jon_eggleston

<p>I have used quite a number of compact 35s automated to various degrees, my all-time favorite among which is my Olympus XA. I agree with several other posters, however, that the XA is not a true P&S. Different types of cameras call up different frames of mind to use them. My favorite example of this truth is the Graflex. I challenge you to spend an afternoon shooting with a Graflex without assuming a whole new way of looking at the world before you. To me the joy of P&S is a whollly different outlook, a sense of spontaneous "capture" of images in which your function is to place a rectangle around the image and press a button. A late friend used to call them PhD cameras (Push here, Dummy). Anyway, after that long intro, I confess to an irrational fondness for the Canon AF35ML, the one with the 40/1.9 lens. The lens is quite sharp, but the auto-focus mechanism is quite primitive and unreliable. If you take a moment to see which range ikon (mountain, group, head) lights up on the left of the finder, you can guess if the AF is doing the job for you. That's really not P&S, though; it's better to let it carry on as it does, and be surprised by the occasionally startlingly sharp image (among the mostly OK and the occasional disastrous mis-focus).</p>

<p>I have used quite a number of compact 35s automated to various degrees, my all-time favorite among which is my Olympus XA. I agree with several other posters, however, that the XA is not a true P&S. Different types of cameras call up different frames of mind to use them. My favorite example of this truth is the Graflex. I challenge you to spend an afternoon shooting with a Graflex without assuming a whole new way of looking at the world before you. To me the joy of P&S is a whollly different outlook, a sense of spontaneous "capture" of images in which your function is to place a rectangle around the image and press a button. A late friend used to call them PhD cameras (Push here, Dummy). Anyway, after that long intro, I confess to an irrational fondness for the Canon AF35ML, the one with the 40/1.9 lens. The lens is quite sharp, but the auto-focus mechanism is quite primitive and unreliable. If you take a moment to see which range ikon (mountain, group, head) lights up on the left of the finder, you can guess if the AF is doing the job for you. That's really not P&S, though; it's better to let it carry on as it does, and be surprised by the occasionally startlingly sharp image (among the mostly OK and the occasional disastrous mis-focus).</p>

<p>I have encountered many photographers with low opinions of the 58/2 Biotar, and a few who find it an eminently competent optic (I happen to fall in the latter camp). I think the reason for this is indifferent quality control, as mentioned above. I found mine, in excellent condition and mounted on a similarly beautiful Contax D, in an antique shop in Cesky Krumlov in the Czech Republic several years ago. I have enjoyed using the lens, especially on the Contax. Its plain, distraction-free, toothy ground-glass finder conduces to careful composition, a frame of mind I like to enter even if my results are still compositionally impaired. In any case, I have found nothing to fault in the performance of the Biotar. I would compare it to the best of the Xenons I have used, or to the Steinheil Quinon on my Praktina FX (another favorite combination). They are all, of course, of the same six-element type, of the post-war era, and with the coating technology of their time. I'm sure there are others of the type out there waiting to be appreciated, the numbers depending on original quality control and the effects of age (internal haze from vaporized and re-deposited lubricants is a killer of contrast in a well made and otherwise undamaged lens). I used a 1950s Petri rangefinder with a very nice 50/2 Orrikor for a time, before its shutter failed. The Petris of the Sixties earned a reputation for shoddier construction.</p>

<p>I own, and have owned, many film cameras I couldn't afford when they were new. In a sense, I'm into a second phase in collecting such cameras. I don't have much interest in 35mm film any more, so I've been divesting myself of user 35s--though I do enjoy taking one out just for the pleasure of using a particular camera or lens, with no serious hopes for fine images. For example, my Canon F-1N is gone, but I still keep an original F-1. As much as I liked my Canon P, I didn't use it enough any more to justify keeping it. All my screw-mount Leicas are gone save for one IIIf RD with Summarit. Larger format users are staying with me, since that's my greater interest in film photography.<br>

In my new phase, I'm enjoying the increased availability of all sorts of cameras which were notable for some particular feature or for being some sort of "first". I've had an Olympus OM-1n for some time, but just got a plain OM-1. I've kept a Fujica 705 as an M42 user, but recently found an ST701 in beautiful condition (first to use silicon cell meter). I had a user Topcon Super Dm, and now have a display-worthy Topcon RE Super (first TTL meter). I'm keeping one near-mint Nikon F and F2, both with non-metered finders. These are just examples of what interest me now. I'm still looking for a nice Minolta SR2 (their first SLR), and a Rollei SL35 (to replace one lost in a burglary). "Looking" may be too strong a word. I'm just waiting for them to come along, and I will doubtless acquire many other cameras I was merely curious about way back when, but which have become so affordable now that it's foolish NOT to experience them in-hand.</p>

<p>I'm afraid I don't understand the concept of "owning too many cameras". I've been fascinated for forty-odd years with the plethora of ingenious designs dedicated to the common task of focusing an image and exposing film, so I've tended to pick up anything I found interesting and affordable. I've slowed down considerably in shooting, but I still go looking for cameras whenever I travel. I have at least several hundred, the bulk of which are not practically usable for various reasons (not the least of which is that they are incapable of interesting results). I also abide by a collector's ethic which obligates me to preserve cameras in danger of destruction (e.g., a common Kodak model in mint condition found at a rummage sale or resale shop). Among all those artifacts are a cabinet full of my "user" cameras, numbering I suppose about fifty, and ranging from old wooden view cameras (11x14, 7x11, and 5x7 are my favorite formats) to compact 35s (Retina IIa and Wirgin Edinexes are long-time favorites), from 9x12 folders to various 35mm SLRs (I keep an assortment to accomodate lens finds in various mounts), including everything from a Contax D (a pleasure to use) to a Canon F-1N (a great and highly dependable instrument, as is my back-up A-1. For more leisurely work I enjoy the original F-1). Having pondered the question as I wrote all this, I would say that you need at least one or two cameras that you know very well and can use competently, especially if others depend on your work. Beyond that requirement I would encourage you to indulge your curiosity to the greatest extent possible, and familiarize/amuse/educate yourself with everything you can lay hands on. I can attest that the experience is very rewarding.</p>

I just want to add a hearty second to Richard Oleson's response. I have two Ricoh XR-7s and a third in Sears markings (which I prefer when I'm among equipment snobs), and I've used them with a 28-210 zoom as travel cameras. All the capability you ask for in a sturdy, compact, ergonomically superb package. The meter readout in the finder is shock-resistant solid-state, too, but without flashing lights. What looks at first glance like a meter needle is actually a series of LCDs indicating the shutter speed selected.

Chris, let me say first that I am NOT familiar with mII, but I have used the XR-7 for about ten years as a light-weight travel camera. Equipped with a 28-210mm zoom, it does everything I ask of it in vacation slide photography. The XR-7 does not offer spot metering, but only center-weighted averaging (and I rather doubt they would add that in a follow-on model). It does offer auto-exposure lock, however, which is probably quicker to use than spot metering and certainly quicker than going to manual control. Find an area of the scene with the tones you need to expose for, lock it in, and recompose. I have three bodies, and have carried a spare in my luggage in case of mechanical trouble.<p>Motor drive? I doubt that anything very fast was offered, but there was a "winder" that fit the XR-7 and several other models. I've never timed it, but it's in the 1.5 to 2 fps range (I've never even used mine, since my focus has been on compactness and light weight).<p>I'm finally switching over to auto-focus (Canon EOS), but I'm grateful for an opportunity to talk about the XR-7. I think it is well built and beautifully engineered, with everything falling very naturally under the fingers. The only problem I have had is with a bit of synthetic cushioning under the baseplate which deteriorates with age and sometimes jams the advance/wind mechanism (it's happened to two of mine). Remove the baseplate, find the black debris, remove it, and the camera works again. My repairman tells me it was totally unnecessary, anyway.

I'm looking at a used Pentax digital spot meter. In the absence of

a "Modified by. . ." can someone tell me how to tell whether the

meter has in fact been modified (externally, that is--I can't be

taking the thing apart). Are Zone VI baffles visible through the

lens? I've read in one place (on this site, perhaps) that, if you

look through the lens toward the finder against a white field, the

modified meter will impart a bluish cast while the stock meter will

show magenta. If you have a Pentax meter and a minute to spare, I'd

really appreciate hearing what yours looks like in this test, and of

course whether yours is Zone VI or not. Thanks very much.