Indulge me - Ode to the Himatic.

M Carter · Mar 1, 2015

Damn, I love my little Minolta Himatic 7S.

It's sharp as hell, the meter is great, auto or manual. Easy to open up and clean and service. I bought two for $15-$20 each and used the good parts to make a killer keeper (and sold the other one for $50 or so after a CLA.)

I have a buddy who's a sound engineer, we were talking about film - he said "I think it's like vinyl records making a comeback - people are seeking it out, kids want to have something that goes beyond phone selfies". So if you know anyone wanting to get started get 'em a cheap Himatic. It's a dang good looking camera for next to nothing. Just a groovy-cool retro metal box with a great little lens. I just leave mine on auto and take it when there might be something cool to shoot.

Lith print, Manhattan snow day last weekend:

Straight print, tight crop, sharpness test:

Sirius Glass · Mar 1, 2015

I sold many Minolta Himatic cameras when they were new. Nice to hold and to use.

snapguy · Mar 1, 2015

You are right. It is a great camera. I am a huge fan of small rangefinder cameras from the 1960s or thereabout. I must have 15 of them. Love Canon Canonets, my Minolta AL (1/1000 sec. shutter, 45mm f2 lens...) and so on.

Sirius Glass · Mar 1, 2015

Himatic 7s and Himatic 9s

M Carter · Mar 1, 2015

They're just really super-cool little things. I really want to recover my Himatic in something like tan ostrich or a muted green leather. Fashion statement… for the Mrs. anyway!

r-brian · Mar 1, 2015

I had a 7s a one time. It was the reason I joined RFF. Easy to use with a sharp lens. I loved Plus-X with a light yellow filter in it. Also had the 7sII, smaller and even sharper lens.

jwd722 · Mar 1, 2015

I found a 7sII with a Minolta Auto 14 flash at a flea market about 30 years ago for $20 and still have it. Shot a lot of chromes with it but haven't used it in a while. I just loaded it with some Tri-X and plan on giving it a workout. Fantastic little camera (4 1/2" wide, 3'' tall and 2 1/2" thick (including lens), very sharp f1.7 40mm lens. Auto or manual...fun fun fun!!!

Patrick Robert James · Mar 1, 2015

I had a 7sII for a brief time years ago. I can't remember what happened to it, but I do remember giving it away for parts since it was broken. Great lens. Always thought about getting another one. A lot of people used to swear that the lens was almost the same as the 40mm Minolta "Summicron".

Kirks518 · Mar 1, 2015

The 7sII is my favorite small RF. I really can't say enough about it, just a great camera. I have tons of RF's (Rollei 35 & 35S, QL17 GIII, Asst Oly's, etc.), but I always come back to the Minolta.

Zathras · Mar 1, 2015

While we're on the subject of Himatics, any love here for the Himatic 9?

M Carter · Mar 2, 2015

I read up on all of them, can't recall why I chose the 7s, something about being able to use the meter when in manual mode I think. But the meter is in EV steps, later models use more standard metering.

The 7s does have exposure lock (half shutter press) and the aperture and shutter rings are hard to deal with… it's just become my auto grab-shot camera. But damn, that thing makes a sharp neg!

Paul Howell · Mar 2, 2015

APUGuser19 said:
I could never understand why they put wide angles as the normal lens in these otherwise sweet little Japanese RF's. Totally destroyed any desire for one for me. My Retina IIa has a 50mm normal which is "normal" for 35mm.

A few did, Yashica for one put a 35 on a couple of models, almost wide was the Konica 38mm 1.8 or was 1.7, one the sharpest lens ever tested by Modern Photography, I don't recall any 28mm in a fixed lens rangefinders, some autofocus point and shoots did, Olympus Trip and Konica Off Road, along with higher end Konica, Yashica, and Nikons.

removed account4 · Mar 2, 2015

m carter and patrick
thank you for posting these images
they have made my day ..

resummerfield · Mar 2, 2015

Yep, bought one new in 1974, I think. Wonderful little camera that went to Europe with me twice. Never had a problem with it, and yes, a very sharp lens!

M Carter · Mar 2, 2015

APUGuser19 said:
I could never understand why they put wide angles as the normal lens in these otherwise sweet little Japanese RF's. Totally destroyed any desire for one for me. My Retina IIa has a 50mm normal which is "normal" for 35mm.

My Himatic is 45mm hardly a "wide" lens for 35mm. Sure, a 50 is "normal" but most people would be hard-pressed to tell a difference of 5mm.

I know how subjective this all is, but I really dislike 50mm for a grab-shot camera. I either want to be very telephoto or a tad wide. Rarely completely happy with what I see at 50mm. RFs are different for me though, the whole shooting experience is so different than an SLR with a prism.

flavio81 · Mar 2, 2015

Gentlemen, please enlighten me.

I never understood why the Himatic 7s was a good buy these days, considering that the comparable Olympus rangefinders were smaller; and that Yashica offered machines with faster lenses (Lynx 5000E) or with equally great lenses and automation (electro 35GSN).

Now, i'm not trying to offend or troll; i've been able to buy a Minolta Himatic 7s for a long, long, time but never found a real reason to go for it. (I have owned Yashica Electro 35GSN, 35GL, 5000E with the f1.4 lens; and now use a Kodak Retina IIIc).

The machine seems a bit big and heavy to me. No problem with big and heavy machines; but if i'm going to carry such a machine, perhaps a compact SLR can be a better alternative?

I can't remember how good was the viewfinder on the 7s. On the other side the exposure lock is a good plus. And i think the machine has the CLC system, however i think this would require two CdS cells? Does the Himatic 7s has a REAL "CLC" system like the one on the SRT101?

M Carter · Mar 2, 2015

I can't recall what specifically got me interested in the minolta line - I know I googled and read up on all kinds of brands and models. They're very affordable (often $20 or so) and the lens is as fast as I could want (F1.8) with a reputation for sharpness. The meter isn't off the film plane, it's just a sensor on the lens ring (filters don't need exposure adjustments) and a lens cap turns off the circuit. But the metering has been claimed to be fine for E6. I've only done b&w but it's been great exposure.

Really, I wanted a small carry-around and the small RF's with permanent lenses were simpler than my Nikon FG (not that I need a simple setup, I shoot 4x5 and 6x7, but I liked the idea of a camera with almost no external knobs and switches for some reason)... and in all honesty, I'd never owned a cheap RF and just thought they looked really, really cool. So, certainly, my overall interest was more look and feel of the camera itself. But I have come to understand that, for me, it makes a diff in my attitude when shooting and I wanted something that felt point & shoot but had plenty of control if needed. And I've missed the retro cameras of my youth - this is my anti-DSLR by a mile.

Naturally, the sort of emotional-meets-practical side of this has no right or wrong.

Cons of the cheapie RF's - they truly were "carry around" cameras and finding a clean lens can be challenging. But with so many dead or "as-is, untested" out there, and the ease of working on them, it's fairly simple to build a great one for under $75 or even far less - I got a pristine model for $30 once.

Funny thing is, I'm in no way a "street shooter", I rarely take photos on vacation. Not my thing and others do it well - I enjoy thought-out lighting setups, complex projects, etc. So the RF rarely leaves the house, but it looks so nice sitting on my shelf with my old Nikons and Canons. All the brushed steel & black leather on that shelf! I did use the Minolta for a half-roll of nudes the other day, I'll see what I got when I get around to it.

Sirius Glass · Mar 2, 2015

As a sales person the Himatic 7 and Himatic 9 stood out for the customers because they fit well in most peoples hands, they felt solid, they were lighter than slrs, they were easy to load and remove film [customers' comments], and they felt that the price was good. The store sold them as a lost leader, just above the cost. A big point for me as the store representative is that they almost never came back with a problem.

narsuitus · Mar 2, 2015

APUGuser19 said:
I could never understand why they put wide angles as the normal lens in these otherwise sweet little Japanese RF's. Totally destroyed any desire for one for me. My Retina IIa has a 50mm normal which is "normal" for 35mm.

If I remember correctly, a normal lens is defined as having a focal length equal to the diagonal of the image. The diagonal of the 24X36mm image is 43mm; therefore, the 45mm lens in my Minolta rangefinder and the 40mm focal length in my Canon rangefinder are closer to the true normal focal length than a 50mm lens.

https://flic.kr/p/8XWY9C

Sirius Glass · Mar 2, 2015

narsuitus said:
If I remember correctly, a normal lens is defined as having a focal length equal to the diagonal of the image. The diagonal of the 24X36mm image is 43mm; therefore, the 45mm lens in my Minolta rangefinder and the 40mm focal length in my Canon rangefinder are closer to the true normal focal length than a 50mm lens.

https://flic.kr/p/8XWY9C

You remember correctly.

Dr Croubie · Mar 3, 2015

APUGuser19 said:
I could never understand why they put wide angles as the normal lens in these otherwise sweet little Japanese RF's. Totally destroyed any desire for one for me. My Retina IIa has a 50mm normal which is "normal" for 35mm.

Technically speaking, 43.26mm is 'normal' for a 24x36mm frame. So even 38mm is closer to 'normal' than 50mm. But whatever your vision of the world is fine for you. I shoot mostly 90mm on 4x5" and 21mm on 35mm, that's just the way I see things.

Why 50mm became the 'normal' (and here 'normal' means 'usual') is probably from a number of factors, like the RF couplings for Leicas and Contaxen were about this (but both slightly different, 51 and 53mm or something?), and for SLRs it was probably easier to design a non-retrofocus 50-60 because of the mirror, anything shorter like 35 had to be retrofocus and more expensive.

Roger Cole · Mar 3, 2015

What they said. When I was fairly new in photography I tended to use longer lenses but now if I had to choose on prime in 35mm it would be about 35mm. 40 is better than 50 for me. This is especially true with low light which is often enough indoors.

Indulge me - Ode to the Himatic.

M Carter

Attachments

Sirius Glass

snapguy

Sirius Glass

M Carter

r-brian

jwd722

Patrick Robert James

Kirks518

Zathras

M Carter

Paul Howell

removed account4

resummerfield

M Carter

flavio81

M Carter

Sirius Glass

narsuitus

Attachments

Sirius Glass

Dr Croubie

Roger Cole

Indulge me - Ode to the Himatic.

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency