I gave it a quick wipe down with some rubbing alcohol, loaded in some film, and took it with me on a family trip to Seattle. The viewfinder is a little different in the AF35ML. The most obvious difference is the absence of the useless scale on the bottom of the viewfinder of the AF35M. Instead, you have equally useless LED indicators on the left side of the frame.
Neither camera has automatic parallax correction, instead you have a second set of parallax lines for composing at close focus. Also similar between the two cameras is the center autofocus indicator. Both cameras are limited in focusing on things in the very center of the frame.
If you want to focus on something that is not in the center, you must first have your focal point in the center of the frame, half press the shutter release button until one of the focus indicators lights up, and while still holding down the shutter release half way, move the camera to your desired composition.
The camera should retain focus on what was originally in the center of the frame. The manual kindly tells you to turn to page 20 of the manual to read about these special circumstances.
The image to the right shows the complete list of situations in which the AF sensor might have difficulty. They are:. Many situations could fall into one of these categories. As for the rest of the camera, the experience is very similar to that of the AF35M, so you can read that review for more specifics. The popup flash here still has a very long recycling time like the earlier model. You need to wait for the flash ready light to illuminate before taking a picture.
This is not a TTL Through the Lens camera, so you have to remember to take the lens cap off the camera before trying to use the camera. Between the following 12 shots in this review, the film stock used was half fresh FujiColor and half expired Kodak Max The shots on the expired Kodak are noticeably more grainy and a tad underexposed, but I will not fault the camera for that.
The most impressive shot is the one of the man playing guitar while using a hula hoop at the same time. This was shot outdoors in bright sunlight with a moving subject. The landscape shot of the mountains at infinity also turned out nice. The images are consistently sharp in the center and around the corners. The image to the left is a crop just off center of the 6th picture above. The details of the baby holding the purple sippy cup are very strong. This lens is clearly quite good, and definitely better than ones found on most plastic point and shoot cameras from the s.
I have many more shots than just these 6 that were out of focus. Some only slightly, but others were significantly out of focus. I did not get a single indoor shot in focus from the 2 rolls I shot in this camera. Not even the one of the bar above. I had the camera centered on the lady in the turquoise shirt, and nothing in this image is in focus. The thing is, this was a flat wall, with a very consistent focal plane.
This image was shot in shadows, but they were very brightly lit outdoor shadows. There is no reason the camera should have struggled with this shot. The Ferris wheel image has tons of vertical lines.
Maybe you have to have only vertical lines, and no diagonal ones. In the shot of the bicycles, I had the camera centered on the bikes near the back, yet none of them came out in focus.
Perhaps, the most disappointing ones are the first two in the Seattle fish market. I love the composition of these, and had I used a more capable camera, these could have been highlights of the roll. Instead, nothing is in focus. I do not understand how this camera can even be considered an auto focus camera when it is so easily tricked.
The worst part is that Canon had a more capable auto focus system that most likely would have done better on most of these shots.
If it was , and I was in the market for an easy to use vacation camera that had a great lens and could take the guess work out of focusing, and I purchased this camera and seen these results, I would have not been happy. I figured that one of two things must be true here.
Either, the expectations of what an auto focus system could do in is much less than what we expect today, or there is a chance something is wrong with my particular example. But, dear reader, what of the lens? Why, you paid me tuppence, so I shall deliver a riposte: It does its job well when stopped down a bit. It leads, however, to strangely uninspiring pictures in terms of color rendition.
The AF35ML gives perfectly sharp pictures at f5. It is proof positive that specs should be the last thing you worry about when you purchase a camera, and usability — specifically, how you can use it to do the things you want it to do — the first.
The specs are all there. They sound impressive. They are, however, sadly pointless when thrown together in such a loveless, techno-lusty but hare-brained fashion. It appears the Canon is programmed to open up the aperture long before it goes down in shutter speed. How I long, forsooth, sitting wrapped in horsehair blankets, my meerschaum pipe lit and my whisky neat, in front of yonder fireplace in the hall of Castle Gill, gentle readers, for the rangefinder this Canon should have been.
Or for another generation Canon. Something sensible, with reliable autofocus, no annoying beepery, and a modicum of thought about design. Not this wannabe VCR of a point and shoot! In compacter quarters of our industrious if foggy capital, Olympus had a good thing going with their XA line. Minolta did odd things as per usual. Nikon, on the other hand, hired Giorgetto Giugaro not only to design their beloved F3, but also their compact offering, the L35AF.
It paid off. The L35 is sought after still. What say I, thence, verdictly? It is technically capable of nice images. Then again, nearly every camera of the same era from Canon or any of its serious competitors is. Collins Gravesite. It could have been a nice small street photography camera, but it is simply much too loud for this. It might be okay for casual family gatherings, but how often, you think, will your loved ones tolerate you beeping away with the Canon, and how happily will they listen to that blasted film forward?
Sometimes, no matter who makes it, a product just falls through the cracks of good and common sense. Tripod socket, rewind buttons and battery compartment visible. To tell the truth, my muscular Christian sistren and brethren, in a somewhat unexpected turn, the F1. As mentioned above, the only pictures it produced that ever were sharp corner to corner were flash pictures. If, however, you prefer to own cameras to take pictures sans unnecessary fuss, then buy a Canonet QL — an actual rangefinder.
Or a Nikon L35AF. Or the Minolta AF2. Or, or, or or. For reasons not anymore entirely clear to either of us, there came about a challenge between myself and Hamish wherein I should write this review with bits of fake Victorian English thrown in. So I did. For more articles on 35mmc about the subject matter discussed here, please click one of the following tag links:. Alternatively, please feel free to chuck a few pennies in the tip jar via Ko-fi:.
Become a Patron! Learn about where your money goes here. Would like to write for 35mmc? Find out how here. I beseech thee master Torsten, henceforth to speak plain english for this was a pain in the arse to read. Much obliged, Sir Jeremy! I shall take under strong consideration your admonition, and remain, as ever, thankful for your appreciation of my writings despite their shortcomings. I enjoyed the Hapsburg trappings, variety being the spice of language and life, but each to their own.
These things represented cutting edge technology in their day, and that day recedes with each passing year, but it almost seems as though they were deliberately hamstrung at times. Take the Pentax Espio as if anyone would!
Lacking the time to make something similar lead me in a very roundabout way to the Espio The camera has a lens, the longest telephoto of any compact AF film camera. I have a feeling that especially beginning in the 80s and with the technological arms race of chips and motors and auto everything, camera companies relied on specs to sell cameras, not on usability.
This seems to tie into a larger history of marketing and the tendency to break down the audience for a product into ever smaller groups. I could go on. Looking at these old cameras allows one to take a step back and realize that. Not so much what were they thinking, as what were they on?
I looked up that Konica — wow, that seems like a bad idea. I mean, what manufacturer prevents you from shooting at f8? So, having a less than stellar lens that at least offered this capability, was certainly to be welcomed.
Yes, it was the equivalent selling feature that today we look to pixel counts on sensors, and many realise what a waste of time this can be. Importantly, for the users of the day, this would have met their needs. And, of course, lens performance would equally be subject to how accurate the AF was, and with f1. This may explain why those AF cameras fitted with f2. Its other attributes, I have to agree with. It is noisy, very, and can be hit and miss regarding exposure, but for the short duration I used it in anger, mine rarely, if ever, missed focus.
The Canon takes this decision out of your hand. So do the more typical cameras with f2. I really like your comparison with the megapixel craze. Maybe it never will. Figuring out what you like, and how that can change is half the journey with this vintage gear.
I agree with all your points. The ingenuity of camera designers never ceases to amaze. You only have to look at cameras such as the Bolsey C to wonder what on earth was in their minds. The AF35ML certainly must rank as one of them. I think we should suggest a new category for the site: magnificent failures of camera construction! Though that would quickly beyond compact and 35mm…. Torsten, indeed it would. Hamish, no slight of Sony intended at all.
Far from it, as I have a number, starting with the R1, then 5N, followed by A7 the models I like most and a Nex 7 and with which I am somewhat less enamoured of its IQ.
It must be me. Since […]. All are so far off, they imply a camera hardly worth anything outisd of its weight in plastic. I hope readers of this review will do their due dilignece before assuming this is all there is to it.
Other wise I love the way it is written up, camera evaluation aside. Or anything else, for that matter! Here is what I learned:. The soft corners are due to exceptionally high field curvature — if you focus on something ten feet away, objects which are 50 feet away in the corners will also be in focus!
I suspect that because the aperture is behind the lens, they needed to design it to be highly asymmetric for a 40 mm lens, with much smaller elements in the rear.
0コメント