Do you use an APS P&S camera?

[pvdhaar]

Maybe I'm a bit cynical.. But when APS was introduced, it was advocated as a 'bridge technology'. Which is of course short speak for manufacturers trying out something bodged together and abandoning it in no time, leaving customers out in the cold..

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I looked at this thread and though "what the hell is APS?" ... something else I have to learn about!

I did a google search which eventually led me to this ....

http://photo.net/equipment/aps/

Quite informative and entertaining! ;-))

I find that article a little too biased against the APS, even though it tries to describe all its features. The APS was never intended to be a professional format, but in fact it was still more suitable for professional use than 35 mm was in the 1960s, when it made its final breakthrough and became the dominant amateur format. Still, in those days only press photographers used 35 mm and all other pros used medium or large format.

Film emulsions have improved so much that today an APS frame shot on a ISO 200 color negative film has less grain than a 35 mm frame shot on a similar ISO 25 film had in the 1960s. Even in the 1970s color films were still very grainy compared to the situation today, and yet most amateurs were quite content with their 35 mm SLRs and fixed lens RFs.

I shoot almost exclusively APS-H (16:9) frames with my Revio and from ISO200 Fuji or Kodak film they can easily be enlarged to 20x38 cm (8x15 inch) without visible grain at typical viewing distances. The lab I normally use does not make larger APS-H prints, so I have not tried them. However, if ISO100 APS films were still available, I am almost certain that 25x45 cm (10x18 inch) prints would be no problem from them. 15x23 cm (6x9 inch) prints are very good even with ISO400 film.

All that said, I probably would not use my Revio Z3 any longer if an affordable digital P&S with similar lens was available. Alas, the Ricoh GX100 is too expensive for me.

 

[BJ Bignell]

I got a Canon ELPH Jr on eBay a few years ago, the one with the fixed 26mm f/2.8 lens. I never have used it very often, but usually with BW400 and it's surprisingly good. And so very compact and easy to have along in its Canon belt pouch.

I had the same camera (although not in black, very nice!) and was pleased with the quality. That's a very compact camera, so it is easy to carry around. Unfortunately, the lens filled up with grit and wouldn't extend/retract. I took it apart to fix it, but ended up destroying it instead. :bang: At least I had fun trying!

 

[Tom Harrell]

I bought a Kodak Avantix camera in Guam in 1996. I was there for a month to do some work. I had my regular 35mm equipment along with me but had forgotten to bring along a wide angle lens. I saw the Avantix fixed lens camera with a wide angle lens, around 28mm I believe, and bought it. It is shirt pocket size and takes fairly good pictures. The last time I used it was in 2003 in northern Kuwait. My only complaints about the camera are: a) shutter time lag at times to get the proper auto focus, b) there was only a little window for the lens and no shade or cover for it to keep dirty fingers off of it or to prevent flare, c) you have to turn fill flash off each and every time you turn the camera on if it is not wanted. d) batteries are expensive.

I still have the little jewel and was just looking at it the other day. It is sitting on a shelf of my book case and has acumulated it's share of dust. I suppose I should put a battery and film in it and see if it is still alive inside!

Regards,
Tom

 

[richard_l]

My wife could make APS work, but I couldn't. These are from an Elf Jr.

 

[markinlondon]

I had a Canon Ixus L1 (?). The equivalent of an Elph Jr. Nice, but I gave it up for an Olympus mju-ii (or Stylus Epic) to keep the film stocks simple. I think it's still around somewhere.

 

[charjohncarter]

I use my Canon SD-10 all the time, all the time. I just discovered a dead pixel which reminded me why I like film. But it is so small it can go with me any where. This is from this weekend at the boat races in Long Beach, CA.

 

[RML]

Never have, never will. APS IMO sucks. Here in Holland it was always more expensive developing costs-wise. Plus the smaller neg gave horrid results when printed on anything bigger then 8x13. Also, the pano mode was cool except for the cutting off of the top and bottom part of the neg, resulting in even less film to print, and these prints were double the size of a normal print. Result: even at arm's length a pano print of 10x30 (or such) looked extremely poor. A friend of mine used the APS version of the Canon Eos line, and I'm glad she did; so I didn't get tempted to buy one too.

 

[rover]

What about an APS SLR? Yup, got me a Canon IX. It is a full featured SLR, comparable to the Elan level cameras.

Do I use it? No.

The wife wanted it for the panoramic mode, and she doesn't use it either.

 

[charjohncarter]

Sorry, for the miss understanding, I tought APS was some kind of digital sensor. APS passed me by and I have forgotten about it. Just like 110.

 

[FrankS]

I find that 35mm is miniature enough for me.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Never have, never will. APS IMO sucks. Here in Holland it was always more expensive developing costs-wise. Plus the smaller neg gave horrid results when printed on anything bigger then 8x13. Also, the pano mode was cool except for the cutting off of the top and bottom part of the neg, resulting in even less film to print, and these prints were double the size of a normal print. Result: even at arm's length a pano print of 10x30 (or such) looked extremely poor. A friend of mine used the APS version of the Canon Eos line, and I'm glad she did; so I didn't get tempted to buy one too.

The Panorama mode is a joke, that is for sure. I never use it, but the full frame APS-H is wide enough for me and it gives much better results, since the whole exposed frame is utilized for prints. I have had bad results even with APS-H when I was using bad film (cheapo Ferrania sold under some photolab brand), but with Kodak or Fuji ISO200 negative the grain is very small. I can not see any grain in 10x17 cm prints without a lupe and at arms length even 20x38 cm prints are still quite good.

I rarely print in APS-C (3:2) . Needless to say, I usually do not photograph people with the APS camera, since 16:9 aspect ratio is not suitable for portaiture, but for groups of people it sometimes works quite well and can give the "wide screen" cinema effect.

 

[Doug]

Oddly enough, all APS photos are actually exposed in the APS-H format. The other two settings simply change the viewfinder masking and record a magnetic tag on the stripe on the film at that frame that tells the printing machine to produce a print in the desired crop proportion. The rest of the image is still there on the neg...

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Oddly enough, all APS photos are actually exposed in the APS-H format. The other two settings simply change the viewfinder masking and record a magnetic tag on the stripe on the film at that frame that tells the printing machine to produce a print in the desired crop proportion. The rest of the image is still there on the neg...

Yes. You can also override the magnetic tag in printing and print the whole frame even if you had the panoramic or APS-C viewfinder frames on while shooting. It makes sense, since actually having a variable width frame would make it difficult to predict the remaining number of frames on a film. It would also complicate the internal structure of the camera and make it more expensive, which would not make sense in a system intended for amateur use.

 

[peterm1]

I used to use a little Canon Elf which I adored for its size, neat metal body and ability to produce panoramic shots. But it also had the unfortunate knack of turning in some quite fuzzy shots from time to time and I never got to the bottom of the problem. I still occasionally like the idea of owning another, having traded mine years ago, and think of getting one one eBay, but then realise its a nutty option and I would be better served by buying a small digital if I really felt I "had" to.

 

[Tom Harrell]

Peter,

My Kodak Advantix did the same "fuzzy" images from time to time. There must have been a glitch in what it was focusing on at times. Normally mine will not allow you to trip the shutter if it has not achieved focus. I can only assume that the focus was rocking back and forth and fired off a frame as it went past focus. That is the best explanation I can think of. I have stood and taken two shots from the same location minutes apart. One would be in focus and the other one out.

Tom

 

[TheHub]

I voted "never, but would like to try". Once would be enough I suppose.
Convenience stores over here still carry a few rolls of APS which surprises me; I thought it was completely dead. APS cameras can be found in junk shops for $2 and up and I think most devel places don't want to touch it.

Anyway I just brought my Pentax Auto 110 back home and finding 110 film is enough of a challenge for me!

 

[landsknechte]

the basic problem with the APS system it that it was designed to give you less compared to 35mm while separating you from your money much faster via high film processing and printing fees.

I suspect that most of the money made from the APS format came from all of the photo processors that were forced to buy machines that could process APS.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I voted "never, but would like to try". Once would be enough I suppose.
Convenience stores over here still carry a few rolls of APS which surprises me; I thought it was completely dead. APS cameras can be found in junk shops for $2 and up and I think most devel places don't want to touch it.

Anyway I just brought my Pentax Auto 110 back home and finding 110 film is enough of a challenge for me!

Current Fujifilm film processors and minilabs can still process APS as an option, so APS processing is widely available here. In reality APS is not significantly more expensive to process than 135 film with modern systems and most of the usual 'APS premium' is just extra profit for the processing lab...

110 film C-41 development, however, is no longer available and has not been for many years now. The last time I saw 110 processing offered anywhere was in the 1990's.

 

[Doug]

My local lab, Photo Haus in Yakima WA, has been running an occasional roll of 110 C-41 for me. Hmmm, I see most recently 2004... They can't scan the negs though.

I have a couple of Kindermann stainless reels for 16mm/110, so could do it myself, as I used to soup the Verichrome Pan...