cklammer
Member
Nitpicking
Nitpicking
The Olympus Trip 35 is a zone focusing camera and not a rangefinder.
Olympus XA should have been in the poll instead of the Trip.
cklammer
Nitpicking
The Olympus Trip 35 is a zone focusing camera and not a rangefinder.
Olympus XA should have been in the poll instead of the Trip.
cklammer
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I went with the Canonet line over the Yashica one for size. Both are excellent cameras though.
It is funny that I didn't see this poll when it was first posted...
It is funny that I didn't see this poll when it was first posted...
NickTrop
Veteran
I'm sooooo happy that 5000 doesn't attract crowds like Canonet does. Let's just use 5000's and don't make a victim of too much attention from it
That's the only FLRF I might actually every buy. 100% manual operation. I wish Yash would have - back in the day, just shrunk the damned things like they did with the later Electros.
btgc
Veteran
Valid point. Lynxes are great, though on daily move I too often choose Electro 35 MC - just because it's much smaller. Wait, body size isn't such a problem, possibly if lens on 5000 would be more compact it would see more use (I'm not asking to compact lens of 14 - that would be too much plain heresy).
Though Electros don't have speed selection ring, shutter don't have mechanical speed mechanism so compact lens for Lynx would come at cost of other shortcuts. Probably compact Copal X (as on half-frame 72-E) couldn't appropriate move blades of needed size, also lacking speeds down 1/8. So Lynxes are as they are.
Interesting that [small sized bodies] CC appeared on 1970, and GX on 1975 (acc. to Yashica Guy). Full sized 35 series continued to develop about in same years, spawning G model in 1968, 35G w/ gold plated contacts in 1970, GSN/GTN in 1973 and GL in 1973.
I have a feeling that small bodied Electros were made as lower class compared to full size Electros. Crummy aperture of CC and awkward flash speed speaks for themselves. Lens were selling point. GX lacks 35mm lens though is of same brightness plus sync at all speeds (if I'm not wrong here).
Do anyone can comment if CC/CCN and GX have gold plated contacts or not? If not, they were sacrificed to cut production costs. I also have feeling that CC and GX are more prone to non-working electronics syndrome, I tend to associate this with lack of G.P. contacts. I can be completely wrong here, though.
NickTrop
Veteran
Actually, I have a CC, and your assumptions about them I respectfully must disagree with. The build quality of the CC is better than the earlier , larger, GT/GS,(N)s Electros imo. The CC feels like a higher-end camera, it's heavy and substantial with the brightest finder of them all. It has much better build quality than the Konica Auto S3, a compact from same era I also have. As for the twin blade shutter, the acclaimed Konica Hexar AF - that also has a 35/2 lens, which came out in the late 90's and a high-end camera, also had a 2-blade shutter and also had a top shutter speed of 1/250. So my reasoning is that there must be some kind of engineering constraint to this lens spec? This would seem so, when comparing the CC with the Hexar AF. I think it's some kind of engineering/design contraint neither Konica or Yashica could overcome - Konica decades later, than a cost-cutting measure. Also, the CC that I got on eBay needed no trips to Mark Hama - it was nearly mint and worked flawlessly - as new. This is the only camera that I've ever purchased used, that old, that didn't need to be CLA'd repaired or I didn't live with some defects.
btgc
Veteran
Nick, thanks for sharing your point on CC and two-bladed aperture and Hexar AF excursion, particularly. I know lens shouldn't be judged by number of aperture blades, so I were careful (I hope).
I'll guess - optical elements of fast 35mm lens don't leave much space for standard 6 blades? Anyway, while this isn't live or die for me, it would be interesting if someone in future could shed light on this.
As for build quality, I think it weren't that hard to bypass GSN. I judge by comparing earlier G and late GSN - and I see difference. While everyone hunts down GSN (or GTN, better yet), I can say GSN is built cheaper than G - not day and night, though once you open them it's quite clear. They are good while they work and then they are donors of semisilvered mirror for Lynx 14
A word for small-bodied Yashica generation - I have black bodied scale focus 35 MC and only work it needed were light seals. Perfect.
I'll guess - optical elements of fast 35mm lens don't leave much space for standard 6 blades? Anyway, while this isn't live or die for me, it would be interesting if someone in future could shed light on this.
As for build quality, I think it weren't that hard to bypass GSN. I judge by comparing earlier G and late GSN - and I see difference. While everyone hunts down GSN (or GTN, better yet), I can say GSN is built cheaper than G - not day and night, though once you open them it's quite clear. They are good while they work and then they are donors of semisilvered mirror for Lynx 14
A word for small-bodied Yashica generation - I have black bodied scale focus 35 MC and only work it needed were light seals. Perfect.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
Ditto that. The Olympus XA has an advantage over many other FLRF in that it is very small. If I'm going to reach for a camera I might grab the XA over a Bessa, Leica, Canon RF, if I want pocketablity above other attributes.
Kent
Finally at home...
My personal "Top Three" lines:
- Yashica Electro
- Olympus RC/SP etc.
- Minolta Hi-Matic
But I guess I would like the Canons or Konicas a lot, I just have never used them.
- Yashica Electro
- Olympus RC/SP etc.
- Minolta Hi-Matic
But I guess I would like the Canons or Konicas a lot, I just have never used them.
amateriat
We're all light!
Konica for technical excellence and sheer chutzpah. Yashica for sentimental reasons (my first two "real" 35mm cameras, and in spite of the fact that the first one [5000E Lynx, c. 1972-3] seemed to break every time I looked at it funny). Canon, because the one I had (a black QL17 III, with matching lens hood, c. 1977) was mad cool, but I'd long since discovered the F-1 and EF, and RFs, at the time, seemed so...secondary. What did I know?
- Barrett
- Barrett
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I put a vote in for the forgotten rangefinders from Fujica.
A while ago I had the privilege to shoot a Fujica 35SE. It has a thumb wheel for foucssing, and a bottom advance lever. A write-up on the quite similar 35EE is here.
The set I shot had an auxillary wide angle and a tele lens with it, both with finders and leather cases which fitted a lens and the finder into it. Very nice, all high quality.
I'm always suprised this camera is hardly ever mentioned here, so I jumped to put a vote in for it. The Fujinon lens is amazing, as can be seen at the above link, bottom page.
Recommended!
A while ago I had the privilege to shoot a Fujica 35SE. It has a thumb wheel for foucssing, and a bottom advance lever. A write-up on the quite similar 35EE is here.
The set I shot had an auxillary wide angle and a tele lens with it, both with finders and leather cases which fitted a lens and the finder into it. Very nice, all high quality.
I'm always suprised this camera is hardly ever mentioned here, so I jumped to put a vote in for it. The Fujinon lens is amazing, as can be seen at the above link, bottom page.
Recommended!
Palaeoboy
Joel Matherson
I collect lenses and fixed lens cameras with 40mm lenses and the one to beat optically is rarely mentioned that much but in fact the Minolta 7SII has the edge on the very popular Canon QL17 GIII in this respect.
NickTrop
Veteran
Armoured
Well-known
7sII has a lovely lens, but can have a fair bit of flaring. Trying to figure out how best to deal with this...
AJShepherd
Well-known
Surely the Trip is the odd one out, as it's not a rangefinder?
I really must take mine out and about again real soon.
I really must take mine out and about again real soon.
amhildreth
Hootie-Hoo
The Vivitar 35es is my favorite, but since I didn't see a category, I placed a vote for the Hi-matics. My F is a great little camera.
Robint
Member
I voted for Olympus even though none of the cameras listed I own. My youngest is the 35 LC, then I have a 35-s II, an Ace E, and 35-s I and a 35 IVa which is not a rangefinder. The 35-s I & Ace have a 10 bladed aperture then it drops to 5 in the 35-s II and on. The older cameras were much more substantial than the more modern cameras like the 35 LC.
NickTrop
Veteran
Yeah - lots of complaints about too few lines of cameras but the poll limits you to X number of choices when you set it up, unfortunately. Plus, lots of folks came up with some more obscure choices I hadn't considered or known about, like the Ace. THAT seems like an interesting camera.
naql
Established
Where does the Konica C35 fit in up there? I won one off of the Bay and I don't see too much love for them on here.
daniel~
Established
Konica C35 is a wonderful but underrated camera, being so common & simple. Maybe it could join Konica Auto S3(C35FD) here?
If we look at C35FD, the domestic market version of Auto S3, it becomes obvious that this fine camera shares more family traits with C35 than with Auto S2.
btgc
Veteran
daniel~, you go somewhere on parallel track. Some time ago I've got creamy EF3 like in your avatar, and probably I'll refoam it as my red one has slight haze (visible only in strong backlight) in VF, while creamy is clear. And this things aren't as easy to clean as metal clunkers.
....
I just took a closer look on my parts EF3. Haze deposits on inner surfaces of VF (separate glass with framing marks). VF is hard to open compared to classic RF's - plastic top cover is secured by tough glue, so work carefully. After slight cleaning VF improves a lot....I should clean also my working EF3.
....
I just took a closer look on my parts EF3. Haze deposits on inner surfaces of VF (separate glass with framing marks). VF is hard to open compared to classic RF's - plastic top cover is secured by tough glue, so work carefully. After slight cleaning VF improves a lot....I should clean also my working EF3.