Anyone can answer me. I am tempted to buy it, but I am wondering how much should I offer? In another words, what would be the max I should pay?
Thanks
Thanks
Anyone knows how much a PETRI F1.9 35mm RANGEFINDER CAMERA w/ CASE is worth mint?
-
A
- Thread starter Vsanzbajo
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 25 rolls of Fuji Velvia 50 RVP 35mm
- Started by mweintraub
-
For Sale Epson 3880 inks for sale
- Started by jeffreyg
-
For Sale Mamiya 7 - 210mm lens + finder
- Started by Guivd
-
For Sale Nikon Nikkor-SW 75mm 1:4.5 Lens in Copal 0 Shutter
- Started by michaeljoeserra
Forum statistics
If you offer $10 it will be considerably more than any other offer he has had so far, methinks.
J
J
But how much are they really worth. And are they good cameras?
Really worth $1 to $15, if you can sell it at all. They are fine cameras, but we must not confuse quality with value. A Nikon F is probably the highest quality SLR ever made and one just took a day to sell on APUG for $35.
Best,
J
Best,
J
It is all about condition - operational and cosmetic. As a reference there is one posted for $48 -> PETRI F1.9
I paid $30. Mint camera and original case.
I have a Petri E.Bn rangefinder with the 4.5cm f/1.9 Orikkor lens and it's a very nice user camera. All mechanical, no batteries but has an old "bug-eye' selenium cell light meter which still works! Sort of. Fun to use and takes excellent pictures. My wife brought it home from an auction; she paid $4 or $7 for it, I can't recall.
Mike
Mike
You paid too much by most standards. I regularly buy these types of cameras for $5. However, the lens is very sharp. Check for internal haze by cleaning both the front and rear elements and then, with shutter on BULB, open the back and at widest aperture, fire the shutter and hold it open: through the back, look through the lens at a bright light and you will see if there is internal haze or excess dust. I take mine apart for cleaning of all the elements with Windex or even (gasp!!!) straight household ammonia (EXCELLENT CLEANER, HONEST). Plain water does not cut down on static like the Windex or ammonia does. REALLY CLEAN are my lenses, inside and out.
I would recommend the following: with wide open aperture to limit depth of field, shoot the 'picket fence' type object (ie, something diagonal so you can see if there is a difference between what the RF says is in focus and what the film plane actually records). This is VERY important to do because, oftentimes, the two are out of alignment.
If you decide that there is a difference here you will either have to remove the top to align properly or, as is the case with most people not knowing how to change the alignment, adjust for the proper focus by moving the focus ring to compensate. For example, if your RF says the 10 ft is in focus and the film plane actually delivers about 50 ft that is in focus and 10 ft is NOT in focus, then you know that whenever you focus at '10 ft' (according to your rangefinder) you will be ACTUALLY focusing at 50 ft. You would have to move the focus ring so the the lens moves OUTWARD slightly to bring the ACTUAL focus closer (to 10 FT0 than the ACTUAL 50 ft distance that was focused upon according to the film plane.
Perhaps a bit confusing to digest at first but re-read carefully: in summation, if you are ACTUALLY focusing at 50 ft (NOT NECESSARILY WHAT YOUR RF TELLS YOU!) you have to rack the lens out slightly in order to ACTUALLY focus at only 10 FT. The rangefinder is an INDICATION, not an ACTUALITY. Sorry for the prolixity but I do not know how to express more succinctly.
As a consolation: the lens is VERY sharp if, and only if, you are ACTUALLY focused at the correct distance. This misalignment is the cause of many stating that their lens is not so sharp when it really is. I have never in my life 'visited' a lens from Japan that was not tack sharp except for the wide open status of some 'miscellaneous brand SLR wide angles (but were sharp stopped down). Your rangefinder does not suffer from the 'computation compromise' that many older SLR wide angles suffered because, with rangefinders, you have no mirror to worry about getting in the way of the rear element. - David Lyga
I would recommend the following: with wide open aperture to limit depth of field, shoot the 'picket fence' type object (ie, something diagonal so you can see if there is a difference between what the RF says is in focus and what the film plane actually records). This is VERY important to do because, oftentimes, the two are out of alignment.
If you decide that there is a difference here you will either have to remove the top to align properly or, as is the case with most people not knowing how to change the alignment, adjust for the proper focus by moving the focus ring to compensate. For example, if your RF says the 10 ft is in focus and the film plane actually delivers about 50 ft that is in focus and 10 ft is NOT in focus, then you know that whenever you focus at '10 ft' (according to your rangefinder) you will be ACTUALLY focusing at 50 ft. You would have to move the focus ring so the the lens moves OUTWARD slightly to bring the ACTUAL focus closer (to 10 FT0 than the ACTUAL 50 ft distance that was focused upon according to the film plane.
Perhaps a bit confusing to digest at first but re-read carefully: in summation, if you are ACTUALLY focusing at 50 ft (NOT NECESSARILY WHAT YOUR RF TELLS YOU!) you have to rack the lens out slightly in order to ACTUALLY focus at only 10 FT. The rangefinder is an INDICATION, not an ACTUALITY. Sorry for the prolixity but I do not know how to express more succinctly.
As a consolation: the lens is VERY sharp if, and only if, you are ACTUALLY focused at the correct distance. This misalignment is the cause of many stating that their lens is not so sharp when it really is. I have never in my life 'visited' a lens from Japan that was not tack sharp except for the wide open status of some 'miscellaneous brand SLR wide angles (but were sharp stopped down). Your rangefinder does not suffer from the 'computation compromise' that many older SLR wide angles suffered because, with rangefinders, you have no mirror to worry about getting in the way of the rear element. - David Lyga
Last edited by a moderator:
David, found this thread and want to thank you for good advice. I may just buy one as I am having poor luck with Electro's. I am really starting to hate anything with electronics and I am a licensed Ham.
But I wish to find a good condition Petri 7's with the f/1.8 lens. I think I would pay up to $50 for one. My dad bought one in 1963 for $80 brand new.
Guess knowing what model would be helpful. Here is one on eBay for $500. 371859423006
Petris are common, the Petri 7/7S are the most common of all. Consequently, they are worth no more than US$20 IMO. I have disassembled and repaired various Petri models, and discovered that Kuribayashi cut costs aggressively, causing design-quality to suffer in little ways, especially in the later models (7/7S). However, their lenses are sharp.
Mark Overton
Mark Overton
I have a number of Petris's both SLR and rangefinders, the early rangefinders have better built quality than the later models or the SLRs. Although Petri did not make a wide range of lens or very fast lens what they made were sharp with good contrast, they used what they termed hi index flint glass. Finding a 7/7S in working order takes just luck of the draw.
I said I am willing to pay $50 for a fully working one but there are plenty but they all have problems.
Chan, I’ve acquired 3 variations of the Petri Super Color Corrected series and a Petri 35. All looked quite good cosmetically but none were usable due to sluggish or inoperable shutters and droplets of some substance between the lens elements. I paid in the neighborhood of $12 - $20 for each of them on an auction site. Another issue with all but one of the cameras was brittle leathertte, which was coming unglued or breaking off in pieces. I finally succumbed to sending one off for overhaul, sinking about $80 into it but I now have a working copy and am now running a roll through the camera. I think to get a working dependable example of this camera a budget of more than $50 will be required and you can do as I did. I like the size and feel and the retro look of these cameras. I’ve had several young people come up and ask what kind of camera I was using and comment on how cool it looked. So they have a certain hipster appeal, I guess. Good luck finding one for yourself.
Stan
Stan
My copy are actually functional. The meter is OK. The shutter is OK. The lens is OK too. The leatherette also OK. The rewind crank lost the spring. And the rangefinder faded.
So I got very nice pictures with the Petri 7s I have (both are f/1.8 ) but I sure wish to have better rangefinder.
But I have soft heart for the Petri 7s because as I said my dad bought one in 63 for $80 in the US and brought it back to Vietnam. It's the first camera I ever use. Somehow I wish I could shoot the same images I did with that first roll of film.
So I got very nice pictures with the Petri 7s I have (both are f/1.8 ) but I sure wish to have better rangefinder.
But I have soft heart for the Petri 7s because as I said my dad bought one in 63 for $80 in the US and brought it back to Vietnam. It's the first camera I ever use. Somehow I wish I could shoot the same images I did with that first roll of film.
My first rangefinder was a Color Corrected Super 1.9. I still have it and use it.
Aside from the accessory shoe having been ripped off, mine was in very good shape when I bought it 24 years ago at a flea market for $10. It worked great and I used it, just as it was, for years.
When I decided it couldn't hurt to get it CLA'd I got it back with a replaced accessory shoe, free of charge! I didn't even ask him to replace it.
It's a good, solid camera with a nice, sharp lens. It got me hooked on rangefinders, which is enough to make it special in my book, but it also takes good pictures.
Aside from the accessory shoe having been ripped off, mine was in very good shape when I bought it 24 years ago at a flea market for $10. It worked great and I used it, just as it was, for years.
When I decided it couldn't hurt to get it CLA'd I got it back with a replaced accessory shoe, free of charge! I didn't even ask him to replace it.
It's a good, solid camera with a nice, sharp lens. It got me hooked on rangefinders, which is enough to make it special in my book, but it also takes good pictures.
seven year old thread...op hasn't even been back since 2014...
" I used to live in a room full of mirrors and all I could see was me..." Jimi Hendrix
So, he must have either bought a good camera, or one contaminated by nerve agent.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |