Go Back  Fodor's Travel Talk Forums > Destinations > Europe
Reload this Page > Buying a new camera - Need input on quality of your point & shoot.

Buying a new camera - Need input on quality of your point & shoot.

Reply

Apr 3rd, 2001, 08:16 PM
  #1
Morgan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Buying a new camera - Need input on quality of your point & shoot.

I went shopping tonight to pick out a new point and shoot 35mm camera for under $200 for our trip in 2 weeks. Anyone who has purchased a camera within the past year - please tell me the exact model, clarity of pictures (especially if they are enlarged), ease of use. What film speed do you use the most? The pocket 35mm we have now takes "grainy" pictures - the disposables even do a better job. I refuse to tote the huge Minolta. A friend has one of the original Elphs and loves it. Now there are at least 3 Elph models to choose from. Help, please!
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 3rd, 2001, 08:29 PM
  #2
Louise
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
May I suggest you make your decision soon so that you will have a chance to shoot a roll and get it developed - just in case there's something wrong with the particular camera you buy.
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 3rd, 2001, 08:31 PM
  #3
Art
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I bought a Olympus Stylus last year. It was a little over $200, is a 35mm with a zoom telephoto lens that ranges from 28mm to 80mm and has a panorma switch so I can take wide angle as well as zoom in. I'm quite pleased with the photos and happy I bought it. Much more flexable than a point and shoot.
Happy Travels
Art
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 3rd, 2001, 08:39 PM
  #4
Char
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Morgan, Just got back from Italy last week. I, too, bought an Olympus Stylus Epic 80 but didn't get the one with the panoramic switch to save a few bucks.
I paid $140 at Best Buy in California.
Great pictures - really handy pocket size camera. Use 400 speed film. Take lots of it with you (at least a roll a day). 400 speed is really hard to find in Europe. Take extra batteries too and heed the advice about shooting a roll before you leave. Enjoy!
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 04:30 AM
  #5
kate
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: film choice. I prefer 200 rather than 400 as being good for all weather conditions, indoor and outdoor. And I don't know where you are going, but 400 is readily available from Boots in the UK (a pharmacy you see everywhere).
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 04:36 AM
  #6
Lisa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
My son was given a Canon sureshot 105 zoom (date) camera. Takes the best pictures. That is the camera we use on trips unless I want to use my 200 zoom. Well under $200.
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 06:02 AM
  #7
Howard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Either the Canon or Olympus previously mentioned will do the job. Whatever you get, make sure it has the zoom feature.
As for film, I find 200 speed the most versatile. If, however, you know that you'll be taking an entire roll indoors, with no flash, then 400 might be better for those shots. (However, if the indoor sites are well lit, I've found that 200 works fine.)
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 06:09 AM
  #8
Gloria
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi, Morgan,
I have found that 800 speed film is the only film to use indoors. Many of the museums, churches, palaces have such high ceilings that you lose all your light. It is also flexible so that you may take a picture without a flash (which is advisable in all art museums).
As it can be difficult to always have the correct film in for all situations, I now take two cameras. You could opt for the 800 speed film in the point and shoot and take a disposable for wide angle shots. I did find that with overcast days, however, the 800 performed very well outside.
I strongly suggest you purchase your camera now, shoot several rolls of film in a variety of settings (keeping a journal of what film you use, any flash, etc) and get them developed to see how it performs. You may wish to take a class that many camera shops offer.
Good luck and have fun!
Gloria
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 06:14 AM
  #9
AArbour
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I just got an Elf Jr. last month. I was tired of struggling with winding the film in my old point and shoot. The picture quality of the Elf Jr. is fantastic - it uses Advantax film, which is a real treat. I opted to go with a camera without a zoom. It was approx. $140 CDN. It's nice and small and easy to use.

If you're concerned with grainy film, try using 200 instead of 400, as stated above.
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 06:24 AM
  #10
barb
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I too, hunted for the right point and shoot camera before my trip to Spain. I was going on an 8 day horseback riding expedition and knew I was going to be carrying it in my fanny-pack so light weight and compact was important. (The canon EOS with long lens is NOT coming) I finally decided on a model because of the lens. It has a Zeiss lens, real glass, not plastic like most other models. Remember, whatever you shoot is through that lens. Unfortunately I cannot remember the name at the moment. I was very happy with the quality of the pictures as well as how sturdy it was and it got bounced all across southern Spain!! I'd still stick with traditional 35mm over the relatively new multi-format models. If you want them developled in europe, you may have a problem.
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 07:04 AM
  #11
pam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Barb probably has the Yashica T4.

There was a loooongg thread on this topic a while back. I'll try to top it for you.

I, too, have an Olympus Stylus Epic (no zoom, though). Love it. Considered the Yashica T4 b/c of the Zeiss lens. Advice from guys at two high-quality photo shops in town, who had made the same comparison without finding any appreciable difference in enlargement quality, led me to choose the Olympus (cost was 50% or less of the Y-T4--which is also fixed focal length, i.e., no zoom). The Y-T4 doesn't have an integral lens cover, either, if I remember correctly.
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 09:58 AM
  #12
Paul
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
We own two point and shoot cameras as well 5 SLR's and a Leica. We are quite happy with the 2 Olympus cameras we have. They can take excellent pictures. I would recommend that you use 400 speed film with point and shoots because of the exposure programs on the cameras. This will allow to shoot and fast speeds to get crisper pictures especially with telephoto exposures.
Now the major problem you will face will be with the film processing. The assumption is that you will use print film (C-41 process). The film you use is very very good but the weak link is the generally poor processing. The development of the negatives is usually good since it is quite automated. The printing from these negatives is very variable and to a great extent not dependent on price. You are really at the mercy of the "printer"; how they are feeling that day, how much care they take and if they are paying any attention at all. So when it comes to the four elements in taking pictures the strongest link is the film, followed by the camera while the two weakest are the person behind the camera and the processing of the exposed film.
To repeat; we have had good luck and wonderful pictures with our Olympus p&s a 35-140 and a 35-115. Good luck. The advice of trying at least one roll of film before you go to see how the camera works and how you work with it is excellent. Go luck.
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 11:43 AM
  #13
Diane
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I use a Nikon APS (advanced photo system) camera -- mine is a 110 but they have made changes and I don't think this model is sold anymore. (I had a problem with mine --after the Paris trip--but Nikon replaced it and so far we're doing fine.) My husband got a newer Nikon APS this summer with which he can use any of Nikon's lenses...and it is even nicer than mine. I carry lots of 400 speed film with me, and generally like to use it -- even indoors without flash. http://www.zing.com/album/?id=4293921811 You can see some results in these pictures from Paris. I've even had enlargements made and they are gorgeous.
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 12:08 PM
  #14
kavey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I would vite against Avantix. The film quality is inferior, and the pictures are blown up from far smaller neg size which leads to more graininess.

Several friends went for Avantix when it first came out and all have no expressed regret, some even bought a new 35mm camera and ditched the Avantix model.

Also film innovation is really still focused on 35mm.

I would strongly recommend Fuji colour film, 200 or 400 speed, which is now considered superior in quality by many photographers I know to Kodak.
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 12:42 PM
  #15
Diane
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Huh. I thought the innovation movement in photography is pretty focused (ooooh, bad pun) on digital. Unless you are a professional photographer it is pretty hard to tell the difference between a 35mm or APS snapshot. Of course the lens has a lot to do with it. I probably wouldn't put a Kodak APS up against Nikon and expect the same thing. Personally, I love not having to deal with negatives anymore. I've not had anything enlarged bigger than 8x14 (nor would I plan to -- hey, these are just souvenirs!). Can't say I detect any graininess....
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 12:47 PM
  #16
angel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
It's been said many times here, but I'm saying it again -- you need to be willing to spend the money for quality processing!!
 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 01:29 PM
  #17
pam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
re: quality of aps vs 35mm & only a pro would notice

"I disagree." (Anyone remember HOllywood Squares?) a. if you want a panoramic picture, the way a disposable or other panoramic 35mm camera works is to use 3 frames of 35mm film (35mms switchable to panoramic probably use the cropping method to be described). The way the aps works is to use one frame (already about 1/4 the size of one frame of 35mm film) and crop out the top and bottom third. You get an 8x10 enlargement of a teeeeeenny negative, with the edge thirds cut away. Extremely grainy.

Anyone remember the "Disc" cameras of about 15 years ago? Another "innovation" by Kodak. Teeny pieces of film stuck onto arms of a daisy-wheel type gadget. Cute but terrible photos. APS is just another gimmick. APS frames are smaller than 110 film frames, if I remember correctly. APS has some neat features, but it is NOT an innovation in any sense that innovation implies improvement (at least in photo quality). The drop-in feature is neat; 35mm cameras could do that. Not rocket science. The contact sheets are neat; easily obtained w/ 35mm film. The storage-in-canister is neat; 35mm film canisters could be redesigned to do this.

I strongly suggest you visit photo.net, a fantastic website which has an exhaustive discussion of p&s cameras.

Now if you are insistent upon high-quality photographs, drop-in film loading, and compact camera size, I suggest you buy a Minox ECX.

 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 01:29 PM
  #18
pam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
re: quality of aps vs 35mm & only a pro would notice

"I disagree." (Anyone remember HOllywood Squares?) a. if you want a panoramic picture, the way a disposable or other panoramic 35mm camera works is to use 3 frames of 35mm film (35mms switchable to panoramic probably use the cropping method to be described). The way the aps works is to use one frame (already about 1/4 the size of one frame of 35mm film) and crop out the top and bottom third. You get an 8x10 enlargement of a teeeeeenny negative, with the edge thirds cut away. Extremely grainy.

Anyone remember the "Disc" cameras of about 15 years ago? Another "innovation" by Kodak. Teeny pieces of film stuck onto arms of a daisy-wheel type gadget. Cute but terrible photos. APS is just another gimmick. APS frames are smaller than 110 film frames, if I remember correctly. APS has some neat features, but it is NOT an innovation in any sense that innovation implies improvement (at least in photo quality). The drop-in feature is neat; 35mm cameras could do that. Not rocket science. The contact sheets are neat; easily obtained w/ 35mm film. The storage-in-canister is neat; 35mm film canisters could be redesigned to do this.

I strongly suggest you visit photo.net, a fantastic website which has an exhaustive discussion of p&s cameras.

Now if you are insistent upon high-quality photographs, drop-in film loading, point-and-shoot simplicity, and compact camera size, I suggest you buy a Minox ECX.

 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 02:24 PM
  #19
Gloria
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Perhaps I misspoke earlier. I used a Canon RebelX EOS camera with a 80 to 210 Zoom. As my camera is so "automatic" I thought it qualified as a point and shoot. I really like this camera. It is easy to use, and yet, allows for a lot of creativity.

I also recommended using 800 speed film indoors. I had good success with the 800 speed film. Apparently others here feel differently.

I still recommend getting a camera now, shooting several rolls of film in a variety of settings keeping track of what film you use in which environment.
And, Angel is exactly correct with her advise that the processing can make or break the success you have with your pictures. I learned that the hard way with some pictures I took in Italy!
Good Luck!
Gloria

 
Reply With Quote
Apr 4th, 2001, 04:01 PM
  #20
cindy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I have to disagree with Kavey, at least from the amateur's (my) point of view. I love my Elph 370z, love being able to change film mid-roll, love the size, love the quality of the pictures. I agree with Angel - the processing also matters. I take my film to a local store, and always choose Kodak or Fuji processing, never the "store" brand.

Good luck, and let us know what you choose!
 
Reply With Quote
 



Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:52 PM.