Through the Rangefinder Thoughts about Photography and Equipment

Fuji Discovery 312 Point and Shoot

I could probably review old point and shoot cameras forever. Local thrift stores sell them for less than $5 each. Canon, Minolta, Konica, Pentax, Olympus, Ricoh, Argus.... You name it, you can find it cheap. I recently found a Fuji Discovery 312 with an EBC Fujinon lens and bought it for $1.99. I'm a big fan of EBC Fujinon lenses based on some shooting with a Fujica SLR+EBC Fujinon lens. While I can't be sure that a Fujinon in a point and shoot is the same as a Fujinon for an SLR, I was hopeful nonetheless.

The build of the Fuji 312 is nothing special. In fact, it's kind of bulky and cumbersome. Handling while shooting is nothing special. There's a significant delay from pushing the shutter release button to the time that the shutter is actually released. I wouldn't use this camera for action shots. The zoom control is fairly slow and startup/shutdown is leisurely as well. As far as tech specs go, the 312 is fairly underpowered. The top shutter speed is 1/250s and there's no exposure compensation. The zoom is decent, ranging from 38mm to 120mm.

Now, let's get down to the most important features. Image quality and exposure accuracy. I've got to hand it to Fuji, they did a great job with the lens and exposure meter. I shot a roll in overcast snowy conditions and the Fuji 312 did a great job in not being fooled by the white snow. In addition, the images were sharp and showed good detail. You would have a difficult time distinguishing the photos from this camera from photos taken with an SLR. My next photo test consisted of a few indoor flash shots. Again, the Fuji 312 did a nice job of not over-exposing and giving as natural a look as possible with an on-camera flash. I give the Discovery 312 very high marks in image quality. It's too bad Fuji didn't surround the lens with a better body.

Here are a couple of sample photos using ordinary Kodak Gold 200 processed at Walgreens.

Canon Sure Shot Classic 120

Cool stuff. The local thrift store had a Canon Sure Shot Classic 120 on sale for $7. I bought it, picked up some batteries (which cost more than the camera) and shot a roll while fishing with my son. My first impressions are that the Classic 120 is a *very* nice point and shoot. One especially nice feature is the custom feature. You can set the camera to any custom setting while the "best shot" dial is set to custom, and it will remember the settings the next time you use the camera. This is a great feature, although I'll probably use it most for suppressing the flash. The camera has a sort of program mode to recognize common photo scenarios. It also features a 3-point auto-focus system that is both active and passive. I had only one out of focus shot, so it seems to work well. The only drawback to the camera that I can see is its relatively slow zoom lens. It ranges from f4.5 - f10.9 at 38-120mm. I would have preferred a slightly faster lens ranging from 28mm to 100mm or so. The maximum f4.5 aperture makes for better depth of field for focusing purposes I suppose, but it nearly forces you into using ISO400 film or better. Flash mode on the Classic 120 is excellent. It's the only point and shoot I've tried so far that doesn't look horrible. The flash is softer somehow and doesn't result in white faces on Caucasian subjects. This is a definite plus.

Stylus Epic versus Yashica T4 Super versus Leica Z2X

Point and shoot film cameras have been a bit of an obsession of mine in the past year. I don't know why. Maybe it's the fact that old point and shoots are cheap. Regardless, I've been conducting subjective side by side tests of various point and shoot cameras. The first two I tested were a Yashica T4 Super and and a Stylus Epic. My conclusion was that both were very, very similar in performance in terms of sharpness, contrast, and exposure. The handling of each was different, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. I'd call it a toss-up. The next comparison was between the T4 and a Leica Z2X. I suppose most Leica people would have doubts about accepting a Z2X as "real" Leica. However, it supposedly has a real Leica lens. The test was conducted similarly to the test of the T4 and Stylus Epic. My wife and I visited Frink Park in the Leschi area of Seattle. It was a rainy but fairly bright overcast day.  I took a couple of flash shots, a few shots in the shadows, and a couple of shots when the sun briefly broke through the clouds. I kept the zoom on the Z2X at 35mm in order to have a fair comparison with the 35mm fixed lens on the T4. The film used was Kodak 400UC. I had both rolls of film developed and printed on the local Walgreens Frontier system on cheap 5x7 Kodak paper. The results were very interesting. I expected the Z2X to be a little softer in terms of sharpness, but I couldn't see any difference. For some photos the Z2X won, for others the T4 had the edge. But I should emphasize that the results were very close and the differences could easily be attributed to slight differences in camera shake. I'm a little bit surprised that the Z2X was as good as the fixed lens on the T4. Maybe if I enlarged to 8x10 there would be a noticeable difference. As it is, I can't see any significant difference in lens performance. In terms of ease of shooting, the T4 is smaller and has the top viewer feature. On the other hand, the Z2X has a zoom which is helpful. I could see carrying both of these with two different films. Based on the results of this test, I might end up carrying around the Z2X more often due to the flexibility of having a zoom lens.

More thoughts on the Stylus Epic

I shot a roll of Fuji 200 today with my Epic. What a huge difference in quality compared to the 400 speed films I previously tried (Kodak HD400 and Fuji 400H). I can't explain why the cheap 200 speed film would turn out *much* better 5x7 prints compared to the 400 speed film. Perhaps the ISO 200 negatives scan better on my local Walgreen's Frontier system? It doesn't make sense to me that 1 stop difference in film speed would make such a noticeable difference. To test things, I ordered some 5x7 reprints of photos from my Fuji 400H roll from Costco which uses a Noritsu system rather than a Fuji Frontier system. I'll have the results
tomorrow. Walgreens uses cheap Kodak paper while Costco uses cheap glossy Fuji Crystal Archive paper. At least I'll have two sets of prints from different scanning and printing systems to compare. For now, the magic film for my nearest Walgreens is their generic Studio 35 (Fuji 200) film.

Point and shoot cameras

I just finished a roll of Fuji 400H with my Stylus Epic. Overall, I was generally pleased with the results, but it's definitely true that 400H isn't as vivid as other films. This is great for portraits and bright conditions, not as great for overcast dull days or scenics where you want the color a little more punchy. The grain is decent for a 400 speed film. I somewhat prefer it to Kodak 400HD. The Epic has a slightly larger maximum aperture of f2.8 versus the Yashica T4's f3.5. While that isn't much, it does make a difference for close-up shots, especially with the less precise focus controls of point and shoot autofocusing. The problem is that the Epic favors a wide open aperture and fast shutter speed and starts to stop down the aperture only in very bright conditions. This means that closeup shots of flowers and such can suffer because getting the focus exactly right can be difficult and the depth of field is shallow. As much as I previously thought that having a large maximum aperture in a point and shoot would be an ad
vantage, it can be a drawback as well. This discovery makes me want to shoot with a Canon Sure Shot Classic 120, which reportedly has a very sharp zoom lens and starts at f4 or f4.5. In the end, a slower lens might actually be an advantage for a point shoot camera.

Yashica T4 and Olympus Stylus Epic

The Yashica T4 and Olympus Stylus Epic (fixed lens) are widely regarded as top notch point and shoot 35mm film cameras. Recently I acquired them for $5 each. Once again, the thrift store gods were smiling. As with all automatic point and shoot cameras, the tradeoffs are less precise control of exposure and focus while gaining speed and convenience of shooting. The T4 has some sort of backlight detection, but I haven't tested its effectiveness. The Epic instruction manual doesn't explicitly refer to a backlight compensation system, but explains that there is a two zone metering system. Perhaps the two zone system accounts for some backlight situations. The Epic also contains a spot metering/focusing mode allowing you to precisely meter and focus on a particular point. Both cameras feature focus and exposure locking by depressing the shutter release button half-way.

My first test roll of film in each camera was Kodak 400HD film that was within a year of expiration, so it should have been good to go unless it had been exposed to extreme heat. My methodology was meant to be more subjective than objective. I carried both cameras with me and took the same picture with each. I was able to get a general impression of the experience of shooting with each camera. The focus and exposure lock of the T4 was very sensitive. I often found myself accidentally shooting when attempting to lock. The Epic was easier and more predictable in this respect. The results of my first test were not good on both cameras.
 The photos were somewhat sharp but lacked punch and the shadows were speckled with noise and grain. Because I used the same lot of film which was developed at the same photo lab, I suspected that either the film was bad or I received poor development. I scanned the negatives and found the them to be of noisy and poor quality. I'll probably never know if the film or development was bad. Both cameras produced photos nearly identical in quality. The Epic's flash was a little brighter, while the T4's depth of field was slighter deeper due to the max aperture of f3.5 versus the Epic's f2.8. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to distinguish between the photos produced by each camera. I was disappointed, but I decided to shoot another roll with Fuji 200 speed film which I've recently used with great success. Rather than shoot with both cameras, I used the T4 and would follow-up with another test of the Epic if the T4 results were better this time.

The second test of the T4 resulted in *much* better photos. Every shot was sharp and well exposed. Now *this* was what I was expecting. I'm very impressed and feel the results are on par with my Konica Auto S2. The Epic will definitely get another roll of testing now that I know that my first test had some problems. One problem that I encountered is that both cameras tend to automatically favor faster shutter speeds and wider apertures. This results in shallower depth of field which makes focusing more critical. In addition, most lenses are sharper a stop or two down from their maximum. With an automatic camera, you can't compensate for this except with faster film which will hopefully result in a stop or two smaller aperture. If the Epic results are similar to the T4's, you can't go wrong with either camera. I would slightly favor the Epic due to the easier focus lock mechanism, spot metering, and smaller size. The main T4 advantage is due to the periscope viewfinder on top of the camera which allows for easy shooting near the ground or over your head.