Child of Leica M3 and Olympus 35RC

Again, if you've not been happy with 18 different cameras, you're not going to find happiness photographically. I'm not sure why people keep feeding your appetite by answering you.

I think you need to explain first, in detail, what was wrong with the cameras you say you didn't like. Here's the list you gave again: "I have tried many RFs like Hi Matic 7sII, Yashica Electro, Canonet QL19 GIII, Agfa Optima 1535, Vito B, Vitomatic, Olympus Xa-xa4, Leica CL and of course the big boys like Leica M2, M3, M4-2, M6, Canon P, 7, Hexar AF, Contax G2, Bessa R, Zeiss ZM."

What was wrong with them? Or do you somehow think a $25 Canonet is going to compete with a Leica M3????? You don't like "the blue tint" of some viewfinders? You need complete framelines, in an inherently inaccurate camera design - rangefinders? I think you're jerking our chains. It's like you put us in a round room, and said there was a dollar in the corner.
 
Wait, forget I even asked you. I don't want to know. You've asked some doozies here.

"Can someone tell me the weight of [M2 with self timer versus without]?

I would like to make a list with all the different avaible finders without framelines for 35mm.

Leica weight compared to Canon/Zorki/Minolta

....and on, and on. You want framelines, you don't want framelines, you want light weight, you wonder how much the camera strap lugs weigh.....you ask the tint color of the view window of a dozen camera. Everything anyone suggests you answer, "yeah, but I don't really like that one..." Sheeze, give it a break.

People you are answering someone that doesn't know what he wants. Some people just like to ask questions, like kicking an anthill, to watch the ants scurry around.
 
Chill down.

The idea is to get the best tool that fit my needs, and this is in summary a camera that is well build but also compact like a fixed lens RF.
If the camera feels right, I can make a compromis with the misadvantages.
As I said, I love the RC and compare it with a Leica M3 in terms of using it. Both are capable to support my personal artistic process.
On the downside the RC's finder is squeezy but got the best frameline, the M3's finder is a jewel, but the camera is too heavy for "easy going".
All other listed cameras were just not right because they felt poor in my hands
or their handling, especialy the viewfinder, were just too uncomfortable to use.

And now think of your dream camera. Isn't it possible that one of the many camera manufactures have build exactly that piece of metal and glass you ever dreamed of? I think yes, and I want to find it.
Maybe it has a strange name like Beauty Super II or Ricoh 519, but I will find it.
There are so many 50's-70's RF's that I am sure that my camera is somewhere there.

If you still have a problem with my threads, go play with your nice Leica M6 and shut up.
 
goamules said:
You've tried 18 cameras?! It's pretty obvious to me what the problem is. You cannot be satisfied. Learn to be, or move on to another hobby.
Click to expand...
i started to reply when the thread was first posted but must have got distracted. I agree with goamules what the problem is. The solution is either ignore your niggles and enjoy what you have or change to something genuinely difficult. I'm thinking a Crown Graphic, using only the front shutter. Hand held. Stick with it for 6 months then go back to your current camera. It will feel heavenly.

And no, your perfect camera is not out there. Learn to love what you have.
 
I have already used a Crown Graphic handheld only for 1 year until the bellows pulverised ;)
That droves me to the Leica M3 but with no succes.
Realy nice handling und superb build quality, but not that different to a normal SLR.
I mean, I want a tool that supports a fresh way of seeing, the M3 just took pictures I was already used by SLR's.
 
Yes you can take similar images using a 35mm rangefinder or 35mm SLR side by side - but the modus operandi is way different.

With regards to 35mm film - Because I shoot indoors and close up to my subjects a lot, I prefer a camera that is quieter and less obtrusive than a SLR. There are places where the photographer can get tossed out the room for using a noisy SLR.

With regards to glass - there are some unique lens signatures available in the Leica, Contax and Nikon mount that are not available with a 35mm SLR.

Hopefully, you weren't stuck using the stock Optar with that Crown Graphic - when there are many more glass options for that camera.

People take you seriously when you use a SLR and may even move out your way. No one is going to take seriously a photog with a Olympus 35RC, until they see the prints - which seem to look like they came from a 35mm SLR. Imagine that.

Best Regards,
 
I used a 135mm 4,5 Schneider K. with the Graphic. Impressing beauty.
Well, I will stick with the 35 RC, maybe its a Hate/Love thing with it. I use it, put it away for a while, looking for something better, and fall back to it again at the end.

btw: Konica III models are nice, but heavy
 
Would a 35RD fit the bill? It's larger than the RC, but smaller than the M3. It has a faster lens than the RC, and it's a bit less fiddly, too. Personally, I think the RC has the best VF information of any RF, and I'd love the same in my RD or SP, but there are always compromises.

For small film camera, I have the XA (if I can live with Vignetting), Minox and Pen D, which are both scale focussing.
 
paniolo said:
Chill down.

The idea is to get the best tool that fit my needs, and this is in summary a camera that is well build but also compact like a fixed lens RF.
If the camera feels right, I can make a compromis with the misadvantages.
As I said, I love the RC and compare it with a Leica M3 in terms of using it. Both are capable to support my personal artistic process.
On the downside the RC's finder is squeezy but got the best frameline, the M3's finder is a jewel, but the camera is too heavy for "easy going".
All other listed cameras were just not right because they felt poor in my hands
or their handling, especialy the viewfinder, were just too uncomfortable to use.

And now think of your dream camera. Isn't it possible that one of the many camera manufactures have build exactly that piece of metal and glass you ever dreamed of? I think yes, and I want to find it.
Maybe it has a strange name like Beauty Super II or Ricoh 519, but I will find it.
There are so many 50's-70's RF's that I am sure that my camera is somewhere there.

If you still have a problem with my threads, go play with your nice Leica M6 and shut up.
Click to expand...

I don't have a M6, or any of the M's sport. I shoot 1850s brass lenses on large format wetplate mostly. And Canon RF. I buy one camera, and live with it. I don't buy, question, buy, question, buy, and ask more inane questions. Sport. I'm out....you can keep this going forever if you want. I'll go shoot pictures....with what I have.
 
I would suspect that the blue tint, if there is one, is for contrast when using the rangefinder (blue opposes yellow). As I remember the Leica IIIf (and maybe other Barnack cameras) had an accessory that fit on the rangefinder window to enhance the contrast; it was yellow.
 
paniolo...I'm actually feel grateful that my 35rc has that blue tint that you're talking about. In a small viewfinder like 35rc, it significantly increase the contrast between what inside the frame with the patch. Not by crashing your hope to find your perfect camera, like other said.....it doesn't exist. In the end of the day, unless you do your own modification, you just have to pick one camera that suit you the best, gives you most comfort than the rest, and live with it.
35rc is a wonderful compact camera with a sharp lens, try to concentrate and appreciate the result of your prints from that 35rc, instead of worrying that blue tint (that actually serves it purposes) on the viewfinder.
 
I don't think you'll find what you are looking for in a fully manual camera, but there are many alternatives in ones with aperture or shutter priority systems. The Yashica GX comes to mind, with a 40mm lens and parallax correction. Then the Yashica CC/CCN models have 35mm lenses. All three are AP. Lots of folks like the Konica C-35.

All cameras are compromises in design, because you can never build one to suit everyone. The best the manufacturers can do is offer enough features that will draw your attention while maintaining a particular price point.

The perfect camera would cost way more than any Leica ever built.

Have fun with that RC, and consider an RD as an upgrade. At least it won't break the bank to find out if it's right for you.

PF

ps: I owned a Canon QL17 at one point (the older large one), and while it was an excellent camera, I just didn't bond with it, so I gave it to a friend. I now have the GIII version that is awaiting seals, so I haven't used it, but I can say it does feel better in the hand. I've seen the output from them, and it looks similar to the older model. Nice and sharp.
 
Merlijn53 said:
Minolta cle with 2.0 40mm Rokkor.

Frank
Click to expand...

Yes! Or Tom A's suggestion of the Nikon S2 and Color Skopar.

I don't get the hostility expressed in a lot of the postings. So he hasn't found his "Goldilocks" camera yet, and may never find it -- so what? No harm in looking, and it's his money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom