Hi all,
I put my interchangeable lens rangefinder search (I’m looking at you, Minolta CLE) on hold for the time being after I realized that a fixed-lens rangefinder might be more suitable for my needs, particularly since I’m almost exclusively a 35mm-45mm focal length user as it is.
That said, I was hoping you guys could recommend your favorite 35mm (full frame) manual focus, fixed-lens rangefinders. In particular, I’m looking for one in the 35mm to 45mm focal length range with a decent internal light meter as I shoot a lot of slides/transparencies. The quality of the lens is obviously paramount.
Here are some of the rangefinders I‘m looking at (in no particular order):
-Olympus 35 SP
-Canon Canonet QL17 GIII
-Agfa Optima 1535
-Olympus XA
-Minolta 7SII
-Konica Auto S3
-Olympus 35 RD
I’m even looking at ‘newer’ autofocus rangefinders like the Konica Hexar AF, Nikon 35Ti, and Contax TVS III, which seem promising, but truth be told, I just don’t trust autofocus and would much prefer to focus manually.
If I can get any of your recommendations, that’d of course be very much appreciated.
which of these are the most friendly to people with glasses?
I have a QL17 GIII (and a Canonet 28, from the generation before the QL) -- both are glasses friendly in my experience.
Between Leica CL with a 40mm sumicron and all versions of Rollei 35 “non RF” I am set.
Most fixed lens RF mentioned here are bigger than Leica CL.
Just get a Leica or Minolta CL with Leica or Minolta 40mm.
Film is expansive to be point and shooted.
GRHazelton is on target -- the Konica IIIa is a terrific camera. As he says, terrific viewfinder, and a unique film advance mechanism that won't poke you in the eye (either one)! I can hardly hear the leaf shutter open and close -- very quiet. As it comes from the factory the shutter speed ring and the aperture ring have an interlock, which facilitates maintaining the same exposure value even as you increase speed/open aperture or decrease speed/close aperture. I prefer them to operate independently, so when it was in for a CLA I had them de-linked. One of my favorite travel cameras -- here's a photo taken with mine.
Kodak Retina IIa's are relatively inexpensive (under $100 USD) and the 50mmf/2 Xenons or Heligons they come with are nice lenses. Also, they are simpler in design and operation than the Iic, IIC, IIIC, IIIc models, so less to go wrong. They also are not afflicted with the LVS interlock. They are truly pocketable and have good rangefinders.
View attachment 338516
photo is from Chris Sherlock's Retina repair and info page.
Kodak Retina IIa's are relatively inexpensive (under $100 USD) and the 50mmf/2 Xenons or Heligons they come with are nice lenses. Also, they are simpler in design and operation than the Iic, IIC, IIIC, IIIc models, so less to go wrong. They also are not afflicted with the LVS interlock. They are truly pocketable and have good rangefinders.
View attachment 338516
photo is from Chris Sherlock's Retina repair and info page.
Which of these three cameras - Olympus 35 SP, Minolta 7sII, Canon Canonet QL17 GIII -has the sharpest lens and has the best metering capability for, say, night photography?
The answer is none of them covers these wishes. They are just all OK cameras with pretty good lenses, maybe a bit better than OK depending on perspective. The CL models mentioned are a different league, and cost accordingly. Metering capability for night photography simply does not exist in majority of film cameras ever made. You'd be better off guessing night exposures.
The Sp is known for it's spot metering ability.
The Minolta has a sharp lens, but you might as well look at the Hi-Matic 9 which is held by some Minolta Hi-Matic fans as both a better camera and LESS EXPENSIVE, than the 7sII.
The Canonet is a great little camera, that DOES NOT need a battery for it's shutter, it's a mechanical leaf shutter.
I have the Minolta 9 and the Canon, and two of the series the Olympus SP came out of and I liked the photos out of one I sometimes carried.
But overall, I think the Canonet, will make you happier.
I now have the CL and love it but it's a LTM camera and mine, like most examples, as I understand it, do not have working meters and the meter cell scheme has an arm that swings into the path of the lens to make readings, which can be damaged by a few collapsible lenses, so be warned.
I am using mine with FSU lenses m39 and a FSU turret and all it took for my collapsible FED 50 to be usable was a few turns of good masking tape, which allows it to partly safely collapse l, for better pocker carrying.
I have always carried stand alone meters, so it's no hardship for me, if a mechanical camera meter does not work and Sunny 11 still works well, with a card for each iso.
Others will have valid opinions and experiences, so take your time in taking a decision.
I have had good experience with leica spot metering in the dark.
I have an additional minolta CL with a death cell for my collapsible Leica 50mm F3.5.
Okay: Here's a recommendation that will receive a collective shrug but I think it's a completely cool machine:
The Zeiss Tenax II.
It's a 35mm camera that shoots squares -- fifty frames to a 36-exposure roll. The lens is a sweet 40mm Zeiss Sonnar. (Some shipped with Tessars. In theory they are interchangeable but good luck finding lenses to fit the mount.) They are tough cameras to source. Zeiss made them in 1938 and events soon overtook camera manufactures before many could be built and sold.
I have one -- see attached. It's a competent camera, very easy to shoot. The viewfinder is big, the rangefinder patch is easy to focus, the body is rock-solid, and the Sonnar is a fantastic piece of glass. I'm attaching a snapshot of my copy -- definitely droolworthy.
Okay: Here's a recommendation that will receive a collective shrug but I think it's a completely cool machine:
The Zeiss Tenax II.
It's a 35mm camera that shoots squares -- fifty frames to a 36-exposure roll. The lens is a sweet 40mm Zeiss Sonnar. (Some shipped with Tessars. In theory they are interchangeable but good luck finding lenses to fit the mount.) They are tough cameras to source. Zeiss made them in 1938 and events soon overtook camera manufactures before many could be built and sold.
I have one -- see attached. It's a competent camera, very easy to shoot. The viewfinder is big, the rangefinder patch is easy to focus, the body is rock-solid, and the Sonnar is a fantastic piece of glass. I'm attaching a snapshot of my copy -- definitely droolworthy.
Nice looking camera!
Can you share a couple of pics from it, please?
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?