Kodak Brownie Camera 620 shoot and review.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 лип 2024
- In this video Alastair explores a random couple of 620 Brownie cameras. These cameras took 620 film - a size of film that it no longer made, but thanks to the internet it can be found for not too much money. Both the Brownie Junior and the Brownie Target 620 make an appearance. We take them out for a spin to shoot some film, and then discuss the images and how well the cameras perform.
#brownie #vintagecamera #vintage #blackandwhite #review #620format #analog #filmphotography
0:00 Intro to 620 film
5:56 Shooting with box cameras
7:33 Processing 620 film
7:57 Conclusion
Kodak brought cameras to the masses. The millions of people who purchased these cameras were mostly unable to afford the best cameras available. These types of cameras allowed the common man to capture memories. We get so hung up with image quality that we forget what most people use cameras for. They aren’t looking for photos to enlarge to hang on a wall or to enlarge digitally to see the sharpness to impress their friends. They are recording memories so they can reminisce later. One didn’t need an expensive camera to do that then nor now. There’s a reason people love their phone cameras and don’t haul around expensive photography equipment when going about their daily lives. Cheap cameras allowed the common man the ability to capture memories. So many forget what photography was really meant to be.
That is a beautiful description and so true… i actually prefer the vintage look as do many others because the pictures are less sharp and structured, and you seem to be able to imagine the rest
The Brownie Junior was built between 1934 and 1936. The Target Six-20 was built between 1946 and 1952. Both are fun to shoot with. I've had some great conversations started when people see me out shooting with my old Kodaks.
Pleasant review. I have many of these cameras, maybe seven, and have had it in the back of my mind that one day I should try one of them, and now thanks to you I have learned more about them.
I have a six 20 and love it. My pictures look like they came straight out of the 1940’s.
It's pretty impressive how you managed to keep balance standing on a hydrant and take a picture!
Ha! It was one of those things that seemed to be a good idea before I actually tried it. Harder to do at my age. At least I didn’t topple off.
Best part of the video.
Very cool video! ...And I'm so glad you did this review as I was thinking of picking one of these cameras up but on second thought, I'll stick with the Holga :)
I actually really liked the pictures you took! I have two box cameras and I don't use them much but I do like the pictures I've taken with them. Great video.
Nice!
I have friends that shoot with 620 film cameras and enjoy the results.
I have a Brownie camera that was from an auction lot that I have never used. I just looked, for the first time to see what style camera this is and appears to be a Brownie 2A as it uses 116 film. I'm curious if I could get film for this camera and if it even works. it looks to be in good condition.
I shoot one and discovered if I tape a yellow or red filter over the lense it really brings out the picture. I also have cleaned my lenses including the mirrors in the view finders. Those cameras come apart very easily for cleaning.
Interesting about the filters. I’ll give that a try. And for cleaning, both cameras have had a good clean and things are.. better. A little better….
Really cool images. I do have that camera, but unfortunately not many places you can buy the film (even 120) in India....
I just bought one today. The no.2. version.
I don't agree that the image quality is poor. It is possible that if I were to look at these pictures in a higher resolution, I would have a different opinion, but based on the UA-cam resolution, I think the pictures are quite sharp and good. The picture you did through the window is really quite blurry, but I think the dirty glass ruined the picture there. Anyway, based on this, I think it's even sharper than, say, a Smena 8M image, even though you can take beautiful photos with a Smena.
I don’t know if your models are ones you can do it to but some 620 cameras are fairly easy to modify to just take 120 film. A few, notably the (frankly insane) Kodak Medallist can’t be.
The biggest difference between the two isn’t even the outside diameter of the rolls, it’s that it’s wound tighter and the central core is narrower so it fits in a slightly smaller space.
Is it mean of me to want to see you shoot velvia in this now?
Interesting about the 620-120 hack, thanks for letting me know. And I do have some expired Velvia around here, somewhere. In fact, I think I have some Velvia 100 in 120. I may have to take you up on your challenge...
If I remember right i was told they where equivalent to $400 today for the camera. Mainly due to it being the first somewhat portable camera.
The Six-20 was about $3 in the 1940s, which is around $50 today. There were dozens of different models of Brownies of varying quality. There may have been some that sold for much higher prices at some point. The very first Brownie camera was actually single use. You shot the film, sent it back to Kodak and they'd send you your pics and reload the camera and sell it again.
