Kodak Funsaver Disposable Camera Review – Cheap is Good

Kodak Funsaver Disposable Camera Review – Cheap is Good

3000 1688 Josh Solomon

The disposable camera is the ultimate tool for casual photography. It’s made for non-photographers, vacationers, first-time film shooters, and even experienced shooters looking to simplify their kit. But what’s really remarkable about the disposable camera in the digital age, is its enduring popularity – one can still find a disposable camera in nearly any drug store. The most common of these disposables (at least in the United States) is the Kodak FunSaver, which also happens to be the camera that introduced me to photography. 

This wasn’t by choice; the FunSaver was just about the only camera that could be safely handled and operated (and dropped) by a hyperactive six-year-old. And it did as advertised – it made photography simple and fun, and helped me make countless terrible childhood field trip snapshots.

But it’s 2018, not 2001. Why is something as seemingly outdated as the FunSaver still around?

The Kodak FunSaver benefits from being made by the company that pioneered consumer photography. The FunSaver could fairly be considered as a spiritual successor to the OG consumer camera, the Kodak Brownie. First introduced 118 years ago, in the year 1900, Kodak pre-loaded the first Brownie box cameras with film, and these cameras were meant to be used and then sent back to Kodak for developing and printing just as we treat a disposable camera today. The Brownie was a runaway success, and judging by the persistent ubiquity of the FunSaver, selling strongly from the 1990s all the way to the present day, Kodak used the knowledge gained from the Brownie very well.

The Kodak FunSaver comes from a very different era of American consumer product design. Unlike the Brownie (specifically the wildly popular No. 2), which featured metal construction and a glass lens, the FunSaver is made from plastic, some paper, and more plastic. For better and worse, the FunSaver is completely emblematic of the philosophy of expendability that characterized mass-market design in the 1980s, ‘90s and early 2000s.

At first glance, the FunSaver looks like a toy. And with a design and a name more at home in a Toys R Us than at a camera store, the Kodak FunSaver is a toy. A closer look at the camera affirms this idea. Build quality is straight up consumer grade, complete with a loose shutter button made of flimsy gray plastic, a paper cover for the flash button, and a loud, rough advance wheel.

But who am I kidding? Knocking a disposable camera for its build quality would be as silly as criticizing McDonald’s for the quality of their burgers. And that would-be criticism would be missing the point entirely. Disposable cameras are all about simplicity and a carefree shooting experience, and the Kodak FunSaver brings those two traits admirably without any complication.

There’s a shutter button, a flash button, and an advance wheel. The camera is limited to a single shutter speed of 1/100th of a second, loaded up with Kodak 800 speed film, exposed through a fixed focus 30mm f/10 lens. There’s no way to adjust exposure besides holding down the flash button and hoping for the best in low light.

But even though the FunSaver wears its limitations on its sleeve, it’s actually capable of making great images in a not-too-limited variety of lighting situations. The speedy Kodak 800 ISO film found in the FunSaver possesses a wide exposure latitude, giving the FunSaver a versatility that other disposable cameras simply don’t have. The FunSaver does a surprisingly good job with just about any outdoor daylight scene, and can transition to indoor shots with the use of the built-in flash.

The lens of the FunSaver is also exceptional by disposable camera standards. The 30mm f/10 lens found in the FunSaver features two aspherical plastic elements, which helps it achieve a sharpness uncommon in disposables. The lens’ center sharpness is good, while the aberrations and vignetting that occur (quite rampantly) in the corners give a pleasant, casual character akin to those loved by Lomography weirdos. While the images it makes won’t hold a candle to any high falootin’ glass or multi-element lens, the FunSaver delivers a considerably better image than should be expected, even beating some of the cheapest fixed-focus, non-disposable point-and-shoots.

While the FunSaver’s above-average imaging qualities and relative simplicity make it a perfect choice for novice photographers, advanced photographers and even professionals can benefit from shooting a FunSaver. For advanced photographers looking to simplify or get away from their complicated pro- and semi-pro cameras, I’d happily recommend the FunSaver over other often-recommended “simplify your life” cameras like the Holga or Vivitar’s Ultra Wide and Slim. The FunSaver manages to be even simpler, more affordable, and more reliable than those obscenely cheap reloadable cameras, which gives the shooter a chance to focus on literally nothing but the composition. The images it makes will be sharper, and they offer a nostalgic ‘90s photo album look. Best of all, the camera never overstays its welcome – it’s gone as soon as it gets sent in for processing.

But possibly the most remarkable thing about the FunSaver is that it has endured in ways other film photography products haven’t. While film stocks disappear off of shelves, the FunSaver sticks around, offering just about anybody a chance to experience film photography. It’s also a true relic of a different time; the Funsaver was around back in the late 1990s in more or less the same form as it takes today, and to shoot one is to get a real taste of what consumer photography was like in the twilight of film’s heyday.

This may seem like an awful lot of praise for a consumer disposable, and let’s be frank, for photo geeks obsessed with quality and control, serious photographers who live and die by their Leica M or Nikon F6, the Funsaver simply won’t satisfy. But it’s also true that cameras like the FunSaver help keep film photography relevant (and possible) for anybody. It’s straightforward enough for the most casual of casual shooters, simple enough to shake inspiration-starved photo geeks out of a slump, and fun enough for children to use at a birthday party or wedding. A camera as welcoming and unassuming as that deserves to stick around, and for a long time yet.

Want to try a Kodak Funsaver?

Get one from Amazon

Get one from B&H Photo

Get one on eBay

Follow Casual Photophile on Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

Josh Solomon

Josh Solomon is a freelance writer and touring bassist living in Los Angeles. He has an affinity for all things analog. When not onstage, you can find him roaming around Southern California shooting film and humming a tune.

All stories by:Josh Solomon
  • Was the Funsaver taken somewhere for developing, or did you extract the film and have it developed by itself, or maybe self-developed? The photos look a little like the film may have been outdated, the colors seem to have a yellowish/or light tan tint to them. Just wondering. Otherwise the pics look good and fairly sharp considering the lens and exposure limitations.

  • Joe shoots resurrected cameras October 8, 2018 at 6:16 pm

    I have a few of those that I’m working through, didn’t think the results would be so good! Not that I spend much time arguing about terminology, but the word “disposable” has so many bad connotations these days and also is inaccurate when referring to single-use cameras, since they are recycled. In fact, I read that if you have a changing bag, it’s possible to reload them yourself!

  • Merlin Marquardt October 8, 2018 at 8:08 pm

    What about the Fujifilm Quicksnap Disposable Film Camera?

    • I’ve shot a couple! They definitely exhibit that green cast characteristic of Fuji’s consumer films. Would be good to compare the two in a future article!

  • In 1994 I was 26 and was on a business trip to Washington, DC. I’d never been, and because of unforeseen events I had a day to myself. I took the train to the National Mall. But first, I stopped at a drug store and bought a Kodak single-use camera like this one.

    I got some truly wonderful photos of the Mall. But what was even more exciting was that at the Lincoln Memorial I stumbled upon the remains of a movie set. Turns out that movie was Forrest Gump. Without that single-use camera, in that era before cell phones, I would have no proof! That was the value of those cameras back in the day.

    A couple photos here: https://blog.jimgrey.net/2018/05/30/on-the-set-of-forrest-gump-quite-by-accident/

    • Very cool!! Crazy to remember a time when disposables were an absolutely essential piece of travel kit for just about everybody. Glad you still have those shots!

  • Ok I pixel peeped at ur full dize images.
    And the results are shockingly good…

    It seems, like with most film camera (and my experience too) that bad results from back in the day were as a result of lousy processing and printing.
    But because we now scan film, we get the maximum benefit from the images and are not reliant on trusting that the 1 hour processor cares to get it right.

    Very cool.

    • Thanks! I don’t think I could go back to lab scans after having found somebody willing to share their Noritsu. Very happy with the results off the FunSaver, and doubly happy whenever I get scans from images shot with my regular setup!

  • vintagefilmhacker October 15, 2018 at 8:05 am

    I happened across an unused old Kodak Single Use “Max HQ” camera with the GLASS “Ektanar” lens. With some degree of difficulty, I wound the existing film through to be flipped for Red Scaled, and reloaded it (having to save the spool for the serrated core to allow for the odd advance wheel) with some Kodak C-41 Black and White. Careful undoing and redoing of the clips that hold the front and back of the camera together wasn’t too bad.

    The small camera slipped VERY easily in a pocket, and there was something about the 30mm lens that just seemed to be perfect. And in a nutshell, I was amazed with the quality of the images that came forth from this camera after developing. Loaded with the right film, such as a chromogenic black and white emulsion, this camera seems like a great landscape or street camera with a very wide depth of field.

  • I keep meaning to pick up an instant camera and have some fun with it. My problem is that I find it difficult to leave the house with JUST a film camera. I always seem to end up with at least two cameras with me. “I wonder how this will look compared to the digital…”

  • Fun camera to use and you got some great results. However, such results are only possible with professional level scanning. That is the problem with shooting film. 25-30$ per roll is really expensive and generic lab results are usually meh to terrible..

    • Hi, how would I go about getting a Fun Saver professionally scanned? I live in Orange County, CA, for reference. My dad was a career Kodak guy (long-retired), and last time we tried a Fun Saver, the results were disappointing. We’d love to give it another go with better scanning, if possible. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Josh Solomon

Josh Solomon is a freelance writer and touring bassist living in Los Angeles. He has an affinity for all things analog. When not onstage, you can find him roaming around Southern California shooting film and humming a tune.

All stories by:Josh Solomon