70's Rangefinder camera choice?

That Sears 35rf is a nice looking compact. Looks like it could be a Ricoh or a Konica.

 

It’s a Ricoh.

G III

If an f2.8 aperture is enough I'd go tor the Olympus 35RC. Had one for years. The Konica Auto S3 has a great lens, but no manual aperture selection. Also, they tend to be pricey. The Canon GIII 17 is also a good option.

My all time favorite, although not compact, is the Konica Auto S2. Bought mine new in 1974 and except for exposure counter not resetting, it still works great.

If an f2.8 aperture is enough I'd go tor the Olympus 35RC. Had one for years. The Konica Auto S3 has a great lens, but no manual aperture selection. Also, they tend to be pricey. The Canon GIII 17 is also a good option.

My all time favorite, although not compact, is the Konica Auto S2. Bought mine new in 1974 and except for exposure counter not resetting, it still works great.

 

Mike

 

What did you think of the lens quality on the Oly RC?

 

Russ

The QL17 without the GIII-badge; which is the same lens (which I feel is very good) with a more moderate pricetag than the GIII-labelled models seem to command. The only difference seems to be a battery-check button. Note there is also an older model with a 45mm f/1.7 lens, no idea how that stacks up.

I've got a QL17 with 40mm f/1.7 without GIII on the front. I much like it. But I've got no experience with the other cameras mentioned.

@russ- I like the Oly RC35, especially at f 5.6 to f 11.

If I were going to have to choose only one rangefinder, it would be the Konica Auto S2, like Mike mentioned. Not compact at all for sure, though. I think this is an amazingly underrated camera! The lens produces some of the sharpest pictures I've ever taken, easily matching some of the later and more expensive AF compact cameras like the Yashica T4 or Stylus Epic, in my experience, and a lot of nice SLR lenses. There are so many excellent rangefinders to choose from and so many that I love to use (from the Canon 7 to the Yashica Lynx 1000), but this is the one camera that I'd choose over the other RFs. I'm always amazed that it doesn't command a much higher price than what it does, because it's certainly worth it!

I'm with Andy; I have a fair collection of rangefinders, though I prefer SLR's for general use, and the Konica Auto SII would be my go-to rangefinder camera, mainly because of the extraordinary Hexanon lens, which is out on it's own for a camera of this class. When released, this little 48mm Hexanon f/2 received rave reviews, one source deeming it to be "one of five of the best lenses ever made by anyone, anywhere, anytime." Possibly a little debatable, but it's certainly up there in the top rank. Here's a pic of the camera.

 

Konica Auto SII

 

To make a Konica Auto S2 look compact set it side by side with a Yashica Lynx 14E.

My apologies, I mis-read Andy's post, coming to the conclusion that we were talking about the Konica SII rather than the later Konica Auto S2 ! Still, having both cameras, my preference for the SII still stands.

Nice looking Konica SII, Rick. Does the meter still function?

Does the meter still function?

 

Rather surprisingly, yes, and accurately, as a bonus. I have a tidy S, the model that preceded the SII, but sadly the meter on that has given up the ghost. I might load some film into the SII for next weekend's postings.

I look forward to seeing those images, Rick. As Konica stated in their ad copy: "The lens alone is worth the price." Having owned a Konica Auto S, Auto S2, Auto S1.6, and Auto S3 I agree with that claim.

That's a good-looking Konica, Rick! I've never had the opportunity to use that particular model.

I think you'd enjoy it, Andy. I've posted a few pics from the camera in the Film Camera Week for March 16 thread.

You guys have got me curious, so I did a little looking and came across this pretty negative comment in a review on japancamerahunter.com. "...the lens feels very wobbly. With everything supported by the focus ring and all the controls interrupting what could’ve been a solid construction this camera doesn’t feel like the solid machine I’d like."

 

Do you agree with that, or did that reviewer just have a bad example?

"...the lens feels very wobbly. With everything supported by the focus ring and all the controls interrupting what could’ve been a solid construction this camera doesn’t feel like the solid machine I’d like."

 

I assume we're talking about the Konica SII? I think he probably had a bad/worn example. There is a little movement in my copy, but I gave half a dozen similar Japanese rangefinders the wobble test and none of them are rock-solid. With all those rings and linkages I guess some play might be expected.

Well, this thread has had a couple of lives and the OP probably has long since made their choice but WTH.

 

I've owned two of the three cameras, a Canon QL III and the Oly 35RC

 

Lenses

The fans of both cameras brag on the lenses. Maybe there's a real difference in IQ, maybe not. The QL III lens is faster at 1.7 vs the 2.8 of the RC. What I can say was that I was very happy with the pictures I got from the Canon. I just got the RC this past weekend and am still on the first roll of film.

 

Features

In terms of features, the RC is better, - maybe. The RC viewfinder is really nice. You see both shutter speed an aperture settings. In addition, it's really bright and clear. The RC also some fancy flash settings that it has that I've never used and won't. The reason I say maybe when it comes to better features is that one feature of the camera is that it won't fire in auto mode if it doesn't think there's enough light. Maybe the Canon was the same way, I don't remember. You can of course do what you like in manual mode but the meter is off at that point and you can't even use it for reference. Again, maybe the Canon was the same way but I don't remember. The "QL" on the Canon stands for quick load, and it is in fact easier to load the film on the Canon. It's not a hugely important feature to me, but it might be to some.

