Jump to content

Compact Rangefinder -- which one?


Recommended Posts

Just for size comparison, here's a quick shot of the Canon GIII QL17, Yashica Electro 35GSN, Olympus 35RC, and the Olympus XA. Regardless of opinions, mine included, the bottom line is that each one of these is a great pleasure to use. Even though you're "stuck in the 1960s-1970s era" you might still take a look at some of the cameras David mentioned. The Canon MC is an outstanding camera with a superb lens, and the Pentax PC35AF also takes great pictures and is quite compact with its built-in flash.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another vote here for the Olympus 35RC - I've been using one for about 10 months, and it's edged out all my other cameras and become my default choice for most purposes. Its two main attractions (aside from the small size and pleasing solidity) are the manual shutter/aperture settings (not often found in cameras of that class and size), but more importantly the 5-element Zuiko lens. I'm becoming a bore on the subject of this lens, but it really is superb. Beautiful contrast and sharpness, even at wide apertures. There's none of that "oh, it's fine so long as you stop down to f8" stuff that so often has to be said about cameras of this vintage.

 

Although I will say that Luis' resume of the Konica C35 Auto here has inspired me to finally replace the light seals on the one I got a few weeks ago! Luis, how do you find the C35 as compared to the 35RC and other smallish rangefinders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you opened a tin of worms with this one. Everyone has a favourite rangefinder, and why wouldn't you, they are great cameras for little dollars.

 

Any of the 1970,s Japanese rangefinders are great value and take excellent shots if in good condition. There are thousands of them about so you can be pretty choosy. The oft mentioned Olympus 35RC/Ec or the Spn are great choices as is the Canon QL's and anything from Yashica. If size is no object and you don't care about weight( you must have bulging biceps from toting the Topcon) a good Konica Auto S2 will provide impressive results. For something smaller, the Konica C35 that Luis mentioned is a very capable and underrated beast.

 

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's easy to get hung up on the specs of these cameras when they were new. Now that they're all 30 or 40 years old I think those with 4 element lenses(Canonet 28, Olympus 35 RC, and Konica C35) take better pictures because there are fewer and smaller glass/air surface areas gathering haze, oily film, and dust and they are clearer and more contrasty than those 7 element lenses with lots of cruddy surface area.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There sure isn't much of a consensus here, as I'd expect, but I lean to the Olympus 35RC from the comments I've seen. The RD would be nice with the faster lens, but would be much more expensive. I like the idea of the Voigtlander, but too rare.

 

Tony, the Topcon is a big, heavy camera, but what an instrument it is! After lugging that thing around for 30 years, the first time I pick up a little RF, I'll probably toss it over my shoulder...I'd better get a wrist strap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're like most of us here, you'll likely try the 35RC and then find reasons to try many of the other cameras suggested as well. There are a lot of great cameras mentioned, many of which would meet your needs, but I think you'll really like the 35RC. At present it's the camera I look forward to using the most, mainly because it offers just about everything I need in a camera in a very compact and very well built package. On top of that, the lens is a really very nice performer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After seeing Luis' images I went straight out and found a Konica C35. Fantastic camera and very small. The pictures from it are great.

 

That led me to spend another whopping fifteen bucks on a Canonet 28. Another excellent camera in all respects. Quite bigger and heavier than the Konica C35. The Canonet weighs about as much as my Nikon FE2.

 

Both needed about an hour of work to get running. Each needed light seals and battery socket repair. I managed both jobs on both cameras having never done it before. A no-brainer in either case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Voigtlanders aren't too hard to find on ebay, but then it's hit or miss. The Vito Automatic 1 doesn't have the nice in viewfinder focuses (foci?) that the other ones have, strictly kentucky windage as they say. But if you want a real classic go with an argus c3. Of course these are suggestions that bear in mind that you have some time to setup your composition. But nothing beats the classics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only shot one roll so far in my Olympus 35RC, but I have to agree that it is a really nice camera. The Konica C35 and the suspiciously similar models from Cosina and Minolta are also a lot of fun to use, and those are fully automatic. (But watch out that you don't get the Konica C35V by mistake; it's a perfectly nice little camera but that one is scale focus, not a rangefinder.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have both the Canonet G-III QL-17 and the basic Olympus Stylus Epic (the one with just the 35/2.8 lens, not a zoom) and love both. I consider the Canonet the more serious camera, both because of its manual controls and the more deliberative way of working that they bring. It used to be my snapshot camera when my next smallest camera was a Nikon F2. Now I carry the Olympus for snapshots -- it's literally pocket size and has the convenient built in flash -- and bring out the Canonet for more serious shooting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...