$300 to spend on a film Point and Shoot - which one to get?

[sevo]

The most serious problem of the GR1 series (especially the original GR1) is LCD bleed

Haven't seen one with LCD bleed (where the LCD goes black or rainbow colour) - with Ricohs, it generally is LCD death, with the LCD blanking out as its rubber contact pad becomes brittle. You can barely find a R1 with working LCD any more, and the younger GR series are slowly approaching the same status.

Sevo

 

[btgc]

Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope... Misconceptions. I had them too.

1. I have ONE battery for my F20. If you don't use a flash too often and don't chimp too much it will easily last all day. It takes - I dunno, an hour to recharge? One spare costs $20. I don't have one - might pick one up. Battery life is much better than it used to be. A charge lasts - I dunno 100 - 200 pictures? Not an issue so I never paid attention. I used to with digitals I owned years ago but not now. A second battery is smaller - literally, than a roll of film. So, who cares if I have two or three anyway?

2. Start up times - NOT AN ISSUE! It's ready to go faster than I can raise it to my eye. Again - this was an issue with digitals a few years ago. Not n' more.

3. Instant feedback is (a) not a bad thing. (b) not a necessity. Don't like it? Don't chimp.

I agree on 2. and 3.

1. leaves space for questions. Have you been short of film in days when you used film cameras? It's very easy to run out of film, if one doesn't care. No need to go to desert, just go around your block.
If I'd go out of home with digital (and I have) farther than local shop, I'd put film camera in bag. Not that single battery is weak, just as you write - but it can turn out that I return much later than supposed. Not to speak that sometimes people travel (yeah, all day, from morning till night, or more days) or simply don't have a time or chance to plug into socket to draw magic juice.

Film is expensive but I don't need a hour to load it, it takes a minute instead. That's why I'm paranoic about spare - either battery for digital or film camera.

Sure, commuting from home to office there shouldn't create problems. Step out of daily route and watch things happening.

 

[NickTrop]

I agree on 2. and 3.

1. leaves space for questions. Have you been short of film in days when you used film cameras? It's very easy to run out of film, if one doesn't care. No need to go to desert, just go around your block.
If I'd go out of home with digital (and I have) farther than local shop, I'd put film camera in bag. Not that single battery is weak, just as you write - but it can turn out that I return much later than supposed. Not to speak that sometimes people travel (yeah, all day, from morning till night, or more days) or simply don't have a time or chance to plug into socket to draw magic juice.

Film is expensive but I don't need a hour to load it, it takes a minute instead. That's why I'm paranoic about spare - either battery for digital or film camera.

Sure, commuting from home to office there shouldn't create problems. Step out of daily route and watch things happening.

Again - I have to disagree with you here completely. They use lithium batteries on cameras now - much better than NiCAD or alkaline and the cameras themselves are much more "fuel efficient". The battery on this camera goes 150-200 shots per charge, 4-6 rolls of film. Battery drain has never been an issue. I do have an old digicam I use sometimes - and I do bring three batteries with me. But that camera was from 2003-2004. A lot has changed now. I have run out of film and to say that you "just have to go around the block" is more than a bit of a stretch. Usually this is not the case! I'd have to hop in my car and drive somewhere. Or it might not be available at all. A back up battery cost equal to or less than a five pack of Kodak film (on average). It's not an inconvenience at all to charge a battery beforehand and bringing a second battery - which would give me 300-400 total shots, would require bringing 10 rolls of 36 exposure film or 15 rolls of 24! (As opposed to ONE small fully charged battery that's less than the size of a single roll!) The cost of the film alone at an "honest" $4.50 US a roll (is that fair?) would be about $45, the cost of two extra batteries that I could use indefinately. I have to change rolls every 24-36 exposures. I have to insert a new battery every 150-200 shots, and it takes less time even to load the battery than rewind the old film an load a new roll!

 

[januaryman]

Hexar AF if you can find one at that price.. it would be a great camera for you. In the non-zoom category, of course, since it's a 35/2.0 Summicron contender.

 

[NickTrop]

Why is this thread slowly turning into a film vs digital thread once again? If emilsand wants a film point and shoot, let him get a film point and shoot. There's no need to debate whether a digital camera is better for him, because he already has one. He obviously felt the need to explore his options down the film route, otherwise he wouldn't have started this thread.

Actually, there is a need. And it's not a film v digital thread. His question is flawed. He carries his S90 around with him 24/7 for a reason. The reason he does is due to attributes of his S90 (size, unlimited shooting ability, etc.) that film cameras - any film camera inherently can't give him. I thought this should be pointed out, having gone down the exact same road. Thought he might heed my warning before he chases his tail around and starts buying camera after camera searching for a solution that doesn't exist in the film camera world.

There are lots of reasons for owning/shooting film cameras - having one as your 24/7 camera ain't one of them from a practical standpoint. He should be happy with what he has (and he sounds it...) rather than engage in the same folly most here have... Misery loves company, and I guess GAS sufferers love company too?

 

[NickTrop]

- and by the way, IF you must, the only camera that would likely meet your requirement is the original Olympus XA which are plentiful used and can be had for under $100. Try that before you go running out and buying a Hexar AF or any of these other pricey and difficult to get cameras. A Hexar is a fine camera - but I doubt it would be your everyday film camera.

Olympus XA 35mm compact camera
We pay tribute to our favourite 35mm camera
(by Mike Slocombe, 25.01.06)


First produced in 1979, the diminutive Olympus XA camera quickly found favour with enthusiast photographers won over by its sharp lens, compact dimensions, sturdy casing and exposure controls.

For many years it was our take-everywhere camera of choice, delivering some fantastic results.

A fully-featured compact rangefinder offering split-image focusing, the Olympus XA was built to professional standards with high quality optics and a rugged construction.

Sporting a comprehensive 25-800 ISO rating, fast 6 element, 5 group f2.8 35mm Zuiko lens, electromagnetic feather-touch shutter release and 10 seconds to 1/500 shutter speeds, this was a true go-everywhere camera, ideal for fast street shooting.
http://www.urban75.org/photos/olympus-xa.html

Never owned one, but they have a great reputation and are fairly plentiful. A bunch are up right now on the big auction site - always are. They go for around $50. Spend the rest of your cash on film. I might pick one of these up m'self - to fool around with but not as an "everyday" camera comes... though this is much more so than any of the cameras the others have recommended.

Notice how all the other knuckleheads here overlooked the obvious? Always listen to me... I am intellectually honest, decidedly not an expensive gear only head, not a film zealot, know of what I speak, and am never wrong... 😉

EDIT
Here's an auction for one ending 5 hours from now current bid $46: Probably go for around 70. There are scads of others.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Olympus-XA-35mm...lm_Cameras&hash=item20b3770028#ht_1426wt_1025

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I'm in a similar situation. Just sold my S90, though.

I want a small film camera to replace it, and to replace the T3 and CM i also sold during the past year. I would have kept the T3 had i not needed the money at the time, and had i actually used the camera more.

I sold the S90, because like the Panasonic LX3 and other P&S digicams i've had in the past, it shoots with only one kind of DOF. "All in." I don't shoot that way with any other camera, so i hate that a tiny sensor dictates the image so much in that way.

I used to have a T2. I was considering going back to that. I've watched ebay auctions over the past two weeks and they can be had for under $300. Minilux? Although i loved the Leica CM's lens, i detested the horrid viewfinder. And, it's supposed to be larger than the Minilux'. Too bad - the lens is really nice. I would consider the Ricoh GR, but i'd prefer a 35-40mm. 28 is too much of a 'stretch' for me.

Had an Olympus XA once. For a day. Bought it and returned it, as the RF apparently was off. Focus was soft on my test roll. And, the teensy focus 'stick' just was awkward to use. Again, too bad. I liked the idea. Hexar AF - had that, too. But, much too large for this purpose.

I don't know what the OP is thinking, but i want a FILM camera because i just don't like most digital output. I have a 5D2, but if the picture really matters, i want it on film. It's not a matter of absolute technical issues. I'm quite certain i get sharper images with digital. Probably better 'color fidelity,' as well - whatever that means. But, when i look at pictures, i like what film contributes. Colors get a bit 'different.' Contrasts are just not so linear. There's funk in film. I don't want to have to fake the funk.

 

[Yashi]

$ 300 to spend.... Pentax Optio H90 brand new for $99. That is a 24/7 camera. Or maybe a nice Lumix like the FH20 for around $130.

And a working Olympus XA2 or even better a Ricoh 500G


for the fun of film at around $15- 25.


It is really the 24/7 aspect here. I had the Contax T2 in my pocket 24/7 for quite a while and it is a nice machine to use. The minilux from Leica gives me the pictures with the highest quality of all the 35mm cameras I have but wont stay with me 24/7. The Yashica T4 is light and will fit in your pocket. The Olympus Stylus is the best deal you can get for 35mm point and shoot. Last four have AF. Or you may even think about a RF again. The Oly 35RC may fit in a large pocket. The Rollei 35 is fun to use. The Yashica 35MC is the best streetshooter and the smallest in the Yashica RF line. The Konica C35 may be worth to have a look at. The Canonets, the Auto S3, the Minolta 7Sii all wont fit in your pocket. A black contaxt T3 or a Leica CM would be the only film cameras I pay big money for, but not $800. I never tried the GR series.....

If you carry a bag with you 24/7 save a bit more money and go get a Olympus EP-1 with a pancake and a vf and do not look back....

 

[NickTrop]

I sold the S90, because like the Panasonic LX3 and other P&S digicams i've had in the past, it shoots with only one kind of DOF. "All in." I don't shoot that way with any other camera, so i hate that a tiny sensor dictates the image so much in that way.

The funk of which you speak is all in your mind. Add selective focus later, this way you're in control of what draws the eye of the viewer - not sensor size, not the laws of optical physics. Add selective focus later in post. It's easy - takes a couple minutes with quick mask and lens blur. This is one of my sloppier examples with the Fuji F20 but all I have online at the moment:

 

[Archlich]

- and by the way, IF you must, the only camera that would likely meet your requirement is the original Olympus XA which are plentiful used and can be had for under $100. Try that before you go running out and buying a Hexar AF or any of these other pricey and difficult to get cameras. A Hexar is a fine camera - but I doubt it would be your everyday film camera.

For all your typing effort...the OP asked for a camera with autofocus.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

The funk of which you speak is all in your mind. Add selective focus later, this way you're in control of what draws the eye of the viewer - not sensor size, not the laws of optical physics. Add selective focus later in post. It's easy - takes a couple minutes with quick mask and lens blur. This is one of my sloppier examples with the Fuji F20 but all I have online at the moment:

You do not know my mind. The funk is very real, my friend.

That image doesn't sell your point, i'm afraid. Sloppy/quick or not.

I'm not interested in adding bokeh after the fact. I may do it on (rare) occasion (t/s), but...
1) i don't want to be obligated to add more computer time;
2) i will know it's a 'trick,' and i'm already too critical of everything i create;
3) the images i favor are 'vintage'/classic. Old stuff. My photographic heroes are Avedon, Penn, Koudelka, Boubat, etc. Making digital 'emulations' just puts me further away from my ideals. I'm already stuck with digital to a certain extent, but i don't want to marry it.

I am planning to get a Sony NEX5, and some mf lenses. But, that's a different topic. The OP wanted to spend <$300. But, the NEX, with the APS-C sensor and a fast lens will let me control DOF sufficiently so that i only have to concern myself with film/grain effects. Exposure 3 + some layering techniques i've been working with get me very close to a convincing film simulation. Not really the 'authenticity' i'm after, but it may be the most practical solution.

 

[NickTrop]

For all your typing effort...the OP asked for a camera with autofocus.

All the more reason to stick with his S90

 

[NickTrop]

Y My photographic heroes are Avedon, Penn, Koudelka, Boubat, etc.

What would these photographers be shooting with today? Why didn't they use technology from 1920? They used the technology of their day.

 

[Chris C]

Very few film cameras have collapsable lenses. Your S90 does. This is a major reason you take your S90 with you. What film cameras have collapsable lenses?

One wonders if you've ever read this thread at all, or have just considered your opinion to be the opinion on this matter. The GR1 has a collapsible lens, as does the Contax T2/T3, Olympus mju II...
Retractable lenses aren't a digital thing, nor are they exclusive to old folders. Any of these cameras will be able to be sold in 6 months time for what he paid for them. There's nothing to lose here by him wanting one. Is he chasing a magic bullet? Possibly, but it's not always a bad thing. He clearly just wants something he can slip into a pocket with a film output, and I guess to your surprise, such a thing actually exists.

You're happy with your digital for an everyday shooter, great. But he's clearly not.

 

[wlewisiii]

+1 on the Olympus Stylus Epic. While the fixed lens version is supposed to be better, I've found the zoom version to be very capable as well.

 

[h_A_Z]

Highly recommend the Oly MJU2 or Stylus Epic

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

What would these photographers be shooting with today? Why didn't they use technology from 1920? They used the technology of their day.

Actually, NO, they didn't. They used the same gear they built their careers on. Avedon was using his Rolleiflex, Hasselblad and 8x10 Sinar until he died. Penn remained 'traditional' and he only passed recently. He wasn't shooting digital, or even with AF. Both of those guys had access to 'modern' kit.

That's not the point, though. I want to make images like they MADE. Not like the ones they might have made in 2020.

Besides that, there are lots of photographers i have books from who now don't produce the same kind of work. One guy in particular.... I loved his stuff with film. But, now that he's shooting digital, blechhhh. Completely uninteresting work. If i were influenced by him, i wouldn't be buying the kit he uses Today. I'd be shooting the same lens and film he USED to use.

 

[btgc]

Nick, you won...as always...bc you know this better 🙂

Suggestion for OP - if you like wide lens, look for Fujifilm Silvi aka Zoom Date F2.8, depending from where it comes. It has several lenses in one package, from 24mm up 50mm.

 

[PKR]

Actually, NO, they didn't. They used the same gear they built their careers on. Avedon was using his Rolleiflex, Hasselblad and 8x10 Sinar until he died. Penn remained 'traditional' and he only passed recently. He wasn't shooting digital, or even with AF. Both of those guys had access to 'modern' kit.

That's not the point, though. I want to make images like they MADE. Not like the ones they might have made in 2020.

Besides that, there are lots of photographers i have books from who now don't produce the same kind of work. One guy in particular.... I loved his stuff with film. But, now that he's shooting digital, blechhhh. Completely uninteresting work. If i were influenced by him, i wouldn't be buying the kit he uses Today. I'd be shooting the same lens and film he USED to use.

CK, I'm a follower of Penn's work. Over the years, while using his 8 x10 and 2 1/4 cameras, he did a lot to advance lighting technically. If you look at his early lighting, (1960-70) employing the grid-work of Ascor Sunlight Series heads; this became the modern soft box. I spent 2 years assisting one of Penn's former studio managers long ago. I heard many wonderful stories about Penn. He was a very creative and humble man. His last work, and especially the photo of his bedside lamp are of my favorites. If you want some insight into Penn, look at his self-portraits taken upon the death of his wife. Also, Avedon and Penn were good friends. Avedon also used a Mamiya C33 for some of his non Rollei work. As we know, it's not the camera, but the photographer who makes the image.. too much gear can easily get in the way of producing great photos. If you look at some of the world's best photographers, many used a minimal of equipment. Weston, Koudelka, HCB, Newton, Friedlander, Winogrand.. There are many who see cameras as more than tools, and I think it may get in the way of their making better pictures.

 

[David Hughes]

It is not impossible, and has been done. The Fuji Silvi starts at f/2.8 (of course is not constant aperture, IIRC it is down to f/5.6 at 50mm). But the age of film compacts was pretty much over by that time.

Interesting, thanks.

I've stopped buying cameras but might just break a rule to see what they are like.

Regards, David