My intention was to start this blog and to post this first review back in July, but obviously that didn’t happen. Well, better late than never. For my inaugural post I figured it would be best to begin with something somewhat familiar, but also a little different. So I decided to review the Dories camera, a Diana clone, since the Diana type cameras are considered to be the epitome of lo-fi cameras. Allan Detrich’s Diana camera webpage lists three slightly different Dories models. The one I will be discussing today is the Dories Flash with hot shoe.
I won’t go into the history and background of the Dories since, as far as I know, it isn’t any different than that of the “original” Diana 151 and this has already been discussed at length by others (manufactured by the Great Wall Plastic Co. in Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong during the 1960s-1970s, etc.). So, instead I’ll begin with a few photos of the camera and discuss some of its technical specifications.
And here are some of the technical specifications:
- Plastic body
- Single element plastic lens
- Approx. 70mm focal length
- Fixed aperture of f11
- Single shutter speed approx. 1/100
- 4x4 cm using 120 film
- Zone focusing: 4-6 ft, 8-12 ft, 12 ft-Inf
- Flash and hot shoe
The tech specs for the Dories are pretty typical of most of the Diana type cameras. The Dories, however, lacks the 3 aperture settings (sunny, partly cloudy, cloudy) that are commonly found on these cameras. Like many of the Diana clones, the Dories body has a cheaper, rubbery feel to it when compared to the original Diana 151. The different parts of the camera don’t seem to fit together all that well and the film mask is roughly cut out, the effects of which can be seen in the photos taken with this camera (I’ll discuss this in more detail below). I’ve noticed in general that the overall build quality of many of the Diana clones is far inferior to that of the original Diana. It seems odd to say this since they are all cheap plastic cameras, but variation does exists between the different Diana type cameras in terms of their build quality and the look of the photos they produce.
The Dories comes equipped with a detachable flash unit. I’ve never used the flash so I don’t have all that much to say about it. Here is a close up of the flash itself.
According to the user manual, the flash uses two penlite (UM4) batteries and AG1 flash bulbs. I couldn’t figure out how to get it open so I broke down and looked at the manual (something I hate doing).
To open the flash, push up on the reflector clip (indicated by the arrow in the above photo) and pull out the metal reflector from the top. Just pick at it a little with your fingernail and it should pop out.
So, enough about the camera itself. What do photos from this camera look like? Well, it’s a mixed bag in my opinion. Last Thanksgiving I loaded the Dories with a roll of Kodak E100VS (slide film)…and finished it sometime this past June. I didn’t exactly blast through this roll. One of the first shots I took with this camera was at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum.
Pretty blurry. Even by Diana standards. But the lack of clarity is partly attributable to the light leaks that are present. The photo is overexposed as a result. I don’t mind a little light leakage, but this is a bit too much for my tastes. As mentioned earlier, the film mask is roughly cut producing a warped and jagged border around the exposure. Nothing a little cropping couldn’t cure if it is not to your liking.
Despite the presence of light leaks, some of the photos came out half way decent.
The photos above weren’t affected as much by the light leaks. The lens blur is still pretty strong with no parts of the images being particularly sharp, but hey it’s a Diana clone so that is to be expected. Much better than in the first image in my opinion. I also noticed that the vignetting isn’t as pronounced in the photos from this camera when compared to ones taken with my Diana 151. The lack of distinctive vignetting, however, might be due to the overexposure that is occurring as a result of the light leaks.
Other photos from the roll display an odd mix of light leaks.
I wanted to find and fix the light leaks I was getting since I felt it was leaking a bit too much light. After I loaded the roll of film into the camera, I taped all the edges of the camera back and the red window with gaffer’s tape, so I knew the light leaks had to be coming from somewhere else. Upon inspecting the interior of the camera, I noticed that there were gaps in the seams where the film mask attaches to the body of the camera. This means that every time the shutter was fired, light was potentially leaking into either the supply or take up compartments of the camera (or perhaps both). So I took little strips of gaffer’s tape and covered the gaps that I found.
When searching for light leaks I find it helpful to hold the front of the camera up to a bright light (a lamp or flashlight) while inspecting the interior. Using a flashlight in this manner in a darkened room works the best. I did this to the Dories and discovered what is most likely the main source of light leaking into the camera. The wires that connect the hot shoe to the shutter go through the interior of the mask. The hole for these wires was not completely light tight and light was coming in from the top of the camera.
I covered the hole up with gaffer’s tape so hopefully that will take care of the light leaks. I haven’t put another roll of film through this camera since taping it up so I don’t know if I found all the potential leaks.
Overall, I enjoyed my experience in shooting with the Dories although the extreme lens blur and light leaks were a little annoying at times. If you like your lo-fi photographs to be a bit sharper or have strong vignetting then I wouldn’t recommend this camera. I think this camera is best suited to those of you that have some experience in using Diana type cameras and don’t mind spending the time working through any of the issues that you might run across. If you are new to the Diana type cameras, I would recommend starting out with the Diana 151. I have found it to be more reliable and consistent than many of the Diana clones and you are less likely to encounter serious problems.
Well, I think that is all that I have to say about the Dories camera and hopefully it won’t be another 4 months before I post my next review.
