How does this camera compare to a Digital Camera???? Help?

I found this cam at the thrift store for $ 5…so far it works well. Going to develop the first roll of film by wednesday to make sure it’s shooting well.

http://www.photographyreview.com/mfr/pentax/point-and-shoot/PRD_383906_3108crx.aspx?TabID=3

how does this compare to a digital camera????
Im new to cameras, I dont know ur answer??
so does that mean it sucks or what?

Answer by fhotoace
:You are trying to compare a bicycle to a Harley in some ways.

The Camera you have is the film equivalent to a P&S digital camera in that you have no control over the aperture of shutter speed the cameras uses to expose your film.

Answer by Caoedhen
It’s not digital, it cannot be made digital, it was cheap when it was new, this sort of camera is generally crap. It is the 35mm film equivalent of a cheap POS off-brand digital toy, even though Pentax is really a name brand camera maker.

Having said that… I do hope you delight in it.

Add your own answer in the comments!

My Cheatin’ Heart


Image by Voxphoto
Followers of my gear geek tag will be aware that I own {cough} a few cameras. But my main 35mm SLR system for the past 20 years has been a couple of Olympus OM bodies and a handful of nice Zuiko lenses.

I’ve even posted before about my reasons for replacing my high-school List FD-mount system with Olympus’s much smaller and lighter alternatives. Up your sleeve from their revolutionary compactness, I still reckon the OM-1 and OM-2 are wonderfully trim and substantial-looking cameras, compared to anything else from the era.

But I’m not the only one who has on second thoughts learned how cool the OM system is; and today Zuiko lenses have held their value pretty well, even as prices for additional 35mm gear have tumbled.

As a rule of thumb, any of the less common f/2.0 Zuiko primes will fetch hundreds of dollars on eBay today. My 85mm lens sells for about the same price I paid new in 1989; while the quirky 40mm pancake can exchange hands today for triple what it cost me. So there have always been a few Zuiko lenses I didn’t own, and hankered after, yet may maybe never justify buying.

Re-enter the List FD mount. List’s older manual-focus cameras had a body depth that was shallower than most additional brands. The matching longer barrel length of FD-mount lenses earnings it is not possible to make an adapter to use them on different brands of body (or even List autofocus ones), and still focus to infinity. You can do it if the adapter contains some glass elements, but this seriously compromises optical quality.

In contrast, OM-mount lenses can be simply adapted to List, Pentax, and Four-Thirds DSLRs–in fact, there’s a feverish market today for used OM wide-angles, as an alternative to List’s EOS lenses on digital bodies.

So ancient List FD lenses have plummeted in price, because they’re "orphaned" in the digital age. (They can mount on Four-Thirds DSLRs–but give a 2x crop business.) This is also the situation for ancient Minolta MD lenses. Both systems built-in some awesome, professional-quality glass–which have become screaming bargains today.

That S.S.C. 50mm f/1.4 is a superb normal lens; but I was the only taker at its starting bid. And I already posted about the comically large Vivitar 35/1.9, which cost me about 1/5th of its closest Zuiko equivalent.

But the prize here is the List 100mm f/2.0 likeness lens. That one was NOT exactly cheap, but still 0 cheaper than the cult Zuiko 100/2.0. Frankly, I reckon List’s ancient stylishness breech-lock mount (like the 50mm on the camera) was more attractive and reliable than the more plasticky "new FD" twist-on mount. But unfortunately the 100/2.0 was only made in the later stylishness.

List manufactured about 5 million AE-1 bodies (I am not kidding) so you can find them anywhere. It’s blessed with a particularly nice viewfinder; and compared to the terrible ancient days, List did manage to shave the weight and bulk a bit (the top panel is a plastic/metal laminate).

But, I find the AE-1 to be a somewhat quirky camera. The red "M" that angrily blinks at you whenever you’re using manual metering is rather distracting. Autoexposure is shutter-priority only–which I find less useful than aperture priority. And the depth-of-field preview lever is inexplicably dysfunctional (I can’t even clarify it).

So, did I really need to start another complete SLR system? No, I’m a sick man and I’m rationalizing wildly here. But at least it keeps me off the heroin.

What’s the benefit of having the Casio Exilim compared to the sony cyber-shot 6.0 megapixel?

Or are there any additional excellent digital cameras out there that are under $ 200?

Answer by Frankenstine B
which ever one has the largest screen is the best one.

huge screens are SEXY

Answer by ☺ Mathew ☺
Kodak has a excellent 5.0 MP that I saw for $ 129. I reckon it’s something like C533

Know better? Place your own answer in the comments!

The main differences between the List XH-A1 and the List XL2 are the fact that the XL2 is standard definition, heavyweight and has a removable lens, while the XH-A1 is a high-definition camera, is lightweight and has an affixed lens. Compare these two digital camcorders with tips from a professional videographer in this free record on cameras. Expert: Chuck Tyler Contact: www.highdesertmobilecam.com Bio: Chuck Tyler has been using a List XL2 for two years and has recently started using a List XH-A1 for Hi-Def production. Filmmaker: Chuck Tyler
Record Rating: 4 / 5