Cameras that are better than they should be

railwayman3 · Sep 21, 2017

John Wiegerink said:
Just do a google search and you'll come away with several sites/blogs that will walk you through the steps. I keep several Minox 35mm cameras and have never been disappointed in their image quality. Shutter issues? Yes, but they are usually fixable if you have a little patients and skill. I think the absolute worst thing about the Minox 35's shutter issue is that you never know there is an issue until you process your film. The shutter click sounds the same regardless of whether the shutter is working or not due to it being a electro-magnetic shutter. The absolute best thing about the Minox 35's is their weight and size. Oh, and did I say how good the image quality was? If you are not handy or mechanically inclined I'd suggest you stay away from the early models. If you fall into that category then go for the later ML, MB, GT-X or Touring. These seem to have much, much less shutter issues and use a still in production battery. The image quality(sharpness and contrast) are as good as any 35mm camera I have used and I have used more than a few.

Thanks for that, I'll have a search around on Google. And I'd agree with the image quality of these little cameras.

I can sometimes hear a slight difference in the shutter click when the shutter hasn't fired (been trying our the camera thoroughly without a film in it), but it's very frustrating when this happens part way through a film, and I have to take several blank frames before I think it's working again......and then never quite sure until the film is processed !

AgX · Sep 21, 2017

railwayman3 said:
If you fall into that category then go for the later ML, MB, GT-X or Touring. These seem to have much, much less shutter issues and use a still in production battery.

The models from the first generation with PX27 batteries also accept PX27 silver-oxide ones.

The Minox 35 "clones" are interesting too.

E. von Hoegh · Sep 22, 2017

AgX said:
The models from the first generation with PX27 batteries also accept PX27 silver-oxide ones.

The Minox 35 "clones" are interesting too.

Physically, yes. But the meter underexposes significantly. 5.6v vs 6.2 v

E. von Hoegh · Sep 22, 2017

aparat said:
Smena 8M, my first camera, a very generous gift for my 7th birthday in 1977. My uncle gave up his "appliance" ration at an exclusive coalminers' shop so I could take pictures. It's one of the most cleverly designed camera ever made. It can be a fantastic learning tool for an aspiring young photograher, but it can also be used by an advanced shooter, with full control of composition and exposure. The accessory rangefinder turns this little gem into a full-featured camera. The lens is awesome, with nice character to it, slight vignetting, and a sort of 3D look, thanks to its imperfections. I still have mine, and love it.

I had to look up the Smena, now I want one.I seem to be in a minimalist mode.
I was given a Zorki S a while ago, Industar lens and leather case. I recently overhauled it, and what a nice camera! The lens is very very good, the thing handles well, and I had some fun one night with AG1 flashbulbs at a local bar. The more I use FSU cameras and lenses the more I respect and like them.

AgX · Sep 22, 2017

E. von Hoegh said:
Physically, yes. But the meter underexposes significantly. 5.6v vs 6.2 v

I understand they have a stabilizing circuit, but have not yet looked into that matter thoroughly.

John Wiegerink · Sep 22, 2017

railwayman3 said:
Thanks for that, I'll have a search around on Google. And I'd agree with the image quality of these little cameras.

I can sometimes hear a slight difference in the shutter click when the shutter hasn't fired (been trying our the camera thoroughly without a film in it), but it's very frustrating when this happens part way through a film, and I have to take several blank frames before I think it's working again......and then never quite sure until the film is processed !

As slick Willy once said, "I feel your pain"! I'd like to know how many frames have went unexposed by users of the Minox 35 cameras. It would probably shock all of us. I must say your hearing is better than mine if you can hear a difference. Of course I wear two hearing aids and that might just make a difference.

nosmok · Sep 23, 2017

re: Smena 8M's-- there's a guy on evilBay who takes the lenses off those, and ginks them around in the mount so that they will scale-focus on a screw-mount Leica. He charges about 40 bucks for them. I have one and it works very well, and that 40mm focal length fills a hole in the Leica line-up. Also 2nd the Kodak Signet 35-- amazing little lens and a great compact package.

My own nominee is the later Kodak Bantam 828. Not the Bantam Special that everybody drools over, just a postwar scale focus only thing: 5 f-stops, 4 shutter speeds. The 48mm f/4.5 (a coated (L) Anastigmat Special, 2 words and a symbol that should make every photog's heart beat a little faster) lens is so good it keeps me happily re-spooling 828 film. It may be the best lens I have. Plus the little guy is very compact and elegant in its own right. I also have a Flash Bantam with a coated Anaston that's nearly as good, for low light pictures. If 828 wasn't such a huge pain in the a##, these guys would be a lot better known.

