Cheap point and shoot camera for kid going to summer camp

[Tim Murphy]

That's the whole challenge, really. Can I find something that was close enough in price to disposable that I could send my kids with some film rolls instead.

Dear mackigator,

I like the idea of the challenge you are facing as it applies to your children disconnecting at camp.

I remember many times going camping with my brother Terry. We'd go for 3 or 4 days and spend them in the woods sleeping by a stream or pond. I was always a little apprehensive on Sunday morning when we packed up having been out of touch with the "real" world. Somehow, we survived!

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg PA 🙂

 

[KoNickon]

I think they are banned for more than one reason, all related. I like the ban, as I do the ban on phones.

Summer Camp is a place for being disconnected from regular life in order to focus on your time in camp, new friends, and camp activities. Many U.S. summer camps ban cell phones, digital devices, and other items a kid might bring from home that would distract from that focus.

As for digital cameras, my guess is they are difficult to police in that some contain wifi, games, and other weird features; they separate the child from whatever they are participating in, in a way that snapping a few film images might not; and they might produce images of kids that should not circulate online or might not have correct participant permissions.

I will tell you that at the camp I'm involved with, there was a problem last summer with some parents basically sneaking cell phones into their kids' belongings with the instruction to text the parents every day. Entirely against the rules. The camp had to crack down on it and tell the parents that if they think they need to be in such close contact with their child, then maybe sleepaway camp is not the right thing for them. (I think the parents are the problem, not the kids.)

At the same time, it's expected that many, many pictures are to be taken and posted every day so that the parents can see their kids. And there are complaints if somehow little Johnny or Jane didn't get photographed (or photographed enough) on a given day. So it's a difficult line to walk for the camp staff.

 

[santino]

I think they are banned for more than one reason, all related. I like the ban, as I do the ban on phones.

Summer Camp is a place for being disconnected from regular life in order to focus on your time in camp, new friends, and camp activities. Many U.S. summer camps ban cell phones, digital devices, and other items a kid might bring from home that would distract from that focus.

As for digital cameras, my guess is they are difficult to police in that some contain wifi, games, and other weird features; they separate the child from whatever they are participating in, in a way that snapping a few film images might not; and they might produce images of kids that should not circulate online or might not have correct participant permissions.

I see. The digital camera I had in mind was an SLR from the mid 2000s I guess 🫣 No connection to the internet, no games etc.

Another point for the „appeal of film over digital?“ thread. Haven‘t thought of it before like that.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Ten years ago you could have had your pick of unwanted 35mm point & shoot cameras.
Today with renewed interest in film photography working examples of these are in demand.

Sometimes I see discounted lots of disposables on eBay. If not too expired these might work for you.

Link: New 35mm camera lots on eBay

Chris

 

[Tim Murphy]

Ten years ago you could have had your pick of unwanted 35mm point & shoot cameras.
Today with renewed interest in film photography working examples of these are in demand.

Sometimes I see discounted lots of disposables on eBay. If not too expired these might work for you.

Chris

Dear Chris and markigator,

I just checked Shopgoodwill for Olympus film cameras and found several P&S's starting at $ 4.99 including several that clearly were able to power on from the pictures. You might have to buy 4 to get 2 good ones, but for the price of a roll of film it's not exactly a risky proposition.

Keep in mind I'm the guy who bought 5 Minolta SRT 101's for low money and still don't have one that works properly though. Sometimes you're lucky, and sometimes you ain't. It's the joy, or perhaps the frustration, that keeps me hunting auction deals. 😉

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg PA 🙂

 

[buzz510y5]

I have about 10 P&s cameras that I paid $5.00 to $10.00 for at flea markets, tag sales. All working. My latest is an Olympus XA wth A16 flash, all paper and box for $10.00. Just have to be patient and take time looking.

 

[Archiver]

If it wasn't for the price, I'd suggest an Olympus XA2. Very small and discreet, easy to load and carry in a pocket, no protruding lens, easy to focus and stash when necessary. It's the camera I wish I could send back in time to my teenage self to shoot throughout my last years at school and time at uni.

 

[p.giannakis]

I found this, it might give you some ideas..


Check how much the T4 and Mju were sold for 😮

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I tried numerous 35mm P&S cameras back in the day. They were frustrating to use because they often missed focus or exposure.
This sort of poor performance helped fuel the abandonment of film photography and encouraged consumers to flock to digital.
20-30 years on those found at the Salvation Army store or on eBay are likely not working any better than they did when new.

If you do buy an old 35mm P&S camera fortunately you do have some months to test it, to see if it works properly and reliably.
IMO today I'd choose to take my chances with a new disposable rather than a 30-year-old camera of questionable provenance.
Another option is the reusable plastic cameras sold by Kodak and Ilford. These are available new in the $20 to $30 price range.

Chris

 

[JeffS7444]

Reto UWS doesn't have flash, so it's really a daytime-only camera, but it's capable of surprisingly good results due to it's 2-element lens. Treat the rewind crank with care as it's kind of fragile.

I've gotten decent results from the Ilford black and white disposables, and the Retrospekt x Miffy and Lomography Simple Use appear based on the same design. Ilford Sprite II is offered by the other Ilford, and I was a bit less impressed by it's weaker flash and "dreamier" look, though it seems like one of the sturdier cameras.

Vintage autofocus compact cameras: You think it would be a simple matter of finding a good one, but most are now decades past their designer's wildest dreams, and even unused-in-box is no guarantee.

 

[julio1fer]

Most has been said! I’d suggest avoiding zoom and autofocus, and look for something like a Konica C35 EF that works with AA batteries, if flash is needed. If not, an Olympus XA2 would do nicely.

My experience with that generation of cameras has been good, they mostly are all right after cleaning battery contacts.

 

[Guth]

@mackigator - I hope that you will let us know what you come up with in the end provided that you are successful. I imagine that kids benefit from camps more than ever before in this increasingly connected world of ours.

 

[Archiver]

I found this, it might give you some ideas..

View attachment 4855714
Check how much the T4 and Mju were sold for 😮

1994! 31 years ago! It's wild that the Contax TVS was 999 pounds and the Hexar AF was 600!

 

[p.giannakis]

1994! 31 years ago! It's wild that the Contax TVS was 999 pounds and the Hexar AF was 600!

And also zoom compacts like Nikon 300 and the Fuji were more premium than the mju and the T4. And what a price they fetch now!

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I tried numerous 35mm P&S cameras back in the day. They were frustrating to use because they often missed focus or exposure.
This sort of poor performance helped fuel the abandonment of film photography and encouraged consumers to flock to digital.
20-30 years on those found at the Salvation Army store or on eBay are likely not working any better than they did when new.

If you do buy an old 35mm P&S camera fortunately you do have some months to test it, to see if it works properly and reliably.
IMO today I'd choose to take my chances with a new disposable rather than a 30-year-old camera of questionable provenance.
Another option is the reusable plastic cameras sold by Kodak and Ilford. These are available new in the $20 to $30 price range.

Chris

I sort of agree with the first paragraph and disagree with the second. Obviously buying a 20+ year old 35mm point and shoot, autofocus isn't going to be anything like what we have come to expect today. When hipsters talk about how "you never know what you're going to get" when you shoot film, these are the kind of cameras they are referencing. (If you're shooting a good quality, well maintained 35mm SLR and know what you're doing, you should know what kind of images you're going to get.)

I'd probably avoid the super-cheap reusable plastic cameras. I haven't tried the Kodak or Ilford ones, but my wife gave me and my daughter each one of the "Heyday" plastic cameras from Target last Christmas. My daughter (12) manages to take quite nice photos with her Instax camera, but only got a few halfway decent shots with the Heyday. My Heyday had winding problems and I lost about 6 or 7 frames out of a roll of 36. (I understand these types of cameras generally work better with 24-exposure rolls but didn't have any.) We returned both of them.

My memory of using disposable cameras is a bit dim (I don't think I've used one since the 1990s), but I don't remember one ever not winding through the whole roll inside it.

 

[mackigator]

Here's what I've learned on the thread so far. Many thanks for all the tips:

• Re-useable plastic cameras exist. I didn't even know they were a thing. They have the same design flaws as disposables though: cheap plastic lens, fixed shutter speed, mostly for daylight use, et al.
• It is possible to buy film point and shoots for less than $10, even more for less than $25, if I stick to charity auction sites, flea markets, and local donation stores. These cameras do make better pictures than disposables in my experience, as I already own some of the nicer ones.
• Shopgoodwill.com sells a lot of cheap cameras, even small bundles of film point and shoots. It wasn't on my radar before.
• Maybe I do want scale focus like the aforementioned XA2. That would eliminate the complexity and missed focus problems of these early autofocus systems. Even the Olympus MJUII regularly misses focus in lower light in my hands.
• Some stand out recommendations: Olympus XA2 if I get lucky on price; Canon AF-8 (flash selector looks great), Konica C-35 (great controls, lens, good looks),

A word about the Olympus Mju II and it ilk (Stylus, Stylus Epic). I like these cameras, but they are all worth more than $100 in the current market, which is too much for my camp camera criteria. That rules out a bunch of above-average point and shoots, too. I'm bargain hunting here.

I like the mix of features in the cameras that either precede the auto-everything era, like the Oly XA2 or the Konica C-35. I also like cameras like the Nikon Lite Touch AF (AF600) with the fixed lens 28mm. It's pricey though. If you know of another brand with similar features in an autofocus fixed lens P&S, that would be a good line for me to research further as long as it's not one of the premium compacts that are going to be out of reach.

Who else made a small scale focus fixed lens camera like the XA2 that has a goodish lens?

I'll update my part of this thread once I make some purchases. And I'll test whatever I land on well before summer.

 

[Archiver]

• Maybe I do want scale focus like the aforementioned XA2. That would eliminate the complexity and missed focus problems of these early autofocus systems. Even the Olympus MJUII regularly misses focus in lower light in my hands.
• Some stand out recommendations: Olympus XA2 if I get lucky on price; Canon AF-8 (flash selector looks great), Konica C-35 (great controls, lens, good looks),

I like the mix of features in the cameras that either precede the auto-everything era, like the Oly XA2 or the Konica C-35. I also like cameras like the Nikon Lite Touch AF (AF600) with the fixed lens 28mm. It's pricey though. If you know of another brand with similar features in an autofocus fixed lens P&S, that would be a good line for me to research further as long as it's not one of the premium compacts that are going to be out of reach.

Who else made a small scale focus fixed lens camera like the XA2 that has a goodish lens?

Wellllll Lomo made a small scale focus camera like the XA2, but that's not quite what you want to give the kids for summer camp. I can just imagine my teenage self cruising around with a XA2 in my jacket pocket, loaded with tri-x or Fuji 400 of some description. The images would be blurry in low light, but that's the nature of these cameras.

I have the family's Nikon L35AD, which is larger than the XA2. It's a fully automatic camera with reasonable autofocus and sports a 35mm f2.8 lens. It's large enough that you'd want to carry it in the pouch, and it would fit in a large jacket pocket but not jeans. It's also fairly noisy to operate, and it defaults to flash in low light - you get past this by holding the flash down so it doesn't pop up!

 

[pixelated]

Vermont Center for Photography has a ton of 35mm P&S’s in their “photo thrift” shop, generally priced pretty cheap, and functional. You can email them at info@vcphoto.org

 

[JeffS7444]

Maybe a crazy idea: Smena, built in vast quantities in the USSR for young and casual shooters. Non-electronic, and film advance and shutter cocking are separate operations. Disadvantage: Possibility of multiple exposures. Advantage: Possibility of multiple exposures. Some newer variants have weather symbols, and you set exposure accordingly. Despite lack of modern amenities, it's a real camera with 3-element lens, and allows user control of aperture and shutter.

 

[joe bosak]

... by the time you have bought and tested a camera, the cost if only in your time (but possibly financially too) has increased, and they will probably have to deal with more complexity including film loading/unloading at camp to give the equivalent capacity of "at least two" disposables - at a time when they probably have a lot more to think about. Plus if they are changing film that's another parameter to deal with (risk of accidents, curious colleagues etc), whereas a disposable is use->done->put-away.