Point and Shoot Film Cameras

I found these two stashed away in a box , (I knew that I had them SOMEWHERE :D).

Neither Camera has been used for more than 20 years.

Both Cameras still appear to be working , and I cannot see any signs of fungus or hazing.

But which one to test first ? :D.

I thought that I would post this for interests sake.

This picture was taken with a Canon PowerShot G12.

 

Development frost-bit in the bud:

 

Advanced Photo System

Nikon Nuvis S ca 1996

perhaps without digital, it could have been a "contenda"

Development frost-bit in the bud:

 

Advanced Photo System

Nikon Nuvis S ca 1996

[ATTACH=full]1389007[/ATTACH]

perhaps without digital, it could have been a "contenda"

My wife hated it. I thought she would have liked it but she hated it. I like a lot of things about APS just hated why they have to be smaller than 35mm?

The Konica Big Mini was a fave of Robert Frank and Japanese photographer Hiromix. If it works and you dig it, keep it; otherwise sell it since it's got a cult following.

I have the Konica A4 (model before the Big Mini). Big Mini has the same lens, but adds more AF zones and focuses continuously from infinity into close up range. The fixed focal length P&S eventually gave way to zooms (often with insanely small maximum apertures). Try them both, but I'd try the Big Mini first.

Ok , here are 3 test pictures from the Konica Big-Mini.

Very mundane subjects.

Pictures captured on Fujicolor C200 , processed and scanned by the local photo lab.

I have mixed feelings about the picture quality-----what do you-all think ???.

 

 

 

My wife hated it. I thought she would have liked it but she hated it. I like a lot of things about APS just hated why they have to be smaller than 35mm?

 

I was thinking not so long ago, about how much film is wasted for the perforations in 35mm film. It isn't so obvious with 24mm wide film that APS couldn't have fit a larger image than they did. Though with improved films, it isn't so bad, and much bigger than 110.

I was thinking not so long ago, about how much film is wasted for the perforations in 35mm film. It isn't so obvious with 24mm wide film that APS couldn't have fit a larger image than they did. Though with improved films, it isn't so bad, and much bigger than 110.

But if I am a 35mm user I would like to have the many conveniences of the APS but I am not ready to go for a smaller format. Film stock are pretty much the same and larger film always yield better quality.

My wife hated it. I thought she would have liked it but she hated it. I like a lot of things about APS just hated why they have to be smaller than 35mm?

 

I disliked APS, too expensive compared to 35 mm.

Well , I finally had the test roll for the Minolta Riva 70Ex processed , as you can see , the camera still works and makes pictures , (although not very good ones).

Film was Fujicolor C200 , processed and scanned by the local lab , resized for this forum.

I had a Contax TVS that I just loved. Took great pictures, traveled with it to India and Sri Lanka. Gave up the ghost a few years ago and I miss it. So does it make any sense to buy another (from Japan), considering that they are virtually impossible to repair?

Well , I finally had the test roll for the Minolta Riva 70Ex processed , as you can see , the camera still works and makes pictures , (although not very good ones).

Film was Fujicolor C200 , processed and scanned by the local lab , resized for this forum.

 

Hi za33photo,

 

Your pic is not too bad for inexpensive Fuji C200. As usual it needs post processing. The Minolta Riva was probably quite capable of producing excellent images on a film of better quality, say Fuji Reala 100 or Ektachrome slide film.

 

 

Hasty post processing of the C200 pic. Similar to el cheapo Kodak Colorplus 35mm, which also needs post processing to make something out of it.

The revival of plastic P&S does not mean that they are suddenly great cameras. The lens of the Big Mini is very good, but the rest of the camera behaves sluggishly and it is often hit and miss until you have used it enough to understand its idiosyncrasies - and even then it is no particular joy to use IMO.

But it is always fun to play, so don't let my skepticism hold you back ;)

Also develop/print/scan never come out amazing from an indifferent lab, and looking at the center scan, there are some artefacts that indicates that your lab don't sweat over the small stuff.

These pics were taking with an Olympus Infinity Zoom 80 that was a Bay purchase costing a whopping $7.50, and I was the only bidder. It was new looking and perhaps unused, that's why I bought it, otherwise I might not have bothered. I'm getting some great snapshots from it and it's not bad for indoor flash shots, much the same as many other point & shoots I'd imagine. I considered it a steal at that low price.

 

These were Fujifilm 200 also. Both shots were sharpened to compensate for the slight softness that scanning does to them. I should add that this film was home processed from go to wo

 

Fujifilm 200

You got a good deal.  All the features in a small camera: autofocus, auto exposure, auto wind and rewind

Pop up, flash and a zoom lens.

Small, light and functional.

This sort of thing is the only kind of time travel that actually sorta works.🤤

Don't expect to win any photographic awards with these camera, but they are convenient to carry and use. Who knows, you might run into a flying saucer some day....