Do I upgrade...?

[emmmmuh]

Hi everyone,

Over the last few months I've put some money aside with the intention of buying a higher end P+S (looking at the T2) to replace my cheapo one. However, I've since come to the realisation that I don't actually use my compact that much. My favourite 35mm camera ever is the FM2 - and I feel like with that, a proper compact and my MF setup one won't get enough usage. The other option I've thought about is buying some nice Nikon glass. While I don't like having too many lenses, the two I own are defected in some way as I was forced to buy on the cheap after puchasing the FM2 body.

I think the reason my point and shoot isn't used is because my other two cameras are entirely manual and it's a struggle to revert back to full automation. Perhaps with a compact with a bit more control, like the T2, it would get more use? I really like to keep my gear to a minimum and it's a ton of money to drop on something I won't use. Do any 35mm shooters care to weigh in? Also, if any gear minimalists regularly shoot with both a high end compact AND an SLR I'd love to hear your experiences.

 

[phrons]

This is hard to answer.

It seems that this question is an "is it worth it?" question.

We can't answer that question.

I went through a few compacts because I thought I needed one. You probably won't keep it in your pants pocket. You might keep it in your jacket pockets but that's pretty much it. You might find yourself holding it with a wrist wrap. But, at that point it isn't that much more convenient (size wise) than your SLR that you already have. At least for me, I did not find it that much more convenient.

EDIT: If you carry a purse of course that changes everything in terms of convenience

Of course, the T2 could be the camera that speaks to you. You could have such a connection with the camera that you just want to use it.

If you have the money I say go for it. At this point you can most likely sell it for a similar price to what you paid for if it comes down to that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Buy more lenses for your camera. You know that you want to, so do it.

 

[faberryman]

I think the reason my point and shoot isn't used is because my other two cameras are entirely manual and it's a struggle to revert back to full automation.

Why is it a struggle?

 

[BrianVS]

Why not get a compact Rangefinder, like a Canonet QL17 GIII? 40mm F1.7 lens, manual and shutter-referred automatic modes. Not expensive, great lens, solid construction.

 

[Sirius Glass]

We enable GAS [Gadget Acquisition Syndrome] and we will enable people to spend money on photographic film equipment. Asking us for advice on whether or not to buy photographic equipment is like an alcoholic seeking advice for quitting drinking from a bar tender or liquor store.

 

[Paul Howell]

You may to think about a Konica Hexar or Minotla Tc, while not manual both have aperture preferred auto, the Konica a 35mm while the Minolta has a 28mm lens and faster shutter speed. But if was me, I would buy lens.

 

[BrianVS]

What gives anyone the idea that we encourage GAS?

Compacts by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

[Bill Burk]

Possibly the best thing for you to do is avoid confusing the situation with too many choices. They will get in the way of your creativity and hold you back. Get two more compact lenses for your Nikon SLR. Slight telephoto such as 90 and slight wide such as 35mm or 24mm. To keep it compact and affordable choose the smaller like f/2.8 instead of the prized lenses like f/1.4

The lenses will fit in a small bag and give you plenty of versatility

 

[blockend]

It's unfortunate that photographers no longer build the kind of lasting relationship with their equipment they once did. There is nothing to match the instinctive knowledge of where the controls are, the feel of a knurled dial beneath your thumb, the sense of knowing exactly how a camera will meter. However if you want a true carry anywhere point and shoot, something to whip out of a vest pocket and click, then automation is a necessity. I've never been convinced by the non-automated aspects of P&S cameras, once you move away from fully automated modes their size mitigates against easily accessible control surfaces, and they become fiddly or cumbersome to operate. Nor would I drop a load of cash on a non-serviceable camera, no matter how well specified.

FWIW I really like my Olympus XA3. The lens is a cut above the point and shoot norm, and three zone focusing offers control without the lag of AF compacts. It's also tiny. It's not an FM2 but there's no excuse to take it everywhere except the bathroom.

 

[Cholentpot]

What gives anyone the idea that we encourage GAS?

Compacts by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

You don't need that Leica send it to me at once.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Re-reading your original post carefully, I agree with what Bill Burk wrote.

I think you'll be happier with better lenses for your SLR instead of an additional P&S.

 

[CMoore]

Hi everyone,
..... (looking at the T2) to replace my cheapo one.
.....My favourite 35mm camera ever is the FM2 - and I feel like with that, a proper compact and my MF setup one won't get enough usage. The other option I've thought about is buying some nice Nikon glass. While I don't like having too many lenses, the two I own are defected in some way as I was forced to buy on the cheap after puchasing the FM2 body.

1. Isn't the T2 a rather expensive and "Obsolete" camera.?
My Canon Sure Shot 80 (i think that is the model) is 30 years old, and takes great pictures. It does exactly what i occasionally need a P&S to do. They are VERY Affordable.
2. Don't you already own your "Favorite 35mm camera ever" .?
Seems like the logical path to take would be to..... buy a few lens for that.
Maybe a....... 28, and 50 and an 85. They cover A LOT of ground.
good luck

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi everyone,

Over the last few months I've put some money aside with the intention of buying a higher end P+S (looking at the T2) to replace my cheapo one. However, I've since come to the realisation that I don't actually use my compact that much. My favourite 35mm camera ever is the FM2 - and I feel like with that, a proper compact and my MF setup one won't get enough usage. The other option I've thought about is buying some nice Nikon glass. While I don't like having too many lenses, the two I own are defected in some way as I was forced to buy on the cheap after puchasing the FM2 body.

I think the reason my point and shoot isn't used is because my other two cameras are entirely manual and it's a struggle to revert back to full automation. Perhaps with a compact with a bit more control, like the T2, it would get more use? I really like to keep my gear to a minimum and it's a ton of money to drop on something I won't use. Do any 35mm shooters care to weigh in? Also, if any gear minimalists regularly shoot with both a high end compact AND an SLR I'd love to hear your experiences.

If it were me, I'd concentrate on the FM2 and invest in glass. Too many systems are counterproductive.

 

[Sewin]

It's unfortunate that photographers no longer build the kind of lasting relationship with their equipment they once did. There is nothing to match the instinctive knowledge of where the controls are, the feel of a knurled dial beneath your thumb, the sense of knowing exactly how a camera will meter.

Very true.

I watched Britain in Focus last night (again) on BBC4, seeing Jane Brown with her old battered Rolleiflex and Olympus.

Also watched the other night Phillip Larkins Life Behind the Camera, he scraped enough money together to buy a secondhand Rolleiflex and used it all of his life.

People just didn't have the money back in the 50's and 60's to have numerous cameras.

 

[blockend]

Very true.

I watched Britain in Focus last night (again) on BBC4, seeing Jane Brown with her old battered Rolleiflex and Olympus.

Also watched the other night Phillip Larkins Life Behind the Camera, he scraped enough money together to buy a secondhand Rolleiflex and used it all of his life.

People just didn't have the money back in the 50's and 60's to have numerous cameras.

The subject is something of a hobby horse for me. People constantly ask should I get this camera or that, but within a type they all function similarly and branded lenses show few differences across a film format and price bracket. People may want to experiment between SLRs and rangefinders, TLRs and modular 120 cameras, but having decided on a preferred type, there's no magic dust to be found elsewhere, and considerable benefit to developing an instinctive familiarity with your existing equipment.

When enthusiasts had less cash and/or cameras were more expensive, their photographs were no worse than current ones. You could make a case for modern P&S cameras and smart phones delivering more consistent images than a plastic 35mm Halina, but there's been 50 years of development in between. When I was young I fell into the same trap, Olympus or Nikon, Bronica or Mamiya? Looking back on my negatives now it really didn't matter. Find something you like and stop looking, is the advice I'd give my younger self. And take more pictures.

