Talk:Toy camera
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I hope this is a good start for this topic. -Jerry Cargill 1-3-2005
I dont see why this page is up for deletion. This is an encyclopedia. How are people supposed to learn about toy cameras if they cant look them up? So far, from what I have seen about toy cameras, it sounds like they are not bad at all and may even be a good starter camera. -Kristofer Benham 1-27-05
Contents |
[edit] Added info
I just added some info to the original entry for what a toy camera is. There is no reason to remove this at all. The use of toy cameras is very strong today. Gary Moyer 2/17/05
Me too, and me neither, and me too. I believe this is a good start, and I don't see why this should be deleted, and I added some info.
Please go to Votes for Deletion and add your Keep votes!Fg2 10:36, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] from Vfd
On 21 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Toy camera for a record of the discussion.
[edit] Toy or not?
It would be useful if this article clarified whether these cameras are produced as toys (e.g. for children) or whether they are just low quality cameras which have been adopted for use as a toy by some group of people. I'd edit, only I don't know the answer!--Malcohol 11:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Toy? Not.
I realize that whether a camera falls into the realm of "toy" is somewhat subjective, but I don't think either the LCA or the Lubitel should be considered "toy" cameras. For one thing, the LCA recently retailed for roughly $100 (it was recently discontinued). The Lubitel, while cheap, features a coated glass lens. I feel that the LCA and Lubitel fall into the class of Russian cheap alternatives to expensive cameras, a class whose members might include the Zorki and the Kiev.
