Best fixed lens RF viewfinder?

Best fixed lens RF viewfinder?

  • Olympus 35SP

    Votes: 81 7.4%

  • Olympus 35RC

    Votes: 56 5.1%

  • Olympus 35RD

    Votes: 20 1.8%

  • Olympus XA

    Votes: 53 4.9%

  • Minolta 7s

    Votes: 30 2.8%

  • Minolta 7sII

    Votes: 40 3.7%

  • Canon QL17 GIII

    Votes: 206 18.9%

  • Konica Hexar fixed lens

    Votes: 201 18.5%

  • Konica S3

    Votes: 46 4.2%

  • Yashica GSN

    Votes: 162 14.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 193 17.7%
  • Total voters
    1,088
Dr. Strangelove said:
Well, I am pretty sure most of the people who voted have not used all of those cameras, at least not extensively. I certainly haven't and that's why I didn't vote at all. The Olympus FLRF's seem to be a lot less common than the Yashica Electros or Canonets, which means that the more common models will win this kind of poll almost automatically.

Incidentally, that is the reason why polls like this have no scientific value, although they can be a lot of fun and raise some good discussion.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know that this is not a scientific poll, it's just frustrating that it propagates the "myth" that the Canonet GIII QL17 is the all singing and dancing fixed lens RF when I can personally attest to at least 3 cameras on the list that produces better images.

Oh well, I guess it minimizes the price inflation on those 3 cameras for those who are willing to try 😀
 
NickTrop said:
Of those I own:

1. Konica Auto S3
2. Yashica Electro CC
3. Yashica Electro GSN
4. Yashica Lynx 14e

Comments: All cameras were professionally CLA'd except the CC. All cameras are very, very close. All cameras are very usable in low light. I have no quibble with the viewfinder on any of these camera. The Lynx 14e has the clearest viewfinder, which gives less contrast to the patch. The others have a tint and therefore a more contrasty patch. The biggest factor, I think, is a cleaning. The Auto S3 is definitely the "clear" (heh) winner here but it's not reflected in the this poll, probably because fewer people own this camera.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that I voted for the QL17, but now that I've used a GSN, I'd probably vote differently next time. And if the Konica is even better, then maybe I should get one at some point.
 
Al Patterson said:
I'll admit that I voted for the QL17, but now that I've used a GSN, I'd probably vote differently next time. And if the Konica is even better, then maybe I should get one at some point.
Click to expand...

Yo, Al. How ya been, buddy? Actually, the CC is very good too. The patch is higher contrast and the viewing area a little darker so the "patch" has higher contrast at the expense of a darker viewfinder. Works well, esp in low light.

Never had an issue with this. Maybe because my cameras were nearly always CLA'd. I think the biggest issue is with dirt, or "de-silvering" over time, so I think it more likely varies from camera to camera rather than model to model. Yashica uses a "diamond" patch so that the diagonal lines "cut" the verticle and horizontal lines in the scene. May/may no be not the brightest but a pretty smart idear.
 
Yashica Lynx 5000.

Oldschool VF with good patch. Parralax compensation, lots of space around the framelines. And somehow feels more like a "real" VF than the more modern ones (I've got the S3, a GS, canonet 28 and QLIII, Oly RC, all cleaned)
 
Vitomatic I IIa IIIb and so on...1:1 viewfinder, crystal clear glass, easy to clean (the glass is perfectly flat and not recessed), and the whole viewfinder is an air tight one single piece of glass, so there will be absolutely no trace of dust inside it...for ever and ever...
...but....the patch isn't always good, find a good specimen and start shooting.
ciao
andrea
 
Just bought and changed the light seals on a C35. I really like the camera except for one thing: the viewfinder magnification is at 0,46x. The not too much larger Oly RC is 0,60x, and the Oly XA is 0,55x. Oly SP have 0,70x, Yashica GX 0,62x. The Agfa 1535 is at 0,78x (WOW). I was so disappointed that the viewfinder magnification is smaller than on my Oly XA that I had to found all the other numbers...

Does anybody knows how the c35 viewfinder compares to the Auto S3 and the Minolta 7sII?

However, i don't think the magnification is everything. C35's viewfinder has much space around the framelines, which will maybe help me framing (well, I'll see, the first film is still inside...)



 
I don't know about the S3 and 7sII, but I had a 7s, and I'd say the vf is "better" than the C35. it has higher magnification, yet has a lot of space around the framelines. But I never had a problem with either the C35 or XA viewfinders. Don't know why that is. Magnification seems to be a funny thing to me.

I really loved the vf on my M3, but when I recently handled Gene's R3A, (1:1), I didn't like it so much. Of course, it was a casual look-see, so who knows. My 35SPs have the best compromise for me, but I like it best when I were contact lenses rather than spectacles. Maybe the specs were the problem with the R3A.
 
Don't know about the Auto S3. The 7sII has a very dim rangefinder patch in my example. I have had to resort to trickery to highlight the patch and have tried a small square of tape in front of the VF window Kinda works all right. Then tried a dab of black felt pen marker on VF - worked a little better. Best
results during low light. Works as normal! But overall the Minolta VF is generally pathetic. Can't see the meter easily either but may be connected to the dimness of the RF patch. CLA sometime in its past?
C35 effortless viewing for patch and meter.
 
FallisPhoto said:
Then there is the condition of the rangefinder mirror to take into consideration. Most of the ones I got on ebay were really dim and (when I felt competent to do it) I replaced them. A new semitransparent mirror gives you a much brighter image.
Click to expand...

Hi

I'm curious about the "semitransparent mirror" replacement you are doing. Any more info on what the material is and how to go about it? Thanks
 
I voted for the Hexar fixed lens because I tried one out once and was AMAZED at the way those negs looked! I think it had a 35 on it, but the AE/AF turned me off and I didn't buy. That was many years and many cameras ago, right at the beginning of my RF quest that lead to an M3. It's been a fun ride, and that afternoon shooting with the Hexar was a very fun part of it!
Vic
 
Any modern medium format Fuji roll film RF. The GS 645 folder was a fine example. Moving framelines corrected both parallax and field of view. The eyepiece was the standard Nikon F thread in case you wanted to add a diopter corrector or even a 2X magnifier.
 
The Yashica Electro CC was designed differently with a higher contrast patch and the viewing area was "a little" darker than the patch. This is probably the best, followed by the Konica Auto S3, and my CLA'd Lynx 14 (believe it or no) would be next.

But I never had a problem with any of mine. Kinda don't see what the big deal is.
 
Discounting the fact that the cameras small as that's not the issue here, how is there anyway an XA view finder is better than some of the larger models.
 
ruben said:
Btw, has anyone mentioned the high quality viewfinder glass and bright yellow patch on the Olympus SP and RD ?

However we are here at the more expensive side of the fixed lens, and it will be a bit unfair to put this duo on the same table with other cameras.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...
Ruben: I may have said something about that way upstream ... the 35SP is very bright; the patch is very good though not as good as others I've seen. The RC patch seems to be a bit better even though the RC vf is not as bright. I haven't tried the RD. I think the 35SP is marginally better than the Canon, though the latter is quite good, YMMV, etc.

I just acquired a Minolta 7Sii. The VF needs some minor cleaning, but there is no way it is as good as a 35SP. The 7Sii has noticeable barrel distortion and flares out easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom