film grain – PJFP.com

Point and shoot cameras are having a genuine moment. The Fujifilm X100VI sells for hundreds over retail, and a lot of people are leaving their phones at home in favor of pocket cameras built 20 or 30 years ago. In this episode of Then vs. Now, James Pumphrey and Zach from Speeed take the best-selling point and shoot from every decade since the 1960s, shoot the same film through all of them, put them up against the iPhone, and try to settle three questions: what makes a point and shoot good, why this is all coming back now, and which era actually did it best.

TLDW

The lineup runs from the 1963 Kodak Instamatic 100 (126 cartridge, fixed f/11 lens, 70 million sold, scored 4/10 because the film no longer exists), through the 1972 Kodak Pocket Instamatic (tiny 110 film, very portable, photos judged “useless”), the Konica C35 AF that pioneered autofocus in 1977, and the 1979 Canon Sure Shot (Autoboy in Japan, 38mm f/2.8, 11 million sold, 8.5/10). The 1997 Olympus Stylus Epic (the mju II outside the US, 35mm f/2.8 clamshell, about $300 new and around $500 on eBay today) wins with a 9.5 for sharper optics, smarter exposure and speed out of a pocket. The 2006 Canon PowerShot is the cheap, fast, very usable millennial relic that needs an old 2GB SD card to work. The iPhone 6 represents the 2010s, the camera that helped cut point and shoot sales 90% from their peak, and it takes technically good HDR photos that feel flat next to film. The 2020s get both the iPhone 17 Pro Max and the X100VI (40 megapixels, film recipes, $1,800 retail), which scores 7.5: best image quality of the day, but “fake romantic.” The verdict: past a baseline of image quality it is all about experience, the resurgence is about getting off your phone, and the ’90s reign supreme.

Thoughts

The first half of this video is secretly a story about film formats, not cameras. The Instamatic and the Pocket Instamatic were both huge commercial wins because Kodak solved a real problem: people ruined film constantly by threading and sealing it wrong, so Kodak put the film in a drop-in cartridge. The trade-off was that each shrink in the cartridge (126 then 110) cost image quality, and both formats are now dead, which is why the Instamatic needed a 3D-printed cartridge loaded in a dark room between every shot. The moment the lineup hits the Canon Sure Shot and standard 35mm film, the photos jump from curiosities to things you would actually frame. If you are buying a vintage point and shoot today, the lesson is simple: buy for the film you can still get, not for the camera’s legend.

The more subtle thread is how much of “point and shoot” is really the camera making decisions for you, and how that intelligence evolved. The Instamatic’s answer was to stop everything down to f/11 and hope, a middle-ground approach that only works outside in daylight. The Sure Shot opened up to f/2.8 and used autofocus and auto exposure to actually read the scene. The Stylus, shooting the exact same film at the same aperture, exposed the shadows better and found a kid in the corner that the Sure Shot crushed to black. Then the iPhone takes it to the extreme by shooting multiple exposures and merging them into HDR. Each step made the camera smarter and the photographer less involved, and the video makes a decent case that somewhere around 1997 the balance was perfect.

The iPhone segment is the most honest part. The iPhone 6 photo of the river is objectively better than the Sure Shot’s: more shadow detail, a real sky, no noise. And yet the reaction is “I would rather hang this on my wall,” pointing at the film print. Technically better and emotionally flat is a real category, and the blind test at the end backs it up: James identified every film photo correctly and mixed up all the digital ones. Once digital processing gets good enough, cameras start to converge on the same look, while film keeps its fingerprint. That is a useful thing to know before paying a premium for a digital camera that promises character.

The Fujifilm X100VI critique is the sharpest idea in the video and the one most reviews skip. It takes the best photos in the lineup, has recipes that preview a film look right in the viewfinder, and it still gets a 7.5, below a $120 camera from 1979. The complaint is not quality, it is that the X100VI sells the aesthetic of disconnection while keeping the habit of reviewing every frame on a screen. The old cameras give you a click and a question mark (“I don’t know if I got it”), and that uncertainty is exactly what keeps you in the moment. “Fake romantic” is harsh, but it names the gap between a camera that looks like 1970 and one that behaves like 1970.

The closing answer is the one worth keeping. Past a bar for image quality, a good point and shoot “lets you capture the moment without taking you out of it,” and the resurgence is about people wanting off their phones: a phone camera is a door into doom-scrolling, and a point and shoot is disconnected by design. James keeps his Stylus by the front door and grabs it every time he leaves, and he ends by calling joy a weird metric before correcting himself: maybe joy is a normal metric. That is the right frame for any tool purchase. The best camera is not the one that wins the spec sheet, it is the one you actually carry and enjoy using.

