It's a relatively early (black shutter dial) Minolta SRT101.
retinax
Well-known
SLR-like in the worst sense are those that have the finder eyepiece in the middle rather than at the side of the body where it belongs. Unfortunately there are lots of them, mostly ultra compact class like XA and some fancy Contaxes, as well as medium format folders...
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
*Very* close, but no cigar!
It's a tad earlier than the SR-T 101, it's the last version of the SR-7, see: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Minolta_SR-7
Oh, yes, that's also very annoying.
css9450
Veteran
I would think most of these "function factors" boil down to one's own personal preferences. Shutter button concentric with the advance lever? Too awkward, doesn't fit my hand size at all.
*Very* close, but no cigar!
It's a tad earlier than the SR-T 101, it's the last version of the SR-7, see: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Minolta_SR-7
Oh, yes, that's also very annoying.
Learned something there, thanks!
I don’t think I’ve seen a SR-7 yet. I love my pair of 101s though. They sort of found me, I ignored them for a long time, but, when I finally started using them I was quickly converted. Cheers
Brett
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
That's funny -- I'd say, the only Nikon that I would probably like (I do have a totally neglected kaput F2, I just needed the DP-or DF-or-something-finder as a present for my mother-in-law) is the one that has the release button Leica-M/Minolta-like: the F3 -- and I do have large pianist's hands
Learned something there, thanks!
Cheers
Brett
Brett, similar in my case -- a couple of years ago I did recall that several of my school mates were Minolta shooters -- and soon I discovered that some of them are really really good, particularly those that were already old-fashioned when I was born
leicapixie
Well-known
IMHO i guess that SLR like RF is a mythical search!
You wanna see clearly what you are framing, it's SLR.
IF you wanna have the "feel" of RF then list is very short.
There is no SLR LIKE a RF!
Close, similar is never the same!
One either has a Leica M, or one is simply a loser.
The Spotmatic and later K-1000 kinda simple like an M.
Canon Ae-1P has all same directions of focus and shutter dial like an M.
Nikon is opposite!
The Alpas are a nightmare, to use, to maintain and service!
If you own some, you are to be applauded.
I love RF when I had long shoots and longer days!
My eyes tired, the RF is the best.
The M lenses before apoch. era are really small and easy to pocket.
Smaller rigs (price of Leica stuff) are the best.
You wanna see clearly what you are framing, it's SLR.
IF you wanna have the "feel" of RF then list is very short.
There is no SLR LIKE a RF!
Close, similar is never the same!
One either has a Leica M, or one is simply a loser.
The Spotmatic and later K-1000 kinda simple like an M.
Canon Ae-1P has all same directions of focus and shutter dial like an M.
Nikon is opposite!
The Alpas are a nightmare, to use, to maintain and service!
If you own some, you are to be applauded.
I love RF when I had long shoots and longer days!
My eyes tired, the RF is the best.
The M lenses before apoch. era are really small and easy to pocket.
Smaller rigs (price of Leica stuff) are the best.
Pioneer
Veteran
If all you are considering is size then there are several SLR camera/lens combinations that fit the size criteria.
The difference between rangefinder and slr is not size, irregardless of what some would like to pretend. They each provide a very different experience even when the photographer is using them for similar tasks. As noted several times already in the posts found in this thread alone, some like the rangefinder experience, some do not, and others appear to be somewhat ambivalent (though their personal use pattern probably does reveal a preference.)
I love my Pentax LX and it is a very, very smooth camera in operation. Over the years it has passed up the K1000 as my favorite SLR. I seriously doubt I will ever get rid of it and I do use it pretty regularly. But I think that my use patterns over the past few years clearly shows a personal preference for the rangefinder whenever shooting 35mm.
The difference between rangefinder and slr is not size, irregardless of what some would like to pretend. They each provide a very different experience even when the photographer is using them for similar tasks. As noted several times already in the posts found in this thread alone, some like the rangefinder experience, some do not, and others appear to be somewhat ambivalent (though their personal use pattern probably does reveal a preference.)
