The perfect point and shoot for backpacking

[Huss]

An undervalued small camera is Ricoh FF1, a sort of Minox.
It has a very good lens but is more reliable than Minox, zone focus,
hasn't aperture priority , just program but with 1/60 syncro shutter speed
one is free to use diaphragm at certain light conditions , non DX code.

I had three! Gave one to a friend, now down to two. Superb cameras, excellent lenses, reliable, tiny. Came in three versions - FF1, FF1s (self timer added), and a Sears Auto 35 which is just the FF1 rebadged.
Highly recommended.

 

[Huss]

This would be what I had in mind! Plastic and lightweight. Use it when that Nikon 35ti or Ricoh GR won’t operate. Otherwise leave it tucked in a corner of the pack. View attachment 298973

Not sure how having a crap camera as back up is a good idea. A totally crap camera that is only useful if your exposure works around 1.125 @ f11. And you don'r care about sharpness etc.
Yeah I know these trinkets can be fun if your drunk down at the beach and it doesn't matter if Mandy spills her daiquiri on it. But as a back up? Why?

 

[Bill Burk]

Not sure how having a crap camera as back up is a good idea. ...as a back up? Why?

Weight is a serious matter when backpacking. I looked back over my years of backpacking where I brought two cameras, and in almost every case the main camera worked fine the entire trip.

With as much care as we are taking to select an excellent camera for backpacking, the risk that the camera will malfunction is low.

If that holds true, the backup camera will never be needed. It's best for backpacking, that if you must carry something that you aren't going to use... that it doesn't weigh very much.

 

[Huss]

Weight is a serious matter when backpacking. I looked back over my years of backpacking where I brought two cameras, and in almost every case the main camera worked fine the entire trip.

With as much care as we are taking to select an excellent camera for backpacking, the risk that the camera will malfunction is low.

If that holds true, the backup camera will never be needed. It's best for backpacking, that if you must carry something that you aren't going to use... that it doesn't weigh very much.

Carrying a garbage camera is just unnecessary weight... Seriously have you seen the results from it? Just because it is small and light does not make it worthy. If that was the requirement, I've got a reusable 110 film camera that is even smaller and lighter. And honestly takes better pics.

 

[Bill Burk]

The slim and wide camera is 65 grams, about the weight of a Clif bar.

It would be my choice, but think twice, even the weight of a Clif bar can be burdensome.

One day mid trip on a section of the John Muir trail by Lake Edison my buddy Tom and I burned a bunch of Clif bars because we weren’t eating them at the rate we expected.

 

[Huss]

The slim and wide camera is 65 grams, about the weight of a Clif bar.

It would be my choice, but think twice, even the weight of a Clif bar can be burdensome.

One day mid trip on a section of the John Muir trail by Lake Edison my buddy Tom and I burned a bunch of Clif bars because we weren’t eating them at the rate we expected.

Why on earth would you burn Clif bars? You could have used them as currency to convince the squirrels to act as sherpas for that ridiculously heavy Olympus Mju you had brought along.

 

[mgb74]

Another thought, because I have brought multiple cameras on many backpacking trips.

Whenever I used the ‘second choice’ camera, it felt like a missed opportunity to use the better one. Whether it was between a Minox vs 4x5 or Rollei 35 vs SLR. Even now anytime I reach for the phone instead of the camera, I feel like I missed a shot.

Best would be to bring a real good camera and a plastic piece of junk that can take the same film in case the good camera breaks. Never use the junk camera unless you have to. But don’t bring two pretty good cameras and switch back and forth..

There's a price to be paid for every ounce of weight you carry. I personally wouldn't pay that price for a junk camera. I would pay the price for a camera that gave me something different, such as a different focal length, weatherproofing, etc.

 

[mgb74]

I had three! Gave one to a friend, now down to two. Superb cameras, excellent lenses, reliable, tiny. Came in three versions - FF1, FF1s (self timer added), and a Sears Auto 35 which is just the FF1 rebadged.
Highly recommended.

My Minox 35 bit the dust a while back (though may be repairable). So the the Ricohs you mentioned peaked my interest. And the Sears version. But, based on photos seen as I've searched, I think you mean the Sears Mini 35 (not Auto 35).

 

[Huss]

My Minox 35 bit the dust a while back (though may be repairable). So the the Ricohs you mentioned peaked my interest. And the Sears version. But, based on photos seen as I've searched, I think you mean the Sears Mini 35 (not Auto 35).

You Sir, are correct! Just pulled it out to see. Full name is Sears Mini 35 Programmed

 

[Huss]

Ricoh FF1, Arista 100, DF96 Mono

Showing how this tiny Ricoh (very similar to a Minox 35 but actually works) handles backlighting - no ghosting/haze. I used the manual ISO setting to add exposure.
A really great, underrated camera.

The only weird thing about it is the wrist strap lug is on the left of the camera. While the film advance lever is on the right. So what should be a great, one handed experience instead is a little awkward.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

P&S never meant to be for "superb image quality". Where are some limited versions of P&S which intent to be "superb image quality", but they are defunct now and overpriced by hipsta.

Get EOS 300 with 22-55 USM EF lens. It is compact, light kit, no brainer in use, powerful flash and they have rechargeable batteries now sold with the charger (at least on ebay).
It is very reliable comparing to compromised P&S.

 

[StevieRose]

When I was young and backpacking everywhere I took an Olympus mju ii/Stylus Epic which never failed to bring back in focus well exposed photos. But, as mentioned, they are now in the $250-300 range and getting long in the tooth. Now I would take this light, compact, well specified combo that costs very little and has a killer lens which I wrote about here: https://theonlinephotographer.typep...017/09/so-you-say-you-want-to-shoot-film.html

 

[Bill Burk]

Why on earth would you burn Clif bars? You could have used them as currency to convince the squirrels to act as sherpas for that ridiculously heavy Olympus Mju you had brought along.

It was the ridiculously heavy Littman 45 Single VI on that trip, no spare camera. I don’t want anyone to chase me down that rabbit hole, large format is great, but medium format is nice enough. A nice 6x45 Ikonta (not rangefinder though) is in the classifieds.

Trade with the wildlife can be profitable. On a trip in the ‘70s my party was able to trade contents of a film can for several huge trout caught by a guy with his dog, Dave. I don’t remember if that was his dog’s name or him, almost at the same spot where we burned Clif bars. He showed me a fishing spot where the trail left the creek because of the rocks that hid all the big fish. Loaned me a fly which I caught on a rock. He sent me after the fly. I retrieved it but never fished again.

 

[Huss]

I was expecting a picture of the trout.

 

[Down Under]

If we overlook (for the moment) points 3 and 6 from the OP, a Contax G1 in rough body but good mechanical condition, loaded with Ilford XP2 or HP5, and with a Zeiss Planar 45/2.0 G lens would do everything you want and give you much pleasure to play with.

Nobody really needs a flash for bush walking/backpacking anyway, it tends to scare away the 'roos and the wallabies, but then you wouldn't want the former to get too close to you, they can be nasty when provoked, especially the randy boomers when the flyers are carrying joeys in their pouches.

(PS A Google search will reveal all.)

 

[ph]

I started hiking photography with a Leica IIIc + collapsible summicron 50 (+FP3 & PanX) and went on to a minuscule Minox BL, but soon found that film format too small, so i tried a big Minox but after 3 of them collapsed with shutter trouble, even after guarantee repairs, I went on to use a Rollei which still is operational- I found the Minox lenses sharp and contrasty enough for Kodachrome slides , as were the Rollei Tessars & Sonnars. Never tried to expose any of these to pouring rain, but as long as my clothes kept me dry, the cameras survived. and all can be recommended as hiking equipment . I second the Ilford XP recommendation, grainy, but very forgiving if your exposures go wrong, but C41 development is needed, Currently I pocket a digital thing, a Sony RX100 which works, but lacks the opportunity for a sunshade , has an ineffective viewfinder in broad daylight and all the currently usual useless battery eating "featiures".

p.

 

[Paul Howell]

Another suggestion, Konica S3, also sold with a different lens as the Vivitar 35 ES, not AF, it is a rangefinder, Shutter Speed Preferred auto exposure, ASA/ISO range 50 to 800, lens, the Konica 38mm 1.8 the Vivitar 40 1.7, the Konica version has a 6 element lens, very sharp lens, the Vivitar also has a 6 element lens is 4 groups. Both take 49mm filters. Film advance is manual. I have both, I can vouch for the lens, sharp enough to resolve Tmax 100 or Extar 100, metering is simple average the meter cell is just above the lens, the sensor is covered by any filter you use. Film advance is manual. I use zinc air battery, last a couple of weeks.

 

[wahiba]

My first choice today would be an Olympus mu-II but no exposure compensation. In fact I cannot remember seeing a small auto compact with that feature. That really leaves the Rollie 35 range. If you can get one with the light meter system still working, great but as it is just a coupled system they work fine without. Practically I would take both. The Rollie 35 is manual, just stick an exposure guide on the back. While the 35T and the 35T are top models the cheaper version with limited speed range and a Triotar lens are more than adequate. I still have my 35LED from new (no longer LED though) and I did use it back packing. Difference with the Sonnar and Tessar might be noticeable in 20x16 prints but not really in anything less.

An interesting budget backup for sunny days would be the Lomo Sardina. A 200 asa film is fine for sunny days and images are pretty good for a fixed aperture & shutter speed camera. Super wide angle lens is actually more useful than one initially thinks. Great for arm length selfies, especially a couple.

A real micro is the Olympus XA1 f4 and 100 and 400 asa only but no battery needed with a selenium cell working Trip style. I expect the rest of the XA range will as good, if not better.

Back to Lomo there is of course the original Lomo 35. New from Lomo but originals are still around.

Sardina 200 asa

Olympus AX1

Olympus mu-ii

Rollie 35 xLEDx

 

[Omid_K]

I know it is off your radar, but I would think about a simple 35mm SLR, in the auto focus world the Minolta 3, Pentax MZ 6, Canon Rebel, not much larger than a fixed lens point and shoot, these are last generation made in the late 90s and early 20s, so 10 years newer. With a 40mm pancake lens, pretty small package with lots more flexibility. All have manual exposure mode and program modes that can set to what conditions you are shooting, landscape, night, close up. And they are cheap, but a 40mm lens might cost more than you are willing to spend. The 50 1.7 AF is not as compact, with cheap, Minolta made a lot of them, takes 49mm filters and lens hood. All have small built in flash, not sure how good they are as fill in flash. For the price of a Minolta 3, buy 2, toss one in your luggage as a spare.

I second this suggestion. An EF body canon like the Elan 7 family paired with a 40mm/2.8 pancake is not much bigger than a point and shoot. Sure, it's not pocket sized but it meets all your criteria and then some. In addition to using it in full auto mode you'll be able to use full manual controls if you find a unique situation that would outsmart the meter. Great glass and much more precise autofocus than most P&S cameras will leave you with more keeper shots from your trip. My MJUii is great but it produces way too many missed focus shots to be relied on for a memorable trip.

 

[Tony-S]

It's a bit surprising to me that this thread is ongoing. After many backpacking trips in the Rocky Mountains, the weight of an SLR with a decent zoom lens is really not adding much to the weight of the pack contents. As mentioned before, a Rebel 300 (or similar) with a built-in flash and a 28-105 (or similar) is really not going to make much difference, even with its increased volumetric displacement. This is a trip of lifetime. Don't skimp out - you might regret it.

 

[DonW]

Another suggestion is the Nikon L35AF. Very sharp 35/2.8 lens, can take real photo filters for B&W (46mm I believe), exposure comp, and takes AA batteries (easy to by anywhere).

I second this choice. I used one for years while backpacking.

 

[Huss]

I second this choice. I used one for years while backpacking.

What happened to it? At this point in their life they are prone to go belly up w/o notice. Seen it happen to it, and the LW Action Touch version.

https://casualphotophile.com/2019/07/10/nikon-l35aw-action-touch-review/

The L35AW feels dense and solid, and mine has survived a few drops, but it’s impossible to ignore the fact that the camera’s core is based on the L35AF2. In my camera shop, there’s a rather sad rack of broken cameras that we use for parts, occasional repairs, and to remind us of the temporaneous nature of our mortal existence. This shelf sadly holds quite a few L35AFs and L35AF2s.

 

[Jon Buffington]

I am also partial to the olympus XA4 as a very pocketable hiking/bacpacking P&S. First image is Kentmere 100, second is TriX

 

[faberryman]

I know it is heretical, but my advice is to just pick any working 35mm point and shoot. Spend the time you would spend on determining which camera has the best lp/mm and MTF on reading in depth about where you are going and what you can expect to see. And don't forget to carry an extra battery.

 

[brancaleone]

Hi,
I own and would recommend an Olympus AF 1 super ( I believe there are no major diffferences with the plain 'no super' version). It is a fixed 35mm f2.8 pont and shoot with deactivable flash. A bounus to me, since most of the camera in this range have auto only flash. It is claimed to share the same lens (4 elements in 4 groups), and therefore the same optic quality, of the most renowen and expensive Olympus miju II.

I am not a fan of zoom, but among the many p&s camera I have, the one that I like most so far in terms of image quality is a Minolta Riva zoom 75W with a versatile 28 mm f/3.5 – 75 mm f/8.9 lens.

below Minolta and HP5+









The two cameras above are about the same zize

Another option, considerably different in terms of specs, ia a super tiny camera, the Ricoh FF1. It is truly a pocket camera with its retractable lens, a Rikenon 35mm f2.8. It has no flash and no autofocus. It is a scale focus camera like the Rollei 35, so you have to guess focus. Image quality is good, not superb, and guessing the subject distance can be intimidating. However it is so tiny that I carry it almost everyday in my jeans pocket for casual snapshots, its the smallest camera I ever owned.

Some pics with hp5+ and fomapan 200