Vintage Compact 35mm?

[hm2106]

Hi, I am looking for a suitable vintage 35mm for sports photography. I am considering a Canon AF35ML that is refurbished or the older Olympus Trip 35. Would prefer something with not too many manual settings and a model that can be used for other photography ie.streetscapes as well.

Any ideas would be much appreciated. Thanks

 

[NeeZee]

The autofocus in 80s/90s p&s cameras is too slow for sports except you are talking chess here 😉 One with scale focusing and automatic exposure like the Trip sounds like the better idea. There are many more cameras with similar specs such as the olympus xa2/xa4, the konica c35ef models and so on. also depends on the focal length you prefer as well...

 

[lynnb]

What sports are you thinking of photographing? Unless you're very close to the action, or want a wider contextual view, the focal length of most compact RFs may be too wide for sports photography. Most people shoot sports with SLRs so they can use longer focal length lenses, without parallax.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Welcome aboard.

Sports photograph needs a longish lens on the camera, and a fast lens as you'll need high shutter speeds to stop the action. You won't get them in elderly compact cameras. The older ones are mechanical and the shutter press has to do a lot of work, and that means it takes its time. So you'll not get the shot you want.

Mostly because of those factors, people go for a long, fast lens on a SLR. That, I'm afraid, will be nothing like compact and expensive. But look around and you'll see lots of decent SLR's that are not as dear as you'd expect*. Get one with shutter priority and a medium fast and medium length lens (say 135 or 200mm) and you ought to be OK for sports photography. It depends mostly on how close you want to be to the action and how much you have to spend.

BTW, at sporting events compacts can be useful, you use them instead of changing the SLRs lens and wasting time on it. A good rule at sports events is that with two lenses the wrong one will be on the camera when you really need it. So two cameras work well together.

Regards, David

* Have a look at the Minolta 7000, for example; although it may not be called that where you live.

 

[hm2106]

Thank you everyone for your hints. Looks like I will have to do some more research. Main sport was to be cycling.

 

[hm2106]

One option I have come across is a Pentax A3 with a Vivitar 55-205mm lens. It comes with original lens cap and instruction booklets.

Mainly shooting cycling - both close-up ie. a couple of metres to 10 metres away.

Thoughts?

 

[bastian a.]

Mayba a Leica C1 (38-105mm lens) ...

 

[Lflex]

One option I have come across is a Pentax A3 with a Vivitar 55-205mm lens. It comes with original lens cap and instruction booklets.

Mainly shooting cycling - both close-up ie. a couple of metres to 10 metres away.

Thoughts?

Better than a P&S but not a good choice.
Avoid cameras with automatic winders. You can usually wind the film to the next frame manually at a speed of 2.5 frame/sec. Autmatic winders will slow you down. Get a manual wind camera or get a motordrive of 3+ f/sec.
If your distance is from 2meters you will need a zoom starting at 28~35mm.
I would imagine that if it reaches 105~135mm in the long end you would be fine.
There should be plenty of old cheap automatic SLR combos with these specs at giveaway prices.

Where do you live?

 

[zuikologist]

Something like a Nikon EM with Tokina SZX 28-70 lens or similar compact SLRs (Olympus OM10 or OM2, Pentax ME or ME Super, Canon AE1) should be fine. If using the wideangle end of the zoom, 2m - 10m might be covered by hyperfocal focus and speed up your shooting even more.

 

[oftheherd]

I don't know what your experience is with photography, nor what your goal is with the photographs you get. However, a smallish rangefinder(RF) P&S from the 70s or 80s could probably do what you seem to want. I don't know about auto-focus(AF) cameras from then since I never owned one and I don't know how quick the AF was. That is the problem with many if not all digital P&S these days; shutter lag from the autofocus doing its thing. It can be very frustrating.

If you can live with RF and want film, many would do what you seem to want. I have an Olympus XA that would do the trick, and is very small. I have Canonets with f/1.7 and f/1.9 lenses that are a little larger (some don't like a camera that is too small) and are capable of producing very good photos. Those cameras may cost more that you want to pay. I also have a Petri Color Computer 35 that is much less expensive and still gives good photos.

If you are going to be more demanding, then probably an SLR would be better for you. The Olympus OM and Fujica ST series cameras had great lenses that were smaller, to fit the smaller size of the cameras. Pentax later came out with a couple of smaller cameras, such as the Pentax ME. I don't know if they had smaller lenses for that line. Most early AF SLR were also kind of slow.

It might be worth your while to get a P&S style film camera and see if it suits your needs. If not, then go to an SLR and keep the P&S for a backup if you feel that is needed for your photography. Let us know more about what you wish to do with your photography and it might help us suggest options.

 

[DNG]

it sounds like he might be wanting to take pictures while he is cycling. So I think his preference on a small compact with automatic controls is because he will be riding his bicycle at the same time.

I think a small , camera with a moderate zoom lens will work just fine.similar to the Leica C1.

I would suggest a 1990's autofocus point and shoot. Olympus also made some interesting cameras in that time frame.

 

[robbeiflex]

Hello,
As an avid cyclist, fan, and photographer, I can't help but chime in with my experience. For taking pictures of cyclists a cheap SLR with a fast tele is the best way to go. Here are two shots with an OM2n, the first with a 135mm at a fair distance:

The second with the same camera, same day, other side of the road (closer to the riders) and witt an 85/2:

Both of the above taken with Ilford HP5+ at ISO 320. There are many AF options for even lower cost than an OM2, but the Olympus has a nice compact size, a great selection of reasonably priced lenses, a solid build, and aperture priority going for it.

Then for when I'm actually on the bike I take a Rollei 35S, also ISO 400 film (usually rated 320 or 250 and cut down dev time as I like riding on sunny days). I go for f8 of f11 for large DOF and get shots like this:

Granted, the point of the shot is much less the artistry and more so the "I was here" element. I have worse shots of higher altitudes but I don't post those. ;-)

Cheers,
Rob

 

[Lflex]

Guys, an AF P&S is not an option. The average speed in Tour de France is 40 km/h. That is more than 10 meters pr second. With shutter lag and AF focusing the action is past you even before the picture is taken. The original poster would probably be fine with a Trip 35 for simplicity, although I would recommend a camera with lever advance. I would not recommend a 70's range finder unless he is familiar with RF's, the good onces are not cheap and many people do not find it easy to focus an RF.
It is pretty clear from his own suggestions that it has to be cheap and simple, but not neccesarily super compact.
I think an unsexy 80's plastic auto SLR with a standard zoom would fit the bill.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Wasn't there a Tokina ATX lens that was 28mm to 85mm? That and an SLR would work for side of the road stuff. A second body with a 70-210mm zoom would also be useful as there's no way you can change lenses quickly compare to using two bodies and two lenses. You'd need aperture priority and manual focussing as I see it. Then pan and the DoF would do the work and cut out AF lag...

Regards, David

 

[John E Earley]

You mention sports and streetscapes. Cameras for these two types of photography don't always match up.

For sports I would look for something like http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/n75.htm or an N90S body and find an inexpensive zoom for it.

Fast auto-focus and zoom would be very handy. Later, some fast prime lenses could be added as funds were available for street use.

 

[Greyscale]

I think that he could use a later P&S zoom, if he uses a model with "landscape" or "snapshot" mode, where the focus is set at hyperfocal length. For instance, some of the later Canon compacts offered both snapshot mode and "real time" shutter release, which effectively makes a fast fixed-focus camera with a zoom lens, which would seem almost ideal for capturing fast-moving action.

 

[Lflex]

Expired - removed

 

[Godfrey]

If you are looking to make photos in fast sequence of moving subjects, forget any of the 35mm AF compacts. None of them are quick enough, either in focus speed, response time, or wind-on time.

If you know how to manage DoF and manual follow-focus for sports work, any 35mm SLR will do a decent job. A motor drive or winder will give you fast sequences.

If you want a classic 35mm compact camera that does sequences well, and you know how to work with zone focus, a Robot Star 50 fitted with a 70mm lens can do a great job on moving subjects. It can shoot frames almost as fast as you can press the shutter release.

G

 

[Greyscale]

I don't think so - have you actually used these cameras recently? Last year I took out my Yashica T4 and remembered why I put it away in spite of a great lens. I used it in infinity mode where it doesnt have to detect focus. Even the good P&Ss still have significant shutter lag and slow film winding. If he has access to buy a Trip, that would still be more suitable option than a P&S.

I use these cameras all the time. The Canon cameras with the RT shutters have minimal lag compared to most others, 1/1000 of a second lag was what they advertised, I think. But would they be my first choice for the OP's purpose? No. Out of the gear that I own, I would probably opt for something like a Yashica FX-3 and the lightweight Yashica MC 35~70mm zoom lens. I don't think that a Trip 35 or any other fixed focal length camera would be the best bet for a bike race, where "zooming with your feet" is not really an option.