I love my Pentax LX and it is a very, very smooth camera in operation. Over the years it has passed up the K1000 as my favorite SLR. I seriously doubt I will ever get rid of it and I do use it pretty regularly. But I think that my use patterns over the past few years clearly shows a personal preference for the rangefinder whenever shooting 35mm.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Dan, is that because of focusing ability? I find the rangefinder more appealing the older my eyes get. That is my case; even with SLR finders that I like I am having increasingly more troubles with focus.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
A,
At the February NYC Camera Carnival Sam showed off this ALPA that was both a SLR with a rangefinder.
Sam is a collector. He says he has about 300 cameras.
Cal
Axel
singleshooter
So I do. The "bright and big" Viewfinders of my SLRs are more and more complicated to handle with older eyes.
The brightness of Rangefinders and electronic viewfinders become more important with every year of age.
But there are also facts like silence and a real visible moment while shooting without blackout that SLRs never
brought up. I think that every tool is designed for special work. So a SLR never would be "like a rangefinder"
and vice versa.
BillBingham2
Registered User
From the Nikon RF perspective, it's a Nikon F plain prism.
(It is Nikon RF Month and all).......
B2 (;->
(It is Nikon RF Month and all).......
B2 (;->
Pioneer
Veteran
It could be that focusing is easier, but I really couldn't say based on my photos. In reality I seem to use hyperfocal focusing with the rangefinders quite frequently while actually focusing with the SLRs.
I tell myself that the size factor is a bigger deal but that is also being influenced by the fact that I seem to be using my faster, brighter (and heavier, larger) lenses on my SLRs than I did in the past. I tell myself that I like the better control of depth of field I get with these faster lenses but it may be as simple as being able to focus them easier because the image is brighter. This could also be why I am far more inclined to use my LX than my K1000 as I get older since the viewfinder itself is far brighter on the LX.
You could certainly be onto something with the focus issue. On the rangefinders I still use the f/2 or slower primes since they are smaller and the depth of field lends itself to hyperfocal focusing. On the flip side it is harder to achieve critical focus with faster lenses on the rangefinder (though the M3 still seems to be pretty easy for me to work with in this regards.)
I'll have to give this some more thought (and perhaps I need to buy a newer pair of glasses.)
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the original Leicaflex. Its viewfinder is like a rangefinder in that the only part that focuses is the central microprism -- the outer region of the viewfinder is always in focus, like a rangefinder's viewfinder. And like a rangefinder, the viewfinder is particularly bright. (Oh, and like many rangefinders, the metering is not through the lens.)
Otherwise, it's a rather large and hefty camera, so rather un-rangefinderlike in that regard.
Otherwise, it's a rather large and hefty camera, so rather un-rangefinderlike in that regard.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Agree. I have both types and cherish them all. My Nikon FE is awesome but it is not a Leica and that's not a put down. Just a different experience.
Mark Schretlen
mostly harmless
The Canon EX auto has a viewfinder similar to the Leicaflex.
phofseth
Established
Most of my Alpas are in a secure place, too expensive to use in my usual manner (in anorak pockets, knocked about in rucksacks etc). I do however recall that it was quite easy to inadvertently block the lower rangefinder window while focussing. Also, the angled rangefinder "finger" touching the Switar was less robust than the leica roller design.
I put up with the stupidly designed (involuntarily moveable) focussing fiield, the digital Pen F , with a software revision it could be a good substitute for the old rangefinder M6.
I put up with the stupidly designed (involuntarily moveable) focussing fiield, the digital Pen F , with a software revision it could be a good substitute for the old rangefinder M6.
krötenblender
Well-known
If it's about the left-sided viewfinder and something "modern" is not totally out of question, then have a look at the Olympus Evolt E-300. This piece of digital art has a left viewfinder, but is a real DSLR. The finder itself is just ingenious!
Look at that:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/3
Oh, and it has a Kodak sensor...
Look at that:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/3
Oh, and it has a Kodak sensor...
lxmike
M2 fan.
I would go for a Pentax Mx with 40/2.8 SMC M series lens
skucera
Well-known
I've never owned one, but I have occasionally been intrigued by pellicle mirror cameras like the Canon Pellix or the EOS RT. When the RT was new I fondled one in a camera store, snapping some imaginary shots, and it didn't black out with a flip of the mirror. I thought it might be a neat cross between the user experience of a rangefinder crossed with the ability to look through the lens.
Maybe someday....
Scott
Maybe someday....
Scott