|
|
Post by johnbear on Feb 8, 2016 12:50:27 GMT -5
Oh yuck I hear you say. But wait ... this was my first camera, when I was a nipper, and it taught me lots. I took a stroll down memory lane for the price of £1.20 (plus p&p) and got a little metal memory. It may be trash, but it still works, and my first one took fab pictures compared to my parents instamatic. It reminds me that the art of photography resides with the photographer, and not the camera.  My Halina Paulette page |
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 8, 2016 19:45:48 GMT -5
The 35X was not so bad as well, the lenses were glass!! and coated, and worked in careful use quite well. The problem was they were bought by newcomers to photography so all the sins of the snapper were credited to the camera. I think that the Hong Kong Chinese stretched the lens at F2.8 to the limit, they made better F3.5 lenses. Both at F8 were quite good, especially with slides.
I remember a complaint from a customer that Kodak had returned a film mounted with black frames, the camera was the Halina Paulette. Questions revealed that the shots were flash, and had been taken at max aperture, as the distance was a "bit" over the scale on the flash,....by about 100 yards! He was attempting to take photos of a Military Tattoo at night.....with Kodachrome 25.....Phew, I would not have liked to take the shots with pushed Ektachrome 400!
Stephen.
|
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Feb 21, 2016 18:49:56 GMT -5
A nice, no nonsense camera. Dixons had a version and I've seen it under other names too. Meant for the amateur who wanted a nice camera, a little more flexible than a box camera. Some perhaps expected too much from it as Stephen pointed out!
I have a couple of Halinas in my collection, one was my mums who bought it in about 1960.
|
|
|
|
Post by Just Plain Curt on Mar 1, 2016 20:30:38 GMT -5
Nice I have one as well. Also have a SEARS badged one that looks identical.
|
|