I imagine if you get lucky with the lighting conditions, you can throw some Ektachrome or Velvia into it. Then you have wonderful, large, slides that you can put on a light box to view. In that case, it wouldn't really matter that the image quality isn't that great.
5:50 You say street cred, I would have said brownie points, haha.
Ha! slide film in there would be great. I'll have to wait for a nice bright day.
Image quality seems ok honestly. Compared to 35mm film the results are not too different except in the corners (this is part of the charm of these cameras). The older camera you used seems to have a pretty hazy lens so needs to be taken apart and cleaned out. If you want antique cameras with better results try the folding cameras from the similar era. They cost about 5-10X more then the box cameras back in the day (not much now) but the lens and shutters are far superior.
I shot some photos with a very similar 30's camera, has the same art deco styling as well (thats how you can tell the age by the way, besides finding the exact type of course)
Some photos were near perfect, others looked like your grandpa and grandma's photos from those photo albums (very similar story here in the Netherlands) albeit not during the war, as photos weren't being taken unless it was a german or an american from above during a bomb run ;)
Why some were near perfect still eludes me, I think I might have done a better job holding still, but lighting does a lot too, presumably the lens is very bad at handling flares.
I think you're right. Camera shake is a major issue - it was with me, for sure. And flattering light does make everything look much better!
I also have great days Camera thanks
Kind if a weird rant at the end about quality of the cheapest camera available at its time with 80 years worth of dust and fungus on it. Especially comparing them to a Leica These things sold for $3-4 brand new in the 40s and a Leicas were listed in catalogs for $380 in the 40s. Thats comparable to around $50 to $4,500 today. People did not care in the slightest that their pics had blurry corners, just like they didn't care how bad a 78 ceramic record sounded.
Have you done your shooting with the camera lenses being so dirty (as in the video)? May be this had also some bad effect in the image quality.
Though, we all understand that the camera of this "grade" will not impress people with its sharpness, etc.
Once I've played around with a similar cardboard camera, and the lens there was even worse that in your Kodaks ))
I would agree with you that the dirty lens did affect it (I always clean mine) but the fact of the matter is that the focal distance of the lens makes it so a dirty lens barely affects the image, as the focus point never gets near the lens, and the lens is far away from the film. Again, I hope Alastair did clean the lens before shooting ;)
That shot that you see of the lens was when we first got the cameras - we did give it a good clean before we shot film with them. However, I do understand how one might make the connection between that shot and my complaints - and even if the dust on the lens wouldn't do much for image quality, best practices would be to give it a good clean, for sure.
@@UnderexposedwithAlastairBird IQ for youtube is more than enough anyway ))
For my perspective, such cameras are more suited as a temporary "toy" to play around, but not for some sort of a long-term use. But I know a few camera lovers (including pinhole) who would disagree with me.
@@Jerbod2 yeah, such simple lens constructions have never showed pleasing results, though some photographers will definitely love the "softness" or lack of details.
Cleaning the lenses might have helped a tad.
I dunno. I did give them a good clean and shot some colour film - video to come…. And the results weren’t much different. But, yes, those lenses are pretty dirty.
@@UnderexposedwithAlastairBird If you take the lens out to clean it make sure you put it back together the same way. I cleaned the lens on my Brownie Hawkeye and put it together backwards and the all the photos were a blurry mess.
Good to know. Thanks for the warning.
i have this camera but no film and all.
@danielthomas990 since we did this video people have commented that you can either trim or sand down 120-size film spools to fit in the camera, so you don’t need to buy 620 film. If you do want to shoot, take a look at that option. I haven’t tried it, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t work.
thank you very much i will try this, these cameras have such a beauty even for their cheap price for their accessibility in its time. thank you for all your help@@UnderexposedwithAlastairBird
Undoubtedly the viewfinder is poor because of age related degradation .
Thump thump, clatter, bump.. terrible video 🙄
Not sure I follow. Are you complaining about the audio? Or about the some sort of a visual issue? Sorry it wasn’t up to your high standards. If you want to offer feedback, I’m happy to hear it. “Terrible video” and an eyeroll emoji doesn’t cut it, I’m afraid.