Camera Reviews

Canon Snappy 50

The 35mm point and shoot was an exciting development in photography for the average person. When they first came on the scene in the early 1980s, 126 and 110 cameras abounded and Kodak’s Disc cameras were popular. Unfortunately, they delivered so-so image quality. 35mm film’s 24x36mm frame was larger than that of any of those films, and even a middling lens could result in good, sharp images at snapshot sizes and in enlargements up to 8×10. And besides, “the pros” all shot 35mm film. That wasn’t exactly true, but that’s what the average person thought then. It’s what I thought then. When I bought a new camera in 1983 for a trip I would take the next summer to Germany. I wanted one of the early 35mm point and shoots, specifically a Canon Snappy 50.

Canon Snappy 50

Canon’s Snappy cameras, the 50 and its little brother the 20, were the first point-and-shoot 35mm cameras I ever heard of, probably because Canon advertised them on TV.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t afford either camera. Dad had paid for the trip, which cost my working-class family a ton of money. He told me that if I wanted a new camera, I’d have to save my allowance and buy it myself. The Snappy 50’s street price was about $90 (about $250 in today’s money), and the Snappy 20 about $70 ($190). That’s not inexpensive: you could buy an entry-level Canon SLR body with a 50mm lens for about $120 then. My $5 weekly allowance, plus money I earned mowing neighbors’ lawns, was enough to buy me only a crappy 110 camera, a decision I’ve always regretted even though it was the best I could do. But I’ve never forgotten Canon’s first Snappy cameras, which is why I bought this Snappy 50. It’s just an old used camera today, so I got it for $20 shipped.

Canon Snappy 50

The Snappy 20 uses a fixed-focus lens, but the Snappy 50 offers autofocus. It is limited to two focus zones, though, one centered around 5.9 feet and one centered around 13.1 feet. It uses the narrowest aperture possible at each focus point for the greatest possible depth of field. The Snappy 50 uses a 35mm f/3.5 lens that stops down to f/16. The shutter operates from 1/20 to 1/500 second.

Canon Snappy 50

Atop the camera is a switch to select between ISO 100 and 400 films. The camera doesn’t read DX coding, which hadn’t been invented in 1982 when the Snappy 50 was new. Consumer color negative films were either ISO 100 or 400 in those days, so this limited range was fine.

Flash is off by default, thank heavens. When the red light blinks inside the viewfinder, there isn’t enough light, so turn on the flash by pushing out the orange slider on the front of the camera. It whistles while it warms up, which is such a 1980s sound! The light around back next to the viewfinder glows when it’s ready. The flash has a range of 5.2 to 14.7 feet at either ISO setting.

Two AA batteries power everything, and the camera won’t work without them.

Loading film was remarkably simple for its day. Pull the “Pull Open” block on the camera bottom to open the back. Then lay the film cartridge in on the left, stretch the film across to the red mark at the right, close the back, and press the shutter button repeatedly until the film counter reads 1. After you finish the roll, to rewind the film look for the film-roll symbol on the camera bottom. Above it is a button; press it in with a finger and hold it. Then with another finger, slide the lever above that button in the direction of the arrow and let go of both the lever and the button.

To shoot, open the lens cover with the lever on the side of the lens area. Then frame and press the shutter button.

If you like point-and-shoot cameras, also see my reviews of the Canon AF35ML (here) and Snappy S (here); the underrated Kodak VR35 K40 (here); the Minolta Talker (here); the truly crappy Nikon Zoom Touch 400 (here); the Olympus Stylus (here), Stylus Epic Zoom 80 (here), and µ(mju:) Zoom 140 (here); and the Pentax IQZoom EZY (here), IQZoom 170 SL (here), and IQZoom 60 (here). Or check out all of my camera reviews here.

I shot a roll of Fujicolor 200 in my Snappy 50 and sent it to Fulltone Photo for developing and scanning. Because this film looks great with a stop of overexposure, and because this was expired (though cold-stored) stock, I felt confident shooting it at ISO 100.

Stupid good

The Snappy 50 was pleasant to use. In the great point-and-shoot tradition, you frame and press the button, and that’s all. The camera winds to the next frame and you’re ready to go again.

Red car parked

The lens is sharp and the exposure system does a good job of reading the light even after about 40 years. Look at the good detail in this flowering tree.

Flowering trees

I really enjoyed the Snappy 50’s big and clear viewfinder. It turned out to be reasonably accurate, in that what I framed is more or less what the lens saw — except when focusing close, when parallax moved things I carefully centered in the frame up and to the left.

