jett
Well-known
I want to try out a Retina IIIc because they look pretty and I've heard many great things. I'm worried that they aren't the greatest users, so I was wondering how they compare to the Japanese fixed-lens rangefinders in terms of viewfinder/rangefinder, build quality, and wide-open performance.
I have a KAS2 and a Canon P. After getting the Canon, the KAS2 feels a bit cheapish and clumsy so I'm thinking about grabbing a Retina IIIc as my compact rangefinder. I like the 50mm focal lengths, and solid metal construction, so I figured that my best bets for an relatively inexpensive small rangefinder is a Retinas or Leica Barnack.
I have a KAS2 and a Canon P. After getting the Canon, the KAS2 feels a bit cheapish and clumsy so I'm thinking about grabbing a Retina IIIc as my compact rangefinder. I like the 50mm focal lengths, and solid metal construction, so I figured that my best bets for an relatively inexpensive small rangefinder is a Retinas or Leica Barnack.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
OK, it took me a while but I figured out that KAS2 is the Konica Auto S2. That's a very nice camera, great lens. Certainly they made a lot of those, but they were well made.
But you asked about the Retina. I think the hardest thing to get used to with them is the location of the wind lever, and you have to be careful to not let it snap back or you run the risk of messing up the cocking rack -- significant repair. But it has a great viewfinder (make sure it's not too hazy), a really quiet shutter, and the Xenon is an excellent lens, right up there with the best. It's really compact too.
The meters on these tend to still be accurate, even after all these years. They're made by Gossen, which is the best of them all as far as I'm concerned. Regarding the Synchro Compur, I've found the shutters on the Retinas remain quite accurate, more so than Synchro Compurs on other cameras of similar vintage. I don't know why this is, and this is only my experience, but this speaks to how well the camera is made and how well designed.
From an esthetic standpoint, just looking at it -- the precision of the controls and the neatness of the engravings -- is another demonstration of these cameras' quality.
Downsides: I mentioned the wind lever is awkward and requires care in use. Some people don't like the count-down frame counter, and the way it locks when you hit 0, but that's just a momentary delay. Fixed lens, of course. Rewinding can be tedious. And other than the cocking rack issue, I think these are complicated to repair, so not everybody wants to work on them. But there are a lot of them out there in really nice shape, for not too much money. See if you can find one of the later ones with the single range meter (no need to mess with the flap covering the meter cell).
(A tip -- if you don't want the meter, look for the unmetered version, the IIc. The lens is an f2.8, but some people think it's even sharper than the f2.0.)
But you asked about the Retina. I think the hardest thing to get used to with them is the location of the wind lever, and you have to be careful to not let it snap back or you run the risk of messing up the cocking rack -- significant repair. But it has a great viewfinder (make sure it's not too hazy), a really quiet shutter, and the Xenon is an excellent lens, right up there with the best. It's really compact too.
The meters on these tend to still be accurate, even after all these years. They're made by Gossen, which is the best of them all as far as I'm concerned. Regarding the Synchro Compur, I've found the shutters on the Retinas remain quite accurate, more so than Synchro Compurs on other cameras of similar vintage. I don't know why this is, and this is only my experience, but this speaks to how well the camera is made and how well designed.
From an esthetic standpoint, just looking at it -- the precision of the controls and the neatness of the engravings -- is another demonstration of these cameras' quality.
Downsides: I mentioned the wind lever is awkward and requires care in use. Some people don't like the count-down frame counter, and the way it locks when you hit 0, but that's just a momentary delay. Fixed lens, of course. Rewinding can be tedious. And other than the cocking rack issue, I think these are complicated to repair, so not everybody wants to work on them. But there are a lot of them out there in really nice shape, for not too much money. See if you can find one of the later ones with the single range meter (no need to mess with the flap covering the meter cell).
(A tip -- if you don't want the meter, look for the unmetered version, the IIc. The lens is an f2.8, but some people think it's even sharper than the f2.0.)
hausen
Well-known
I think the IIIc is a superb user. Have just sold my KAS2 and there was no competition in my mind. The Retina is a darling. Mine has no frame lines anymore so I purchased a Leitz 50vf and the set up is the best looking rig I have seen. Think the winder underneath is a non issue. takes about 5 hots to get used to it. Cheap as well, bought mine mint for $70.
murpograph
Established
I own them all ;-) the IIIc, the IIIC, the III s and some IIa. I cannot confirm that the finder of the IIIc is great. It is just a finder of the times when it was built. Not comparable to those of a Canon G3 or Konica S2. Nuch better is the finder of the IIIC which are however hard to find and quite expensive. The handling of the IIIc with its uncoupled exposure-meter and the 3 lenses (and the tricky rangefinding procedure of tele- and wideangle-lens and the separate finder for them) isn't comfortable at all. Nevertheless the built quality is great and so is the quality of the pictures. If you want to use only the 50 mm lens and if you are prepared to use an external exposure-meter I would recommend the much smaller IIa. If you want to have more possibilities and comfort I would look for a III S: 6 lenses (28, 35, 1,9/50, 2,8/50, 85 and 135 mm), coupled exposure meter and internal automatic frame-lines for any lens.
By the way the wind-lever isn't the best invention but after a while you'll arrange with it.
By the way the wind-lever isn't the best invention but after a while you'll arrange with it.
pinkarmy
Well-known
i think both Kodak and Konica are great cameras.
i love all my Konicas very much
but i would never say "a Konica is better than a Kodak", or vice versa.
it's like saying a cat is better than a dog, or a spoon is better than a fork.
i never have Auto S2 but an Auto S1.6 (i also have the Konica I, II and a IIIM) and i have a Kodak IIIc.
they each has their own characters, regarding the operations of the machine, or the images they made.
the image results of my Kodak IIIc looks rather "normal" to me,
but that is because Kodak set the standard of modern photography--...i am talking about family snapshots kind of photography.
we are more or less growing up looking at pictures made from a Kodak camera or Kodak films.
EDIT:
I MADE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE!!!!
the two pictures i posted before are actually taken with my VITESSA A (Ultron F2)!!!!...no wonder why the bokeh is so fab.
i messed up my scan CDs.
I apologize to everyone who has been misled.
i am so embarrassed.
however my impressions on the Retina IIIc remains.
i will post the IIIc results...when i find the CDs...really sorry
i love all my Konicas very much
but i would never say "a Konica is better than a Kodak", or vice versa.
it's like saying a cat is better than a dog, or a spoon is better than a fork.
i never have Auto S2 but an Auto S1.6 (i also have the Konica I, II and a IIIM) and i have a Kodak IIIc.
they each has their own characters, regarding the operations of the machine, or the images they made.
the image results of my Kodak IIIc looks rather "normal" to me,
but that is because Kodak set the standard of modern photography--...i am talking about family snapshots kind of photography.
we are more or less growing up looking at pictures made from a Kodak camera or Kodak films.
EDIT:
I MADE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE!!!!
the two pictures i posted before are actually taken with my VITESSA A (Ultron F2)!!!!...no wonder why the bokeh is so fab.
i messed up my scan CDs.
I apologize to everyone who has been misled.
i am so embarrassed.
however my impressions on the Retina IIIc remains.
i will post the IIIc results...when i find the CDs...really sorry
Last edited:
The finder of the IIIc is not as good as those on the 1960s and 1970s fixed-lens rangefinders. Most of the viewfinders on the Retina's will clean up well, tend to have haze on them. The silvering is good, most has survived.
The Retina IIc and IIIc (small c) have brightlines that is implemented using a mask in the front section of the viewfinder. It is a "sandwich" of glass, frame, and flat spring. You have to break it out, take it apart, and clean it up. Then the hard part is aligning it all back up.
The later Retina IIC and IIIC (BIG C) have a much larger rangefinder that is the equal of the 1960s and 1970s fixed lens RF's. This is the same finder used in the Retina IIIS and higher-end non-folding Retina's, the Auto III. Cleaning that viewfinder is trivial compared with the IIIc and IIc.
The Retina IIc and IIIc (small c) have brightlines that is implemented using a mask in the front section of the viewfinder. It is a "sandwich" of glass, frame, and flat spring. You have to break it out, take it apart, and clean it up. Then the hard part is aligning it all back up.
The later Retina IIC and IIIC (BIG C) have a much larger rangefinder that is the equal of the 1960s and 1970s fixed lens RF's. This is the same finder used in the Retina IIIS and higher-end non-folding Retina's, the Auto III. Cleaning that viewfinder is trivial compared with the IIIc and IIc.
Last edited:
jett
Well-known
Thank you pinkarmy, those pictures have very nice bokeh.
This camera sounds like one I have to try! I don't need a meter, or interchangeable lenses, so I might pursue a IIa instead.
This camera sounds like one I have to try! I don't need a meter, or interchangeable lenses, so I might pursue a IIa instead.
Steve M.
Veteran
These are German made cameras. The build quality is very good, certainly better than any Japanese camera I ever owned. The IIIc is also a much bigger camera than, say, a IIa. The IIIc I owned was built better than my earlier Retinas, but I like the smaller ones, so I sold mine. I really regret it. Wonderful shooter w/ a superb lens, and Retinas are very undervalued right now.
Here's a shot from my IIa w/ Xenon lens. My Ia w/ a Kodak Ektar lens is even better. These cameras will equal or exceed any modern camera in terms of IQ.
Here's a shot from my IIa w/ Xenon lens. My Ia w/ a Kodak Ektar lens is even better. These cameras will equal or exceed any modern camera in terms of IQ.
Last edited:
jett
Well-known
How does the camera/lens compare with the Voigtlander Vitessa L with it's 50/2 Ultron?
The Retina is far more practical of a camera than the Vitessa. It is much easier to work on, and is likely not to jam.
The Vitessa is the most difficult camera to set the RF alignment on.
I do not have the Ultron, have the F3.5 Skopar on my Vitessa N and the F2.8 Skopar on the Vitessa T. I also have two 50/1.5 Noktons on the Prominent 1 and "1.5". The Xenon on my Retina is as good as the Nokton. I use the retina's much more than the Voigtlanders.
The Vitessa is the most difficult camera to set the RF alignment on.
I do not have the Ultron, have the F3.5 Skopar on my Vitessa N and the F2.8 Skopar on the Vitessa T. I also have two 50/1.5 Noktons on the Prominent 1 and "1.5". The Xenon on my Retina is as good as the Nokton. I use the retina's much more than the Voigtlanders.
jett
Well-known
I'm attracted to the IIa/IIc because of their size and simplicity. Are there any advantages of the IIIc vs the IIa for someone who does not care about a meter or other focal lengths. I believe that you can change the front element for the III series, but this feature is something I do not care about. Is that the only significant change?
The viewfinder is "less squinty", the eyepiece of the IIIc is larger than the IIa. It offeres more eyerelief for glasses. The bellows is not exposed, has a metal clamshell that protects it.
jett
Well-known
Thanks again. And one more question (I think). How do these lenses handle flare? And can you mount a lens shade?
Last edited:
msbarnes
Well-known
I have a Canon 50 1.4 LTM and I'm not too thrilled about its performance wide-open. Too soft. I prefer the build of the Canon LTM body but the lens on the Konica Auto S2.
How would the Xenon lens compare wide-open? I don't care about bokeh. I value sharpness and contrast more. I was thinking of getting a more modern Japanese SLR (Olympus OM or Nikon FM) when I want to shoot at wide apertures.
How would the Xenon lens compare wide-open? I don't care about bokeh. I value sharpness and contrast more. I was thinking of getting a more modern Japanese SLR (Olympus OM or Nikon FM) when I want to shoot at wide apertures.
murpograph
Established
I second Brian Sweeney. The conceptof the Vitessa is so different that it becomes tricky to use and the combined shutter-transport-piston may be quite quick but not quicker than a usual lever-wind. And it is a constant source of mechanical trouble. The Ultron is very good but not better than the Xenon or the Heligon.
Regarding the IIIc and the IIa it's a matter of size. The IIIc is not pocketable except you wear Yeti-coats.
Regarding the IIIc and the IIa it's a matter of size. The IIIc is not pocketable except you wear Yeti-coats.
JPD
Retina and Rollei user
The coatings are very good so flare isn't much of a problem. Yes you can use a lens shade. Either the original plastic Kodak lens shade, that has a bayonet mount that makes it very fast to mount and take off before closing the camera, or a 32mm slip-on shade or a screw-in 29,5 mm shade. With the original Kodak lens shade or a 32mm slip-on shade you can use the Retina filters inside them.
Retina filters are slim and can be left on the camera when you close it.
Enclosed is a picture of my Retina IB with the Kodak lens shade on. The IIc and IIIc use the same shade.
Attachments
JPD
Retina and Rollei user
Retinas people tend to forget about are the I and Ia models. They are smaller and lighter, and the Xenar is an excellent lens. They lack the rangefinder, but if you're good at estimating distances and don't mind the squinty finder, they are excellent cameras for little money.
http://www.kameramuseum.de/0-fotokameras/kodak/kb-sucher/retina-1a.jpg
http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/b/0/0/118/e/AAAACyvcp7gAAAAAARjgrg.jpg
Retina Ib has a bigger finder that's no problem to use if you wear glasses. It's the little brother to the IIc and IIIc. Cute camera and sturdy as a tank.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanvolpe/5214083279/
Jack Conrad
Well-known
IIIc love...
Last edited:
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Note: They actually are not fixed lens cameras. Kodak made three different front elements that mount and unmount as easy as most any other interchangeable lens camera lenses. The three are the normal lens found on most Retina IIIc you see for sale: a 50/2 Schneider or a Rodenstock 50/2. The wide-angle lens is the Schneider 35/4; the tele is the Schneider 80/4. I'm not sure, but maybe Rodenstock also made the wide and tele lenses. All the lenses give beautiful results.
pinkarmy
Well-known
have you make your choice?
anyway, here are some recent shots...
">
">
">
all pictures are without lens-shade.
anyway, here are some recent shots...
">">">all pictures are without lens-shade.
Last edited by a moderator: