35 mm Point and Shoot: Features you did not, or did like.

<p>This is intended merely as a brief retrospective on <strong>35mm film point and shoot</strong> cameras.<br>

Manufacturers of them seemed race to make them more and more automated. (Maybe they even overdid that.)<br>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>

Question 1: Which particular automated features of theirs, if any, did you definitely <strong><em>not</em></strong> care for?<br>

Question 2: Which two or three models, if any, were your favorites? (And do care to say why?)<br>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>

As for me, I want a time-or-date stamping option, and some sort of real LCD (not just an LCD for time or date).<br>

And while it is still my turn:<br>

Answer 1: I do not like the way most of these cameras auto rewind the film <em>completely</em> into the film canister.<br>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>

Now it is your turn.<br>

(If you are tired of answering questions like those, please post a link to where you <em>already</em> answered them.)</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Dave in Kansas.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In a nearby forum, Craig Shearman posted a comment about the time-or-date stamping option:<br>

"<em>A date stamp is certainly useful for identifying the date of old pictures. But IMHO it ruined many otherwise good photos. Nothing I would ever want in any serious photo.</em>"<br>

I agree, Craig, but did the operator not always have the option of turning the stamping <strong>off</strong> for an important photo?</p>

<p>Well, I guess my Olympus Stylus Epic (AKA mju ii) counts as a point-and-shoot, because it has autofocus, programmed exposure, and DX film speed setting. The pros and cons of this camera are well-documented.</p>

<p>Until I retired my failing Stylus Epic, it was my all-time favorite fixed-lens 35mm camera, because it makes excellent negatives at smallish apertures. While you never really know which f-stop it's choosing, you can bias it to tighter apertures by choosing faster (like ASA 400) film. The four-element air-spaced lens, a 35mm f/2.8, gives terrific results under those conditions, easily the equal of a decent SLR lens.</p>

<p>The automated feature I disliked is that it defaults to flash mode every single time you turn it on (by sliding the front cover), and you have to move the selector switch to turn the flash off, every single time. This was, to me, a pain, because I nearly always used it in natural light. It would have been nice if they made it so you could choose your own default setting. But not a dealbreaker. </p>

<p>I suppose the other thing about this camera is it's not very robust. Mine began to progressively leak light after a few years as a backpacking camera, so I retired it. Might get another, though, if I come across one as new old stock.</p>

<p>Simply need to point out how much better my wife's/daughters' photographs have been since they stopped using film compacts and started using the digital equivalent. </p>

<p>That aside, lack of real exposure control. and shutter lag- which seemed to worsen any photo with people other than those posed stiffly, together with general flimsiness and unreliability were the worst aspects of what to me was an unattractive genre. I guess APS and other sub 35mm formats have to go on my list of undesirables. It always seemed to me that my family's pictures were totally hit & miss; whereas now there is much more consistent quality -and satisfaction- in what they produce. <br>

Note that I'm not anti-film. I was a late adopter of digital- didn't make a move away from MF slides until I commercially had to- but manufacturers didn't seem to try too hard with film compacts, whereas a lot of larger film cameras gave great results. </p>

 

<p>I also liked the Olympus Stylus, both in wonderfully compact and tough fixed lens version and the more delicate zooms. I also still have a Nikon Lite Touch zoom that is sharp and makes very good pictures, but the default to flash I found extremely annoying. I rarely want flash, and though it's certainly possible to remember to turn it off each time, it severely hinders the usefulness of a point and shoot camera, whose main reason for existence is that you can put it in a pocket and whip it out as needed. </p>

<p>I think of all those undoubtedly poor if not utterly spoiled pictures at circuses and parades and sporting events, in which you would see half a million tiny flashes going off. I have a couple of digital point and shoots, and they all leave the flash set as it was when you turned it off, a great advance. </p>

