35mm film point-and-shoot

[point_shoot]

<p>I've recently stumbled across my love for photography. I've been shooting with a friends DLSR, but feel deserving of my own camera at this point. I want something much more "low-profile" than a DSLR - something that can realistically be carried around, and covertly used to avoid the "IM ON CAMERA" face large DSLRs seem to pull out of people. </p>

<p>I enjoy shooting everything, but really enjoy people + fashion + every day things the most. Sharper is usually better, but I do like the unique coloration and "feel" some of the older film cameras can imbibe a shot with. </p>

<p>With an inundation of options within this field, and a penchant for over-researching purchases, I figured I'd take this question to y'all to get some feedback from more seasoned photographers, and people that may have had experience with these cameras that they can speak to. </p>

<p><strong>Current Considerations</strong>: Contax T2/3, Yashica T4 (Super D), Minolta TC-1, Nikon 28/35ti</p>

<p>If you have any other suggestions that I might have missed, feel free to add. I know there are lots of options, but would like to concentrate on $250-400 price point, and ones that would compliment my shooting style the best.<br>

Best,<br>

K.</p>

<p> </p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Simple answer - any of the cameras you mention, with relatively high-end prime lenses, would be suitable and available within your budget. Equivalent lens quality would be possible at much lower cost with something older like a Canonet, just check the meter is working OK. Furthermore, do not despise the "humble" P+S cameras like the Pentax Espio models, which can give surprisingly good results and which can be bought in excellent condition for next to nothing ($15 to 20 or less).</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Rollei Prego 90 or 145. Awesome sharp lens. Loaded with useful features even multi exposure. Reliable. Way way less costly. </p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>YOU MENTION SOM PRICEY CAMERAS.<br>

decent even excellent results from many lower prices and easy to use cameras should satify you.<br>

a few- the Konica c35 ( rf model - not AF or built-in flash)<br>

the canonet 28. minolta Hi-matic.<br>

a camera with a well-made 4 element "tessar type" f/2.8 lens will work just fine.<br>

your aim is high. but you will not require 11 x 14 or 20 x 24 enlargements from each frame./<br>

one of the cameras I mentioned and several others will produce a 4 x 6 or larger photo that equals a photo taken with a film slr.<br>

It will not be a comvenbient or flexible,. But it is something you can slip in a pocket and have with you.<br>

I hasve an olympus infinity. all plascit with a clamshell design tapered so I can keep it with me.<br>

the most accessories you will need is a pair of spare batteries and a an extra roll of film.</p>

<p>anything using film todl is a problem. there are few places that work at a moderate price and some do not evebn return negatives.<br>

I think the entire point of film is having the negatives.<br>

You can save whayever the digicam sees why not the same for film?</p>

<p>If you choose to use B&W do not send it out.<br>

learn to do it at home.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>but I do like the unique coloration and "feel" some of the older film cameras can imbibe a shot with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are two factors to consider here, in my view:</p>

<ul>

<li>Film;</li>

<li>Older lenses.</li>

</ul>

<p>Both contribute to the different look. And while I do not want to advice against shooting film (I do shoot reasonable amounts myself, and like it, so more people doing it will give it more future), you may want to ask yourself if you want to use film while still learning photography. Problem is, it's not cheap. Even if the cameras look a lot cheaper, the overall cost of shooting film is considerable. As Walter said, for B&W, learn to do it at home (good labs for B&W are rare and where I live, non existing, period) - which does bring some extra cost for kit to start with. For colour, you pay per roll for development also. Next printing, or scanning: more cost. So, just from an economic perspective, film cameras may be cheaper, but the total package isn't.</p>

<p>So maybe a completely different recommendation: get a small mirrorless digital camera (they can be small enough to avoid that "big DSLR" look), start with its kitlens to explore and experiment, and look for old lenses you like, get an adapter for your mirrorless and get much of that 'old' look on digital.</p>

<p>If you really want to go film, do also consider that manual film SLRs tend to be a lot smaller than DSLRs, and that you can get awesome value in those. Your budget is ample enough for any of that. Another option is old Russian rangefinder - not very reliable, but dirt cheap and some of it performs great. With your budget you could get several of them (and there is advantage to that: one for colour, one for B&W).</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>A problem with some of those such as the Konica C35 is that they require odd batteries, and may not be all that easy to find in good working order. </p>

<p>One possibility might be the Olympus XA family, or the later Stylus Epic. The Stylus comes in various forms, some zoom, which are decent but not stellar, but the fixed lens 35 mm. one is very good. The XA came as a rangefinder, and also in the XA2 and 3 form, which is a zone focusing automatic with unusually good performance, a point and shoot, basically, that is quick and nearly silent. The Stylus uses lithium batteries, and the XA a pair of modern button batteries. The flash on the XA is removable, and without the flash it is very small, and very sturdy. The 35 mm. Stylus Epic is also very small, and all these can be carried in a pocket. </p>

<p>Nikon also made some nice late zoom point and shoots that work well, in my opinion a little better than the Olympus zooms, though all make good exposures. For a bulkier body with good optics, there are some late Minoltas that often go for nearly nothing. They made one in various forms that has a 35/50 switchable lens. Nikon also made a fixed lens 35 AF with a really good lens, and that, like the Minolta, came in a waterproof version that works in all weather as well as actually under water. </p>

[point_shoot]

<p>Wow - Thanks for all the feedback! All considered, and thankful for the guidance thus far.</p>

<p>Currently looking at <br>

Agfa Optima 1535, Yashica Electro, and the Olympus xa/x4a.<br>

Pretty much all around $100 - any sound like a deal? <br>

<br>

Going to continue to synthesize forum feedback, and search the interwebs! <br>

<br>

Best,<br>

K. </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>The Olympus XA4 is zone focusing with a 28 mm. lens instead of the usual 35. Fine if that's what you want, but you should be prepared that it's pretty wide and not as controllable as the XA. My favorite of the bunch is the XA2, also zone focusing and not very controllable, but it gets good shots very quickly.</p>

<p>I'm not sure where you are, but those prices seem a little high unless you have a specific interest in the model. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Kohlman,<br>

probably it is easier if you just list the "must-have" features. There is a lot of choice out there, so we can go through 1000s of cameras, and all of them will make sense one way or another.</p>

<ul>

<li>How much automation do you need/want: autofocus? Built-in metering yes/no? Autorewind film yes/no? etc.</li>

<li>If manual focus, is zone-focussing OK (i.e. no visual confirmation in the viewfinder whether you've focussed correctly - "guess distance") ? Or do you definitely want to see in the viewfinder whether you focussed correct?</li>

<li>Is the choice for a compact camera only dictated by size, or are there other reasons why you want to avoid SLRs? How about rangefinders? Are exchangable lenses an advantage or not, for you?</li>

<li>Do you know which focal length you prefer using? There are those who say that a 28, 35 and 50 are so close that you need only one; I do not feel it is the case - all three focal lengths draw images in a different way, their perspective is different enough to matter. Fixed lens, or zoom?</li>

</ul>

<p>And probably I forgot a few considerations....<br>

I'd start searching this way, because otherwise sooner or later you will drive yourself mad as there is too much choice, and it's much easier for anyone here to give you advice if your shortlist of cameras is short(er) and concise.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Just as a matter of interest, where is the expression "zone focusing" coming from? Zone focusing means setting a camera's distance scale to where you think the subject will be before you actually see this and hoping that the depth of field offered by the aperture you are using will result in an image which is acceptably sharp. The only cameras which explicitly offer zone focusing are rather simple (close-ups, groups and views) - most of the cameras mentioned above feature scale focusing, which can be just as accurate as rangefinder or SLR focusing but does not offer any mechanical aid for this.</p>