Looking for a 35mm rangefinder to use with a single lens

[Donald Qualls]

I have a Kiev 4 and it fell to bits after 1 roll of film. Once bitten, twice shy!

Hence why I suggested a Kiev 2 or 3 (the older ones, in general, were better built -- or maybe it's only the better built ones that have lasted the extra twenty years) in freshly serviced condition from a repairer. I've got three Kiev 4 bodies in various states of "almost work" -- one overlaps frames, one has slow shutter, and I forget what's wrong with the other . My Kiev 2, freshly serviced when I bought it, works fine.

 

[brbo]

I want something reasonably small and inconspicuous, quick to use and most importantly, a fast lens which gives decent quality images wide open.

Is the desire for rangefinder type of camera dictated more by size or ease of focusing in low light?

I've used a number of Canonets and Himatics and you will need a fair bit of luck finding one with enough contrast in rangefinder for low light operation. You could/should also consider small SLRs with good viewfinders (like OM-1). On the other hand, leaf shutters in cameras like Canonet/Himatic/S3 usually produce quite a bit less noise than shutters and mirrors in SLRs...

 

[brbo]

Hence why I suggested a Kiev 2

My Kiev 2 worked without a problem the entire time I had it (once I figured out frames overlapping). With Jupiter-8 results were better than any single lens rangefinder I tried.

 

[mtnbkr]

I've used a number of Canonets and Himatics and you will need a fair bit of luck finding one with enough contrast in rangefinder for low light operation.

It's been nearly 20 years since I had a Canonet, but there was a trick of putting a small adhesive dot in the middle of the rangefinder window that would increase contrast.

Looks like the "trick" is still posted online: http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-165.html

Chris

 

[super_claret]

Is the desire for rangefinder type of camera dictated more by size or ease of focusing in low light?

I've used a number of Canonets and Himatics and you will need a fair bit of luck finding one with enough contrast in rangefinder for low light operation. You could/should also consider small SLRs with good viewfinders (like OM-1). On the other hand, leaf shutters in cameras like Canonet/Himatic/S3 usually produce quite a bit less noise than shutters and mirrors in SLRs...

I don't do a lot of low light shooting but having an f1.7 lens at least allows me to indulge if I want to.

I have a Pentax Spotmatic with 50mm f1.4 but when taking this out, I have a tendency to lug around my 35mm and 135mm lenses too. I can't seem to decide on one lens. My thinking is, that if I take a fixed lens rangefinder, I wont have the option to change lenses, therefore will have to get the shot with what I have.

 

[super_claret]

I am quite attracted to the Nikon S2 or Contax IIIa but they are both around £500 with lens in the UK. Anyone have experience with either of those? I understand my Kiev 4 was a copy of the Contax and the Nikon looks as though it uses a similar body to the Contax...are the Nikon and Contax lenses the same mount?

 

[xkaes]

I've used a number of Canonets and Himatics and you will need a fair bit of luck finding one with enough contrast in rangefinder for low light operation.

One of the benefits of a rangefinder is seeing the subject without the dimming aspects of an SLR -- looking through a lens & focusing screen and pentaprism system. Rangefinders undoubtedly vary in quality, but I've always found them much easier to use in low light.

 

[baachitraka]

Olympus XA

 

[brbo]

Olympus XA

Isn't that f2.8?

It's been nearly 20 years since I had a Canonet, but there was a trick of putting a small adhesive dot in the middle of the rangefinder window that would increase contrast.

I know. The trick is not a magic bullet, thought (it helps the most in bright conditions).

One of the benefits of a rangefinder is seeing the subject without the dimming aspects of an SLR -- looking through a lens & focusing screen and pentaprism system. Rangefinders undoubtedly vary in quality, but I've always found them much easier to use in low light.

Undoubtably true for some rangefinders (like Xpan, Zeiss Ikon ZM, Leica). Unfortunately, not true for many "lesser" rangefinder cameras. As I said, you'll need a lot of luck to find a Canonet that will outperform a bright SLR like OM with 1.4 lens.

 

[Donald Qualls]

putting a small adhesive dot in the middle of the rangefinder window that would increase contrast.

I have a mark made with a Sharpie on my Petri 7S (which is another good option for a fixed-lens RF camera, BTW -- leaf shutter syncs at all speeds and runs to 1/500, f/1.9 lens, hot shoe and built-in selenium meter -- which still works on my example).

 

[summicron1]

Best compact street shooter is the Olympus XA or XA 2. Either that or the Leica CL. Compact and precise and affordable.

 

[xkaes]

As I said, you'll need a lot of luck to find a Canonet that will outperform a bright SLR like OM with 1.4 lens.

There's no accounting for taste, but in low light my Rokkor-X 58mm f1.2 is no match for either of my Canon QL17 GIII, Olympus RD35, and Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII rangefinders. They are all much brighter and easier to focus.

 

[xkaes]

Best compact street shooter is the Olympus XA or XA 2. Either that or the Leica CL. Compact and precise and affordable.

Putting an Olympus XA in the same affordablity category as a Leica/Minolta CL makes that category all encompassing.

 

[brbo]

There's no accounting for taste, but in low light my Rokkor-X 58mm f1.2 is no match for either of my Canon QL17 GIII, Olympus RD35, and Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII rangefinders. They are all much brighter and easier to focus.

Interesting.

Your cheap rangefinders obviously have as good or better rangefinders than Leicas (judging by my experience with M2/M6 vs. Nikon F2 with 50/1.2 which I would call a tie - there are situations where one would work better than the other and vice-versa). Leica rangefinders are not the best or brightest, but still, better than Leica is very good.

I haven't heard anyone before say that Canonet rangefinders compare favourably to Leica M, so I still think that you need a some luck to get them in as good as condition as yours are.

 

[lrlebron]

If you are ok with a camera that does not have a light meter I would recommend a Kodak Retina IIa (or another Retina). It's a very small folding rangefinder camera with an excellent 50mm 2.0 lens. Once folded it fits nicely in my pants pocket.

 

[xkaes]

Interesting.

I haven't heard anyone before say that Canonet rangefinders compare favourably to Leica M, so I still think that you need a some luck to get them in as good as condition as yours are.

Since Minolta actually made the rangefinder on the CL (& CLE) maybe they learned something from Leica. But since Leica sold so many Minolta items rebadged as Leica, perhaps it's the other way around.

 

[Don_ih]

If you want a fast lens, let us not forget the Yashica Lynx 14....

(photo stolen from an ebay listing)

 

[brbo]

Since Minolta actually made the rangefinder on the CL (& CLE) maybe they learned something from Leica. But since Leica sold so many Minolta items rebadged as Leica, perhaps it's the other way around.

Leica was making pretty good rangefinders before CL. Then there was M6 that came after CL. Maybe they really did learn something from Minolta and then it took them 20 years to unlearn that to finally make a decent rangefinder again for the MP.

 

[xkaes]

If you want a fast lens, let us not forget the Yashica Lynx 14....

I guess we spell "COMPACT" differently.

Did I mention "lightweight"?

 

[xkaes]

Maybe they really did learn something from Minolta

I had been thinking about getting a Leica/Minolta CL, but now that I know that my Olympus XA is in the same affordablity category, I'll stick with my XA.

 

[snusmumriken]

I don’t know anything about them, but I notice that Yashica rangefinders get no mention. Are they beneath consideration?

 

[4season]

If you aren't sure how to judge the working condition of a camera, find a seller who does.

There's a vicious circle going on in film camera sales: Buyers want the prettiest cameras at the lowest possible price, and sellers have adapted accordingly. But in order to reduce expenses, that usually means minimal or no service has been performed, because camera repair is labor-intensive.

If kept in reasonably in clean and dry conditions, I think a never-serviced camera built around the year 2000 or later might be reasonably expected to work fine.

 

[xkaes]

I don’t know anything about them, but I notice that Yashica rangefinders get no mention. Are they beneath consideration?

Hardy. Yashica (and later Kyocera) made some of the best 35mm viewfinder/rangefinder cameras ever -- in terms of optics, build-quality, and features. Minolta even bought some of their technology to use in some of their Hi-Matic models. Some later Yashica models used Zeiss T* lenses. Their 35 ELECTRO series still command high prices.

Like most early rangefinders from any company, they were large and heavy. And like most later rangefinders from any company, they dropped features to become smaller and lighter.

Other than Minolta, Yashica/Kyocera probably made the most 35mm viewfinder/rangefinder cameras.

http://www.subclub.org/minman/minfind.htm

 

[Disconnekt]

There's the Ricoh 500G, has a 40mm f2.8 lens

 

[Don_ih]

I guess we spell "COMPACT" differently.

Yeah, I don't use all-caps.
And compared to a Fuji G690. it's compact and lightweight.