EEVblog 1440 - Pentax Film Camera TEARDOWN

[@SeanBZA]

Multiple entry thread, used to get a reliable length. The zoom moves the inner lens using a calculated difference in pitch so that the middle focus lens always is in a near optimal focus all through the range, though it will hunt slightly to get the zoom to a good focal position at parts of the range, as the calculated focus is not optimal for that point. The extra test points are for manufacture, where they used them to drive the iris and zoom, so as to get a calibration set for the lens assembly, which is also stored in the EEPROM, as a look up table of offsets from switch position changes, for the zoom sensor, and for iris motor drive pulses for the iris, in relation to input optical range. Does not store film position on the roll, just relies on the battery being good, and having around 5 minutes of power off reserve in those tantalum capacitor for you to change the lithium primary cell, as it will not power on to take flash images when the battery voltage is sensed to be low, but will display a low battery symbol instead. The CDS cell is also calibrated with the system, to get better tolerance, though that is often just done using a set of select on test resistors, to make bins of acceptable range parts, and they simply are taped together after binning, and sent to the assembly line for installation. There will be one precision resistor on that main board, connected with the CDS cell, which is the binning resistor. Relies on the processing chip having an accurate reference voltage for internal use, at least good enough for 6 bits of voltage, and a crystal for timing accuracy. Reserves enough power to complete a reel of 36 images and rewind in bright light though, with the flashing low battery symbol. Those cells last well, typically 25 years, so likely is the original cell still, as you have not taken many rolls of film with it. Only charges the capacitor if you switch to auto flash or manual flash, or red eye reduction, and charges the capacitor to between 300 and 400V, depending on mode, ambient light level, and on flash activation times. The flash duration is controlled with a SCR, to quench the flash tube, using an inductor to drive it off, then fire again after the iris of the people has closed, from the dim initial flash, while the inverter takes the capacitor up to a higher voltage to get adequate light on the image. That is why you get the dim initial flash, then a second later a much brighter flash with the iris of the camera open all the way, then the film returns one frame back in the film cartridge. Image 1 is the frame closest to the inside of the cartridge, the film is rolled completely onto he take up spool, and returns back a frame at a time, so that if you open the back, only the unexposed film is ruined, not your already taken ones. thus the need to have the ISO and frame count available on the film canister, so as to get a correct count, using the switch that is attached to the small sprocket in the film path, which both counts the frames when loading, and also counts to ensure that the film is not jammed, and also to ensure that during return the film leader is fully wound into the canister, so the film can be identified as fully exposed and ready for processing at the developer. All controlled by the custom ultra low power processing chip, though there probably is a smaller one under the LCD that drives that alone, using a serial bus input and acting as an expander and LCD driver. A lot of those chips were common to many cameras, with the actual functions determined by the bits in the EEPROM, making the cost for a range of cameras cheaper, as you only have a single chipset or a few tiny variants, and then use the physical camera to identify them.

[@tedbell4416]

I don't think that's right

[@derkeksinator17]

@@tedbell4416 could you be more specific?

[@EEVblog]

Thanks for the details.

[@pxboyle]

@@derkeksinator17 No.

[@sanches2]

Wow, this was aa wholesome read! Thanks!

[@martians-landed]

I remember ‘fixing’ these things when I worked in a processing lab. Usually the customer had dropped it so the Pentax compacts could sometimes be fixed by tapping the base of the camera while running the rewind. Made the gears go back in mesh…

[@cameradoctor205]

Working at my desk on a camera repair, watching Dave tear down a camera ;) .. Welcome to my daily work Dave - was VERY common back then to have to replace the flat-flex for the shutter - as it folded during zoom, they often broken traces. I must have done literally 1000's of them .....

[@DanafoxyVixen]

You can simply pulse more power through a Xenon flash than an LED unit. Yes LED "flashes" have their place.. its just not at the high power table

[@MichaelSteeves]

LED "flashes" are only viable because modern sensors are incredibly sensitive and post-processing can do amazing things with poor images. For a full exposure on film, you need the power of Xenon -- even the built-in flashes on cameras like these were only supposed to be good for 3 meters.

[@viniciusmv7727]

A flash on the hands of someone who knows how to use it can work miracles and you don't even notice it.

[@qo92]

@@viniciusmv7727 But those flashes are rarely the built in type, which are mostly just good for turning people into startled red eyed ghosts on old film cameras.

[@viniciusmv7727]

@@qo92 depends if your camera provides flash adjustment

[@almostanengineer]

It’s crazy not just on how much engineering goes into developing and designing the device, but also into the manufacturing of things like this, that’s an entire engineering discipline in itself.

[@battleangel5595]

I had one of those I bought used from a local camera shop for a senior project back in the day. Thing seized up a week later. Made a makeshift dark room out of my clothes closet, swapped the film to my ancient Konica SLR, and finished my photography project. Funny thing about my old SLR, batteries hadn't been made for it for 20 years. I knew diddly about the camera. Yet managed to take some amazing photos with a defunct light meter and just BSing the manual controls and shutter speed. The shop where I purchased the Pentax were helpful and replaced the camera with no fuss. Gave the replacement camera to my sister who used it until this digital camera fad started. :p As for the Konica... I still have the camera. My grandfather bought it sometime in the early 70s, gave it to my mother, then borrowed it in the early 90's for my photography class. Though I did enter the digital age with a Sony Mavica digital camera and a peach load of floppy disks...

[@littlejackalo5326]

We had that same camera, but it got sand in it at the beach and stopped working. So we got one of the first consumer digital cameras. Most people had no idea what a digital camera even was. It had like 1 and 2 MB memory cards. I think it was 0.3 MP. It was incredible. The UI was super slow, image processing took forever, and uploading photos was a LOOOONG, difficult, unstable task. After you snapped a pic, you'd have to wait like 30 sec to take the next pic. It was around the mid 90s.

[@SlinkyStoney]

I remember when my family bought our first desktop computer it includes a usb Webcam thing that can be also used as a point and shoot camera. It will take a single AAA cell and can do 21 still images at 0.3MP or a minute of AVI at ultra-low frame rate with no audio. The camera takes about a minute to boot and half a minute interval when taking picture.

[@falcon2287]

In the '60s and '70s I operated a camera repair shop. Electrical components were minimal at best, non-existant in most cameras. Repairing shutters and film transport work was mechanical, more like watchmaker work. Lenses, often detachable, required optical alignment equipment. But a multimeter and soldering iron would cover almost all electric repairs, which were mainly bult-in light meters and an occasional motorized film transport. Built-in flash was rare. A interesting side note: Polaroid supplied me with many replacement parts at 'no charge'. Working cameras brought in a steady source of revenue from their real product - film.

[@sanches2]

Polaroid film was crazy expensive from when i remember it and was hard to find in eastern European countries.

[@DarylVanHumbeck]

As someone who has used the xenon flash modules from cameras for stage effects, I'm a little disappointed that you didn't take the flash module out and demo it. This one looks especially modular, as lots of more modern cameras integrate the simple electronics with the flash system onto a single board...

[@domtom128]

Yeah, I was shouting at the screen but nothing xD

[@MichaelSteeves]

"we are missing a cog here" meanwhile there is a bright green cog stuck to the plate that was holding things in -- about 2 cm away from where he is looking.

[@WesSouza]

My dad had this one back in Brazil. Probably still around some drawer on their house. Amazing quality.

[@jjlapierre]

This is the kind of video that made me fall in love with your channel. Thank you!

[@StevenOBrien]

I remember taking one of these apart when I was like 7 years old and marveling at how big the cap was. Surprised I didn't get shocked by it.

[@nathanshepherd6274]

I had the date stamp version of this camera. Simpler days. Loved it

[@fricki1997]

Yes, Pentax! And great of you to give us a camera teardown :) The groove inside should be the helicoid, basically a multi-start internal screw that allows for relatively large movement with a short turn of the barrel.

[@tammymakesthings]

I would expect the camera was tracking film position/shots remaining either from counting shutter actuations or by tracking the movement of the film’s sprocket holes with either a mechanical or IR encoder. You couldn’t really use the DX barcode for that purpose because the DX barcode isn’t visible until the film is actually processed. The frame number information in the DX barcode was used to help guide the film strip cutter and negative alignment in minilab processing equipment, IIRC.

