Which compact 35mm to get?

<p>Digital cameras are like crack.</p>

<p>Not just because they threaten to destroy the fabric of our society, which they do. But because when you've got them, you just can't stop using them. I carry a digital P&S around to use as a light meter for my classics. It's not much larger or heavier than a handheld light meter, and it has the "advantage" that it can take pictures. And so, against my better judgment, I <em>do</em> take pictures with it. And am sorely disappointed with the results. </p>

<p>And so I'd like to replace it with a film camera. Bear in mind that its primary function will be to meter light for my classics. Therefore, it must be: (1) small and light -- stuff like my Konica Auto S2, which otherwise would be a good choice, are too big; (2) equipped with an accurate meter (no selenium cells) that provides readouts clear enough to transfer reliably to another, manual camera. It should also (3) have good enough glass to take nice pictures with. Nice, but not strictly necessary, criteria are that it might (4) have a manual mode and (5) a slightly wide lens. In the interest of #1, rangefinding is not needed; zone focus is fine.</p>

<p>In the 70s, the Japanese issued a slew of 35mm compacts that fit most of the above criteria, as follow-ons to largish rangefinders like the Auto S2. Examples would be the Yashica 35MF and the Minolta Hi-Matic SD. Most of them had 38mm f2.8 lenses of good quality. The problem is that the light meter readouts on these cameras, which generally were auto-only, were vague. Generally a needle pointing to a single linear scale on which both apertures and shutter speeds were arrayed, giving you at best a rough approximation of what combination the camera actually was using. If anyone knows of a camera in this class with a more precise light meter readout, it might be just the ticket.</p>

<p>Any suggestions?</p>

 

<p>Rollei 35? It meets all of the criteria (except for light).</p>

 

<p>I like to carry a Pentax MX with a small prime lens. The MX has a GPD cell in its metering circuit, which have held up well over time. The "pancake" 40mm is ridiculously tiny, but on the pricey side ($150-ish). There is a slew of 50mm lenses available, in speeds ranging from 1.2 to 2.0, not to mention a few 35mm and 28mm options. A 50/2 in good condition should be no more than $50.<br>

It's not a rangefinder, but it's small and supremely rugged with shutter speed display in the finder.</p>

<p>Forgot to mention the MX viewfinder also displays the aperture. Nice!</p>

<p>August this would be pretty easy if it were me, two contenders, Olympus 35 RC or the Minolta Hi-Matic 7S II. The olympus is smaller has an excellent lens, but it slower than the 40mm 1.7 of the Hi-Matic 7SII.<br>

The meter would most likely be working in both of them.</p>

<p>Interestingly, I was going to also suggest the 35RC. I've found that its meter is pretty accurate, and you can see the aperture setting as well as the shutter speed. I'll bet though that you'll find yourself using the camera for more than just a meter because you'll find just what a superb little camera it is, and just how much fun it is to use. It's easily as addictive as your digital p&s, but in a better 'film sort of way'.</p>

<p>I vote for the Canonet QL17 40mm just a bit wide, bright and fast lens, accurate light meter with a needle and range from 1.7 to 16, has manual mode etc... and too many other things you need or don't need, small and light enough to fit in 5 criterias you request + rangefinder focusing with parallax compensate. If you need to try it out I loan you one :-)</p>

<p>I have ten film camera and one DSLR. I love to keep my Olympus PEN-D with me.</p>

<p>August, just out of curiosity, since you will be using this camera mainly for a light meter for your other manual film cameras, why don't you just get a small Gossen or similar meter that you can slip into your pocket or hang around your neck. It would be lighter and probably faster and easier to use than metering through another camera.</p>

<p>The Olympus 35RC is about the same size as a Konica C35, but with shutter priority and manual exposure. Only downside is the filter size (43.5mm) is a bit odd, but there are adapters to convert it. I have the 43.5-46 adapter so I can use my C35 filters with it. The lens is 42mm which is slightly wider than normal. If you don't mind the extra weight and lack of rangefinder the Rollei 35's are a good choice. Finally, I think there is a Ricoh model that is about the same size as the C35 that allows manual settings, but I cannot recall the model. The Canonet GIII 17 and Konica Auto S3 are a little thicker than the Olympus, but you do gain 1.7 and 1.8 lenses respectively. Both are shutter priority with the Canonet offering full manual and the S3 offering limited manual. IMHO, though, the S3 is way overpriced on the used market. Also don't overlook the Minolta Hi-Matic 7SII, even though they tend to be a bit pricey too.</p>

<p>The Olympus 35RC is about the same size as a Konica C35, but with shutter priority and manual exposure. Only downside is the filter size (43.5mm) is a bit odd, but there are adapters to convert it. I have the 43.5-46 adapter so I can use my C35 filters with it. The lens is 42mm which is slightly wider than normal. If you don't mind the extra weight and lack of rangefinder the Rollei 35's are a good choice. Finally, I think there is a Ricoh model that is about the same size as the C35 that allows manual settings, but I cannot recall the model. The Canonet GIII 17 and Konica Auto S3 are a little thicker than the Olympus, but you do gain 1.7 and 1.8 lenses respectively. Both are shutter priority with the Canonet offering full manual and the S3 offering limited manual. IMHO, though, the S3 is way overpriced on the used market. Also don't overlook the Minolta Hi-Matic 7SII, even though they tend to be a bit pricey too.</p>

<p>Keep in mind many of the '70s rangefinders specified mercury batteries. Using zinc-air (hearing aid) cells often provides a voltage that's "close enough" for print film, but if you want to use it for precise metering you'll need to convert the camera's meter circuit to compensate for the different voltage, use a converting battery adapter, or find a camera that uses a bridge circuit that's immune to small voltage differences.</p>

<p>I'm with Craig on this one; you already have your classic cameras; why don't you get a good light meter to fit in your poket and you are set. I don't need any P&S whether analog or D&*%$^L thank you very much :-)</p>

<p>> ...Canonet offering full manual...</p>

<p>Yes, but the meter doesn't work in manual mode - only in Tv.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I carry a digital P&S around to use as a light meter for my classics. ... . And so, against my better judgment, I <em>do</em> take pictures with it. And am sorely disappointed with the results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Get a Contax G1 with the 45mm f2 Planar. It's often what I carry around with me. The camera is a bit quirky, but this lens is legendary. It uses two widely available CR123 lithium cells.</p>

<p>I have a 35RC as well, but I can't recommend it for your stated purpose. The problem is that the meter needs needs mercury batteries which are no longer available. Wein cells, alkalines, and CRIS adapters all have their own issues.</p>

<p>Lastly, I'm surprised that you're not happy with digicam results. What don't you like? I have and use a number of classic 135 format cameras. For most purposes, however, a cheap Canon A720IS digicam gets higher quality images.</p>

<p>Thanks guys, great ideas.</p>

<p>Rollei 35, yes that would be perfect, but I'm not inclined to compete with the collectors for one.</p>

<p>The Olympus looks great. The Canonet and Hi-Matic, a bit large but I will look into them. The Konica seems worth looking into as well and Mike, I think the Ricoh 500G is what you had in mind and also worth a look. This gives me some stuff to hunt for.</p>

<p>Craig, good question, and I don't know if my answer is convincing but I don't enjoy using handheld light meters and I like the functionality of being able to take a picture rather than have a single-purpose device that's another lump in my pocket. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have had good results with several C35 MF3, AF3, and EF3 variations and also the Oly Stylus Infinity (although the latter has no ISO or focus manual settings), none use mercury batteries or short life hearing aid batteries. No readouts so not useable as meters.</p>

<p>Why not use your digicam to hone your skills in "Sunny 16." "Sunny 16" doesn't take up any pocket space or cost you anything, and you can fill those pockets with extra rolls of film or whatever else your heart desires. A number of my cameras don't have a meter at all, and some of the others don't have a working meter. I still use them regularly, and I usually get decent results. Print film allows you to be off by a stop.</p>

<p>Rob, I'm pretty good at sunny 16. But I shoot a fair amount of slides, and I'm not always good enough for that. If I stuck to negs it would open up a lot more options, including sunny 16, my handheld Sekonic, or any number of classic 35s that I have with working selenium meters. I'm looking for something for those occasions when I need to nail it.</p>

<p>Robert, I like the way you think! But I'm going to try sticking to cameras that don't cost more than my whole collection of classics.</p>

<p>Based on some of these ideas, I'm sure I'll have a new toy soon.</p>

 

<p>*cough* Ricoh Caplio GX100 (or GX200)? *cough*</p>

<p>I'm with Ralf, an Olympus 35RC is a great camera, I have two of them, and they're cheap and pretty rugged. I also love my little Minolta Hi-matic 7sII, primarily due to its faster maximum aperture. I have a Canonet QL17 III, but it's futsy and bigger than the others, and I've never bonded with it. I've been told that the Konica Auto S3 is the same camera as the little Minolta--if so, that's also a great camera.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Konica C35. Small, nice.</p>

<p>Ricoh GR1, Contax T2, Olympus XA2 or XA</p>

<p>I am second the opinion of the Olympus XA or XA4. They are great. Both are technological marvel of their time.</p>

<p>The Ricoh 500G is a really nice camera with a pretty nice lens as well, but it's just a tiny bit thicker than the 35RC and, to me at least, doesn't have quite the same feeling of quality. While I like mine a lot, I'm not so sure I trust its meter enough to use slide film with it; in fact I count on the wide exposure latitude of print film to forgive me and the 500G for our exposure transgressions. I don't have the same concerns with the RC. The 500G sure is fun to use though.</p>