Not aMjused

John Bragg said:
Hi Michael. I think that's it, they are "OK" but not £200 pounds worth of outstanding. No, the price is not falling, and it might be me, but in the sort of marginal low light that I like, I can not get them reliably focus pin point on. Even.with the spot feature enabled.
Click to expand...

Hi John .

Agreed .

I think the improvements in performance of todays cameras makes us re evaluate older stuff which we previously thought good . Especially in areas such as focussing speed and accuracy .

We expect more these days.
I can`t honestly remember the Muji being deficient in that regard but maybe that's a product of false memory coupled with low expectations at the time and therefore I didn`t even attempt low light shots . :)
 
Michael Markey said:
Hi John .

Agreed .

I think the improvements in performance of todays cameras makes us re evaluate older stuff which we previously thought good . Especially in areas such as focussing speed and accuracy .

We expect more these days.
I can`t honestly remember the Muji being deficient in that regard but maybe that's a product of false memory coupled with low expectations at the time and therefore I didn`t even attempt low light shots . :)
Click to expand...

Exactly so Michael. If a pack of prints came back from Max Spielman with no oval stickers, we had cracked it !
 
At a camera show I found this L35AF, complete with its huge fold-out instruction sheet, for only $20. It is fully functional, including self timer and flash. I was surprised how accurate it is at focusing. Viewfinder distance display is a nice touch.

It eats batteries like candy and I need to tape the battery door closed. Typical known issues.

I'm very happy with it.
 

Attachments

  • L35AF.jpg
    L35AF.jpg
    20.5 KB · Views: 0
Pál_K said:
At a camera show I found this L35AF, complete with its huge fold-out instruction sheet, for only $20. It is fully functional, including self timer and flash. I was surprised how accurate it is at focusing. Viewfinder distance display is a nice touch.

It eats batteries like candy and I need to tape the battery door closed. Typical known issues.

I'm very happy with it.
Click to expand...

Very nice find.
 
I still love my original Mju II. Original, because I had maybe 3-4 additional ones which I bought cheap (5 to 20 EUR) and sold at those ever increasing prices. In fact, Mju II is my ONLY current film camera that I bought new, not second had. I think the retail price of a new Mju II at the time was 70-80 EUR, so I did not pay much for it considering current market and, I believe, it is surely worth what I paid. Frankly, I did not notice much issues with AF (my Contax T2 is more problematic in that respect), shutter delay is something I can live with. Always prioritizing large aperture this camera is an ideal pocketable companion for family snapshots. Is it worth 200$? No, but it was decently priced when still in production.
 
Trouble is we are using "P&S" to cover a wide range of cameras; some from the 70's or even 60's and others from this century. And some are bottom of the range, some large and some small and so on and so on...


Regards, David
 
David Hughes said:
Trouble is we are using "P&S" to cover a wide range of cameras; some from the 70's or even 60's and others from this century. And some are bottom of the range, some large and some small and so on and so on...


Regards, David
Click to expand...

A P&S camera is one that has AF and auto exposure. Most have auto wind but some of the early ones still had manual wind. Don't think size is relevant as that depends on features - a P&S with a zoom is going to be bigger than a fixed focal length one. But they are both P&S cameras.
Pretty sure there were none around in the 60s, and perhaps also the 70s. Didn't they first appear in the 80's?
 
Huss said:
A P&S camera is one that has AF and auto exposure. Most have auto wind but some of the early ones still had manual wind. Don't think size is relevant as that depends on features - a P&S with a zoom is going to be bigger than a fixed focal length one. But they are both P&S cameras.
Pretty sure there were none around in the 60s, and perhaps also the 70s. Didn't they first appear in the 80's?
Click to expand...

1977 - The Konica C35 AF
 
My current P&S

My current P&S

Point & Shoots by Jeremy, on Flickr

From left to right: Olympus mju, Pentax PC35AF and Nikon L35AF3.

mju - Smallest and most modern. Excellent for its size. The lens is a triplet though, so the edges are never sharp. One doesn't notice with a casual glance, but it is true with any triplet that hasn't got any aspherical elements. Ergonomically, it is much better than a mju II "Stylus Epic". It's surprisingly comfortable to use for its size, and no real chance to block the flash with a clumsy finger. No option to delay the film winding between frames, so it's not a very stealthy camera. These never have corroded battery terminals, since the CR123 lithium battery it uses don't leak. I paid $30 for this one on Craigslist, described as "everything worked last time I used it". I took the chance, as they're currently fetching around $100.

Pentax PC35AF - Awesome 5-element 35/2.8 lens. For this size camera, it is in a class of one. Manual film advance and rewind, which I like. It is nice & quiet. AF accuracy is not as reliable as the mju's. It runs on two AAA batteries, which power AF and flash, so it's slow to charge, even with the lithium AAAs I keep in it. It has the live plastic hinge for the film door, so that'll be an eventual failure point. (another reason I feed it with lithiums) It took 3 of these for me to find one that was working properly. Most ebay sellers don't film test, so they don't really know. They don't have a great reputation for reliability, but they're still kind of under the radar. I paid $50 for this one.

