Originally Posted by Mike H
Originally Posted by Mike H
Are all these quality P&S cameras doomed ?
BTW, I found this site regarding the Ricoh GR1.
Eventually, they probably are. All of them rely on batteries that will likely not be available in another ten years.Quote:
Originally Posted by AllanD
For instance, I have (well, just appropriated, since my wife uses the digital exclusively now) a Yashica PZ 3125 Quartz Date -- quite nice, auto-everything with a few overrides (like flash lockout and long exposure night shot capability, self timer, 38-125 zoom, and date imprinting back with no-record setting). It's in excellent shape, only about 4 years old -- but depends on a 3V round lithium cell a little fatter and a little shorter than a AA.
Duracell is closing the plant where these batteries are made (it's local to me here in north-central North Carolina -- there go another 280 jobs) due to the drop in demand as NiMH for digitals replace lithium and alkalines for camera use. I suppose I could do as I've done with my Polaroid -- solder in a 2xAA battery holder to avoid the need for the exotic battery (the holder and the time it took to install cost less than one battery for the Polaroid).
I second James' comment about the Hi-Matic. Auto-only mode, my Hi-Matic E is my fav "P&S" rangefinder. The problem is these are comparatively heavy. The Oly Stylus Epic, which I've enjoyed as a family camera for years, is better in this regard. But for quality negs, oh my, those Hi-Matics are just great.
I used a lot of the high quality P&S (Contax T2, Yahica T4, Leica Minilux, Olympus Epic) and they all have their quirks.Quote:
Originally Posted by snaggs
My vote is for the Minilux (fixed lens one) over the other ones. I sold mine last year, but probably will buy it again one one of these days. I currently use the old Voightlander and Kodak folders for pocketable film cameras. The Minilux is a bit pricey though; also it's not as pocketable as some of the other ones, though is no less pursable.
Leica CL, bit bigger than the real mini's but real good quality.
Why nobody's talking about Minox? May I not got the question right?
Hi. Marco, I have just read the question, and I would be very pleased to talk about Minox, I have used a Minox 35 GT for more than twenty years, and though it has no range finder, this is no problem,the lens is a 35mm f2.8 optic this means that you can set the focus at about 3meters, and point and shoot, it's aperture priority exposure system gives you control of the depth of field which not many compact cameras do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco Gilardetti
The main reason I got it was I read the test report in one of the photographic magazines, who had to test the lense three times, because the results were so good they didn't believe them,if you could find a second hand one of these, they aren't made any more, for you're wife, and you could borrow it to make exhibition prints with it,if you could get her to part with it.
My apologies go to the Minox-lovers but I was nothing but disappointed by the lens as well as the camera.
I had a Minox 35MB and gave a 35AL to my girlfriend. The MB saw the workshop twice within 2 years, the AL stopped working after 2 years of little use and was never repaired because it wasn't worth it in my girflriends view. The lenses were ok but nothing to write home about (lots of flare, otherwise close to amateur-level prime lenses). Besides the flare issue I always thought it was fine and used it a lot untill I got myself a Rollei 35se with 40mm Sonnar. The difference in rendition of fine detail and color was astonishing as was the Rolleis resistance to flare. In my limited experience there is simply no contest between both lenses and the Minox 35 *way* overrated.
Actually, with the right film and good technique you can get better pictures from a Minox 8x11 "spy" camera than from a Minox 35...