35Mm Film Point And Shoot Cameras New

This film is fantastic, I used it mostly on point and shoot cameras for parties and I have great results!

There is no 35mm film I'd rather shoot

As a guy in my 50s, of course I've shot on film before, but only snapshots on point-and-shoot cameras. I got into serious photography in the digital age, and have only recently (re)discovered the joy of shooting film. A photog buddy recommended this film and it's amazingly versatile and forgiving. Both the attached images were taken on an Olympus Trip 35, and you can see how it seems to do beautifully both indoors and out.

I love this film in my point and shoot cameras, as well as my Leica M6. The colors are unparalled. They are vibrant, full of contrast. I love them! I actually prefer this Kodak Gold 200 to Portra 400 almost entirely, although I generally default to Portra because it's has more dynamic range. I always have to pump saturation and contrast to my Portra scans. The Kodak Gold scans however are nearly perfect out of the scanner. It's also a cheap stock, so that's a big plus too.

Its a nice film to throw into a point and shoot.

Great, affordable C-41 film. I use this in my 35mm point and shoots and its great.

I owned several Point and Shoot cameras, and this is the best by far. A great value for a powerful camera.

I shoot Portra 400 almost exclusively for color. I use it in my 35mm and my 120mm cameras.

As a student, I use this film a lot when I shoot 35mm in the studio. I always end up with great results.

I shoot primarily portraits, lifestyle, and street photography. I shoot a Nikon D750 using point autofocus and manual 95% of the time. I shoot half of my work at f/2.8 and wider. While I had been far-and-away a long prime shooter (Nikon's 85mm getting most use), I wanted a 35mm for more flexibility. Sigma's 35mm f/1.4 fits my semi-pro budget better than Nikon's. I'd rented both before purchasing, and found that all things considered I actually slightly preferred the Sigma lens. There are a few reason's for this. First, the lens feels more modern to me, with a slightly stiffer focus ring and tighter construction (though I will be the first to admit I was working with used rental gear to judge Nikon's 35). Not that big a deal. But I also tended to prefer the Bokeh I got from the 35mm art. It's more blended - very slightly so - but there was something in its quality I tended to like a lot. Finally, the autofocus seemed to be snappier than Nikon's 35, again only by a hair's breadth. The Nikon 35mm is, however, a sharper lens. If you are a pixel peeper or heavy cropper the Nikon might be for you. But this lens is still very sharp, especially at f/2.8 or above. But even wide open I can still make out fine hair texture and eye patterns in a full-length portrait - and for me that's sharp enough. The Nikon also seems to produce a tad less distortion and less vignetting but with software correction these are non-factors for me personally. I've found myself using the 35mm prime for a majority of my work at this point. Yes, even portraits. It's able to shoot interesting angles because you can get close-in to the subject. In short, I find almost now glaring flaws with this lens and it has in fact become my favorite photography tool.