Cholentpot · Sep 23, 2017

Les Sarile said:
It's only 2017 and your C3 already needs service . . .

Well I think it went through a war or two. Lens is a bit loose and I can't calibrate the rangefinder to infinity. Otherwise it still takes great pictures.

polka · Sep 24, 2017

Arbitrarium said:
I always thought my Minox 35 shots were ridiculously sharp for a little plastic camera.

When I bought my Minox35EL in 1979, I found out that although plastic, it was clearly better designed than my old reputable Leica II (Barnack type).

But what amazed me most was what I got out of my self-made pinhole camera. Before, I didn't believe at all I could get so sharp results, and built an "anamorphic" pinhole camera only because such thing could not be done with a lens.

Paul

blockend · Sep 24, 2017

nosmok said:
My own nominee is the later Kodak Bantam 828. Not the Bantam Special that everybody drools over, just a postwar scale focus only thing: 5 f-stops, 4 shutter speeds. The 48mm f/4.5 (a coated (L) Anastigmat Special, 2 words and a symbol that should make every photog's heart beat a little faster) lens is so good it keeps me happily re-spooling 828 film. It may be the best lens I have. Plus the little guy is very compact and elegant in its own right. I also have a Flash Bantam with a coated Anaston that's nearly as good, for low light pictures. If 828 wasn't such a huge pain in the a##, these guys would be a lot better known.

A lot of the earlier shots of one of my favourite photographers were taken on a Bantam 828. I love the idea of 828, but 8 shots on 35mm film I had to roll and paper back myself, is beyond my patience. I think the film was available well into the 1980s, which is surprising for such an uncompromising format.

edit: 1985 apparently, which is about the last time I saw a roll in an old photo shop shortly before it closed.

MattKing · Sep 24, 2017

Many of our family Kodachrome slides were shot on 828. My Dad's Bantam RF was a beautiful camera.
I believe this scan is from an 828 Kodachrome. That little guy in brown is me around 55 years ago - most likely around New Years day in 1962.

Ian Grant · Sep 24, 2017

MattKing said:
Many of our family Kodachrome slides were shot on 828. My Dad's Bantam RF was a beautiful camera.
I believe this scan is from an 828 Kodachrome. That little guy in brown is me around 55 years ago - most likely around New Years day in 1962.View attachment 187181

Like you Matt all our early family photos were shot on 828 (always Kodachrome) and a Bantam Colorsnap 2 though, scale focussing. My father stopped using it when my mother progressed from a Brownie 127 to an Instamatic. The Instamatic is of course 828 film in a light tight cassette in our family's case that meant also a switch to colour negatives and prints not slides.

Ian

Konical · Sep 24, 2017

Good Afternoon,
I can't remember exactly when or why I bought it, but my Konica Auto S-2 35mm rangefinder has turned out to be a real favorite. The lens is sharp, the camera is lightweight, the focusing is easy, and I've had no problems with it. I can't speak to the metering, since any metering I do is with a separate meter.

Konical

Kevin Ekstrom · Sep 27, 2017

Well, I found a Ricoh XR6 on eBay for 12.00 with with winder and the 50mm Rikenon f/2 kit lens. I purchased the camera to part it out ( I wanted the K mount ). The camera arrived in extremely good condition so I decided to give her a go and was pleasantly surprised. The camera is almost identical to a Nikon EM but a bit more user friendly with it's offering of an EV +- 2 stops that can be set in increments of 1/3. The camera is aperture priority so the options are limited, but for what it is, it's actually a decent little rig and great for street photography.

Paul Howell · Sep 27, 2017

Ricoh cameras and lens are often under rated.

jim10219 · Sep 27, 2017

What about a Nikon N2000/F301? They're about as cheap as they come, and you get full manual controls, aperture priority, two program modes (one that prioritizes fast shutter speeds), a large viewfinder, self timer, motorized film advance (2.5 fps continuous or single), Cds TTL metering, manual or DX code reading plus +/- exposure compensation of up to 2 stops, 1-1/2000 speeds, metal body (with some plastic) that runs on either 4x AA or AAA batteries! All of that plus the ability to use Nikon F mount lenses for peanuts!

Kevin Ekstrom · Sep 27, 2017

jim10219 said:
What about a Nikon N2000/F301? They're about as cheap as they come, and you get full manual controls, aperture priority, two program modes (one that prioritizes fast shutter speeds), a large viewfinder, self timer, motorized film advance (2.5 fps continuous or single), Cds TTL metering, manual or DX code reading plus +/- exposure compensation of up to 2 stops, 1-1/2000 speeds, metal body (with some plastic) that runs on either 4x AA or AAA batteries! All of that plus the ability to use Nikon F mount lenses for peanuts!

