I've seen the 35AF compared with the original but few comparisons with other cameras, so here you go.
>>4369442>>4369542PS: generally speaking one of the great perks of using a P&S or rangefinder is you get to see beyond what would be captured in the viewfinder. Not so here. The viewfinder image cuts off pretty much right at the frame lines. Also for some adenine reason the focus point dot is located closer to the eye so it looks all blurry while you're composing. It's complete trash. Since they already disregarded the size conventions of the original 35, they couldn't make it a few mm larger still for a better viewfinder? Shameful.
>>4369543With all due respect, that is just not true.
For one thing production is completely separate between movie and still film, they even use a different base: poly vs. acetate. 6cm and 7cm films are made with completely different equipment.
Sure, sheet film is a niche but sales of their still roll films are very comfortable and can sustain dedicated production. They sell Tri-X like hotcakes since there are still film photography classes in uni and very many photographers use it as an everyday film. And Tmax 400 is still the gold standard in terms of sharpness.
