Compact 35mm or APS camera?

[gnoymyguy]

What are the pros and cons of these two types of camera?

 

[snakesnfrogs]

if you plan on doing enlargements beyond 5"X7" prints, I wouldn't use APS---the actual negative is a good bit smaller than 35mm, therefore image quality will suffer. The only real benefit of APS, IMO, is the choice of 3 different size prints and the drop-in film loading.

 

[whizbang]

APS is easier to use but cameras are less flexible and probably take lower quality pics than is capable with standard 35mm. 35mm film is larger, so better for blow ups.

Bottom line, go over to the Hot Deals forum and find a deal on a digital camera. If you are considering APS, then you aren't a photog fanatic and APS was only an attempt to ward off the digital camera by photo processing giants.

Here's a good deal on a good digital camera (thanks HawkeyeNJ).

 

[Sluggo]

My wife really digs her APS camera. Easy load, great pics, and panoramic pics. Not gonna win any awards from Photography magazine, but for day to day pics it is great.

 

[gnoymyguy]

Cheers guys

does the zoom suck on APS? I see they're single digit zoom, so it could be a problem

 

[whizbang]

Optical zoom will always have some negative effect on image quality regardless of the camera cuz of the additional optical elements. Better quality lenses will have less effect. I don't think zoom on APS is much different than on any other point and shoot type cameras. Once again, your money is better spent on a digital camera unless you are looking for a low cost throw away to last a year or so. I've had two APS cameras and found the quality of the pictures to be average at best. The index print is cool, though.

 

[Sluggo]

APS also comes with indexed prints, and no loose negatives. A plus if you possess a disorganized personality.

If you are looking for ease of use and average-slighty above average quality prints APS could be for you.

If you are looking for a real quality prints and long term quality, even the cheapest 35mm cam still does better than digital cameras. And it has become an industry standard, therefore should still be around for years.

I have nothing against digicams, I own one. But it is used almost exclusively for quick pics to post online, and pics to e-mail. It has a voracious appetite for batteries, and offers no permanent pics, unless you are willing to make a substantial investment in a high quality printer and paper.

 

[snakesnfrogs]

here's a good comparison chart

 

[whizbang]

good point, Sluggo. However, I find negatives are easier to file than those bulky film cannisters.

 

[Sluggo]

Good find from snakesnfrogs

 

[mithrandir2001]

APS sucks. Because of the small negative, tonality and color balance suffer. I used to have one of those Canon Elph Jr. APS cameras: a marvel of miniturization and portability and a producer of tolerable snapshots, but anything enlarged looked like hell. Skin tones always looked funky and artificial. APS film is more expensive than 35mm as is processing. 35mm offers much better quality and a wider array of camera choices.

But I wouldn't fret the decision too much. Digital will kill off the non-pro film market in 5 years.

 

[gnoymyguy]

Wow...thanks for the great responses

I think I'll go with 35mm so are there any particular models you'd recommend up to $250?

 

[whizbang]

When I was in Cub Scouts, I made a pin hole camera out of a 126 film cartridge and a cardboard box. It took decent pictures, although exposure was hit and miss. Instamatics rocked!

 

[snakesnfrogs]

Canon SureShot Clasic 120

Pentax 928M---the extra bit of range at the wide end really comes in handy

Nikon Lite-Touch Zoom

Yashica T4 Super---it's not a zoom, but it does have one of the best lenses available on a point/shoot

 

[Sluggo]

Before my wife had an APS she had a Canon SureShot (older model) that she adored, took really great pics for a point-n-shoot.

Someone (who shall go un-named) dropped it and busted it, they were in the sheethouse for weeks.

 

[ElFenix]

digital will probably kill the pro film market (SLR at least, not medium and large) in 5 year as well. higher image quality after about 6 megapixels, plus instant results to see if you got the image you wanted. AP photographers already use digital.

as for the zoom, zooms all suck, no matter how much you spend they will still let in less light than a prime lens. even the best zooms let in half the light. on point and shoots its 1/8 the light at best (widest) and 1/32 or 1/64 at worst (most telephoto). many point and shoots, APS, 35mm, and digital, have 2x to 4x optical zoom (which really tells you nothing since you don't know how wide the camera is to begin with). the digitals usually have "digital zoom" which is nothing but a gimmick. you're not really getting more telephoto you're actually just enlarging a small portion of the photo, as you might in photoshop.

35 mm cameras tend to be cheaper. the film and processing is cheaper. theres more types of film available. higher resolution than APS or digital.
APS cameras are smaller. really small. easily pocket size.
digital cameras are fee-less. no processing, no film, unless of course you want to hold a picture in your hands. digital cameras, even the best, have much lower image quality than APS cameras. resolution simply isn't up to par. digitals also eat batteries. they are fine for snapshots around the house or your own town. but for a trip, you have to lug either a whole lot of expensive flash ram or a computer. plus you'll have to recharge all the time. 35mm and APS film and processing are available pretty much everywhere (even 500 miles from anywhere on the amazon, trust me)

 

[gnoymyguy]

the sureshot looks like a good buy..is it still in production or is it end of line? Sure hope i can find it here in Hong Kong


BTW are you guys into dv camcorders too? I'm currently considering either the Sony PC-110 or PC-9, or something decent under $1600

 

[snakesnfrogs]

The SureShot Classic 120 is definitely still in production. If I'm not mistaken, it hasn't even been on the market for a year yet.


it's called the Prima Super 120 Caption in Hong Kong

edit: just found this---it's got the extra bit of range at the wide end like the Pentax does---I wonder why it's not Available in the US?

 

[gnoymyguy]

isn't the super wide the same as this?

or does it not have the added wide caption?

 

[snakesnfrogs]

<< isn't the super wide the same as this?

or does it not have the added wide caption? >>




DOH! It's the same camera. I didn't even know that was available in the US.

 

[mithrandir2001]

<< digital cameras, even the best, have much lower image quality than APS cameras. resolution simply isn't up to par. >>


Lower theoretical resolution, yes, but not lower image quality. Quality and resolution are not necessarily 100% correlated. I have seen 3.3mp digital images printed as 8x10 enlargements that were dazzling. I have yet to see an 8x10 APS enlargement that doesn't look horrible.

35mm film may have a digital equivalent resolution of 6mp, but you can get better than 35mm quality out of a 3.3mp digicam. Why? Because resolution is not the end-all in quality. Digital has far wider exposure latitude than film...so while a digital enlargement may not be as tack sharp as a good 35mm print, printed digital images can be much smoother and natural in tone and balance. There are a lot of factors, of course, but the fact is that even 3.3mp digital offers competitive output to 35mm in its own way and digital is regularly superior to APS...sometimes staggeringly so.