Key Takeaways

Point and shoot cameras are surging in popularity, with new models like the Fujifilm X100VI reselling above retail and older digital compacts from 20 to 30 years ago becoming fashionable everyday carry.
The video sets three questions: what makes a point and shoot good, why the resurgence is happening now, and which decade produced the best one.
Selection rules: the best-selling camera of each decade, priced between $100 and $1,500 adjusted for inflation, with no interchangeable lenses. That excludes disposables and high-end cameras like Leica and Ricoh.
The Kodak Instamatic 100 (1963) launched at $16 (about $160 today), used a 43mm fixed f/11 lens, sold 70 million units, and sells for about $30 now.
Before the Instamatic, loading film meant threading, seating, winding and sealing by hand, and people ruined film all the time. Kodak’s 126 drop-in cartridge fixed that.
The Instamatic gives the user no control at all: fixed focal length, fixed aperture, fixed film sensitivity. You point and press.
f/11 is a small aperture that keeps more in focus but lets in less light, so the Instamatic mostly needs to be used outdoors in daylight.
126 cartridges are no longer made, so the team used a 3D-printed cartridge that had to be advanced in a dark room between every shot, causing heavy light leaks. Score: 4 out of 10.
The Kodak Pocket Instamatic (1972) was the best-selling camera of the 1970s, built around the smaller 110 cartridge so it could actually fit in a pocket. It sells for around $30 today.
The 110 format’s small negative produces low resolution, visible grain and very poor dynamic range. The hosts called the results “useless,” and 110 film is hard to source.
Kodak’s own manual told users to take close-ups of people, likely because the tiny negative could not hold detail at a distance.
Film was developed, then scanned at high resolution and printed. For the final comparison they also used a fully photochemical print process with no scan.
Konica’s C35 AF (1977) was the first mass-produced camera to combine autofocus, auto exposure and a built-in flash.
Canon had been developing its own autofocus triangulation system for 14 years and released the Autoboy, sold in America as the Sure Shot, in 1979, about 18 months after the Konica.
The Sure Shot sold 11 million units across its first three generations, launched at $240 (just under $1,000 today), and sells for about $120 now.
Its 38mm f/2.8 lens lets in far more light than f/11, which is why it needs autofocus, but it makes lower-light photos possible.
Standard 35mm film was a huge advantage. The same film stock was used in every film camera for a fair comparison.
The Sure Shot produced strong blues, great greens and nice flash photos, but auto exposure sometimes crushed shadows where people were standing. Score: 8.5 out of 10.
If the ’80s were the golden age of 35mm point and shoot innovation, the ’90s were when they became perfect.
The Olympus mju II (1997), sold in the US as the Infinity Stylus Epic, has a 35mm f/2.8 lens and a clamshell cover that protects the lens and makes it pocketable.
Olympus sold 3.8 million mju IIs. It cost around $300 new and now sells for about $500 on eBay, making it one of the most sought-after cameras on the secondary market.
In a pocket-to-photo speed test, the Stylus beat the Sure Shot easily. Fast startup is one of the most praised traits in owner reviews.
On identical film at the same aperture, the Stylus was sharper (better optics), wider, and exposed shadows better than the Sure Shot.
A wider lens is safer: you can always walk closer, but indoors you often cannot back up. The Stylus is reportedly prone to light leaks. Score: 9.5 out of 10.
Digital arrived at the turn of the millennium, and point and shoots were one of the first categories to adopt it.
The 2006 Canon PowerShot they tested cost $430 at launch (about $830 today) and now goes for around $100.
The PowerShot is a millennial and Myspace-era icon, famous for mirror selfies and for Maria Sharapova’s “Make every shot a PowerShot” ads.
Old PowerShots only accept small SD cards (around 2 to 4 GB), which are hard to find when stores start at 64 GB.
PowerShot images look clearly digital (sharp, no grain), but the camera is tiny, fast, cheap and arguably the best entry point into intentional photography.
The best-selling camera of the 2010s under the rules was the iPhone 6. By 2015 “Shot on iPhone” was a global billboard campaign.
The iPhone 6 had an 8 megapixel camera. By 2015 point and shoot sales had fallen 90% from their peak, and Kodak had filed for bankruptcy in 2012.
An old iPhone 6 costs about $40 today. The hosts credit smartphones with putting a good camera in many more hands, while joking that phones ruined the world.
The iPhone’s HDR merges multiple exposures. Here it worked well, holding both sky and shadows, but the result still felt digital and less organic than film.
The best-selling camera of the 2020s so far is also an iPhone, the iPhone 17 Pro Max, with three cameras, a 48 megapixel sensor and heavy computational processing.
The Fujifilm X100VI has 40 megapixels, a fixed lens, manual controls, AI autofocus, skin smoothing and film simulation “recipes.” It retails for $1,800 and resells for $300 to $400 above that.
The X100VI took the best photos in the lineup, with detail in shadows none of the others captured, but the hosts felt it cashes in on nostalgia and still pulls you out of the moment to review shots. Score: 7.5 out of 10.
Answer one: there is a bar for image quality, and past it, experience is everything. A good point and shoot captures the moment without taking you out of it.
Answer two: the resurgence is about getting off phones. Phone cameras feel invasive and lead to doom-scrolling. A point and shoot is simple and disconnected, and handing one to someone is fun rather than a privacy risk.
Answer three: the ’90s win. The Stylus is peak mechanical and analog, easy to carry, and the most joyful camera to use.
In a blind test of identical scenes, James identified all the film photos but mixed up the digital ones, and Zach spotted the Sure Shot by its darker shadows.

Detailed Summary

The Setup: Why Point and Shoots, and Why Now

The episode opens on the internet’s current obsession with point and shoot cameras. New releases sell for well over retail, and people are swapping their phones for compact digital and film cameras built decades ago. James and Zach gather the best-selling point and shoot from each decade (film and digital) and include the most popular point and shoot of all time, the iPhone, because the obvious question for any buyer is why bother with a dedicated camera at all. The rules: best-selling within a $100 to $1,500 inflation-adjusted price band, and no interchangeable lenses.

1960s: Kodak Instamatic 100

Before the Instamatic, taking photos meant threading film, making sure it was seated, winding it and sealing the back, with many ways to ruin a roll. Kodak’s 126 cartridge simply dropped in. The camera itself offered no control: fixed focal length, fixed f/11 aperture, fixed film speed. It is the camera behind countless mid-century family snapshots of uncles, babies, cars in driveways and terrifying Easter bunnies. At $16 on launch and 70 million units sold, it was revolutionary. Today, though, 126 film is gone. The team’s only real cartridge expired in 1979, so they used a 3D-printed one that had to be advanced in a dark room between frames, which produced heavy light leaks. The 35mm film inside gave nice grain and surprisingly vibrant color, but focus was soft and the practical experience was miserable. Score: 4 out of 10.

1970s: Kodak Pocket Instamatic

After the original’s success, Kodak’s priority was shrinking. The 1972 Pocket Instamatic used 110 film to fit in a pocket and became the best-selling camera of the decade. It looks like a spy camera and has an absurd flash that roughly quadruples its size. The smaller negative is its downfall: the photos show low resolution, visible dots and almost no dynamic range, with shadows crushed and highlights blown. Even Kodak’s instructions nudged users toward close-ups of people. The hosts admit they wanted to find charm in the results because the camera is old, but concluded the photos were just bad, and 110 film is hard to find. Great usability, disappointing output.

1980s: Canon Sure Shot (Autoboy)

Autofocus changed everything. Konica’s C35 AF in 1977 was the first mass-produced camera to combine autofocus, auto exposure and flash, but Canon had spent 14 years on its own triangulation system and launched the Autoboy (the Sure Shot in America) 18 months later. It sold 11 million units across three generations, cost $240 at launch and goes for about $120 today. Its 38mm f/2.8 lens reads the scene rather than averaging everything the way the Instamatic did. Shot on standard 35mm, the images were a huge leap: rich blue skies, clouds, great greens that digital often struggles with, and flattering flash. Auto exposure still made some odd calls, leaving people in shadow. Score: 8.5 out of 10.

1990s: Olympus Stylus Epic (mju II)

The 1997 Olympus mju II, the Infinity Stylus Epic in the US, is James’s own camera. It has a 35mm f/2.8 lens behind a sliding clamshell, a lanyard instead of a neck strap, and a reputation as one of the fastest cameras from pocket to photo, which a head-to-head race against the Sure Shot confirmed. Olympus sold 3.8 million, and prices have climbed from about $300 new to around $500 on eBay. On identical film, the Stylus was sharper thanks to better optics, wider, and made smarter exposure decisions, pulling detail out of a shadowed corner (and a child nobody noticed) that the Sure Shot left black. It has some reputation for light leaks and you need to mind the focus, but the photos looked amazing. Score: 9.5 out of 10.

2000s: Canon PowerShot

Then digital arrived, and point and shoots were among the first cameras to adopt it. Exact sales were hard to track, but the Canon PowerShot line was clearly among the best sellers, so they picked a 2006 model: $430 at launch (about $830 today) and about $100 now. Tiny enough to look like a Zoolander prop, it is a millennial relic, the camera of Myspace and mirror selfies, marketed by Maria Sharapova with “Make every shot a PowerShot.” Finding a small enough SD card was its own quest. The images look immediately digital, sharp and grainless, not as cool as film but good. The hosts liked it more than expected: small, fast, cheap to run with no film or scanning costs, and arguably the best entry-level way into more intentional photography.

2010s: iPhone 6

By the rules of the video, the best-selling camera of the 2010s was the iPhone 6. Its 8 megapixel camera was good, fast and convenient enough to effectively end the compact camera market: “Shot on iPhone” was on billboards worldwide, point and shoot sales fell 90% from their peak by 2015, and Kodak had filed for bankruptcy in 2012. An old iPhone 6 now costs about $40. The hosts stress they are not anti-iPhone, since it put good cameras in many hands, and a later iPhone shot the acclaimed film Tangerine. The iPhone’s HDR worked well here, holding sky and shadow without noise. Still, next to the Sure Shot and Stylus prints, it felt technically better but less organic. The iPhone takes a good photo, and nobody is impressed by it.

2020s: iPhone 17 Pro Max and Fujifilm X100VI

The best-selling camera of this decade is again an iPhone, the iPhone 17 Pro Max, whose three cameras and heavy processing make it a “point and shoot and edit and think” device. To represent the revival itself, they added the Fujifilm X100VI: 40 megapixels, a fixed lens, manual dials, plus AI autofocus, skin smoothing and film recipes that preview the look in the viewfinder. It retails for $1,800 and resells for $300 to $400 more. It produced the best photos of the day, including detail in shadows that no other camera captured, and the viewfinder recipes are fun. But the hosts felt it cashes in on nostalgia, costs far more than the rest, and brings back the habit of checking every photo. Score: 7.5 out of 10.

The Verdict and the Blind Test

What makes a good point and shoot is clearing a bar for image quality and then delivering an experience that lets you capture a moment without leaving it. The resurgence is about getting off phones, which feel invasive and pull you into scrolling, while a point and shoot is simple and disconnected. The era that reigns supreme is the ’90s, which James compares to ’90s cars: peak mechanical, analog and built to be used. He keeps his Stylus by the front door and suggests joy may be a perfectly normal metric. In a closing blind test of six identical scenes (fully photochemical prints for the film shots), James nailed all the film images but confused the digital ones, and Zach picked out the Instamatic by its light leaks and the Sure Shot by its darker shadows.

Notable Quotes

“Chances are, any time you see an old-ass photo of, like, some dude with slicked-back hair holding a baby next to a car in a driveway, it’s probably this camera.”
The hosts, on the Kodak Instamatic’s place in family photo history

“If the ’80s was the golden age for innovation for 35mm point and shoots, the ’90s was when they became perfect.”
Narration, introducing the Olympus Stylus Epic

“You can always walk closer to something, but sometimes you’re in a room or whatever. You can’t get any further away. So, like, a wider lens is a little safer.”
The hosts, on why the Stylus’s wider 35mm lens beats the Sure Shot’s 38mm

“I mean, this feels technically better, but I would rather hang this on my wall.”
Comparing the iPhone 6’s HDR photo with the Canon Sure Shot’s film print

“I think it’ll probably take amazing photos, but it feels like it’s cashing in on nostalgia in a way where I’m like, you should just buy the old camera.”
On the Fujifilm X100VI and its $300 to $400 resale premium

“The other cameras, one of the things that is so fun about them is, like, click. I don’t know if I got it.”
On why the film cameras feel better to use than the X100VI

“I think there’s a bar for image quality, and once you’ve passed that bar, it all comes down to experience. A good point and shoot lets you capture the moment without taking you out of it.”
The answer to what makes a point and shoot good

“Phone cameras can feel invasive, and once you pull out your phone and start looking at it, chances are you might keep looking at it.”
On why the point and shoot resurgence is happening now

“It’s, like, a weird metric, but it’s the most, like, joyful camera to use.”
James Pumphrey, on the Olympus Stylus Epic he keeps by his front door

Watch the full Then vs. Now camera episode here, and see more from the team at Speeed.

Tag: film grain

Testing the Best-Selling Point and Shoot Cameras From Every Decade: Kodak Instamatic, Canon Sure Shot, Olympus Stylus Epic, Canon PowerShot, iPhone and Fujifilm X100VI Compared