Kodak Charmera Images

[chuckroast]

So there I was at the local camera store this afternoon because a little birdie told me they had just gotten these in:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._rk0601_charmera_keychain_digital_camera.html


Well, the GAS kicked in and it was only $30 and I need to get some PhotoFlo and ... oh, who am I kidding, I just thought this was way too much fun to pass up.

Kodak used to make a one shot film camera called the "Fling". The Charmera is a reimagining of this for the digital age. You get one of 7 different decorative trims but you won't know which one until you buy it and open the box.

It's a tiny little thing you could actually hang on a keychain (included in the box). It runs of a USB-C rechargeable battery (cable included) and uses micro-SD cards for storage (not included). At a modest 1.6 Mpix resolution, you get pretty small files - in the neighborhood of 300Kb. So even with only a 1 GB drive, you can hold 3000-ish images. It has an LED onboard for a weak imitation of a flash and also shoots 30 fps AVI movies.

It ain't no Nikon or Leica digital, but it's a hoot to play around with. I plan to have my grandson using it almost immediately as a gateway drug to photography.

Great Christmas stocking stuffer or an amusement for yourself. It's also a candidate as a visual notepad for keeping track of which obscure farm road intersection I parked on when I was out with my "real" cameras .

It does what you'd expect from a 1.6 Mpix camera, but it absolutely takes pictures:



"Larry" aka Lawrence Of Furrabia

 

[Timmyjoe]

Okay, Who else got one of these for Christmas. I had been waiting since July for B&H to get them in stock. When they finally got them a couple weeks ago, the price had jumped from $29.99 to $39.99 (it's now at $44.99), but I finally grabbed one. Gave it to my wife to give me for Christmas. 😛

It's interesting. Working on figuring out a way to get better image quality, but it is fun. I like the fake filters you can throw on images.



And if the lighting is good, you can get almost passable B&W images.



Won't be replacing my Nikon Zf, but it's a fun image making toy for playing around with.

Merry Christmas everyone. And Happy Holidays.

Best,
-Tim

 

[JoeV]

 

[JoeV]

My review of the Kodak Charmera:

 

[news shooter]

My review of the Kodak Charmera:

Great review Joe. Like your artistic images with it and explanation of the workings!
Thanks,
News shooter

 

[Timmyjoe]

After seeing folks doing this on YouTube with images from the Charmera, just for fun I took the B&W image I posted above, and ran it thru Google Gemini Nano Banana Pro and it squirted out the image at the bottom.

Original right out of Charmera:


After running thru Google Gemini Nano Banana Pro


Ran a few others thru Gemini, and on people images, even though the program sharpened everything up, the faces didn't really look like the people photographed.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Timmyjoe]

Okay, I'm really starting to like this little camera.

About thirty years ago, I was living in NYC, working for a smaller city paper and kind of obsessed with image quality and having the best lenses etc. And I had this artist friend, she kept telling me I had to get one of these Diana cameras (this was long before Lomography came around), and she kept telling me it would be good for me photographically/artistically.

It made no sense to me. Diana's were hard to find at that time, had been made in Hong Kong in the 1960's, they had plastic lenses, they leaked light, I kept telling her there was no way I could make good images with one. And she kept telling me, that was the point.

So now thirty some years later, I've got one of these little Kodak Charmeras and I now see what she was talking about. I don't know if it's making me a better photographer/artist, but it sure the heck is fun.



Best,
-Tim

PS: I hope others who have gotten one of these cameras will start posting their images on this thread.

 

[chuckroast]

Okay, I'm really starting to like this little camera.

About thirty years ago, I was living in NYC, working for a smaller city paper and kind of obsessed with image quality and having the best lenses etc. And I had this artist friend, she kept telling me I had to get one of these Diana cameras (this was long before Lomography came around), and she kept telling me it would be good for me photographically/artistically.

It made no sense to me. Diana's were hard to find at that time, had been made in Hong Kong in the 1960's, they had plastic lenses, they leaked light, I kept telling her there was no way I could make good images with one. And she kept telling me, that was the point.

So now thirty some years later, I've got one of these little Kodak Charmeras and I now see what she was talking about. I don't know if it's making me a better photographer/artist, but it sure the heck is fun.



Best,
-Tim

PS: I hope others who have gotten one of these cameras will start posting their images on this thread.

Beyond their novelty, cameras like this free you just to "see" and not worry about all the other thinks you normally worry about fiddling with a "real" camera.

I need to start throwing mine in my pocket when I am out doing non-photographic things.

 

[neal3k]

I'm a collector and after I got one for Christmas, my wife and I both decided the get the 6-pack with one in each color. Then I researched and got the Kodak 110 that inspired the look of the Charmera.

Inspiration by Neal Wellons, on Flickr

I've only posted one shot on Flickr but I've really enjoyed playing with the different modes.

Dipping into Digital by Neal Wellons, on Flickr

 

[bucs]

I like it because of its size. I can take photos or videos without taking my phone out even for just random stuff.

 

[BillBingham2]

The colors on the street scene from Evanston (I think) and the flowers reminded me so much of the 126 Instamatic prints from the 60's and 70's.

 

[JeffS7444]

I think the current best-buy Kodak digital camera is the FZ45, which used to be available as a refurbished unit for as little as ~50 USD before it became trendy.

But Charmera would have been a wonder-product in the 1990s! It handily outperforms my old Apple Quicktake 100, even the very costly Kodak DCS200, circa 1992. Like those older cameras, it has dreadful dynamic range, but color accuracy and low-light performance are worlds better. At mid-day, I was getting a lot of overexposed photos, but discovered that shooting through sunglasses helped a lot - I guess it runs out of e-shutter quickly.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I think we're smacking up against the dynamic range of this tiny sensor, but it's still fun to shoot.


Kodak Charmera in B&W mode

Best,
-Tim

 

[Timmyjoe]

More trains. Such an easy "Carry Everywhere" camera.


Kodak Charmera in B&W mode

Best,
-Tim

 

[Timmyjoe]

Chicago Tower:


Kodak Charmera

Best,
-Tim

 

[Timmyjoe]

Having a ball:


Kodak Charmera

Best,
-Tim

 

[seany65]

I'm a little disappointed with the qwuality of the images, they ain't bad enough to use the camera as anyone's specialist "UFO Potato camera"!

 

[Timmyjoe]

I figured out that for me, I just needed to embrace the suck. The image quality is certainly not great, but for some reason, that makes it fun. Trying to see what you can get out of it. And it couldn't be any "Dirt Cheaper" to shoot. I took it with me last night when my wife and I were going to see Josh Johnson and shot 88 images. Most were garbage, but there were a handful that were fun to work with, and created some good memories.

And it's so tiny I never hesitate to whip it out of my pocket, frame up, and shoot. You might get something, you might not, but "it don't cost ya nothin'!" to try, so why not.

I'll admit that when I first got it I was hoping for better image quality, but now that I know what it can and can't do, I just accept it and try and work around it.

I hope others jump on board and post some images here. I don't know what they're selling for now, but I got mine for like $30. And I've already made a couple hundred images with it.

Best,
-Tim

 

[JeffS7444]

Chicago Tower:

View attachment 4887778
Kodak Charmera

Best,
-Tim

That's kind of neat how the white window frames against the dark face of the foreground building went watercolor-y.