<p>Too late to edit now, I should mention that I also rather liked the APS idea, except that it was never implemented right. At one point I had a little Canon Elph, and it was beautifully made, compact and tough. Unfortunately, it took utterly undistinguished pictures.</p>

<p>The idea of a film canister that could be changed before the film is over and then reinserted later was grand, as were some of the other options for having date and other information recorded but not imprinted on the negative. Finally, the idea of being able to choose formats including panorama seemed great but the actual result did not utilize the capabilities of APS film. One of the things that APS could have done was actually to vary the size of negatives. Electronic spacing and winding would make it possible to dial in a different negative width. Instead, though, the format change was the same as on 35 mm. cameras, just a mask. The panoramas were achieved by cropping rather than expanding, and the narrow shots by wasting film space.</p>

<p>In addition, most of the processors who developed APS lacked the facilities to do the tricky stuff like date choices, so what we ended up with was just an undersized film format that cost more to develop at fewer places. Film choices were never good, and the possibility of making the smaller format work well was never developed.</p>

<p>+1 for the Olympus line of Stylus Epic, (and the previous XA though that is not really a point and shoot). But the auto-on flash was a pain and made quick, inconspicuous shots difficult. A feature I really liked in some (Ricoh? or Canon?) was the film winding on completely when first loaded and then it would rewind into the can when the picture was taken - protecting the taken shots in case the door was opened.</p>

<p>Question 1: Which particular automated features of theirs, if any, did you definitely <strong><em>not</em></strong> care for?<br /> <br /> The fact that you could not select aperture. Shutter lag. There are other disadvantages but they are not as bad as those two.<br /> <br />Question 2: Which two or three models, if any, were your favorites? (And do care to say why?)<br /> <br /> Olympus mju-II (Stylus Epic). Weather-sealed, great lens, fun to use (though the XA is the better camera all round). I took some photos with it in 2012 and put them here: http://www.photo.net/photo/15455828<br /> <br /> I currently own an Rollei Prego 100WA with a 28-100mm lens. Sadly, no aperture priority AE, but it does have an infinity lock. I haven't used it yet.<br /> <br /> <br /> Imagine the best of the XA and the mju-II in one camera!</p>

<p>This modern film Point & Shoot, did most everything <strong>wrong</strong>...</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Question 1: Which particular automated features of theirs, if any, did you definitely <strong><em>not</em></strong> care for?<br />Question 2: Which two or three models, if any, were your favorites? (And do care to say why?)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Canon Sure Shot and the Nikon L35AF are my favorite 35mm point and shoot cameras. Both are motorized, auto-focus, auto-exposure cameras. The only feature I disliked was the Canon not being as reliable as the Nikon.</p>

<p> </div>

<p>My most used point and shoot, so I guess it would be my favorite, is my Canon AF35ML, aka "Super Sure Shot." What's most notable about this camera is its fast 5-element 40mm f/1.9 lens. The lens is capable of delivering tack-sharp performance. Another thing one is liable to notice about it when picking one up is it has some heft to it. Yep, it's actually made with a decent amount of metal and is far from feeling like a plastic toy the way so many other P&S cameras do.</p>

<p>Another one I own, but which I've used less frequently, although it is an excellent camera, is the Canon Sure Shot Classic 120. Very full featured for a P&S, has a 38-120mm zoom, and takes great pics. Supposedly reminiscent of the Canon QL17, another great little compact, although it's not really P&S cuz you have to focus it.</p>

<p>Shutter lag was an issue, as I recall, with the Olympus zooms, less so but still there with the Nikon Lite Touch, but never an issue with the fixed lens Stylus Epic, nor with the fixed lens Nikon L-35 variant I have, which is the underwater one. Minolta also made an AF with a manually switchable 35 and 50 lens, which was quick and realiable, and came in a floating underwater version. A fixed 35 mm. lens does not require much focusing, so the lag, if there is any, is likely to be very short.</p>

<p>I think one might count the Olympus XA2 and 3 as point and shoot. They zone focused, and defaulted to the middle position when closed. To shoot all you need to do is take it out of your pocket and open it. With a manual wind, it's almost silent, too. </p>

<p>Didn't care for the talking feature on the Minolta Talker. It did have a good lens and accurate autofocus and at least the talking part could be turned off. <br>

Also didn't care for cameras that required multiple pushes of the same button to access various features. <br>

Favorites (even though they had some features I didn't like): </p>

<ol>

<li>Yashica T3- because of its sharp 35mm f2.8 lens, weatherproof construction, and dual finders (eye level and waist level) In its day it was great for slides as its lowest DX code was ISO 64.</li>

<li>Nikon Lite Touch- inexpensive but had sharp 28mm f3.5 lens and infinity lock.</li>

</ol>

<p>In a nearby forum, Craig Shearman posted a comment about the time-or-date stamping option:<br /> "<em>A date stamp is certainly useful for identifying the date of old pictures. But IMHO it ruined many otherwise good photos. Nothing I would ever want in any serious photo.</em>"<br /> I agree, Craig, but did the operator not always have the option of turning the stamping <strong>off</strong> for an important photo?<br /><br />Glad to know someone is reading my posts. :)<br /><br />Yes, i believe most cameras allowed for this "feature" to be turned off. Unfortunately, IMHO, lots of people seemed to leave it turned on most of the time.<br /><br />I agree with those who love the Olympus Stylus Epic. Mine used to be my carry-everywhere camera. But my problem with the flash default issue is the opposite of what others have said. I almost always put the flash into the "always on" mode to get flash fill even in full sunlight (maybe I should say especially in full sunlight to fill in harsh shadows). But whenever you turned the camera off and back on it again, it went to the default mode where the camera decides whether you need flash or not. There were also times when I preferred no flash. But whether I was using flash or not, I would have preferred that it stayed set the way you set it, or better yet a simply on-off switch for the flash.</p>

<p>Question 1: Which particular automated features of theirs, if any, did you definitely <strong><em>not</em></strong> care for?<br />Question 2: Which two or three models, if any, were your favorites? (And do care to say why?)<br>

<br>

Sorry for the late post I just wanted to read about what you all thought on point and shoot film cameras. I myself have a Minolta Hi-Matic Af-2 (named 'Lucifer' for the pentagram on the half case screw) that I absolutely love. If I've read correctly, it was the first camera with infrared autofocus, which is extremely useful. It also has a good system of telling you whether or not the light was good, as well as the distance. It also had a nice weight to it. My favorite feature by far is the fact that it has a film advance lever instead of a motorized film advance, therefore making it so the bateries last FOREVER (you can literally use dollar store batteries and they will still last awhile). Not only that, but the pictures came out great!<br>

My two complaints is the very rare chance that this camera might mess up your shot (it was about a one in thirty chance I found. This isn't terrible, but I've lost about four or five shots this way) and the flash. If you were in an urban combat zone you could use the flash on this thing to blind whatever unlucky soul meandered in front of you, it is REALLY bright. The result is that it tends to turn people and objects in extremely white versions of their former selves if it's somewhat dark. There are two or three later versions of this camera, but I don't own them and therefore can't speak on them.</p>

<p>My only "real" 35mm P&S-camera is the already mentioned Canon AF 35 ML (Super Sure Shot).</p>

<p>Not many automated features to like/dislike on the 35ML. I don't like it's alarm/alarming sound. The "low light beeeep" is unnerving. Just like the "normal" noise of this camera, but this is not a feature I guess.<br>

But I like the fast 40mm f/1.9 lens.</p>

<p>The only other modern 35mm P&S I own is a Minox ML, lovely camera too, but a bit cumbersome to use. <br>

Had some fun with a Rollei Prego (first model) and the first-model Leica Mini. The Yashica T3 is/was a great little camera too.</p>