ISO
Established
Just found this site. A RF- test between a Canonet, Konica S3, Oly SP and Leica M6 and Summicron.
http://www.rodpurcell.com/range1
Not only that he wants to trash the Oly SP,
..just scroll down and read what he says about the Leica +Summicron.
"Well, and sorry about this guys,..."
Can this be for real?
Please comment if you like.
http://www.rodpurcell.com/range1
Not only that he wants to trash the Oly SP,
..just scroll down and read what he says about the Leica +Summicron.
"Well, and sorry about this guys,..."
Can this be for real?
Please comment if you like.
Last edited:
Although I agree with the "build quality" statements of the Oly SP, ie NOT built as well as the Canonet, The lens on mine was VERY sharp and had high contrast. I've owned and used all three of the cameras that he tested: the one Oly SP had a better lens than the Konica S3; as good as my Konica S2; and better than 10 of 12 Canonets of mine. HOWEVER: The springs used internally were way too thin. The one that controlled film advance clutch was under constant tension and was broken in my camera, which is why I got it for $15. I replaced it using one from a Minolta HM-11. I sold it for ~$100 several years ago, after testing with film.
As far as the remarks about the Leica and Summicrons? The Konica S2 can give my Type 2 Rigid Summicron a real run for its money. But MY Type I Rigid Summicron, after a pro cleaning, has the edge.
As far as the remarks about the Leica and Summicrons? The Konica S2 can give my Type 2 Rigid Summicron a real run for its money. But MY Type I Rigid Summicron, after a pro cleaning, has the edge.
Last edited:
Just to add: The Minolta 7s-II and Konica S3 have some real differences. The viewfinder construction is different: the Minolta uses a cemented pair for the front objective, the Konica uses a pair with a small air-gap. The Konica is easier to clean. The lenses are different, but similar in performance. The Minolta has full-manual override. Both cameras are based on the same chassis. I liked the Minolta better, but like the full-sized ones better.
ISO
Established
Brian Sweeney said:
Brian, I do not want to go offtopic here, but you bring up point I am really interested in. When you look through the VF of the 7SII and the Konica Auto S3 can you see big difference. Is one "much" better than the other. On another site I read that the S3 VF can be compared to the one of the Oly SP. I would say the S3 VF is pretty much the same as the one in the 7SII and both are far away from the one of the Oly SP.
The glue that is used for the cemented pair in the Minolta 7s-II finder "hazed-over". The Konica finder could be easily cleaned. The Konica finder looked crystal clear, the Minolta finder did not fare as well. IF you can find a sample of the Minolta where the cemented pair aged well, they would be equivalent.
I cleaned the finder on the Oly SP, Konica S3, and Minolta 7s-II as best I could. The Oly had the best of the three. The older Konica S2 and Minolta Hi-Matic 9 have great finders. My HM-9 finder was last cleaned in 1980, and it looks great.
I cleaned the finder on the Oly SP, Konica S3, and Minolta 7s-II as best I could. The Oly had the best of the three. The older Konica S2 and Minolta Hi-Matic 9 have great finders. My HM-9 finder was last cleaned in 1980, and it looks great.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
ISO said:
Hmmm, for a piece of trash, the Oly SP holds its value *really, really* well at the used market
If we're talking about build quality, the Konica S3 is the flimsiest of the three. Viewfinder-wise, the SP is the best. Period.
Lens-wise, SP is the sharpest and contrast, like Brian said. Interestingly, the cheap Konica C35 beats the pants of its more expensive brother the S3, IMHO. And the Canonet... it's so-so average. I like the quick-loading, but that's pretty much it.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I think that dweeb had a bad 35SP sample ... who draws conclusions from a sample of one? I sent him an email, he'll probably report me to the internet police.