Pickwick Camera -- What a Stinker!

David · Expire: 2013-01-25

I accidentally bought this camera about four months ago. The back closure was warped, but I got to use it because one day it magically unwarped. I didn't know bakelite could do that. So I spooled the tail end of a Kodak 250D roll onto some 127 backing paper and gave this thing a shot.

Wow. What a stinker. Oddly, the center is incredibly blurry with a ring of focus around it. The edges are almost as out of focus as the center. Yes -- the center is the most out-of-focus area. In fact, the lens' center cannot focus on anything at any distance. Close-up, not only does it not focus, it actually distorts images.

Lest you think that I just have a bad copy, verily I say unto you: I knew it would perform this badly before I used it because of everything I read on the Internet about this camera. All of the reviews are as damning as mine is about to be.

This image demonstrates the warping. You can tell by the registration holes that film was scanned flat. An alternate possibility as to why this is so warped is that the camera lacks the ability to hold film flat on a plane. Yeah.

This image demonstrates the ring of focus outside the middle. You can see my Rhodesian Ridgeback is in reasonable focus. My other dog, however, is not, even though he's in the middle.

Let's sing this commentary to the tun of Johnny Cash's Ring of Fire.

I fell in to a blurry ring of focus.
I got blurred, blurred, blurred and the image did not focus.
And it's blurry, blurry, blurry, that ring of focus.
That ring of focus.

What the heck? At least the film information lettering is in focus.

This is the best shot from the roll. No, I'm not kidding.

But beyond performance, this camera gets worse. Yes, it gets worse. It uses 127 film -- an egregious waste of such a rare commodity. Because it uses 127 film, it has two red viewing holes on the back. If you line up the numbers in the centers of each red viewing hole and advance as you're supposed to, the images overlap. YES! They overlap. Now, I'm all for not wasting film and all, but overlapping images seems a bit like overkill.

In short, do not buy this camera.

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

It may be a stinker, but I quite like the effect, especially with the sprocket holes.

skida · Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:58 pm Post subject:

I had a similar problem on an old Baldessar RF camera, where one area of the shot was always blurred. I eventually found that the sprung film pressure plate had taken a knock and had a raised area. I gave it a tap or two with small cloth covered hammer and the situation was vastly improved. I think your warped back closure may have been involved somehow.

luisalegria · Expire: 2018-01-18

Film flatness is a big problem on most cheap cameras, and on many not-so cheap ones too.

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

That will make you a fashion icon, it's the next Lomo ! Laughing

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

peterqd · Expire: 2014-01-04

@ David. Well done for trying it.

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Well it was all about a bit of fun Wink

David · Expire: 2013-01-25

The camera is totally a blast to use. Looks silly, very light, and incredibly simple. In fact, as a great design bonus, it can even hold a spare roll inside the camera!

I'll get some pics of it posted later. I may actually try a second roll at some point, to see if I can work with the camera's flaws to return less super-lomo results.