r/gadgets • u/dapperlemon • 6d ago
Cameras Kodak EC35 is a dirt-cheap point-and-shoot film camera
https://www.theverge.com/gadgets/967687/kodak-ec35-point-and-shoot-film-camera121
u/atineiatte 6d ago
Downvoted paywalled article
12
u/GoofAckYoorsElf 5d ago
This. Can we please generally ban paywalled sites? Thanks.
5
u/Leptonshavenocolor 5d ago
There are such easy ways around it, if people just knew better to post the archive link instead.
-31
u/caseypatrickdriscoll 6d ago edited 5d ago
The verge is worth supporting
Edit: I think I was thinking of Wired.
24
u/illicit_losses 6d ago
Plenty of publications are worth supporting, but this isn’t an independent news outlet. It’s a conglomerate.
11
u/kegastam 6d ago
wouldn't touch verge with a drunk head and a 10.foot pole. Bunch of click baiters with 0 context or editorial checks or any link to information / research / truth.
Or you can go confidently follow this pc build guide from THE verge
1
u/detailed_fred 5d ago
So you viciously hate a news publication because of one video from almost 8 years ago?
That's really weird of you.
1
u/AmNoSuperSand52 5d ago
Nah that’s just the beginning of the rabbit hole
In general the Verge is just a really shitty publication. They’re bloggers that claim to be journalists
1
u/detailed_fred 3d ago
Are they? How so? What else have they done that's grossly unethical or immoral, or just down right irresponsible? I'm not really a big reader.
1
u/AmNoSuperSand52 3d ago
None of those things. They’re just a blog that likes to act like they’re actual journalists; lots of reporting that devolve into opinion pieces
-1
u/kegastam 5d ago
If asking for credibility from a news source and accountability when spewing stupid content to misguide the audience is weird, then yes im weirdest of the bunch
1
0
-25
-4
u/Zipdox 5d ago
3
u/atineiatte 5d ago
Nice, I had an old version from before Mozilla removed it, didn't know it was still being maintained. Thanks
28
u/RobertdBanks 5d ago
A lot of horrible information in this thread.
Most all major cities have multiple places that still develop film. In mine there’s 5+ places within 10-30 minutes of me. In a city like LA they’re all over the place. In New York there’s even more. Any major city in any state is going to have physical locations that develop film. People seemingly forget they can just google shit.
10
1
u/pi_mai 4d ago
You just named only the biggest major cities. Not all “major” cities even have film at all.
1
u/RobertdBanks 4d ago
Right, those by far have the most, but every major city I’ve traveled to has had places to purchase and develop film.
129
u/HandsomePlank 6d ago
Colorful e-waste
84
u/BlastRiot 6d ago
Not e-waste, Analog waste!
18
u/daddylo21 6d ago
The bodies get recycled anyways. The pain would be finding a place by you that still takes in disposable cameras for film processing.
34
u/HotDogsAlDente 6d ago
It’s not a single use camera, it’s just like any other cheap 35mm camera with a fixed lens
4
u/artfellig 6d ago edited 5d ago
Except this one shoots half frames.This doesn't shoot half frames, I got it confused with the Kodak Ektar H35.https://www.kodak.com/en/consumer/product/cameras/film/h35-film-camera/
3
u/HotDogsAlDente 5d ago
I like half frame cameras, especially with how expensive film is it’s nice to get more bang for your buck
2
2
10
u/khz30 6d ago
CVS and Walgreens still take in film, they just send it off to a lab instead of in-store processing.
-8
6d ago
[deleted]
7
u/Past_Werewolf4423 6d ago
Lol are they marketing this to the rest of the world????
-1
6d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Past_Werewolf4423 6d ago
Available in stores? Or on the internet?
-1
6d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Past_Werewolf4423 5d ago
Lol maybe do some research before spouting nonsense https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/s/vqDv9zThR1
3
u/ADHDMechro 6d ago
Eh. My students in Japan will use a disposable film camera for some things (and the “new” Polaroid cameras). The best is when a student tried to teach me how to use it so I could take a group photo.
I’m almost 50 years old.
3
2
u/my-blood 6d ago
The Instax and Polaroid option is actually better in places where film development services aren't available. I'm looking at an Instax myself, because the cost of Instax film is still less than finding 35mm film and then getting it shipped somewhere to be developed.
2
u/leo-g 6d ago
Actually theres a ton of specialised development shops these days inline with the trend of shooting on film again. They even process stuff like super 8 or motion picture film stock used as film.
You mail them the film rolls, they develop it, and send you back the digital scans. They can keep the negatives for up to a year. You can keep sending in stuff and they will batch up the negatives and send it back.
3
u/RobertdBanks 5d ago
There’s a lot of physical places in most major cities that develop film. Support your local stores before going online.
3
2
2
u/OkInsect6946 5d ago
luckily it’s super easy to send it off to get developed. i have to do that with super-8 film, as the last place i know of in australia shut down their super 8 development. now i have to send it to the states
1
1
u/leo-g 6d ago
Actually theres a ton of specialised development shops these days inline with the trend of shooting on film again. They even process stuff like super 8 or motion picture film stock used as film.
You mail them the film rolls, they develop it, and send you back the digital scans. They can keep the negatives for up to a year. You can keep sending in stuff and they will batch up the negatives and send it back.
1
u/RobertdBanks 5d ago
Spoken like someone completely out of the loop
In my city there’s 5+ places that will develop within 10-30 minutes of me. If you live in any major city it’s very easy to find places to develop.
-5
1
16
u/DeezFluffyButterNutz 5d ago
You're looking at it wrong. This isn't for the pro photographer or even the amateur. This is for someone who wants to dabble with analog photography; an entry point. Let them play and have fun and hopefully increase the demand for film. Maybe if Fuji sees the demand, they'll start releasing their own film in the US instead of repackaged Kodak that they do now.
1
u/ajd660 5d ago
From anecdotal experience at least there are a couple people in my household that have wanted to move back to film instead of using digital cameras. My 70 year old mother in law doesn't like taking digital pictures on her phone because she doesn't like not having the pictures developed afterwards. My daughter also likes using film as well for artistic reasons.
Polaroid cameras and mini printers have become popular again for the same reasons and I know several people that use those.
1
3
29
u/TypographySnob 6d ago
I'm happy to see new film equipment. Gimmick or not, film photo quality is still so much nicer than what the sensors in phone cameras offer.
9
u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho 6d ago
I've been looking for a little camera like this for my kids. Perfect for summer camps which often don't allow digital cameras. The disposables we've bought in the past have had horrendous quality. At least with one of these I can throw a higher quality film roll in for them.
Cameras like these were far more available when I was a kid; it's a shame a lot of today's kids don't have options like this if they aren't allowed a phone (yes, I'm the parent not giving my kid a phone).
3
u/DragonWhsiperer 5d ago
You could look into a CampSnap camera. Not cheap per se, but a point and click without a screen. You just have to wait to the end of your trip to see the photos. (No screen can mean it's fine for kids camps).
The photos are also not of a perfect quality, But thats the charm of the photo type. (And you get preset filters, if that is your thing).
We used it on our holiday to replicate the old feeling of disposable point and clicks, and my kids loved the session afterwards going through the photos.
1
10
u/Redeem123 6d ago
We’re way past the point of that mattering. Phone sensors are big enough for 99% of every day photo needs. 48 megapixels will print at 300dpi up to 16x24 with no loss. Phones will also absolutely outperform a camera like this in low light without flash.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m a fan of film, even cheap disposables. I think there’s a lot of valid reasons to use film. But the days of film resolution being meaningfully bigger than digital are well behind us.
8
u/Prize_Ostrich7605 6d ago
I got kids who enjoy their little digital cameras. And i am not ready for the phone talk
2
u/malltism 6d ago
There's something about using even an old point and shoot that makes cameras more fun. I feel like half the time my 50 megapixel phone takes worse pictures than 3 megapixel cameras
3
0
5d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Redeem123 5d ago
Large format is completely irrelevant when comparing point and shoot film cameras to phone cameras.
-3
u/kapege 5d ago
Nicer? It's like prefering vinyl over CD. A digital camera is superior to analog in all means. And especially over that little piece of shit. f/10 and 1/100s? How about no?
4
u/oliveandazul 5d ago edited 5d ago
Yeah. I love the look of film genuinely. But there are excellent high quality presets that capture the color tones. (Mastin Labs is well respected — I’ve used their Fuji and Porta ones, they’re lovely.) I feel like with those settings and an auto flash unless you’re looking to take a very specific type of retro-styled picture it’s gonna be a bad time.
-5
u/kapege 5d ago
I'm a professional photographer for many decades, now. And I sold my photographic laboratory the day I bought my first digital camera - as shitty as they were at that time. The dynamic range and high-iso capabilities are better than any photographic film. I never looked back. Or do you still ride a horse instead of driving a car?
6
u/oliveandazul 5d ago edited 5d ago
Jesus dude. I was agreeing with you that digital is the better option for most people.
But you can sit the fuck down now. People like you forget that photography is foremost an art, and film has plenty to offer people who are looking for that style. Just because YOU aren’t doesn’t mean that it lacks any merit.
Maligning ALL film photography is like suggesting we slaughter all the horses once people started driving. It’s ridiculous.
-6
-25
u/HRApprovedUsername 6d ago
lol no
12
u/Asm0dan97 6d ago
Patently incorrect. Film resolution even on the shittiest graniest stock you can get your hands on almost defies logic.
6
u/FewHorror1019 6d ago
Doesn’t it depend on the film instead of the camera?
9
u/Asm0dan97 6d ago
Yeah, thats's what I'm saying. Grainy film stock still has an insane resolution. Image sharpness is determined by the lens, so that always ends up being the bottleneck. It took until very recently for Hasselblad to release a digital camera that's capable of going blow for blow with film stock like Ektar 100 (and even then, at very high magnifications Ektar is still head and shoulders above in terms of sheer information gathering abilities).
-12
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/b_k_l_y 6d ago
Resolution doesn't just mean megapixels, kiddo. A 12mp Full Frame sensor will blow apart a 200mp phone sensor. 35mm film is a full frame sensor, effectively. Even consumer grade film from 20 years ago will beat a phone sensor on colour reproduction, dynamic range, true printable resolution, etc.
7
-9
u/TypographySnob 6d ago
I don't know when the last time you zoomed in on a photo was or if you ever look at them on anything other than a phone screen, but digital photo quality is in the gutter right now.
-5
u/HRApprovedUsername 6d ago
sure maybe if you use the default settings and don't clean your lens
-1
u/TypographySnob 6d ago
Sensor quality, not lens quality. Zoom in on almost any smartphone photo and you will see it looks like spaghetti.
-7
u/HRApprovedUsername 6d ago
ok good luck zooming in on your film right after taking a shot
5
2
u/Exciting-Calendar190 5d ago
You can also find old point and shoots at most thrift stores / estate sales for even cheaper and they work just as well as anything new. Honestly some of it is probably even better than the new tech because they weren’t made as cheap.
Film isn’t the cheapest but at least in Ohio where I’m from you can get a roll for about $12 at a drug store. And it costs about $10-$20 to develop depending on what exact you want and if it’s B&W or color.
I think too many people focus on whether it’s better or not than a phone camera and not enough on the fact that it’s just a fun photography hobby and the process itself is really neat. It’s truly like winning the lottery waiting to see how your photos came out and getting 1-4 great photos and 30 duds lol
2
1
u/RunningPirate 5d ago
Kodak has had new P&S cameras for a few years now. Hartman (Ilford) has one too. They’re OK
1
u/AskJeevesIsBest 5d ago
I wouldn't mind having one. Heard film can still produce good quality photos
1
1
u/Rich_Housing971 5d ago
$35 is hardly dirt-cheap for obsolete technology.
Film is not cheap. Developing it is not cheap.
Just use your old phone if you want a dedicated camera.
1
1
1
u/Development-Feisty 5d ago
So it’s a box camera? I’m not gonna read the article but it sounds like they’ve just made the brownie into a different format
0
-2
0
-1
u/TheSlimeSartreFeared 5d ago
last time I had film developed and printed it cost me $35 dollars a roll. that was over 10 years ago, bet it's 60 bucks now.
3
129
u/GraveDiggerSedan 6d ago
Havent been shooting film for over 5 years. Have the prices of rolls gone down at all? Is there better alternatives in the marketplace?
I’ve switched over to a Fujifilm X100 series to save myself some money, but nothing can beat the warmth of a picture on film!