So the speed is faster, you say? Tempting. One thing that kept me from being interested in the prior model was the lag. Missing a casual moment because the camera is slow isn't appealing to me. I see the point to this. It's something you slip into a pocket because it's "good enough" and fast enough, and don't worry about it. There's a Mamiya RB67, or giant SLR, or so on for when you want to get it right. But sometimes just a basic optical finder and a shutter button is enough. In that case, the #1 most important feature is probably responsiveness. If final image quality was the goal, we can always use a real camera, but so long as it's quick enough to get a shot, one of these feels like it has a niche. There's one little detail I think cameras like this could learn from the Pentax 17: put the viewfinder directly over the lens. I'm someone who hates it when I try to frame up a shot for symmetry, and it's off center. And parallax from offset viewfinders has frequently frustrated me. The 17 puts the viewfinder directly over the lens, so you mostly can be pretty sure that if something is in the center of the finder, it's in the center of the frame. Having one axis in alignment helps make sure difference from parallax don't become actual problems. If the next Camp Snaps version just shimmied the lens over half an inch, oh, that'd be so good.
Nice there is a massive resurgence in old retro digital cameras from the 2000. Phones and cameras these days are way to clear and sharp and you can see every line, wrinkle or zit. Older cameras that were point and shoot have a different look and feel also. Yes you can put your own filters and demaster your photos to try to make them look older but why not for to the source and start with lower quality chips lol. I hate taking pictures and having to look at them and then realizing it is t perfect or a weird shadow and tuen having to take another one, really brings you out of the moment ❤
Got the previous version for my kid and was honestly a little disappointed by the shutter lag and consistently weird discoloration in the color photos. Will compare the two myself! Thanks for the reminder to check out the new one.
Very nice video about this little fun camera. Maybe I missed it, but is the version 103 or 103B? Are the sample pics edited or SOOC? These are awesome!
I dont think it makes sense to compare it to an RB67 or a Sony mirrorless because the use cases are completly different. I think its been designed to be an alternative to phone cameras, film point and shoot and digicams... in that regard I think its not for everyone but some will be grateful for this product existing because, as you said, sometimes we dont want to mess around with settings, expensive gear and sometimes inconsistent results from film (especially when giving it to a frined); and we do want to have a more unconcerned, simple, direct experience with the camera like when using a digicam or a phone. I dont dislike shooting with a phone, but you know... having a device specifically made for photography (a camera) is always different, more tactile, and better feeling (at least for me). Im always willing to sacrifice on image quality (especially on the photos this camera is intended for) to get a nicer experience. For the price of this camera I think is worth it for some. Other point you could make is that you should buy some old digicam and just, I dont know, gaftape its back? Well that could work :) the only advantage of the CampSnap in that regard is that it is a camera designd with its own experience in mind, taking in account the no-screen "feature" and building the experience around that. Well it's just my opinion, have a nice day. Keep it up!! 🇦🇷 🇦🇷 🇦🇷
@@tilukpo I mean clearly, I compared it to a film or digital point & shoot countless times. I’m saying in my use case, where I’m using much larger cameras like that frequently, there is still a good use for it.
Thanks for this review! Sorry for all the haters. As a fellow UA-camr, I get it. Quick question: How do you think the image quality would hold up for small prints (like 5x7 and 8x10)?
I saw this camera a few months ago at my photo lab. I'd get it for my mom but not for me. You did not mention you cannot see the photos after you take them because there is no viewfinder....Newsflash. Metal Fingers abandons film for Camp snap digital camera.
Great product for this generation that want that point and shoot size and image quality but with a filmish aesthetic . The mobile phones are too perfect and clinical,not looked at the whole video but if it can then bluetooth to a phone then it's a winner as us photographers that edit don't mind downloading to the computer however the multitude of enthusiasts that have no interest in editing will not want to do that.
Most of the photos I've seen from this camera produce an awful super digital cheap look of the early 2000s. To say it's a film look is very misleading.
@@joeydgraffix but most of the consumers and photos you’re seeing are not from photographers. The images I’ve gotten and my friends who are photographers are getting good stuff.
@@Caballeroshot then shoot digital. Or on your phone. I dont care. But lets not pretend I would care about a product like this. And I feel like film photography is the reason why im on this channel.
@@PointlessDrummer There is no reason to not buy this product. It seems to have good build quality. And like the guy above this comment said. Not everyone can afford a bunch of film. And also. This was designed as a better looking camera for kids. That gives the look of film. And it does that well…. Also like. This guy does film, but why can he not review a digital product that try’s to capture film? Like it’s not a sin to just talk about something you think is a good product.
@@PointlessDrummer there’s no rules to being a film photographer. I’m sure inshoot just as much film as you, if not, more, and I still think there’s a lot of merit in this product, especially for my someone starting out or my nieces and nephews. Even in my instance where I have the luxury to shoot film at the frequency, I still find use cases for this.
@@PointlessDrummer I fail to see your point, this was a review for a digital camera designed for kids or new hobbyists who want a point and shoot feel of a film camera. I don't understand this rage towards a product you have no use for, or your snobby display of aggression to the content of this channel as if you had a say so on what's covered. Grow up chief!
Yea, my little boy loves the camp snap. Might get this updated version because the slow shutter response on the first one leads to a lot of wavy pictures since he moved the camera before it takes the picture. 😂
Too wordy on your selling points. How do you compete when people have cellphones? And how you got to learn photography in less it is a fully manual film camera? We all started up using black and white film photography, so we can develop our negatives and take it to print. Then you can judge the final results on paper if you did good or badm, so you can perfect your photography skills...
The point of a screen-less camera is to embrace the imperfections. You have little control over anything but the framing, and even that is not great, so you just point and shoot, and if it's crap, you won't know until you get back home and get the photos off the camera. It's all about embracing the imperfections of it, the delayed enjoyment, and forcing you to "live in the moment". Obviously, if you want great photos, it's not a good idea. That being said, I bought the initial model and the problem was that the camera was too bad. It's one thing to embrace the imperfections, it's quite another when 2 out of 3 shots are so bad you can only delete them. If they improved the camera so that the shots, even though imperfect, are still good enough to keep around as memories, then that's a major improvement.
Use Code "metalfingers5" to Save $5 off your CampSnap! - www.campsnapphoto.com
Do you get a kickback when people use that code? Is that why you’re speaking so positively of it?
So the speed is faster, you say? Tempting.
One thing that kept me from being interested in the prior model was the lag. Missing a casual moment because the camera is slow isn't appealing to me. I see the point to this. It's something you slip into a pocket because it's "good enough" and fast enough, and don't worry about it. There's a Mamiya RB67, or giant SLR, or so on for when you want to get it right. But sometimes just a basic optical finder and a shutter button is enough. In that case, the #1 most important feature is probably responsiveness. If final image quality was the goal, we can always use a real camera, but so long as it's quick enough to get a shot, one of these feels like it has a niche.
There's one little detail I think cameras like this could learn from the Pentax 17: put the viewfinder directly over the lens. I'm someone who hates it when I try to frame up a shot for symmetry, and it's off center. And parallax from offset viewfinders has frequently frustrated me. The 17 puts the viewfinder directly over the lens, so you mostly can be pretty sure that if something is in the center of the finder, it's in the center of the frame. Having one axis in alignment helps make sure difference from parallax don't become actual problems.
If the next Camp Snaps version just shimmied the lens over half an inch, oh, that'd be so good.
Nice there is a massive resurgence in old retro digital cameras from the 2000. Phones and cameras these days are way to clear and sharp and you can see every line, wrinkle or zit. Older cameras that were point and shoot have a different look and feel also. Yes you can put your own filters and demaster your photos to try to make them look older but why not for to the source and start with lower quality chips lol. I hate taking pictures and having to look at them and then realizing it is t perfect or a weird shadow and tuen having to take another one, really brings you out of the moment ❤
Nice video man. Loved the two images at 2:17 !
Got the previous version for my kid and was honestly a little disappointed by the shutter lag and consistently weird discoloration in the color photos. Will compare the two myself! Thanks for the reminder to check out the new one.
So sick! I had no idea they were making an updated version!!
how does it behave in dark scenery? like a party maybe
Not good.
Wow! so great photos for such cam. They really updated specs
Very nice video about this little fun camera.
Maybe I missed it, but is the version 103 or 103B?
Are the sample pics edited or SOOC? These are awesome!
Based off when this video was uploaded, I would bet it's 103.
@metalfingersfilm maybe you can clarify this 🙂
I dont think it makes sense to compare it to an RB67 or a Sony mirrorless because the use cases are completly different. I think its been designed to be an alternative to phone cameras, film point and shoot and digicams... in that regard I think its not for everyone but some will be grateful for this product existing because, as you said, sometimes we dont want to mess around with settings, expensive gear and sometimes inconsistent results from film (especially when giving it to a frined); and we do want to have a more unconcerned, simple, direct experience with the camera like when using a digicam or a phone. I dont dislike shooting with a phone, but you know... having a device specifically made for photography (a camera) is always different, more tactile, and better feeling (at least for me). Im always willing to sacrifice on image quality (especially on the photos this camera is intended for) to get a nicer experience. For the price of this camera I think is worth it for some.
Other point you could make is that you should buy some old digicam and just, I dont know, gaftape its back? Well that could work :) the only advantage of the CampSnap in that regard is that it is a camera designd with its own experience in mind, taking in account the no-screen "feature" and building the experience around that.
Well it's just my opinion, have a nice day.
Keep it up!! 🇦🇷 🇦🇷 🇦🇷
@@tilukpo I mean clearly, I compared it to a film or digital point & shoot countless times. I’m saying in my use case, where I’m using much larger cameras like that frequently, there is still a good use for it.
@@metalfingersfilm 😁🤝
Ohh its an ad lol was wondering why you'd make a vid about this and why the glazing went so crazy like why didnt you say anything negative at all
not an ad. I didn't receive any money from them lol. I just think it's a really solid product for $65.
@@metalfingersfilm ah ok my b
He should’ve gotten paid because it really sounds like an ad
So a phone camera. I see.
Thanks for this review! Sorry for all the haters. As a fellow UA-camr, I get it. Quick question: How do you think the image quality would hold up for small prints (like 5x7 and 8x10)?
I saw this camera a few months ago at my photo lab. I'd get it for my mom but not for me. You did not mention you cannot see the photos after you take them because there is no viewfinder....Newsflash. Metal Fingers abandons film for Camp snap digital camera.
Ill keep the film simulator app on my older iphone and go from there
Which app do you like
@ its called nomo. Its a paid app but ive actually sold pictures i took on that app so it paid itself off in a week
I want to pick one up for my 5 year old to take photos. She loves my Fuji camera, but a smaller cheaper easier camera would really be nice.
It’s like a Leica -d version
Great product for this generation that want that point and shoot size and image quality but with a filmish aesthetic . The mobile phones are too perfect and clinical,not looked at the whole video but if it can then bluetooth to a phone then it's a winner as us photographers that edit don't mind downloading to the computer however the multitude of enthusiasts that have no interest in editing will not want to do that.
Most of the photos I've seen from this camera produce an awful super digital cheap look of the early 2000s. To say it's a film look is very misleading.
@@joeydgraffix but most of the consumers and photos you’re seeing are not from photographers. The images I’ve gotten and my friends who are photographers are getting good stuff.
I’ve heard this before…
how much did you get paid for this ad
nothing, lol, I just enjoy the product.
:))))
thats not why we shoot film...
Not everyone can afford to shoot film!
@@Caballeroshot then shoot digital. Or on your phone. I dont care.
But lets not pretend I would care about a product like this.
And I feel like film photography is the reason why im on this channel.
@@PointlessDrummer There is no reason to not buy this product. It seems to have good build quality. And like the guy above this comment said. Not everyone can afford a bunch of film. And also. This was designed as a better looking camera for kids. That gives the look of film. And it does that well…. Also like. This guy does film, but why can he not review a digital product that try’s to capture film? Like it’s not a sin to just talk about something you think is a good product.
@@PointlessDrummer there’s no rules to being a film photographer. I’m sure inshoot just as much film as you, if not, more, and I still think there’s a lot of merit in this product, especially for my someone starting out or my nieces and nephews.
Even in my instance where I have the luxury to shoot film at the frequency, I still find use cases for this.
@@PointlessDrummer I fail to see your point, this was a review for a digital camera designed for kids or new hobbyists who want a point and shoot feel of a film camera. I don't understand this rage towards a product you have no use for, or your snobby display of aggression to the content of this channel as if you had a say so on what's covered. Grow up chief!
Kinda silly. Just use your phone. I guess it's a good stocking stuffer for a kid or a photographer friend
Yea, my little boy loves the camp snap. Might get this updated version because the slow shutter response on the first one leads to a lot of wavy pictures since he moved the camera before it takes the picture. 😂
🤦♀️
Too wordy on your selling points. How do you compete when people have cellphones? And how you got to learn photography in less it is a fully manual film camera? We all started up using black and white film photography, so we can develop our negatives and take it to print. Then you can judge the final results on paper if you did good or badm, so you can perfect your photography skills...
Honestly I think this is just a fun camera and no alternative to a phone or any Standart camera (film or not)
The point of a screen-less camera is to embrace the imperfections. You have little control over anything but the framing, and even that is not great, so you just point and shoot, and if it's crap, you won't know until you get back home and get the photos off the camera. It's all about embracing the imperfections of it, the delayed enjoyment, and forcing you to "live in the moment". Obviously, if you want great photos, it's not a good idea.
That being said, I bought the initial model and the problem was that the camera was too bad. It's one thing to embrace the imperfections, it's quite another when 2 out of 3 shots are so bad you can only delete them. If they improved the camera so that the shots, even though imperfect, are still good enough to keep around as memories, then that's a major improvement.