 

[OlyMan]

I used to have a Pentax P&S zoom camera but got shot of it when I first bought a smartphone. All the advantages it had over my SLRs and DSLR which sometimes influenced my decision to take it with me and leave them behind (lightweight, compact, fits in a jacket, less likely to get damaged) my smartphone does better, and like most of us I carry my smartphone everywhere. Opinions will differ, and that's fine; I won't argue with anyone who says they just prefer the experience of using a real camera regardless. But I quickly found that after I bought my first smartphone, my old P&S just gathered dust. I still have my 35RC and Trip, but really only out of nostalgia, I've not pushed a film through either of them for the best part of a decade.

So I guess all that just to say make sure you will actually use it.

 

[Sewin]

I agree blockend.
Sometimes I fall foul of buying the odd M42 body or lens,just to try it out.
I've trimmed back over the past couple of years, sticking to a few basic inexpensive mechanical bodies and lenses.
I could afford to buy more expensive lenses and bodies if I wanted to, but don't really see the point. And I enjoy the challenge they give.

Regarding P & S I bought a couple a while ago on fleabay at a good price, but never used them.

 

[blockend]

Regarding P & S I bought a couple a while ago on fleabay at a good price, but never used them.

I own a ridiculous amount of compact cameras, but only use a few. Most were bought as job lots to get the one a fancied. On one occasion I bought 25 for £5 on eBay. All but one worked. A few weeks ago I bought a handful to get an XA3. Advertised individually, the nice prime lens ones would sell for £20-£60, more for a mjuII or an XA. Purchased in a large group I've never paid more than £15 for a box full.

Some disregarded compacts are almost as good as, or equal to cult point and shoot cameras. However if you blog that information with test results eBay becomes a bun fight for months. I think most boutique compact cameras are carried as jewellery.

 

[Paul Howell]

The subject is something of a hobby horse for me. People constantly ask should I get this camera or that, but within a type they all function similarly and branded lenses show few differences across a film format and price bracket. People may want to experiment between SLRs and rangefinders, TLRs and modular 120 cameras, but having decided on a preferred type, there's no magic dust to be found elsewhere, and considerable benefit to developing an instinctive familiarity with your existing equipment.

When enthusiasts had less cash and/or cameras were more expensive, their photographs were no worse than current ones. You could make a case for modern P&S cameras and smart phones delivering more consistent images than a plastic 35mm Halina, but there's been 50 years of development in between. When I was young I fell into the same trap, Olympus or Nikon, Bronica or Mamiya? Looking back on my negatives now it really didn't matter. Find something you like and stop looking, is the advice I'd give my younger self. And take more pictures.

In the large I agree, it's the eyeball behind the camera that makes an image, on the other side there are reasons to look at different gear and makes. Range of features, size and weight, range of lens, service ability, cost, and lastly, subjective, the feel of a camera. The "feel" of a camera can be a real difference, once you no longer think about your gear and just look. I never liked Olympus or for that matter Nikormate because I don't like the placement of the shutter speed dial, others find Olympus's controls be just right for them. The only way to figure what works to handle different makes and modes, some times you have to kiss a lot of frogs to find a prince or princess.

In terms of point and shoots, I have a bunch, someone at work gave me box she had found when cleaning out her father's house after he passed. I tried most brands and found that I liked Pentax IQ the best. I don't use my smart phone much, want a zoom or a normal lens, smart phones are too wide for my taste. If I had the money I would think about Hextar or Minolta TC, my concern is that it is a lot of money for cameras that are no longer, or difficult, to have serviced. On the other hand I just picked up a Olympus Trip 50 AF with 28mm 6.3 3 element lens, one shutter speed and DX coding for 100, 200 and 400, I paid $2.00 for it at a thrift store. May not be the same as a Minolta TC-1 with the 4 element, 3 APO elements lens, top shutter speed of 1/750, but it cost .0025% of a TC-1 and from I have seen used in good lighting with ISO 100 film does a decent job. If it brakes I'll just toss it and get another.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What gives anyone the idea that we encourage GAS?