 

Controls

Both speed and aperture are on the lens assembly with the Canon. The RC has a small shutter speed knob on top of the camera. To set the ASA on the canon, you have to depress this little slider with your fingernail. These can get pretty stiff over time but there is an easy way to free them up. The RC uses a ring around the lens itself, - I prefer it. The aperture ring on the Oly is pretty thin, - ergonomically not as nice. Film advance lever and rewind knobs are just like SLRs on the Canon. The RC uses a metal film advance lever on the back of the camera rather than one on top. It works well enough but doesn't look as nice. The RC's rewind knob is small and it doesn't double as a means of opening the film door like it does on many cameras. To open the film door, there's a small slider on the side of the camera. I found the focus and other controls to operate more smoothly on the RC but with cameras this old it's hard to know if that's because one camera is designed better than the other or if one just happened to age better.

 

Size

A big reason people choose a range finder over an SLR is because they're more compact. This is doubly true for the RC. It is a small camera. Where the Canon fits OK in a jacket pocket, it sort of just barely does and you're definitely aware of its presence. The RC is still a healthy chunk of metal but I find it more pocketable.

 

Aesthetics

This is the other edge of the double edged sword. Olympus is known for making small cameras and part of how they were able to accomplish that with this camera came at the cost of aesthetics. The shutter speed and rewind knobs are small and look kind of cheap. They aren't but look that way. Same with the advance lever. Overall it's pretty boxy looking and the lens looks smaller than it should relative to the body of the camera. All subjective of course, but that's my take on it.

 

Build Quality

The build quality on both is great. No wobbly lenses. ;-)

 

What about the Olympus RD?

This is the one I haven't owned but I think of the 3 it's the one I'd like the most. With film cameras I just don't want to bother with a flash so a fast lens is important. If it weren't for the 2.8 lens vs the 1.8, I'd like the RC better than the Canon. I still like it a lot but probably won't keep it. Due to dumb luck I got the Canon for $10 and the RC for free. I sold the Canon and probably will sell the RC too. Assuming the RD is just an RC with a faster and slightly bigger lens, I think that would be the one for me.

Another camera to consider is the Oly 35SP. Spot metering, full AE, and a real film advance lever. ;-)

 

They definitely command a higher price though.

The RD is a beautiful camera, but they are notorious for sticky shutter/blades. I've owned 3 and all ended up having that problem. The DC is an "automatic" version of the RD and doesn't seem to have the same shutter issue. Aside from being automatic, it's the same camera with the same body and lens. Definitely one to try!

I assume we're talking about the Konica SII? I think he probably had a bad/worn example. There is a little movement in my copy, but I gave half a dozen similar Japanese rangefinders the wobble test and none of them are rock-solid. With all those rings and linkages I guess some play might be expected.

Yes, sorry, I was referring to the Konica SII. I guess I'll soon be able to judge for myself because, while doing the research I mentioned, I found one on eBay for cheap money, so I bought it.

 

I'm actually amassing a fair collection of rangefinders, these days, along with a couple of zone focusing models. I wonder what life is like for people who are not compelled to collect things.

What about the Olympus RD?

This is the one I haven't owned but I think of the 3 it's the one I'd like the most.

What are the other two?

I assume the original poster has long since bought a camera but FWIW I have owned all three of his options (via eBay). The RC felty too small in my hands to be comfortable and all other two were dogs. But my main objection to them is their use of button batteries. I have had good luck with several Konica C35 variants and the Nikon L35AF all of which use AA or AAA batteries, available almost anywhere. IMHO

In the 60s and 70s, the switch to SLR cameras was well underway. Ironically this happened when the 35mm RF and viewfinder consumer cameras were at a kind of peak.

The good ones were meant to be used with slide film, and this meant that they were much more capable than the cameras used for color prints.

 

I still like my Rollei 35 (viewfinder, not RF) the best, but the Canonet line are also very nice. I've accumulated a bunch of others (Ricoh, Yashica, etc.). You can hardly go seriously wrong with any of them.

What are the other two?

 

I've had a Canonet QL 1.7 GIII and I currently have an Olympus 35RC

 

I assume the original poster has long since bought a camera but FWIW I have owned all three of his options (via eBay). The RC felty too small in my hands to be comfortable and all other two were dogs. But my main objection to them is their use of button batteries. I have had good luck with several Konica C35 variants and the Nikon L35AF all of which use AA or AAA batteries, available almost anywhere. IMHO

 

Mercury cells are a problem but fortunately there are good solutions. For example for $26 or so you can get an adaptor that will allow you to use modern silver oxide batteries at a stepped down voltage. The plus side of cameras that use these batteries is that they're typically smaller and lighter. Not important to everyone but for me a big advantage of a Rangefinder is its relative compactness relative to an SLR.

 

All the batteries are usually doing in these cameras is running the meter and maybe setting an aperture. They don't fire the shutter. In other words, unless you're using Zinc-air batteries, they should last a long time.