P&S...film vs. digital

[andrew7]

While everyone is comparing a film SLR with a digital SLR, I'm interested in the smaller cameras where the sensor size vs a negative is more pronounced. During family events I take an SLR and a P&S and I'm surprised at how low light affects my Canon S5. Its a great all around camera but a small, low light usable camera would be great.

I decided to experiment with a cheap camera based on "what happens if this camera is destroyed?". I found a couple of APS compacts and a box of film for a $1 a cartridge.( I expect every one is rolling their eyes and chuckling at the last sentence.) One has lived out the summer tied to my life vest and the other in a Camelback stuffed in the van. I've never worried about charging them or codling them, and with LR2 I'm happy with the results. They are only used for informal snapshots and I have not tested them inside under different lighting conditions but they are great for me under those circumstances.

I've considered larger sensor P&S like the LX3, SD950 and fuji fx series, but I did not
want to take a several hundred dollar p&s out in a kayak or while mountain biking. Always having to remember to keep it charged up and not sure how they would do in low light.

My main question has to do with the older 35mm point & shoots, the ones the pros used when the did not want an SLR. Cameras like the T4, XA, Stylus zooms and others. How do they compare in low light with newer digital P&S? I would think the pinky nail sized sensor could not match a 400 or 800iso 35mm negative.

I have not found much concerning the subject but I'm interested in what the film shooters here think. What compact 35mm would you be using and why? Have digital P&S surpassed their film counterparts? I'd appreciate your opinion in the matter.

My S5 is the only digital I have, its a great learning tool. All my other cameras are film and I'm partial to them.

[Battou]

Film....Simply put Film P&S's just perform better. My Yashica T3D runs circles around my Kodak C-743, it's litterally gotten to the point where I only use the C-743 for shots I want to put imeadiately online. Considering that I shoot 35mm SLR's that is not exactly a big deal to me, meaning i'm willing to wait for anything serious, that said if I want a P&S for something I feel is important like a birthday party or whatever the Yashica is the camera in my pocket.

As for lowlight comparison.....there isn't a ball park in the world that could house the difference.

Taken (Handheld) with Yashica T3D, with flash, AF (No assist lamp)





My C-743 digital could not do these shots...I tried, because I wanted some for online after it happened, I ended up showing them to the person I was IM'ing with and then binned them.

As for a suggestion as to what 35mm P&S...well why not the Yashica T3D

[andrew7]

Thanks Battou,
I think the Yashica t3 is a great camera and its a contender on my list. I am surprised by the lack of response that apparently all the old film shooters here ONLY use an SLR. I was kinda hoping for more insight and discussion on the matter. I frankly don't know but it seemed like one of those questions that never got asked. All those non-SLR cameras since the 70's and no one compared them to a new digital pocket camera. A backpack full of gear is great but sometimes you can't take it with you.
Andrew

[jellybean]

My only film P&S cameras are the Olympus Trip, XA and XA4 and I much prefer the results to those I get from my Panasonic FZ28. The only downside to these film cameras is the lack of zoom.

I avoid using my FZ28 at 400 ISO if I can and never use it above 400; I much prefer the results from the Olympus cameras with 400 and 800 ASA films.

[xxloverxx]

I've never had a film 'P&S', but I have had the most automatic, pocketable film camera I will ever care to have - a Ricoh 500G
It's tiny, light, Rikenon 40 2.8. Mine had some problems focusing (it wasn't accurate) and had a light leak on the side, but the lens itself is great. Only, if you have long nails, don't bother, as the aperture ring is right up against the body and very stiff on the one I have

In terms of digital, I've had a Canon Powershot G2 and some Lumix I can't even remember the model name of; the G2 performs quite well (max ISO of 400 I believe, quite noisy at 400, but its lowest setting is 50 (beautiful)) and has a pretty good lens, while the Lumix I had was just pathetic.

The clear advantage of film in P&S over digital is the full frame - you get shallower DOF with the same sized camera. Also the lenses tend to be better, and build quality is quite remarkable compared to today's cameras of a similar price. If I were going bike riding or hiking, I wouldn't even think of taking a digital P&S. The LCD screens aren't too hard to break (not taking into consideration the Leica M8 with sapphire glass screen) and batteries don't always fare well in extreme heat/cold. There is no full frame P&S camera at present

With film, you don't have to worry about comparing noise at ISO 800 on different cameras - just load your favourite film (Natura 1600 is amazing, btw) and shoot away!
The obvious disadvantage being that you can't change ISOs very quickly, which may or may not be a disadvantage.

Let's see, what else…oh yes, battery life (!)
One of the worst things about digital…batteries. I used to shoot digital a lot…it involved carrying 2 spare batteries (not tiny ones, mind) in my pocket all day, sometimes risking them falling out (depending on what trousers I was wearing that day)
Now when I shoot with my film cameras, I can either put a light meter, or nothing in. Also a big advantage when going on camping trips, hiking, or wherever you'll be away from easily-accesible power sources for a while.

Given my choice, right now, for a small, carry-around camera, I'd be using a Leica M rangefinder. Obviously that's out of the question, as it isn't even a P&S (it's as good as, IMO, I doubt anyone shares the same opinion).
So I guess my choice would be a Canon rangefinder, preferably one that I can change lenses with (50 0.95, anyone?)
I choose these manual cameras because really, I'm not fussed about AE/AF. If I want more advanced features, I pick up the beautiful F4 (Nikon SLR, 4 AE modes and 2 AF modes, weather resistant (I've tested it)), and IMO it's good to be able to guess exposures (if for nothing else but to have the skill)

I think I may have answered this question already (directly or not) but IMO there is no digital P&S that does low light better than film. The tiny sensor just can't do it (and if you use noise reduction, you'll get a mushy, soft photo)