View Full Version : Do you use an APS P&S camera?
Dr. Strangelove
08-14-2007, 07:02
I actually kind of like the APS system and I use my Konica Revio Z3 APS P&S on a fairly regular basis. It is a great little camera with a reasonably high quality 26-72 mm equivalent (21-58 mm actual focal length) zoom lens. The image quality in my opinion is quite sufficient for many uses (equivalent in practice to 5 or 6 MP digital P&S) and I especially like the 16:9 APS-H aspect ratio.
The only problems I have with APS are the developing costs and the fact that real B&W, slide or higher than ISO 400 films are not available (there once were ISO 800 APS films, but they have been discontinued). In my opinion the APS system in general has a much worse reputation than it would deserve. It is by far the best sub-35 mm film format ever developed.
One of these days I might even get an APS SLR, if I can get one very cheaply...
"never" is a strong word, and a long time, but that's my answer. i've never seen the value. APS seems more anti-film than digital. :)
.
tominabox1
08-14-2007, 07:36
Dr., Get a Minolta Vectis S-100 to go with your Revio :D
I have a revio myself, but I'm trying to sell it, just too slow for me.
Welsh_Italian
08-14-2007, 07:52
Yes I have. I use a Canon M-1 compact sometimes - it's so tiny, a genuine pocket-fitter. There's no zoom lens but the lens itself doesn't seem too bad. I do like the way the viewfinder can accommodate different perspectives (the panoramic often gives me ideas). The problems are the availability of films, the cost of developing, and the size, though for most purposes, it's not too bad.
I also managed to get my paws onto a Canon APS SLR which is fun - it uses the EOS range of lenses, but I have an adapter that lets me fit M42s without any real problem. However, that's being sold even though it's cute and fun for digital funds. If you're in the UK, would you be interested in buying it? I was going to put it on the Bay to see what I got soon, but if you're interested...
You can see some recent (last couple of weeks) photos here (http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=26096406%40N00&q=cardiff+aps&m=text)
mfunnell
08-14-2007, 07:54
I have not used one but might like to try. I'm currently using an Olympus mju-II (aka Stylus Epic) and a Contax T2. If I saw some benefit I might try an APS p&s.
...Mike
First off let me say I'm a new guy around here. The last time I owned a rangefinder camera was circa 1968, but I recently purchased a Bessa R and Kiev 4A -- both still in the mail: I can hardly wait. My '68 experience was with a Lieca M3 -- greatest piece of any
First off let me say I'm a new guy around here. The last time I owned a rangefinder camera was circa 1968, but I recently purchased a Bessa R and Kiev 4A -- both still in the mail: I can hardly wait. My '68 experience was with a Lieca M3 -- I had it only a short time but it was greatest piece of equipment of any kind that I've ever owned.
As for APS, I have a little Canon Elph. It's a great but very small, camera. I love its wide angle lens. Processing is a killer though :mad: , and I won't be taking a lot more pictures with it on that account.
I carry an original Canon Elph in my jersey pocket while riding my bike. Its very small, takes decent pictures, and is rugged so it works out very well.
I also have a Canon EOS-IX SLR that I don't use much, but every time I do I'm reminded how excellent it handles and how quiet it is for a motor drive SLR.
Ed
I have a couple of APS cameras, but never really used them. The Yashica Profile 4000 is an odd one. I never cared for the photo quality... too much grain where I didn't want grain. Then there is the one my wife appropriated, the Canon ELPH LT. She gets remarkable results with it and would not think of using anything else... even though the cost of film and processing is exceptionally high. I definitely agree with RayPA about this format being the anti-film film. Whatever possessed those knucklehead manufacturers to brings us this. They could have done the APS thing with 35mm film and we wouldn't be having this chat right now.
I have one, a waterproof Canon that I use on the rare occasions that I go snorkeling. I used it to get some great pics of sea turtles last year. Bought it on eBay for $25 a few years ago.
APS = Antique Photo System
Some interesting cameras were made for that format.
oftheherd
08-14-2007, 08:53
I have one and have used it. Can't remember the name right now. Shows how much I use it I guess. Funny, because it stays in my trunk in the Omaha Steak box with some of my more used cameras like my Canonet and my folders. I never thought too much of the APS system, and also often wondered why they didn't do the same with 35mm cameras. The one I have is one that was given to me or I probably wouldn't have it. I used it mostly just to try it out since I had never had one. Sort of like 110. I never had one and wouldn't probably want to try anything but the Pentax 110 SLR. As to the APS, probably the only good thing about it was the aspect ratio. I thought the panoramic was dumb. You can visualize and do the same thing with any format. You could even mask a lot of camera viewfinders if you wanted to. Oh well. Its value is described in its lasting qualities I suppose. Just like 110.
CameraQuest
08-14-2007, 09:06
the basic problem with the APS system it that it was designed to give you less compared to 35mm while separating you from your money much faster via high film processing and printing fees.
spysmart
08-14-2007, 09:47
No one's mentioned the Contax Tix yet:
I've got a black one with a superb Zeiss 28 f/2.8 lens - built like a little titanium tank.
I used to de-spool the APS films and print in the enlarger. The frame being smaller than 35mm gave a natural rebate which looked great. The only down side was the frames were a bit close to each other.
However the good films are all now gone : BW400 and Fuji800 and Fuji100 were all once available. I wonder what would happen now if I sent in my last roll of Fuji APS slide film.
Now film choices are such that I've only used it once in the last year.
A digital APS sensor behind that Zeiss lens would be the business :-)
I got an APS adapter for my Nikon LS-30 film scanner pretty reasonably on E-Bay. At my local Wal Mart, the last time I had used any APS (this spring), the film was cheaper and the processing was the same as 35mm.
There isn't much of a down side for me other than being weird (and being weird is not unusual for me), and it's nice getting the exposure data on the back of the prints.
Ed
IGMeanwell
08-14-2007, 18:44
My main camera in highschool before I was really into photography was a Kodak Advantix C400
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/products/ekn004586.jhtml?pq-path=4350
great flash on it, I still have many memorable photos on my wall from this camera
actually I still have the camera
John Robertson
08-14-2007, 19:08
Nikon Pronea S; a tiny SLR with two lenses, I bought new for a £100, they were being remaindered by a photo store. I use a R/F camera 95% of the time but the little Pronea takes excellent shots is easy to use.. I keep it for parties and the like. its a lovely camera to handle, my 12 year old grand daughter has it just now and is reluctant to give it back!!
It reminds me of my beloved Rollei SL26, a 126 format SLR. A tiny thing with three lenses I carried on many mountain treks in the 1970's. It took great shots and was a delight to use, I reluctantly sold it about 15 years ago when the range of films reduced.
I looked at this thread and though "what the hell is APS?" ... something else I have to learn about!
I did a google search which eventually led me to this ....
http://photo.net/equipment/aps/
Quite informative and entertaining! ;-))
Sure, check the link in my sig. (sorry for the lack of recent updates) :-)
I had the original Elph. Nice little camera, finally crapped out within the past year. I now have some Fuji that JoeFriday gave to me along with 7 or 9 rolls of APS film. Once I'm done with those rolls though, I'm done with that format.
I got a Canon ELPH Jr on eBay a few years ago, the one with the fixed 26mm f/2.8 lens. I never have used it very often, but usually with BW400 and it's surprisingly good. And so very compact and easy to have along in its Canon belt pouch.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1953&d=1098946037
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=23724&d=1144220565
Maybe I'm a bit cynical.. But when APS was introduced, it was advocated as a 'bridge technology'. Which is of course short speak for manufacturers trying out something bodged together and abandoning it in no time, leaving customers out in the cold..
Dr. Strangelove
08-15-2007, 07:15
I looked at this thread and though "what the hell is APS?" ... something else I have to learn about!
I did a google search which eventually led me to this ....
http://photo.net/equipment/aps/
Quite informative and entertaining! ;-))
I find that article a little too biased against the APS, even though it tries to describe all its features. The APS was never intended to be a professional format, but in fact it was still more suitable for professional use than 35 mm was in the 1960s, when it made its final breakthrough and became the dominant amateur format. Still, in those days only press photographers used 35 mm and all other pros used medium or large format.
Film emulsions have improved so much that today an APS frame shot on a ISO 200 color negative film has less grain than a 35 mm frame shot on a similar ISO 25 film had in the 1960s. Even in the 1970s color films were still very grainy compared to the situation today, and yet most amateurs were quite content with their 35 mm SLRs and fixed lens RFs.
I shoot almost exclusively APS-H (16:9) frames with my Revio and from ISO200 Fuji or Kodak film they can easily be enlarged to 20x38 cm (8x15 inch) without visible grain at typical viewing distances. The lab I normally use does not make larger APS-H prints, so I have not tried them. However, if ISO100 APS films were still available, I am almost certain that 25x45 cm (10x18 inch) prints would be no problem from them. 15x23 cm (6x9 inch) prints are very good even with ISO400 film.
All that said, I probably would not use my Revio Z3 any longer if an affordable digital P&S with similar lens was available. Alas, the Ricoh GX100 is too expensive for me.
BJ Bignell
08-15-2007, 07:50
I got a Canon ELPH Jr on eBay a few years ago, the one with the fixed 26mm f/2.8 lens. I never have used it very often, but usually with BW400 and it's surprisingly good. And so very compact and easy to have along in its Canon belt pouch.I had the same camera (although not in black, very nice!) and was pleased with the quality. That's a very compact camera, so it is easy to carry around. Unfortunately, the lens filled up with grit and wouldn't extend/retract. I took it apart to fix it, but ended up destroying it instead. :bang: At least I had fun trying! :D
Tom Harrell
08-16-2007, 00:39
I bought a Kodak Avantix camera in Guam in 1996. I was there for a month to do some work. I had my regular 35mm equipment along with me but had forgotten to bring along a wide angle lens. I saw the Avantix fixed lens camera with a wide angle lens, around 28mm I believe, and bought it. It is shirt pocket size and takes fairly good pictures. The last time I used it was in 2003 in northern Kuwait. My only complaints about the camera are: a) shutter time lag at times to get the proper auto focus, b) there was only a little window for the lens and no shade or cover for it to keep dirty fingers off of it or to prevent flare, c) you have to turn fill flash off each and every time you turn the camera on if it is not wanted. d) batteries are expensive.
I still have the little jewel and was just looking at it the other day. It is sitting on a shelf of my book case and has acumulated it's share of dust. I suppose I should put a battery and film in it and see if it is still alive inside!
Regards,
Tom
richard_l
08-16-2007, 01:50
My wife could make APS work, but I couldn't. These are from an Elf Jr.
markinlondon
08-17-2007, 15:38
I had a Canon Ixus L1 (?). The equivalent of an Elph Jr. Nice, but I gave it up for an Olympus mju-ii (or Stylus Epic) to keep the film stocks simple. I think it's still around somewhere.
charjohncarter
08-17-2007, 16:19
I use my Canon SD-10 all the time, all the time. I just discovered a dead pixel which reminded me why I like film. But it is so small it can go with me any where. This is from this weekend at the boat races in Long Beach, CA.
Never have, never will. APS IMO sucks. Here in Holland it was always more expensive developing costs-wise. Plus the smaller neg gave horrid results when printed on anything bigger then 8x13. Also, the pano mode was cool except for the cutting off of the top and bottom part of the neg, resulting in even less film to print, and these prints were double the size of a normal print. Result: even at arm's length a pano print of 10x30 (or such) looked extremely poor. A friend of mine used the APS version of the Canon Eos line, and I'm glad she did; so I didn't get tempted to buy one too. :)
What about an APS SLR? Yup, got me a Canon IX. It is a full featured SLR, comparable to the Elan level cameras.
Do I use it? No.
The wife wanted it for the panoramic mode, and she doesn't use it either.
charjohncarter
08-18-2007, 06:34
Sorry, for the miss understanding, I tought APS was some kind of digital sensor. APS passed me by and I have forgotten about it. Just like 110.
I find that 35mm is miniature enough for me.
Dr. Strangelove
08-20-2007, 01:04
Never have, never will. APS IMO sucks. Here in Holland it was always more expensive developing costs-wise. Plus the smaller neg gave horrid results when printed on anything bigger then 8x13. Also, the pano mode was cool except for the cutting off of the top and bottom part of the neg, resulting in even less film to print, and these prints were double the size of a normal print. Result: even at arm's length a pano print of 10x30 (or such) looked extremely poor. A friend of mine used the APS version of the Canon Eos line, and I'm glad she did; so I didn't get tempted to buy one too. :)
The Panorama mode is a joke, that is for sure. I never use it, but the full frame APS-H is wide enough for me and it gives much better results, since the whole exposed frame is utilized for prints. I have had bad results even with APS-H when I was using bad film (cheapo Ferrania sold under some photolab brand), but with Kodak or Fuji ISO200 negative the grain is very small. I can not see any grain in 10x17 cm prints without a lupe and at arms length even 20x38 cm prints are still quite good.
I rarely print in APS-C (3:2) . Needless to say, I usually do not photograph people with the APS camera, since 16:9 aspect ratio is not suitable for portaiture, but for groups of people it sometimes works quite well and can give the "wide screen" cinema effect.
Oddly enough, all APS photos are actually exposed in the APS-H format. The other two settings simply change the viewfinder masking and record a magnetic tag on the stripe on the film at that frame that tells the printing machine to produce a print in the desired crop proportion. The rest of the image is still there on the neg...
Dr. Strangelove
08-20-2007, 23:14
Oddly enough, all APS photos are actually exposed in the APS-H format. The other two settings simply change the viewfinder masking and record a magnetic tag on the stripe on the film at that frame that tells the printing machine to produce a print in the desired crop proportion. The rest of the image is still there on the neg...
Yes. You can also override the magnetic tag in printing and print the whole frame even if you had the panoramic or APS-C viewfinder frames on while shooting. It makes sense, since actually having a variable width frame would make it difficult to predict the remaining number of frames on a film. It would also complicate the internal structure of the camera and make it more expensive, which would not make sense in a system intended for amateur use.
I used to use a little Canon Elf which I adored for its size, neat metal body and ability to produce panoramic shots. But it also had the unfortunate knack of turning in some quite fuzzy shots from time to time and I never got to the bottom of the problem. I still occasionally like the idea of owning another, having traded mine years ago, and think of getting one one eBay, but then realise its a nutty option and I would be better served by buying a small digital if I really felt I "had" to.
Tom Harrell
08-28-2007, 04:05
Peter,
My Kodak Advantix did the same "fuzzy" images from time to time. There must have been a glitch in what it was focusing on at times. Normally mine will not allow you to trip the shutter if it has not achieved focus. I can only assume that the focus was rocking back and forth and fired off a frame as it went past focus. That is the best explanation I can think of. I have stood and taken two shots from the same location minutes apart. One would be in focus and the other one out.
Tom
I voted "never, but would like to try". Once would be enough I suppose.
Convenience stores over here still carry a few rolls of APS which surprises me; I thought it was completely dead. APS cameras can be found in junk shops for $2 and up and I think most devel places don't want to touch it.
Anyway I just brought my Pentax Auto 110 back home and finding 110 film is enough of a challenge for me!
landsknechte
09-02-2007, 11:58
the basic problem with the APS system it that it was designed to give you less compared to 35mm while separating you from your money much faster via high film processing and printing fees.
I suspect that most of the money made from the APS format came from all of the photo processors that were forced to buy machines that could process APS.
Dr. Strangelove
09-03-2007, 01:14
I voted "never, but would like to try". Once would be enough I suppose.
Convenience stores over here still carry a few rolls of APS which surprises me; I thought it was completely dead. APS cameras can be found in junk shops for $2 and up and I think most devel places don't want to touch it.
Anyway I just brought my Pentax Auto 110 back home and finding 110 film is enough of a challenge for me!
Current Fujifilm film processors and minilabs can still process APS as an option, so APS processing is widely available here. In reality APS is not significantly more expensive to process than 135 film with modern systems and most of the usual 'APS premium' is just extra profit for the processing lab...
110 film C-41 development, however, is no longer available and has not been for many years now. The last time I saw 110 processing offered anywhere was in the 1990's.
My local lab, Photo Haus in Yakima WA, has been running an occasional roll of 110 C-41 for me. Hmmm, I see most recently 2004... They can't scan the negs though.
I have a couple of Kindermann stainless reels for 16mm/110, so could do it myself, as I used to soup the Verichrome Pan...
