ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Seagull 205/Phenix 205
Seagull 205/Phenix 205
Don't know if the Seagull 205 / Phenix 205 has been mentioned earlier in the thread. It's viewfinder is one of the best I've seen. Bright, life-sized, with a floating, parallax compensating frameline. It's like looking through the viewfinder of a Leica M3!
The Seagull 205 and Phenix 205 are 100% identical. Only the nameplates/brandplates are different.
*shot on Luckycolor-200 film.
Seagull 205/Phenix 205
Don't know if the Seagull 205 / Phenix 205 has been mentioned earlier in the thread. It's viewfinder is one of the best I've seen. Bright, life-sized, with a floating, parallax compensating frameline. It's like looking through the viewfinder of a Leica M3!
The Seagull 205 and Phenix 205 are 100% identical. Only the nameplates/brandplates are different.
*shot on Luckycolor-200 film.
Last edited:
scottgee1
RF renegade
ZorkiKat, thanks for an interesting addition to the list -- never heard of these before! But then, I lead a sheltered life and don't get out much. 
Any idea what the base length of rangefinder might be?
Any idea what the base length of rangefinder might be?
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Scottgee1, I'm not sure, but measuring the centres of the ports, it would be somewhere between 36-33mm.
And they're cheap too. Got either at less than $30 each. Handles like an equivalent Japanese Minolta or Konica.
btgc
Veteran
That Phoenix looks similar to Konica Auto S2, just lens, advance lever and some minor details look different.
raid
Dad Photographer
My Konica IIIM has a brighter and better VF than my mint M3 or M6. It simply is amazingly good. I wish my M3 and M6 had that VF.
gilpen123
Gil
I want to puke......:bang:
gilpen123
Gil
Focus is spot on I have heard a lot about the performance of this camera but can't seem to find it discussed elsewhere. It's great to have a 1st hand user info. Where can I get one .....
Don't know if the Seagull 205 / Phenix 205 has been mentioned earlier in the thread. It's viewfinder is one of the best I've seen. Bright, life-sized, with a floating, parallax compensating frameline. It's like looking through the viewfinder of a Leica M3!
The Seagull 205 and Phenix 205 are 100% identical. Only the nameplates/brandplates are different.
*shot on Luckycolor-200 film.
filmfan
Well-known
Easiest question ever asked: Hexar AF
outfitter
Well-known
Exactly, we aren't comparing cmnaeras when new but hoe they look today and that's all over the place. My vote goes also goes to the Canon, probably because its easy to open and clean - a big factor!
Michel Jhon
Newbie
The cost of repairing most electronic things outside of warranty is excessive so in most cases, it is cheaper to replace.
To prevent damage in the future, always use a wrist strap. For lots of other good camera tips and help with cleaning battery and camera electrical contacts, click on the source link.
The secret to making digital cameras work better is having good electrical contacts between the batteries and the camera.
Digital cameras require lots of power. If electrical contacts are not really good, this can cause lots of problems so battery and camera contacts must be cleaned properly. Batteries may be fully charged, but will be viewed as low if contacts are not really good. The LCD display is a low steady load, but when lens extension, optical zoom, focus, and flash charging are added in the capture mode; the load is very heavy. With bad contacts, cameras do strange things like making bad pictures or shutting off with the lens out.
To prevent damage in the future, always use a wrist strap. For lots of other good camera tips and help with cleaning battery and camera electrical contacts, click on the source link.
The secret to making digital cameras work better is having good electrical contacts between the batteries and the camera.
Digital cameras require lots of power. If electrical contacts are not really good, this can cause lots of problems so battery and camera contacts must be cleaned properly. Batteries may be fully charged, but will be viewed as low if contacts are not really good. The LCD display is a low steady load, but when lens extension, optical zoom, focus, and flash charging are added in the capture mode; the load is very heavy. With bad contacts, cameras do strange things like making bad pictures or shutting off with the lens out.
scottgee1
RF renegade
gilpen123, please don't quote images when replying to posts.
scottgee1
RF renegade
Michel, good, common sense reminders!
paulfish4570
Veteran
i love my minolta A5, but the rangefinder contrast is not not much more than name only. viewfinder itself is very good. it will do.
Last edited:
paulfish4570
Veteran
why did this thread come again? i didn't comment seven minutes ago, as the board said. is this something that the forum does on occasion? pick a thread to recirculate? curious ...
Paulfish, it's because someone used the Poll attached to this thread.
paulfish4570
Veteran
ah! thanks, doug.
naren
Established
Does the loose barrel pose any real problems, other than you may want to handle it more gently? My repair guy says don't need to worry bout it...
also the Bessa patch is great and brightness of the finders but they all have a very short baselength (perhaps the Auto S2 does as well). Are the longer baselength finders important only for 1.2- 1.4s, or 50mm plus?
naren, longer baselength results in the focus patch moving more for a given amount of focus change. So it's visually easier to get the images overlapped and achieve accurate focusing. A focusing patch with sharp distinct edges is also easier to use, first because it's easier to distinguish the boundaries, and second because you can use the top/bottom boundaries like a split-image which is often easier to align vertical lines in your subject. The brighter, more contrasty, more well-defined, and longer baselength RF you have, the faster and easier it is to focus. The Bessa has all these except the long baselength, so it does pretty well.
Jeremy Z
Well-known
I've got the following rangefinders:
- Konica Auto S2
- Canonet GIII QL
- Yashica Electro 35
- Olympus 35RC
- Olympus XA
- Rollei 35
The ones that feels best in the hand and have the best viewfinders and focusing mechanisms are the Yashica and Konica. The others aren't even in the same league. They parallax-correct as I focus, and the finders are big & bright.
I like the feel of the Konica better, because it is fully mechanical. It feels a bit sturdier. Compared to the Yashica, which takes an oddball huge mercury battery, its PX625 battery is easy to find. Also, since it is full manual, I have the option of ignoring it and compensating for exposure.
The Yashica has a wonderful electronic shutter though. Smoother than the Konica's, and it goes down to 30 s pretty easily. The build quality is unrivaled.
Next down the list is the Canonet. It is smaller than either of the previous two, but feels just as sturdy. The finder's not quite as nice, to me, because it's smaller. The film winding mechanism doesn't feel as good to me; just not as even & smooth. But it works perfectly. Also, the quick film loading mechanism works great, but takes some of the fun out of film loading for me. The lens is good too, but not quite as nice as that of the Konica or Yashica. Those old school big boys are just really hard to beat.
The Olympus XA, believe it or not, has a sharper and more contrasty lens than any of the above three cameras. (though it is a f/2.8 instead of an f/1.8) The viewfinder is smaller, and a bit harder to use, but focus is not as critical. The thumbwheel film advance mechanism is not as satisfying to use as the ratcheted levers on the full size cameras. I always feel like I'm using a disposable camera when I wind it. But it works like a charm. The clamshell design is pure genius though. It covers not only the lens, but the focusing wheel, viewfinder, and ISO settings. I'm surprised that Olympus pretty much gave up on this and now others are using it more. (Sony) The 35mm focal length was also more useful for me. It isn't so wide that it distorts people pictures unless I get really close. But much more useful for landscapes and architecture. The X11 flash with it is also a work of art, and works especially well for vertical shots. It puts the flash far away from the lens. It has a nice electronic shutter too, but no provision for cable release that I know of. I think it only goes down to 1s or so, but I'm not sure. This is the only FLL that will fit in a shirt pocket; the first really compact camera.
The Olympus 35RC is like a small toy version of Canonet. Not the same build quality. I was excited about it because the Zuiko lenses are so damned good. (this is no exception) But the focusing feels cheap & plasticky by comparison to the others. It actually squeaks as it focuses. The viewfinder is not as good as the Canon's, it is only a little better than the XA's. Also, it only goes down to 1/15 +B.
The Rollei 35 is not really a rangefinder. For its size, it is quite easy to hold and use, and the viewfinder is very bright and the easiest to look through. The viewfinder is right at the edge of the camera (not on all models) so my nose just goes beside the camera body. It feels really good after smashing one's nose against rangefinder bodies for so long. Of course, the one drawback to this camera is that one has to guess-focus. Mechanically, it feels great. This also has more personality than any other compact 35mm camera, IMO. I had one years ago and sold it. It had the f/2.8 Sonnar lens. The one I have now has the Tessar. But the Triotar lens of the one my grandpa had was more contrasty, at the expense of some sharpness. Technically speaking, the XA is a more refined & capable compact camera, but it just doesn't have the same character.
I had an Olympus XP, but something was wrong with it, so I got rid of it right away. Focusing mechanism was off, I think. I couldn't even tell how sharp the lens was. In my general experience though, the Zuiko Olympus lenses are better than Canon lenses. I don't know if it is the coating, the optical design or what. But the lens on the XA is the best one of the bunch above. The XA was just so far ahead of its time. The Rollei is a thick, chunky brick with lots of protrusions, by comparison.
When it comes right down to it, these cameras are all inconvenient and bulky compared to today's higher end compact digitals. My Konica, Canonet, and Olympus 35RC and XA are all on ebay now to help pay for the Canon S9 that is on the way from Amazon. You've probably noticed that I don't post here much any more. As much as I love doing it, developing and printing film just takes too much time and doesn't look as good on-screen when converted to digital anyway. Homemade B&W prints look better when printed though. I just love that dynamic range & smoothness.