Cubs

I never figured out what to do with the Snappy 50’s long lanyard. I tried hanging it around my neck, but then the camera bounced off my chest with every step. When I slipped it across my torso, the camera banged uncomfortably against the bottom of my rib cage. In the end, I wrapped it around my hand three times and carried it that way.

In Starkey Park

Some point-and-shoots deliver dull, muted color on overcast day. I don’t know why, but that’s been my experience. The Snappy 50 was not so afflicted.

In Starkey Park

I enjoyed myself enough with the Snappy 50 that I laid in another roll and kept shooting. I used Ilford FP4 Plus, an ISO 125 film, on the ISO 100 setting. FP4 Plus has good exposure latitude, so the slight overexposure would be no big deal. I developed it in LegacyPro L110 (a Kodak HC-110 clone) and scanned it on my Minolta ScanDual II. Looking at the negatives, it looks like the whole roll is underexposed and overdeveloped. I’m still learning how to read my negatives so I could be wrong. But I had to do a fair amount of post processing to make these scans look okay.

I got it

I used flash on this photo, the only time I did. It lit fairly evenly, but of course it left shadows as on-camera flashes do.

In the kitchen

Processing the photos to bring out detail tended to bring out a fair amount of noise.

Road closed

Most photos had blown-out highlights. About 25% of the photos on the roll were so blown out, I couldn’t rescue them. I’m really bummed out about that. But I had a fine time with the Snappy 50 anyway.

Cemetery gates

To see more photos from this camera, check out my Canon Snappy 50 gallery.

The Canon Snappy 50 would have been a great camera for the average person in its day. It’s pleasant to use and it has a good lens. That’s the formula for a successful point-and-shoot camera right there, even in the present day.

If you like old film cameras, check out all of my reviews here!
To get Down the Road in your inbox or feed reader, subscribe here.

Standard

13 thoughts on “Canon Snappy 50

  1. My mother bought a Snappy fairly early in their run and I bought one not long after. The improvement in the quality of the photos that we non-photographers took was an amazing improvement over our prior Kodaks. I think Mom got the 20 and I popped for the 50, but it’s been a long time. My Snappy served me until I bought my first digital camera, and then I swapped Snappys with Mom. I think I still have the 50 somewhere.

    • That was the value of the 35mm point and shoot: they blew away the consumer cameras of the 1960s and 1970s. The Snappy and cameras that followed solved the main challenge of 35mm, loading film. You pulled the leader to the red line and closed the door, and that was it.

  2. arhphotographic says:

    Knowing the limitations of your point and shoot camera hasn’t stopped you from getting some great images. I tend not to use them, perhaps I should.
    Andrew

    • Thanks Andrew! Getting good stuff out of these is all about composition and knowing that depth of field will be essentially infinite.

  3. Andy Umbo says:

    Wow, this entry reminds me of the actual size of those early auto-focus point-and-shoots! I also had an early Nikon (L35TWAF) that ended up being about twice the size of my later (and last) Olympus!

  4. The color images aren’t half bad. It is interesting to use an object one could not afford back then but that is now hopelessly outdated. I remember my first camera which was a similar snapshot camera but with APS film which was quite expensive in development costs and pretty bad compared to 35mm. I recently scanned those images…..

    I love reading about such (for me at least) obscure cameras.

    • For 1982, this was a terrific camera for the average person. It is easy to use and delivers good results on consumer color film. I wish I could have afforded one!

  5. It is amazing to think that a camera like the Snappy, which would be considered “simple” today, was such a revelation to the average person who was used to 126/110/Disc for their family camera. But it worked. At the point the Snappy was introduced it put into high relief the different approaches between Kodak and Japanese camera-makers in courting the non-photographer market: one developed a new and dumbed-down photo format each decade, the other kept on making 35mm cameras easier and easier. In the end we can see what won out!

    But yeah, that price! It’d take another decade for the cost of a cheapie 35mm to come down. I remember the Canon Sure-Shot Owl was sold for about $50 in 1997 at the Kmart I worked. This was possibly the best cheap 35mm offered here, lower prices meant some fixed focus one speed/one aperture machine.

    • I remember the 35mm hype in the 80s. As if something about the film format made for better photographs! Kodak could have made 126 into a powerhouse had they only focused more on image quality. It wasn’t beyond them. Actually, there’s an error in my article: 126 film is 35mm film with different sprocket holes. They are the same size! Better camera and lens design would have led to 126 images just as good as anything from the Snappy 50.

      • Well, 35mm is what “serious” photographers used, so of course it made better photos! ;-)

        Yeah, it is a shame that Kodak couldn’t have improved 126. Instead, they moved to smaller and smaller formats. I get that it made for smaller cameras, but then camera companies started making small 35mm compacts…

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.