cffres@uvaee.UUCP (Chuck Ferrara) (08/19/85)
I am considering a purchase of a compact 35mm. camera (not an SLR) which I can use skiing or backpacking, when I don't want to lug around all my equipment. I am a serious photographer, so I am looking for something that takes high quality photos, yet fits in my pocket. Another thing I consider important is to have some kind of filter adapter, because I could never part with my polarizer. I know there are many manufacturers of these little cameras and I would appreciate it if some of you could share your experiences. Thanks in advance.
kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (08/26/85)
In article <416@uvaee.UUCP> cffres@uvaee.UUCP (Chuck Ferrara) writes: >I am considering a purchase of a compact 35mm. camera (not an SLR) >which I can use skiing or backpacking, when I don't want to lug >around all my equipment. I am a serious photographer, so I am looking >for something that takes high quality photos, yet fits in my pocket. >Another thing I consider important is to have some kind of filter >adapter, because I could never part with my polarizer. I know there >are many manufacturers of these little cameras and I would appreciate >it if some of you could share your experiences. Thanks in advance. I tried to send this rather lengthy piece as mail, but it bounced so I reluctantly submit it as a follow-up. I, too, am a serious photographer--have two SLR bodies and a few lenses. Do mostly B & W but like to make prints from the occasional good slide also. I found through the years that I got more second or third prizes (never could win first) with pictures taken with a pocket camera, essentially because that camera was almost always with me. The first pocket camera was a Rollei 35. Very nice, just a little big for a pocket, and has a terrible lens cap that is always falling off. They are not made any more; you might look for a used one, but be warned, the camera could be a maintenance problem, at least mine has been. Advantages, match needle metering--photographer has full control of aperture and shutter speed. Takes some standard small size filter. Was made in two models, with f 3.5 Zeiss Tessar and with f 2.8 Zeiss Sonnar. Focal length a mite wider than standard: 40 mm. Disadvantage: you focus by scale. Highly recommended as a great compromise at a reasonable price: Minox GT. Can be obtained for around $115 mail order. Superbly sharp lens f2.8, 35 mm focal length. Compact and light--can be carried around in a suit coat pocket for months and you won't even know it is there. I carried it around for a few days in a trouser pocket and was perfectly happy about it. Again, focus by scale only and has aperture-preferred automation with no control except a 2X (one stop) switch for backlight. A needle shows you the approximate shutter speed that your chosen aperture will demand on a scale with three numbers: 30, 125, and 500. I resisted getting it for a long time because I was not too happy about the automation with almost no override, but in 1983 I was facing a one-month trip to England on which I wanted to do both black & white and color and did not want to carry much equipment, so bought the Minox as the B & W camera, using the Rollei for color. With high-latitude film such as Tri-X or XP1 in it, the metering of the Minox is plenty accurate. Drawback: No provision for a sunshade or any filters except the two relatively useless ones provided by Minox. The way to get around not having a shade is to turn the camera upside down so that the bed shields the lens. Advantage: I've never had a camera that I can get into action as quickly for a grab shot. Olympus XA. I bought this just before the Minox as the camera to use on the trip to England. Fortunately bought it early enough run a few rolls of film through it and decided the lens was not quite good enough to suit me. It might suit you. I was using pretty fine-grained film (XP1) and blowing up to 8 x 10. I though the corners were a bit unsharp and that I was losing contrast. The lens has a pretty exotic design because of its being unusually close to the film for its focal length. Advantage of the camera is a coupled range-finder. Otherwise its features are like the Minox. After hearing me mutter darkly about selling it, my wife told me to give it to her. She was using color negative material and having prints no bigger than 4 x 6 made. Under those conditions, you can't tell the difference between that lens and a better one. This finally brings us to my latest acquisition, a real extravagance about which I'm still feeling a little foolish. It is a Contax T. Now, the camera is really not significantly bigger than a Minox, but I simply can't bring myself to carry that $300 piece of jewelry unprotected in a pocket, and it is amazing how much bulk a light suede leather case adds. High points: beautiful design and workmanship. f2.8 38 mm Zeiss Sonnar len. Physical mechanism such a close imitation of the Minox that I'll bet a licensing fee was paid. Instead of a meter needle telling you the shutter speed, there are a few LEDs--so few that you really get less info than from a Minox. Has a very precise coupled range finder. Has a beautifully fitted low-power, dedicated flash unit. When the flash is turned on, the LEDs blink when the flash ready light comes on. The flash system is unusual in that you can set the camera to any aperture you wish (within broad limits, of course), and the flash will be quenched after an appropriate time. The same sensor is used for metering flash as for metering ambient light. The result is uncanny accuracy. In order to tell a flash shot from non-flash, even with color, I have to look for subtleties, such as shadows on walls or fall off with distance. The case is cleverly designed so that it becomes a long or short case, depending on whether the flash unit is attached. In general, it seems to expose a bit more accurately than the Minox. I think this is because its sensor takes in a smaller angle than does the one on the Minox. Again, there is no provision for shades or filters. -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc. ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner
esfraga@watmath.UUCP (Eric S Fraga) (08/26/85)
I must add my recommendation to the Minox 35GT. It is a beautiful camera, fits anywhere and everywhere, and has worked perfectly for me (bought it about two and half years ago). As mentioned previously, the biggest drawback, for me, about this camera is the automation. Unfortunately, when I bought it, the only other camera of the same size that had a better system was the Rollei, but it cost too much more and didn't fit in my jean jacket pocket as well (I do a lot of backpacking and find that I tend to put most of my camera equipment in the backpack and leave the Minox in the jacket pocket). There is definitely a problem with filters, however. By the way, I recently used a little flash (and I mean little -- uses only one AAA battery) called OSRAM. Does anybody know who carries this flash? I want one but haven't been able to find any store around here that carries it. The one I used was in Spain this summer... would like to go back to get one but that would make it rather expensive :-) -- Eric S Fraga [Dept of Computer Science, U of Waterloo]
michaelk@azure.UUCP (Mike Kersenbrock) (08/28/85)
> In article <416@uvaee.UUCP> cffres@uvaee.UUCP (Chuck Ferrara) writes: > >I am considering a purchase of a compact 35mm. camera (not an SLR) > >which I can use skiing or backpacking, when I don't want to lug > >around all my equipment. I am a serious photographer, so I am looking > >for something that takes high quality photos, yet fits in my pocket. > >Another thing I consider important is to have some kind of filter > >adapter, because I could never part with my polarizer. I know there > >are many manufacturers of these little cameras and I would appreciate > >it if some of you could share your experiences. Thanks in advance. > Um, I just went through this last year except that I did not have the polarizer requirement. Although a polarizer is a handy device (I use one with my "real" camera), it does present a problem. The problem is what you mean by "can use skiing...". When I looked for a skiing camera, my *minimal* requirements were: 1.) To be absolutely smallest possible because: a.) I want to carry this thing arround without bothering my skiing. I ski lousy enough. b.) I don't want to die if I fall on top of the camera while going at a good speed (for me) downhill skiing. The basic requirement here is that it doesn't have any pointed features, and preferably be flat and thin. c.) I don't want the camera to die either. 2.) The camera should be automatic everything. This may make a serious photographer shake his/her head, but....: a.) I ski with gloves on, carrying poles, and the weather is COLD. I have enough problems with just doing a point and shoot. Note that I am skier #1, and photographer #2 (this is my intention, and does not necessarily indicate relative skill levels). b.) Ever take a photo, trying to focus while wearing ski-goggles (because of cold wind, or whatever)? 3.) The camera should be able to compensate for snow (like having good range of manual ASA ratings & setting a lower film speed than the actual film, to compensate for the snow). A DX coding camera might be a negative feature for this purpose. 4.) The camera and have a decent lens and "technical" competence (like being 35mm to start with....). 5.) The camera should have a lens-cover as not to have a problem when number 1b (above) happens (often). [Drum roll maestro...] The camera I chose was the Canon MC (not the new MC-10). It meets everything above quite well. I take it skiing without the flash. The flash is detachable -- this is one way size is reduced. This is my first Canon camera, and I am very happy with it. It is also now my general sport-camera when I don't want to lug my SLR around. It runs off of two AAA alkaline cells that lasts a very long time. The flash (if ever used) uses it's own cells, and they don't last quite so long (as is usual for the flashes I have owned). Mike Kersenbrock Tektronix Software Development Products Aloha, Oregon
schooler@inmet.UUCP (09/04/85)
For a high-quality, manual, small camera, I would recommend either
a Leica/Minolta CL with a 40mm lens, or an Olympus Pen FT with a
38mm lens. The former is a full-frame, coupled-rangefinder camera.
The latter is a half-frame SLR. Both cameras have match-needle
light-meters, and both take interchangeable lenses. They are
available second-hand for a couple of hundred dollars. They date
from the early 70's, I believe. I don't know that I'd take either
of them skiing, though, as they have small controls.
-- Richard Schooler
Intermetrics, Inc.
{ihnp4,ima}!inmet!schooler