Gifting a vintage film camera

Hmm... just send me the

gift money and be done

with it...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

Ugh. The more you tell us about her, and the more options you tell us you are seriously considering buying, the more I think you should give this idea a hard pass and just take her out to a nice dinner or something. This thread is rapidly making me extremely thankful I've never been involved with anyone who made any attempt at gifting me with a photography related item. Dude, unless she POINT BLANK and very SPECIFICALLY tells you exactly what kind of "street/travel" shooting she wants to do, how serious she is about actually doing it, and what type of camera she thinks would be suitable for it, steer clear. That you would even contemplate importing an Oly Trip 35... just yikes.

 

Her existing camera is a Canon T3i, which is digital. That old, obsolete digital camera can still run rings around nearly any compact film camera in terms of street flexibility and being able to capture a shot on the run in nearly any lighting. If you (or she) think you're gonna be able to globe trot with a bottom-feeder two-speed film camera, and get anywhere near the number of keepers you could get by just using your phones, think again. Film requires far more precise exposure, and a halfway decent range of camera settings. The Oly Trip 35 was/is a cute compact camera with a decent lens, but it comes from an era when film was the ONLY choice, and millions of people were content with results that would be considered garbage by any 12 year old today weilding an iPhone.. At least in those days, film was cheap, processing was cheap, and you could get both at any business within 50 yards of your house.

 

Today, using film is an expensive fetish: the only two legit reasons to bother are for the overall zen experience and/or artistic intent (in which case "the right gear for you personally" is important) or because you just want authentic organic film grain and hacky poor exposure for some Instagram posts (in which case, the camera is irrelevant). For any sort of serious travel shooting, I wouldn't waste my time on a film camera with extremely limited mechanism, no matter how good the lens. I suppose your GF could be one of those inexplicable hipsters who revels in under/over exposed intentionally-bad "Dad Photos" for kicks: in that case, fine, buy her anything because it won't matter. Just be aware the Trip 35 type of camera is about as useful to make good travel photos as a brick of Swiss cheese is to hammer a nail. It is a 100% high-noon broad daylight camera that will suck in most other situations: basically an Instamatic or Holga with much better lens.

 

"Knowing her, I don't know how much she would actually like the gift card option. She has a lot on her plate, and doesn't get the same joy that I do out of finding the best deal on the best product online." That, my friend, is the red flag telling the bull to go down to the pub and have a beer, because there is no way he'll win the fight. Anyone with the faintest smattering of school training in shooting film would automatically have some idea of what camera they might want to shoot if they pick up the hobby again six or seven years later. It isn't a question of being too busy and not wanting to shop for a deal: anyone who's ever shot more than five rolls of film for a class can pick a camera from the KEH website in about 30 seconds. If she truly cannot be bothered to expend even that little amount of energy to get back into film, then she probably doesn't really want to and is just floating the idea for her own transient amusement. Unless you can read her mind, don't take the bait.

With all due respect, please watch your tone and try to be nice in your responses. I'm a musician, and people say this kind of thing to people looking to get into playing guitar without knowing a lot about gear. I do know a fair amount about music gear, and it makes me sick seeing people talk down like this to less experienced musicians. It's responses like these that make people afraid to break into new hobbies. I see people tour the world with guitar amps that gear-snob types would describe as "not really a professional amplifier, but fine for a bedroom player or to make cute little instagram videos" and most of the time, at least in my experience w/ music, there's a strong correlation between being a jerk about gear and not actually being that good at playing music.

I also feel like pointing out that your condescending dismissal of the oly trip 35 isn't in line with what a lot of folks seem to think of those cameras. This, this, this, and this are all just from a very quick google search, and all extol the virtues of the trip 35, so don't insult me for mentioning it.

Anyway, I think I'll probably go elsewhere for advice, because I'm a bit turned off of this forum at this point. Thanks to everyone who responded kindly.

@jacobblizard just calm down. ALL forums are like this.

You will have to filter out and ignore what rubs you the wrong way, or you will always be upset whatever forum you go to.

This is the internet, you will have people who are blunt about what they say, and other who dance around so much about what they say that you don't know what they are saying, and everything in between.

Also, understand that when a person is answering essentially the same question for the 100th time, they tend to be short. Some of my own responses have gotten shorter and sometimes more blunt over time. There have been MANY times where I wanted to respond to a question with RTFM.

If you really don't like the attitude/response of someone, you can always configure the forum software to "ignore" that person, and you won't have to read anything from them. I've done it to a few people on various forums.

Back on track. There is a glimmer of gold in his post.

In reality, the possible options for film cameras is endless, and as my wife discovered for me. It was not worth buying me anything in my hobbies, because she will almost NEVER get exactly what I want, without me telling her exactly what I want.

Here is the rub. I usually return what I don't want, and my wife gets upset when I do that, because she spent a lot of time selecting that item. I've given up keeping something that I don't want, just so that I don't hurt the feeling of the person that gave it to me. Cuz what will I do with something that I don't want. I don't use it and stick it in the closet. My mother gave up buying clothes for me for that same reason, I kept sending it back.

IF your girlfriend is as fussy as me, it may be a hopeless cause.

If she isn't, you stand a better chance of getting something that she will use.

Warning, many of these cameras are 10, 20, 30+ years old.

Some old gear will NEED servicing to work at all, some will work just fine. Unless you get a camera that has been checked and serviced.

It is roll of the dice when you buy from an individual or eBay. I've been burned more than once.

And with older cameras you NEED to verify that the battery is still available. Not a proprietary battery that hasn't been made in 15 years. Or one that uses a mercury battery, because they don't make/sell mercury batteries any more, and not all replacements work properly.

If you buy anything outside the US, consider it a one-way purchase with no warranty.

In general, the cost and hassle to send it back and the return shipping will not be worth your time or money.

Even if it is a return item, the receiving country may charge a customs fee/duty :( That happened to my wife.

To address the Trip 35 more directly:

First of all, I'll add the caveat that I've never used one.

With that said, when I Google it, the top review that comes up is from Ken Rockwell. He has a bit of a reputation for giving glowing reviews to pretty much everything. I don't DISLIKE KR per se, but I read everything he writes with a heavy filter just because he often times overlooks glaring issues while focusing on minor things. I see a lot of reviews from what I'd class as lomographers, who often intentional seek out bad/unpredictable cameras.

Many reviews I'm seeing tout the meter in the Trip 35 as being "great" because it doesn't require batteries. As someone who has been around old cameras for a long time, old meters that don't require batteries often scare me :) . The usual way this is done is with a selenium cell, and the Trip 35 is no exception. I have a few working selenium cell meters(both in cameras and separate) but I'd be uncomfortable with a camera tied so tightly to them. When working well, their low light sensitivity isn't that great. With that said, many of them-for a variety of reasons-are completely dead now. Some models have fared better than others, but I've also seen dead examples of meter types that are generally hailed as bullet proof(like in Weston Master meters, which in the 60s would have run you more than a complete Trip 35). More importantly, though-do you know how to check to see if a selenium meter works correctly?

My second issue with the Trip 35 is that it doesn't have a focus aid-it's what's known as a "zone focus" camera. This can work okay under some circumstances, and will probably serve you fine if you're never looking at anything other than a 3x5 or 4x6 print. There are people who are quite proficient at zone focusing, but it takes practice and their "hit rate" isn't necessarily great.

I think the point many of us are trying to make is that there are a LOT of really great cameras out there, and with enough surplus on many models that you don't have to pay a lot to get one. I don't know that the Trip 35 is that camera.

Ok, I have a slightly odd suggestion, after reading the whole thread through twice and thinking on it a little, particularly your interest in the Trip 35.

What about one of Fuji's Instax cameras? Specifically the Mini 90, which has a retro look and by far the most control options of any Instax camera. Second choice would be the Wide 300, for the bigger film size, but control is limited and I often find myself fighting the camera.

I agree with the other posters, getting her the 'right' camera would be a million to one chance when you don't know what she's previously used/liked. She might have used a classic manual slr like a K1000, or it might have been a plastic fantastic 90's autofocus job with a kit zoom. She might have hated the camera she used for classes.

So go for something completely different, hence the Instax suggestion. Or Polaroid, but the film is rather more expensive.

BTW, my personal 35mm P&S was a Nikon L35AF.

And best of all, I think it used AA batteries. So EASY to get a replacement battery anywhere you go.

In looking at the various online reviews of old camera.

One thing to watch out for is DIRT (not just dust) on the INSIDE of these old cameras.

And as others said, the foam light seal on these old cameras is over 20 years old (30+ in the case of the L35AF). Old foam crumbles and turns to dust, if you are lucky. If you are not, it turns into a sticky mess.

@jacobblizard

I currently have an Olympus XA and have owned an XA-2. They are both very compact and have excellent lenses for their size. The XA-2 was intended to be an easy to use and less expensive camera that would still take quality photos. The XA on the other hand, gives you more creative control. It's a true "range finder" which is a method of focusing that has you line up 2 images inside the view finder. The 2nd image is typically rather faint and can be hard to see in some lighting situations. It can take some getting used to and on the XA the viewfinder is small which doesn't help.

Having said that once you get used to focusing that way, it tends to be very accurate. I actually prefer it now but I did not like it at first.

The XA also lets you choose your own aperture settings so for example if you're taking a close up of something you can add a background blur, or choose to have the whole image in focus for landscapes. It also has a basic exposure compensation lever to compensate for overly bright background lighting though you can trick the XA-2 into doing this.

The XA-2 doesn't have a rangefinder. You have 3 focus settings, - basically near (for portraits), mid-range (group pictures), and far (landscapes). This actually has some advantages for street photography. If you leave it on the middle setting and the lighting is good, most likely your pictures will be in focus as long as the subject isn't too close. Less to think about and futz with if you want to take a quick picture.

I would stay away from the XA-1.

From your perspective I think the risk in these cameras is that they don't have a classic look to them. Even though they're well built, they are mostly plastic on the outside and don't look all that much different from very cheap point and shoots. That is why I understand your interest in the Trip 35, but what I would suggest instead is an Olympus 35RC. The reason it (and cameras like it) don't show up on that top 10 list is that they were designed for the older style mercury batteries. There are fairly easy ways to get around that problem which I won't go into here.

If you haven't given up on us @jacobblizard, there are a few other things I wanted to mention. Gifting a camera like this in some ways is no more risky than other gifts, - which is why gift receipts were created. I believe KEH has a return policy, so you can just stress to her when you give her the camera that you won't be at all hurt if she wants something different.

The camera that re-ignited my interest in film photography won't show up on anyone's best camera list, - it was a Canon T-50. Weird styling, no control over anything except focus and lens choice, loud, and not very compact. There's no law that says she can't ever get a different camera if she outgrows the one you give her. I'm not recommending the T-50, just saying that getting The Perfect Camera maybe isn't that important even if it were possible.

Lastly, - and hopefully this won't make the decision harder, is that I wanted to mention that the Olympus XA and XA-2 have another downside, - you can't (easily) use filters with them. For color photography it's probably not important but for B&W it could be. It depends. I've taken lots of B&W photos without a filter that I've been very happy with, but depending on the subject, filters really make a difference. The sky is probably the simplest example. Without a filter, even a bright, sunny day can look slightly overcast. Here's a shot without a filter:

This was a sunny day with a few clouds. There's virtually no contrast between sky and cloud.

Here's a shot with a commonly used yellow filter:

The difference is very apparent.

jacobblizard, I apologize for my tone coming off more condescending than I intended. Honestly, I sometimes get a little too invested in these threads, and start reacting like total strangers are good friends that I don't want to see make avoidable mistakes. Truly, I just wanted to help.

Your analogy to the musician/guitar issue is appreciated: I "get" what you were trying to tell me there, and again do apologize for coming off that way. But I think you didn't quite understand where I was coming from: I'm not criticizing or sneering at you for not knowing much about film cameras. That would be as contemptible as your guitar equivalent: as you say, everyone has to start somewhere from nothing. My frustration stemmed from your thinking a person who knows nothing about film cameras could just pick up a random film camera for their significant other who DOES have training/experience in the use of one, and the recipient would be thrilled with it.

This is unfortunately not often the case: you could MAYBE get away with that kind of gift with a small pocketable digital camera, but film is a whole other ballgame. There is zero consistency between film cameras, many old "travel" cams are excruciatingly limited by today's standards, every film shooter has specific personal preferences in camera features/handling, and most of these cameras require the buyer know enough about their history to be able to fully check them out in the listings, ad photos, and once they get the camera in their hands. To switch your guitar analogy around, wouldn't you feel put on the spot and uncomfortable if your GF gifted you with a random defective or known-blah vintage amp that you just know you would never use? Unless your relationship is 110% "woke" and free of the usual emotional BS, this gift would eventually lead to hurt feelings because she would either figure out you hate it or be upset that you want to return/exchange it.

Perfect example is your apparent eager interest in the Oly Trip 35. On paper, this camera looks super-cool, especially to someone who knows nothing much about film cameras and was born long after the camera was discontinued. Context is everything with these: if you weren't alive at the time they were popular, it can be very difficult to wrap your mind around where they once fit into the scheme of things. Today's reviews of cameras like the Trip 35 are tinged with nostalgia (by older photographers) or camp novelty value (younger photographers). There are entire blogs that fawn over cameras that sound wonderful but are actually crippled in functionality or performance by modern standards. If you yourself are not an experienced film photographer, you could easily be convinced to buy a camera that would turn out to be a terrible choice for you (never mind as a gift).

What I said earlier may have sounded brutal but I put it that way because people who didn't grow up with film need to have it put starkly enough to understand: most small film cameras from the 1960s were pretty bad, and so were many others thru the 70s-90s (but at least they had modern exposure systems and possibly AF). The cameras could be bad because from the day George Eastman invented the Kodak camera, people became accustomed to photos that were mostly crap (because most cameras consumers could afford were basically crap).

There was a whole subgenre of "borderline crap" cameras like the Olympus Trip 35 in the '50s and '60s: early autoexposure cameras with selenium meters around the lens. These give the illusion of being higher quality than a disposable plastic camera, but really aren't: like the Trip 35, they usually had only one or two shutter speeds, meters that go dead indoors, and guesstimate focus. In the hands of a skilled photographer who understood and accepted the limitations, they could produce great pics: the Trip 35 has a great little lens on it, and can make nice sharp beautiful pics when used in bright outdoor light by a patient photographer who knows exactly how to futz with its quirks.

But it is NOT a camera for someone who wants dependable, predictable, usually-good results and quick idiot-proof operation. If used with that attitude, it will produce the same yuck results as a disposable camera. As I recounted earlier, this kind of lousy performance was typical in the film era: most people were satisfied with an out of focus, over-bright or dim pic that somewhat resembled what they remembered trying to shoot. The mass market then had no expectation their pics would turn out anywhere near perfect: if you got 6 great pics out of a 36 exposure roll, you were ecstatic.

Today is different. People are spoiled by digital cameras and phone cams that can shoot in almost any light and provide decent results. Every camera is autofocus and autoexposure, digital sensors can make a usable image in the worst imaginable lighting, and phone cams will perfectly retouch poor shots at the touch of a magic wand button or app. Small vintage film cameras do not remotely compare to this: the Trip 35 class would be considered horrible today. Somewhat later small cameras like the Canonets, Minolta Highmatics, Olympus 35 RC/RD, Yashica GSN, Konica S2 , Rollei 35, Minox GT etc can do much better, because they have a full range of shutter speeds and electric meters. Even so, finding one that still works properly can be challenging, and despite similarities each one will appeal to different photographers.

Your best bet in a travel-type camera would be much newer upper-tier AF cameras like the Nikon L35AF and various Contax or Olympus AF cams. The drawback with these is finding one that works reliably, at a sane price. Everyone in the universe seems to have decided all at once that they want these good small film cameras, so prices have jacked to ridiculous levels over the past couple years (the Olympus XA that sold for $70 four years ago is over $200 now, and you can't touch the better Nikons and Olympus cams for anything less than three bills). At these prices, it just isn't a good idea to pick up a rando and throw it to an experienced film photographer as a gift: they need to make their own choice based on what they instinctively need in a camera. The woman who loves the Rollei 35 would despise an Olympus XA, etc.

All of which folds back to your GF: she has to be invested enough in the idea to pick her own camera. If she honestly and truly is so busy that she cannot possibly take five minutes to do this, and you seriously think the only way she would get a film camera is for you to buy her one at random: don't. Even if you buy from KEH, returns are a hassle and you will be disappointed if she doesn't love it. Film is work: if she has so much on her plate right now, she may not really be in a place to enjoy film again just yet (despite talking about it wistfully). Processing is a hassle, getting the pics digitized for web posting is a hassle (unless you get it done with processing).

Perhaps your best course of action would be to sacrifice the element of surprise, pull up the KEH website, sit your GF down and just ask her if she'd like to pick a camera or two as her anniversary present. Her reaction would tell you all you need to know: if she smiles and takes a look, great, if she seems annoyed, back out quickly with, "it was just a thought, is there something else you've been wanting but haven't had time to shop for?". Good luck, and happy anniversary!

The Trip 35 was made from the late 60's until the mid 80's. It enjoyed a fairly long run because it was well matched to its intended audience and purpose. Does it make sense in the age of auto-focus and the digital camera? Probably not, but that same argument could be made against pretty much any film camera.

So, it's no longer a good choice for its original target audience. Who would it be a good choice for today? Someone who wants to shoot film, wants something smallish, wants a classic looking camera, and doesn't care about manual controls, interchangeable lenses, or much in the way of creative options.

Also someone who is willing to work within its limitations, - marginal in low light, not good for capturing things that are moving at all fast, and a focusing system that while simple, may not always produce razor sharp photos. But for that matter, how many manual focus cameras produce pictures that are always in focus?

As I mentioned, I prefer the RC35 because it's a very similar looking camera but quite a bit more capable. However it was designed for a mercury battery and uses a range finder for focusing. For some, the simple 4 option zone focusing system of the Trip 35 might be preferable.

Ugh. The more you tell us about her, and the more options you tell us you are seriously considering buying, the more I think you should give this idea a hard pass and just take her out to a nice dinner or something. This thread is rapidly making me extremely thankful I've never been involved with anyone who made any attempt at gifting me with a photography related item. Dude, unless she POINT BLANK and very SPECIFICALLY tells you exactly what kind of "street/travel" shooting she wants to do, how serious she is about actually doing it, and what type of camera she thinks would be suitable for it, steer clear. That you would even contemplate importing an Oly Trip 35... just yikes.

 

Her existing camera is a Canon T3i, which is digital. That old, obsolete digital camera can still run rings around nearly any compact film camera in terms of street flexibility and being able to capture a shot on the run in nearly any lighting. If you (or she) think you're gonna be able to globe trot with a bottom-feeder two-speed film camera, and get anywhere near the number of keepers you could get by just using your phones, think again. Film requires far more precise exposure, and a halfway decent range of camera settings. The Oly Trip 35 was/is a cute compact camera with a decent lens, but it comes from an era when film was the ONLY choice, and millions of people were content with results that would be considered garbage by any 12 year old today weilding an iPhone.. At least in those days, film was cheap, processing was cheap, and you could get both at any business within 50 yards of your house.

 

Today, using film is an expensive fetish: the only two legit reasons to bother are for the overall zen experience and/or artistic intent (in which case "the right gear for you personally" is important) or because you just want authentic organic film grain and hacky poor exposure for some Instagram posts (in which case, the camera is irrelevant). For any sort of serious travel shooting, I wouldn't waste my time on a film camera with extremely limited mechanism, no matter how good the lens. I suppose your GF could be one of those inexplicable hipsters who revels in under/over exposed intentionally-bad "Dad Photos" for kicks: in that case, fine, buy her anything because it won't matter. Just be aware the Trip 35 type of camera is about as useful to make good travel photos as a brick of Swiss cheese is to hammer a nail. It is a 100% high-noon broad daylight camera that will suck in most other situations: basically an Instamatic or Holga with much better lens.

 

"Knowing her, I don't know how much she would actually like the gift card option. She has a lot on her plate, and doesn't get the same joy that I do out of finding the best deal on the best product online." That, my friend, is the red flag telling the bull to go down to the pub and have a beer, because there is no way he'll win the fight. Anyone with the faintest smattering of school training in shooting film would automatically have some idea of what camera they might want to shoot if they pick up the hobby again six or seven years later. It isn't a question of being too busy and not wanting to shop for a deal: anyone who's ever shot more than five rolls of film for a class can pick a camera from the KEH website in about 30 seconds. If she truly cannot be bothered to expend even that little amount of energy to get back into film, then she probably doesn't really want to and is just floating the idea for her own transient amusement. Unless you can read her mind, don't take the bait.

You mention the T3i, which I think is more important than much of the rest of the discussion.

One of the easy ways to go wrong is the opposite side of the Canon vs. Nikon divide.

My father has used Canon since I was one year old, when the Canon VI came out.

I was using the VI in college, until I bought a Nikon FM.

He still uses only Canon, now the usual DSLRs. He has zero interest in Nikon.

Since she is used to the T3i, (unless she especially hates it), it makes sense to get a Canon SLR.

(Maybe this isn't obvious to those who haven't used both, but the lenses focus in the opposite direction.

That is just enough to make it inconvenient for many to switch.)

A Canon SLR that uses EF lenses, will allow those lenses to be used with the T3i.

(Not the other way around, as EF-S lenses don't fill a 35mm frame, and won't mount.)

I haven't priced Canon SLRs lately, but ones that use EF lenses are the later models, reasonably

likely to work, and don't have the classic camera markup. Used EF lenses are still reasonably

priced, and as noted, will also work with the T3i. Two uses for the price of one lens!

It looks like KEH has EOS (the naming for all EF lens SLRs) down to $2.69.

Even if you spend $20 or so, you can only lose ... $20! (Well, there is shipping, too.)

KEH has EF mount lenses for very low prices, too. And remember, these also

work on the T3i! I probably recommend against the ASIS or UGLY, but better ones

might be $50 or so.

All the EOS cameras have electronic (as far as I know) shutters, which usually means that they

either work right, or not at all. Lenses also mostly either work or don't work, though

sticky diaphragms that are just slow are not so uncommon.

It might be that after using one of these for a little while, she gets interested in something

with more history. Maybe an antique Leica or Yashica TLR. But you wouldn't know

that now, and she might not, either.

As for the guitar analogy, how would you feel if someone, knowing that you liked to

play the guitar, decided to buy you a tuba? They are both musical instruments, so

you should like them both. It is possible to make a similar mistake in the camera case,

but you wouldn't know it.

Some people get interested in old Kodak box cameras from the 1920's or folding cameras

from the 1930's. These are so common that they also have no collector value, yet from

the age you might expect them to. The Canon EOS cameras are also very common, and

have zero collectible value.

If you want a camera to sit on the shelf, and look nice, that is completely different.

Another completely different thing not yet mentioned is darkroom photography.

Many film camera uses like to do their own darkroom work. One reason is that

it is much cheaper (at least for black and white), and also a different kind of

fun from almost anything else. But if not, there are still enough places around

to develop color negative or slide film. (The latter might be mail order.)

(Not so unusual now is to develop and scan film, then make digital

prints from the scans. But darkroom printing has its own fun.)

Good luck!

"jacobblizard was last seen: Jul 11, 2019"

I guess some people are easily offended when good and expert advice doesn't agree with their own preconceived ideas.