only slightly OT: jersey-pocketable film camera?

[tylercheung]

granted, nowadays, the answer is probably "iPhone" (or android equivalent)

[giverdada]

Leica MP.

Why not? It costs a million dollars, holds its value, is tiny, and, apparently, it's 'Mechanically Perfect'. Should fit in a jersey pocket, but maybe only a silk-lined Rapha jersey pocket, climate-controlled and all that too...

I've been looking at Fuji X-cameras. I can't afford super new or higher-end ones, but the local k-list has Fuji x20 cameras for three bills. Not bad. Not a steal, but definitely worth a look.

And as for film: I hear ya. I spent my youth in all-night darkroom print marathons as well. Got decent enough to like my prints. Never got very pro, or into fiber, or toning or whatever, but got some good prints up to 11x14" RC and loved the stuff. Even today, I can smell fix and get all nostalgic and long for the old days. Somehow, though, I managed to get through my early photography without ever learning how to process B & W film. So last semester, I taught myself with some excellent youtube videos and a few trial rolls run through the school camera and my Nikon. Holy Crap! I love film! Seriously, though, it's amazing. The stuff coming through the school camera was crap, but the kids were learning. The stuff coming through my Nikon was pretty good, but I was learning. Prints were decent, but the enlarger/printer system wasn't dialed. Anyway, I could HOLD the film, and print it, with my HANDS, onto paper that I could then HAND to another person, for them to HOLD and look at. Not so with digital.

And besides, as get-off-my-lawn-retro as film may seem and sound, there's a lot to be said for concrete records that are reproducible into concrete form. With digital, I tend to not print my photos much. If/when my hard drive bites it, all will be lost. Still have my binders full of contact sheets and negs though...

[RFC]

Wet film still the medium of choice for U2 aerial photos. From my own use of aerials, I'm guessing that the resolution is much higher because they use frames of film as large as the final print.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-2...but-1528382700

[staggerwing]

Originally Posted by false_Aest

Folks,

Get a Nikon 35TI. The lens is superb. The look is awesome. It's small and works so well

Nikon also made a similar 28TI, with a slightly wider 28mm lens. If I had to pick only one focal length, 28mm would be it.

Canon made a cute little Canonet QL17, which was kind fun. I generally used mine as in "zone focus" mode, although it did have a focus patch in the rangefinder.

And as also noted, some of the manual Pentax bodies were rather small, and didn't get much bigger when you added a pancake lens.

As for why film, why not.

[PSJoyce]

Olympus XA, Tiny, carried one travelling for years,

Rollei 35, Great lens and lots of character

[chrismoustache]

an XA is definitely on my list.

for a good mix of fun, pocketability, price, might as well pick up a Vivitar Ultra Wide and Slim.

[martl]

Originally Posted by ceolwulf

The Minox 35 cameras (I've had a couple of them before) could be ideal, but they are supposedly not at all reliable, shutters are iffy.

I hear the later models don't have the issue. Older quality cameras often weren't a finished product, but were developed on, based on customer feedback/warranty cases.

Buddy of mine bought a used Rollei 3003 (maginficent camera) which he sent to Rollei for maintenance when the company was already sold to Singapore and the camera was out of production for a decade. He got it back in full upgraded spec at no cost. (on a sidenote, Zeiss didn't charge me for the inspection of my 250mm lens either as there were no repairs needed - sometimes, it pays to spend the extra buck on quality equipment, or at least it used to)

I wouldn't be surprised if Minox had a similar policy. -> http://www.minox.com/index.php?id=6282&L=1