Nikon "One Touch" L35AF3 - My grandpa had one of these in the late 80s. This is the 3rd generation, which has an improved film door, uses a 2CR5 lithium battery. The battery is expensive ($8 on Amazon?) but it lasts a lot of rolls, charges the flash quickly, and won't leak and corrode anything if left in the camera for a few decades. This 3rd generation has the 4 element lens instead of the 5 element lens of the 1st gen., but has a far superior battery door with a proper hinge. The lens is notably better than the triplet in the mju, about the same as the 5 element of the Pentax. It has auto-wind and rewind, but it doesn't wind on until I release the shutter button, so the noise doesn't give me away unless I'm careless. It has a handy flash cancel button and no menus. Someone gave me this out of the goodness of his heart because he wasn't using it and he knew I would.

One last thing: It has the light sensor inside the filter threads. (1st version had this, but the 2nd version didn't) It's the only one of these three that can take a filter.

Good ones of these are getting $150 on ebay now. If I could only keep one, it would be this one. Lens and build quality are excellent, and it has some features that enthusiasts appreciate. Also, it reminds me of my grandpa, which is a good thing.

(not shown) Minolta Freedom II - These are under the radar, and the 35/4.5 lens is fantastic; as good or better than the 5-element in the Pentax. However, there's no flash cancel and no half-press to focus. It is as simple as AF gets. Just forget about having your subject off-center, and you'll be OK. I gave this one to my 8 year old daughter, as she likes the subject centered anyway. ;-)

There are some sample images from these cameras in my aptly-named Flickr albums, here.
 
 
Huss said:
A P&S camera is one that has AF and auto exposure. Most have auto wind but some of the early ones still had manual wind. Don't think size is relevant as that depends on features - a P&S with a zoom is going to be bigger than a fixed focal length one. But they are both P&S cameras.
Pretty sure there were none around in the 60s, and perhaps also the 70s. Didn't they first appear in the 80's?
Click to expand...

I would say that a P&S is what it says, meaning you point it and shoot. (Although the VF is involved.) Kodak have been making them for a long long time: no AF involved as the lens was fixed focus and f/11 or thereabouts. No choice of shutter speed either...

I do, however, take your point but it proves my one as well, in that the expression P&S covers a multitude of sins. So does the expression "range-finder" and "SLR" but this is the internet...

Regards, David
 
David Hughes said:
I would say that a P&S is what it says, meaning you point it and shoot. (Although the VF is involved.) Kodak have been making them for a long long time: no AF involved as the lens was fixed focus and f/11 or thereabouts. No choice of shutter speed either...

I do, however, take your point but it proves my one as well, in that the expression P&S covers a multitude of sins. So does the expression "range-finder" and "SLR" but this is the internet...

Regards, David
Click to expand...

I disagree. P&S cameras are universally considered to be those with fixed lenses, AF and AE.
I can point and shoot every camera I have (and any made) - from my Rollei A110 to Hasselblad H1 to Rolleiflex 2.8GX. But we all know those are not P&S cameras.
 
But the ones I referred to can only be pointed and shot, no adjustment of any kind is possible. Although I suppose you could change the film but that hardly counts.


Regards, David
 
Sooooo, nothing but the original Kodak counts as a P&S? "You just push the button, we do the rest!" (from Kodak advertising of their first consumer camera)


PF
 
The phrase "point and shoot" seems to be from the compact camera AF, AE era (mid-1980's onward) - I don't recall it being used with Instamatic, 126, 110, or 127 film cameras, although most of them certainly were point and shoot in usage. But perhaps I'm wrong as to when the phrase became popular.
 
I took 3 cameras, a ContaxG w/ 35mm lens, a Nikonos III w/35mm lens, and a Stylus Epic on a 2 week adventure trip through Costa Rica about 12 years ago. Along on the trip were my 2 sisters and a nephew. I knew my goal was a small album documenting the trip for each.

I shot about 80% of the photos with the ContaxG. The Nikonos came out for wet environments like white water rafting, surfing and such. The little Stylus Epic was there when we were in situations like horseback riding, zip lining, or simply eating lunch in some native Costa Rican dive bar.

When I put the album of around 24 photos together, I realized that each camera was used for about 1/3 of the final photos. A high percentage of shots with the Nikonos and Stylus Epic made the final selection because of the action. No one noticed the difference in optical quality. But everyone was impressed with the environments and activities where the photos were made.

If I did a similar trip today, it would be 2 cameras. A FujiX with one lens and an underwater digital P&S. I bet the final selection would be half with one camera and half with the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom