noobfinder
Newbie
Hi,
I am looking into getting a fairly affordable rangefinder and stumbled upon a couple of recommendations that seem to pop up everywhere. However, it's hard to come by a comparative analysis, and was wondering if anyone here has had experience with some of the 5 models below:
- Konika Auto S3
- Canonet QL17 GIII
- Yashica Electro 35 GSN
- Minolta HiMatic 7SII
- Olympus 35 RC
If price and availability were not issues, which one would you go for? I'm mainly interested in image quality and camera build quality, but if anyone has had experience with these and has some other reasons to favor one or the other, by all means please advise .
Many thanks
I am looking into getting a fairly affordable rangefinder and stumbled upon a couple of recommendations that seem to pop up everywhere. However, it's hard to come by a comparative analysis, and was wondering if anyone here has had experience with some of the 5 models below:
- Konika Auto S3
- Canonet QL17 GIII
- Yashica Electro 35 GSN
- Minolta HiMatic 7SII
- Olympus 35 RC
If price and availability were not issues, which one would you go for? I'm mainly interested in image quality and camera build quality, but if anyone has had experience with these and has some other reasons to favor one or the other, by all means please advise .
Many thanks
Addy101
Well-known
I think the Minolta is the newest of that bunch (1977) - but do a search here on those cameras to find out what people are saying. In the end, I think they're close and I would choose by price and/or emotion.
I got a Yashica Minister D - just because it was cheap
I got a Yashica Minister D - just because it was cheap
zuikologist
.........................
Having used all five of these, I would say the Konica has the best lens. Build quality is on par with the Minolta 7SII. The Oly RC is a dense little brick with lovely lens, slower than the others at 2.8 against 1.7 or 1.8. Shutter speeds are also more limited at the slow end. The top mounted shutte speed dial is a big plus. After all these years, performance is likely to be related to condition rather than capabilities.
The head bartender has a good write-up of most of these cameras on the Cameraquest website.
The head bartender has a good write-up of most of these cameras on the Cameraquest website.
zuikologist
.........................
Indeed, handling and individual preference comes into this equation as well.
I think the Minolta is the newest of that bunch (1977) - but do a search here on those cameras to find out what people are saying. In the end, I think they're close and I would choose by price and/or emotion.
I got a Yashica Minister D - just because it was cheap
FrankS
Registered User
Minolta has auto and manual control
Konica 3 might have better lens, but no manual control
I'd choose one of these two.
Konica 3 might have better lens, but no manual control
I'd choose one of these two.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Or had, at least. Probably the best build quality, too. A lot will however depend on what's happened in the intervening decades. Personally I'd look for a Konica with manual control.
Cheers,
R.
I'm about to do a shootout with all of those cameras with the exception of the Yashica. I can comment on build, viewfinder, and other factors but can't comment on optical performance yet.
The S3 and the HiMatic are essentially identical, with the exception the Minolta does not have the GN flash feature. The S3 has ambient/flash-fill feature. The viewfinder magnification is also less on the 7S II than on the S3. The aperture readout format looks identical on these cameras. Minolta is a tad longer than the S3.
The RC has the same mag viewfinder as the S3, and shows both aperture and shutter speed in the viewfinder. The lens on the RC does not intrude at all into the viewfinder frame; it does slightly on the S3 and 7S II.
RC has 1/15th to 1/500 with shutter speed dial on the top plate.
S3 and 7S II are 1/8th to 1/500
QL 17 GIII is from 1/4th to 1/500
Weight in grams, no battery, no film:
462 - 7S II
425 - RC
420 - S3
?? - QL17 (can't measure at the moment but I think it's the heaviest)
Canon focuses the closest and has parallax correction, the others do not.
RC does not have a focus tab, and of course it's a slower f/2.8.
QL 17 G3, RC and S3 have PC sync plus hot shoe; 7S II only has hot shoe.
Ranking the viewfinders in order: QL17, RC, S3, 7SII. QL wins because of parallax correction, although the RC could win if one prefers a VF that has aperture & shutter readout. Optically the RC and S3 viewfinders are the same magnification. The 7S lags due to a lower magnification.
As for build they are all pretty much equal, with a possible slight edge to the Canon, but they are so close that this is pretty much a tie. If I had to break them down to the tiniest degree, I'd say Canon, Olympus, Konica/Minolta in that order.
