Please advise - first 35mm rangefinder camera sought.

[chuckroast]

I would recommend a M4. The finders are more crisp than earlier models. M4s are not selling for a large premium but are higher than current M3/2. Less M4 were produced which may affect pricing. look to the M4-2 If you want a black body.

The M5 is also a great camera but the meters may have failed. No in camera meter is not an issue. A hand held incident meter is best for general photography and your exposures will be consistent.

DAG is able to fix M5 meters, so I am told. Mine has a working meter so this wasn't an issue.

The issue with M5s is that that early production models had a known film transport roller problem and replacements are not available. Anyone considering an M5 should check to see if the serial number they're looking at falls before or after this problem - I think the Wikipedia page for the camera documents this.

 

[Citsmith]

As a suggestion have you considered a Kodak Retina camera. The later models have a good viewfinder and fold for easy carrying. Most of the lenses are 50mm 2.8 but the later versions have an add on wide angle lens.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have the 35 and 85 for my Renita IIIC big. My aunts bought it for me as a combo birthday, Xmas and high school graduation present., as a kit, new old stock in 1966. Both lens are about useless, Not coupled to the rangefinder, the front element of the 50mm of the IIIC comes off to replaced by the front element for either the 35 or 85, bit and heavy. To set the distance, use the rangefinder, use the distance scale and transfer to the auxiliary lens. The 85 sharpens a bit at F8, the 35, is not at all sharp, at least mine is not. The viewfinder of the IIIC big, is rather nice, the bright line for the 35 gives enough room to judge the full frame for the 50. It takes getting use to the EV exposure system, need to figure out how to increase and decrease the EV to adjust for backlighting. The 50mm is a fine lens, sharp, coating is good, no issues with contrast.

 

[grain elevator]

I don't know where in Europe you are, but if I were after a rf camera right now, I'd take a good look at the Olympus SP that MW classic in London have listed at a very reasonable price. The SP has one of the best lenses in compact rangefinders.
Other than that, I like the Canon ltm cameras. If you to use want a 35mm, the 7 has a very decent finder. Im very interested in the earlier, last e 50s to 60s japanese compact rfs from Fuji, Konica, Minolta etc, but they are rare in Europe - German cameras still ruled the market then.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

So, you are one of them that don't like to read before responding? There have been rangefinders with 100% viewfinders mentioned in this very thread.

Not with 35mm frame lines.…. so slow your roll…

 

[JPD]

I have the 35 and 85 for my Renita IIIC big. My aunts bought it for me as a combo birthday, Xmas and high school graduation present., as a kit, new old stock in 1966. Both lens are about useless, Not coupled to the rangefinder, the front element of the 50mm of the IIIC comes off to replaced by the front element for either the 35 or 85, bit and heavy. To set the distance, use the rangefinder, use the distance scale and transfer to the auxiliary lens. The 85 sharpens a bit at F8, the 35, is not at all sharp, at least mine is not. The viewfinder of the IIIC big, is rather nice, the bright line for the 35 gives enough room to judge the full frame for the 50. It takes getting use to the EV exposure system, need to figure out how to increase and decrease the EV to adjust for backlighting. The 50mm is a fine lens, sharp, coating is good, no issues with contrast.

The 35mm and 80mm for my IIc with Heligon are both excellent. Not the easiest to use, but still fun.

 

[grain elevator]

Not with 35mm frame lines.…. so slow your roll…

Yes, the Canon P does have a 100% vf and 35mm framelines. Looking through one immediately shows why it's not a great idea: the lines are way out toward the edges of the vf, you can hardly see the whole frame without moving the eye around a lot. Don't get me started on using it with glasses. But it's good for 50mm, and having the 35mm framelines doesn't hurt and can be a bonus if one uses a 35 occasionally.

 

[michaelelliottphotog]

I do have the Contax G1 with 28mm, 45mm and 90mm. The G lenses are worth buying the G1 body just to use them. One word covers the G Contax lenses= FANTASTIC!

I am in the same boat as John. The G1 is worth the pain of the sloppy autofocus just to be able to use the 28/45 lenses (I don't use the 90 simply because it's even more pathetic on the autofocus!)

 

[John Wiegerink]

I am in the same boat as John. The G1 is worth the pain of the sloppy autofocus just to be able to use the 28/45 lenses (I don't use the 90 simply because it's even more pathetic on the autofocus!)

Yes, the 90mm will miss focus more than the other two, but mine seems pretty decent when it comes to focusing. I have a plain G1 body and a "Green Label" body and the plain body has better spot-on focus record. Still, missed focus is not very common on either one of my cameras. It seems better than these 75-year-old eyes are most of the time.