Compacts by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

I am a GAS enabler.

 

[Ces1um]

Hi everyone,

Over the last few months I've put some money aside with the intention of buying a higher end P+S (looking at the T2) to replace my cheapo one. However, I've since come to the realisation that I don't actually use my compact that much. My favourite 35mm camera ever is the FM2 - and I feel like with that, a proper compact and my MF setup one won't get enough usage. The other option I've thought about is buying some nice Nikon glass. While I don't like having too many lenses, the two I own are defected in some way as I was forced to buy on the cheap after puchasing the FM2 body.

I think the reason my point and shoot isn't used is because my other two cameras are entirely manual and it's a struggle to revert back to full automation. Perhaps with a compact with a bit more control, like the T2, it would get more use? I really like to keep my gear to a minimum and it's a ton of money to drop on something I won't use. Do any 35mm shooters care to weigh in? Also, if any gear minimalists regularly shoot with both a high end compact AND an SLR I'd love to hear your experiences.

The more cameras you own, the less time you spend getting to know each camera. It gets harder to get out the door and shoot because you aren't quite sure which one to bring. Unless you need a camera to take some radically different type of shot I'd be happy with what you already enjoy using. Buying more cameras is fun. It gives you something new to play with. It's also more clutter and more decisions down the road. No wrong answer here though. You make money to enjoy life so if you really want it, buy it. Just realize there are downsides to it too. I now have 8 cameras, waiting for my ninth. I'm also in the process of culling out some as well. I'd like to get down to 3. A 35mm, a medium format and an instant.

 

[blockend]

Things to look out for on compact cameras include:
Manual ASA setting. DX coding makes bulk loaded cassettes and exposure override harder.
Manual flash setting. You don't want flash going off in places compact cameras are useful without your permission. You need fill in for back lit scenes.
Silly telephoto lengths. Compacts are not wildlife cameras. You'll be shooting at f9 or slower and require 1000 ASA film to avoid blur. Many don't go that far. And your camera will look like an excited donkey.
Zoom vs prime. Prime lens compacts are more desirable, but this isn't always born out by the results. Compacts are not portrait cameras and the stop slower rarely makes a difference. An Olympus MjuII costs up to £200 at current prices. You can pick up the same camera with a short zoom for £15 or less.
Auto vs manual film advance. This can be a biggie. Compact film cameras embraced auto-wind like a long lost relative, but noisier. Some sound like a bear trap being sprung. The 80s and 90s were not a quiet time for cameras. Thumb wheels are a good thing. A few remained quiet as the shutter was pressed and only advanced when you remove your finger. An interesting compromise.
AF vs manual focus. Early AF was zoned in very few places, and was slow. Later autofocus was better, and added more zones, becoming almost seamless. Many AF compacts exhibit slow start up and/or focus lag. Symbol or zone focus is useful and quick.
Batteries. Automated cameras use a variety of batteries, some more readily available than others. AA types are cheapest and most accessible, and it goes down hill from there. A few take double cell (CR5?) batteries 90s SLRs adopted that were more expensive than shooting chromes.

There's more but that's a primer. This guy has a useful site for anyone interested in 35mm compacts: https://austerityphoto.co.uk/

 

[Larry the sailor]

I'm another vote for better lenses.

It's hard to be a good piece of glass.

 

[BrianVS]

Just picked up a Kodak Retina IIc for $35, 50mm F2.8 Xenon, coupled rangefinder, all metal construction, folding lens, compact design.
If you can handle manual exposure and RF focus- worth looking at. The 50/2.8 Xenon is very good, classic 1950s German rendering.
A high-end compact from the 1950s.