Classic rangefinders

"many if not most vintage 35 range finder cameras will need to be serviced before being used."

 

This keeps being said but in thirty five years and hundreds of cameras (I once worked in a second-hand camera shop) I've come across a handfull that needed any work done on them when received.

 

I can only assume such posts are sponsored by the camera repair mechanics' trade association.

<p><i>"I can only assume such posts are sponsored by the camera repair mechanics' trade association."</i> <-- Absolutely true!</p>

 

<p>You can geneally use almost any camera as is, but why not bring it up to speed?</p>

 

<p>Of my vintage German RF shooters, nearly all needed a proper CLA.</p>

 

<p>The newer Japanese RF shooters from the 1970's are much more forgiving. I do highly recommend replacing the light seals, if needed.</p>

 

<p>The rest is optional and part of a standard CLA. I personally like to have the shutter speeds checked.  This gives me an idea on how far off they may be.   Cleaning any accumulated haze out of the viewfinder, having the RF calibration checked, determining whether the focus is properly calibrated at infinity are all optional on 70's Japanese shooters, but a nice 1st world touch.</p>

My problem with this mantra is that it makes it seem that you can't buy cheap old cameras and just have fun with them - beginners are given the impression that they need to spend a lot of money to get the cameras going. It just ain't so in my experience.<div></div>

Point taken, a picture perfect moment, well composed and timed exquisitely.

Good ones are Konica auto s2, Yashica GSN, Minolta Himatic 9 and 11...

But its the photographers good eye that is more important.

Hi all,

 

Thanks for all the camera suggestions. Reading the post I found two seemegly well known small rf camera that I didnt about the Hi-Matic and an Olympus RF.

 

The 5,6 and 7 elements lens on those small rf, when used between f5.6 and f11, should compare favorably with their slr counterpart.

 

I'm not done with film yet. Digital will just have to wait.

I no longer participate in nelsonphoto over a edit made to one of my posts by the owner.

I bought a Kiev 4 in Krakow and, althought I wouldn't dream of using it when

the results are crucial, I had more fun with it than perhaps any other camera. It

was a bit expensive compared to some others here, around $25, I got to test it

and had a demo before I left the tiny shop.<p> I think the reason it was such

fun was besause the ergnomics were about 50% great, and 50% lousy, it

feels solid but clunky, it made me really think about light because I had to

second-guess its temperamental meter. And it got me some great photos.

Black and whites were contrasty but with good shadow detail, it's maybe a bit

slower in use but the results are just as good as anything I've ever taken with

cameras that cost 50 times as much,..

With a stack of drugstore color prints, or on color transparencies, I can always tell the results taken with Voigtlander glass. I'll my other 35mm lenses tend to look very similar to each other. I currently have a Vitessa with a Skopar 50/2.8. Voigtlander lenses of that era do something special w/color, vivid, but not super saturated. Pastel, I guess, with a super smooth transition from one color to another. I love the look. I have no experience with B/W with voightlander glass, however. BTW, the Vitessa has a bright 1:1 VF, and excellent ergonomics, which sets it waaaay ahead of most of its 1950's non pro contemporaries.

<p><em> The 5,6 and 7 elements lens on those small rf, when used between f5.6 and f11, should compare favorably with their slr counterpart.</em></p><p>I think that very many lenses perform very well when stopped down to between f5.6 and f11.</p><p>I can't say anything at first hand about any of the other Hi-Matics, but the Hi-Matic 7s, which you don't mention, is pretty good -- as long as you don't mind an extraordinarily long throw on the wind lever (or multiple short throws).</p><p><em>I no longer participate in nelsonphoto over a edit made to one of my posts by the owner.</em></p><p>Sorry to hear it. It's a good place: no advertising, no fools, intelligent messages. Anyway, I thought you might be interested in the minor correction about the Konica Auto S2. I don't have an Auto S2 now (I bought one with the intention of giving it away, and after successfully shooting one film, gave it away as planned) so can't send you photographic proof of its hoodlessness. (It's ambiguous in the photo on <a href="http://matsumo-web.hp.infoseek.co.jp/camera/pagef53.htm">the only Japanese page I can find in a hurry</a>.) Incidentally, prices here in Japan of this particular camera have recently shot up for some reason, so I don't expect to buy another example any time soon.</p>

Since you seem to have a bee in your bonnet, I will amend my page to state that not all Konica Auto S2 cameras have a built in hood.

Correction. I called my Voigtlander a Vitessa when it's actually a Vitomatic II. Vitessa, while a nice camera costs far more for not much more, and with regard to the VF, far less (very squinty). Vitomatics really havn't been discovered, yet, and don't let the name fool you, there's nothing automatic about it.

Hi Jack.

 

An earlier post made reference to a Kodak Signet 35. I've had one now for about 30+ years (I got it at a neighbour's yard sale for $4.00). I never realized how good it was until I read about it a couple of years ago. In fact, until I read the book, I never heard of a "rangefinder." It needed some TLC, but I've shot off a bunch of rolls with it over the past couple of summer vacations. With a Series V Polarizing filter and hood, I've taken some phenomenally sharp shots at the beach. Too bad it only comes with the one lens configuration. The Ektar lens is an American copy of a Zeiss Tessar. Damned good try at it too. They go cheap, and if the rangefinder needs an adjustment, the depth of field scale can be removed, and a 1.27 mm allen key is all you need.

I also have a Fed 5C. You get nice shots with an Industar 61. Also quite sharp and contrasty.

<p>I hadn't been aware that I had a bee (or even Eric the half a bee) in my bonnet; I assumed that you'd want the information in your page to be as accurate as possible and am sorry if my bee (or midge or gnat or whatever) offended you.</p><p>I found the shutter a little noisier than I'd expected, and the feel of the shutter release button a little spongier. When I tried the Hi-Matic later, the shutter release button had the same spongy feel. Is this typical of cameras of this era, do you think?</p>

Nobody seems to have mentioned the Argus C-four. I think it belongs on the list. Coated Cintar lens, a reasonable range of speeds, ergonomically friendly, and quite robust. It even has a real hot shoe. I've seen a few of them out there at very low prices. I got mine for a buck.

 

I second Rick Oleson's recommendation of the Mercury II, also. It's unique.

I'd like to second Marcus' praise of the Voigtlander Vitomatic. I bought a Vitomatic IIA new back in 1958 when I was 15, and I used it extensively until I bought my first Leica M when I was 27 or 28. The Vitomatic had a superb f2.8 Color-Scopar lens (a Tessar clone), that was sharp at all apertures, even wide open, and had one of the biggest, clearest viewfinders I've ever seen. The body was bombproof, with fine, thick chrome that kept its good looks through really hard use. Looking back, I don't think I've ever owned a better 35mm camera than that Vitomatic: it was really all I ever needed in a 35mm.

If "spongy" refers to the long amount of travel in the shutter release, then yes this is common.

 

The long amount of travel in the shutter release is due to the mechanically engagement of a trap needle mechanism that sets the aperture in the AE mode. At the half-way point it locks the AE exposure to allow the photog to recompose the shot.

 

If the entire shutter mechanism is housed in the lens barrel, as it is on my Olympus 35SP, then shutter is noisier. Newer designs, which are more compact by the way, have most of their shutter mechanism housed in the body and are quieter.

<P>I have a Yashica Minister that I bought used in 1972 and have been using on and off ever since. In the right conditions, the Yashinon lens holds its own with most 35mm rangefinder lenses. I would say it's a sleeper in the sense that it's never been a fashionable or collectable camera.</P><P>My Kiev 4 with the Jupiter 50mm also does pretty well, but that's fairly well known as a performer.</P><P>Best bang for the buck was probably an old Franka Super Frankarette with the Schneider Xenon lens. I posted some pictures here from it a while back.</P><P>I agree these cameras are fun, but I don't really have any favorites: actually they are all pretty good.</P>

Retina IIc/C or IIIc/C? Or have I missed something?

Thank's for the reply, Andrew. Yes, it makes perfect sense now.

Going out this afternoon with a Retina II.

Speed Graphics (2x3 or 4x5), Moskva 2 or 5. You can't beat large negatives for the "wow" factor. There's also the "wow" factor of picking up a 4x5 for the 1st time :)

 

As for hoodless Konica S2's, perhaps someone just unscrewed it and never/forgot to put it back. Did anyone get a hoodless S2 with a properly fitted Konica lenscap?

Having bought a brand new in-the-box S2 in 1966, I am sure that they were always sold with a lens hood. I own a total of four. Two of the three I bought on **ay did not come with a hood. I think that is a mistaken DIY effort. The Voigtlander Vitomatics are pretty nice, but they rely on a selenium meter vice the CdS of the Konica. The Retina's are also nice but also have selenium meters (of those that have meters) and a squinty VF/RF. I don't think the Canonet's are in the same league as the Konica Auto S2's. The only advantage the Leica screwmounts have over the Konica Auto S2's are smaller size and probably better lenses, but not by nuch.

<p><em>Two of the three I bought on **ay did not come with a hood. I think that is a mistaken DIY effort.</em></p><p>I've never examined an Auto S2 so don't know: if it does have the hood, how is this removable? (Does it simply unscrew?)</p><p><em>I don't think the Canonet's are in the same league as the Konica Auto S2's. The only advantage the Leica screwmounts have over the Konica Auto S2's are smaller size and probably better lenses, but not by nuch.</em></p><p>Well . . . a choice of focal lengths?</p><p>One of the ways that the Auto S2 is better is in showing the right angle of view as it changes with distance. The big Fuji RF cameras did this too. Did/does any other RF camera manage this?</p>

Another difference between the Konica S2 and the Leica is price. Please, don't ask me how I know this. :^)