Originally posted by eddie1960 I have 4 good little film P&S (like the Canon Zoom 135) that cost me no more than $5 each, less than the batteries they run on or the film i put in them. and they are FF lol
If I was going to spend as much as $88 I'd chase an Oly XA but it's getting hard to find them at that price. WA and a 2.8 lens with proper RF, and tiny as hell
Please see my response earlier in this thread in Post
#11
I have several film p&s and was a real enthusiast back in the day for 35mm compacts -
even with the most "sophisticated" compact such as the ones I had/have -
I realize that I cannot do what I now do with digitals -
for example none of my film compacts had slow-sync flash -
nor did they have any form of exposure compensation -
they certainly can
NOT change sensitivity (other than loading in another film) -
so even though I feel somewhat handicapped/ham-stringed using this cheapo Canon A1200 p&s
- the film p&s are even more limiting.
The Olympus XA had a 35mm lens -
this is not as wide as the 28mm equiv setting on the Canon A1200
from:
Ken Rockwell's page on the Olympus XA
and
Canon A1200 specs
Olympus XA: Size: 2.567" x 4.123" x 1.572" HWD (measured)
Canon A1200: Dimensions (H x W x D) 2.46 x 3.84 x 1.21 in.
Olympus XA: Weight: 7.800 oz (221.15g) with batteries (measured).
Canon A1200: Weight Approx. 6.53 oz./185 g (including the battery and memory card)
The XA did not have built-in flash it was a separate attachment.
it was also manual/rangefinder focusing.
For me, the main disadvantage is the cost of film and developing/printing -
I just would not be able to afford to shoot as much as I do
and certainly would not have gained whatever incremental improvements to both my shooting and post processing.
The Canon A1200 is about as small as the original 2Mp Digital ELPH S100 - vintage 2000
So although things always seem rosier to me with nostalgia -
unfortunately sometimes they just don't fit in with facts
and in reality and my actual usage.