best small film camera for street on budget

<p>what is the smaller and sharp lens film camera on budget for street? <br>

i saw rollei 35 nice and small , olympus 35 rc and i dont know what other, please recommend me one, can be a rangefinder too.<br>

Thanks </p>

<p>Olympus (infinity)Stylus Epic DLC with 35mm f:2.8 all weather is a cheap solid performer.</p>

<p>I use a Nikon FG+50/1.8E. Oldies like the Stylus and cheap rangefinders are getting hard to find in decent, working condition.</p>

<p>i saw the flickr images of stylus epic and 35 rc olympus and as my eyes the images looks better on 35 rc, what u think?</p>

<p>epic https://www.flickr.com/groups/81593235@N00/<br>

35 rc https://www.flickr.com/groups/35rc/</p>

<p>I always keep a loaded Olympus Stylus in my car. It fits in a shirt pocket and delivers critically sharp well-exposed pictures. As I recall, it cost about $4 at a local charity shop. A larger one, which accompanied me for years was a Canon Sure Shot Mega Zoom 105 which I used to shoot rural scenes like barns and abandoned structures. It cost less than $10. I've found that lots of the small 35mm pocket cameras from the age when they were popular are available in excellent shape in charity shops for less than $10. Many of them had sharp zoom lenses, modest viewfinders and work well for street photography. I would be cautious making decisions on what camera is sharpest based on web photos, they rarely give an accurate representation of lens'/cameras actual capabilities. </p>

<p>Olympus XA2 is another.</p>

<p>Another classic shooter is any of the less-"automatic" of the Canonet series - that is pretty much any but the Canonet 28, although that can be usable too.<br /> Here is one of the early ones, a Canonet QL17</p><div></div>

<p>A Minolta HiMatic or perhaps an Olympus Trip 35, the Canonet series. Lots of good and inexpensive options.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>Most differences you'll see in online JPEGs are due to differences in film processing, scanning and editing, rather than cameras and lenses. Most good P&S film cameras and compact rangefinders are capable of equally good results.</p>

<p>The Olympus 35 RC is a good camera but a bit fiddly for quick adjustments. To keep the camera and lens as small as possible the aperture ring is tiny and very close to the focus ring, so it's difficult to adjust one without affecting the other. Usually I zone focus and stop down to f/8-f/11 for quick snaps. On the plus side, the 35 RC locates the shutter speed dial on the top plate. Many compact rangefinders place the shutter speed ring, aperture ring and focus ring all on the lens - a really tight squeeze on some models.</p>

<p>The Canonets are very good too, and a bit better for precise focusing. But they tend to be overpriced if you can find one in good working condition. They're prone to sluggish shutters after decades of age, and CLAs can be expensive.</p>

<p>I also like the Olympus XA series, but like any P&S style camera these have limitations. AE and zone focusing are good enough, but they can be prone to flare in direct sun. There may be a bit more softness and vignetting in the corners - it's difficult to make cameras and lenses that small without some compromises. I like the light falloff "vignetting" from my XA3 for some types of photos.</p>

<p>If it costs more than $200, it's time to consider a good 35mm film SLR and one fast prime. There's no shortage of good SLRs, and no real disadvantage in practical use. Most folks on the street don't really care what we're taking photos with. The only real advantage to a smaller camera is because it's easier for us to carry, not because it's "discrete" or stealthy. The act of lifting a camera to eye level looks like someone using a camera, whether it's a tiny P&S or an SLR. The main reason I occasionally tote small film and digital cameras is because they'll fit in a pants pocket, not because I think it's stealthy.</p>

<p>Frankly, compact 35mm cameras are terrible for street photography.<br>

While they are fun, they either have a fixed wide-angle lens (stylus epic, xa) or a horribly slow zoom. The older rangefinders have their own issues (gummy foam seals, discontinued batteries, bad shutters).<br>

I would instead suggest a modern AF SLR, such as the Nikon N80 or N75 with a modest 28-80 or 35-105mm zoom lens. (not the super zooms!). <br>

The AF is fast, the lens is really sharp, and they are super lightweight. The zoom lens lets you compose without walking back and forth. The 80mm end you can focus in on people but not so much that you need a tripod to keep the lens steady. </p>

<p>"<em>Frankly, compact 35mm cameras are terrible for street photography</em>."</p>

<p>Nice for snapshots, but if you wanted to blow the images up to anything greater than 4X6 the quality was just not there.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>Frankly, compact 35mm cameras are terrible for street photography</em>."<br>

Nice for snapshots, but if you wanted to blow the images up to anything greater than 4X6 the quality was just not there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the cameras made in the period of transition to SLRs (late 1950s to mid 1960s) these opinions are directly contrary to the facts, repeatedly illustrated in posts on the Classic Manual Cameras forum and here.<br>

The Canonets, the Rollei 35s, and very many others reached a kind of peak, just as the pro-wannabes moved to SLRs. We are not talking disposable cameras in the discussion above. In the last ten years or so since my retirement, I've been exploring a lot of these cameras that I missed at the time. They are not snapshot junk, though you could find some of those if you looked hard enough.</p>

<p>Even many of the early AF pocket cameras were way better than you could have expected even when they were new.</p>

 

<p>Harry, I agree here with JDM's comments. Obviously, you have not used the Rollei S or other variants of it with the Tessar or Sonnar optics, or even the Minox GT or GTE with its equally fine lens. I have both, and while I don't use them today (as a MF shooter with B&W film) I can vouch that 4x6 inches is in no way a limit, not even 8x12 inches, if you use them with a good approach.</p>

<p>The Rollei 35 series, even the budget B35 can deliver very sharp results, but you do have to set the distance by scale focus. The Rollei 35 and 35S both have CDS meters that require PX625 cell, but the Rollei B35 has a selenium meter that needs no battery. Another camera often overlooked is the Konica C35V. Quick zone focus, sharp 38mm f2.8 lens, and programmed exposure from 1/30 second at f2.8 to 1/650 second at f14.</p>

<p>BTW, and as an aside, the dominant film used in these small 35mm cameras was slide film, not color negative. As someone here once pointed out to me, that meant that actual viewing was typically done blown up to large dimensions on a screen.</p>

<p>Snap shots were mostly taken on cameras like Kodak 127 and 620 film cameras - Brownies, in a word. As Gene M. has repeatedly shown, good work can even be done with them. Those who have been missing Gene here, may want to refresh their spirits at his website at http://www.westfordcomp.com/ </p>

<div></div>

<p>"<em>Frankly, compact 35mm cameras are terrible for street photography</em>."<br>

-me<br>

Nice for snapshots, but if you wanted to blow the images up to anything greater than 4X6 the quality was just not there.<br>

-not me</p>

<p>My posts were jumbled up with someone elses. I do not think vintage cameras are of poor quality. I have quite a few myself. But to respond to someone who is trying to get serious about 'street' photography, I would not suggest them. They have problems with foam that has gone bad. (i dont think the rollei 35 has foam does it?) Inability to source batteries (can use replacements but are more prone to exposure problems due to voltage differences-and yeah you could get an external meter or use sunny16, all of which slows you down from being ready for the decicive moment) and general slowness and fiddlyness due to over-reduction (rollei fits into this catagory).</p>

<p>Now if the above is to your liking, then by all means you can get great results. I have an olympus XA, XA2, 35RC, Canonet QL17 (one early version and 2 giii's), Yashica electro 35cc, rollei XF35, and i could go on and on. The rollei 35 hasnt bit me yet.</p>

<p>I didn't confuse you with anybody, Darin. If it seems that I meant that your opinion that these cameras are terrible for street photography is just as wrong as Harry's, I did.<br>

It was he who put them together, BTW.</p>

<p>You seriously overstate the problems of shooting with the cameras, imo. They may not work for you, but that's not the fault of the cameras.</p>

<p><em>You seriously overstate the problems of shooting with the cameras, imo. They may not work for you, but that's not the fault of the cameras.</em></p>

<p>Pot calling kettle black here. Fact remains, these cameras were not always that durable relative to then contemporary SLRs, as their price points reflected. They very much do have age-related problems, some fixable, others not, that compromise their reliable functioning. Nice to admire as shelf queens, retro fashion statements, or contrarian tschotskes but they can be more trouble than they're worth and don't axiomatically deliver the goods. YMMV, as usual.</p>

<p>I have my Olympus 35 DC (the RD's lesser brother) on my desk. I carry it with me everywhere an SLR doesn't make sense. It is from about 1972. Image quality is very good, if not quite up to the standards of early '80s Nikon Primes. Many examples here:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1072339</p>

<p>People love to have their pictures taken with it. If they even notice. It's tiny. And cool. And essentially silent. If I could lay my hands on the RD or SP, I'd prefer their manual controls. But so far, I haven't found a deal.</p>

<p>If an SLR makes sense, I prefer my Nikon FE. You know exactly what you're going to get with that and an f/1.8. I have the Nikon EM which is smaller, but the lack of manual controls stops me from executing the picture exactly as I want it. I took the EM backpacking this weekend for its light weight, and was disappointed I didn't bring a few more ounces and the FE. If you're going to carry a full SLR, you may as well have full manual control, IMHO. Maybe the FG would hit that sweet spot of control + weight better.</p>

<p>I own the F3HP, and there is no reason to carry that bulk around. And the F2, F4, F5, F6, Nikkormat, etc. are all that big and heavy. I'm with Ken Rockwell who thinks the FE is just about perfect, cheap, light, and 99% as good as the FM3A.</p>

<p>I have the Olympus XA on my shelf, and there it stays. It isn't a very good performer in terms of image quality. Yes, it is microscopic, and takes pretty good pictures. But never great ones. Image quality is lacking, in my experience. I also get a fair amount of light falloff, because when I shoot in the golden light with Velvia 50, there isn't enough light to shoot at f/5.6.</p>

<p>I've found compact 35mm film cameras like the Olympus 35 RC, XA3 and similar cameras very suitable for live theater photography and any venue where quiet is appreciated. Not because they're visually discrete - the act of raising a camera to eye level is so obvious the camera size doesn't matter - but because the leaf shutters are very quiet. I don't need to worry about the clunking mirror noise distracting anyone. And the image quality is good enough, comparable to my Nikon and Olympus SLRs with comparable focal lengths. I mostly use fast b&w film, often pushed, and the grain in TMY pushed to 1600 and Delta 3200 at any speed tends to obscure any minor differences in lens performance between compact fixed lens cameras and SLRs.</p>

<p>I like compact cameras because they're light, small and easy to carry. I just don't think they're worth the premium prices asked for certain models that have attained "cult classic" status. You could probably get similar results from any decent 35mm compact film camera that lacks the $exed up hype of the Canonet, Olympus, Ricoh, etc. There were millions of compact and P&S 35mm film cameras made from the 1970s-early 2000s. Visit any pawn shop or thrift store, buy several for anywhere from a dollar to $5 each and give 'em a try. If there are light leaks from bad seals it's easy enough to fix temporarily with tape around the door hinge, the main source of light leaks. You can decide later whether it's worth properly fixing the seals.</p>

<p>Inexpensive medium format folders are good too, once the bellows have been replaced or the leaks patched. The leaf shutters are very quiet. Stopping down and zone focusing works well enough for daylight street photography.</p>

<p>Guys thanks very much for all the answers, of all of this "small" cameras i dont like the idea of point and shoot , so i can reduce my list , this small cameras what you think are a good option with manual option?<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>Olympus 35 SP. :-) That's my goal.</p>

<p>Olympus 35 SP, smaller Canon QL17Giii, smaller olympus 35RC, smaller olympus XA.<br>

I'd lean more toward a canon QL17 or Oly 35RC for portability. The Oly 35SP has very nice spot metering though. </p>

 

<p>Another compact rangefinder with manual control is the Ricoh 500G. Has shutter priority automation like the Olympus 35 RC, but is slightly bigger. Also has an f2.8 lens. Apertures can also be set manually. Likely to be less expensive than the Olympus, although both might need to have light seals replaced. The Ricoh was also sold under the Sears brand for even less. </p>

<p>Another interesting possibility would be a good used Bessa L or T (the T has a rangefinder but no viewfinder, per se) with one of the affordable Voigtlander screw mount wide angle lenses. Those early Bessas were built on the same smallish chassis as Cosina's SLRs (sold by Vivitar and many others), but without the prism. So they were pretty compact and lightweight due to the polycarbonate construction.</p>

<p>With a wide angle you could just guess-focus/zone focus, stop down to f/8-f/11, and just point the camera. With a 28mm or wider lens a viewfinder or accessory finder isn't absolutely necessary. With practice you can get good results just lifting the camera to chin level, looking over the top of the camera and point-aiming. I do this with my little Ricoh digicams and it works well.</p>