Be careful with buying Olympus trips, they're great when they still work but the photocells round lens are often dead if it's been stored in the light without a lens cap.
Nah bro. Often it's really just not tested. Bought a lot of cams till now and all were (luckily fine). In my experience you should always look on the account. When the seller has a lot of other cams listet, you can be, indeed pretty sure something is wrong. But when there is a lot of random stuff it's probably somebody just clearing out a house and found it on the attic. In the second case I always just ask them to just put some batteries in, try out if the flash and shutter works. When they approve the points above and the price is a good steal, you're most likely fine.
If a seller has lots of 'untested' items, then they are just a re-seller of house clearance junk, and too lazy to test them, or get them looked at. Just my experience!
Informative video. Love my olympus trip. The new Kodak S-88 point and shoot looks like a good recommendation. Comes with a flash you can turn off and auto advance. It leaves the leader out when the film is finished rewinding.
Just what I wanted to see while I’m in Tokyo for a fee days. I’ve been wanting to get a point & shoot for when I don’t want to carry my Canon SLR’s but still want to shoot film.
i picked up a couple point and shoots recently, and they’re SERIOUSLY cheap. haven’t yet finished a full roll in either so can’t comment on the results but they’re both super cheap and work! pentax espio 115 from ebay: £10 fujifilm DL-270 zoom from a charity shop: £5 both can zoom (pentax to 115mm, fuji to 70mm), shoot panorama and have a self timer.
I don't understand kids nowadays being so interested in film photography. I started photography when digital cameras didn't even exist. Films now are a lot more expensive than back in my time. Back then, a roll of film was $2--$3 and you can get some film for $1. Now, it's like #20-$30 for a roll. And developing film now is as expensive. And when you get the developed film back, you have to scan the film. Scanning films is a hassle because you have to spend a lot of time editing the dust out and doing the color corrections. You can let the developer scan for you, but that's giving up a lot of control over your art. And the end results that you get from film, you can get from a digital camera. By the way,, there's a guy from San Francisco that Pauly from Walkie Talkie interviewed. The guy has shot over 1000 rolls of film. And he has not developed over 90% of them because he doesn't have the money.
I originally used film, gave it up in the early to mid 00's - but then got back into it when I started to find the digital process quite boring. It's ironic though, because just like analog music junkies, all content ends up being downgraded, once uploaded for mass consumption anyway. What are any of us actually doing??
@@museonfilm8919 inflation also corresponds to how many shots you can make digitally vs analog. the more you shoot, the less any of the shots matter to you. also, it's about commitment to the moment. you cannot ctr+z, your screen doesn't steal your attention, you don't criticize your shot straight after you made it and you don't make another one, and another. even a film cost teaches you that every moment has a value. on top of that, it's about the anticipation of the development. once you make the first shot in your roll, you are in the middle of something. Years ago I had an Olympus OM4ti and had lot of fun doing all this, then I bought a top-tier full frame camera, needed to sell the oly to compensate the costs. Then I realized that I don't have that feeling anymore and went back. Found another OM4ti and sold my digital camera to pursue that feeling. In the world of music making there's a similar thing, but not quite. Folks are trying to avoid PC and its limitless possibilities and go the hardware way. Mostly, it's the same digital effects, but in format of pedals (like 400$ each) and grooveboxes (500-2000$). It becomes more and more preferable (and expensive), but it lets you feel that it's you who made a piece with all the limitations, not the all-mighty machine. Of course, live performing offers less quality too, but it's also about the commitment. These are also good excuses to yourself, like "he uses digital, that's why he made a thousand of shots and found that one or two that actually worth looking at. But I shoot analog: if I can make one or two good shots out of 32, it makes me 30x better photographer".
Aight that last bit is crazy lmao. For some context, I think a big portion of it is the fact that film enforces a slower relationship with photography that is appealing when all you know is "shoot a bunch of photos and select the best one out of it". At least that's the reason that got me into it. I think if you started out when that was the only option, you already have that baked in to your shooting style and it's less necessary lol. As I started it was also partially that the initial cost of camera for full-frame is a lot cheaper (granted, I also started when ultramax was like 14 bucks for a 3 pack so a different calculation than now). I'm moving towards mainly using film for medium format where the reason seems clearer, but there's also something I like about the way the more mechanical film cameras work, the tactility. That last bit doesn't really apply to point and shoots though lol.
What would you recommend as far as getting film developed goes? I wanna get in to film photography but the whole "getting it developed" part is pretty daunting
For me the first time price was most daunting, but it’s super simple and cheap if you pick the right place, I recommend dexters camera in Ventura ca. only 5-10 bucks per roll and their guide online is great
I’m curious why no one ever mentions the Lomo LC-A in these types of videos. Yes, the Lomography company isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but the original camera predates all the hubbub going on there. I lost the one I had in the 00’s so I recently ordered one from a seller in Poland or less than a hundred bucks including shipping. (Not giving any money to Russia if I can help it) Shooting with it has been just as I remembered. Fun and easy with great exposures and crisp images with lots of contrast. It now lives in my bag and I take it everywhere. It’s small and durable and I never worry about it. Why has this camera fallen so out of favor? If you don’t like Lomography as a company, that’s fine, but don’t sleep on this camera. Its pocketabilty, price, and image quality are hard to beat.
@@anachronismic 200€ is not nothing - facts. But in this whole film camera game it is not much i would say. And maybe it will even go down to 150€ (here in germany at least...)
@@mosesp6200 That's a fair perspective, though from the point and shoot range it feels decidedly middle-tier for how prices can go, since there's still stuff to be had at $30-50 (albeit with amore legwork required). Locale probably plays a factor into pricing, I think you'd have to dig pretty deep to find one for an equivalent cost in the US. A quick look has a working copy around $300 on the low end.
Be careful with buying Olympus trips, they're great when they still work but the photocells round lens are often dead if it's been stored in the light without a lens cap.
a word of warning, "untested" usually means dead
I bought an untested x700 for 50 dollars and it is perfect
Nah bro. Often it's really just not tested. Bought a lot of cams till now and all were (luckily fine).
In my experience you should always look on the account. When the seller has a lot of other cams listet, you can be, indeed pretty sure something is wrong. But when there is a lot of random stuff it's probably somebody just clearing out a house and found it on the attic.
In the second case I always just ask them to just put some batteries in, try out if the flash and shutter works. When they approve the points above and the price is a good steal, you're most likely fine.
If a seller has lots of 'untested' items, then they are just a re-seller of house clearance junk, and too lazy to test them, or get them looked at.
Just my experience!
Btw. Bought 2 Olympus AF-10 for $10 each this week and tested them today. They’re working perfectly ✌️
@@jockardl could you tell me where u bought it for $10
Informative video. Love my olympus trip. The new Kodak S-88 point and shoot looks like a good recommendation. Comes with a flash you can turn off and auto advance. It leaves the leader out when the film is finished rewinding.
I have an Olympus zoom and it’s never failed me! Pocket sized, has a timer, night settings, flash, and of course a zoom lens🙌🏻
Is the olympus zoom the full name model? Looking into getting one!
I love my Minolta freedom zooms. They have such great lens.
Perfect timing with this one! I'm on the hunt for a good everyday point and shoot.
Just what I wanted to see while I’m in Tokyo for a fee days. I’ve been wanting to get a point & shoot for when I don’t want to carry my Canon SLR’s but still want to shoot film.
Those olympus trip shots are amazing, what did you use to digitize the pictures?
i picked up a couple point and shoots recently, and they’re SERIOUSLY cheap. haven’t yet finished a full roll in either so can’t comment on the results but they’re both super cheap and work!
pentax espio 115 from ebay: £10
fujifilm DL-270 zoom from a charity shop: £5
both can zoom (pentax to 115mm, fuji to 70mm), shoot panorama and have a self timer.
Olympus MJU, if you can find it for under $100. Canon Sure Shot M's are also a great option.
nice diverse list here, thank you fam
I don't understand kids nowadays being so interested in film photography. I started photography when digital cameras didn't even exist. Films now are a lot more expensive than back in my time. Back then, a roll of film was $2--$3 and you can get some film for $1. Now, it's like #20-$30 for a roll. And developing film now is as expensive. And when you get the developed film back, you have to scan the film. Scanning films is a hassle because you have to spend a lot of time editing the dust out and doing the color corrections. You can let the developer scan for you, but that's giving up a lot of control over your art. And the end results that you get from film, you can get from a digital camera.
By the way,, there's a guy from San Francisco that Pauly from Walkie Talkie interviewed. The guy has shot over 1000 rolls of film. And he has not developed over 90% of them because he doesn't have the money.
just one word to answer everything: inflation.
I originally used film, gave it up in the early to mid 00's - but then got back into it when I started to find the digital process quite boring.
It's ironic though, because just like analog music junkies, all content ends up being downgraded, once uploaded for mass consumption anyway.
What are any of us actually doing??
@@museonfilm8919 inflation also corresponds to how many shots you can make digitally vs analog. the more you shoot, the less any of the shots matter to you. also, it's about commitment to the moment. you cannot ctr+z, your screen doesn't steal your attention, you don't criticize your shot straight after you made it and you don't make another one, and another. even a film cost teaches you that every moment has a value. on top of that, it's about the anticipation of the development. once you make the first shot in your roll, you are in the middle of something. Years ago I had an Olympus OM4ti and had lot of fun doing all this, then I bought a top-tier full frame camera, needed to sell the oly to compensate the costs. Then I realized that I don't have that feeling anymore and went back. Found another OM4ti and sold my digital camera to pursue that feeling.
In the world of music making there's a similar thing, but not quite. Folks are trying to avoid PC and its limitless possibilities and go the hardware way. Mostly, it's the same digital effects, but in format of pedals (like 400$ each) and grooveboxes (500-2000$). It becomes more and more preferable (and expensive), but it lets you feel that it's you who made a piece with all the limitations, not the all-mighty machine. Of course, live performing offers less quality too, but it's also about the commitment.
These are also good excuses to yourself, like "he uses digital, that's why he made a thousand of shots and found that one or two that actually worth looking at. But I shoot analog: if I can make one or two good shots out of 32, it makes me 30x better photographer".
Aight that last bit is crazy lmao. For some context, I think a big portion of it is the fact that film enforces a slower relationship with photography that is appealing when all you know is "shoot a bunch of photos and select the best one out of it". At least that's the reason that got me into it. I think if you started out when that was the only option, you already have that baked in to your shooting style and it's less necessary lol. As I started it was also partially that the initial cost of camera for full-frame is a lot cheaper (granted, I also started when ultramax was like 14 bucks for a 3 pack so a different calculation than now). I'm moving towards mainly using film for medium format where the reason seems clearer, but there's also something I like about the way the more mechanical film cameras work, the tactility. That last bit doesn't really apply to point and shoots though lol.
What would you recommend as far as getting film developed goes? I wanna get in to film photography but the whole "getting it developed" part is pretty daunting
For me the first time price was most daunting, but it’s super simple and cheap if you pick the right place, I recommend dexters camera in Ventura ca. only 5-10 bucks per roll and their guide online is great
Nikon L35AFs are still quite affordable in my country. Just ordered one yesterday for 75 USD
Pentax Espio Mini !
I’m curious why no one ever mentions the Lomo LC-A in these types of videos. Yes, the Lomography company isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but the original camera predates all the hubbub going on there. I lost the one I had in the 00’s so I recently ordered one from a seller in Poland or less than a hundred bucks including shipping. (Not giving any money to Russia if I can help it) Shooting with it has been just as I remembered. Fun and easy with great exposures and crisp images with lots of contrast. It now lives in my bag and I take it everywhere. It’s small and durable and I never worry about it. Why has this camera fallen so out of favor? If you don’t like Lomography as a company, that’s fine, but don’t sleep on this camera. Its pocketabilty, price, and image quality are hard to beat.
Peepin that Turnover vinyl
the best camera is the one you have with you
Looking at ETSY for these that are listed.
Camera that is pictures is bait and switch to watch the video. It is not reviewed
Yashica T3: 100-150€
Yashica T4: 150-200€
My favourite "cheap" cameras at the moment 🚀
If only..........
@@museonfilm8919 those are the prices in germany at the moment. They went down at the end of last year - idk why but they went down
keeping it a buck, a yashica t4 doesn't qualify as a cheap point and shoot lol.
@@anachronismic 200€ is not nothing - facts. But in this whole film camera game it is not much i would say. And maybe it will even go down to 150€ (here in germany at least...)
@@mosesp6200 That's a fair perspective, though from the point and shoot range it feels decidedly middle-tier for how prices can go, since there's still stuff to be had at $30-50 (albeit with amore legwork required). Locale probably plays a factor into pricing, I think you'd have to dig pretty deep to find one for an equivalent cost in the US. A quick look has a working copy around $300 on the low end.
Yashica Auto Focus!
"yoinked off a shelf" xDDD
WTF I come here from the Yashica T2 in the thumbnail and no T2 booooooooo
It was a clickbait video. I unsubscribed
metal fingers, You're fantastic! Let's be friends and have fun!