Camp Snap Camera Review: At Least It Looks Good

Camp Snap is a digital pocket camera with a retro-styled film camera design. It is not very expensive and depends on popular digicam trend among 20-somethings and under. It does not perform in the same way as similar cameras, such as Flashback.

The image quality is average, even for a budget camera, which, to be fair, is what some people are looking for in a retro style. However, spending a lot less money can get you better photos to start with, giving you more options for how the final photos look.

For the price, Camp Snap isn’t bad. In fact, it is better than others ultrabudget cameras I’ve testedbut beyond the overall design, the Camp Snap has little to offer, even compared to other cameras with similar vibes and style.

The Camp Snap has underwhelming specs, not too surprising for something that costs $70. The version I bought was the V105, which looks the same as the previous versions but has the ability to install custom photo filters and a little reconfiguration of the flash.

The toggle also turns the camera on and off. Previous versions used the close button to do that. I can see why they made that change. It is very unlikely that you will take 50 photos of the inside of your bag with a power switch.

Surprisingly, the camera actually has a removable microSD card underneath under a screw-secured door. That’s not the most user-friendly design, which I think is why Camp Snap recommends connecting the camera via USB and not the card.

Next to the card slot, hidden by the same door, is the bulk of Camp Snap’s settings: a mode button and two more for going up and down. This is to set the recorded date in the image metadata. That’s all. No exposure settings, modes, adjustable filters, nada.

This camera is designed to replicate the feel of using disposable film cameras. If you want more than that, look elsewhere.

You can apply a filter to your photos, although this process is not very efficient. To change the filters, you need to connect the camera to the computer and download the .flt file from the Camp Snap website, place it in the camera’s memory and all photos taken after that will use the settings of that filter. You can’t change it on the go, and unlike Flashback, you don’t get unfiltered photos to edit later.

You can, however, design your own filter if you don’t like one of the pre-selected options on the website. It’s an easy-to-use interface, complete with a preview of your adjustments.

Most people who buy Camp Snap will probably stick with either the pre-installed “Camp Classic” or “Vintage” filters (they’re both called different parts of your site) or choose one of the pre-made ones available, but being able to easily design your own is a nice feature.

However, again, changing filters is not as easy as pressing a button or scrolling through menus.

Not having Bluetooth or Wi-Fi is probably one of the reasons the Camp Snap is cheap. That’s also why spending more money on Flashback is probably a wise investment. Not having to connect to a computer to do anything is definitely a bonus.

Another problem is that the quality of the base image is not good, limiting the effectiveness of filters in general. I’ll get to that in the next section.

Usability and image quality

Enlarge Image

Using Camp Snap isn’t as satisfying as Flashback either. First, it feels even cheaper. You wouldn’t think there would be much of a difference between the Camp Snap’s 97 grams and the Flashback’s 147 grams, but it’s noticeable, and the lighter Camp Snap feels even more disposable.

There’s also little tactile and auditory joy, with a cheap-feeling shutter button, an unconvincing electric shutter sound and no single-click Flashback “film” advance dial.

Enlarge Image

That said, with one button and no settings to adjust, Camp Snap is obviously very easy to use. It doesn’t even have a screen, unless you count the small monochromatic LCD that displays the image count. You can edit the image with the virtual viewfinder. These never work very well, but they are better than nothing.

Enlarge Image

Going for a retro aesthetic is one thing, but it begs the question: What is retro? Does that mean 2000s digital cameras? Or are they disposable film cameras from the 90s? Black and white?

Digital cameras have long had settings and “filters” that adjust how the final image looks. Some, like many Fujifilm cameras, have created a cult following for their filters (or, as we in the cult call them, recipes).

The pre-installed Camp Snap filter is alternately called Camp Classic or Vintage, which they describe as “that old summer camp vibe.” But then again, summer camp since when?

Photos with the pre-filter applied had a very warm color temperature which was unusual at the time, but some thought it was. Images are loud and very sharp, looking vaguely like a 2000s budget digital camera or an early camera phone. The camera also likes to take snapshots. They look better than Kodak Charmeraat least.

Enlarge Image

I can see what Camp Snap was trying to do with the look of some of the filters, but because the underlying images are average, the filters end up looking like the kind of filters you’d find on a cheap digital camera that you never use after day one.

And again, that’s not entirely different from what Camp Snap says it will do for this camera. Such marketing ends up sounding like “if you can’t fix it, install it,” though. Or to put it another way, you can do what these filters do in a camera that produces better pictures, and the end result will be better.

Maybe I’m overthinking. If people were looking for “better” photos, they wouldn’t be looking to emulate old disposable cameras.

More camp, less snap

I mentioned it a lot in this review because I came away from my time with Flashback rather than loving it. It’s a nostalgia-induced dopamine hit for those who use disposable cameras and a fun retro item for many (most?) of its potential customers who may never have encountered such things for the first time. That’s right — every generation has that about something.

Bones in Flashback was good, though. It took decent pictures for a $120 camera, and it was easy to use. I didn’t get that same warm feeling after my time with Camp Snap. This is an inexpensive camera that sounds and works like a cheap camera, trying to pretend it’s not.

Camp Snap has the added complication of needing to connect to a computer to view your photos. It’s wrong. Even if you have a microSD card reader for your phone, you’ll still need to carry a small screwdriver to get to the card. And it’s not fair.

Then there’s the graphics themselves, which are retro but in a bad way. Flashback presents images that are the normal beauty of what once was. Camp Snap is something what were, in particular, the worst cameras of the era.

Physically, however, it looks great, and it’s available in a selection of colors that I wish more brands had in this gray of gray era. I don’t believe for a second that they sell certain colors as often as their website says. That lack of practice seems to be the norm camera viral marketing budget.

To find out more, the Flashback better option. Also, at the same price as that camera is Camp Snap’s step-up model, the CS-Pro, with 16-megapixel resolution and the ability to choose between four filters on the fly. Also, it upgrades the flash from the base model’s LED to Xenon.

That latter feature should help get that 90s flashbang look when you use it. Camp Snap’s marketing says it has better image quality, but it still doesn’t have Bluetooth or Wi-Fi. It also has a silver-on-black design that looks like SLRs from the 70s. To each their own, but I like the color options of the Base Camp, as fast as they are.