 

[michaelelliottphotog]

Yes, the 90mm will miss focus more than the other two, but mine seems pretty decent when it comes to focusing. I have a plain G1 body and a "Green Label" body and the plain body has better spot-on focus record. Still, missed focus is not very common on either one of my cameras. It seems better than these 75-year-old eyes are most of the time.

I guess it really also depends if you play to the focus system's strength - it needs an area of high contrast and good lighting. When I'm using the 90mm I'm typically trying to separate something from the background, and the lighting isn't great. Either way, I've found my manual focus SLRs better at this so I guess I won't be the ideal customer for that lens

 

[albireo]

A little update.

After days of back & forth spent weighting and assessing all the recommendations, I got a serious case of camera purchase paralysis.

I decided to try to lift myself out of this serious condition with a quick therapeutic purchase. I found this camera locally for a good price and went for it:

Why?

Short answer: I was curious
Long answer. I guess because I thought it would fit most of my requirements. 35mm lens, rangefinder, silent operation. The viewfinder is the only concession. I knew it would not be as big as I wanted.
Real answer: my GAS needed a quick fix!

Well I've just developed and scanned a roll of Kentmere 100 in ID11 1:1. I'm disappointed.

It's not the small viewfinder: I can deal with it.

It's the image quality and look of the images. I don't know what I was expecting - perhaps that the 35mm f/2.8 Zuiko would be good enough to not make me miss any of the cheap primes I use with my SLRs.

Well it's making me miss them. I'm not a pixel peeper by any stretch of imagination, but the corners are terribly fuzzy, even at f/4, and still noticeably so at f/5.6. I think the rangefinder works fine, because I'm nailing the focus in the centre of the frame and the centre of the frame is quite sharp, very much so. But the borders are unacceptably Holga-like.

I had heard this compact camera had a really sharp lens etc etc, giant killer etc. It most definitely does not. My (now broken, heavier, noisier) Yashica T3 was better lens-wise. Any old Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 costing 40$ is better than this at f/2.8 and much better at f/5.6. This includes my old E pancake.

I think I will return it. I like how compact it is, and how whisper quiet the shutter button is. I'm happy about focusing using the rangefinder. But I will never pick it up if I know I'm going to get this fuzzy 80s family camera look and I could have grabbed my OM2N instead.

 

[aw614]

I still have my XA, but I feel like I've had rotten luck with the ones I've gotten and am unsure what to do with my working with issues example. But I did find myself disappointed in the images I got out of them.

But then I use my XA2 and XA4 and I've been happier using the two of them.

 

[Cholentpot]

A little update.

After days of back & forth spent weighting and assessing all the recommendations, I got a serious case of camera purchase paralysis.

I decided to try to lift myself out of this serious condition with a quick therapeutic purchase. I found this camera locally for a good price and went for it:

Why?

Short answer: I was curious
Long answer. I guess because I thought it would fit most of my requirements. 35mm lens, rangefinder, silent operation. The viewfinder is the only concession. I knew it would not be as big as I wanted.
Real answer: my GAS needed a quick fix!

Well I've just developed and scanned a roll of Kentmere 100 in ID11 1:1. I'm disappointed.

It's not the small viewfinder: I can deal with it.

It's the image quality and look of the images. I don't know what I was expecting - perhaps that the 35mm f/2.8 Zuiko would be good enough to not make me miss any of the cheap primes I use with my SLRs.

Well it's making me miss them. I'm not a pixel peeper by any stretch of imagination, but the corners are terribly fuzzy, even at f/4, and still noticeably so at f/5.6. I think the rangefinder works fine, because I'm nailing the focus in the centre of the frame and the centre of the frame is quite sharp, very much so. But the borders are unacceptably Holga-like.

I had heard this compact camera had a really sharp lens etc etc, giant killer etc. It most definitely does not. My (now broken, heavier, noisier) Yashica T3 was better lens-wise. Any old Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 costing 40$ is better than this at f/2.8 and at f/5.6 is much better. This includes my old E pancake.

I think I will return it. I like how compact it is, and how whisper quiet the shutter button is. I'm happy about focusing using the rangefinder. But I will never pick it up if I know I'm going to get this fuzzy 80s family camera look and I could have grabbed my OM2N instead.

I love the IQ I get from my XA. It's not the sharpest but at full open I get this glow that I really like. Stopped down a bit and it's as sharp as any other pocket point and shoot. If I want tack sharp I'll shoot digital.

XA Arista EDU 400

I generally have this camera on me or in my pocket loaded with something pushed to 800.

If you want SLR like quality in a compact package and not pay too much get a Retina II line.

Retina IIa Tmax 100

Retina IIa Ilford FP4

 

[albireo]

I love the IQ I get from my XA. It's not the sharpest but at full open I get this glow that I really like. Stopped down a bit and it's as sharp as any other pocket point and shoot. If I want tack sharp I'll shoot digital.

Thanks Cholentpot. Yep my XA samples look like yours more or less. Not my cup of tea frankly. I really like your Retina samples, instead. About your tack sharp comment. Why shoot digital? If you sacrifice portability a little, you'll get 1000X sharper results with a 40$ Nikon N2000 and a 20$ Nikkor E 50mm pancake (just to make one example).

But going back to my rangefinder search. This sidestep hasn't taken me anywhere. I'll need to up my game, perhaps borrow someone's Bessa R or Canon 7 or Leica M2.

@Cholentpot - may I ask - have you got anything shot at f/8 or f/11 with your XA?

 

[MattKing]

One caution when evaluating the Olympus XA series - they are so small that they benefit from a slightly different approach to handling a camera when taking photos handheld. Essentially, you need to get used to them.
If you are used to larger cameras, make some tests on a tripod before you decide about the suitability of the optics.

 

[albireo]

One caution when evaluating the Olympus XA series - they are so small that they benefit from a slightly different approach to handling a camera when taking photos handheld. Essentially, you need to get used to them.
If you are used to larger cameras, make some tests on a tripod before you decide about the suitability of the optics.

Thanks Matt. That makes sense, as I use TLRs 90% of the time. I'm not sure though what I'm seeing is due to camera shake. It looks more like corner blurriness.

This was at f/4

Is this to be expected? Is the lens out of true or something?

 

[Cholentpot]

Thanks Cholentpot. Yep my XA samples look like yours more or less. Not my cup of tea frankly. I really like your Retina samples, instead. About your tack sharp comment. Why shoot digital? If you sacrifice portability a little, you'll get 1000X sharper results with a 40$ Nikon N2000 and a 20$ Nikkor E 50mm pancake (just to make one example).

But going back to my rangefinder search. This sidestep hasn't taken me anywhere. I'll need to up my game, perhaps borrow someone's Bessa R or Canon 7 or Leica M2.

@Cholentpot - may I ask - have you got anything shot at f/8 or f/11 with your XA?

I have shot at f/8 and up with the XA I just can't be sure which shots they were. As is most of my stuff is of personal subjects so I have to dig and find stuff I can share.

I know this was stopped way down. f/11 at least maybe more.

Wide open

This whole set was stopped down and shutter maxed out. Ignore the color as it's the film and dev not the camera

I really can't ask much more from such a tiny camera. It's not the sharpest lens I have, that would be some of my Pentax-A lenses. However the XA does out resolve the trash film I generally put through it. If you don't want your XA there's always room on my shelf for another.

Then again, I've gotten razor sharp results from a Pentax Auto 110...I dunno. It's all relative to me. There's only one camera I own that's not sharp enough for me to use, it's my Kodak Signet 35. Loads of fun to use, handles great, RF is large and easy to use but I can't get anything near sharp out of the darn thing. I want to like it so much but it lets me down every time.

 

[albireo]

@Cholentpot thanks for these. Honestly I would be happy with most of your above results, especially the ones you said you stopped down. Mine seem worse actually.. See my example above. I wonder if I got a faulty sample. I'll try another roll at f/8 or smaller when the light allows. It could be an excellent camera for a roll of HP5 + f/11 and be there.

 

[Cholentpot]

@Cholentpot thanks for these. Honestly I would be happy with most of your above results, especially the ones you said you stopped down. Mine seem worse actually.. See my example above. I wonder if I got a faulty sample. I'll try another roll at f/8 or smaller when the light allows. It could be an excellent camera for a roll of HP5 + f/11 and be there.

I'm using mostly stuff at ISO800 so it keeps the shutter speed up. I also have two of these machines but both more or less work the same. I can't tell the difference between one and another.

 

[MattKing]

I don't have much from an XA that has been digitized.
This is from the Vancouver 2017 Sun Run - a 10K course run by many, but walked by many, many more, including myself:

Handheld grab shot - I wish I had focused a tad closer.

And another handheld grab shot - which gives a better sense of what it was like starting from near the back of the ~40,000 there:

 

[RezaLoghme]

If budget is not an issue, go for the newest Leica you can find. And compare it to their vintage siblings such as M2 etc. And to all the Japanese alternatives mentioned in this thread. Then make a decision. It is only money, but you need to be happy, otherwise you are going to fiddle around buying this and selling that, while you could be enjoying your perfect RF and take photos with it.