Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site azure.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!teklds!azure!michaelk
From: michaelk@azure.UUCP (Mike Kersenbrock)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo,net.rec.ski
Subject: Re: Compact 35 mm. Cameras
Message-ID: <438@azure.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 22:36:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: azure.438
Posted: Tue Aug 27 22:36:53 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 05:10:51 EDT
References: <416@uvaee.UUCP> <490@tymix.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 62
Xref: watmath net.rec.photo:1515 net.rec.ski:506

> In article <416@uvaee.UUCP> cffres@uvaee.UUCP (Chuck Ferrara) writes:
> >I am considering a purchase of a compact 35mm. camera (not an SLR)
> >which I can use skiing or backpacking, when I don't want to lug
> >around all my equipment. I am a serious photographer, so I am looking
> >for something that takes high quality photos, yet fits in my pocket.
> >Another thing I consider important is to have some kind of filter
> >adapter, because I could never part with my polarizer. I know there
> >are many manufacturers of these little cameras and I would appreciate
> >it if some of you could share your experiences. Thanks in advance.
> 

Um, I just went through this last year except that I did not have the
polarizer requirement.   Although a polarizer is a handy device (I use
one with my "real" camera), it does present a problem.

The problem is what you mean by "can use skiing...".

When I looked for a skiing camera, my *minimal* requirements were:

	1.) To be absolutely smallest possible because:
		a.) I want to carry this thing arround without bothering
		    my skiing.  I ski lousy enough.
		b.) I don't want to die if I fall on top of the camera while
		    going at a good speed (for me) downhill skiing. The
		    basic requirement here is that it doesn't have
		    any pointed features, and preferably be flat and thin.
		c.) I don't want the camera to die either. 

	2.) The camera should be automatic everything.  This may make a
	    serious photographer shake his/her head, but....:
		a.) I ski with gloves on, carrying poles, and the weather
		    is COLD.  I have enough problems with just doing a
		    point and shoot.  Note that I am skier #1, and photographer
		    #2 (this is my intention, and does not necessarily indicate
		    relative skill levels).
		b.) Ever take a photo, trying to focus while wearing 
		    ski-goggles (because of cold wind, or whatever)?

	3.) The camera should be able to compensate for snow (like having
	    good range of manual ASA ratings & setting a lower film speed
	    than the actual film, to compensate for the snow). A DX coding
	    camera might be a negative feature for this purpose.

	4.) The camera and have a decent lens and "technical" competence
	    (like being 35mm to start with....).

	5.) The camera should have a lens-cover as not to have a problem
	    when number 1b (above) happens (often).

[Drum roll maestro...]  The camera I chose was the Canon MC (not the new
MC-10).  It meets everything above quite well.  I take it skiing without
the flash.  The flash is detachable -- this is one way size is reduced.
This is my first Canon camera, and I am very happy with it.  It is also
now my general sport-camera when I don't want to lug my SLR around.
It runs off of two AAA alkaline cells that lasts a very long time.  The flash
(if ever used) uses it's own cells, and they don't last quite so long (as
is usual for the flashes I have owned).  


Mike Kersenbrock
Tektronix Software Development Products
Aloha, Oregon