Sure , a decent camera, but wouldn't one expect a Nikon to be fairly decent. The OP's question wasnt about what you can grab cheap now, that is decent, but what camera surprised you with it's quality. Anyway, it's a good find these days for the money, that's for sure.

jim10219 · Sep 27, 2017

Kevin Ekstrom said:
Sure , a decent camera, but wouldn't one expect a Nikon to be fairly decent. The OP's question wasnt about what you can grab cheap now, that is decent, but what camera surprised you with it's quality. Anyway, it's a good find these days for the money, that's for sure.

It's a consumer level Nikon, not one of their pro level cameras. It looks like it's made completely out of plastic and rubber, but it actually has a good bit of metal (other than the plastic top), just covered in rubber and fake leather. All of the electronic components are well designed too. When I first opened one up, the quality of it did indeed surprise me, not just because of the low price, but also because of it was marketed as a consumer level camera in the mid 1980's, not typically an era known for quality. So that's why I believed it fits the bill.

macfred · Sep 27, 2017

jim10219 said:
What about a Nikon N2000/F301? ...

+1 !
My wife has a F301 (bought in '86 or '87) - it's a nice little cam and it still works like it should! She uses to shoot transparencies with the camera and the results are every bit as good as those with my F2 (provided that the same lenses are used) ...
I like it for the option to use AAA and AA batteries (with MB-3) and it has a built-in alarm clock ...

nosmok · Sep 28, 2017

Glad to see some 828 love, above (nice Kodachrome btw!)! My way to make it more user-friendly: when I respool, I use trimmed down 120 backing paper. The 4.5cm series of numbers gives nice wide spacing between shots, and you can fit 12 exposures on the little 828 spools with the same head and tail leader.

Tony-S · Oct 3, 2017

My Fujica 35-SE fits this description.

Awesome lens - nice and sharp with great color. It has a selenium meter, thus no batteries were required. Another feature of the camera was a shutter-aperture linkage; once you set the aperture and shutter speed, changing the shutter speed would correspondingly change the aperture. For example, if the meter reading was set for 1/60" at f/8, you could change the shutter to 1/125" and the aperture would automatically change to f/5.6.

railwayman3 · Oct 3, 2017

MattKing said:
Many of our family Kodachrome slides were shot on 828. My Dad's Bantam RF was a beautiful camera.
I believe this scan is from an 828 Kodachrome. That little guy in brown is me around 55 years ago - most likely around New Years day in 1962.View attachment 187181

I'd be happy to get that quality of shot using a modern camera and present-day film !

railwayman3 · Oct 3, 2017

John Wiegerink said:
As slick Willy once said, "I feel your pain"! I'd like to know how many frames have went unexposed by users of the Minox 35 cameras. It would probably shock all of us. I must say your hearing is better than mine if you can hear a difference. Of course I wear two hearing aids and that might just make a difference.

I'm sure that I can just hear a difference when the shutter hasn't fired. There is always a "click" as you press the Minox release which is the double-exposure prevention releasing, but the firing of the actual shutter seems to make this sound different. OTOH, I'm never sure....and end up taking several frames, which may or may not be blanks, just to be certain.
Since my previous post I've acquired a GT-S, which seems to work consistently, and to be a little more "solid" in construction. We shall see..........

E. von Hoegh · Oct 3, 2017

railwayman3 said:
I'm sure that I can just hear a difference when the shutter hasn't fired. There is always a "click" as you press the Minox release which is the double-exposure prevention releasing, but the firing of the actual shutter seems to make this sound different. OTOH, I'm never sure....and end up taking several frames, which may or may not be blanks, just to be certain.
Since my previous post I've acquired a GT-S, which seems to work consistently, and to be a little more "solid" in construction. We shall see..........

The sound the shutter makes, as distinct from the double-exposure safety, is indistinguishable between shutter functioning correctly at a fast speed and not opening at all. When the shutter malfunctions it does so by releasing both blades at once, rather than first blade -(timing interval)- second blade. Exact same sound as the shutter tripping at 1/500th.

removed account4 · Oct 3, 2017

hi olyman

i am sorry to say this but every camera has exceeded my expectations,
even ones i have made out of waste materials like mr tichy
it is just me that doesn't live upto the expectations the cameras probably have towards
me. i wish i spoke "optic" i would understand the subsonic conversations, so i could be better
but just the same maybe its better i don't understand what they say amongst themselves.

Cameras that are better than they should be

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency