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

It may not be a rangefinder, but the Olympus Trip 35 has a great lens and it should be reasonably easy to find one in good condition. I've made a couple of 11"x14" prints from slides taken with mine.
 
If you can find them, Werra cameras. The 3,4 and Werramat. Compact, sturdy as hell, and Zeiss lenses. I deeply regret selling mine a few years ago!!! These models also have interchangeable lenses, 35 Flektagon and 100mm Cardinar. My 50mm Tessar was superb, I still have 16 x 20 prints which shows this!! But prices are rising!!!! :mad:
 
My Werra seemed very uncompact but it had a really nice lens. Mine wasn't a rangefinder though, did rangefinder models exist?
 
It is not a rangefinder (has autofocus) but my Minolta TC-1 gives really sharp results, and is one of the smallest 35mm camera ever (definitely smaller than the T3 and with a nicely wide 28mm lens)
 
Duncan Ross said:
My Werra seemed very uncompact but it had a really nice lens. Mine wasn't a rangefinder though, did rangefinder models exist?
Click to expand...

Yes Duncan several with and without interchangeable lenses, very clear and accurate split image R/F with frame lines. There are also versions with selenium meters both coupled and uncoupled. It was the only camera the Carl Zeiss Jena lens factory made after the war. Ivor Matanle did a really good article on them in the Amateur Photographer about six months ago. I would like another but they are getting too expensive now.
 
Olympus Stylus Epic ( was tiny fixed RF )

Olympus Stylus Epic ( was tiny fixed RF )

It took you 500 rolls to see you were unhappy with the results ? :>

I bought a Olympus Stylus Epic based on great recommendations....and it does have quite a sharp 4 element lens and I know at least one element is aspheric. The results can really be outstanding from this camera but it has two major flaws ( in my eyes )...First, it is programmed to use really HIGH shutter speeds at the expense of aperture... I have read that it wont use any aperture smaller than 2.8 ( wide open ) UNLESS the shutter speed is ABOVE 1/250....think about that...with 100 speed film you need a fairly bright day to get the aperture to stop down a few stops and on a cloudy day - forget it, you can pretty much count on wide open shooting... ON THE FLIP SIDE, if you like shooting wide open, this camera DOES have decent bokeh and does a very good job at separating the in-focus subject from the background.... The second flaw is the auto focusing - it can be hard to get it to focus EXACTLY where you want it to...couple that with flaw # 1 and you have a lot of out of focus shots..... BUT - when it focuses properly and you have fairly bright light - this tiny, pocketable camera really exceeds it paltry $ 80 expense...
 
Okay, guys, I decided to forsake the "small" factor and go for the "cheap" factor... just ordered a Zorki 6 with Jupiter-12 lens from a reputable seller. :)

Brian, thanks for the info and the link. If the Zorki doesn't deliver, I'll definitely give the Retina a closer look.
 
Last edited:
I have no problem w/ my XAs, having pulled 8x10s with no problem, and IIRC, even an 11X14 or two. That said, I may revisit it vs. an RC.

I agree that there are two issues with the XA. First the size can mke it difficult for some to hold steady.

Second, the electronic shutter release can be touchy and cause slightly less sharp shots. But, to see how proper use can yield amazing results handheld at even 1/4 second, see <http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/index.php/weblog/comments/atsp021205/>, taken by a friend of mine. This is not a full size scan, so you can't really tell how much this could be enlarged. But you get the idea.

Again, I'm now curious as to how my XA would stack up against my RC. Neither have a CLA, so it might not be a fair comparison.

Trius
 
Very nice, Trius. Unfortunately I'm one of the people who can hold a big Nikon SLR with 35mm lens steady enough for a 1-second exposure, but my XA photos all came out slightly blurry at anything slower than 1/15th sec, even though holding my breath. However, this is in addition to an ever-so-slight grittiness at even quite fast exposures, which I attribute to the resolution of its lens. This grittiness only showed up when making large scans or wet prints, and didn't show up in negatives made with other cameras. Finally, if I only take the XA along, I always end up getting into a situation that calls for more than its maximum ASA 800 setting. So, great camera for *some* situations, but I simply prefer the feel of a mechanical shutter and fully manual exposure.
 
Surprised that the XA is not producing the goods, I have used an XA and XA2 for years and had excellent results allowing 16x12 prints to be made to competition standard. Another of my favorite small cameras is the Voigtlander Vito B from the 1950s but no rangefinder.
 
hoot said:
Very nice, Trius. Unfortunately I'm one of the people who can hold a big Nikon SLR with 35mm lens steady enough for a 1-second exposure, but my XA photos all came out slightly blurry at anything slower than 1/15th sec, even though holding my breath. However, this is in addition to an ever-so-slight grittiness at even quite fast exposures, which I attribute to the resolution of its lens. This grittiness only showed up when making large scans or wet prints, and didn't show up in negatives made with other cameras. Finally, if I only take the XA along, I always end up getting into a situation that calls for more than its maximum ASA 800 setting. So, great camera for *some* situations, but I simply prefer the feel of a mechanical shutter and fully manual exposure.
Click to expand...
Hoot: Well, I can understand that. A lot of the shots I've taken with the XA have been Tri-X shots, so at higher magnification I expect some degradation, but either it's never been there or I just haven't really taken notice. I do wonder if there is some variation in samples, but I don't doubt what you're saying at all. Now I'm super curious!

In another thread on compact RFs, I mentioned that the Konica C35 doesn't quite feel as good to me as the larger Oly 35SP, and the Minolta 7s is enough larger than the 35SP that I don't care for it. In fact, the C35 doesn't seem to be as good optically as the 35SP, and I wonder if that has to do with construction and size. I should put them both on a tripod to determine that, since my initial comparison was with handheld shots.


The ASA limitation of the XA is something that bothers me, too. It's another reason I like the RFs with manual capabilities. I have some Fuji 1600 that I shot at 800 on the XA, but haven't souped it yet. I personally wouldn't need much higher ASA, but when I do need it, it would be nice to have it on the XA.


If it were me, I would be looking at the Minox and Rollei. I'd be betting the Minox is a shade better, but that's just from casual comments I've seen on the web.

Trius
 
Trius said:
A lot of the shots I've taken with the XA have been Tri-X shots, so at higher magnification I expect some degradation, but either it's never been there or I just haven't really taken notice. I do wonder if there is some variation in samples, but I don't doubt what you're saying at all. Now I'm super curious!
Click to expand...
Well, I honestly doubt there's something wrong with my XA. I've examined the glass very carefully and it looks mint. But with a lens that tiny, it stands to reason that compromises had to be made. That's all there is to it. If a lens like that was as sharp as a bigger one, why didn't Leitz ever build any in M mount?

But there were many more things that bothered me about the XA, such as the slow, cheap-feeling, thumb-killing film advance wheel... or the tiny film rewind crank, which kept slipping out of my fingers... not to mention the flimsy rangefinder patch, which was difficult to discern even in broad daylight.

I suspect that most of these problems exist even with higher-end tiny cameras. For this reason I'm going to try using a low-cost and relatively small interchangable-lens RF for the situations in which I've hitherto used the XA. Unfortunately, it looks like all tiny cameras make compromises in build quality, so I honestly doubt I'd be truly happy with any.

On the other hand, if anyone ever decided to build a *really* high-class tiny RF that goes all manual and does not rely on electronics, I'd save up my cash and be the first in line to buy one. Something along the lines of "Leica M meets Contax T". Now that sounds like the beginning of a wonderful friendship...
 
Last edited:
I agree with all you've said, though I still believe that there could be sample variation. I agree that the film rewind on the XA is toy-like, and has caused me problems, though nothing I can't live with. The advance wheel isn't a problem for me, but that's a horses for courses thing. The one thing about the tiny lens is that the iris only has four blades, so diffraction issues must compromise performance. And due to its size, it's an extreme retrofocus design, so edge sharpness suffers.

You might try an RC, as it has more robust construction and fewer compromises, but of course it's not tiny when compared to the XA, Rollei 35 or Minox.

Trius
 
The Olympus XA requires very careful calibration of the lens and focusing mechanism. It is an internal focusing floating (?) element design. There is a special jig required to setup the lens correctly. (See the service manual, available free online.) Perhaps yours needs this attention.

That said, a very real shortcoming of the XA is vignetting at wide apertures. Quite obvious with Kodachrome 64. An inevitable liability of the inverted telephoto design, probably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom