Why is it that there is no cheap point and shoot camera that

Because a digital camera is already expensive, so why should they create another niche camera nobody would ever buy because you know, smartphones.

There's already the ricoh gr but they aren't that popular so why should they invest in a camera which is way simpler and much more similar to a smartphone? Nonsense

>>3097255
That's sums it up nicely.

Digital is too expensive to be cheap, but, at the same time, everyone already got a camera in hands (which was the intention with cheap point n shoots).

Even least expensive digital cameras such as superzooms are meant to look like professional equipment, bc if you're investing on a digital camera, it better looks like a good camera (whether it actually is or not doesn't really matter much, bc it'll be limited to social media and by ease of use anyways).

>>3097255
Except smart phones can't even capture an image like the p&s in the Op, sure it does selfies but it's severely limited. Why not make a simple p&s with a 35 mm 2.8 fixed lens and a good sensor? That camera was made in 1997, there's no way it would still be super expensive to make.

>>3097259
Uhh, there are many smartphones that can produce astounding images. A point and shoot film camera is so redundant, no company in their right mind would make one. Even now with the popularity of them its a big risk, as its a fad that could die very very quickly.

As say this as a person who ALWAYS has a 35mm p&s with them. I know I'm a tiny minority that sees the appeal.

The two main culprits were AF speed and sensor readout speed. They're a thing of the past now (see Sony A9).

On the other hand, cameras are bloated with useless features. So, selling one that you just point & shoot with might be quite tricky.

>>3097249
On the lower end people switched to smartphones, and some of them actually are better than typical 35mm film is.

And there are still a good bunch of good compact cameras.

> cheap
Cheap like the RX100 V (affordable by almost every employed person)? Sure. Cheap like a kilogram of rice?
No, it's a fucking digital camera and you want it to be quite nice, so...

> a simple auto 35mm film camera
You pay plenty for wasted time and wasted shots as well as for the film itself.

Never mind a good scanner / scanning or film developing services if you don't DIY on everything.

>>3098175
>smartphones, and some of them actually are better than typical 35mm film is

What do you mean by better? Resolution? Maybe. But smartphone photos don't look good in less than ideal conditions like scenes with high dynamic range or low light.

>>3097860
>there are many smartphones that can produce astounding images
Stopped reading there.

>>3098276
You can easily make good looking 8x10 prints from contemporary smartphones. That's about the limit for most 35mm p&s cameras too...since many of them didnt have the best lenses. Ive printed 8x10 from both a Stylus Epic and XA and that was pushing the optical limits. You need to be shooting a damn expensive p&s to beat a modern day iPhone in terms of IQ.

>shooting 35mm for IQ
>shiggidy

>>3097249
>These "modern" high megapickes cameras get beaten by a simple auto 35mm film camera.
Uh...no they don't. Any of the nicer digital P&S lines passed up 35mm film in objective quality a long time ago.

You may like film aesthetics better. In some situations I do. But objectively (resolution; DR; color accuracy) this debate is a dead horse.

>>3097259
Buy a mirrorless, slap a fast prime on the front, and call it a day.