Ergonomics: the RC aperture ring is very close to the body, kinda hard to access. But it will mostly be used on Auto so this isn't a big deal. The 7S II ring is also very close to the body but there is a tab on the bottom of the lens to make it easier to turn.
The S3 has no aperture ring at all, so there is no manual exposure option, unless one wants to mess with changing the ISO.
Minolta/Canon: 40mm f/1.7
Konica: 38/1.8
Olympus: 42/2.8
Note that all these cameras will need light seals unless they've already been replaced. And viewfinders will generally need cleaning. As usual, it's a good idea to buy a camera that's already been refurbished or allocate funds in advance for service especially if you buy off ebay. All the cameras I'm comparing are excellent examples that have been professionally restored so that eliminates the variable of condition.
Lastly: don't forget the Olympus 35RD. 488 grams, viewfinder as good as the RC (but no parallax correction like the QL17), lens intrudes into the framelines by just a smidge, same magnification as the RC and S3; focuses closer than all but the QL 17, a more ergonomic operation with a larger focusing ring (no tab), the widest shutter speed range of all the others (1/2 to 1/500), GN flash feature, PC sync+ hot shoe, 40mm f/1.7.
Then there is the 35SP but that's significantly larger (592 grams.) If you want that added to the comparison, I'll be happy to do so.
Hope this helps!
The S3 and the HiMatic are essentially identical, with the exception the Minolta does not have the GN flash feature. The S3 has ambient/flash-fill feature. The viewfinder magnification is also less on the 7S II than on the S3. The aperture readout format looks identical on these cameras. Minolta is a tad longer than the S3.
The RC has the same mag viewfinder as the S3, and shows both aperture and shutter speed in the viewfinder. The lens on the RC does not intrude at all into the viewfinder frame; it does slightly on the S3 and 7S II.
RC has 1/15th to 1/500 with shutter speed dial on the top plate.
S3 and 7S II are 1/8th to 1/500
QL 17 GIII is from 1/4th to 1/500
Weight in grams, no battery, no film:
462 - 7S II
425 - RC
420 - S3
?? - QL17 (can't measure at the moment but I think it's the heaviest)
Canon focuses the closest and has parallax correction, the others do not.
RC does not have a focus tab, and of course it's a slower f/2.8.
QL 17 G3, RC and S3 have PC sync plus hot shoe; 7S II only has hot shoe.
Ranking the viewfinders in order: QL17, RC, S3, 7SII. QL wins because of parallax correction, although the RC could win if one prefers a VF that has aperture & shutter readout. Optically the RC and S3 viewfinders are the same magnification. The 7S lags due to a lower magnification.
As for build they are all pretty much equal, with a possible slight edge to the Canon, but they are so close that this is pretty much a tie. If I had to break them down to the tiniest degree, I'd say Canon, Olympus, Konica/Minolta in that order.
Ergonomics: the RC aperture ring is very close to the body, kinda hard to access. But it will mostly be used on Auto so this isn't a big deal. The 7S II ring is also very close to the body but there is a tab on the bottom of the lens to make it easier to turn.
The S3 has no aperture ring at all, so there is no manual exposure option, unless one wants to mess with changing the ISO.
Minolta/Canon: 40mm f/1.7
Konica: 38/1.8
Olympus: 42/2.8
Note that all these cameras will need light seals unless they've already been replaced. And viewfinders will generally need cleaning. As usual, it's a good idea to buy a camera that's already been refurbished or allocate funds in advance for service especially if you buy off ebay. All the cameras I'm comparing are excellent examples that have been professionally restored so that eliminates the variable of condition.
Lastly: don't forget the Olympus 35RD. 488 grams, viewfinder as good as the RC (but no parallax correction like the QL17), lens intrudes into the framelines by just a smidge, same magnification as the RC and S3; focuses closer than all but the QL 17, a more ergonomic operation with a larger focusing ring (no tab), the widest shutter speed range of all the others (1/2 to 1/500), GN flash feature, PC sync+ hot shoe, 40mm f/1.7.
Then there is the 35SP but that's significantly larger (592 grams.) If you want that added to the comparison, I'll be happy to do so.
Hope this helps!
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It is more a matter of condition, these days. In that camera class, I have had the best results from the Revue 400 SE, Olympus 35RC (and SP) and Yashica 35CC, while my Canonets, Minoltas and Yashica 35GSN and Olympus XA were optically anywhere between so-so and very disappointing. Given mixed results within one brand/type and with many exactly opposite experiences from others I'd interpret that as "all of them, across the board, can do pretty well as long as nothing bad has happened to them".
gb hill
Veteran
I'm partial to the Canon. Have a Yashica which died the POD. Haven't had the other two. Have read many like the Konica. I don't think you would go wrong with any of these camera's.
I do like the 40/1.7 lens of the Canonet. I shot this at a Wailer's concert with 400 film & set the shutter at 1:60 with available light. It didn't get the reputation as the poor mans Leica for nothing.
I do like the 40/1.7 lens of the Canonet. I shot this at a Wailer's concert with 400 film & set the shutter at 1:60 with available light. It didn't get the reputation as the poor mans Leica for nothing.
Monochrom
Well-known
raid
Dad Photographer
I have only two of these five cameras. The Konica cameras have very sharp lenses. I also find the Yashica to have a very sharp lens.
Joe Vitessa
Well-known
I've used all of these except for the Yashica. I'd say the Konica has the sharpest lens, but I like using the Olympus the most. It's smaller and the manual control is great.
Brian Legge
Veteran
I don't think there is all that much difference in overall image quality.
Ergonomics however vary quite a bit between the different models. If possible, try to handle a few of the cameras to see if any feel particularly right. And then focus on finding something in good condition; it can be difficult to find a working camera for some of these models.
Ergonomics however vary quite a bit between the different models. If possible, try to handle a few of the cameras to see if any feel particularly right. And then focus on finding something in good condition; it can be difficult to find a working camera for some of these models.
noobfinder
Newbie
Wow, this is an amazing amount of feedback! Would really like to thank everyone for chipping in. This was all really helpful and I'm getting a good feel I would enjoy any of these cameras.
I'm getting a really positive vibe off the Konica S3, but at the same time, it would be really nice to have manual control so maybe Canon or Minolta.
@splitimageview: that was really thorough whenever you do the image test, I'd be really curios to see how it turned out. You're awesome!
I'm getting a really positive vibe off the Konica S3, but at the same time, it would be really nice to have manual control so maybe Canon or Minolta.
@splitimageview: that was really thorough
whenever you do the image test, I'd be really curios to see how it turned out. You're awesome! 
lawrence
Veteran
I used the Konica S3 for many years and liked it very much, particularly the coupled flash feature. This is Generation X photographed in Chelsea back in 1977.
LSiemens
Newbie
Can't beat the Konica Hexanon Lens
Can't beat the Konica Hexanon Lens
My vote would be split between the Konica and the Olympus (I've used 3 of your 5 on the list, and these two were among them). I like several things about the Olympus over the Konica, but when I go back through the negatives, the Hexanon lens always stands out.
Can't beat the Konica Hexanon Lens
My vote would be split between the Konica and the Olympus (I've used 3 of your 5 on the list, and these two were among them). I like several things about the Olympus over the Konica, but when I go back through the negatives, the Hexanon lens always stands out.
Chrisrw
photomonkey
I've heard great things about all of them but have only used the Canonet myself. It's a wonderfully sharp lens and if you keep your eye out,I'll be posting it soon in the classifieds.
This is great!
I agree that all these little cameras are quite good, so a decision could come down to one feature or another--mine tends to be viewfinder and close focus capability, so I'm biased towards the Canon if I were to pick only one. But why just have one?
Not to confuse things further but the Vivitar 35ES is also another Konica/Minolta clone. It's actually closer to the Konica as it doesn't have an aperture ring, either. It's prettier than the Konica as it has real black paint instead of anodized aluminum. 464 grams, 40/1.7, GN flash, hot shoe but no PC sync. Same speeds as the Konica - 1/8th thru 1/500. Same viewfinder readout, identical to the Konica and Minolta...same magnification as the Minolta.
This one will also be in the shootout...
Not to confuse things further but the Vivitar 35ES is also another Konica/Minolta clone. It's actually closer to the Konica as it doesn't have an aperture ring, either. It's prettier than the Konica as it has real black paint instead of anodized aluminum. 464 grams, 40/1.7, GN flash, hot shoe but no PC sync. Same speeds as the Konica - 1/8th thru 1/500. Same viewfinder readout, identical to the Konica and Minolta...same magnification as the Minolta.
This one will also be in the shootout...