I'm looking for a small rangefinder

Rol_Lei Nut · May 21, 2010

Selenium light meters

mindcircus said:
I've never used one, but that's what I've read and been told. Sorry about the misinformation.

I don't understand though what problems can be caused by CdS cells. The only problem I have faced is the discontinued mercury batteries.

CdS meters are (usually) more sensitive. Selenium meters are usually very limited in their sensitiviy (unless they are very large), maybe that's what you read about.

Selenium meters can be extremely simple: in many cases simply the cell connected to the galvanometer (at least electrically).

CdS meter circuits are often more complicated, especially because of the presence of the battery, whose compartment is already a very (or the most) frequent source of trouble. CdS meters typically use more adjustment pots (a battery test circuit usually also being involved), resistances, variable resistors (when coupled to speeds and diaphrams), mechanical links for the variable resistors, etc. Like Selenium cells, CdS cells also tend to "die" with age, though not as frequently.
When a CdS meter has problems, sometimes even finding the exact cause of the problem can be quite difficult.

Rol_Lei Nut · May 21, 2010

mcgrattan said:
Having owned both an Olympus XA and a Retina IIc, for me there'd be no contest. The Retina takes _much_ better pictures. In fact, I didn't really like the rendering of the XA lens at all.

The Retina is heavier, but, for me has better ergonomics, also. I think the only downside to the Retina is that the viewfinder is a little pokey and dim.

I also agree, having also used the XA and several Retinas, I don't find the XA lens that impressive.

Being the Devil's advocate, yes, the defects of the classical Retinas are the viewfinders and (in some models) the frame counters, which can be real §%&#°rs to reset.

The IIa (be careful, like many Retinas, the model name covers both pre-war and post war ones, the pre-war having non-coated lenses), is a very good and nice-looking camera, though with some mechanical vulnerabilities (the notorious cocking rack problem).

If a non-folding model is o.k., the IIS might be a great one to aim for.

As someone else mentioned, the various classical Voigtländers are also very, very good!

macrorie · May 21, 2010

It is predictable that you would get lots of conflicting advice on this question. I have owned a Ricoh 500G, Canonet GIII QL 1.7, a Voigtlander Vitomatic 1, 3 different Voigtlander Vito B models, a Voigtlander Vito II, a Petri 519, and a Kodak Signet 50. You will probably end up buying one of the recommended cameras, and if you don't like it you will get something else. One piece of real advice, get one with a rangefinder, not a scale-focus camera, unless you are confident about estimating distances. From my experience, the Canonet GIII or one of the Voigtlander Vitomatics with a functioning rangefinder and meter (IIa or IIb?) would be the most versatile (the latter have huge, bright viewfinders, which is what makes them heavier for their size).

tomalophicon · May 21, 2010

Wow...

I don't think my friend's Retina is a folder. I'm not sure of the model designation, but are these worthwhile?

I'm more and more keen on the Voigtlanders now as well.

No autoexposure models please, I'm not interested as I already have an Electro 35 and Minolta Hi-Matic.

I would like fully manual and a light meter isn't necessary, although a good one might be nice.

MattKing · May 21, 2010

If you are considering a Retina, you need to be aware that there are/were also cameras called Retinette as well. They don't have a rangefinder, but are quite nice.

If you would like to see a picture of one, just squint at my avatar .

Anscojohn · May 21, 2010

pakeha said:
Russian

Zorki 4k/ industar 61 panda lens, no battery,no meter. Small, great lens,and so cheap you can get half a dozen. That way if one breaks, just grab another.

Regards
CW

************
Most people would not consider a Zorki 4 a small camera.

Rol_Lei Nut · May 21, 2010

tomalophicon said:
Wow...

I don't think my friend's Retina is a folder. I'm not sure of the model designation, but are these worthwhile?

I'm more and more keen on the Voigtlanders now as well.

No autoexposure models please, I'm not interested as I already have an Electro 35 and Minolta Hi-Matic.

I would like fully manual and a light meter isn't necessary, although a good one might be nice.

Most Retinas are worthwhile: depends on what you think of uncoated lenses (on the pre-war models).

Voigtländers are very good too...

It's probably easier to find an affordable Retina with a f/2.0 lens than a Voigtländer (most of the Schneider f/2.0 lenses are in the "sublime" category - as are the Voigtländer Ultrons). The Rodenstock f/2.0 lenses for Retinas might a tiny bit less "sublime" but are still very good.

