old v's new + lenses

[Mark_Davies]

Hi all,

I have recently acquired a couple of older RF's: Canon Canonet, Konica S3, Olympus 35 SP, Minolta Himatic 7sII, Yashica 35CC. I like them, they are great but as this is my first foray into the RF market since having a voigtlander Vitessa in 1961 ish, and have since been spoilt with SLR gear, Mamiya 7II and LF gear. They all are easy to see/focus. I am looking for a good RF and a vatriety of lenses so I don't have to carry 3 cameras around to get from 28mm to 90 (but would prefer longer)mm.

I was wondering for a body, how do a Minolta CLE or new R3a compare, and for lenses, looking to get something like 28, 40 and 90. Now that sounds just like the Minolta but the R3A has the larger viewfinder (1:1). Voigtlander also have the lenses.

Then there is future repair capability on old v's new.

Any opinions on the way ahead.

Thanks,

Mark

How about the r3A with the CLE lenses even?

 

[Solinar]

These are all competent 35mm shooters.

Try the Konic S3 first. It will use modern batteries and the optics are pro grade. Forget the serviceability issue for now. Just pop a roll 100UC, if the weather is nice and wait until you get your prints. With ISO 400 film, this is a wonderful camera for street photography, plus it black.

There is no manual mode on the S3.

The Oly 35SP also has a stellar lens, but its 1950's ergonomics is a throw back. This camera offers manual control, which many of a modern photographer find it to be slow going. Its AE mode is a valiant effort, but is dated design with no user feedback. It needs a #675 zinc air hearing aid cell for its light meter to work, but it will work no matter what mode your in. The meter stays on all the time, except in total darkness.

You didn't mention which Canonet that you have, but Canon rarely built a bad camera. The Electro 35 CC is another great shooter for street photography and the Minolta is a competent me too shooter.

I would bet dollars to donuts that the Konica and the Minolta are built on the same Cosina body, but with different optics and shutter mechanisms.

 

[Nikon Bob]

If the possibility of repair is an issue then a new R3a and VC lenses might be the way to go. As a bonus they have lenses in your desired focal lengths and in slow and fast models in some lengths.

Bob

 

[Huck Finn]

Hi all,
I was wondering for a body, how do a Minolta CLE or new R3a compare, and for lenses, looking to get something like 28, 40 and 90. Now that sounds just like the Minolta but the R3A has the larger viewfinder (1:1). Voigtlander also have the lenses.

Then there is future repair capability on old v's new.

Any opinions on the way ahead.

Thanks,

Mark

How about the r3A with the CLE lenses even?

This is a tough question. I personally would much rather have the 28 mm framelines in my viewfinder than having to resort to an auxiliary finder, but I agree with Bob that repairs on the CLE are problematic & parts are becoming increasingly hard to find. It's just not a good inviestment.

A better choice of a camera with 28 mm framelines in that price range would be a used Konica Hexar RF. It only came on the market in 1999, has excellent build quality, & has all of the advanced features of the CLE. Although rare today on the new camera market, it can still be found for about $1000.

The CV BEssa R3A is a good AE alternative if you can live with the auxiliary framelines for your 28 mm lens. Another option with 40 mm framelines in the same price range is the Rollei 35 RF. It does not have AE, but its 40 mm framelines are much easier to see than the those on the R3A because it has the more standard 0.7 magnification. It also has 80 mm framelines instead of 90 & they work as well with the CV 75/2.5 as with Rollei's 80/2.8.

The lenses made for the CLE were excellent lenses & are still a good choice if you can find them except for the 28, which has been reported to develop white spots over the years. Either of the CV 28s would be a better choice.

 

[rover]

One thing I have found is that with a lens of 28mm or wider the use of an external VF is not that much of a problem, because the great DOF offered makes focusing quicker and not as critical. You can pre focus the lens and just worry about framing and shooting. This is what I have done with some success with my M3.

 

[yossarian]

I personally view the CLE as one of the most over-rated cameras of its type. It had nowhere near the quality of materials and construction of the original CL. The top plate was plastic, just like the Canon AE-1.

In addition, the shutter and meter assemblies were straight out of the Minolta XG-7, one of the least reliable SLRs ever made--meaning that as with that camera, there is no metered manual mode--you're on your own.

The cameras you have now are all superior to the CLE, aside from their lack of interchangable lenses.

I'd follow the advice of the other posters and go with the Voigtlander or Konica.

 

[Captain]

"I personally view the CLE as one of the most over-rated cameras of its type. It had nowhere near the quality of materials and construction of the original CL. The top plate was plastic, just like the Canon AE-1.

In addition, the shutter and meter assemblies were straight out of the Minolta XG-7, one of the least reliable SLRs ever made--meaning that as with that camera, there is no metered manual mode--you're on your own."

Sorry Yassarian, but I must clearly disagree with you. Its eveident you have never owned one of these cameras but just read about them in the net instead. The construction of the CLE is superior to the CL in virtually every respect. It is true that the Top and bottom covers are polycarbonate BUT are so thick that they are much stronger than the CL's thin metal ones ever were. Most CL's have dented top covers, most CLE's dont. The way they are Black Chromed (Yes they are black chromed even though the based may be polycarbonate) is so hard wearing that they arent chipped like CLs generally are. Furthermore the shutter and meter assemblies arent straight out of an XG-7, the CLE meters off the film plane, the only Minolta with such a metering system and its circuit board with intergral metering sensor is unique, the shutter curtains are differnt also to allow this metering to be used. Nor did any XG camera have TTL flash metering. The shutters and meters are far more reliable on CLE's than the CL's which are the CL's main weakness. It also has the best viewfinder for 28mm lenses. If you want to often use 28mm and 40mm framelines the CLE is the best camera in this respect. They can still be serviced by sending them to Minolta Japan. The CLE is still one of the best rangefinders ever made. Consider a R3a if you arent going to use a 28mm lens much. Otherwise a nice CLE will suit you well.

 

[Mark_Davies]

Hi all,

Thanks for your input. If the wider end of the camera was more important, i.e. 28, 35, 40 end, and I have oldish eyes, which camera of the two I suggested, or, considering the Hexar has limited wider end brightlines, other camera would be suggested?

I hope that is reasonably not too confusing.

Ta,

Mark

 

[Huck Finn]

the Hexar has limited wider end brightlines,
Mark

Mark, what do you mean by "limited wider end brightlines"? "Limited" in what way?

I think that the thread has covered your options for cameras with 28 mm framelines with the exception of either a Leica or the new Zeiss Ikon, which are both in different price ranges than the oprtions you were discussing.

Cheers,
Huck

 

[Mark_Davies]

Hi Huck,
Looking at the cameraquest site giving info on viewfinders on RF's, they indicate the Hexar RF has slightly dimmer framelines and finder than the M6. I would like to be using the CV 40 and a 28mm lens. As my eyes are not the best, I would like to have the best possible chance of focusing correctly. Hence the requirement to have if possible, 28 and 40 framelines that are easy to see. From what I gather, I will not get 28 & 40 in the one camera. Therefore, what would be the best way to go: Get the 3a and a 28 finder, or, get a Hexar or some other camera with 28 framelines and gues for the 40?.

I hope that is clear. Thanks for the help.

Mark

 

[peter_n]

One possibility that has not been discussed (its a bit pricy) is a Leica M6TTL with a 0.85 mag viewfinder. I have a 0.85 M7 and there are no 28mm framelines on that cam because the 28 is the whole VF, but my eyes aren't so young either and I find that M7 pretty usable with a 28. I assume the M6TTL is the same.

 

[Pherdinand]

Sorry, don't have experience w the cameras you are asking about...but if you decide to part with the yashica electro35 CC, i'm first in the line! 😀

 

[zuikologist]

Pherdinand - I'm keeping my eye on a GX for you. 5 days to go tho...........

 

[Huck Finn]

Hi Huck,
Looking at the cameraquest site giving info on viewfinders on RF's, they indicate the Hexar RF has slightly dimmer framelines and finder than the M6. I would like to be using the CV 40 and a 28mm lens. As my eyes are not the best, I would like to have the best possible chance of focusing correctly. Hence the requirement to have if possible, 28 and 40 framelines that are easy to see. From what I gather, I will not get 28 & 40 in the one camera. Therefore, what would be the best way to go: Get the 3a and a 28 finder, or, get a Hexar or some other camera with 28 framelines and gues for the 40?.

I hope that is clear. Thanks for the help.

Mark

Sorry for the delay in responding, Mark. I actually replied a few days ago, but my post seems to have gotten lost in the ups & downs of the system.

I'd heed Rover's advice & use the auxiliary finder for the 28 because of the considerable depth of field. The R3A is the only modern camera with the 40 & 90 framelines that you desire & combined with the aux 28 finder, you'll have the combo you want & a very nice 1:1 viewfinder.

Cheers,
Huck

 

[Frank Granovski]

I've never used a modern (Cosina) Voigtlander lens, but the one on my old Vitomatic 11 was extremely sharp; probably sharper than my 40mm 'cron-c.

 

[Mark_Davies]

Many thanks all. I have been looking at the r3a because of the lenses and being a new model, tech support should be around for quite some time. It looks, considering the mentions of the 28 not being a problem with the greater depth of field, as if the r3a would be most suitable.

Many thanks again.

Mark