satbunny
Established
I am intrigued by these 60s and 70s compact rangefinders. Tell me more of them..
Compact RFs
- Thread starter satbunny
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 25
- Views 3K
Sonnar Brian
Established
Lynx 14 mini-review. Fast F1.4 lens. I just got another one, same lens.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=403
And the inexpensive, but older Retina Auto III. Mine was $10.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=388
COmpacts. I guess compared with a Nikon F2 with motor drive, everything is a compact. These two are full-size.
Of the "compacts", I have the Minolta 7s-II, Konica S3, and Canonet QL17 GIII. The first two are built very lightly, but have fairly sharp lenses wide-open. The Canonet is the best build quality, softest shutter release, best viewfinder. My "Keeper" is sharp wide-open, but I went through 5 to get the pick of the litter. IT is as good as the smaller two.
If you do not mind the size, the Konica S2 probably has the best lens of the fixed-lens RF's. The Yashica Lynx is fully-manual, has the softest release of the bunch.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=403
And the inexpensive, but older Retina Auto III. Mine was $10.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=388
COmpacts. I guess compared with a Nikon F2 with motor drive, everything is a compact. These two are full-size.
Of the "compacts", I have the Minolta 7s-II, Konica S3, and Canonet QL17 GIII. The first two are built very lightly, but have fairly sharp lenses wide-open. The Canonet is the best build quality, softest shutter release, best viewfinder. My "Keeper" is sharp wide-open, but I went through 5 to get the pick of the litter. IT is as good as the smaller two.
If you do not mind the size, the Konica S2 probably has the best lens of the fixed-lens RF's. The Yashica Lynx is fully-manual, has the softest release of the bunch.
Last edited by a moderator:
physiognomy
Confirmed RF addict...
some links to check out...
some links to check out...
Hi,
You have probably already found these links... I found them very interesting when I first started getting interested in 'compact' rangefinders...
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/youngds/Classic35/Classic35mmCompactRangefingerCameras.htm
http://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm
For what it is worth, my opinion is that these cameras are great and well worth the interest and value placed upon them. I was lucky enough to pick myself up a great Canon G-III 17 for a reasonable price and have been tempted by some of the others with a good reputation. I think the only downside that comes with this group of cameras is some minor repair/restoration that is often needed... When my last 625 kicks the bucket I will have to send off the GIII for adjustment to the alkaline replacement... A one time fix, so it is hardly a major concern.
Peter
some links to check out...
Hi,
You have probably already found these links... I found them very interesting when I first started getting interested in 'compact' rangefinders...
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/youngds/Classic35/Classic35mmCompactRangefingerCameras.htm
http://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm
For what it is worth, my opinion is that these cameras are great and well worth the interest and value placed upon them. I was lucky enough to pick myself up a great Canon G-III 17 for a reasonable price and have been tempted by some of the others with a good reputation. I think the only downside that comes with this group of cameras is some minor repair/restoration that is often needed... When my last 625 kicks the bucket I will have to send off the GIII for adjustment to the alkaline replacement... A one time fix, so it is hardly a major concern.
Peter
satbunny said:
DougK
This space left blank
Like Brian, I wouldn't really consider a Yashica GSN or Minolta Himatic 11 "compact" except in comparison to an SLR.
Of truly compact (or at least jacket-pocketable), fixed-lens RFs I own the Olympus XA, Ricoh 500G, and Konica C35 Automatic. All three have excellent lenses; in fact, I think the Konica might have the sharpest lens of any camera I own and is definitely the most fun to shoot with. You can see some B&W photos from the Konica and color slides from the XA in my gallery. The scans from the XA are a bit soft and don't do justice to the original slides, but the negative scans from the Konica came out pretty well I think.
Of truly compact (or at least jacket-pocketable), fixed-lens RFs I own the Olympus XA, Ricoh 500G, and Konica C35 Automatic. All three have excellent lenses; in fact, I think the Konica might have the sharpest lens of any camera I own and is definitely the most fun to shoot with. You can see some B&W photos from the Konica and color slides from the XA in my gallery. The scans from the XA are a bit soft and don't do justice to the original slides, but the negative scans from the Konica came out pretty well I think.
Last edited:
R
RichardS
Guest
The only ones I have are about a half dozen different models of the Yashica Electros. For more information on them check http://www.yashica-guy.com/
I think they are fun cameras to use.
Dick
I think they are fun cameras to use.
Dick
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Later this week I am intending to test the Olympus 35SP, Konica C35, Minolta 7s with colour negative film. I would add my XA and RC, but I only have 3 rolls of the same supermarket 200 speed film (likely Ferrania, as the film is made in Italy and that's the only film manufacturer in Italy AFAIK), and unless I pick up another roll, it wouldn't be a fair comparison. I'll be camping and canoeing near Picton, Ontario, so relaxation will be the primary goal. ;-)
My primary interest is in the colour rendering of the cameras, with sharpness an important but secondary consideration. I'd also like to look at bokeh, but that's a little tricky since the C35 is program exposure only, so I'd have to use its exposure as the benchmark, and make sure it is at an appropriate aperture. Too much work for vacation mode, so I'll leave bokeh to serendipity or to another day.
Having used the C35 (viewfinder version) many years ago and being very familiar with it, I am guessing it will be higher in contrast and colour saturation than the 35SP, though perhaps not by much. I have no clue on the Minolta, as I have never shot with it since I bought it off oBoy about 2 years ago.
I'll try to report back.
Trius
My primary interest is in the colour rendering of the cameras, with sharpness an important but secondary consideration. I'd also like to look at bokeh, but that's a little tricky since the C35 is program exposure only, so I'd have to use its exposure as the benchmark, and make sure it is at an appropriate aperture. Too much work for vacation mode, so I'll leave bokeh to serendipity or to another day.
Having used the C35 (viewfinder version) many years ago and being very familiar with it, I am guessing it will be higher in contrast and colour saturation than the 35SP, though perhaps not by much. I have no clue on the Minolta, as I have never shot with it since I bought it off oBoy about 2 years ago.
I'll try to report back.
Trius
satbunny
Established
Sorry, by compact I meant non interchangeable lens, all in one construction. Maybe the UK is alone in that useage of the term. Maybe I am alone in useage of that term.
I think from what I've seen here and on ebay that there are a lot of RF in this all-in-one format, long before my time, but all interesting and good value for money.
I think from what I've seen here and on ebay that there are a lot of RF in this all-in-one format, long before my time, but all interesting and good value for money.
zuikologist
.........................
I'll put in a word for the Vivitar 35es (apparently Minolta 7SII clone, fantastic lens IMHO) and Chinon 35ee (dirt cheap, well made, Konica C35 clone - very similar size and specification and warm colour rendition).
Sonnar Brian
Established
Usually "compact" refers to the small fixed-lens rangefinders that were most popular in the early '70s. You throw things wide-open by considering "full-size" fixed lens rangefinders, and can get them very inexpensively. Given your present selection of cameras, I would sway you towards a Konica S2, Minolta Hi-Matic 9, or Yashica Lynx 14. All have top-notch lenses, meters, and manual operation. The Minolta and Konica also offer trap-needle, shutter-preferred automation. The Yashica GS/GT/GSN/GTN series offers aperture-preferred automation, but does not indicate the shutter-speed in use. It has a first-rate lens on it. You can "Peg it" at the high-end or low-end and get a warning light. If you get one of those, buy it from Greyhoundman here at RFF. He rebuilds the electrical contacts (the "PAD", skill required), cleans the viewfinder (comparatively easy), and tests them out. He sells them for about what you would pay for an "unknown" off of Ebay.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
In the compact range, I have the Oly XA & SP, Kodak Retina IIa, Canonet GIII QL17 & 28, Minolta Hi-Matic E. The XA & Retina will fit in just about any pocket, including a shirt pocket.
The XA is aperture priority only, very handy to carry and just have on hand all the time with a good 35/2.8 lense.
The Canonet 28 & Hi-Matic E are both full auto with no overrides except for the "flash" 1/30 shutter mode. The 28 is a 40/2.8 and the E is a 40/1.7 (close enough, it's at home right now). Both are sharp enough for quick grab shots.
The GIII QL17 & the Oly SP are in a class to themselves. Very sharp with full overrides, both with 40/1.7 lenses. The GIII QL17 gets a bit more use due to it's working meter. I'd use the SP a lot more if I could get the meter to work.
The XA is aperture priority only, very handy to carry and just have on hand all the time with a good 35/2.8 lense.
The Canonet 28 & Hi-Matic E are both full auto with no overrides except for the "flash" 1/30 shutter mode. The 28 is a 40/2.8 and the E is a 40/1.7 (close enough, it's at home right now). Both are sharp enough for quick grab shots.
The GIII QL17 & the Oly SP are in a class to themselves. Very sharp with full overrides, both with 40/1.7 lenses. The GIII QL17 gets a bit more use due to it's working meter. I'd use the SP a lot more if I could get the meter to work.
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
My current favorite compact 35mm rf is an Olympus RC, followed by the Canon QL-17 GIII. And a Rollei 35S, although this one is not strictly a rangefinder.
My favorite compact rangefinder for killer quality negatives is an Ansco Speedex Special "R" 120 folding camera with a 6x6 format.
Wayne
My favorite compact rangefinder for killer quality negatives is an Ansco Speedex Special "R" 120 folding camera with a 6x6 format.
Wayne
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I'll second the Speedex Special "R". Another great compact RF from that era is the Agfa Karat. I've got a Karat 36 that has a killer Tessar derivative lens in a syncro-compur shutter. Small, fast handling, excellent shooter and not much known by collecters 😀 so you can still get them for sane prices unlike the lesser but more in demand Retinas, say.
William
William
W
wierdcollector
Guest
In fixed lens compact RF's you'll have to look hard to find more compact cameras than Konica C35, Argus Cosina 35, Ricoh Elnica F, Hanimex Compact R, Fujica GER, Miranda Sensomat, Petri ES Auto, Vivitar 35EE, Minolta HiMatic F or G, or Canon Canonet 28. I have all of these and you'd be hard pressed to tell the makers apart.
In interchangeable lens RF's you could try Agfa Ambi Silette, Lord Lordomat, Kodak's Retina series, Feds or Zorkis. Leicas, Contax and Kievs too depending on your budget.
Folders are another matter. There I'd go with Voigtlander, Agfa, or again Kodak's Retina series.
In interchangeable lens RF's you could try Agfa Ambi Silette, Lord Lordomat, Kodak's Retina series, Feds or Zorkis. Leicas, Contax and Kievs too depending on your budget.
Folders are another matter. There I'd go with Voigtlander, Agfa, or again Kodak's Retina series.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I'll post some scans later, but my initial tests last week were interesting. I'll post some scans later. But my tentative conclusion is that while the C35 is really nice, it's slightly less sharp than either the Olympus 35SP or the Minolta 7s. The program mode only exposure system seems to be a little weird. It keeps exposures around f8, but I don't know if this is substantially different than the other two.
Colour rendition is pretty consistent between the three, with the Olympus seeming to provide a touch more saturation. Exposures on the Olympus seems to be more accurate, even without using the spot metering option. With colour negative film this probably isn't of much significance, but with chromes it might be important.
As far as handling and other usage factors go, the Konica, for me, suffers two faults. First, its shutter release is a little more sensitive than I'd prefer. Locking in a reading via a half press to override exposure is difficult if not impossible. (I don't have the user guide at hand, so maybe this isn't even supported.) More importantly, the finder has a lot of space around the actual frame. Some space is useful, but for me the C35 has way too much, as if the viewfinder were designed for a longer focal length than the 38mm lens attached. The viewfinder is bright and the rangefinder patch is OK, but is not as easily seen as the Minolta nor the Olympus. The Olympus is the best of the lot, but the Minolta is quite good.
The Minolta is the largest of the three, and I found it to be a bit more awkward to handle, though it was nothing onerous. The Olympus is not as tall, and fit in my hand better. The viewfinder on the 7s really isn't that great. The actual frame isn't delineated very well. The EV scale on the right, while helpful, doesn't clearly show the right edge of the frame. Also, I found the focusing tab of the Minolta to be harder to find, while the controls on the SP fell easily to hand.
Both the Olympus and Minolta only display EVs in the viewfinder. If you work in EVs enough, this isn't a problem. But the aperture and shutter speed controls on the 7s are not as easy to manipulate as the 35SP. To move from auto exposure to manual, you must move the shutter speed ring before the aperture ring will unlock. The slowest shutter speed on the Minolta is 1/4 sec, while the Olympus goes to 1 second. Both have a B setting. Minimum aperture on the Minolta is f22, while it's f16 on the Olympus.
Overall, I like the Olympus better for optical quality and ergonomics. The Minolta is very nice optically, and I could live with it though it doesn't feel as good to me. The C35 handles very well for a smaller camera, and the slightly wider focal length comes in handy. But optically I don't think it's quite up to the other two.
Since all of my shots were handheld and exposures weren't matched, I don't consider my "testing" to be especially rigourous much less conclusive. As I said, I'll post some scans in the next day or so.
Trius
Colour rendition is pretty consistent between the three, with the Olympus seeming to provide a touch more saturation. Exposures on the Olympus seems to be more accurate, even without using the spot metering option. With colour negative film this probably isn't of much significance, but with chromes it might be important.
As far as handling and other usage factors go, the Konica, for me, suffers two faults. First, its shutter release is a little more sensitive than I'd prefer. Locking in a reading via a half press to override exposure is difficult if not impossible. (I don't have the user guide at hand, so maybe this isn't even supported.) More importantly, the finder has a lot of space around the actual frame. Some space is useful, but for me the C35 has way too much, as if the viewfinder were designed for a longer focal length than the 38mm lens attached. The viewfinder is bright and the rangefinder patch is OK, but is not as easily seen as the Minolta nor the Olympus. The Olympus is the best of the lot, but the Minolta is quite good.
The Minolta is the largest of the three, and I found it to be a bit more awkward to handle, though it was nothing onerous. The Olympus is not as tall, and fit in my hand better. The viewfinder on the 7s really isn't that great. The actual frame isn't delineated very well. The EV scale on the right, while helpful, doesn't clearly show the right edge of the frame. Also, I found the focusing tab of the Minolta to be harder to find, while the controls on the SP fell easily to hand.
Both the Olympus and Minolta only display EVs in the viewfinder. If you work in EVs enough, this isn't a problem. But the aperture and shutter speed controls on the 7s are not as easy to manipulate as the 35SP. To move from auto exposure to manual, you must move the shutter speed ring before the aperture ring will unlock. The slowest shutter speed on the Minolta is 1/4 sec, while the Olympus goes to 1 second. Both have a B setting. Minimum aperture on the Minolta is f22, while it's f16 on the Olympus.
Overall, I like the Olympus better for optical quality and ergonomics. The Minolta is very nice optically, and I could live with it though it doesn't feel as good to me. The C35 handles very well for a smaller camera, and the slightly wider focal length comes in handy. But optically I don't think it's quite up to the other two.
Since all of my shots were handheld and exposures weren't matched, I don't consider my "testing" to be especially rigourous much less conclusive. As I said, I'll post some scans in the next day or so.
Trius
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
A few pics are up in an album in my gallery. I'll post more as upload limits allow.
Trius
Trius
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I'm done (I think) uploading photos to an album in my gallery. <http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5295>
I'm not sure how helpful these photos are. They were scanned form the negatives on a Noritsu QSS systems. I didn't do any post processing except sizing. So any lack of difference is a result of the scanning. Did the system or operator adjust so that differences can't be discerned? I don't know. I see some differences, but there a lot of similarity, too.
Trius
I'm not sure how helpful these photos are. They were scanned form the negatives on a Noritsu QSS systems. I didn't do any post processing except sizing. So any lack of difference is a result of the scanning. Did the system or operator adjust so that differences can't be discerned? I don't know. I see some differences, but there a lot of similarity, too.
Trius
peter_n
Veteran
My only experience is with the little Canonet-QL17. Built like a brick it has an excellent lens and a very quiet shutter - a really wonderful camera. Below are 3 shots taken with it from my gallery here. The first was at f2.8, the second at f4, and the third at f8 or f11.
back alley
IMAGES
peter, i really like that second shot! very nice.
joe
joe
Beniliam
Out of the limelight
More pics with the Canonet QL 17...
peter_n
Veteran
Thanks Joe! I recognise the shot from Beniliam (nice one David!) as from the Glass Palace in the Retiro Park in Madrid. My shots were taken in Madrid too, the second one was shot with Neopan 1600 and developed in XTOL.backalley photo said:
Similar threads
California (Bay Area, Northern)
‘Daido Moriyama: Dog and Man’ Opening Saturday, September 20, 5-7 pm at the Casemore Gallery in
