under consideration: sabre "620"

I feel like I waited forever to test this camera. I don't recall exactly when or why I bought it. Likely, I saw that someone else on Flickr had it and found it for a good price. I do remember this is one I bought online. Having only recently learned to successfully respool 120 film onto 620 spools, buying a 620 camera had been, for me, something of a gamble. This was especially the case if the camera was not the sort that could be used for ttv [through the viewfinder] photos. Case in point--the ansco rediflex. When I bought this I knew it wouldn't accept 120 film. Turns out it wouldn't accept 35mm either. But I liked the way it looked and knew that others were doing really great ttv work with it. . .though ttv has never been something I've done at all well. Long story short, I am really glad I bought the rediflex since, having learned to respool the film, it has turned out to be one of my favorite, go-to 120 film cameras.

It doesn't look as though I'll be saying the same thing about the sabre "620." A bit of background: According to Camerapedia, the sabre "620" "was manufactured from c1956-72 by Shaw-Harrison and was available in several colors."

Anyhoot. There are very few cameras about which after doing the test roll I will say, "all right. that's good. that's enough. no more." But this was one of them. If I had a place to put retired cameras (i.e., cameras that I'll likely never use again but don't want to sell or give away), I would have put it there last week. The camera is cute, that's for sure. And I was pleased to see that the shutter fired properly and whatnot. Problem is, there's nothing the camera does that another cheap, plastic box-cam can't do and (imho) do much better.

For this test roll, I used 400 speed artista edu ultra (perhaps too high of a film speed for the camera) and developed the roll in solution B of Kodak HC-110. Despite having that puppy taped, the light leaks were fairly pronounced with this camera. That is especially apparent in the last image below--an image of the Thomas Viaduct in Patapsco Valley State Park. The camera clearly does a better job producing sharpness (or at least areas of sharpness) at closer distances--say 4-5 feet. Again, my feeling is that the camera produces images that are, to my mind, like "eeaah." whatever. And I was really hoping for something special, interesting or unique. At the very least, I was hoping for results that were closer to those I'd get with the Diana or maybe Holga. Especially after seeing this image on Flickr. I was really hoping for results like that. Ah well. I guess they can't all make my top 5 picks!

imperial madness

The greatest compliment I can give a camera (or camera maker) is when I double-, triple-, quadruple- or even quintuple-up on that particular camera fearing that I will break, lose, etc. the only one I have. With a camera like the holga (something that is still easily obtained), the desire to double or triple up is not as pronounced as it is with something like the bhf, ultronic panoramic or vistaquest vq 350. Still, if favs are measured in terms of duplicates, I guess for me, in first place would be the bhf (I have 6-7 of them at this point) followed by diana (5 counting mini and clones), holga (4 counting woca and tlr), ultronic panoramic (3 or 4), and vistaquest vq350 (2).

At this point, I'd have to add to that list the imperial reflex duo lens. I just bought my second one two days ago and I have to say that if they were cheaper and/or if there were more of them, I think I'd keep buying them up--tough to find them in my price range (i.e., 5-10 bucks). There's not a whole lot out there on the camera, save that it's a simple plastic box 620 camera produced by George Herbert in Chicago in the '50s and that there was a version marked "OFFICIAL CAMERA, Boy Scouts of America." In terms of finding more of these on ebay, it could be helpful to search under boy scouts as well. The camera's other claim to fame has to do with these famous backyard photos.













If you search the camera on flickr, you mainly get images of the camera/s and ttv images (see phone image directly above)--as is the case with other tlr cameras that take 620 film like the ansco rediflex.

Here's the deal: Firstly, when they say the imperial is a plastic camera, boy howdy, they mean it! When the first one arrived (see image above), I was taken aback by how light, cheap and fragile it felt in hand. Reminded me a bit of the difference between having the holga versus the diana in hand. In other words, I was used to the way the ansco rediflex or kodak duoflex felt in hand and was expecting the imperial to feel the same. Not the case at all! I think I've been motivated to buy a second one, in part, because I love the images it takes and, in part, because I know that if this puppy happens to fall out of my hand or purse, it's likely a goner. (FWIW in contrast to the camera depicted here, I got the gray and black version as a back-up.)

A second thing to know about this camera is that when it says that it uses 620 film, it ain't playing. I have read that others have used 120 but that definitely wasn't the case for me--at least not with the black version. In so far as even trimmed-down spools wouldn't work here, I had to learn to respool 120 film onto 620 spools. A hassle at first but it gets easier after time and I'd say that the extra work involved with respooling is definitely worth it for this camera!

A third thing worth mentioning about this camera has to do with the shutter button/release. I wasn't prepared for the way this would look and so I assumed that the button had been messed up or bent back as a result of the seller's really poor packing job. Didn't help that the camera was pretty dirty when it arrived and that the shutter itself only functioned correctly half the time. If, in other words, the camera had been in mint condition or NIB I probably wouldn't have tried dicking around with the shutter release, trying to bend it back into position. YIKES! I thank goodness now that I didn't try harder and bust the shutter release. For what it's worth, the shutter release doesn't look like the releases on other cheap box/tlr cameras.

The final thing I'd mention in terms of the camera itself is that it's not the greatest choice for clear, clean ttv work as the very grainy phone image above suggests. I like the look of ttv images you can get from this camera but it's not the same look afforded by, say, the ansco rediflex.

Based on the craptastic condition of the camera when it arrived (by the by, a little elbow grease, windex and wd40 got things cleaned up and working), the graininess of the top viewfinding lens, and how fragile/cheap the camera felt in hand, I definitely wasn't expecting much at all from this camera. Never mind that in order to use it I would have to respool film. Truthfully, it didn't help that I could find so few film images (i.e., non-ttv images) housed on flickr. This too led me to believe that this would definitely NOT be a camera I'd end up raving about!

But here it is: I LOVE THIS CAMERA. If it weren't so fragile, I'd have it with me all the time. (Luckily it does have a neck strap, so that's cool--makes carrying it around easy and there's less of a chance of breakage if it's around my neck.) I think there's only been one other time when I've actually gasped (i.e., in a good way) upon seeing the first scanned-in image taken when testing a new camera. The other time was when I did my first test roll with the ultronic panoramic. I definitely wasn't prepared for those results or for the kind of images that camera can produce!

















But back to the imperial. I think my reaction to seeing the first scanned-in image was this: "(gasp) How delightfully cartoonish!!" I'm still not sure what that means--to say that a photograph looks cartoonish. I think it might have to do with the depth of focus. Suffice it to say, that I am LOVING this camera. I have a respooled roll of b/w in the camera right now and am eager to see those results. I've consider different ways of rating the cameras I talk about here, such as using some kind of star system (i.e., giving a camera 1 star for fair/poor and 5 stars for excellent). In the end, I think it makes the most sense to treat things in terms of replacement costs. Otherwise put, to rate cameras in terms of how much I could image myself spending to replace them in the case that the one/s I have happened to break, get lost, etc. In this case, I think I'd be willing to spend 45-70 bucks for a working replacement. . .and keep in mind this is coming from a very cheap and definitely not rich individual!