[@tedbell4416]

Nope dx is always readable go back to film school

[@tammymakesthings]

@@tedbell4416 I’m not talking about the DX code on the cartridge; I’m talking about the latent frame number barcodes on the film edge. Per Kodaks patent on the technology (US patent #US4965628A), these are “latent images photographically exposed along the film edges”. The patent further states that “[a]utomatic photofinishing machines, prior to printing the film, carefully guide the bottom edge of the film past an optical bar code reader in order to extract the information necessary to determine the film type.” You need only look at a strip of unprocessed 35mm film to verify that the barcode on the full edge isn’t visible until the film is processed. The DX coding on the exterior of the cartridge, of course, is a different matter entirely. But it’s also not what I was talking about.

[@EEVblog]

The carmera would see the film barcode on the bottom, as it needs to be exposed to take the image of course. Whether or not any camera ever used it in-camera, I don't know, but it would be possible.

[@tammymakesthings]

@@EEVblog having spent several years as a darkroom assistant for a professional photographer, this doesn’t make sense to me. The full edge markings are photographically imprinted on the film at time of manufacture for the benefit of mini lab processing equipment. When the film is processed, the imprints become visible for the use of the minilab printing machine. You need only look at the leader of an unexposed film cartridge to see that the film edge markings aren’t visible until the film is developed. Wikipedia says the same. “Below the sprockets under each frame of 135 film is the DX film edge barcode. The barcode is invisible until the film has been developed. It is optically imprinted as a latent image during manufacturing. The barcode is used by photo finishers to identify each frame for printing.”

[@littlejackalo5326]

@@tammymakesthings if you look at the wiki page for Kodak Keycode, it mentions that some film has visible printed barcodes and numbers. So I'd say some does have it visible. But you're right, the vast majority can't be seen until it's been developed.

[@ukrainehamradio]

Great job! We are waiting for the reassembly and test shots!

[@87solarsky]

I recently toar down a Polaroid X530 digital camera from 2003. It's the only compact zoom digital camera with a full-color-capturing non-interpolating X3 Foveon image sensor. Personally, I considered it teardown therapy for myself.

[@DavidRockin1]

Dave has blessed us other Daves with a new teardown! ❤️👏

[@00Skyfox]

I’ve seen gear setups like that inside printer ribbons, where the gearing made the ribbon advance in only one direction regardless of the print head movement. It’s just a little gear that gets pushed from side to side to engage one gear or another.

[@BitBanger]

Yes finaly a teardown!

[@Seegalgalguntijak]

As a kid, I've alwayse wondered where the motor for the film rewind sits in these cameras, because there's absolutely no space for one on the side where the film can sits, and the bottom spinny thing that drives the film for rewinding was always freewheeling. I never got the idea that they actually put it on the other side, but that makes total sense now, because it just couldn't be located on the film can side space-wise.

[@aerofart]

The GROOVES inside the lens barrel may be lens baffling, but may serve a dual purpose as zoom gear threads. They reduce internal reflections and thereby increase contrast and reduce the chances of stray light artifacts reaching your image plane.

[@michaelmoore7975]

@3:50 "One of the few products I've owned but never taken apart." A phrase I can never say.

[@michaelmoore7975]

@@Okurka. I had a couple that were eternally "taken apart" and my standard excuse was, "Should have 'er goin' next week." More like 300 weeks.

[@Kirillissimus]

The thing may look simple at first glance but it contains a lot of interesting stuff most of which actually took a significant amount of time and effort to come up with. Even the crude IR rangefinder module itself is a little marvel of modern enineering that even half a century ago just did not exist.

[@sanches2]

I wanted to write the same - it ain't that simple and crude. Back in the 90's a friend of mine came from LA and he a similar camera and i was really impressed.

[@robertknight4672]

@@sanches2 I used one of these in 2020 before the prices of cameras like this when through the roof. Pretty decent quality camera. Having a bulb mode on a point to camera is a little strange. It worked but even with a tripod I still got a little camera Shake.

[@gvii]

I bought a Fujifilm s3 Pro a while back. In great shape, only paid 50 bucks for it. Bought it untested, but found that the mode selector on top didn't work. The camera is a Nikon film SLR with the digital guts stuffed in. And oh boy, were they stuffed in. Talk about 20 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag. I had to gut most of the camera to get to the selector. Fortunately, I was able to find a service manual online that made life much, much easier. Just ended up being a little bit of coffee or something had been dripped in there. Cleaned it up and it worked great afterwards. But wow, it was several hours to take apart and put back together, and about a billion super teeny screws consisting of several different lengths. When it was new back in 2004, it was a $2500. Only a 12 megapixel camera, but it still takes absolutely fantastic photos. I love the thing. But good Lord, I hope I never have to take it apart again. I should add that I have a lot of respect for whomever engineered that thing. Packing all those guts into a repurposed film camera must have been an unbelievable amount of work.

[@GeoffSeeley]

That thing has more gears than a Fast and Furious movie!

[@nlr70]

Perfect engineering 10/10

[@mattiloponen92]

Remimds me of when i tool apart some kind of a camera as a kid. I had a all metal knife in my hand and touched the no tpuchy cap pin. It was quite shocking, no joke for sure.

[@jimmychin8313]

Hi Dave, Would love a video of conversion of a Kodak digital camera to an infrared camera. I have similar Kodak ready to convert when I come across a proper how-to-diy project.

[@kylesnavely6165]

Fun teardown, thanks!

[@dennislacroix5478]

Would have totally taken it apart and touched the cap then swore after the surprise. Done it before on power supplies. Even gotten surprises from backlight circuits on the secondary side of TV power supplies...

[@volvo09]

"this cap is hot, mental note not to touch it" 2 seconds later "grab".....

[@marcinp.8108]

"Not as clumsy or random as a digital; an elegant camera for a more civilized age.”

[@JasonHalversonjaydog]

i took apart a camera once, but i learned my lesson to be careful what you touch when i touched the contacts of the flash capacitor! that bit me good! LOL

[@GeorgiaBoyJake]

I had a DX3600, I was my first digital camera! Bought it from Office Depot here is the US.

[@BLITZKRIEG1]

One of the cruisiest jobs I had during uni was repairing Canon ixus 430s. Nearly every camera had an issue with the sensor. Canon paid $30 per camera. i could do 4 an hour. Not bad being 20 and working from home.

[@sanches2]

I really like the extra caption which add/correct the statements you do :) it was really interesting. Thanks for the teardown. I just disagree that this is bottom of the line product - there werebmuch more simple cameras by Kodak and similar. Attaching this lens assembly to a raspberry pi camera ( a bit further than the film plane) would make for a great digital camera.

[@dlarge6502]

I have Pentax's first compact zoom AF camera, in fact it was the first compact AF to the market. Like all others of that model it has aged badly, detecting all batteries as empty. Hopefully this teardown will give me some insight as to what I will find when I try to repair it. You have a flash to, light up dark scenes and remove shadows from bright scenes. CMOS sensors can "see" in the dark essentially but if you are a pixel peeper like me you will not ever want to do without adequate light or a flash as bumping up the ISO on a digital camera, well it you like the results...

[@lidarman2]

You had a killer first digicam. I had a Kodak 1 Mpixel cam around 1999. model DC210 I think?

[@TheChemicalWorkshop]

when i see old stuff like this, i really want to mod the lens and put it on DIGITAL sensor...

[@vgamesx1]

Probably wouldn't be the hardest project ever to take a Pi zero + a camera module or usb webcam and make it fit inside an old film camera.

[@cll1out]

Recently disassembled a canon consumer digital camera in hopes of fixing the stuck shutter. I was given this camera so it was no loss for me if I couldn’t fix it. I couldn’t fix it. The shutter is *TINY* on that thing and the lens was too tightly and complexly built to safely disassemble and reassemble.

[@petersage5157]

You need to get into the shutter assembly. That's the heart of any film camera! Interesting that the shutter was integrated into the lens rather than placed against the film window as it is in typical SLR cameras. I'd love to see Dave do a teardown of a fully manual camera like a Pentax K1000. Wind, rewind, focus, shutter speed all manual; only electronic rubbish was the light meter and aperture, and there was a manual override for the aperture. Serious question regarding that Kodak digital camera. Since it had the screen, which presumably shows the image you're about to capture, why even bother with the viewfinder, which would introduce a parallax offset? Even worse, the viewfinder offset isn't orthogonal, so it isn't something the photographer can intuitively compensate for.

[@pbyfr]

Because you waited several seconds to see the photo on the screen. Even with the viewfinder, you needed to anticipate the action, as you could count 1-2 between shutter button press and the shutter moving.

[@uwezimmermann5427]

As far as I can remember the film barcode is generally not there before the film has been developed.

[@MatthewSuffidy]

That Kodak seems to be a pretty close model to the first digital camera I owned, which was that. Mine I think did not have any sort of lens cap but did extend out a bit. I gave up using that when I got my iphone 5c. I also have a 6s today. I have my Kodak in mint condition in the original box in the closet. I got it off of internet for sale. I am guessing mine was later because it did use a SD card and had a movable optical zoom. Looks like a Kodak DX3215 I think. It was not that many MP.

[@Ilanvain]

Awesome like always!

[@ruikazane5123]

When my first ever teardown was a Canon PowerShot...the owner of that camera was very pissed of the result!

[@j1952d]

The IR TX and RX lenses on the front really remind me of spider's eyes!

[@EEVblog]

They are kind of imposing.

[@henricoderre]

Hi Dave. Though I might come off as harsh in this comment it is not my intention. I love your videos. They are educational and I appreciate the content. I had a digital Pentax camera many years ago. I absolutely loved it, because it was my first expensive camera. Unfortunately, someone else thought so too, and it was stolen from me. This simple device seems awful complicated to me. The technologies used here well surpass my current knowledge in mechanical and electronic engineering. As a hobbyist, I appreciate your take on it, because I rely on a lot on what you show, say, and do; but aren't you somewhat oversimplifying this device a bit? Joe Blo and me can't build something like this in whole or in part in the garage! This is science and technology at its best for that time. Anyway, keep up the good work.

[@Seegalgalguntijak]

Whenever I see such an electronic flashing mechanism, I think RFID zapper. Just replace the flash tube with a thick wire coil of a few windings (I think it was less than 10, or about there), although I don't remember whether it needed an iron core or it shouldn't have one. And you get your tiny short-range low-power EMP device to zap RFID tags. Unfortunately, these become more prevalent and still there's nobody offering an RFID zapper (and those howtos that exist to build one rely on outdated unavailable technology like a photo flash of an old-school one-time-use-camera).

[@NoLandMandi]

Wow! that was my 1st real digital camera (after a Nokia phone) as well!

[@derkeksinator17]

@21:10 the barcode on the film is only visible after development, isn't it?

[@ReallifeBambiDeerattheFarm1]

Yep it is. The barcode is used in the printing stage to tell the computer the type of film used for the best prints, and what number the film is so if the customer wants more then 1 print they can just tell the photo guy the number.

[@yanikkunitsin1466]

You say half-press yet canon digitals(ixus model) its metal foil button, how do they work?

[@Belznis]

Interestingly enough the lens assembly is very similar to that of a DSLR lens, although that one I think is a bit more finecky. Have to say I too could not get a screw out, lacking tools to drill it.

[@oskimac]

Bu what about the focus system? Is there a microcontroller interacting with the ir sensor? I was waiting for that

[@isacson]

you forget de tiny display for the hour stamp.

[@mscir]

Do they use an oscillator and rectifier to get a high voltage for the flash? Any chance you'll break down that ct for us?

[@salvatoreshiggerino6810]

Why does the film go in upside-down in this one? I'm pretty sure 135 film generally goes from left to right when shooting, but this might be a case of the Mandela effect.

[@jdlives8992]

Ricoh optics are pretty dope. I might know about that .... ;-)

[@jdlives8992]

Those lenses are pressed in. You should tear down a mfp lens assembly. I can send you one and if you get into it you will be amazed

[@rhysun]

21:05 I don't think the barcode on the film is visible until it is developed, so an optical reader would not work.

[@VeraTR909]

Should have really filmed a bit in the patato vision digital camera, xD just curious how it would look on youtube now.

[@stefanBEAR98]

That's the gear my boombox uses, bobsyouruncle.

[@jonnoMoto]

That barcode isn't visible until after the film has been developed

[@TheHuesSciTech]

Interesting, I wonder how the focus mechanism works? Like, where's the actuator? I can only assume that's inside the lens compartment you couldn't get into.

[@SeanBZA]

Focus is controlled by the difference in pitch between the threads of the sections, so that at all times the intermediate lens is in a near optimal focus place. There are times it is not optimal, or at least not acceptable for the resolution of the film, so there is a stored table of offsets in the EEPROM that gives zoom ranges to keep out of, along with a table that relates light level with iris opening time and position. Very basic, and relies a lot on the film processor being able to compensate over a smallish range in developing so as to get an acceptable image, by having a negative that still has enough dynamic range in it to allow the final print to be acceptable. Done either automatically, by using average and spot brightness, in the final stage of printing, or having a skilled operator do on the fly adjustment of transfer light level and time, to compensate for a slightly too dark or too bright image, and get the overall range somewhere in the range of the print paper chemistry.

[@TheHuesSciTech]

@@SeanBZA Most of what you're talking about here seems to relate to exposure rather than focus? Like, the camera has those IR focus sensors -- what does the camera actually do with that information? It'd have to move the lens elements in a way that is more-or-less orthogonal to the way they need to move for zoom movement?

[@SeanBZA]

@@TheHuesSciTech There is only a single moving element, so likely in the front, along with the iris, there is another focus motor that provides the final relative motion. Being Pentax they do have a lot of experience in making ultrasonic motors, which here can be really thin, so allowing the lens to move 5mm to compensate for the error is possible. However the focus is a balancing act, needing the look up tables for the lens, and the IR sender and receiver to tell the camera to use the "close up" set of tables, so limiting zoom range, or to simply assume infinity focus instead, and allowing full zoom. Most of these cameras are good with infinity focus, but close up generally gives a softer image, as the tables are of necessity limited in size, to fit in the coarse resolution of the zoom encoder, and the limited EEPROM memory as well, though some of the compensations can be on the controller easy enough for a particular model. But as a cheap Pentax, designed more or less at the outset to be close to disposable with all plastic parts, best image quality is not top priority, more ease of use, and "good enough for grandma" pictures instead. Pentax certainly had a lot more better models available at the time, but all came with a much higher price tag, and were all physically larger and heavier as well, using more robust construction, and much better metering, plus has more quality optics, than the injection moulded parts and cheap no feedback motors. Likley the lenses on that are all plastic, well moulded, but still not the best quality optically, and with less effective coatings as well.

[@TheManLab7]

I know this is a stupid question, but does LBJ stand for Long Bloody Job?

[@richardhead8264]

Lyndon Baines Johnson, the 36th president of the United States, following right after Kennedy's assassination.

[@arthurmorgan8966]

Curious, what’s the confidence level in putting that back together? Especially considering the gear assembly and lens

[@Kirillissimus]

If you do it carefully and take some measures against dust then the confidence is high. The old devices are actually quite simple to work with and they are not super fragile and not filled with various types of sticky tape and glue like modern smartphones.

[@hellspite]

6:04 how did you get the film back off the camera body?

[@tntgrunf]

What happened to that Sony you were trying to get to power on? Was it the backup battery? That story never got to its end

[@maicod]

I think there's still CF in professional cameras ?

[@daveredd9832]

$800 in1999 was almost two weeks wages for me back then.

[@j1952d]

Any idea how the shutter works? Timing must be pretty critical.

[@derkeksinator17]

With slrs it was a spring loaded mechanism with one or two electromagnets, I assume that this one is similar.

[@d0ugk]

Probably the most critical timing with film was making sure the flash if used and shutter fired at the same time. I'm not sure many of the cheap ones had variable shutter exposure lengths. Instead you bought different ISOs of film depending if you were shooting pictures indoors or outdoors and hoped for the best. You didn't really get variable shutter times until you got into SLR film cameras or some very high end point and shoot cameras.

[@tom23rd]

1995, year I graduated from highschool

[@greypatch8855]

Those batteries are so stupidly expensive

[@AliHSyed]

The IR auto focus.. assuming it works on the principle of return time of IR beam to estimate distance... If that is correct, how can it keep time accurately enough to measure the time delay of a beam of light travelling less than a couple of meters. Wouldn't u need atomic clock level accuracy for that?

[@littlejackalo5326]

One clock cycle at 33 MHz is about how long it takes light to travel 1 m. So you'd need to know the clock speed of the electronics. I don't think a time of flight scenario is out of the question at 1-2 m.

[@danial_amini]

what's "bob's your uncle" & "good enough for australia" mean? :))) I watch mostly for Dave's aussie accent :)))

[@gerardderaad3577]

There is a window in the back door to see what kind of film is inside

[@marvintpandroid2213]

What is this film you talk of?

[@quadruple_negative]

Yep, that was Mum's camera.

[@TKomoski]

*Hey* *Dave*

[@stiannobelisto573]

People born after 1999 must wonder what film is unless they looked it up on KZbin

[@d0ugk]

I'd say a little later than that. Perhaps mid 2000's. While digital cameras did exist in the late 90's they couldn't beat the resolution of a film camera till probably near the early 2000's and ones that could take an equivalent quality picture to a cheap point and shoot camera and at a price point for the average consumer would pay didn't really hit the market till around the mid 2000's. The 1st digital camera i touched was at school in 11th grade in '97 and it was a casio that at best did 640x480 and could save something like 10-15 pictures in it's internal memory, or 320x240 to save somewhere around 40-50 pics in memory. That said the early one's that could compete with film cost a fortune, and were only being used by professionals, media, and enthusiasts. Everyone else was still using their cheap $20-100 point n shoot film cameras, perhaps with Advantix film and running the film down to the corner drug store for 1hr processing. The 1st digital I had that I would consider meeting or beating film was a Sony F828 I got sometime in 2003 and that camera cost a good $1000-1200 if I recall correctly.

[@Direkin]

Speaking of flashes, I saw the funniest thing a few days ago while I was out shooting a cityscape. There was another guy with a SLR of some sort that had an on-camera flash attached. He was actually operating the flash to take pictures of the city on the other side of the harbour (in Hong Kong). That flash isn't going to be doing anything...

[@capybara5494]

iPhones are hard to repair. Pentax: Hold my Beer

[@ilanmagen]

Cool Bandannas

[@AdityaMehendale]

"Whiplash" --> _backlash_ 17:08

[@6581punk]

Apple engineers with all their self-back patting, phones last about 3 years due to the batteries wearing out. This camera looks like a piece of plastic junk but still turns on 15 years later. And they say we're making progress.

[@LB-fx1kn]

Technically an iPhone battery lasts a lot longer than the lithium primary in this camera. at least you can recharge the iPhone battery, you have to throw this one out when it's flat. Imagine the environmental disaster of a few billion cellphones needing new batteries every day.

[@wilburt6131]

If u look at the SD card logo, the D is style like a cd disc. So they reused a logo from a unreleased disc called sd, and used it for the flash card!

[@tomstdenis]

Who are these 11 people who unsubscribed because of this video!?!?!? I WANT NAMES!!!! :-)

[@alansmith4734]

Film Camera? What next, examining a Vinyl Record Player? =P

[@thesalamander121]

i think that will be technology connections job and may be a while until the next one

[@peterjf7723]

@@thesalamander121 More likely Techmoan for vinyl records and Technology Connections for processing film.

[@chancho00]

5 Kodak investors dislike this video, it reminds them something maybe 😅

[@robertelzet1662]

Olympus mju zoom: was mine Form this eara

[@colejohnson66]

11:04 you missed the MELF resistor!

[@jtb2586]

The autofocus on your new camera is rubbish.

[@robine5280]

Would have preferred a non destructive teardown, film cameras are getting rarer and more expensive, there is no reason to ruin a fully working one. Maybe you haven't scrapped it yet and could try putting it back together or giving it to someone who wants to. Very interesting video nevertheless.

[@fochall1]

Helicoil

[@stephensteele2844]

ninth.