Which of the tiny fixed-lens RFs yields the best enlargements?

hoot

hoot

green behind the ears
Local time
5:44 AM
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
609
Having passed roughly 500 rolls of film through an Olympus XA in many different shooting situations, I am rather unhappy with the wet prints compared to other RF cameras I've worked with. I am now selling the XA and looking for an alternative that is comparable in size, yet greatly superior in lens resolution and general image quality.

So... which of those *tiny* fixed-lens, manual-focus rangefinder cameras yields the best, most brilliant enlargements? (I realize it probably won't be as small as the XA, but it should definitely be smaller than a Leica CL with lens).

Optional: at what print size is it possible to tell the difference between the results of your recommended tiny fixed-lens RF, and those of a decent interchangable lens sporting the same focal length?

Thanks!
 
i think sometimes it is the tiny size of a camera more than the lens that leads to not so sharp photos.

a too small camera is harder to hold steady than something a bit bigger.

what size are you hoping to enlarge to?

joe
 
Do you find the Leica CL too big? It is clearly the answer to your question since it uses interchangeable Leica glass. The 40mm Summicron or the 35mm Summicron are really compact and I don't think can be surpassed for quality of results.

If the camera has to be cheaper, then my vote would go to the Rollei 35 (diff. models) with Tessar or Sonnar lenses. It is also by happenstance, smaller.

I don't have any experience with the Contax T, Nikon mini, Ricoh 28mm mini, or Leica mini lux.
 
"what size are you hoping to enlarge to?"

Well, Joe, as close as possible to any print sizes I would want to make from the negatives shot with an interchangable-lens RF with decent glass. :) In other words, picking up the small camera and leaving the big one at home shouldn't feel like a huge compromise in quality.

"Do you find the Leica CL too big? ... If the camera has to be cheaper..."

Frank - while I'm not made of money, I have nothing against investing in good quality; furthermore, the CL would probably fit in a jacket pocket. The thing is, I'd really abuse a camera like that; carrying it on my person while skiing, for instance. If a CL got ruined by moisture or snow, I'd be rather irked. Then again, Leica equipment can probably stand a fair amount of abuse.

The Rollei 35 series aren't rangefinders, are they?
 
I'll second the Rollei 35 with 40mm Sonnar.

But I think a folding 120 format camera will allow your enlargements to really sing, while still being compact.

wayne
 
I'd have to second Wayne's comment. If compact and resulting in large prints is the combination you want, you'll not do better than one of the old 6x6 folders. You can get some amazingly small cameras for a reasonable sum of money.

William
 
Many of the rangefinder cameras with non interchangeable lenses that date back to the 1960s and 1970s aren't really that small.

Dick
 
Don't rule out a '50s compact camera. This is from my Retina IIIc with its 50mm F2.0 Xenon, exposure using the Selenium meter.

How's that for a 50 years old compact camera?

1st: Crop at full scanner resolution of negative.
2nd: Full frame.
 
Judging by all the subjective terms and ideas you've thrown around, then I think your best bet is Minox. Nobody does "tiny" for enlargements later better than Minox.
 
hoot said:
...
So... which of those *tiny* fixed-lens, manual-focus rangefinder cameras yields the best, most brilliant enlargements? (I realize it probably won't be as small as the XA, but it should definitely be smaller than a Leica CL with lens).

Optional: at what print size is it possible to tell the difference between the results of your recommended tiny fixed-lens RF, and those of a decent interchangable lens sporting the same focal length?
Click to expand...
I own a heap of CZ glass in Contax/Yashica mount, but my sharpest CZ lens is the Sonnar 35/2.8 of the Contax T3. It is a newer computation than the Sonnar 38/2.8 of the T and T2. The T3 yields an image of saturated color, and high contrast (even too high :)). The body fits easily into a shirt pocket. Only downside is the P&S characteristics, including AF lag and some shutter lag.

In the same optical class is the Yashica T4 Zoom, another ultra-modern CZ design. The body is competent, but bigger than the T3, and the lens is slow (f/8 @ 70mm). Other than serious light fall-off and barrel distortion at 28mm, the T4 Zoom yields an amazingly sharp image at all FLs. Big attraction is the price of $150.
 
I agree that the quality of images from the XA leaves something to be desired, but I can only suggest the Leica CL or Minolta CLE.

The Rollei 35 is great, but it doesn't have a rangefinder. I mostly used hyperfocal distance with mine. You can write out the hyperfocal distances for the various f-stops and tape it to the back of the camera. The 40mm lens is wide enough for this to work for a lot of casual shots at f/8 and smaller apertures.
 
hoot said:
Having passed roughly 500 rolls of film through an Olympus XA in many different shooting situations, I am rather unhappy with the wet prints compared to other RF cameras I've worked with. I am now selling the XA and looking for an alternative that is comparable in size, yet greatly superior in lens resolution and general image quality.

So... which of those *tiny* fixed-lens, manual-focus rangefinder cameras yields the best, most brilliant enlargements? (I realize it probably won't be as small as the XA, but it should definitely be smaller than a Leica CL with lens).

Optional: at what print size is it possible to tell the difference between the results of your recommended tiny fixed-lens RF, and those of a decent interchangable lens sporting the same focal length?

Thanks!
Click to expand...


I'd vote for the Olympus 35RC or the Rollei XF35. I'd pass on the Rollei 35; if I covered the rangefinder window on my camera with black tape and guessed the focus for all my pictures I can safely predict what the enlargements would be like!
 
Thanks!

Brian, your sample photo is stupendous... and I thought the Retinas were, well... a collector's curio. Looks like they're quite usable.

Several people suggested the Oly RC. Anyone got a gorgeous scan out of that to share here?
 
One other camera to consider is the Agfa Karat. Similar in performance to the Retina, but without the collector's status pushing the price up. I'll see if I can find a scan later.

William
 
Have you considered the Olympus Stylus Epic (called Mu-something in Europe)? About as tiny as a full-frame 35mm can be with a sharper lens than the XA.

Gene
 
The Rollei 35 should not be discounted because of its scale focus; if the operator can not guess distance correctly that is hardly the fault of the camera :D. It is a great little compact camera with a Tessar and even better with a Sonnar.
 
I find my Olympus XA performs very well. I don't have any complaints about the sharpness of the lens whatsoever. It is a splendid pocket camera. Perhaps yours needs the lens cleaned?
 
The lens on my Contax T's is very close to the 40 Rokkor frm my CLE and the 35 on my Hexar AF. Provia and Scala taken with the T holds together well at 11 x 14, which is as big as I can go with 35mm hand held. I've never put one on a tripod just to test it.
 
wlewisiii said:
One other camera to consider is the Agfa Karat. Similar in performance to the Retina, but without the collector's status pushing the price up. I'll see if I can find a scan later.

William
Click to expand...
I've seen William's Agfa Karat and it's very nice! I'd gladly take one for myself

as for Gene's suggestion of the Olympus Stylus Epic.. I have one and like it quite a lot.. it's the kind of camera you can slip into a pocket in your ski jacket and not worry about.. the lens is good, but it's not going to compete with a Sonnar or Summicron.. still, we're talking about a $40 camera.. everyone here should have one.. it's not a true rangefinder, tho
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom