Post

Second worst film format ever: 110. Only surpassed by The Kodak Disk camera. As a camera nerd in the 80/90s I worked at Kit's Cameras and never saw a decent pic from either.

A professional photographer friend was in Paris, taking a nighttime multisecond exposure of the Eiffel Tower from 250 yards away, told me that while doing it a tourist beside him took out an instamatic camera, plonked a flashcube on top & took a picture of the tower. I expect they were disappointed

My first camera had one of these. The reflector fanned out and you had to pop the fried bulb out to replace it with a new one for each photo.

Also had the SquareShooterII, eventually bought a Minolta XG-1 SLR and bought a 200mm lens for it. A few years later I bought the Minolta X700; when it broke down and couldn't be repaired (about 20 years later), I moved to a Minolta with autofocus capability, and had to buy new lenses for it.

When Minolta sold out to Konica, and the Sony, I migrated to the Sony alpha line of dslr and was able to continue to use my lenses. I miss film photography some days, but I don't miss the expense and hassle of buying the film and paying to get it developed!

I enjoyed the noise, as the bulb burnt its entire element in one brilliant burst of shadow destroying light.

The whole Flashcube family (I think this was a "flashbar?") was highly imperfect, and lasted far longer than it deserved to. There had to be some reason they keep pushing them on amateur cameras long into the era when electronic flash had gotten cheap.

What DID happen to Kodak, I wonder? SO much stupidity. The Instamatic pocket cameras had a negative size that was already too small even for good 4x6" prints, and then they went to those disks with 8x10mm frames... less than a tenth the size of 35 mm... and even with the relatively finer grains of

Actually that was amazing. The offset between the higher flash and the lens reduced the red eye effect visibly. That's why you had to rotate the flash bar after haf the bulbs used.

...but the pics weren't. A tiny negative meant even normal-sized prints were kinda soft-focus, and they got really fuzzy if blown up farther. But seemed like a good idea at the time...

Hey, you MAY be having some fun here but, I HAD one of those cameras and boy-howdy, they took GREAT pictures! Big-ass photos! For that price, you could NOT be wrong!

Brings back memories. I attended a wedding back in the late 80’s and someone left a used flash pack on the reception table. My grandmother snatched it up and shoved it in her purse “Ha ha! Someone left their cigarettes on the table. This pack is mine now!” I’m not making this up

The camera used piezoelectric ignition system. No batteries. Therefore, not enough power for a reusable flash bulb. Adding batteries and a reusable bulb would increase pricing and make the camera bulky. Batteries in those days was not rechargeable or efficient compared to today's standards.