Automatic camera print quality

JamieB · Jun 4, 2017

Hi

I am looking into getting a little point and shoot for street photography. I did an earlier thread about it.
My question is two-fold, does anyone know of any successful/famous street photographers who use automatic point and shoots for their work which is then printed? If your intention is to make prints for an exhibition or even a photo book, is it not a mistake to use such a limited camera at all? Shouldn't you use an SLR or rangefinder? I understand it is largely to do with how good the lens is.
I guess I am curious as to how the Oly Trip 35 would hold up to having even A2-sized prints from it.

Excuse the novice nature of the question. Thanks

removed account4 · Jun 4, 2017

hi jamieB

if you can get a yashica t4 without the date stamp, it might be the best point and shoot you can find/
zeiss lens, just fantastic. i don't know any street photographers who used it, but i know commercial
photographers who used it on paying jobs ( in nyc city + boston area ) ... it won't be like 50 or 100$ but your prints will look beautiful.

good luck !
john

graciemansion · Jun 4, 2017

While I love my Yashica T4, I wouldn't recommend it for street photography because there's a short delay (about a second or two) between pressing the shutter release button and the picture being taken. It doesn't sound like much, but when you're out photographing it's easy to miss shots or to miss them slightly. An SLR or rangefinder is probably better for street photography since those have very little delay.

Paul Howell · Jun 4, 2017

You need to research each lens design and decide, the Konica Hextar is outstanding, you can make enlargement up to 16X20, other higher end point cameras with good primes lens, Nikon, the Canon ML with 40 1.9, thinking of Konica the S3 fixed lens rangefinder was tested as having one of the sharpest lens tested by Modern Photography in the 70s when it new on the Market. Even my Kowa Re, fixed lens SLR has a 50mm 1.8 6 element lens that does very well. As to the first question, none that come to mind.

Chan Tran · Jun 4, 2017

David Douglas Ducan published a book called "Faceless" features pictures of Henri Cartier Bresson that he took using his wife's P&S and a roll of B&W film he got from Henri Cartier Bresson. HCD didn't like it and managed to get the book banned in France.

Patrick Robert James · Jun 5, 2017

I think the Olympus Mju II is better than the Yashica T4. I have both. The lens is slightly sharper, although the Zeiss lens has more contrast which is why people probably like the Zeiss. For color it is great, but for black and white the Olympus is better. The Olympus also focuses faster and turns on faster. If you are looking for a cheap camera that has a great lens, take a look at the Minox 35. Super quiet too. No autofocus though.

Anders Peterson used a Contax point and shoot to make a lot of his images. Terry Richardson used a lot of point and shoots back in the day. He doesn't anymore though. It was just schtick. I think Antoine D'Agata used a point and shoot at times along with his Contax Gs.

If you want to make big prints from a point and shoot, you are going to have to get a good one. There is a reason why the Contax point and shoots cost so much.

MattKing · Jun 5, 2017

I think that user's technique with point and shoot cameras is/was at least as important as their technical qualities, when you consider larger enlargements.
When was the last time you saw anyone use one on a tripod?
From an Olympus Trip 35:

Dead Link Removed

AgX · Jun 5, 2017

The outstanding feature of the T4 is likely not the lens, but the waist-level finder.

blockend · Jun 5, 2017

A number of acclaimed photographers use P&S cameras, including Daido Moriyama, Bertien van Manen and Stephen Gill.

pentaxuser · Jun 5, 2017

The correlation between some P&S cameras and print quality tends to be a function of price i.e. a lot of P&S cameras are aimed at users for whom low price is an attraction rather than P&S per se so as has been said the lens quality of the P&S MjuII is superb. The quality of the kind of cameras you used to find on wedding guests' tables before everyone had camera phones was not.

Any 35mm camera however, even with a superb lens, will have difficulties producing high resolution A2 prints which are 17 inches by 24 inches. Generally at prints that size you are in medium format territory.

pentaxuser

rpavich · Jun 5, 2017

I print from an Olympus Trip 35 all of the time and am very satisfied. The lens is very sharp and focusing is really forgiving, it's got a LOT of depth of field generally.
I'd say that it's a personal thing...you may not like what it does in print whereas someone else may be fine with it. I print 8 x 10" and love them.

I think (personally) that it's more about content and feeling than what's sharp or in focus much of the time.

Dali · Jun 5, 2017

I was ready to mention Daido Moriyama but someone did it already...

OptiKen · Jun 5, 2017

rpavich said:
I print from an Olympus Trip 35 all of the time and am very satisfied. The lens is very sharp and focusing is really forgiving, it's got a LOT of depth of field generally.
I'd say that it's a personal thing...you may not like what it does in print whereas someone else may be fine with it. I print 8 x 10" and love them.

I think (personally) that it's more about content and feeling than what's sharp or in focus much of the time.

+1
I wrote a blog on Sharpness being over-rated. Content really is king. Look at pulitzer award winning news photos from some of the greats. Most often, the focus is merely 'very close'. Often the 'decisive moment' is so fleeting any attempts at technical perfection would miss the moment completely

removed account4 · Jun 5, 2017

graciemansion said:
While I love my Yashica T4, I wouldn't recommend it for street photography because there's a short delay (about a second or two) between pressing the shutter release button and the picture being taken. It doesn't sound like much, but when you're out photographing it's easy to miss shots or to miss them slightly. An SLR or rangefinder is probably better for street photography since those have very little delay.

huh, i never noticed a delay, maybe it was sleep deprivation ?
we must have put 300-600 rolls through it ...
i wish the focus didn't die, now its stuck on something like 6"-2'

Ko.Fe. · Jun 5, 2017

I see nothing wrong with Trip 35 lens. In fact it has nothing to do with much more simple lenses in true P&S. I rate this lens to be better than 35 2.8 in Oly XA. And to be on pair with most not expensive 50mm SLR lenses. It is even better (IMO) comparing to Elmar 50 3.5 lens which HCB took plenty of pictures which are in the books and prints.

Known photographers are known to use advanced P&S cameras after they retire. HCB is shown with Minilux, Fred Herzog known for Canon water sealed funky P&S. But both used Leica RF at their prime time. As I mentioned, Elmar 50 3.5 isn't sharpest or best lens, but professional photographer wants to have full control, instead of camera to control what it takes.

At the poster size print you are going to be limited by 35mm fllm, not by the lens, IMO. If you want A2 for prints, the 200$ 645 SLR will do better job.

thuggins · Jun 5, 2017

Various professionals used the XA in their off time, and I seem to recall a story of a professional shoot being done with one. The Stylus (Mu outside of the US) and the Trip 35 also are as good as any SLR or rangefinder. Every time I develop shots from any of these cameras it is always a pleasant surprise how great they are.

John Bragg · Jun 5, 2017

Some P&S cameras are vastly over rated in my opinion. The Mju ii is a case in point as prices are vastly inflated right now. It is a charming little camera but it has its limitations, namely it prioritises wide aperture and this combined with multi point focussing means that sometimes it gets it wrong on the point of critical focus. The original Mju I with single point focussing is less often fooled. Canon Sureshot Supreme has the fast f2.8 lens and focussing is on point even in low light. They can be bought for pence and the lens is a cracker. The only limitation with the Canon is the peculiar flash override and it locks focus but not exposure with off centre subjects. The Mju I locks focus and exposure which is beneficial with backlit subjects. So my choice:- Olympus Mju I and Canon Sureshot supreme over Mju ii.

craigclu · Jun 27, 2017

I've been getting an old scanner functioning on a new computer and happened to grab a few old prints. This one had me thinking that I could not only use 35mm more but a P&S can function well for some things. This is an old print from a Konica A4 on FP4+ in some early pyro experiments. I was walking around a large car show at the Minnesota State Fairgrounds and decided to pack just a pocket camera on a sweltering, long day. That little camera constantly amazed me but I actually used it very little as I would take more serious gear on typical outings. These cameras had troublesome electronics and I recall that it began running away on multiple exposures until it reached roll-end and got so I couldn't trust it. Quick scan (learning Vuescan) with no spotting, etc. but it reminded me of what a legitimate tool the little A4 could be.

John Wiegerink · Jun 27, 2017

craigclu said:
View attachment 181960 I've been getting an old scanner functioning on a new computer and happened to grab a few old prints. This one had me thinking that I could not only use 35mm more but a P&S can function well for some things. This is an old print from a Konica A4 on FP4+ in some early pyro experiments. I was walking around a large car show at the Minnesota State Fairgrounds and decided to pack just a pocket camera on a sweltering, long day. That little camera constantly amazed me but I actually used it very little as I would take more serious gear on typical outings. These cameras had troublesome electronics and I recall that it began running away on multiple exposures until it reached roll-end and got so I couldn't trust it. Quick scan (learning Vuescan) with no spotting, etc. but it reminded me of what a legitimate tool the little A4 could be.

Very nice!

Zyklus · Jun 29, 2017

The 'Jacob Aue Sobol' and 'Anders Petersen' combo illustrate perfectly that automatic camera photographs and prints (even very large) are fantastic. While they aren't 100% street photographers, both of them have photographs that would fit the bill perfectly. Their photos also help to remind us that impact, emotion and connection are much more important than getting hung up on 'sharpness' or technical details.

IIRC Anders Petersen primarily uses Contax T2/T3 and Jacob Aue Sobol uses a handful of cheap automatic compacts (outside of his digital commissioned work sponsored by Leica).

Edit: Forgot Martin Parr too..... though his approach is almost the polar opposite of these guys ^

darkosaric · Jun 29, 2017

JamieB said:
make prints for an exhibition or even a photo book, is it not a mistake to use such a limited camera

Take a look on Flickr stream from Herr Mörsch:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfgang_moersch/

He uses Holga! It cannot be more limited than Holga. But he is a master printer, and all work from him can proudly stand in any gallery of photo book.

Harry Stevens · Jun 29, 2017

Firstly one camera is not really enough for street photography. anybody who does street should have either a rangefinder or SLR and a point and shoot for back up, I carry a cheap small Canon point and shoot no matter what I am shooting.

Automatic camera print quality

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency