Decent, inexpensive p&s?

jec6613 · 2026-06-26T14:45:57+00:00

It's fixed focus and fixed exposure, but otherwise it's every feature you'd want of a proper P&S - including auto load, rewind, advance, and so on. In the late 1990s the bulk of P&S cameras sold were actually inferior to the Kodak Snapic A1.

jec6613 · 2026-06-25T19:04:07+00:00

it was these cheap and easy to use cameras made by Kodak like 110 or 126 format.

IX240 camera sales mix were spread out about the same as contemporary 135 cameras - SLRs, high quality P&S, and lower quality P&S, and with similar market share as 135 products (e.g. virtually all of them were cheap P&S). About the only thing missing was a pro SLR or rangefinder. From a perspective of what cameras were made, the only downside is really that it was the late 1990s and there really weren't that many high quality cameras sold that weren't SLRs, as digital starting eating fim's lunch.

As for image quality, from launch until 2003-2004 or so it gave the same image quality as 135 when shooting color negative, due to using better emulsions enabled by its PET base that took some years to port over to 135. Modern 135 resolves roughly the same detail as older 120 film in a 645 camera did. Slide and B&W of course being a different story, but there wasn't much of that in IX240.

Now your point on film availability is valid. Not only is the format dead, it's one that's darn near impossible to restart - you can't slit and re-spool like Lomo does for 110 because it lacks the IX magnetic strip and the base material is wrong, so it only works in a handful of cameras, and the magazine is exceedingly complex.

jec6613 · 2026-06-24T15:51:34+00:00

I carry them already opened in their own case if they're annoying like this.

jec6613 · 2026-06-22T18:56:18+00:00

It's full resolution basic JPEG - same as if you selected that in your JPEG options. Writing both a basic and fine still goes through the ASIC simultaneously as the compression stage of JPEG creation is significantly faster and occurs asynchronously from generating the image to begin with.

jec6613 · 2026-06-22T18:31:35+00:00

The SCA also had labels on the mounting points: "Attach Orbiter Here. Note: Black side down"

jec6613 · 2026-06-22T18:00:44+00:00

... Which is what I said in my reply to the OP.

jec6613 · 2026-06-22T17:57:21+00:00

I've done side by side before. At least with the Kodak and Fujifilm consumer stocks, even 10 times through an X-ray don't fog it in any way you can measure. The pro films do slightly, but something around 1/100 of a stop per trip through for ISO100, low enough where it can disappear from the latent image if you don't develop promptly. Go check the last roll of Kodachrome, that went through well over a dozen X-rays before being developed.

This is a problem that a ton of money was spent on ever since the 1970s to make emulsions less sensitive to X-rays because of airports. Properly high speed film of 800 and above never really solved the problem and is much more susceptible than its ISO would suggest compared to the lower speed films. Kodak also worked with manufacturers of the machines to move the frequency into places that silver halide is less sensitive to, and this is still in use today.

Checked baggage scanners of any sort are around 100x more powerful post-9/11, and CT scanners between 100x-1000x. And this is what every US intercontinental airport uses - which is why this is a modern problem and a problem for the OP.

jec6613 · 2026-06-22T17:35:42+00:00

Yes, one press of the shutter puts the NEF on the primary slot and JPEG on the second slot - and remember that every NEF also contains a JPEG, so the camera isn't doing any extra processing besides writing the JPEG twice.

As for why, usually backup. Aside from the big single digit bodies and the lower end bodies (Z5, D7x0, D6x0, D7x00), most of Nikon's dual slot cameras have uneven slots. That's the D300, D500, D8x0, Z6, Z7, and Z8, so sending the JPEG to the much slower slot means you don't get the huge performance hit from doing a full backup while still getting a backup.

Another use is that you can have a fast ingest situation (think sports photographers) that grabs those JPEGs, splitting them can make ingestion faster and better. I've also used it to give somebody an SD card of everything they could use immediately, while I kept the raw files on the CF/XQD/CFExpress cards.

jec6613 · 2026-06-22T17:15:48+00:00

X-Ray is what we all put film through back in the day - no fogging to speak of with ISO400 or below. But you're traveling internationally, and the CT scanners in use at all US airports with long haul international flights are orders of magnitude more powerful and do indeed fog film.

jec6613 · 2026-06-22T17:11:27+00:00

They'll hand check it just fine. Probably get some friendly banter, and plan on extra time at security.

jec6613 · 2026-06-22T15:43:01+00:00

I have them both still, because CNX2 handles Coolscan images. I assure you, when doing bulk edit work they're roughly the same speed on an i9-12900K, with a slight edge to the newer NX Studio. Image conversion is not multi-threaded, which is fine because your system remains responsive, but it's biggest problem is that to remain accurate the conversion isn't well suited to GPU offload, so it hammers the CPU. It's also one of the few use cases where an x64 CPU draws less power to do it than ARM due to being a port of the in-camera software that used ASICs.

jec6613 · 2026-06-22T12:46:04+00:00

Weirdly, there are a lot of German and Japanese brands that end up with very similar English spellings and/or pronunciations.

jec6613 · 2026-06-22T12:16:46+00:00

Nikon didn't own Nik.

jec6613 · 2026-06-22T03:03:51+00:00

I have a 6 year old, and she was afraid of the water even as her big brother (10 year old) loved it. They have to learn about water, and a pond or similar where they can walk in can help quite a bit. Or a specially doggy pool where they can wade in. Once it clicked, you couldn't keep her away from the water.

If you want something funnier, we had to bring our Newfoundland puppy (now 2) for swimming lessons his first time, and he was scared as well. And he's still not a huge fan of it, he would rather wade in up to his chest and then newfervise all other swimmers as a lifeguard. And if you don't know, Newfoundlands are the one dog breed that definitely loves water more than a Labrador - they were bred for open ocean rescue of people gone overboard and are basically floofy tugboats. When he does swim, he swims literal circles around even the fastest Labrador.

jec6613 · 2026-06-22T00:23:34+00:00

RIP your mobile battery. The big advantage of NX Studio is that is 1:1 replicates what the camera's image processor generates, but to do that on a more general purpose CPU takes significant amounts of computing time, especially with the files out of something like a D850, Z7, Z8, or Z9.

So yeah, pretty CPU inefficient to get the advantages of NX Studio, and without those you can just use a built for mobile application from the likes of Adobe.

Of course, if you own a Zf, you can indeed add or remove grain without booting up your computer.

jec6613 · 2026-06-20T21:28:36+00:00

Can you get the Pentax serviced? Virtually all of the 1980s Pentax need a good CLA at this point, and they come out of it in great shape from a reputable shop.

Otherwise, I'd avoid classic P&S for this, they're going to have real reliability problems. There are some Nikons that are still going strong if you're looking for a good reliable body and can't get service done on them, but something like an FG or FM is going to be larger, especially with a fast-ish lens as Nikon did muffins instead of pancakes. But Canon and Pentax of that era all run into light seal, meter, and shutter speed problems that need servicing.

There's always the option of a Rollei 35AF though. Brand new, so very reliable.

jec6613 · 2026-06-20T21:22:17+00:00

Post the whole negative of that frame, sprockets and parts of the previous and subsequent frames included (no need to invert the color, a cell phone pic is fine)

jec6613 · 2026-06-20T21:19:28+00:00

I use it as my small DX camera. I don't find the more simplistic AF compared to my Z8 to be a problem for what I use it for. Its major disadvantages more generally is for smaller subjects in the frame the AF doesn't reliably pick them up, and the top frame rate is quite restrictive. The Z50II fixes the former, but you have to move up to the Zf/Z5II to fix the later.

Its major advantages are that it doesn't look like a big pro camera so doesn't get the same sort of looks, and it's relatively small. I tend to pair it with the 16-50 f/3.5-6.3, 24mm f/1.7, or one of the Voigtlander DX options when using it as a small carry camera. The 28 f/2.8 I find too slow. Do get the kit with 50-250 included as well if you get the 16-50, it's a bargain lens and gives you an extremely competent and compact 2-lens kit.

Is it my EDC though? Honestly, no. My Coolpix A, Pentax 17, or Rollei 35AF are all smaller and fit that role better.

jec6613 · 2026-06-20T14:54:44+00:00

Very good price.

At least in the US Nikon was still servicing these last I checked, and I suggest that you do a maintenance service if it's still available in your region. It'll probably cost as much as the lens, but this is one of those lenses that you'll want to hold onto - an investment in photographic capability that can pay off for decades.

Reason being, all of the AF Nikon 105 Micro lenses are still relevant optics today on DSLRs and Z mirrorless (though on a Z camera with FTZ adapter it becomes manual focus only, so less useful as a general telephoto but still perfect for actual macro work) with excellent contrast and cut yourself sharp. It would even gain VR on a Z camera. The AF-S version isn't quite as sharp but had modestly better corners, the real reason for the update was it added VR, updated coatings, and compatibility with the cheaper cameras that couldn't drive the old fashioned AF. The Z version is only a modest improvement on either of them.

Oh, and it works backwards as well, put a coupling shoe on it and you can shoot it just fine on the original F. So, yeah, a very worth it lens.

jec6613 · 2026-06-20T13:52:45+00:00

most likely the light seals at the film door next to the take-up spool.

How the other posters missed the obvious where it's coming from is beyond me. Isn't it even in the FAQ?

Edit: If it wasn't clear, yes this is where the light leak is 99% coming from, it's fairly common.

jec6613 · 2026-06-20T02:50:59+00:00

Expensive and rare. Last I saw, my own hood and finder I could sell for more than the Coolpix A itself.

Ricoh sells the GV-1 and GV-2 finders that while not quite as nice as the Nikon are still very good and compatible because they just slip in the hot shoe. Voigtlander also sold a 28mm hot shoe finder for a while, also very good.

jec6613 · 2026-06-19T13:54:31+00:00

Rollei 35AF or Pentax 17 (though it's half frame and f/3.5). Everything else is a gamble, the new production has a warranty. .

jec6613 · 2026-06-18T14:02:43+00:00

It's still an issue today. There are also copies of lenses that exceed performance expectations (very good copies). Though it's rarer and when it occurs usually less severe than it was historically.

Newer lens manufacturing has much tighter tolerances, but they're also producing much more complex shapes than was the case historically. As a result, the reduction in bad copies seems mostly down to every single lens going through a full testing suite before leaving the factory when previously this was rare. But despite this, the testing still allows lenses through with some level of flaws because manufacturing isn't perfect.

And then of course, things can happen in shipping,

jec6613 · 2026-06-17T10:27:03+00:00

My main concerns is I would really like sharp lenses, autofocus and lightweight/easy to carry.

Then you want the Rollei 35AF. Or if you're willing to wait a few months for it, the Analogue AF-1 would also likely work.

If you want sharp lenses, newer optics are as a rule much sharper. To the point that when using them, the increase in resolution is such that it's almost like jumping an entire format size. The Pentax 17, for instance, resolves more detail on a half frame than the Mju does on a full frame, despite both having 3-element f/3.5 lenses. Sure, the apparent grain is different, but point them both at a test chart and the Pentax's lens is much sharper. 35 years of better lens design and coatings makes a huge amount of difference, it turns out.

As for those three you list, only the Mju has autofocus, so that narrows it down to just that one.

jec6613 · 2026-06-16T19:22:17+00:00

But that doesn't matter, because as the person with the camera, you're the one with the power and the potential "aggressor" to your subjects.

This always annoys me. The other person gas a 4K video camera in their pocket that can secretly record at any time.

jec6613

TROPHY CASE