You are reading a single comment by @cagimaha and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
If you like the 40mm focal length and are looking for small/light then Pentax did a 40mm f/2.8 "pancake" lens that is ace: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-40mm-F2.8-Pankake-Lens.html
Makes the ME Super something that whilst still a bit big for a jeans pocket will easily go in a jacket/jersey pocket.
cagimaha
Ste_S
I may end up just sticking with film.
I've gone down a weird photography rabbit hole in a short space of time.
Had Praktica SLRs and various film compacts in my youth. In more recent times just used phone cameras.
Got frustrated with the 29mm focal length on the iPhone and thought I needed something with a zoom lens. Bought a second hand Nikon DSLR with a 18-55mm kit lens. Happy enough with it, although a bit bulky to carry all the time.
Also bought an Olympus Trip 35 to try film again, and what do you know, the 40mm lens on it is pretty much spot on for what I want to do. It's size means I can take it pretty much everywhere too.
Feel like I should have a digital version of the Trip for when I need more 'instant' images, but digital compacts at the lower end all have some problem or another (tiny sensors, zoom lenses and no optical viewfinder etc)
Hence sticking with film. Also helps that I've inherited my Dad's Pentax ME Super with 50mm prime lens, which feels half the size of the Nikon DSLR.
Olympus Trip 35, Pentax ME Super, iPhone when more instant images needed.
TL, DR: Why are modern budget digital compacts so bad when compared to their film predecessors