The fight between the Schneider f/2.8 (or 3.5) Xenons and Voigtländer 2.8 (or 3.5) Skopars is hard to call, though the Skopars are probably better in many cases...

maderik · May 21, 2010

tomalophicon said:
I don't think my friend's Retina is a folder. I'm not sure of the model designation, but are these worthwhile?

In the 60's, Retinas became non-folding bodies. I also have Retina IIF in addition to IIc and IIIc versions. The IIF has a nicer viewfinder than the little c's and a coupled selenium center needle meter visible in the viewfinder. The lens is a decent Xenar 45mm f/2.8 but front element focusing. It's lighter than the Retina folders but then the body is not very compact (as tall as an Electro 35 if not as wide.) It also does not have the quite the same mechanical feel as the folders: it's more "tinny" like a Japanese RF. It's still a fine camera, I just like the others more because they are more different.

LunoLuno · May 21, 2010

Minolta's Minoltina-S (aka AL-S) is often overlooked, but it is a good small ragefinder with fully mechanical functions and a fast and very sharp Rokkor glass.

minolta Himatic 7sII (40mm/1.7) (W115/H71/D58) (shutter priority auto)
minolta minoltina-s (40mm/1.8) (W124/H73/D60) (fully manual)
Yashica Electro 35 (45mm/1.7) (W140/H82/D74) (aperture priority auto)

Pumal · May 21, 2010

macrorie said:
It is predictable that you would get lots of conflicting advice on this question. I have owned a Ricoh 500G, Canonet GIII QL 1.7, a Voigtlander Vitomatic 1, 3 different Voigtlander Vito B models, a Voigtlander Vito II, a Petri 519, and a Kodak Signet 50. You will probably end up buying one of the recommended cameras, and if you don't like it you will get something else. One piece of real advice, get one with a rangefinder, not a scale-focus camera, unless you are confident about estimating distances. From my experience, the Canonet GIII or one of the Voigtlander Vitomatics with a functioning rangefinder and meter (IIa or IIb?) would be the most versatile (the latter have huge, bright viewfinders, which is what makes them heavier for their size).

I think that; depending on what you shoot; a great number of photographers guessestimate de distance. It's good to be good at it, as well as Hyperfocal Distance and DOF

Craig Swensson · May 22, 2010

Anscojohn said:
************
Most people would not consider a Zorki 4 a small camera.

Perhaps ,however the Zorki is 25mm longer and the same height as a hi-matic.
maybe it is medium then
regards
CW

tomalophicon · May 22, 2010

I looked at some Canonets. I think I like those too.

I'm looking at my friend's Retina on Monday.

I'm smitten with the Bessa R now too. No one seems to be selling them.

alexmacphee · May 22, 2010

Oly 35RC. Just get one.

It's a joy to handle, it's light but solid, real metal (not plastic painted to look like metal), and the lens is outstanding.

If it doesn't suit you (that's weird, it's like saying beer doesn't suit Homer), you'll have not the slightest difficulty in selling it on. But you won't once you have it.

luxikon · May 22, 2010

Leica CL, Leitz Minolta CL, and Minolta CL. The Leica CL is essentially a light-weight and compact M-style rangefinder camera. The camera was designed as a small-cost, yet fully-fledged, camera with the M lens mount.

tomalophicon · May 22, 2010

luxikon said:
Leica CL, Leitz Minolta CL, and Minolta CL. The Leica CL is essentially a light-weight and compact M-style rangefinder camera. The camera was designed as a small-cost, yet fully-fledged, camera with the M lens mount.

Thanks, but way too expensive for me.

tomalophicon · May 22, 2010

alexmacphee said:
Oly 35RC. Just get one.

It's a joy to handle, it's light but solid, real metal (not plastic painted to look like metal), and the lens is outstanding.

If it doesn't suit you (that's weird, it's like saying beer doesn't suit Homer), you'll have not the slightest difficulty in selling it on. But you won't once you have it.

It's on the list now. THanks.

lightdreamer · May 22, 2010

Stop!
The Oly 35RD has a better 6 element lens. Its worth it.

BG lightdreamer

elekm · May 22, 2010

The Retina IIS (fixed lens) is a very nice camera. It's built on the same body shell as the final folding Retinas (Big B and C models). It has a coupled selenium meter and a nice Schneider f/2.8 45mm Xenar (Tessar type) lens.

The combined rangefinder/viewfinder is large and reasonably bright, and the Synchro Compur leaf shutter has the full range of speeds 1-1/500 plus B. It will have the usual issues -- shutter might need to be serviced, and the viewfinder might need to be cleaned and/or calibrated.

It's a smaller camera and very well made.

In my previous list, I'm sure that I left a number of cameras off the list, although I was trying to work within your list: Smaller body, not too expensive, manual exposure and a rangefinder.

As an aside, the Rollei 35 cameras are very good. Although the 35S is the premium model, I've always had a special place in my heart for the 35T. It was the first camera that I bought when I arrived in Germany.

I've posted this photo before. Shot with my Rollei 35T on Ilford Pan F. Spain, 1980. The older fellow sitting on the tricycle is reading a newspaper.

drmoss_ca · May 22, 2010

My first "real" camera was an Olympus Trip 35 - no battery, a selenium meter (held to be less accurate than a CdS meter at the time, but no one seems to remember that now) and scale focussing. It performed well enough that I caught the bug, and haven't yet been cured. I suspect they are quite cheap now: I'm keeping mine however!

Chris

photoncatcher · May 22, 2010

I'm a big fan of the FSU 35mm RFs. Such as the Fed 2, and the Zorki 4, or 4k. No meter, so no battery. I love the lenses, and just the way the cameras feel in my hands. Also they do have the option of chaging lenses, if you ever want to. They do have some quality issues, and I count myself lucky to have gotten models that work fine. I will also second the Oly 35rc. Great little Rf with a really fine lens.

2F/2F · May 22, 2010

Leica IIIa - IIIg, with Summar, Summitar, or Summicron 50mm lens.

The IIIc is my favorite. There were lots and lots of them made, so they tend to be the cheapest of the lot. I believe that the IIIa used a body assembled of multiple parts, while the IIIc was the first to use a cast one-piece body. This makes the IIIa much "cooler" from an antique engineering perspective, and they really feel like high-class, hand made tools. The cast body of the IIIc is lighter, and supposedly more durable (though I can't imagine anything that would kill a IIIa that also wouldn't kill a IIIc). The IIIc is also not quite as "stubby" as the IIIa, though the difference is minor. The IIIf is a '50s camera that is very similar to a IIIc, but they seem to be more collectible, and thus more expensive. I don't know the details, but there were some mechanical changes from the IIIc. The IIIg is the rarest, easiest to use, and most expensive of the lot, because of the very nice viewfinder/rangefinder compared to earlier models. There were not many made, as they were a late '50s camera; the last stand of Leica thread mount cameras, because people moved the the Ms in force once they were introduced.

The IIIc is the best balance of usability and cost, IMO. I got mine with a Summitar , all in near perfect condition for $225 on E-Bay. A lens hood is a great help with this old glass.

I like my Retina IIa very much. It is well built and the lens is good. However, the thing just was not designed with ergonomics in mind! It is an uncomfortable camera for me to use. It is also bigger than a Barnack Leica with a collapsed lens.

dynachrome · May 22, 2010

small rangefinder

The Minolta Hi-Matic 7SII is compact, has a fast f/1.7 lens, will work without a battery and allows full manual control of shutter speeds and f/stops. The Olympus 35RD has these same fatuures. If you will not be shooting very close then one of the Rollei 35 models would be nice.

John Koehrer · May 23, 2010

If you can find one, the Olympus SP is a little larger and has a spot meter. It's larger (similar to M3) relative to the RD, RC Oly's and Canon Glll 1.7 but still pretty light

Aurum · May 23, 2010

I'll vote for a Olympus XA2. Battery lasts for years, virtually silent shutter, 3 postion focus, cheap as chips, and if you detach the flash its the size of packet of cigarettes.

I have one as my constant carry camera, slips in my jacket pocket and ready to roll in under a second. Quicker than a digital for grabshots too.

Sirius Glass · May 23, 2010

Not an SLR and not quite a RF, but I just purchased a Voightlander Vito II. Why? This was the first serious camera that I had and I took many good photographs [slides]. It does not have a range finder and it is a folder. This will work well as a camera to take while bicycling or skiing because of it size and weight. It is small, light and quiet. I got it on eBay because KEH rarely has them. What I paid was about what a CLA would have cost and this camera was CLAed.

I will have to estimate the distance and use the hyperfocus distance.

Steve

I'm looking for a small rangefinder

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency