Smaller Konica AR body for 40/1.8 pancake: TC or T4?

[blee1996]

Hi,

I have a Hexanon AR 40/1.8 pancake lens that I really like, and wonder what will be the smallest Konica AR body to pair with it.

Currently I'm using the Konica T3n, which is wonderful in terms of a full-size fully mechanical body. But T3n is a bit on the larger and heavier side. I'm not religious about electronic or mechanical shutter, as long as they are reliable. I typically use Aperture Priority and full manual exposure, and would appreciate a good viewfinder.

It seems the options are down to TC and T4. Do you have any personal experience regarding which one might fit my use better?

Thanks!

 

[Trask]

When it comes to Konica equipment, I always look at this website: http://buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eKonicaStart.html Lots of good information there. I have the AutoReflex (both half-frame and full frame), a T3N, and a T-4 that I haven't really had a chance to use -- no battery cap. I like how the T4 feels in the hand - smaller than the large earlier T series -- and I like the T3N for having a split-image focusing screen because I generally don't get along well with microprism-only cameras, yet oddly I really like the AutoReflex where I haven't any issues focusing -- and I do like the half-frame format. I agree with you that the 40mm is a great lens, despite its relatively low cost.

Doesn't seem like I've had much info to offer you; just trying to let you know there's another Konica SLR enthusiast out there! I look forward to what others may tell you.

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't have a TC, but have T, T2, T3 and T4, for compact I would go with the FT-1 which has a few features the T 4 lacks, like AE lock, easy to use + and - exposure dial, uses standard AA batteries, integrated motor drive. The T4 uses the old mercury 625 battery, I use hearing batteries, the motor winder takes 6 double A batteries. If you decide on the TC I would avoid the TCX which was made by Cosina and does not have the build quality of the Konica build version.

Konica FT-1 and FT-1 Pro Half - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

camera-wiki.org

 

[blee1996]

I had a FT-1 motor for a short while, and it was not working properly due to the common insulation pad went all gooey. I opened up the camera, cleaned everything, and put everything together, but the meter still does not work. Also it felt a bit heavy with all the batteries in it, although the size is good and the added functionalities are useful. Thus I'm a bit shying away from the FS-1/FT-1 category.

I heard FC-1 without motor drive can be another option, but it is a bit rare.

 

[runswithsizzers]

@blee1996, I have an Autoreflex T4 -- in fact, I bought it from you. I sent it to Greg Weber for a CLA and battery upgrade. Except for a minor, but persistant, light leak, I think it is going to be a good camera for me. The T4 is a good size / weight, and it is easy to operate. I do wish the viewfinder was a little bigger and brighter, but I have been spoiled by using Pentax MX cameras for the past 30 years, and those MX pentaprisms are hard to beat.

I just got a T3n and, like you, I am not loving the size and weight of it. Also, in comparison with the T4, the viewfinder on the T3n is not quite as big or bright.

I have not handled a TC, but the specs given on the <buhla website> indicate the TC and the T4 are almost exactly the same size, with the TC being a few grams lighter. The specs for the viewfinders on the T4 and TC are also very similar to each other. I think it is fair to say the TC is a stripped down T4. The two cameras are very similar, except the TC lacks shutter speeds slower than 1/8th second, has no depth-of-field preview, and no provision for multiple exposures. None of the missing features would be a deal-killer for me.

My concern with the FC-1 is - I don't believe a half-press of the shutter button will lock the exposure like on the "T" series cameras(?) Often, I want to meter a scene without the sky/bright light, then recompose before taking the shot. With no provision to lock the AE exposure reading, it would be necessary to switch to manual metering. Compared to using my all-manual Pentax cameras, I think using the Konicas in manual mode is a bit slow and awkward.

I wish I could love one of the newer "F" series Konicas -- if for no other reason, so I could use commonly available batteries -- but I have too many concerns about their durability. For me, the T4 is about as good as it gets among the Konica bodies (and the TC is probably a close second). But do plan on replacing the hideous shrinking leatherette with something nicer.

 

[removedacct3]

I would go for a TC, unless you need shutter speeds longer than 1 over 8 and a motor drive. The TC is just a tad smaller. Both have a view finder that is brighter than the T3's one. Build quality of both camera's is not in the same league as the T3, although the T4 feels a bit more rugged.

 

[FotoD]

I've allways thought the TC looked like a nice small camera. The downside being the battery type it takes (2 pieces 1.35 V mercury oxyde batteries type PX625).

 

[Paul Howell]

Well, on the other hand, although may not have the build quality of the TC, the TCX uses a standard Lro3 battery and does have AE lock.

Konica TC instruction manual, PDF user manual

Konica TC-X instructions

www.butkus.org

 

[blee1996]

Hi @runswithsizzers I almost forgot I once had and sold a T4 well I might have to give it a second chance!

 

[Paul Howell]

I like the T4, it is smaller than my T, T2 and T3, but I do miss the full information viewfinder.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Well, on the other hand, although may not have the build quality of the TC, the TCX uses a standard Lro3 battery and does have AE lock.

Konica TC instruction manual, PDF user manual

Konica TC-X instructions

www.butkus.org

According to the description by <buhla>, the TC-X is "the lightest and at the same time the smallest Konica SLR." That caught my interest!

Unfortunately, buhla mentions a couple of other points that make me cross the TC-X off of my list of Konica cameras that I might want to buy:
"The viewfinder is much darker than those in the electronic models or the Autoreflex T4." and,
"The plastic battery case lid is quite fiddly and gets damaged easily, so be careful when changing batteries!"

It sounds like the TC-X battery holder is similar to the FT-1? I bought a non-working FT-1 for cheap, hoping I might be able to fix it -- but the thin metal contacts for the removable battery / grip were mangled beyond repair. Apparently, this is a common problem with this design(?)

 

[runswithsizzers]

Hi @runswithsizzers I almost forgot I once had and sold a T4 well I might have to give it a second chance!

Well, you are not getting this one back. ;-)

Given your requirements for: reliable, good viewfinder, and smaller/lighter than the T3n -- I think you are right to conclude the choice is between the T4 and the TC.

Have you found a battery solution you can live with for the T3n?

 

[AnselMortensen]

PM sent to OP.

 

[blee1996]

Have you found a battery solution you can live with for the T3n?

I'm using a simple brass adapter for hearing aid 675 zinc air battery. 675 is 1.45v, so a bit higher than 1.35v for mercury cells. But in my experience, the metering has been good enough for me (B&W negatives and color negatives). Including some quite challenging lighting conditions, e.g. backlit one like this:

 

[runswithsizzers]

I'm using a simple brass adapter for hearing aid 675 zinc air battery. 675 is 1.45v, so a bit higher than 1.35v for mercury cells. But in my experience, the metering has been good enough for me (B&W negatives and color negatives). Including some quite challenging lighting conditions, e.g. backlit one like this:

Yes, those look good. Are you using the box ISO number when metering?

Before I sent the Konica T4 off to Greg Weber for the meter conversion, I shot one roll using the batteries that were in the camera -- which I believe were zinc air P675/PR44 hearing aid batteries. After a little testing, I found setting the T4 light meter meter to ASA 250 gave about the same readings as my hand-held light meters when set to ISO 160. The results from that first roll of Portra 160 are posted <here> I was surprised to see the AE exposures from the Konica were more consistant than what I was gettting from my Pentax MX cameras which I have been using for years.

It was probably extravagant for me to pay for the meter conversion and CLA (not cheap) when the camera was working so good, but it is nice to know everything should be A-OK now. Except for a minor light leak, which Greg Weber was unable to fix. He was going to have another go at it, but health issues forced him to retire, so I'm still working on tracking down the source of the leak. Pretty sure it is not the usual problem with the foam seals.

 

[blee1996]

Yes, those look good. Are you using the box ISO number when metering?

I'm using box ISO, and taking into account of sunny 16 as well as compensation for front/backlit situation. So far I was ok, since I don't have much slide film left.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use Zink Air hearing batteries om all my Ts, all match my Gossen and Sunny 16. I usually don't shoot at box speed, with Foma 400 at 320, Tmax 400 I get 600, but Tmax 100 I do shoot box speed.