JohnTF
Veteran
I have lots of these, they must be breeding when I am away or something. One of the nicest is the Minolta Hi Matic 7sII, and I also like some of the older ones, the Ricoh with the trigger wind, some of the Petri's-- some are quite solid, simple, with good looking glass. The Petri Color 35E is a gem, though I cannot get it to work, but the size and design look good.
I also have a dealer friend with perhaps a hundred -- non working -- fixed lens RF's.
Reminds me of the cameras I could not afford when I was young, when you settled for cameras you could make work, regardless of their design. ;-) I made the Signet 50 work, though no RF, slow lens, and who could figure out the meter design. Clear VF though.
Regards, John
I also have a dealer friend with perhaps a hundred -- non working -- fixed lens RF's.
Reminds me of the cameras I could not afford when I was young, when you settled for cameras you could make work, regardless of their design. ;-) I made the Signet 50 work, though no RF, slow lens, and who could figure out the meter design. Clear VF though.
Regards, John
Last edited:
chris00nj
Young Luddite
I think you can get a "I don't know anything about cameras" version for about $45, which will probably need at least a $10 lightseal kit.
Don't get me wrong, I like the camera, but it has obtained a degree of popularity pushing the price above $50.
Recent Ebay sales of the Canonet QL17 GIII:
$75 - bin
$81 - 21 bids
$38 - broken shutter
$104- 20 bids
$56
$36 - no battery cover, or battery tester.
$140 - new seals
$80
$69
$25 - has lens fungus
$100
$47
$45
$45
$76
Last edited:
btgc
Veteran
I really recommend to get almost any other $10 FL RF instead of Canonet - just because price which can jump near $100 which I count as nonsense as other FL RF's will do same job for much less. So why pay more?
Some people even suggest original Canonet is better built than QLIII, though latter costs much more. Is there reason? Same GSN costs more than early G model. What's up - better lens, or something else? No, build quality of GSN's is below early model (my statement). Good luck. Cool black GTN with plastic rewind knob, selling well even when obviously broken? Good luck. Konica C35 running on 1.35V battery. Hmmm, those later C35's on AA's costs nothing and take same pictures - except they don't have RF focusing and miss hot shoe (as if anyone use it with C35).
You see, most cults are just what they are - misconceptions and stumblings of mind. Cult cameras in most cases are disappointments - especially when one reads on Net how good it is for a months, then looses five and more auctions, then bites bullet and puts out mega bid - to discover week or two later that legend arrived in package is old camera like many others, needing work and after it's fixed - that it takes same pictures as cameras one already owns. What a discovery, camera takes pictures!
Mostly, personal feel of camera, ergonomics and such nuances are what tie people to certain cameras. I doubt QLIII nuts will tell difference between two pictures made with early Canonet and late QLIII. Or with any other camera as long as field of view and apertures are not too different.
Some people even suggest original Canonet is better built than QLIII, though latter costs much more. Is there reason? Same GSN costs more than early G model. What's up - better lens, or something else? No, build quality of GSN's is below early model (my statement). Good luck. Cool black GTN with plastic rewind knob, selling well even when obviously broken? Good luck. Konica C35 running on 1.35V battery. Hmmm, those later C35's on AA's costs nothing and take same pictures - except they don't have RF focusing and miss hot shoe (as if anyone use it with C35).
You see, most cults are just what they are - misconceptions and stumblings of mind. Cult cameras in most cases are disappointments - especially when one reads on Net how good it is for a months, then looses five and more auctions, then bites bullet and puts out mega bid - to discover week or two later that legend arrived in package is old camera like many others, needing work and after it's fixed - that it takes same pictures as cameras one already owns. What a discovery, camera takes pictures!
Mostly, personal feel of camera, ergonomics and such nuances are what tie people to certain cameras. I doubt QLIII nuts will tell difference between two pictures made with early Canonet and late QLIII. Or with any other camera as long as field of view and apertures are not too different.
Bill58
Native Texan
I guess the Konica Hi-Matic F should be under $50 and is a fine shooter. I luv mine.
wallace
Well-known
Well, it depends... fixed lens: Yashica GSN or Olympus RC.
interchangable lens: FED 2
So I just cannot vote.
wallace
interchangable lens: FED 2
So I just cannot vote.
wallace
vidgamer
Established
The Canonet QL17 G-III has gained a lot of popularity, as they are tough to get for under $50. Even those that have had little testing typically go for that much. (I've been watching the auctions for a while now.) And from what I've read, they often have oil on the shutters or apertures, so I've been a bit gun-shy to buy one, fearing paying too much to turn around and have to get it fixed.
These definitely can be had cheap, but in working condition? I contacted a couple of sellers, and it didn't sound like the meters worked on them. I bought one (from yet another seller), and it mostly works, but it has oily apertures (which normally wouldn't be a big deal, in and of itself for this camera) and I'm a bit concerned about a spot inside the lens (may be a tiny patch of oil?). So, the price is right, but buying any of these old cameras is kind of like playing some sort of lottery.
I finally got what seems to be a perfectly working camera in beautiful condition, with shipping, for just over $20. It's a Canonet 28. Not the 1.7 lens that would be more desirable, but a perfectly acceptable f/2.8 lens. It doesn't have manual mode either, which may be another deal-killer for some. (The Minolta F mentioned above is similar in these respects -- 2.8 lens and all auto, as far as I know.) Ironically, it's the perfectly-working camera that I'm planning to give away, but that's another story...
So, it really comes down to the feature list. Out of the cameras you have to choose from, certain "hot" cameras are going to sell for more. The Canonet QL17, of course, but the Minolta 7sII and Konica Auto S3 sell for astronomical prices (compared to similar cameras). After a while, you can tell that the word is out on a few of the models. (Although, I do think the QL17 price is still "reasonable" compared to the Minolta 7sII or Konica Auto S3. This is probably because there are so many of them out there. A rare camera it is not.) It is true, the older QL17 often sells for slightly less than the G-III, but not enough for me to bite.
But yeah, if you can get a working Petri 7s, I don't see why that wouldn't be a good camera. (I haven't finished the first roll with mine yet!) It's just larger than the above-mentioned three, and not as automated. I've also read that it's common for Petris to have problems, but I don't know why that was said. Is it true or just someone's personal bias? The Petris are less common, but are clearly not popular, except for one model (35 color?), which does sell for over $50, for reasons I do not understand.
I think there is a high degree of popularity for the smaller size of, say, the Minolta 7sII than the older Minolta 7s. I'm not sure if 45mm vs. 40mm is enough of a difference to matter. But the Minolta 7s is often a bargain. Perhaps size explains the popularity of the Petri 35 that sells for more?
Before I got any rangefinders, I had read about them, and thought I could get an Olympus RC for cheap. I eventually did (because it was flawed), but generally they are bid up very high on the auction sites. Then I found out that Ken Rockwell did some article praising it, and some people said maybe that created a lot of demand. So, if price is an issue, first make sure no famous reviewers have praised a particular model in several months.
These definitely can be had cheap, but in working condition? I contacted a couple of sellers, and it didn't sound like the meters worked on them. I bought one (from yet another seller), and it mostly works, but it has oily apertures (which normally wouldn't be a big deal, in and of itself for this camera) and I'm a bit concerned about a spot inside the lens (may be a tiny patch of oil?). So, the price is right, but buying any of these old cameras is kind of like playing some sort of lottery.
I finally got what seems to be a perfectly working camera in beautiful condition, with shipping, for just over $20. It's a Canonet 28. Not the 1.7 lens that would be more desirable, but a perfectly acceptable f/2.8 lens. It doesn't have manual mode either, which may be another deal-killer for some. (The Minolta F mentioned above is similar in these respects -- 2.8 lens and all auto, as far as I know.) Ironically, it's the perfectly-working camera that I'm planning to give away, but that's another story...
So, it really comes down to the feature list. Out of the cameras you have to choose from, certain "hot" cameras are going to sell for more. The Canonet QL17, of course, but the Minolta 7sII and Konica Auto S3 sell for astronomical prices (compared to similar cameras). After a while, you can tell that the word is out on a few of the models. (Although, I do think the QL17 price is still "reasonable" compared to the Minolta 7sII or Konica Auto S3. This is probably because there are so many of them out there. A rare camera it is not.) It is true, the older QL17 often sells for slightly less than the G-III, but not enough for me to bite.
But yeah, if you can get a working Petri 7s, I don't see why that wouldn't be a good camera. (I haven't finished the first roll with mine yet!) It's just larger than the above-mentioned three, and not as automated. I've also read that it's common for Petris to have problems, but I don't know why that was said. Is it true or just someone's personal bias? The Petris are less common, but are clearly not popular, except for one model (35 color?), which does sell for over $50, for reasons I do not understand.
I think there is a high degree of popularity for the smaller size of, say, the Minolta 7sII than the older Minolta 7s. I'm not sure if 45mm vs. 40mm is enough of a difference to matter. But the Minolta 7s is often a bargain. Perhaps size explains the popularity of the Petri 35 that sells for more?
Before I got any rangefinders, I had read about them, and thought I could get an Olympus RC for cheap. I eventually did (because it was flawed), but generally they are bid up very high on the auction sites. Then I found out that Ken Rockwell did some article praising it, and some people said maybe that created a lot of demand. So, if price is an issue, first make sure no famous reviewers have praised a particular model in several months.
vidgamer
Established
For Minolta AF, the 50/1.7 typically sells for well over $75, generally over $100, now. But point taken. You can probably set sights a bit lower and get an SLR with a slew of cool features and a zoom lens for < $50. I haven't priced other models...
But it seems like a different experience than using a rangefinder. Although, I happen to have a Minolta SLR next to me with a 50/1.7, and it doesn't seem all that much larger than the larger rangefinders. What is unique about rangefinders and probably responsible for some of the popularity is you can get them in a much smaller package. That Oly RC is tiny!
narsuitus
Well-known
I use the Canon QL17 Giii rangefinder, the Minolta Hi-Matic 9 rangefinder, and the Argus C3 rangefinder. However, I would not recommend any of them for a “newbie.” When these three cameras were brand new; they may have been fine for a “newbie” of that time period. However, these cameras are too difficult to be used by a modern “newbie.”
I did not vote because I am unfamiliar with the other cameras in the list.
I did not vote because I am unfamiliar with the other cameras in the list.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I voted for the Yashicas but honestly use my Konica S1.6 more often. I like the built in hood and abilty to go manual. The Electro series has maybe the best of all worlds for a beginner. Contrasty RF (if maybe dark but that's why so contrasty), AE , Bulb option, Long exposure automatically. It is a great entry into creative photography without being confusing for a newbie.
MRohlfing
Well-known
Olympus 35 RC
great lens, great shutter priority AE, but full manual if needed, great automatic flash with non-automatic flash (!), sturdy, well built, aperture and shutter speed in viewfinder.
Every time I see the slides coming out of my RC, I wonder why I use other cameras at all.
The RC needs an adapter or has to be adjusted for current batteries, though, as it was built for use of mercury cells.
great lens, great shutter priority AE, but full manual if needed, great automatic flash with non-automatic flash (!), sturdy, well built, aperture and shutter speed in viewfinder.
Every time I see the slides coming out of my RC, I wonder why I use other cameras at all.
The RC needs an adapter or has to be adjusted for current batteries, though, as it was built for use of mercury cells.
Robint
Member
Last year I picked up an Olympus Ace E with 45mm f2.8 lens, this was at a thrift store. This was my first rangefinder. Being an Oly freak, in the last 90 days on ekbay I have purchased the following.
1) Olympus 35 IVa 40mm f3.5 lens. $31.51. The lens does need cleaning.
2) Olympus 35 LC 42mm f1.7 lens. $29.60. Sharp lens.
3) Tower 18 aka Olympus 35-S II 42mm f1.8 lens. $49.02
4) Olympus 35-S I 48mm f2.8 $35.01
I am having fun trying out how photographers of the 50's & 60's worked. All these are fully mechanical cameras and apart from the lens on the IVa. I have no problem, So it is possible to get a good rangefinder for under $50 plus a modicum of luck.
1) Olympus 35 IVa 40mm f3.5 lens. $31.51. The lens does need cleaning.
2) Olympus 35 LC 42mm f1.7 lens. $29.60. Sharp lens.
3) Tower 18 aka Olympus 35-S II 42mm f1.8 lens. $49.02
4) Olympus 35-S I 48mm f2.8 $35.01
I am having fun trying out how photographers of the 50's & 60's worked. All these are fully mechanical cameras and apart from the lens on the IVa. I have no problem, So it is possible to get a good rangefinder for under $50 plus a modicum of luck.
Roger Vadim
Well-known
Agreed!!
Just got a color film back from my 10 € GS and hey, forget about all the digital sub 1000 € cameras - this lens is a real hit!
Up to 24 x 30 cm Print size I don't see any difference to my Nikon 1.8/50.
But then, the Kiev 4 with that venerable J-8 I bought for 12 € is the most stunning performer of all my cameras... pure magic that Sonnar...
urban_alchemist
Well-known
Oly 35RC or XA.
That said, I've not seen or tried the Yash GSN
Ooh... by the way, anyone want to pay $250 for a GSN?
http://shop.lomography.com/shop/main.php?cat=&pro=yas
That said, I've not seen or tried the Yash GSN
Ooh... by the way, anyone want to pay $250 for a GSN?
http://shop.lomography.com/shop/main.php?cat=&pro=yas
Last edited:
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I would vote for the Olympus 35-S (The 4.2cm f/1.8 version)
It can be found on ebay for under $50US, although some sellers believe they can get several hundred for one...most, if not all, will have a problem with the shutter not firing...
Oil on the shutter blades will cause the shutter to not fire or trip very slowly...if it does fire and you keep on tripping it it will loosen up but once it sits for a bit it will mis-fire again...cleaning the blades isn't a big deal to do and once done it's a GREAT camera with a beautiful lens...all metal body, no batteries needed and some will have the original leather case...did I mention it's a great little camera ???
It can be found on ebay for under $50US, although some sellers believe they can get several hundred for one...most, if not all, will have a problem with the shutter not firing...
Oil on the shutter blades will cause the shutter to not fire or trip very slowly...if it does fire and you keep on tripping it it will loosen up but once it sits for a bit it will mis-fire again...cleaning the blades isn't a big deal to do and once done it's a GREAT camera with a beautiful lens...all metal body, no batteries needed and some will have the original leather case...did I mention it's a great little camera ???
retnull
Well-known
Wow I thought I was the only person in the world with a Mamiya 135EE! I got mine for $10 on EBay in mint condition, not knowing what it was. Amazingly it is a killer small fixed-lens rangefinder like the Canonet QL or Konica S3, with nice ergonomics and a super-sharp lens.
tyrone.s
Well-known
I voted Russian out of sentimental reasons. But I would honestly have picked 'whatever you can buy cheap that get's you hooked' if that option had been available. In my case the first camera was more like a downpayment. On all the other cameras I've gone on to buy.
This poll reminds me of how many good cameras there are out there though. Good news!
This poll reminds me of how many good cameras there are out there though. Good news!
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
If you want interchangeable lenses I'm with the FED-2 crowd; throw in a $10 Industar-61 and you have a lens that is hard to beat in the 50mm range, for that price anyway.
If you want fixed lenses then I've tried the Yashica GSN, the Ricoh 500GX and the Canonet GIII-QL17 and all in all my favourite is the Canonet, for lens speed, compactness and availability of manual settings (if without metering).
If you want fixed lenses then I've tried the Yashica GSN, the Ricoh 500GX and the Canonet GIII-QL17 and all in all my favourite is the Canonet, for lens speed, compactness and availability of manual settings (if without metering).
Last edited:
tyrone.s
Well-known
I take it all back - I'm seeing heaps of worn-out looking FSU cameras with crazy postage costs. If I were looking for a cheap rangefinder I'd go for any, probably Japanese, camera and start looking for a poorly described example listed on the 'Bay in my own country. I'd cut replacement seals out of a mousepad or the like. This works surprisingly well (as in no light leaks) and for a sub 50 dollar camera saving money should be the aim.
Last edited:
FPjohn
Well-known
anorphirith
Established
kodak retina Ia beautiful camera !