Best way to test Point and Shoot 35mm cameras?

[art_major]

<p>Hey guys.</p>

<p>I want to run a test on about 10 point and shoot 35mm film cameras. The cameras range from High end Contax T3 to low end Olympus XA. <br>

<br />whats the best way to test all of these cameras to get fair results to judge? <br>

most of these cameras are automatic exposure and not all of them have aperture priority, etc. so the results will vary. <br>

I feel that the best way measure the center and corner sharpness; is to photograph a lens testing target under controlled lighting etc. The problem is, most of these cameras will not focus that close. does anyone know where I can find a poster sized lens testing chart?</p>

<p>any other tips would be greatly appreciated. thank you. </p>

[SCL]

<p>Don't bother with a lens chart...do some real life testing....go to a park, seascape, cityscape or whatever near where you live and shot a roll in each. If you want 1:1 comparisons, shoot the same scene with each camera....10 rolls of film, a lot, but you wanted to run tests on a target, so the same amount of film would be used in a real life test. I often use targets when I'm testing a used lens to look for damaged goods or to find the "sweet spot" of each lens, but it is the real life shooting that really counts.</p>

[maury_cohen]

<p>What's your purpose in doing this test?</p>

[john_stockdale2]

<p>I would be more concerned with reliability than absolute lens performance. I've owned lots of cameras since the 1960s and as a general rule the smaller they are the more trouble they are. Yes, I am a grumpy old man. Rollei 35S, super lens, meter unfixable. Ricoh GR1v super concept, appalling reliability of the display, without which it's very hard to use some of the features (and see how many frames are left). Olympus XA has been pretty good, the rangefinder patch is very faint and the lens is reasonable, lots of vignetting at wide apertures, but I still like it. My wife's Olympus mju zoom needed an expensive repair to its retractable zoom.</p>

<p>For me, it's a relief to pick up a Nikon FM or a Leica and know what's going to happen.</p>

[flatulent1]

<p>If you don't have a large enough lens test chart, you can always hang a large detailed map on the wall and shoot that. Or a sheet of newsprint.</p>

<p>I'd be interested to know how they all work with slide film, which has no exposure latitude. Is exposure good, or did they rely on the fudge-factor built into print film? Especially as you never know what those scanners are going to do to your exposures.</p>

<p>Personally though I wouldn't bother with scientific methods. I took a few of these out a few years ago, loaded with the same film, and shot them in sequence in several real-world shooting scenarios. I used Superia 200 (I think) and the results weren't real conclusive, which made me wonder about the scanner being used at the lab. Slide film would have eliminated two variables.</p>

<p>The real interesting part, for me anyway, was to find out how well all those cameras worked, and if they did what I hoped they'd do. Not surprisingly, I was often disappointed. I would change a flash setting and shoot a frame; a minute or so later the camera would shut itself off. Turning it back on I find the flash setting has been reset to its default position.</p>

<p>I have something like 30 or 40 of the things scattered about the house now, some of them still loaded with film, and none of them in regular use. Occasionally I trip over one and toss it in the Donations bin.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>You can get a pretty good idea of both corner sharpness and flatness of field by shooting a brick or block wall. Beyond that I would not fuss too much. Go walking in a city and take some shots, and chances are you'll find what is or is not pleasing, and what exposure systems give good results. Clapboard walls are pretty challenging too. But as long as you're going to burn a bunch of film, I'd suggest finding interesting subjects that happen to be challenging, rather than test charts. </p>

<p> </p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>I used to love testing certain P&S 35mm cameras. But this is mid 2013, film and processing is no longer an inexpensive venture. Of the 10 cameras you wish to test, pick the best two high end models and test them. All the other eight aren't worth bothering.....check their worth, you'll see where I'm at with this dilemma.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I suppose it depends on what you mean to test and what you mean to do with the results. Paul Wheatland's suggestion works if all you want to do is report on specs, but if you want to find out what camera would be the nicest one to throw into a pocket or a car bin and use in the real world, choosing only the top couple might end up going wrong. For one thing, some are expensive and hard to find, and for another, some lower-end cameras might turn out to be extremely useful for reasons not immediately obvious. </p>

<p>For example, the Olympus XA (or the even simpler XA2) may be at the low end for various reasons, but its exposure system is very good, it's nearly indestructible, has no shutter lag, and it's nearly silent. If you don't need the rather poor accessory flash, it's sometimes hard to beat a camera that you can stick in a pocket and "shoot from the hip" without even appearing to take a picture. </p>

[barryreid]

I'd say, get out and shoot with them in real situations. Find the one with the best ergonomics and stick with it, if they are

decent cameras like the XA and the Contax, the absolute performance is going to matter less than whether you enjoy

shooting the camera!!

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Recently I felt like doing this very same thing with four compact P&S/Rangefinders I own: A Canon IIIa rf, Canon QL17, Oly XA, and an Oly Trip 35. I had several rolls of old B&W film in the freezer, so I just used that, then developed it in D-76. I used a slide duplicator rig with my DSLR to dupe the negs, then reversed them in Photoshop for evaluation purposes.</p>

<p>For subject matter, I just took a walk around the block where I lived, shooting at whatever I found interesting the first time around, then shooting the same subjects the second through fourth time around. It was quite interesting comparing the results. I found that the two simplest -- the two Olys -- provided photos that were just as good as the two Canon RFs' photos. The various subjects allowed me to examine the negatives for both center and corner sharpness. It was the sort of real-world evaluation that I consider to be the most useful.</p>

<p> </p>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>matthew gave you good advice. Shoot a brick wall at a medium distance,as straight on as you can manage. This will give you a good idea of the distortion of the lens. Choose an obvious focus point ,and photograph the wall from a 45 degree angle,at f2.8 on the XA. This will show any focus error in the rangefinder.</p>

[gary_leonard3]

<p>Point, and shoot.</p>