Matthew55000
6x7 FTW
I like rangefinder cameras and one reason is that they are often smaller and more compact than SLR's. There are scalefocusing cameras, etc that that are really small as well but I like the ability to know what I am focusing on.
Which one is the smallest/most compact rangefinder camera out there (fixed lens is fine) under say $2-300?
Which one is the smallest/most compact rangefinder camera out there (fixed lens is fine) under say $2-300?
doitashimash1te
Well-known
Matthew55000 said:
I'd say Olympus XA.
kestas
Member
Olympus XA is not smallest camera, but it's smallest RF
laptoprob
back to basics
welcome Matthew!
smallest - must be the Olympus XA, fixed 35mm and quite good lens.
smallest - must be the Olympus XA, fixed 35mm and quite good lens.
Matthew55000
6x7 FTW
Thanks I didn't think of the XA and I know I can get one of those for under 100-150 dollars. I will read up on them a bit online.
My only rangefinder is a Mamiya 7 and as good as it is it is also a too big for me to bring with me sometimes.
My only rangefinder is a Mamiya 7 and as good as it is it is also a too big for me to bring with me sometimes.
Last edited:
dll927
Well-known
I'm talking here about a film camera, but I have an Oly Stylus, and it's a little gem, as far as I'm concerned. It's auto-focus, not RF, but what I'm saying is that I think Olympus is a good bet. Mine has a quite sharp lens - I once took a picture in my kitchen, and you can read the print on a can of peanuts in a 4x6 in. print.
I once had an Olympus 35RC, bought back in the'70's. It was RF, and was also a dandy little camera. I still bristle at the fact that when I moved, I had the camera sitting on the couch ready to go to the car. The movers managed to 'lift' it, and I didn't realize it until they were on their way to my new place. Wish I still had that little camera.
If you're in the market for used, there was once a series of small cameras put out by Rollei. I've heard various pros and cons about those, but they did exist.
I once had an Olympus 35RC, bought back in the'70's. It was RF, and was also a dandy little camera. I still bristle at the fact that when I moved, I had the camera sitting on the couch ready to go to the car. The movers managed to 'lift' it, and I didn't realize it until they were on their way to my new place. Wish I still had that little camera.
If you're in the market for used, there was once a series of small cameras put out by Rollei. I've heard various pros and cons about those, but they did exist.
oscroft
Veteran
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
dll927 said:
Yes the Olympus Stylus (Mju in Europe and Asia) has a great lens, but I doubt you can evaluate sharpness on a 4x6 print
Cheers,
Abbazz
JimG
dogzen
Also: www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm for a visual comparison.
NickTrop
Veteran
If the XA isn't your cup of tea then I would say the:
Konica Auto S3
Minolta Hi-Matic 7S II
Vivitar 35 ES
Revue 400 SE (I think)
All of the above came out toward the end of the fixed lens
compact rangefinder era, and seem to share the same body,
the most compact of the compacts.
Other small ones -
Olympus RD
Olympus RC
Yashica Electro CC
Canon QL17 GIII
Konica Auto S3
Minolta Hi-Matic 7S II
Vivitar 35 ES
Revue 400 SE (I think)
All of the above came out toward the end of the fixed lens
compact rangefinder era, and seem to share the same body,
the most compact of the compacts.
Other small ones -
Olympus RD
Olympus RC
Yashica Electro CC
Canon QL17 GIII
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
For everday pocketability (size AND weight), the XA is your only option.
Chris
Chris
NickTrop
Veteran
There's also the Minox, though it's not a rangefinder.
Rico
Well-known
For 135 film, the Contax T (with real RF) must be a contender. Dimensions are 36x98x68 mm^3 when folded:
Matthew55000
6x7 FTW
Rico said:For 135 film, the Contax T (with real RF) must be a contender. Dimensions are 36x98x68 mm^3 when folded:
That's a beautiful camera!
How does the lens on the Olympus XA compare to this one?
Jeremy Z
Well-known
Oh brother. I've seen you mention the Contax T before. It is a beauty. It looks like a Minox, except that it is well-executed and has a fantastic lens... OK, just as little troll.
Can they be had for less than $300? I'd think they'd be quite collectible by now...
The lens on the XA is fantastic. The Zeiss Sonnar is a classic 5 element design. The XA has a F. Zuiko, which means 6 elements, but I believe it has one extra to account for the odd design for focusing. (in the XA, the center element or group moves to focus, which is why it is so compact compared to every other 35mm f/2.8 out there) Note that the Contax T, Rollei 35, etc. the lens has to stick out a bit. Not so with the XA.
Read the page linked above to the CameraQuest page. I would up getting a couple of those. The run away surprisees for me were the Olympus RC and the XA. The RC is small, yet it handles like a full size SLR. The lens on the XA was surprisingly sharp. I'd never guess those shots came from such a tiny camera.
Know which one I'm most curious about thought? The Petri Color 35. They're damned expensive on ebay though, as they apparently didn't make as many of them as they did of Rollei 35s.
Can they be had for less than $300? I'd think they'd be quite collectible by now...
The lens on the XA is fantastic. The Zeiss Sonnar is a classic 5 element design. The XA has a F. Zuiko, which means 6 elements, but I believe it has one extra to account for the odd design for focusing. (in the XA, the center element or group moves to focus, which is why it is so compact compared to every other 35mm f/2.8 out there) Note that the Contax T, Rollei 35, etc. the lens has to stick out a bit. Not so with the XA.
Read the page linked above to the CameraQuest page. I would up getting a couple of those. The run away surprisees for me were the Olympus RC and the XA. The RC is small, yet it handles like a full size SLR. The lens on the XA was surprisingly sharp. I'd never guess those shots came from such a tiny camera.
Know which one I'm most curious about thought? The Petri Color 35. They're damned expensive on ebay though, as they apparently didn't make as many of them as they did of Rollei 35s.
steamer
Well-known
I hate to be one of the usual suspects chiming in about the T, but it inspires love, while my XA, though nice, is just a camera.
I love the look that the sonnar captures, I have many examples in my gallery and on my blog.
I love the look that the sonnar captures, I have many examples in my gallery and on my blog.
Last edited:
Kat
Well-known
If an RF is your only criteria, I think the others are right, the Oly XA would probably be the smallest.
If you want an RF with full manual override, that would probably be the Oly RC. Might be the smallest, but not necessarily the lightest.
If you want RF, with full manual override, with fast lens, that would probably be the Minolta 7sII. Canon QL17 is a little bigger. The Olympus RD I have not seen in person, but I think also qualifies.
If you're willing to give up either manual override or fast lens, but keep the RF and the small size/light weight, there are, as previously suggested the ff: Konica S3, Vivitar ES/Revue 400SE, Ricoh 500g, Konica C35 and Yashica GX.
If you want an RF with full manual override, that would probably be the Oly RC. Might be the smallest, but not necessarily the lightest.
If you want RF, with full manual override, with fast lens, that would probably be the Minolta 7sII. Canon QL17 is a little bigger. The Olympus RD I have not seen in person, but I think also qualifies.
If you're willing to give up either manual override or fast lens, but keep the RF and the small size/light weight, there are, as previously suggested the ff: Konica S3, Vivitar ES/Revue 400SE, Ricoh 500g, Konica C35 and Yashica GX.
Last edited:
Rico
Well-known
I surfed some further figures. Ken Rockwell says the XA measures 2.567x4.123x1.572 in³, or 65x105x40 mm³, so Contax edges out Oly by volume (12% approx). XA wins for weight at 220g w/ battery versus 270g w/o battery.
As noted by steamer, the Sonnar is delightful, having a more moderate contrast. Despite a recent eBay sale, one can expect to pay under $300. Add $100 for collectible grade. Add $100 for black. My fully-operational beater cost $150.
Refs:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/xa.htm
http://brunerdog.tripod.com/t.html
As noted by steamer, the Sonnar is delightful, having a more moderate contrast. Despite a recent eBay sale, one can expect to pay under $300. Add $100 for collectible grade. Add $100 for black. My fully-operational beater cost $150.
Refs:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/xa.htm
http://brunerdog.tripod.com/t.html
Sonnar2
Well-known
As a Rollei fan it hurts me to say the Olympus XA is the smallest RF camera.
But if you want a small full metal camera and can live with guess-focussing of a 2.8/40mm lens, the very best small 35mm camera is the Rollei 35S/ SE. Rollei also made a autoexposure RF with a faster f/2.3 lens but this wasn't as small as the 35S.
But if you want a small full metal camera and can live with guess-focussing of a 2.8/40mm lens, the very best small 35mm camera is the Rollei 35S/ SE. Rollei also made a autoexposure RF with a faster f/2.3 lens but this wasn't as small as the 35S.
Bill58
Native Texan
Petrie Color 35 (guess focusing) or Oly mju II (USA-Stylus) is A/E, A/F. The best of the latter is the fixed focal length 35mm. I wish it was a 25 or 28.
Last edited: