus on the basics of stills photography.

Option A: create the perfect connected camera that solves all the problems above

Pentax would have to create a line of cameras that keeps their traditional strong points (single lens reflex, optical viewfinder, K-mount, tactile commands) BUT at the same time offer the connectivity and content sharing capabilities of smartphones – a camera with 5G+GPS chips, an Android-derived or Android-like OS, uploading images directly and transparently to Google Photos, Instagram or Adobe’s Creative Cloud.

To solve the integration problem, Pentax would need a deep collaboration with Google or with a Chinese smartphone manufacturer, lots of R&D money, and they would have to venture in an area where Japanese camera makers have traditionally been very weak.

And because the camera should be able to shoot reels and short movies strips (what would be the point of direct social media integration otherwise), this new Pentax camera would necessarily be an “hybrid” (still images composed on the optical viewfinder, movies composed on a rear display or on a second, electronic viewfinder). And it may need a new line of K-Mount lenses to optimize its autofocus performance. The resulting products would be as complicated and cumbersome as the current dSLRs, and definitely not cheaper.

There may be a need for a camera permanently connected to the Internet and integrated with social media, but it will certainly not be met by a Single Lens Reflex equipped with an optical viewfinder and supporting K-Mount lenses.

*Zeiss ZX1 (powered by Android OS). Another camera that failed to meet its market (source: Amateur Photographer, Andy Westlake).*

Option B: go the opposite route, and offer a simplified, stills photography-only digital SLR.

Ricoh could on the other hand target users who don’t want to shoot movies or reels, and don’t want their camera to behave like a complex computer. They could propose a camera that only takes still images, with an interface reminiscent of the film SLRs of the early eighties. In a Leica M11-D sort of way.

Leica M11-D – From Adorama “42 West” magazine – Peter Dam (2024) – no LCD display, minimalist interface on the camera, and in depth controls through an iOS or iPadOS app running on a smartphone or a tablet. It could be an inspiration for a new type of Ricoh-Pentax Digital SLR.

Imagine a line of cameras with:

a limited set of physical controls (shutter speed, aperture, ISO sensitivity, metering pattern),
maybe one extra dial to set the white balance,
No top plate LCD, no rear display, and therefore no menu,
No movie mode, no filter, no picture style, no computational photography, no AI,
Some basic wireless connection (Bluetooth) to a smartphone app to change the settings of the camera and upload the images.
Image transfers and basic image manipulations would be performed on a smartphone or a tablet, with a Ricoh-Pentax app. Or third party apps through collaborations with partners such as Adobe or Phase One.

The camera could look like a film SLR of the 1995 generation (like the MZ-3 we reviewed recently), and be offered with a color or with a monochrome sensor. To maintain the size reasonable and the cost acceptable, the imaging sensor would not need to be full frame, an APS-C sensor could work, as there is no shortage of Pentax K lenses designed for the APS-C format.

In my opinion, that would be more in line with Ricoh’s recent announcements, and easier for them to bring to market than a do-it-all, over complicated, Android-powered “hybrid device”.

*Pentax MZ-3 from 1996 – would a simple Digital SLR inspired by the MZ-3 meet its public?*

As a conclusion…

In its long history, Pentax has often played the role of the small troublemaker, betting early on the single lens reflex architecture, and introducing innovations (rapid return reflex mirror, pentaprism, through the lens metering, aperture priority auto-exposure) that their bigger and more “institutional” competitors like Canon and Nikon only adopted at a later stage.

But they also stuck to outdated designs (the 42mm lens mount, the conventional dSLR architecture) far too long, which explains the predicament they’re in today.

I don’t know if Ricoh will be able to launch an innovative re-interpretation of the digital SLR theme – they may throw the towel if they come to the conclusion that there would not be enough demand for it, but if they pull it off, it will sure be interesting. Stay tuned.

*Even more basic than a MZ-3 – the Asahi Pentax Spotmatic SP (1964)*

Food for thought…

More about the Zeiss ZX1: https://amateurphotographer.com/review/zeiss-zx1-review/

More information about the Leica M11-D: https://kristiandowling.com/blog/2024/9/10/leica-m11-d-a-digital-camera-for-analogue-hearts

A (totally) different opinion on what a future Pentax Digital SLR should/could be: https://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/columns/the-dslr-isnt-deadit-just-moved-to-the-blue-ocean.html

*Abbaye de Saint Hilaire (France). (Pentax KP, HD Pentax DA 21mm Limited).*

*Nice (France) – La Baie des Anges (Pentax KP, HD Pentax DA 21mm Limited.*

Kodak Ektar H35 and the quest for the cheapest usable film camera

A few weeks ago I entered a Five Below store and bought their finest reusable film camera, for $7.00. It works, but it’s not better than a disposable camera. And after burning one roll of film, my conclusion was that a beginner to film photography would be better off spending a few dollars more, somewhere between $35.00 and $50.00, either on a new fix focus point and shoot like the Kodak M35 or the Ilford Sprite, or on a used autofocus compact zoom manufactured in the nineteen nineties.

*The Kodak Ektar H35 in its (optional) color coordinated case – the whole set looks much better than a disposable camera.*

I was curious, and started hunting for bargains on the site of Shopgoowill.com.

I found a nice copy of a the Kodak Ektar H35, a reusable, fix focus camera, with its coordinated Grapsa case. The camera sells new for $50; add $15.00 for the case; here, second hand, the starting price of the auction was $9.99, and after a fierce bidding war (just kidding), the H35 became mine for $16.00. Adding handling, shipping and taxes, the H35 cost me just a tad under $30.00.

The Ektar H35 is not made by Eastman Kodak, the name is used under license by Reto, a Hong-Kong based company. The big differentiator, ironically for a product proudly wearing the name of Kodak, is that being a half frame camera, it will save you money on film and processing, by giving you twice as many images on a standard roll of 35mm film.

*The shutter release button, and the ring surrounding the lens to turn the flash on. That’s it.*

The high cost of film and of film processing makes shooting 24x17mm frames very tempting, financially – and since most images are destined to be shared on the small screen of smartphones, the loss of resolution (compared to a full frame 36x24mm negative) is not a real issue.

The H35 is styled like an old Kodak Instamatic, and is technically almost as simple as its remote ancestor – the fix focus 22mm lens opens at f/9.5 (22mm on a half frame gives you the angle of view of a 35mm lens on a full frame camera), and the shutter operates at 1/100 sec. The electronic flash is brought in service by turning a ring around the lens. That’s it. Compared to a disposable or to the original Instamatic, it has a better lens (2 elements, optical grade acrylic), and contrarily to its Kodak predecessor, it’s using standard 35mm film (the Instamatic’s negatives were 28x28mm, from a “126” film pack).

*Two half frame cameras. The Pentax sells for 10 times the price of the Kodak*. *But there is a huge difference in Image Quality*.

For the record, there is new version of this camera, the Ektar H35N, where the lens has been upgraded to include one glass element, and one aspherical acrylic element.

The Ektar is a recent and extremely simple camera – with not much to go wrong – and I was not taking a big risk buying it on Shopgoodwill.

Comparing the images out of the camera (as shot)

*Somewhere in the North Highland neighborhood, Atlanta, GA – Kodak Ektar H35 Camera – Kentmere 400.*

From the same vantage point, the same day, with another half-frame camera, the Pentax 17

*Somewhere in the North Highland neighborhood, Atlanta, GA – Pentax 17 – Ilford Delta 400.*

Shooting with the Ektar 35H

In its coordinated green case, the H35 looks very good. Much better than expected for such a cheap product. The film advance and the shutter release are smooth. But don’t look too close, though – it’s plastic, plastic, plastic. The film rewind crank is filmsy and looks really fragile – how long will it last? The viewfinder (oriented vertically – it’s a half frame camera) looks like the viewfinder of a full frame 35mm camera where two black strips would have been glued left and right: it’s narrow, uninspiring, and makes it difficult to predict exactly what will be in the frame.

*Inman Park Neighborhood – Ford Pickup – Kodak Ektar H35, Kentmere 400*, *as shot*

In all honesty, I really had to make a conscious effort to use the Ektar. It did not come naturally to me, and whatever other camera I had with me that day saw more use than the little Kodak. And if I had no other camera, I still preferred taking the picture with my phone. I never enjoyed using disposable cameras, and the truth is I did not enjoy using the H35 either.

*Somewhere on the Atlanta Belt Line, Kodak Ektar H35, Kentmere 400* – *as shot.*

Image Quality

It took me months to finish a single roll of film, (48 frames on a 35mm roll sold for 24 “full frame” images, remember) and it stayed in my photo sling next to my “camera du jour” without seeing much use. But it gave me the opportunity to use it in parallel with a recent (and much more expensive) half frame camera, the Pentax 17, and with an older and generic point and shoot cameras of the turn of the century, the Argus M5600d.

The Pentax and the Argus are both larger, heavier, but much more interesting to use as cameras. But what about the image quality?

Looking at the B&W negatives shot with the Ektar, it’s obvious that there are huge differences in density from one image to another one – some are extremely dark, some are extremely clear, almost transparent – a consequence of the absence of any exposure control system in the camera. You have to rely on the exposure latitude of the film, on the image enhancing algorithms of the lab’s scanners, and on your ability to massage the picture in post-processing.

Comparing two half frame cameras:

*Lake Clara Meer and midtown skyline – Atlanta – Kodak Ektar H35 – Kentmere 4*00, as shot

and shot the same day from the same vantage point, with the Pentax 17:

*Lake Clara Meer and midtown skyline – Atlanta – Pentax 17 – Fujifilm Acros 2 100 ISO, as shot*

The B&W negatives were not scanned in the true sense of the word, they were simply digitized with a Fujifilm X-T4 equipped with a Micro-Nikkor 55mm lens and the JJC Digitizing Adapter, then imported and inverted in Lightroom with only adjustments to the S curve. The images labelled “as shot” did not benefit for any other enhancement, and represent what the camera is really capable of, before any software filter or any artificial intelligence trickery is applied.

The images are a mixed bag – this Ektar is clearly a sunny-16 type of camera, and the best pictures are taken on a bright day, middle of the morning and middle of the afternoon. Don’t use it for landscapes – even urban landscapes – it seems optimized for subjects in the 4 to 30ft zone and anything beyond that is blurry.

On the other hand, some images – close-ups, street scenes, statues, are “interesting”, and pictures of houses and front yards are generally nice. Go figure.

Even at its preferred focusing distance, the resolution is surprisingly poor – it’s closer to an Holga than to any decent autofocus film camera like the Argus M5600 and its clones. As long as you look at them on the relatively small display of a smartphone, the images look fine. But they rapidly reach their limits, and on an iPad or a 15in laptop display they will look fuzzy, lacking definition and contrast.

On a final note, I tried to use the flash multiple times, and not a single one of the images was even remotely acceptable.

Another comparison – here the Ektar….

*Avondale Estates, GA – Kodak Ektar H35 Camera – Kentmere 400, as shot*

Here, the Argus M5600d

Avondale Estates – Argus M5600d – Kentmere 400 – minor adjustments in Lightroom.

Conclusion

If you’ve read this blog entry that far, you have understood that the H35 is not for me. It may be cute, but it’s still extremely basic, not really better than a single-use, throw away camera.

I was really disappointed by the image quality: displayed on a smartphone, some images can be somehow “acceptable” without ever being great – while some are not even salvageable, except maybe by AI – but what’s the point, then. And on anything larger than a smartphone display, they will generally fare poorly.

To the camera’s defense, I did not shoot with color film, and did not have the film processed and scanned on the Noritsu or Frontier machines of a pro lab – their software apply all sorts of enhancements to the images before saving them as Jpegs, and I’m sure their pictures would look better.

*Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, Atlanta, GA – Kodak Ektar H35, Kentmere 400*, *as shot.*

In other words, it’s not a camera that will give me the type of images I like. But it may work for photographers with different styles and tastes.

Photography is at the same a craft, and an art. If you don’t really care for the “craft side” of this activity, but have a keen eye, good image composition skills, and like your images on the rough side, a fix focus camera like the Ektar, or even a toy camera like a Holga or a Diana may be a good fit – you’ll have to learn how to exploit their limitations and their flaws to create images reflecting your unique vision.

*Little Five Points, Atlanta – Kodak Ektar H35, Kentmere 400, as shot.*

Was I fair in my evaluation of this camera, and is the Ektar H35 that bad?

I believe I was fair. The Ektar was in my photo bag when I was shooting with the Pentax 17 and the Argus, and although I clearly preferred having those two cameras in my hands, I still made a point of shooting one or two images per scene with the Ektar.

The cameras were not all loaded with the same film stock (I was using Fujifilm Acros and Ilford Delta 400 on the Pentax, Kentmere 400 on the Argus and the Ektar), but all three are good films, and the Kentmere gave me results that positively surprised me with the Argus.

The two rolls of Kentmere 400 (the Argus’ and the Ektar’s) were developed together, in the same tank, with Ilford’s Ilfosol 3 at standard dilution, so a botched film processing routine can not be pinned as a cause for the relatively poor quality of the pictures.

I had a peek at the images of the Ektar user group in Flickr. The pictures generally look better than mine, but the images I posted here are as shot, not enhanced by the software of the Noritsu or Frontier scanners used by the photo labs, or by an AI tool. For the sake of the argument, I submitted two of my images to ChatGPT, and after a few adjustments in Lightroom, I got the images shown below. Better, but are they still “my” images, or something else entirely?

Enhanced by ChatGPT for sharpness and contrast, then adjusted with a mask on the young lady to correct under-exposure in Lightroom.

*Enhanced by Chatgpt for sharpness and contrast*

Argus M5600D – A generic long zoom “travel” compact film camera with an American household name

You may have read about my recent experiences with the Five Below Reusable Camera (bought in store, new, for $7.00), and my quest for something a bit better, but in the same price range.

What if I was looking for the cheapest possible option, a motorized, autofocus, long zoom compact film camera of the late nineteen nineties. In other words, something that nobody wants. Could it be a hidden gem?

*A Goko Camera product, sold under the Argus, Concord, Polaroid and Olympus Superzoom logos*

Locating a cheap and working copy of a motorized, autofocus, compact camera made at the end of the nineties is difficult. Autofocus, motorized compact cameras are significantly more complex than a fix focus reusable camera, and most of them did not age well, suffering from all sorts of issues with their electronics, and with the aging of the plastic parts used in the power zoom and in the film advance mechanisms.

The price I was willing to pay ruled out cameras from the big Japanese brands. I found an autofocus, motorized camera with a 38-115 zoom, that according to Shopgoodwill had passed some very basic tests, for $5.00. No bidding war for this one, but hefty handling and shipping fees brought the delivered price to $19.00.

*Argus M5600D – date back and dioptric correction in the viewfinder – a well spec’d camera.*

Its design easily qualifies as “bland”, but the camera is technically elaborate, for a compact point and shoot camera. Its specifications are in line with well considered “travel cameras” like the Olympus Stylus/Epic 115 or the Pentax Espio/IQZoom 115V.

This autofocus compact is branded “Argus”. This glorious American brand was bought in 1990 by a company named Concord Camera Corp, which was distributing generic cameras made in Asia, under the different labels it owned or licensed. Most cameras of the Concord group were very basic and mainly sold under a plastic blister in supermarkets and drugstores.

*the MacromaX product range in an Argraph catalog from 2004 – the M5600d is a clone of the Goko AZS1150*

This Argus M5600D was made in Malaysia in the Year 2000 by a major Japanese OEM named Goko Camera. It was virtually identical to Goko’s own MacromaX AZS 1150 AFQ, to Concord’s C3000 Super Macro, and to Polaroid’s 8500Z. More surprising, it looks like it’s almost the same camera as the Malaysia-made Olympus Superzoom 115 of 1999 – the only visible differences being the front fascia and the placement of one or two buttons. Olympus never acknowledged the lineage, but there is no doubt for me that this Superzoom 115 belongs to the MacromaX Z family of Goko cameras. (*)

The M5600D’s lens is proudly labeled Cintar Zoom Japan, with a 6 elements/5 groups design, and a maximum aperture varying between f/3.9 and f/10.8. The camera came equipped with a date back, and has dedicated buttons to control the flash modes, and force the focusing distance to the infinite or to 0.25m. Surprising for a compact camera – there is also a way to set a +1.5 EV exposure compensation.

The M5600D requires an easy to find CR123 disposable battery, and considering the slow aperture of the zoom, should be loaded with 400 ISO film.

So, on paper, this camera looks like a much better photography tool than a reusable fix focus point and shoot.

*The inside of the Argus M5600D is clean and the camera seems well built.*

First impressions

When I received the camera, I was pleasantly surprised. Not that it was in a very nice condition (film cameras of the early 2000s have often seen little use, having been rapidly eclipsed by digicams in the bag of amateur photographers), but that it seemed well built, with an apparent concern for maintainability. I inserted a new battery and a cartridge of Kodacolor 400 (film loading was automated, and easy) and I was ready to shoot.

In the absence of a user manual – which does not seem to ever have been made available as a PDF file – it’s difficult to know exactly what this camera is capable of, but for a point of shoot, it’s exceptionally configurable.

Shooting with the M5600D is a pleasant affair – the camera’s body is large enough without being too big or too heavy, the viewfinder is large and relatively luminous, and the camera responsive. Maybe the lens is horrible and the images are going to lack contrast and resolution, but at this stage, and after having burned two rolls of film, I don’t think that the M5600D is any worse (or any better) than the equivalent models from Olympus or Canon.

*Pentax 17 on the left: $499.00 – Argus M5600D on the right: $5.00*

The proof is in the pudding

I first loaded the camera with a roll of Kodacolor 400, but the lab (it will remain unnamed – I want to give them a second chance) took almost two months to process the negatives. I was getting impatient and then burned a second roll of film (Ilford’s Kentmere 400, a B&W stock I could develop at home).

*Marietta, GA – Argus M5600D – Kodacolor 400.*

A first glance at the developed negatives shows that all the frames of the film have been exposed (no accidental double exposure or blank images), and are regularly spaced. The B&W negatives are beautiful, the images seem correctly exposed and to the naked eye, they don’t look totally blurred or completely out of focus. This Argus is not a total lemon.

Let’s look at the scans.

They’re not bad at all. The exposure is not always perfect and the color scans are rather dull, but a few adjustments in Lightroom (vibrance, clarity) make them pop. Surprisingly, the lens is very good at resolving really fine details and the focus is right on, most of the time.

*Avondale Estates, July 4th – Argus M5600d – Kentmere 400.*

The macro mode is a mystery – pictures of flowers look horrible (the flash was on and if the subject is brightly lit, the background is totally dark) – but I shot a few close-up of cars and the images came up pretty good. As usual for this type of film camera, portraits shot at the light of the built in flash are bad enough to consign you to the dog house for a few days if you have asked your significant other to be your model.

You will have to be a pretty good photographer to win a photography contest with this Argus, but provided there is enough light and you shoot in exteriors, you’ll get very decent and perfectly usable images frequently enough.

*The Manchester Mill (Sweetwater Creek Park, GA) – Argus M5600D – Kentmere 400.*

As a conclusion – is it better than a “reusable” fix focus camera?

Yes, it’s definitely better than a fix focus camera (single use or reusable). There’s no comparison. The images of the M5600D will be correctly exposed, and its autofocus system will deliver much sharper pictures than a fix focus lens set on the hyperfocal. With a lens opening at f/4 at the wide end, it will operate in dimmer environments than a typical fix focus camera, and with a relatively long range of 115mm, its zoom will let the photographer isolate its subject.

Under a fair weather and in the bright hours of the day – it will give you surprisingly good images – but can not compete with a film SLR when the scene is not generously lit, or when shooting sports, or taking portraits in an interior, or macros of flowers, or in all situations when a good cobra flash or a direct control of the shutter speed and the aperture would be necessary.

Its performance envelope is much wider than a fix focus throw away camera, but also narrower than a single lens reflex camera and a set of good lenses. It belongs to this intermediate category which was nicknamed “travel or tourist cameras” for a reason.

*A Mercedes AMG – Argus M5600D – Kodacolor 400.*

I was honestly very surprised by the quality of the images delivered by this Argus M5600d. Unless you’re in love with the “Instamatic” look of the images taken with a single-use camera, a 25 year old motorized autofocus like this Argus is a much better choice.

It might have been a generic South East Asian beige camera, but it was a pretty good one, and I’m curious to compare it side by side with the best point and shoot cameras that Canon were proposing in the nineteen nineties.

Ultimately, the problem of the M5600D (and of all the fully automatic compact film cameras of similar design) is named digital photography. Anything that the M5600d does, a high-end smartphone or a recent digital camera will do better. The Argus has a good viewfinder and the ergonomics of a real camera, but it does not give you more control over your images than a smartphone, and contrarily to a nice mechanical camera, it is not a particular gratifying object to work with.

For $5.00, it’s an incredible bargain, and if you really love shooting film and don’t want to carry a single lens reflex, it’s a much better option than a single-use camera.

*The featured picture – the top plate of the Argus M5600D – the dedicated “macro” key is a Goko MacromaX differentiator.*

(*) Do not confuse the Olympus Superzoom 115 (the clone of the MacromaX AZS1150 and the Argus M5600d) with the Olympus MJU II or StylusEpic 115 (you recognize it by its clamshell body). The cameras have not much (if anything) in common.

For more about the Goko MacromaX series of cameras, and Goko in general – read Mike Eckman’s excellent review of the Goko MacromaX FR-350, and Goko’s “historic” pages: https://www.gokocamera.com/en/legacy-products/

The MacromaX cameras were primarily designed to be sold in developing countries, but were briefly sold in the US (1997 till early 2000s) under the Goko brand, and, badged as Concord, Argus or Polaroid, under labels belonging to Concord Camera Corp. Today Goko are still involved in photography, but have left the consumer market and specialize in cameras used in industrial or lab environments.

https://camera-wiki.org/wiki/GOKO_MacromaX_AZS_1150_AF

Olympus Superzoom 115 Quartz Date – a near clone of the Goko MacromaX 1150 AZS (source: eBay).

Compare with the pictures of the Argus M5600D – all members of the same big and happy family

The Manchester Mill – Sweetwater Creek Park – Argus M5600D – Kentmere 400 – shot at the longest position of the zoom (115mm)

*Jeep Wrangler YJ – Argus M5600d – Kentmere 400.*

The world through a plastic lens? A few pictures in Rome with the Holga 120 CFN

Holga 120 CFN and photographer - digital pictures can also be flawed...

[The Web standards are constantly evolving, and backwards compatibility does not seem to sit very high in the list of priorities. One day, you find out that your good old laptop can’t render Adobe.com or Apple.com pages anymore, or that modern browsers are making a mess of your old blog entries. Because it had become unreadable I moved the content of this old blog post to my current “Isola” theme in WordPress and I’m republishing it. I did not alter the text – just added comments between brackets when necessary.]

When your good friends learn that you still shoot film, and write about it, they understand they have a unique opportunity to get rid of all the – let’s be polite – worthless photo equipment they don’t use anymore and you end up with Kodak Brownies or Instamatics by the bucketload. And if your brother in law is really facetious, he brings you a brand new Holga from one of his trips in China, and since it’s a Christmas present and everybody in the family is intrigued, you buy film and start using it.

That particular camera comes in a big orange box with the rest of the “Starter Kit”. Reading the user manual, you get confirmation that the camera is “extremely low tech, and will eventually wear out”. Major design flaws are presented as unique features – the dreaded manual mentions “leaks of light, unvoluntary multiple exposures, loose connection between the film and the take up spool” among the desirable characteristics of the product. Looking for some comfort, you check a little square format book at the bottom of the box. It’s a nice paperback of 192 pages, showing 300 images taken with Holga cameras. Not something Leica or Nikon would be proud of, but interesting pictures nonetheless.

The camera’s design is very basic. It accepts 120 format roll film, has a plastic wide angle lens (60mm, F:8 or F:11) with 4 possible focus settings, and a shutter which offers a unique and unspecified speed. The camera comes with 2 user interchangeable back plates, one will give you 6×6 cm negatives with some vignetting, the other one 6×4.5cm negatives, probably with less vignetting (I don’t know, I only shot with the 6×6 plate). The “CFN” Holgas also come with an electronic flash, equipped with a turret of 4 filters (Red, Blue, Yellow and transparent) for special effects.

Shooting with Holga

The Holga 120 CFN needs 120 film – of course – and since Holgas are supposed to be enjoyed for their shortcomings, color film should be preferred (the plastic lens is prone to chromatic aberrations which would not be visible with black and white film).

Finding color film in 120 rolls proved very difficult. If 35mm film is still easy to find (even in supermarkets or in the little stores attached to many hotels), the same can not be said for 120 roll film. Only stores dedicated to professional photographers still have a few references. I bought a few rolls of Kodak’s Portra 400 NC film. Loading the camera is a difficult task, but in all honesty I’m not used to roll film and I would also have suffered with a more high end camera. [this blog entry was originally written in 2010 – 35mm film is not that easy to find anymore]

Holga 120 CNF - a view from the shutter (120 film adapter removed) — *Holga 120 CNF – a view from the shutter (120 film adapter removed) – According to the brochure, you should not expect to transmit it to your grand children.*

In the street, the camera attracts lost of attention. People notice the bright red color (Holgas are also available in black, kaki and in a unique blue and yellow combination), and are intrigued by the cheap aspect of the camera. It looks like a toy, and people are surprised to see an adult using it.

Rome - View of the Curia from the Campidoglio - Holga 120 CFN — *Rome – View of the Curia from the Campidoglio – Holga 120 CFN*

The camera has very few controls and is easy to use, with a decent viewfinder and relatively smooth commands, and provides a user experience very similar the “boxes” that Kodak used to sell before the launch of the Instamatic cameras.

The result?

Having the rolls processed proved as difficult as buying the film in the first place. Costco and the proximity drugstores don’t process anything larger than 35mm film, and the rolls had be sent to a professional lab (some of them charge up to $20.00 per roll). When you receive the pictures, you discover the “Holga paradox”: you’re not attracted to the almost “normal” images, but by the most severely flawed. The pictures with the fewer technical faults are just bad (with vignetting and all sorts of aberrations), while some of the images plagued with the worst of the problems (involuntary multiple exposures, light leaks) have a surrealist quality that the most creative of the photographers would struggle to get from a digital picture processed in Photoshop.

*Rome-Coliseum-Holga 120 CFN – This is one of the pictures with the fewest defects.*

Holga, what for?

“Normal” photographers are supposed to spend thousands of dollars in the equipment which will help them produce pictures as perfect as possible from a technical point of view – in focus, sharp, with the right exposure, no vignetting, no distortion, and no chromatic aberration.

Straight from the Holga - at least the bright red camera attracts smiles — *Straight from the Holga – at least the bright red camera attracts smiles*

Deviations from the norm of the technically perfect picture are supposed to be voluntary, in order to convey an emotion or a message. They’re not supposed to have been brought randomly by a poorly designed camera.

Holgas don’t follow the rule. They’re not “normal”, and they’re not what “normal” photographers would be looking for. Their results are totally unpredictable. When nothing went really wrong, the results are dull. It’s only when they are massively flawed that the pictures start being surprising and interesting.

Using a Holga reminded me of the “Exquisite Corpse” creativity method used by the Surrealist movement at the beginning of the XXth century. With a Holga you will rely on chance to create something new and different. Using the bright red Holga, I started believing that chance could be an artist on its own right. And you end up loving that little camera for that very reason.

More about Holgas

A few decades ago, photographers in Austria discovered the “Lomos” (copies of Cosina point and shoot cameras made in the USSR), and liked the – flawed – pictures made by those very imperfect little cameras so much that they launched the “lomography” movement. They started distributing the “Lomos” in Austria and Germany, and progressively added other cameras from Eastern Europe and China to their catalog. Lomos and Holgas are now widely distributed, and can also be purchased directly from the Lomography web site, where a red Holga 120 CFN can be found for $75. That’s a lot of money for such a low tech object. Bargain hunters can also find Holgas on eBay, for far less.

[The production of the Holga ceased in November 2015, but Freestyle Photo still have a few of them available – only in black, unfortunatelly. Lomography are proposing a camera, the Diana F, that seems to follow the same recipe as the original Holga, and is available in multiple colors.]

Holga CNF 120 - view of the back — Holga CNF 120 – view of the back

Holga 120 CNF - the commands — Holga CNF 120 – view of the back

Rome - Campidoglio - Michelangelo betrayed by Holga — *Rome – Campidoglio – Michelangelo betrayed by Holga*

Holga links
The Holga group on Flickr

[I had also tested an instant film back with the same Holga camera – https://cameragx.com/2016/10/02/fujifilm-and-the-instant-film-bonanza/]

The camera lens coffee mug review – inspired by Canon’s EF-S 28-135mm

I don’t remember who gave it to me – because I for sure did not buy this thing – it was probably purchased for a few bucks in a thrift store. But since it’s here, let’s use it.

There are multiple variants of this mug. The most current today is the Canon 24-105mm f/4 USM, but mine is an older 28-135 EF-S L II USM. If it was a real lens, it would be a pretty good one, with L glass and image stabilization.

*On Amazon.com this morning – all big box retailers propose them on the*ir on-line stores.

Specifications

From a distance, it looks like a real zoom lens – the size is right, the AF/MF and Stabilization On/Off switches are realistically rendered, and the markings look like they were applied in a Canon factory. The screw-on lid is shaped like the front end of a zoom, with a large domed lens to justify the f/2.5 maximum aperture.

According to the description of the current 24-105 zooms available in 2025, the tumbler is insulated and works like a thermos. The lining is BPA-free stainless steel, and the lid is leak proof. I measured the capacity of my 28-135 zoom at approximately 10oz (0.3l).

How does it work as a coffee mug?

I tested it with coffee, and with cold drinks.

For an insulated thermos coffee mug, it’s not very good at insulating. It’s still better than a paper cup, but not as good as a Yeti or an Igloo tumbler. If you need more than a few minutes to drink 10oz of hot coffee, the mug will become pleasantly warm, and the coffee unpleasantly colder.

The screw-on lid is problematic – first, it’s not leak proof, and, after some hot coffee has found its way out, the mug becomes sort of vacuum sealed, and the lid becomes really difficult to un-screw.

*it works better as a tumbler to enjoy cold drinks*

How to tell for sure it’s not a Canon lens?

The question sounds stupid – and anybody who has an opportunity to hold one in their hands knows immediately it’s not a Canon lens. Canon zooms are not that light, they’re much better finished, and their front can’t be unscrewed to give access to their stainless steel innards. But if you’re only being shown a small, low resolution picture, it may not be that easy.

There are three tell tales:

1/ even though it’s sold as a Canon zoom lens replica, the mug does not correspond exactly to a specific Canon model.

2/ even on a low res picture, you may be able to see the marks left by the mould during the manufacturing process. Canon lenses don’t have those marks.

3/ there are obvious inaccuracies – my 28-135 zoom has an aperture ring, like a Nikon AF lens. I don’t know of any Canon EF lens with an aperture ring. And “SDM” is a Pentax acronym for “Supersonic Drive Motor”.

*Two hints it’s a mug and not the real thing: the aperture ring – the Canon EF lenses never had one, and the mark of the mould above the AF cursor.*

Could it fool anybody?

Maybe…I found this listing on ShopGoodwill.com recently. It was a bundle of “two vintage Canon film bodies and multiple lenses” – no mention of a mug, that sold for $167.00.

As a conclusion

It’s a gadget. Not very good as a coffee mug. But if you have a couple of old Canon EOS cameras in a showcase, you’ll be happy to add this Canon’s EF-S 28-135mm replica to your cabinet of curiosities.

Shooting with a Konar: of the unintentional use of offensive words as product names

Finding a product name that is not ridiculous or offensive when selling it to international audiences is difficult – there are famous examples of faceplants.

Nikon_N90-7276 — Konar 1000 – a taiwanese camera from 1985.

In the world of cars. Rolls Royce, for instance, has a tradition of naming its cars “Silver-something”, the “something” being a word evoking “ghosts” or “spirits”, in reference to the car that made them famous, the Silver Ghost of 1906.

It does not always work that well, though. Rolls Royce’s bread and butter model of the sixties was destined to be named “Silver Mist”, which unfortunately would have translated into “silver manure” in German. Germany was a market of significant importance for Rolls-Royce, and the issue was addressed in time: the model was launched as the “Silver Shadow”, which was better, although not that huge of an improvement. “Shadow” sounding pretty much like “Shade”, the German word for “pity” or “shame”.

Rolls_Roye_Silver_Shadow_Front — Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow – it sounds like “silver shame” in German (Source: wikipedia).

Toyota had the same issue with a little two seater they were selling in the nineties – named MR2 in most of the markets, it was simply named MR in France because MR2, phonetically, would have sounded like “Merde” or “Merdeux” (“Shit”, or “Shitty”).

In this country, I was surprised to find lenses named “Cambron” – the private label of the Cambridge Camera Exchange store, in New York. They even had their own private label camera, the Cambron TTL, manufactured in the USSR by KMZ and sold all other the world as the Zenit TTL.

Cambronne was a general in Napoleon’s army at the Waterloo battle – when asked to surrender, he famously shouted what is still known in France as the “word of Cambronne”, “Merde!” (a word which in addition to meaning “shit” – as Toyota’s marketing department had found out – is also used in French to convey exasperation – a very impolite form of “go to hell”).

Speaking about French, a rather strong insult in that beautiful language is “connard” [pronounce ko-nar]. A “connard” is a despicable man, at the same time profoundly stupid, petty and mean. “A.. H..e” would probably be a good translation in modern English.

As I could not find a Cambron TTL, my consolation prize was a Konar 1000 – a very simple point and shoot camera with the looks of a SLR. The trademark belonged to a “Selectdirect Inc”, and has been available since 1987.

You could understand that a small photo equipment store in New York, NY or a company importing $1.00 cameras for the US market would not be bothered with checking what a name like Cambron or Konar meant to French people, but what about a large company with a global presence like Ricoh. In addition to their “Rikenon” lenses, they also sold a line of entry level lenses named “Riconar” – which in French sounds literally like the imperative form of “to laugh”, followed by an insult: “Laugh, A.. H..e”, what a name for a product.

What does a Konar look like?

When I found a Konar 1000 camera on Shopgoodwill.com, I had to have it.

The Konar 1000 is one of those ultra-simple cameras that look – from a distance – like a “real” rangefinder – it even has a small hump where the viewfinder of a reflex camera would be to add to the confusion. It was made in Taiwan in the mid eighties, was also sold under names such as Capital MX II or Ultronic, and was often given out for free with a magazine subscription (the Time Kinetic camera) or after a visit to a casino (there is a golden Caesar’s Palace version).

Nikon_N90-7270 — Konar 1000 – with Auto Fix Focus lens (!)

Technically, they’re all the same, and to my surprise, they’re real, functional cameras. They use 35mm film, have a single element fix focus lens (plastic, of course), and a single speed shutter. The aperture can be set at F/6, F/8, F/11 and F/16, but there is no metering or auto-exposure mechanism. The flash hot shoe is functional and the viewfinder – usable.

Nikon_N90-7272 — Konar 1000 and Leica CL – the Konar looks like a real camera.

All in all, it does not look any worse than a Holga – and judging by pictures published by users of Capital MX cameras on Lomography.com, the results are somehow OK, considering the lens is a piece of plastic.

Buying a Konar?

They’re no Leica, they’re no Nikon, and have a very limited usage value. Objectively, considering you can get a Nikon autofocus SLR for $3.50, the value of a Konar should be expressed in cents, not in dollars. But sellers won’t be bothered selling a camera for 10 cents, so you’ll have to pay a few dollars to get one. In any case, shipping, packaging and handling costs will exceed the cost of the camera itself.

Nikon_N90-7278 — Konar 1000 from above – film rewind crank, functional hot shoe, exposed view counter on the right – it’s a real camera.

The same should be true for Cambron lenses – in theory a manual focus trans-standard zoom from the seventies sold under a distributor’s label is virtually worthless. But surprisingly, there are still people willing to engage on a bidding war to get one.

Nikon_N90-7281 — The Konar 1000 at full aperture (F/6). The aperture is set by a sliding blade located at the back of the shutter.

Nikon_N90-7282 — Konar 1000 – the aperture is now set at F/16. The slit in the sliding blade is now much narrower.

More about the Konar / Capital: Pictures taken with a Capital MX-II on Lomography.com

Another clone of the Konar: Time Magazine Kinetic camera

SaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

A photo scanner for $12?

ION iPCS2GO - the iPhone 4 and the 4x6 drawer are in place — ION iPCS2GO – the iPhone 4 and the 4×6 drawer are in place

$12.00, really?

I was at Barnes and Noble’s the other day, when I saw this ION iPICS2GO pseudo-scanner in the bargains bin. Not really a scanner, though. It’s a sort of light box. There is no lens or imager inside. It’s just a stand where the iPhone actually taking and processing the pictures will be set.

Coupled with an iPhone, it can scan 3×5 and 4×6 prints, and, more interestingly, 24×36 negatives or slides.

The iPICS2GO was boxed, so I could not see it. But it was only $12. And even if it was a piece a junk, it was worth trying.

Unboxing

The whole thing is rather bulky (the size of a toaster), but it looks solid and well built. The negative holder and the 4×6 print holders are made of plastics of good quality and will not damage the originals, and the iPICS2GO will just needs four AA batteries to work. The print or the negative being scanned is lit by LEDs, which seem efficiently color corrected.

There is an iPICS2GO app on Apple’s app store, that you can download for free and use to control the camera of the iPhone. Although Apple’s built in Camera and Photos applications will give the same results if you “scan” a 4×6 print, you will need the ION application to enlarge and invert the 24×36 negatives. You could do it with Photoshop, but if you had a laptop and Photoshop, you would probably also own a real scanner and would not be interested in this product.

The core audience

As mentioned earlier, the iPICS23GO is not a scanner on its own. But paired with an iPhone 4, it forms a cheap and portable scanner, and its bundled application makes it easy to edit and share the scanned images, via e-mail or through Facebook. I can imagine a situation where you visit old friends or relatives, and they end up opening the proverbial shoe box where their favorite Kodak prints are stored. You scan a few pictures for immediate consumption on the iPhone, or share them around via email or on Facebook.

In this situation, the results are pretty good. IN order to benchmark the iPICS2GO, I scanned a 4×6 color print (the picture had been taken by a good 24×36 camera 10 years ago) with the ION box and with the real scanner of an all-in-one photo printer from Canon. Both images were transferred to a Mac, uploaded in Photoshop, and printed again. The Canon scan is a bit better (wider tonal range), but not that much. If the goal is just to casually look at old pictures on a smartphone, share them on Facebook or even print them again (4×6 prints, please, nothing larger), the ION iPICS2GO fits the bill.

4x6 color print scanned by an iPhone 4 on the iPICS2GO "scanner" — 4×6 color print scanned by an iPhone 4 on the iPICS2GO “scanner”

Scanning negatives, on the other hand, is a much more difficult challenge.

The app does a good job at converting the negative into a positive image, whose quality is acceptable as long as you look at it on the iPhone (the original 24x36mm negative has a diagonal of 43mm; the screen of the iPhone has a diagonal of 3.5in, or 88mm – Th enlargement ratio is roughly 2:1). But don’t try to export it to a PC, or even worse, to print it. As soon as you enlarge it, the quality becomes unacceptable, as can be seen on close-up (below, on the right).

Screen capture of the ION app scanning a negative

Screen Copy of the ION iPICS2GO app (here, processing a negative)

Close up of the image created by the ION app (size: 376x240 points at 128ppi on an iPhone) — Moderate enlargement of the central part of the negative

I have to admit that the ION iPICS2GO is much better gadget than I expected. If your goal is to take snapshots of your favorite prints every now and then in order to have them always with you on your iPhone, it’s perfect. You can also email your images or post them in Facebook directly from the ION app.

On the other hand, if the only source document you have is a negative, don’t expect miracles. In the best case, the resulting image will be somehow acceptable as long as you look at it on your iPhone. Beyond that, it’s hopeless. If you love the picture, bring the negative to a minilab.

But in any case, an old picture reborn on an iPhone is better than any image forgotten in a shoe box.

Bridge over the Verdon river (Provence). Scanned from a 4x6 print on a flatbed scanner — Bridge over the Verdon river (Provence). Scanned from a 4×6 print on a flatbed scanner

The original images were shot in France in “les Gorges du Verdon”, a small scale version of the Grand Canyon, in 2001. I don’t remember which camera I was using.

Smart phones and photography – a follow up

A few weeks ago, I was commenting that the market segment of low end digital cameras (let’s say anything not equipped with a zoom) was in danger of extinction, being superseded by smart phones.

Camera of the Nokia N8 — The lens of the Nokia N8 - it bears the glorious Tessar name and as a true Tessar lens incorporates 4 elements, all aspherical this time. The Xenon flash is positioned above the lens.

Nokia’s previous high end models were already fitted with a “Carl Zeiss lens” and a 12 Mpixel sensor. A review of the new Nokia N8 by cnet shows that smart phone photography has reached a new level. With its 4 elements lens (all aspherical) and a Xenon flash, the Nokia N8 is in a class of its own, somewhere between the other smart phones and good point and shoot cameras. And Zeiss was obviously very proud of its contribution at the latest Photokina.

According to DPreview, Panasonic has started a teaser campaign to prepare the launch of “Lumixphones“, with a Lumix digital camera built in. Of particular interest is the fact that the camera section will include a mobile version of the “Venus” image processing engine. I suppose it is relatively easy to order and integrate a tiny image sensor and a small lens in a phone, but good digital images are created by good processing algorithms much more than by good lenses. The image processing section is the real differentiator and that’s where Panasonic may shine. When will we see smart phones with Canon Digic 4 or Nikon Expeed 2 image processors?

At the same time, Motorola and T-Mobile started releasing information about the DEFY, a rugged smart phone using the Android operating system. Scratch and water resistant, it boasts a 5 Mpixel camera with autofocus capabilities. It is not suitable for underwater photography, but another model may be in a few months.

The iPhone 4, with a 5 Mpixel sensor coupled with an autofocus lens (focal length: 3.5mm, equivalent to 28mm on a 35mm film camera), gives surprisingly good results on close-ups and when shooting relatively well lit interiors. It is also very good at taking pictures of big objects like cars and trucks. It is more difficult to get good results when shooting people – it is not as good as a regular camera at finding the right color balance; getting decent action shots is even harder. As for landscapes and low light situations (the “flash” is a joke), it’s bordering the impossible. Dedicated and talented iPhone users like Xeni Jardin can take incredible action shots with an iPhone 4, though, so the limit is obviously the photographer.

The focus of this site is film photography, and I will keep on shooting film and writing about film cameras. But using a film camera (or a regular digital camera) is not always a practical proposition, and sometimes a smart phone’s camera can save your day.

The Pool Table - Graceland (Memphis, TN). Shot with an iPhone 4 - HDR activated

Hood ornament - Chevrolet - 1954 — Hood ornament on a Chevrolet Police Car from 1954 - Shot in Tunica, MS with an iPhone 4 - HDR activated.

The end of point and shoot digicams?

What do digital watches, portable navigation systems and point and shoot cameras have in common?

Their sales are shrinking. The fact is little known beyond the narrow circle of watches aficionados, but sales of Japanese digital watch movements have been going down for a few years now. Digicam sales reached their peak two years ago, and you just have to look at the price of stand alone GPS units to see that a firesale is going on.

The cause for all of this? Cell phones in general, and smartphones in particular.

I remember my first “smartphone”, a Palm Treo 600, and its dreadful VGA camera (0.3 Megapixel). Not only was the resolution of the sensor hopelessly low (640×480), but the quality of the lens itself was abysmal. Unusable. Period.

Nowadays, top of the line smartphones don’t necessarily have high resolution sensors (the iconic iPhone 4 only packs a 5 Megapixel chip), but their lens quality is significantly higher and the image processing software much better than a few years ago. Look at the picture below, taken in Rome with a very simple Nokia XpressMusic 5530. It was my first day in that beautiful city, I did not have my “serious” camera with me, and I used what was available, namely my cell phone and its tiny 3.2 Megapixel sensor.

Rome - Piazza de la Repubblica - Dec 2009 — Rome - Piazza de la Repubblica - Nokia XpressMusic 5530

Not bad, at least for Web postings.

Higher end Nokia phones (like the recently announced N8) are equipped with Carl Zeiss branded lenses and 12 Megapixel sensors, and promise much better results. It is true that the sensor and the flash integrated in smartphones are too small, and that their reactivity is still too low to allow them to compete with high end point and shoot cameras or with dSLRs. Particularly in low light situations or with very mobile subjects.

But low-end and medium of the range digicams are obviously under the threat of the more ubiquitous and versatile smartphones. That’s one of the reasons why camera manufacturers are launching a bucket load of waterproof cameras at the moment. Underwater photography is a niche that cell phones have not penetrated yet. Until October, if this rumor about an incoming Motorola Jordan has to be believed.

CamerAgX – a new life for old gear

Weird cameras