I had an Ixus Z70 back in 2000, I believe. I liked it for its size and the standard size prints were sort of okay. In fact, I brought it as my only camera to Egypt for a trip on the Nile and later also for a weekend to Rome. That reminds me to do these trips again just to properly shoot them :)
My friend bought APS camera for it's size, at same time when I got Epic. He asked, why he has went APS if he could get same sized or smaller Epic.
I have seen some cute-looking APS cameras, but never bid on them as this would add another film format with all that follows from this fact.
I still use my Minolta Vectis 300 occasionally. Wow, both the camera and its maker are extinct!
I bought it in 1998 mostly due to its great specs: an all-glass lens group with aspheric elements, 24-70mm f/5.7-9.8 (35mm equiv. of 30-87mm), close focus of 16 inches, and stepless zoom. Plus it weighs just 8oz and is stylish as well with its all stainless-steel skin.
I took it on a Mediterranean cruise to eight countries -- it never let me down and I got some great shots with it. With modern films I'd consider it to be about a 6-7MP camera. Film processing/scanning costs are about the only drawback if you don't need prints bigger than 8x10" or perhaps 16x9".
I may even start using it more as my walkaround color camera, sticking to B&W in 35mm format.
Leigh Youdale
09-09-2007, 04:28
We have had a Fuji Fotonex 300 Zoom for about 7-8 years. I originally bought it as a reasonably good travel camera and it has not disappointed. The quality of the photographs is very good and it is still used as a second P&S colour camera by my wife when we travel and for 'family' shots. It sits in the kitchen ready for immediate use.
I do have a Canon IXUS 65 digital P&S but that's just for getting photos to paste into my consulting reports or when I want to email something quickly so I usually take it on business trips. Otherwise it doesn't get used.
My main hobby interest is mono, using my Bessa 3A or one of my Leica IIIf's. Only problem these days is I seem to have to unload any partly exposed film from the cameras before going to the airport and place all film in a lead-lined bag and ask for a hand inspection. The cameras have to go though the X-ray. A pain, but otherwise I would have to go digital.
I still end up arguing with some security guys who clearly have no knowledge of photgraphic film and stoutly believe that their x-ray machines are harmless to any sort of film. I often have to demand to see their manager to get the hand inspection for my film bag.
Dr. Strangelove
09-10-2007, 08:51
I still end up arguing with some security guys who clearly have no knowledge of photgraphic film and stoutly believe that their x-ray machines are harmless to any sort of film. I often have to demand to see their manager to get the hand inspection for my film bag.
Well, I have had modern films going through x-ray machines a couple of times without any effects. Modern x-ray machines have a much smaller intensity of radiation than the ones used in the 1980s and before. It is also possible that modern visible light films are less sensitive to x-rays. In any case, both color negative and slide film, ISO 100-400, through x-ray machines several times during travel, no fogging or other x-ray effects I could recognize. It was a risk for sure, but I had heard similar positive experiences from others before the trip and that made me willing to take it.
However, I did not shoot any B&W during that trip and from the limited knowledge I have about photochemistry my guess would be that B&W film might be more sensitive to x-rays.
jsuominen
09-22-2007, 07:39
I don't use them much any more, but I must confess that have acquired some of them (for example Contax Tix, Leica C11, Nikon Nuvis V and I also have a Canon EOS IX).
Here is one shot with Contax Tix
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/47/157389802_5281e87f49.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/157389802/)
They have been mostly my travel cameras, before digital p&s period and before I bought a filmscanner a couple a years ago. After that, I have evoked my good old b&w photography hobby. So, now I shoot mostly traditional 35mm b&w film with my RF- and SLR-gear. :)
I used to have a Canon Ixus (first model) which I liked a lot for its size and ergonomics. But it had some quirks. The viewfinder was never sharp and worse still, at some zoom settings neither were the photos. It was never great in the sharpness department, but as I say at some settings it was diabolical. I ended up selling it and buying a lovely Contax T2 which was much more expensive but also had a much much better lens (albeit more limited too as it is a fixed 38mm lens from memory.) I still use the latter and its a great camera, every bit as good as the Leica and top end Nikon point and shoot cameras. Of course it is a 35mm camera not APS.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.