cheap fully manual rangefinders

thawkins said:
You can't go wrong with a QL17. Inexpensive, a superb lens and accurate meter are some of its many attributes. You can easily get one on line and a CLA in inexpensive.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize they were considered inexpensive. Nor that the CLA for them was inexpensive. If so, that is great. I have one that I do like to use once in a while. I also have both sizes of the QL 19, and a QL 28. I have used the small QL 19 once, but the others never. I am still too much of an SLR person I guess. My son-in-law got a QL 17 after I lent him mine, and likes to use it. I am happy for him.

There are just too many out there that are good, and many are inexpensive as well. I have a Petri Computer 35 that does well when I want to use a RF, but it has only AE.

Good luck to the OP in his search. Like many of us, he will probably end up with several models.
 
A bit of practical advice. most of the cameras mentioned have leaf shutters. These cameras cannot sit in a closet for years and years and still function. So be careful if you come across really pristine cameras, Their shutters will likely need service before they are used, add much money to the price. The more basic two blade shutter of the Olympus RC. as mentioned is more reliable in this respect than the five blade shutters found in the cameras with faster lenses.
 
zuiko85 said:
A bit of practical advice. most of the cameras mentioned have leaf shutters. These cameras cannot sit in a closet for years and years and still function. So be careful if you come across really pristine cameras, Their shutters will likely need service before they are used, add much money to the price. The more basic two blade shutter of the Olympus RC. as mentioned is more reliable in this respect than the five blade shutters found in the cameras with faster lenses.
Click to expand...

I am familiar. I have two minolta Autocords with very old leaf shutters.
 
btgc said:
I suggest getting one without Tv exposure mode. If you want automation, get Yashica Electro with Av mode, if this doesn't break your vision. Other than that, pre-AE era fully mechanical fixed lens RFs are built to higher standard (not all and not day and night, but one can feel it), have feather smooth shutter release as they don't have to trigger metering linkage and mostly have OK finders. Uncoupled metering is acceptable as it's separated from release button.
Click to expand...

I don't really care if it has Tv mode or not. I'm not planning on using it.
 
Nedgonaes said:
I don't really care if it has Tv mode or not. I'm not planning on using it.
Click to expand...

You may have missed his point, which was that in some cases the coupling mechanism can impact the feel of the release (whether the exposure automation is being used, or not). Some of the Fujicas I mentioned earlier (Eg the 35–EE) whilst being capable enough do not necessarily have the lightest release buttons in their class.

But perhaps it's irrelevant. Despite pointing it out previously, you still haven't defined "cheap". Does it have to work out of the box? Will you pay to make a candidate sound? Able to do this yourself?

What are your thoughts after reading some of the relevant threads on the subject here? Surely you must have a short list? Plenty of solid information is available. Here's a good place to start:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77821
Regards
Brett
 
johnwolf said:
The machismo comment aside, AE need not equal mindless. There are ways in which AE features can support and enhance intelligent, deliberate exposure. Surely you know that.

John
Click to expand...
Dear John,

No, I don't, actually. I've tried AE on many occasions with quite a few cameras, and I've always gone back to manual exposure because I know what is going to happen. Pretty much any out-of-the-ordinary scene fools most AE programs. Some are better than others but I find it easier to think about the results I want, and set the camera accordingly, rather than trying to guess when AE won't work. It's all a question of whether you choose to exercise camera-using skills or camera-designer-fooling skills.

Cheers,

R.
 
I will add a vote for the Olympus 35RC. I have one which belonged to my father and still shoots amazing photos with very little effort.

I also have a Rollei 35 I picked up for a song at a swap meet a few months ago. While not a rangefinder, the built-in meter is accurate and estimating distance for the scale focus is a piece of cake. Plus the optics on the Rollei are amazing (and the 35RC is no slouch either).
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear John,

No, I don't, actually. I've tried AE on many occasions with quite a few cameras, and I've always gone back to manual exposure because I know what is going to happen. Pretty much any out-of-the-ordinary scene fools most AE programs. Some are better than others but I find it easier to think about the results I want, and set the camera accordingly, rather than trying to guess when AE won't work. It's all a question of whether you choose to exercise camera-using skills or camera-designer-fooling skills.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't mean to offend the manual exposure folk. My point is that for me AE - with a simple to use AE lock - is the quickest and easiest means of choosing and using an exposure setting. I'm not advocating mindless reliance on the AE setting, just an effective use of a what is for me a very worthwhile metering tool...
 
The mechanical rangefinders from the 1950s are good choices. No battery, no AE, the German ones are often sturdily made, sometimes quirky and quite interesting while the Japanese ones are usually very well featured.

I'd suggest a Olympus 35 S II, with fast (42/1.8) lens, full range of shutter speed (up to 1/500 with the leaf shutter), illuminated frame lines, parallax compensation, standard advance lever and back door loading. Or the well received Konica IIIa. Shooting with these is just a breeze.
 
Hi,

FWIW, I used the Olmpus-35 SP for decades and got through a lot of them with slide film. Then I gave up once the meters reached that dreadful point of no return (repaired). At the same time I was using MF (a Bron. was the last to go) with a meter and once, did an entire book with the SP to prove that it could be done.

The spot meter and manual over-ride let me over-ride the thing when I thought it necessary. In the same way that I expect most people rely on hand held meters most of the time and only step in to change things now and then, once they've a little experience of their quirks. In other words you have to learn how to use them, like you have to learn how to use auto cameras.

BTW, the 35 SP's design makes it an excellent camera to use on auto and it's very easy to swap quickly between manual and auto.

The biggest problem I had was fitting 37 or 38 slides into a 36 slide magazine.

BTW 2, as a pure manual camera, I'd recommend the Leicas and their USSR made cousins especially the youngest Industar lenses, the Kiev 2a seems the bargain to me with the Jupiter-8 lens. To get better you have to start spending serious money.

BTW 3, manual use of auto RF cameras from most makers still means using a needle trap mechanism and they can be a pita.

Regards, David
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear John,

No, I don't, actually. I've tried AE on many occasions with quite a few cameras, and I've always gone back to manual exposure because I know what is going to happen. Pretty much any out-of-the-ordinary scene fools most AE programs. Some are better than others but I find it easier to think about the results I want, and set the camera accordingly, rather than trying to guess when AE won't work. It's all a question of whether you choose to exercise camera-using skills or camera-designer-fooling skills.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I think you left out meter designer fooling skills, I reckon you have to treat meters as mere machines to be used your way in the same way that auto cameras are used, properly. In other words thinking before taking the picture and then doing it your way. And a lot of the time the meter and/or camera can be trusted by the shooters.

Regards, David
 
I loved my Konica IIIM. There was one in the classifieds a while back but couldn't find it (YMMV).

I got really good at flash photography with mine and a Vivitar 192 some years back. Great lens and good viewfinder.

Kodak Retina IIc would be my second choice.

Both will serve you well.

B2 (;->

https://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm is a pretty
 
If you want real cheap look at the Petri 7s or something like that. It has the same semi-cheap built quality (or maybe better) of the other Japanese RF cameras of that period. One of the benefits of this camera is they weren't used much because the people that purchased them were not serious photographers. I have one and don't use it much but it hasn't suffered from the maladies of 3 other similar cameras. So I do suspect maybe a slightly better build quality.

Excellent lens and good rangefinder, plus a cool metering system.

Petri 7s no.2 by John Carter, on Flickr

Danville, CA Library by John Carter, on Flickr

Petri 7S by John Carter, on Flickr
 
There are lots of things I like about my New Canonet QL-17L (the model just before the GIII), but I find its super-short focus travel is a little too fast for me. I spend more time over-driving the focus point, and having to come back to the focus point. I really like the automatic integration of the flash, although the effect on the light meter needle in the viewfinder is peculiar. It takes beautiful pictures, though.

My daughter has a Minolta Hi-Matic 9 (a step up from the 7s), and it takes absolutely spectacular pictures. I think I got it for her for $14 at a thrift store. It can do fully automatic photographs or shutter priority or aperture priority or fully manual. The flash isn't automatically controlled, so it requires some thought, but it works. (She's using an old Rollei strobe flash.) If you can find a Hi-Matic 9, or even a Hi-Matic 7s, snap it up.

Scott
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom