Phng.
Newbie
I am a newbie and I need your review on some rangefinders
1. CANONET 1961
2. CANONET QL19
3. CANON A35 DATELUX
4. FUJICA GE
5. RICOH 500
6. RICOH 35 DELUX
7. YASHICA LYNX 5000
8. OLYMPUS 35 LE
9. OLYMPUS AUTO EYE
10. OLYMPUS PEN S
I did do some research on them but I still confuse.
Thanks in advance
1. CANONET 1961
2. CANONET QL19
3. CANON A35 DATELUX
4. FUJICA GE
5. RICOH 500
6. RICOH 35 DELUX
7. YASHICA LYNX 5000
8. OLYMPUS 35 LE
9. OLYMPUS AUTO EYE
10. OLYMPUS PEN S
I did do some research on them but I still confuse.
Thanks in advance
btgc
Veteran
My opinion is quite simple - you can't learn from someone else so if you have got bitten by gear bug - go and enjoy. personally I enjoy older makes from your list. Other than that - don't spend fortune on these, at least not properly serviced and guaranteed to work because you'll need cash to jump on medium format bandwagon.
Brian Legge
Veteran
I tried a whole load of them a few years ago. Over all, its hard to go wrong if you stick ones you see mentioned places as quality options... from a camera model point of view. Camera condition is massively more important as most cameras from this era weren't really designed with repair in mind. Or if they were, it was repair by swapping parts which are no longer available.
Find something tested, that works. Its ergonomics and varying features from there - both of which will be personal to you.
Find something tested, that works. Its ergonomics and varying features from there - both of which will be personal to you.
nongfuspring
Well-known
Quick notes:
The Olympus Pen S is a half frame with no rangefinder (you'll have to guess focus unlike the others).
The Canon QL17 is more common than the 19. the 19 is more of a collector's camera and (usually) a bit more expensive.
Personally out of all those I'd pick a camera that has the ability to be used without batteries and in full manual. Quite a few of the cameras you mention come from an era when electronics weren't especially reliable.
You might find the forum more helpful if you have more specific details about what kind of camera you'd like to have and what you want to use it for.
The Olympus Pen S is a half frame with no rangefinder (you'll have to guess focus unlike the others).
The Canon QL17 is more common than the 19. the 19 is more of a collector's camera and (usually) a bit more expensive.
Personally out of all those I'd pick a camera that has the ability to be used without batteries and in full manual. Quite a few of the cameras you mention come from an era when electronics weren't especially reliable.
You might find the forum more helpful if you have more specific details about what kind of camera you'd like to have and what you want to use it for.
WJJ3
Well-known
If the Pen S you list is the same as this one I can definitely recommend it. These can be brought back to life by any competent repair person as long as it hasn't been abused. They are a joy to shoot and have great film economy. I get 80 frames on a 36ex roll. Good luck!
JP Owens
Well-known
As long as you keep in mind that these were family snapshot cameras back in the day, you can't go wrong with any of these. Of all the consumer rangefinders over that period, the Canon QL 17 is probably the most usable and durable. Just remember that they were mass produced consumer grade cameras that are 40 to 50 years old, now.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Welcome aboard.
The age of them means you may well have problems getting batteries* and repairs done. Not every technician is prepared to tackle cameras that old because there are few/no spare parts about. Especially when battery corrosion has attacked the inside.
Have you looked at the more popular ones that a few repair shops specialise in?
Regards, David
* The older ones taking (now) illegal mercury batteries cause problems in that you need adapters or expensive modern substitutes.
Welcome aboard.
The age of them means you may well have problems getting batteries* and repairs done. Not every technician is prepared to tackle cameras that old because there are few/no spare parts about. Especially when battery corrosion has attacked the inside.
Have you looked at the more popular ones that a few repair shops specialise in?
Regards, David
* The older ones taking (now) illegal mercury batteries cause problems in that you need adapters or expensive modern substitutes.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I'm curious; what made you decide on your short list?
I can think of several I'd put on it but they all have issues; mostly the (illegal) mercury batteries.
For example, I like all the Olympus rangefinders and the Konica C35. And the Olympus XA takes a modern battery (SR44) or two. Or rather two SR44's or LR44's.
Regards, David
I'm curious; what made you decide on your short list?
I can think of several I'd put on it but they all have issues; mostly the (illegal) mercury batteries.
For example, I like all the Olympus rangefinders and the Konica C35. And the Olympus XA takes a modern battery (SR44) or two. Or rather two SR44's or LR44's.
Regards, David
Dwig
Well-known
The QL19 exists in 2 distinct versions. One is the somewhat rare compact version that is similar to the QL17 GIII. The other is the earlier large chassis version. I believe that there was also a non-QL "Canonet 19" prior the the introduction of the Quick Load system.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Doesn't the Yashica Electro 35 belong on this list?
farlymac
PF McFarland
1: Selenium meter usually doesn't work
2: Good substitute for the QL17, but just not as sharp. Meter shuts off in manual mode on all the early QL rangefinder models.
3: No comment/recommendation
4: I have the GER. I don't shoot it anymore, one roll was enough.
5: Two versions, the later one has a larger viewfinder. Bottom winder lets you keep your eye to the finder.
6: Older progenitor of the 500 and Five-One-Nine, all very nicely constructed models. Beware of stuck shutters from drifting lens lubrication.
7: Very nice, but usually the meter swipe's inside the lens are worn out, and you can't get them replaced. However, who needs a meter? Also lets you leave the camera alone for a while without having to worry about the battery that you no longer need to use. Go full bore and get the Lynx 14 or 14E.
8: No comment/recommendation
9: No comment/recommendation
10: no comment/recommendation
2: Good substitute for the QL17, but just not as sharp. Meter shuts off in manual mode on all the early QL rangefinder models.
3: No comment/recommendation
4: I have the GER. I don't shoot it anymore, one roll was enough.
5: Two versions, the later one has a larger viewfinder. Bottom winder lets you keep your eye to the finder.
6: Older progenitor of the 500 and Five-One-Nine, all very nicely constructed models. Beware of stuck shutters from drifting lens lubrication.
7: Very nice, but usually the meter swipe's inside the lens are worn out, and you can't get them replaced. However, who needs a meter? Also lets you leave the camera alone for a while without having to worry about the battery that you no longer need to use. Go full bore and get the Lynx 14 or 14E.
8: No comment/recommendation
9: No comment/recommendation
10: no comment/recommendation
Sid836
Well-known
From those in the list go for the CANONET QL19, but the G-III. The first QL19 is undeniably a great shooter, but big and heavy as a brick.
The rest of them are so prone to problems that might disappoint you in no time.
Other than these, consider the little Olympus 35RC, the Olympus XA and XA2. Proven you cannot go wrong with these.
The rest of them are so prone to problems that might disappoint you in no time.
Other than these, consider the little Olympus 35RC, the Olympus XA and XA2. Proven you cannot go wrong with these.
Phng.
Newbie
Phng.
Newbie
Thanks for your advices.
To be honest, I love the designs of some of them and of course there are also some can work without the batteries, which is an advantage.
My camera shop do provide a life-time batteries warrant so I dont have to worry about it
Phng.
Newbie
Phng.
Newbie
DrTebi
Slide Lover
The shop only has the EED
but I think half frame does save us lots of films
Yes it saves film, but you will loose resolution, or, megapixels if you want to talk scanned images. With more and more 4K monitors coming on the market now, and at more reasonable prices than ever, I think you should not settle for half frame.
If you have only shot digital before, it may seem that 36 images per roll is little. But I think you will start to change your pace of snapping pictures, and start composing more careful when shooting film. Then 36 images will not seem much... I often shoot 24 films, even though I pay the same price for developing. 36 is just a bit much for me to fill at times...
Regarding the cameras you mention... I unfortunately haven't had any experience with any of these. But if I had to buy my first rangefinder, I would buy the Yashica Electro 35 GSN. It was my second rangefinder... and it's still one of my favorites.
Phng.
Newbie
MANFRED
Newbie
I handle 60s and 70s rangefinders all the time. In most cases the shutter and iris blades need cleaning. I find selenium meters are easier to revive than Cds ones though they're less reliable. My favourites to date include the Konica Auto S2, the Fujica 35 ES and EE, the Canon Auto Eye and Werramatics but there are plenty more I'd be happy to use, e.g. Beauty Light-o-matics, Minolta Hi-matic 11. I'm less keen on the overrated Yashica Electro range, which are more difficult to service. I find Zorkis and Feds too hefty although I do prefer all-metal bodies. I've seen too many later models binned because of rotting plastic - which can take decades to emerge.