Looking for a non-digital, mostly auto camera

[HorizonSeeker]

I'm going to China at the end of Sept. and will be going on scenic trips. The only camera i have right now is a decade old point and shoot which serves well for the amount of use it sees (about 3 times a year), and a SLR that I haven't used since high school. but since I graduated and found a job, I will be travelling on my vacation a lot more to asia and europe and in the US, and I want to find a camera that can take better quality pictures.

having said that, I want to find a camera that is mostly automated but have some manual control, will take quality pictures (assuming i do my part).

1) non-digital, rather not deal with cards and losing 100+ pics at once.

2) not too bulky, since I'll be travelling with it and *try* to *capture the moment* if you will, I'd prefer something that is easy to carry.

3) with auto-control that will be suitable for most situation but has manual if I want to have more control, this is mainly a carry over from my SLR days when it was all manual and took a while to get shots set, no candid with that one!

4) somewhere in the middle of cost spectrum, don't want it to break bank, but don't want something out of a trunk from the guy down the street. I'm thinking $200 - $300, if that's too unrealistic, please post and I will change.

5) this is a little separate, but if the camera doesn't come with waterproofing accessory, where can I get one?

TIA for the replies.

 

[Ryan]

No digital?! This thread isn't cool :frown:

 

[mikebb]

Canonet G-III 17 maybe not as automatic as you like, but a very capable camera. You can find them on Ebay for less than 75 bucks.

 

[DurocShark]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com

And I assume you want an autofocus camera? Minolta Maxxum 5 or even 3 is very small and light, but still takes the full sized lenses. Nikon and Canon both have similarly priced and sized offerings.

And they sell waterproof housings that are like big heavy ziploc bags with a glass part that screws to the lens. They start at around $60 IIRC.

If you're looking used, that same website has many used cameras and other equipment. Also, http://www.keh.com is another great used camera site.

The two sites I've listed here get great reviews from camera buyers, as opposed to the other NY places like "smile" and such. They get horrid reviews, bad customer service, charging extra for the accessories that come in the box (!) etc. I've personally dealt with both of them and can say they're great.

If you want manual focus (but auto exposure) a used Minolta x570 or x700 will give you great bang for your buck... And the lenses are widely available on the used market (and some of the best imho).

Also, if you want used, PM me... I've got some gear I could probably help you with too...

EDIT: I just realized you were talking about non-SLR's. But the same sites are good sources...

 

[igowerf]

Are there non-SLR non-Digital manual cameras?

 

[kyutip]

If you want mainly P&S, I think Yashica T4 is one of the best out there. Oly Stylus Epic series is pretty good too.
But I've never seen P&S with some sort of manual control.
You have get a small SLR like Canon Rebel G or T1 and one lens to have manual control.
I have Oly IS-20 ZSLR. It has fixed lens but very easy to use.
My wife hates those manual control but she does not have a problem with IS-20.
There are 4 fast button to take night, sport, portrait and landscape picture.
There is also a full auto mode. Best of all, it use 28mm at wide end and 110mm at tele.
Go to Best Buy and look around, give it a try with your hand to see if you like the size and operation or not.
If they don't have it, Ritz may have better selection but they are overprice.

 

[KC5AV]

Some of the lower-end canon rebels are pretty good... I haven't checked prices recenly, but I used to see the Rebel G for not much more than that at Wal-Mart. It's a darn good camera, too. It has a built-in flash (don't try to use it at more than 10-15 feet), and there is some degree of manual control.

 

[lowtech1]

At $200-300 you might be able to get a Cannon Rebel SLR auto, but it is bulky.

You can get nice point and shoot such as the olympus stylus fix-focused 35mm @ f:2.8 for about $100.00. It is a very small camera that only weight a few ounces, and take pictures just about as good as SLR (the lens is good enought for 8x10 prints). However, it flash is not good enought for most indoor situation.

As for underwater....the sky is the limit, because you can get cheap cammeras that cost less than $100 to 10 of thousands.

Your manual SLR is the best cantidate for the under water adveture....get yourself 1 or 2 Vivitar 283-285 flashes to complement it (a ring flash could can be a good choice if you can afford one). Underwater photo graphy is very different from above water, because water & impurity in the water greatly reduce the distance of what you can take (no such things as landscape photo). The best lens to have is a wide angle lens (20~50mm) so you can be closer to the subject to reduce the camera distance to subject. Auto focus is also not needed for under water photography because you will learn to use the depth of field for focusing range. There are many expensive underwater casing for your camera setup that you can get, but you can make your casing out of a thick plastic bag, glue a skylight filter on the front for the lens, and tripcord/remote is use to for triger. Then there such things as point-n-shoot under water camera unit that you can purchase for aroound $500-1000 that take some what okay picture (the wimpy flashes & lens doesn't serve justice to the sea life that you capture).

I personally would go with the second route if you are not going to addventure down deeper than 10 meters. Hit Google if you need instruction & plans for the underwater photography equipment setup and technique. Or, post here if you need more help.

 

[glen]

Canon Elf

 

[Scitex]

Have to agree with DurocShark.....I've got a Minolta Maxxum 5 and it's a fantastic camera, and right at or under $300 (with a basic lens). Most review sites agree it's the best camera by far in that price range. Super fast auto focus and can be used in full auto mode (even has something called "eye start" where it knows when your eye is close to the viewfinder and will auto focus) or has all the manual controls also. Go to a camera shop and look at all the different models and see if they feel right to your hand. The Minolta is smaller than the Nikons and Canons and if you've got big hands it may not have the right "feel".

 

[ElFenix]

the rebel is very lightweight, for an slr, only 14 ounces or so. still heavier than any p&s. of the p&s the yashica t4 super/t5 and the olympus stylus epic are the best. the epic is also weather resistant

 

[igowerf]

I have a Canon Rebel 2000 and I love it. I got with a cheap lense bundle and the autofocus is definitely faster than my Nikon Coolpix 4500 (digital) camera. The image quality is ok, but I think it could be way better if I got a better lense. I found that when I was printing my own pictures that I could notice film grain on 8"x10" prints.

Sorry to get off topic, but would a better lense take much sharper pictures?

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: igowerf
I have a Canon Rebel 2000 and I love it. I got with a cheap lense bundle and the autofocus is definitely faster than my Nikon Coolpix 4500 (digital) camera. The image quality is ok, but I think it could be way better if I got a better lense. I found that when I was printing my own pictures that I could notice film grain on 8"x10" prints.

Sorry to get off topic, but would a better lense take much sharper pictures?

What do you mean by printing your own pictures?
Black & white or colour?
Machine or hand print?
Did you crop the image and print only the section that you wanted (if so how much 16x20, 20x30?)?

The bundle lens isn't the top of the line, but any lens that Canon or any others maker built by using computer aided design should be able to produce good prints of 16x20 quality at f:8 or f:11 (sharpest setting).

It could be that you have been using very fast & grainny film. Or, it could be that your film reticulate becasue you incorrectly set the chemical & wash solution temperature range too far apart. Or, it could be that the image weren't focusing correctly in the enlarger.

Try some of the slower 50 or 100 ISO films, use a tri-pod, and follow the sugestive printing technique set by the manufacture to the dot to see if your image improve.

 

[igowerf]

It was for a photography class where we used enlargers to expose 8.5x11 (I think) sheets of photo paper. Then we ran it through a machine. I generally didn't crop the image because the grain would get worse as I enlarged the picture. I usually printed it on the paper leaving a white border, so the image was smaller than the paper.

I always used ISO 400 film (bw and color, Kodak and Fujifilm) and I usually spent a few minutes focusing the enlarger with a grain magnifier. I never did any of my own film development.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: igowerf
It was for a photography class where we used enlargers to expose 8.5x11 (I think) sheets of photo paper. Then we ran it through a machine. I generally didn't crop the image because the grain would get worse as I enlarged the picture. I usually printed it on the paper leaving a white border, so the image was smaller than the paper.

I always used ISO 400 film (bw and color, Kodak and Fujifilm) and I usually spent a few minutes focusing the enlarger with a grain magnifier. I never did any of my own film development.

Fuji Superia 400 enlarges the best of any 400 neg films I've used (and I use a lot!).

I have a film scanner and an awesome Epson photo inkjet, so I just have the negs processed, no prints. Scan 'em at 2700 DPI and I make 8x10's and 8x22's that are amazing. I prefer Fuji Superia for neg films and Provia for natural subjects and Astia for people when using trannys (slides).

Don't get any kind of APS camera, no matter how small or cool it is. The film is so small that any enlargements show bad grain. (My wife has a nice one but anything other than the standard 4x6" prints suck.)

There are many P&S cameras that allow shutter speed and aperture to be set.. It's just a PITA to get to those functions. An SLR is your best bet. Even the low end lenses generally give better results than most P&S lenses (except for the very high end ones... or the above mentioned Yashica T4 and Stylus Epic.)

I'm a Minolta fan, both manual focus and auto focus, and also have a Sigma SA autofocus that's pretty nice (got it from ATFS). Great value equipment, and Minolta always seems to come out with the coolest bodies.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: igowerf
It was for a photography class where we used enlargers to expose 8.5x11 (I think) sheets of photo paper. Then we ran it through a machine. I generally didn't crop the image because the grain would get worse as I enlarged the picture. I usually printed it on the paper leaving a white border, so the image was smaller than the paper.

I always used ISO 400 film (bw and color, Kodak and Fujifilm) and I usually spent a few minutes focusing the enlarger with a grain magnifier. I never did any of my own film development.

At 400 ISO you might notice grain at 8x10 if use of the shelf film, but film technology has greatly improved since the 80s, therefor grain shouldn't be that notice able when view by the naked eyes. Howerver you will notice the grain if use an 8X or 10X loop on the print & on the enlarger.

Today 200 ISO should produce good 8x10 print if the negative weren't too thin/under expose (under expose and push process will greatly increase grain & colour lost), however 50 ISO & high quality 100 ISO film/slide should give you much better result when print 8x10 of 11x14. At 16x20 the grain will be quite noticeable to the naked eyes if view from 1.5 foot. Most of the time 35mm should be able to handle daily print quality upto 8x10, but larger than that you will have to move into the medium & large format cameras. It is not the lens that is at fault here, but it is the film that is what failed you.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: igowerf
It was for a photography class where we used enlargers to expose 8.5x11 (I think) sheets of photo paper. Then we ran it through a machine. I generally didn't crop the image because the grain would get worse as I enlarged the picture. I usually printed it on the paper leaving a white border, so the image was smaller than the paper.

I always used ISO 400 film (bw and color, Kodak and Fujifilm) and I usually spent a few minutes focusing the enlarger with a grain magnifier. I never did any of my own film development.

Fuji Superia 400 enlarges the best of any 400 neg films I've used (and I use a lot!).

I have a film scanner and an awesome Epson photo inkjet, so I just have the negs processed, no prints. Scan 'em at 2700 DPI and I make 8x10's and 8x22's that are amazing. I prefer Fuji Superia for neg films and Provia for natural subjects and Astia for people when using trannys (slides).

Don't get any kind of APS camera, no matter how small or cool it is. The film is so small that any enlargements show bad grain. (My wife has a nice one but anything other than the standard 4x6" prints suck.)

There are many P&S cameras that allow shutter speed and aperture to be set.. It's just a PITA to get to those functions. An SLR is your best bet. Even the low end lenses generally give better results than most P&S lenses (except for the very high end ones... or the above mentioned Yashica T4 and Stylus Epic.)

I'm a Minolta fan, both manual focus and auto focus, and also have a Sigma SA autofocus that's pretty nice (got it from ATFS). Great value equipment, and Minolta always seems to come out with the coolest bodies.

See here for a great spread sheet on film: Film Sorting and Selection Spreadsheet

My favorite slide has always been Velvia 50 (excelent all around film slightly high colour saturation) & Provia 100 (the old beautiful & natural colour 50 Fujichrome enhanced). And, I uses Kodachrome 25 for archival purposes, and if I want to enhance red & orange colour range.

As for print film, I still stick with the old & trusty Reala 100 as the first choice for muti purpose film, because it produce the most natural human skin tone of any film that ever produce (NPS is not bad, but the colour is soften & tone down for portrait). RoyalGold 25, or NewSuperia 100 if I want some spunk with colours, and Optimal 100 if I want to produce great purples & violet colours.

 

[HorizonSeeker]

thanks for all the replies. looks like the minolta or the canon rebel will be my best bets, I will go to stores to get some hands on feeling for the two.

Ryan: no digital because if I were to go that route, I would go with a canon A70 pretty much w/ 256mb cards. so there's no point in asking.