Are Expensive point and Shoot cameras really worth the $?

[darinwc]

In regards to people who buy a SLR and use it as a P&S.. One huge limiting factor I have found with P&S cameras is their flash/low light capabilities. The flashes have very little range, usually limited to about 8 feet/2 meters. Probably the most common source of bad family photographs i have seen is in low light or across the room. Especially at school events that are usually indoors in low light. The on-camera flashes of SLR's are usually somewhat better and combined with a brighter lens, it does a much better job that a P&S ever could.

 

[2F/2F]

2F/2F, thank you for that article. That is probably the best evidence for the idea that the camera doesn't matter. Those are some amazing photos.

I wonder if he also uses the M8, now.

Sure thing. I am glad you enjoyed the article. I remembered it from quite some time ago, and luckily I was able to find it fairly easily with Google.

I believe that we all have to think more carefully of what effect the technical qualities will actually have on the images we make/take before becoming obsessed with technical perfection above all else. A lot of pictures don't require the level of technical perfection that most of us think they do. The most important thing is being "there" and having the conceptual and compositional skills required to get what you need/want to get. If your concepts are served by nice manual "pro-type" cameras, that is great. However, very often a point and shoot works fine, and offers its own special benefits. Different tools for different outcomes and purposes.

 

[nsouto]

Dunno about the expensive ones.
But I've always had a soft spot for the Oly "mju" series ("stylus" for the folks Stateside).

Recently got a reasonably good condition mju zoom 140 in that online site.
The lens is a joy to use and the results stunning.
It has focus and exposure lock for those weird situations, and also spot metering!
Proper red-eye reduction (with pre-flashes), light as a feather, has eyepiece
correctin for my tired eyes.
Can't ask for more for <$20...

 

[skahde]

Dunno about the expensive ones.
But I've always had a soft spot for the Oly "mju" series ("stylus" for the folks Stateside).

The lens in my mju II is on par with my SLRs. But I just checked 2 Neopans I develolped yesterday and the camera definately could make good use of some kind of manual focus control better than using spot and keeping your fingers crossed. In this respect many PS aren't any better: You never know for sure what they actually focussed on untill you see the negs.

best

Stefan

 

[Zugzwang]

I love using my Contax T-3. It's the one camera I would never get rid of, and I own a lot of camera's from 135 to 4x5. The reasons are. It takes filters, the lens is outstanding, manual focus if you want it (so it's a great street shooter) you can power up the flash with a Sa-2 adaptor for the indoor family shots. It's a very nice camera for such a compact footprint. Love it.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

mju II i ... You never know for sure what they actually focussed on untill you see the negs.

I bought one for my father a few years ago and that has been his experience.
His Infinity Stylus Epic (? - heck of triple barreled name) focuses up and to the right of the focus indicator spot, add parallax shift with changing subject distance and it's anybody's guess what it is picking.

I have a few Yashica T4s that give very good results. I recently picked up a Nikon 35ti and I can't say the lens is any better than the T4's Zeiss Tessar.

 

[nsouto]

Maybe I was lucky with mine? It's got absolutely spot-on focus and it's always within the little circle. It adjusts for parallax of course with the zoom, but that's about it.
Still: also got excellent results with a nikon litetouch ED - superb glass, that one. So I got a backup in case the mju decides to play up later in life.

 

[elekm]

Some of the P&S models have very good lenses. Others, such as my wife's Canon Snappy had a fixed-focus (nothing ever sharp) lens that was unimpressive.

I bought her an Olympus something or other that had a great lens and a horrible squinty viewfinder. It was stolen in China. My wife also lost my Rollei 35T that I used from 1979 to 1991. But a camera is just an object. I still had a Rollei 35S, but I always missed the 35T and eventually bought another.

My daughter dropped her Kodak disposable into the moat while on a tour of the Forbidden City in Beijing. That's a real inexpensive P&S.

The Lomo is a cult camera that produces technically mediocre photos, but users love it.

I've gotten nice photos with a Rollei Prego 70, but I think the lens is a bit too slow.

Right now, I'm messing about with a Rolleimatic, which has a Tessar-type lens. It's very nice, although it's a zone focus camera. I'm also playing around with the Rollei B&W disposable, which I won't dispose of but will reload. The front of the camera is clear, and when the flash goes off, it blinds you.

There are a lot of choices, and the person behind the camera is more important than what's in his or her hands, for sure.

I think it was Lens Work that had an interesting article about a woman who made her own lenses from soft drink bottles and all kinds of oddball things. Her photos were very interesting.

 

[firecracker]

I've been using Contax T3 since 2001, I think, and this camera has been working great. The only reason I keep it is that it's quiet, far more compact than Leica M with a lens and does everything auto like Olympus Stylus when I want it to. I can't complain.

The only thing that sometimes troubles me is the light fall-off on corners for some outdoor shots, but for indoors, hardly noticeable. In my opinion, it produces better images with the aperture close to wide open in dim light because the bokeh is nice.