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.
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.
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.
Not with 35mm frame lines.…. so slow your roll…
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!)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!)
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.
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.
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 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?
@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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?