First, a little background to my questions. A few years ago while fishing I briefly dipped my camera body (a Nikon FE) in the St. Croix River (so brief that the lens didn’t even get wet). The lens is fine but the body was damaged “beyond economical repair.” I replaced the body with a Nikon N70 which I don’t take fishing or canoeing or really anywhere near a body of water. I’d still like a camera I can take out on the water, so I asked for a cheap point-and-shoot camera for Christmas.
I got a camera as a gift, but my wife accidently bought a Kodak Advantix camera which does not use 35 mm film but rather uses Kodak’s “Advanced Photo System.” She said that if I’d rather have a 35 mm camera I could return the one she gave me. It seems like an OK camera and fits my criteria (cheap point-and shoot with zoom lens) and actually has some features that would be nice to have (such as the 3 picture formats) that may not be available on cheap 35 mm cameras. I don’t know if I should exchange it or not. I would like to know more about it before I decide what to do. What I am wondering is:
Cost: How does the cost of APS film and developing/printing compare to 35 mm film?
How accepted has that format been; will it be around for many more years?
How does the size of the negative image compare to that of 35 mm negatives? (I’m wondering for enlargement purposes.)
Has anyone out there had experience with these cameras? Should I stay strictly with 35 mm film or do the features of the APS system/camera make it worthwhile to use that format too? Thanks. (This post seems to fall somewhere between GQ and IMHO so feel free to move it if IMHO was the place for it).
I’ve had a little experience with these things. The film is pretty standard these days and you should be able to get it developed easily. The negative is smaller than 35mm, so don’t count on enlarging anything bigger than 8x10.
As a Nikon phreak, I’d get another 35mm camera and stick with a consolidated film supply. Many 35mm PhD (Push here Dummy) cameras have all of the same features. Interchangablity of your film between cameras is far more important.
"Cost: How does the cost of APS film and developing/printing compare to 35 mm film? "
Only you can answer that by going to your local processor & ask. or do it from the net, Im sure they are cheaper that way.
I bought a Kodak 35 camera in December for $8.00 comes with film, reusable, with flash & battery. I buy film for about $1.50 for 24exp & pay $4.99 to process into paper prints & put on floppy disk. Spiffy. No one can tell its with a $8.00 camera either. These are REUSEABLE cameras too.
I just had some film processing done today cost of 24 35mm: just under 7.00. Guy following me with advantix was charged 11.00 and commented that the last roll he had developed in the southern part of the state was over 20.00 to process. He liked the different formatting. The processor grumbled at the smaller size of the negative and the quality of the resulting prints. Keep in mind that this is at a 1/2 hour photo.
APS has a very limited film selection. It does have certain advantages to the technology impaired: fool-proof loading, easy organizing, the thrill of a 4"x 7" print. The codes on the side of the film talk to the developing machine: aperture/shutter speed are registered for each shot. No big deal if you did not select them originally. APS is still improving, has a long way to go. And the negative is smaller. And no B&W or slides.
Pay a little more for your “PHD” camera. Pentax has a neat line of weather resistant auto-everythings “WP” (for weather proof: can’t stand a dunking but ok with morning dew/afternoon sweat).
I use a Nikon FM2 with lenses from 24mm to 210mm and flash, a Nikon Lite-touch (28mm point-n-shoot, accurate enough to put a roll of chrome through), an Agfa digital, and a little Polaroid Santa just gave me.
I love my point-n-shoot because:
it’s easy, has a focal range of 10"(!)–infinity, has a fixed 28mm lens (most p&s are 36 or 38mm at widest), it is very small, has slowest shutter speed of almost a second.
I love my digital because I can email pictures to my neices and nephew right after I see them on a holiday. I got it for Christmas last year and it took a couple of weeks to fall in love. I had to buy all the extras before I was happy (AC adaptor, recharcheable batteries, extra Smartmedia)
I love my manual 35mm camera system 'cause I can do almost anything with it. I love macro. I love telephoto. I love normal. I love getting 40 mb scans of negatives and playing with them in photoshop.
I was given a polaroid for christmas and don’t love it yet.
If I were given an APS camera for Christmas I would try to be diplomatic and trade it in for a 35mm.
For cheap film processing try http://www.snapfish.com it only costs you shipping which is something like $1.50, I forget exactly how much it is right now. Basically you get your prints online and in regular prints for a fraction of the cost of regular priting.
Also take a look at the Olympus Stylus Epic. It’s the smallest 35mm P&S out there, and has an excellent lens, probably the best of the reasonably priced P&S. The Yashica T4 is slightly better, but more expensive.
The Olympus is “weatherproof” and I’ve used it on the water, skiing, winter mountaineering and it’s fine. Ed Vestiers used it on his last Everest climb, so I figure it’s pretty robust.
If you want robust, good image quality, and weatherproof, stay away from zoom lenses. The fixed lens cameras give better images, and if you have your big Nikon system as well, it makes sense.
I agree with the idea of keeping a single supply of interchangable film. I just got back from two weeks in Thailand and Cambodia with an SLR and a P&S, and it’s nice to have a big supply of film that you can pick and choose from.
I just bought myself a digital camera, so we’ll see how much I continue to use the P&S…
note to self:
“So what’s the catch? We ask you to visit Snapfish to
see your new album within 30 days of email notification that
your pictures are online. If you choose not to, you’ll pay a
development fee of $3.99 per roll.”
One other consideration. My Minolta APS camera malfunctioned when it was only four months old, but I don’t have any warranty info on it (it was a gift). I have half a roll of pictures of our little boy in there which I can’t get out now! The only way to get the film out is to send the camera to California to be repaired.
I probably won’t repair it since I just got a digital camera from my wife for an Xmas present. I got the tiny little Canon Digital Elph - two megapixels in a 3.5 x 2 x 1 inch package. The only problem with this one is that the packaging and specs say that it works with Windows 95, but you actually have to have Win98 or 2000 to transfer images with the USB interface. I have a working USB interface in my Win95 machine, but the camera won’t use it. Instead I bought a compact flash to PCMCIA adapter for $13, and I put that into my WinNT notebook, then transfer that to my regular computer through my home network.
Anyone know a way to get these cameras’ USB interfaces to work with Win95?
Thanks for the replies. You pretty much confirmed my feelings. Any possible advantages of the APS camera don’t outweigh the big disadvantage (two film supplies needed). There shouldn’t be any problem returning the APS camera as my wife meant to get a 35 mm camera in the first place so she won’t feel bad if I take her selection back. (I wish it was always that easy.)
I just realized what might probably contributes to the higher (and more variable) costs of printing APS film. I’m pretty sure that panoramic and the “large” print formats cost more to print up than the “standard” print. The more expensive rolls of film could have a higher number of panoramic prints.
BTW, all images on an APS camera use the same negative size, regardless how they are printed. They just use a mask to select what to print. For the panoramics, they crop off the top and bottom of the negative, then print the image larger. You can do the same with a 35mm negative and get much better image quality.