Mos6502
Well-known
Recently I've been working my way through a backlog of undeveloped film. I had a whole box of rolls that piled up over the years. Generally if I thought I had a good photo I would develop the roll right away, and if I thought I didn't have a good photo the roll would sometimes disappear into a box of other uninteresting rolls, saved I guess for a rainy day. At the bottom of this box was a roll of Lucky SHD 100, so I knew it was old. Upon development, I was a little stumped. I couldn't remember what camera I used at first, but as I was inspecting the negatives I finally saw a couple frames that ignited long dormant memories.
I had shot two or three rolls through a Halina 35X c. 2010. It was in all respects a terrible camera. It looks kind of cool, I'll admit, but everything about it felt kind of off. It is basically the ripoff of the Nescon camera (see my thread on the Soligor rebrand of this camera here). It has a spring regulated shutter (setting the shutter to higher speeds increases the spring tension... there is no clockwork, and thus no accuracy, in the timing mechanism) and a triplet lens (which in a hilarious fit of penny pinching, only the outer elements got coated!). The advance mechanism feels like stirring a pot of gravel, and the rewind requires you to pull and lift the advance knob up, and press down a rewind "button" against significant spring pressure while using a comically tiny rewind knob to get the film back into its cassette - this ends up being literally painful. And even then I always managed to rip at least a few sprocket holes during the rewind process.
step by Berang Berang, on Flickr
valve by Berang Berang, on Flickr
Above: The recently developed roll. I'm honestly impressed that the Lucky film held the latent image for over a decade without losing much, if any contrast. There was no base fog to speak of either. Prints were made quickly, I may go back and do a proper job of the one of the stairs, I think it has some promise of being a good photo with a little more effort.
And a color image from the same camera:
stone faced by Berang Berang, on Flickr
The 35X was relatively popular in England, where it was just about the cheapest "real" 35mm camera one could get, and there are plenty in the UK who have some nostalgia for these tiny, chintzy cameras. I did not hold on to mine, it left my collection after only a handful of rolls had gone through it.
I had shot two or three rolls through a Halina 35X c. 2010. It was in all respects a terrible camera. It looks kind of cool, I'll admit, but everything about it felt kind of off. It is basically the ripoff of the Nescon camera (see my thread on the Soligor rebrand of this camera here). It has a spring regulated shutter (setting the shutter to higher speeds increases the spring tension... there is no clockwork, and thus no accuracy, in the timing mechanism) and a triplet lens (which in a hilarious fit of penny pinching, only the outer elements got coated!). The advance mechanism feels like stirring a pot of gravel, and the rewind requires you to pull and lift the advance knob up, and press down a rewind "button" against significant spring pressure while using a comically tiny rewind knob to get the film back into its cassette - this ends up being literally painful. And even then I always managed to rip at least a few sprocket holes during the rewind process.
step by Berang Berang, on Flickrvalve by Berang Berang, on FlickrAbove: The recently developed roll. I'm honestly impressed that the Lucky film held the latent image for over a decade without losing much, if any contrast. There was no base fog to speak of either. Prints were made quickly, I may go back and do a proper job of the one of the stairs, I think it has some promise of being a good photo with a little more effort.
And a color image from the same camera:
stone faced by Berang Berang, on FlickrThe 35X was relatively popular in England, where it was just about the cheapest "real" 35mm camera one could get, and there are plenty in the UK who have some nostalgia for these tiny, chintzy cameras. I did not hold on to mine, it left my collection after only a handful of rolls had gone through it.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Funny you mention this camera -- the other day I saw a picture in a Craigslist posting where a seller had taken pictures of displays of the cameras he had for sale at an antiques center. One of them was this Halina but I couldn't make out what it was until I went to the place and saw it in person.
I don't think I'd heard of the camera before, so I looked it up and the consensus of the online reviews was pretty much what you used as your caption. It does sound pretty rudimentary, but the pictures you've posted seem pretty good -- decently sharp.
Instead I bought an Agfa Super Silette with Solagon 50 (q.v.) for the same price he was asking for the Halina.
I don't think I'd heard of the camera before, so I looked it up and the consensus of the online reviews was pretty much what you used as your caption. It does sound pretty rudimentary, but the pictures you've posted seem pretty good -- decently sharp.
Instead I bought an Agfa Super Silette with Solagon 50 (q.v.) for the same price he was asking for the Halina.
seany65
Well-known
I bought one some time ago because I'd liked some of the "Lo-Fi" photos that it gives wide open, which I'd seen online. My problem was that the eyepiece of the viewfinder was tiny (partly 'cos I'm a speccy-four-eyes) and I couldn't be doing with that, so I bought a super 35x with it's big viewfinder to try and get the Lo-Fi "looks like a still from an old silent film" type photos. Not got around to using it yet.
johnf04
Well-known
The last one of these I owned had an awkward fault - the shutter blades opened a fraction when cocking the shutter. I couldn't find a way of fixing this, for all the shutter's simplicity.