That's a little more than you asked for, but there it is. Viewfinder-wise, the the Yashica and Konica have it all over the rest. But result-wise, the XA wins.
- Konica Auto S2
- Canonet GIII QL
- Yashica Electro 35
- Olympus 35RC
- Olympus XA
- Rollei 35
The ones that feels best in the hand and have the best viewfinders and focusing mechanisms are the Yashica and Konica. The others aren't even in the same league. They parallax-correct as I focus, and the finders are big & bright.
I like the feel of the Konica better, because it is fully mechanical. It feels a bit sturdier. Compared to the Yashica, which takes an oddball huge mercury battery, its PX625 battery is easy to find. Also, since it is full manual, I have the option of ignoring it and compensating for exposure.
The Yashica has a wonderful electronic shutter though. Smoother than the Konica's, and it goes down to 30 s pretty easily. The build quality is unrivaled.
Next down the list is the Canonet. It is smaller than either of the previous two, but feels just as sturdy. The finder's not quite as nice, to me, because it's smaller. The film winding mechanism doesn't feel as good to me; just not as even & smooth. But it works perfectly. Also, the quick film loading mechanism works great, but takes some of the fun out of film loading for me. The lens is good too, but not quite as nice as that of the Konica or Yashica. Those old school big boys are just really hard to beat.
The Olympus XA, believe it or not, has a sharper and more contrasty lens than any of the above three cameras. (though it is a f/2.8 instead of an f/1.8) The viewfinder is smaller, and a bit harder to use, but focus is not as critical. The thumbwheel film advance mechanism is not as satisfying to use as the ratcheted levers on the full size cameras. I always feel like I'm using a disposable camera when I wind it. But it works like a charm. The clamshell design is pure genius though. It covers not only the lens, but the focusing wheel, viewfinder, and ISO settings. I'm surprised that Olympus pretty much gave up on this and now others are using it more. (Sony) The 35mm focal length was also more useful for me. It isn't so wide that it distorts people pictures unless I get really close. But much more useful for landscapes and architecture. The X11 flash with it is also a work of art, and works especially well for vertical shots. It puts the flash far away from the lens. It has a nice electronic shutter too, but no provision for cable release that I know of. I think it only goes down to 1s or so, but I'm not sure. This is the only FLL that will fit in a shirt pocket; the first really compact camera.
The Olympus 35RC is like a small toy version of Canonet. Not the same build quality. I was excited about it because the Zuiko lenses are so damned good. (this is no exception) But the focusing feels cheap & plasticky by comparison to the others. It actually squeaks as it focuses. The viewfinder is not as good as the Canon's, it is only a little better than the XA's. Also, it only goes down to 1/15 +B.
The Rollei 35 is not really a rangefinder. For its size, it is quite easy to hold and use, and the viewfinder is very bright and the easiest to look through. The viewfinder is right at the edge of the camera (not on all models) so my nose just goes beside the camera body. It feels really good after smashing one's nose against rangefinder bodies for so long. Of course, the one drawback to this camera is that one has to guess-focus. Mechanically, it feels great. This also has more personality than any other compact 35mm camera, IMO. I had one years ago and sold it. It had the f/2.8 Sonnar lens. The one I have now has the Tessar. But the Triotar lens of the one my grandpa had was more contrasty, at the expense of some sharpness. Technically speaking, the XA is a more refined & capable compact camera, but it just doesn't have the same character.
I had an Olympus XP, but something was wrong with it, so I got rid of it right away. Focusing mechanism was off, I think. I couldn't even tell how sharp the lens was. In my general experience though, the Zuiko Olympus lenses are better than Canon lenses. I don't know if it is the coating, the optical design or what. But the lens on the XA is the best one of the bunch above. The XA was just so far ahead of its time. The Rollei is a thick, chunky brick with lots of protrusions, by comparison.
When it comes right down to it, these cameras are all inconvenient and bulky compared to today's higher end compact digitals. My Konica, Canonet, and Olympus 35RC and XA are all on ebay now to help pay for the Canon S9 that is on the way from Amazon. You've probably noticed that I don't post here much any more. As much as I love doing it, developing and printing film just takes too much time and doesn't look as good on-screen when converted to digital anyway. Homemade B&W prints look better when printed though. I just love that dynamic range & smoothness.
That's a little more than you asked for, but there it is. Viewfinder-wise, the the Yashica and Konica have it all over the rest. But result-wise, the XA wins.
scottgee1
RF renegade
Jeremy, thanks for the comprehensive overview!
I hope post your impressions of the S9 after you've had a chance to play, er, work with it!
I hope post your impressions of the S9 after you've had a chance to play, er, work with it!