JDMvW Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>Are you like me and never have <em>time</em> to get out and shoot? I've solved the problem for once and for all.</p> <p>Back in 1984 <em>Time</em> offered a free camera with a subscription (see <a href="http://video.aol.com/video-detail/time-magazine-w-free-camera-offer/654118877">link for the original Time ad from TV</a> ). I just won one on eBay, so now I finally have TIME for all my shooting.</p> <p>This came still wrapped in the cellophane and in the original box from Time-Life. You know how on the Antiques Roadshow, it's always a disaster when somebody undoes something? Well, I am sure by opening up the cellophane, I probably reduced the value of the whole kit by 50%. However, since I only paid something less than $4 for it, perhaps this is not quite the tragedy like the recently refinished Tudor chest.<br> It works at only one speed, 125th of a second. It has f/stops from f/5.6 (according to the lens front, actually f/6) to f/16. These are marked on one side of the lens with the actual numbers and on the other side with a cloud, a blue sun and cloud, an orange sun and a yellow sun. The lens is a fixed focus 50mm LAVEC OPTICAL GLASS LENS. It is made to be used only with ISO 100 film. It was made in Taiwan, and bears an gold oval Taiwan "PASSED" sticker on it.</p> <p>It turns out to be a mediocre shooter. I stuck a roll of Fuji in it and here are the results. The exposure was right on, but the lens is not nearly so good as even my Perfekta box camera from the late, lamented DDR.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>Here are a couple of shots taken with the camera.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>And a couple more from various places</p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustys pics Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>Not too bad considering...reminds me of the disposable 35mm cameras around today. I think 35mm loses a lot of the creamy tonality you get from medium format box cameras and folders. When I read the thread title images Burgess Meredith with an old Rolleiflex and broken eyeglasses came to mind! For those uninitiated, check out the Classic Twilight Zone Episode "Time Enough At Last". </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Collins Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>Not bad at all, considering...one of my coworkers found one of these at a Goodwill store and gave it to me but I never really considered using it. In fact, I thought about giving it back to Goodwill but I wasn't sure what I'd say when she asked me where it was. Now, I might just give it a try and see what I get from it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_hall5 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>That would be perfect to start out one of my kidds...neat find for sure. Thanks for the post.</p> <p>Jason</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_cheshire Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>I have one of these and consider it to be the original junk camera that inspired the hundreds of look-a-likes that came afterwards. In fact, I have it in my collection (as an oddity). I didn't know it could take photos that look at least that good. If you ever take one apart you will find a lead weight under the base plate to give it "heft". It is interesting to note that the advance and expo. counter are copied from the little Olympus Pen EE. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subbarayan_prasanna Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>The close focus zones seem quite good. The far field is bit vague. Perhaps, would do well at a smaller aperture. It was meant to be a "gift horse" anyway! Nice to see you going out to make pics. Thanks, regards, sp.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_ Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>Actually, the shots look "too good". Wonder if they made one with an "Optical PLASTIC Lens" (?) :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4525289 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>JDM,<br /> That always puzzled me when whey give away cheap freebies for subscription. I am just wandering did anyone ever subscribe to the TIME magazine to get that spectacular camera? And what do they mean really indicating "optical glass lenses". Do they learn about the existence of acoustic lenses or aquifer ones?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sw12dz Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>The photos look good on my monitor! Neat plastic camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longname Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 <p>hahaha, awesome! Not too shabby at all. It looks like it took more effort to make the manual than the camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick j dempsey Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 <p>You know, typically when JDM starts a thread I expect things to be technical and lots of references to pre-war and post-war and countries that don't exist by that name anymore and it's all very interesting to read, but you just about made me shoot water out of my nose with this one man.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick_van_Nooij Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 <p>Pretty neat, JDM, even if it's a cheap 'gift' camera. Perhaps you could use it as a time-traveling camera for those 17th Century re-enactment events. It's got TIME on it's side (well, front) after all. :)<br> Is the little raised accessoiry shoe supposed to give it an SLR-appearance? Probably to lure more subscriptioners. The full-color cover of the manual looks pretty classy too.</p> <p>Rick</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 <p>Yes, the raised area was to fool the subscribers into thinking they were actually getting a SLR, I think. I forgot to mention that the accessory mount is apparently actually a hot shoe. A flash was supposed to be available as mentioned in the "manual" but no indication of how to actually acquire it.</p> <p>I'm guessing that those American children who had not already been disillusioned by something like the Orphan Annie decoder (as in <em>Christmas Story</em> ), had their final disillusionment with "free" offers after getting one of these.</p> <p>I do confess that I got some stares with this one around my neck.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene m Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 <p>http://westfordcomp.com/classics/time/index.htm</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou_Meluso Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 <p>Totally cool, JDM. Wonderful pictures with that toy. For a while it seemed those cameras were everywhere and a staple in every flea market, yard sale and junk shop in town. Though never new with the cap or original instructions. Unique.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_foreman1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Well ..Eat your hearts out gentlemen. I too have one and like JDM mine is STILL wrapped in the original box and yes Kozma, I am one of those that renewed or placed a subscription and got one back in 1984. Even back then I saw the classic potential and have preserved this item for future generations of collectors. Barnack, Zeiss,Kodak ..Pfewwey !! Time marches on! Yes Andy I understand the dilema! I've debated giving this (Original Junk Camera....thanks Tom) to one of my little brothers back then or my neighbor who helped me move and decided I shouldn't burden them with this POS, that only I, in my infinite wisdom could appreciate! I seem to forget I have it until I move! Mmmh 4,00$ ...this Wine needs to age a bit more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 <p>Gene, from the touches made to suggest a more modern camera, I'm thinking the one you have (that Kinopic may be better than the Lavec? or is it the photographer?) may be later?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene m Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 <p>It's a mystery. It's a mystery.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verivorax Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 <p>I had one of these when I was 10.. a gift from an Uncle (some gift!). I shot with it, but it was inadvertantly left behind somewhere in the Smithsonian complex. hey, I was 10. </p> <p>I would love to have one in my collection alongside the 4-lens "action camera" and little collapsible 110 camera from the 80s.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 <p>Much later -- the link above in the first entry of this post to the original TV ad is now no longer working to get you to that film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now