purephase
Newbie
Hi guys,
I was just wondering if anyone has or has had one of these. I have just purchased one, its my first RF and I have no knowledge about using one . Any advice about this camera or using a RF in general would be greatly appreciated. My other camera is an Olympus E300 DSLR but I really miss using film and over the last couple of months my thoughts have been heading towards a good film RF to compliment my Olympus.
Any help would be great whether its from personal experience or particular parts of RFF would be great.
Thanks for your time.
Purephase
I was just wondering if anyone has or has had one of these. I have just purchased one, its my first RF and I have no knowledge about using one . Any advice about this camera or using a RF in general would be greatly appreciated. My other camera is an Olympus E300 DSLR but I really miss using film and over the last couple of months my thoughts have been heading towards a good film RF to compliment my Olympus.
Any help would be great whether its from personal experience or particular parts of RFF would be great.
Thanks for your time.
Purephase
historicist
Well-known
purephase
Newbie
cheers historicist,
I actually came across this great site a couple of months ago. That was what got me thinking about getting an RF. This is also the only place that I have managed to find any good info about the camera.
purephase
I actually came across this great site a couple of months ago. That was what got me thinking about getting an RF. This is also the only place that I have managed to find any good info about the camera.
purephase
Armoured
Well-known
What specific questions do you have?
What specific questions do you have?
I use a Ricoh 500RF, a slightly newer, slightly cheaper (more plasticy) version. Works well, no specific issues. It will take some getting used to compared to a digital but is capable of pretty decent images. Within its limitations, however - I wouldn't describe it as having phenomenal optics, but not at all bad. Direct light into lens may cause flaring/washing out of contrast (and what is "direct" may be different than you are used to given the moderate wide).
I think the operation of the 500G is almost identical to the 500RF, so feel free to ask questions (when I was really young the 500RF was my first "real" camera!).
I stuck cheap hearing aid (675) batteries in it, works fine. I always found the exposure metering in manual/automatic to be very good, accurate enough for slides (with moderate correction for very difficult lighting conditions). Don't expect the meter to be as accurate as it was ex-factory, though. Do some tests and compare to other meters/sunny 16 guesses to see. With print film in decent lighting, you can probably guess exposure close enough with some practice.
What specific questions do you have?
I use a Ricoh 500RF, a slightly newer, slightly cheaper (more plasticy) version. Works well, no specific issues. It will take some getting used to compared to a digital but is capable of pretty decent images. Within its limitations, however - I wouldn't describe it as having phenomenal optics, but not at all bad. Direct light into lens may cause flaring/washing out of contrast (and what is "direct" may be different than you are used to given the moderate wide).
I think the operation of the 500G is almost identical to the 500RF, so feel free to ask questions (when I was really young the 500RF was my first "real" camera!).
I stuck cheap hearing aid (675) batteries in it, works fine. I always found the exposure metering in manual/automatic to be very good, accurate enough for slides (with moderate correction for very difficult lighting conditions). Don't expect the meter to be as accurate as it was ex-factory, though. Do some tests and compare to other meters/sunny 16 guesses to see. With print film in decent lighting, you can probably guess exposure close enough with some practice.
btgc
Veteran
I've received 500G yesterday. RF patch is not what I call easy - reminds that on Petri 7s, a tiny diamond. On mine RF doesn't coincide at infinity while does at close focus. With so small patch I will not bother to focus by RF.
Advance is somehow beyond 35RC. In a word, I don't want to scare people away though I'm little confused. I'll let pass some time and see if I can establish relations with 500G.
Advance is somehow beyond 35RC. In a word, I don't want to scare people away though I'm little confused. I'll let pass some time and see if I can establish relations with 500G.
alcaraban
Established
I have a 500 G. It is quite straightforward to use if you know how to load film, f-stops, shutter speeds and that stuff. Focus is like any other RF, but with the DOF of a 40/2.8 you usually can't go wrong.
Be aware that 'A' (shutter-priority) mode works even if you lack a working battery/meter, but you won't get accurate exposures.
Ask everything you need and enjoy. IMHO, it is a very capable camera.
Be aware that 'A' (shutter-priority) mode works even if you lack a working battery/meter, but you won't get accurate exposures.
Ask everything you need and enjoy. IMHO, it is a very capable camera.
Armoured
Well-known
Focussing patch/exposure
Focussing patch/exposure
Alcabran, yes, the focussing patch is not the best or clearest, but functional. To me it sounds like yours is out of alignment; I haven't the slightest idea how to correct this or adjust. Getting it repaired/adjusted may or may not be worth it - there are lots of other fixed-lens rangefinder options that are decent shooters and inexpensive. That said, this is a nice basic camera that handles decently - no excessive features, nothing critical missing.
As noted, stopped down the depth of field is probably good enough to set and forget (at least for non-critical, and this is a camera one would probably not use for critical work). Mine seems to be accurate with the distance scales, so if you're comfortable guessing distance, fire away. One downside for this use is that there is no depth of field guide, on the newer ones anyway.
Focussing patch/exposure
Alcabran, yes, the focussing patch is not the best or clearest, but functional. To me it sounds like yours is out of alignment; I haven't the slightest idea how to correct this or adjust. Getting it repaired/adjusted may or may not be worth it - there are lots of other fixed-lens rangefinder options that are decent shooters and inexpensive. That said, this is a nice basic camera that handles decently - no excessive features, nothing critical missing.
As noted, stopped down the depth of field is probably good enough to set and forget (at least for non-critical, and this is a camera one would probably not use for critical work). Mine seems to be accurate with the distance scales, so if you're comfortable guessing distance, fire away. One downside for this use is that there is no depth of field guide, on the newer ones anyway.
MartinP
Veteran
Coincidentally I found one in the local junk shop for €10 a couple of weeks ago. Main useful thing I discovered on the internet was to rotate the shutter-speed dial to 'B' to turn off the meter.
I'm also using the hearing-aid batteries which do seem to work as mercury-cell replacements in this case. Over the weekend I hope to finish the first roll in the camera and see how/if it is working.
I'm also using the hearing-aid batteries which do seem to work as mercury-cell replacements in this case. Over the weekend I hope to finish the first roll in the camera and see how/if it is working.
btgc
Veteran
MartinP, thanks for hint on B/off.
Squonk
Established
Here is a set of some pictures taken with the Hanimex Compact R, which is simply a rebadged Ricoh:
http://www.wolkerstorfer.at/35/Hanimex_compact_R/steyr.html
By the way, this Austrian photographer manages to take interesting pictures with loads of different (and often old and crappy/cheap) cameras. Worth checking out...
http://www.wolkerstorfer.at/35/Hanimex_compact_R/steyr.html
By the way, this Austrian photographer manages to take interesting pictures with loads of different (and often old and crappy/cheap) cameras. Worth checking out...
purephase
Newbie
some grest advice here, thanks guys. this does seem to be a really friendly and knowledgeable community.
purephase
purephase
Muggins
Junk magnet
I've got a 500 ME, which is much the same (in fact I think Ricoh my just have had a spare scrabble set when they named them, there seem to be a number of very similar cameras out there with different letters after the 500 bit).
I find it a bit maddening - very light, not heavy enough even to make the strap hang, plasticky, and my short fingers just don't mix with the small and close together controls on the lens body. On the other hand, the pics it produces are more than worth the hassle, and the multiple exposure facility is a hoot. I'm currently looking out for junk I can use to make a 50% "filter" so I can do proper double exposures with it, which gives you an idea of how good it is when it isn't annoying me. I guess it's a sort of inverse Argus C3 - just as maddening , but for all the opposite reasons!
Adrian
I find it a bit maddening - very light, not heavy enough even to make the strap hang, plasticky, and my short fingers just don't mix with the small and close together controls on the lens body. On the other hand, the pics it produces are more than worth the hassle, and the multiple exposure facility is a hoot. I'm currently looking out for junk I can use to make a 50% "filter" so I can do proper double exposures with it, which gives you an idea of how good it is when it isn't annoying me. I guess it's a sort of inverse Argus C3 - just as maddening , but for all the opposite reasons!
Adrian
vbarniev
Established
I have a Ricoh 500 GX. Quite happy with it. Here is a sample:
btgc
Veteran
vbarniev, with all my respect to you and Ricoh I can't say this picture is...sharp? Well, sharpness isn't only property of lens, though I suspect something has gone wild here - either focus or scanning. Or my eyes are strainded today?
Personally for me RF patch of 500G/GX/ME/RF is too small and faded so I could easily misfocus.
Personally for me RF patch of 500G/GX/ME/RF is too small and faded so I could easily misfocus.
