Classic rangefinders

Hi,

 

This evening I saw a post containing pictures made with an Argus C33.

The pictures were simply stunning. The post has been removed for some

reason.

 

So, my question is: what classic rangefinder do you know of that can

produce wow pictures. (Please dont give me the "people take pictures,

not cameras" thing)

 

I'm looking for cameras others than the well knowns Leica, Minolta CL,

Ricoh, Rollei. There must be some sleepers out there that might be fun

to discover.

Get a Ciro 35.

 

An American made 1950's contemporary to the Argus but much more compact and even more difficult to use. Usually comes with a good Wollensak lens and shutter. No lever wind, double exposure prevention, light meter, auto shutter wind, or other useless frills so it's up to you. Don't pay over $10 except for the rare black model which is really cute and goes for maybe $15 or $20.

Michael, I have a Ciro 35 that I have never used. It has the Wollensak lens. I have to admit it is probably one of the homeliest (read ugly) cameras that I own. The rangefinder windows are dinky, the finish on it reminds me of a cross between corrosion and junky paint, I probably would only shoot with it just because I feel sorry for it! Now you are telling me that I should actually use it?

Just what I need is more stress in my life, thanks alot!

ok really, I am curious, does it stand a chance to take nice pics?

mark

About any of the Canon LTM rangefinders, especially the P or Nicca, also sold under the Sears Tower brand. Only trouble is they are are sought after and fairly pricy (unless compared to Leica prices).

You are living under a sad illususion if you think the 'secret' to getting great photos is some special camera. There is no guarantee that just because someone takes a great photo with a particular camera and lens, that you will be able to emulate it. Its just as likely that you might do it with a completely different camera and lens or even more likely not at all. Every photographer is different, every camera is different, every lens is different. Even the light is never the same from day to day.

I assume you meant the post by Evgeny. It has not been removed.

Has anyone ever shot a roll through a Bolsey B2 ??? This is an American made, 1950's, little 35mm RF camera w/ Wollensak 44mm 3.2 lens?? Just wondered what they are like and how the pic's are.

I don't know if I'd call it a "WOW" or not, but the Universal Mercury II does a very impressive job for a half frame camera with an f/2.7 triplet for a lens. I think Evgeny posted some pictures from that one too.

 

The C33's lens is also a simple triplet. Obviously, these lenses are not to be discounted, a well made one is capable of excellent work.

 

Another very impressive camera with a triplet lens (sorry, not a rangefinder) is the Ciro-Flex TLR that can be had routinely for $30 or less. Surely the best entree into medium format that can be found, on a results-per-dollar basis.

Everett,

 

You're right, the post is still there and can be seen at the following url.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DVwZ

 

And David, photos like these I can make any days with with modern photo gear. I just thought it'd be fun to do it with old rangefinders cameras, as some of them had exceptionnal lens.

 

So, my question still stand. So what old rangefinders that you know of besides the one I listed in the original post, that had exceptional imaging quality ?

You might check out some of the Petri rangefinders. Some say the Petri Color 35 was Petri's answer to the Rollei 35.

I doubt if you meant medium format rangefinders, but I recently bought an Agfa Super Isolette and what little time I have spent with it has been a blast. It wasn't cheap, but there is a lot to be said for a folding rangefinder just slightly larger than a 35mm. Check out www.certo6.com.......

Braun Paxette. Mine is a scale focus instead of a rangefinder, but I think there were some versions with a rangefinder. Shutter speeds are limited to 1/25th to 1/200th, but the 45mm lens is pretty decent. If you think about it, the first Leicas on the market were scale focus, fixed lens cameras which only had speeds from about 1/25th to 1/500th.

I'm partial to the Minolta Hi-Matics and Canon Canonets, but they're not "sleepers". The higher end models will work in full manual mode if/when the meter dies. Nice lenses, reasonably cheap. Anything pre-1970 will probably need some servicing, so allow for that in your budget.

 

A cheap, fun option is the Hi-Matic G, with zone focusing instead of a rangefinder. So small it's pocketable and under $20 in near mint condition from The Big Auction Site. No manual controls, though. When the circuitry dies it becomes a display unit.

My recommendations would be Konica Auto S2, Yashica Lynx, Yashica Electro G35. Not a rangefinder but suprisingly good results from a Kodak Pony, see this thread from April 2005:

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BrPh">thread</a>

<p><p>

my Konica Auto S2 page with a link to some samples:<p>

http://www.wjgibson.ca/KonicaAutoS2.htm

WJ Gibson's list is a good starting point, but I'd add the Canonet QL17 GIII, Olympus 35RC, RD, and SP, to the list, with the best choices being the Konica Auto S2 for lens quality, viewfinder quality, and flexibility, and the Canonet QL12 GIII and the Olympus 35RD for the best cross between quality and small size.

Oops, QL17 GIII, not QL12

Olympus 35RC. I don't know about 'wow' but its a pretty good lens and the camera is a neat pocket package with a nice big viewfinder.

Quite solid but pleasant to use. Some of the Canon QL probably have a better lens, but in a slightly bigger lump.

<p>Most of the better 35mm range finders fitted with "coupled range finders" and "leaf shutters" should be capable of taking wow photos. The reason is they usually also were fitted with what are considered a very good quality optic even by today's standards.</p>

 

<p>Before the Japanese manufacturers dominated the 35mm range finder market, there were some very well made German folders that were fitted with surprisingly good optics. Most were produced in the 1950's. The Kodak Retinas, along with the Voigtlander Vitessa and Vito III are three that come to mind. Some of the Retinas and the premium priced Voigtlander Prominent featured interchangeable lenses.</p>

 

<p>The lesser regarded Agfa Super Solinette and its Ansco Super Regent twin are stunningly good performers in this category. The Ansco Super Regent is a sleeper, as you call it.</p>

 

<p>I'm getting long winded here: Most of the 35mm rangefinder cameras that you'll find mentioned are from the 1960's and beyond. While these lenses are fixed and therefore are non-folders, they are much more convenient to use, as most offer an automatic exposure mode. Again, most post 1960 range finders were manufactured in Japan. I have an introductory web page regarding some of the better ones @ <a href="http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~yue/misc/rangfndr.html" target=_blank> http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~yue/misc/rangfndr.html</a></p>

 

<p>The best compendium regarding 35mm range finders comes courtesy of Steven Gandy @ <a href>"http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm" target=_blank> http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm</a></p>

 

<p>On a final note, many if not most vintage 35 range finder cameras will need to be serviced before being used. Getting the camera properly serviced can be a source of pride or frustration depending on the users mind set.</p>

Again, Steven Gandy's web site <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm" target=_blank>http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm</a> .

The Argus cameras got a bad rap when they were primarily a vehicle for the original ASA 10 Kodachrome. Their lenses are indeed challenged when used wide open, which could easily be essential with that film. They also vignette wide open, which is strongly exaggerated by the very high contrast of Kodachrome.

 

With fantastic ISO 400 films available, the Argus cameras can take very crisp photos indeed, just stop them down enough.

 

My mother took great Kodachrome-II's of me with an Aires Viscount. It has a very nice bright-line rangefinder, of a very clever design used only by Aires. The 45mm f:1.9 lens is quite respectable, very sharp stopped down, although it gets somewhat soft wide open. The shutter cocking mechanism is fragile, however. Meterless, of course.

By "sleeper" I suspect you mean good, "Cheap" rangfinders-

 

so, a short list-

 

Kodak Signet 35- razor sharp Ektar 44mm lens,rangefinder is not "that" bad,once you clean the windows-paid $5.00 + ship on the bay.

 

Argus C3- had a half dozen of these,gave three away to Art students-

they vary alot.I have one that is unbeliebably sharp considering.rangefinder leaves alot to be desired.Paid $3.00-$5.00 in various local "junk" stores.

 

Fed IIIB- Industar 61 and Jupiter 12.This is as good as anything I've shot.Excellent bright contrasty rangefinder.Paid $30.00+ship on ebay -in mint condition with case.Paid $12.oo + ship for the J12.

 

Tower 18B(Mamiya) Kominar I:2 48MM- meter is off ,but other than that an excellent all around rangefinder. paid $8.00 + ship on ebay

 

Yashica electro 35-bought new a long time ago for alot of money- .I mostly shot chromes in the 60's-70's gotta be seen to be believed- can be had on ebay in the $20.00-$30.00 range.

 

I said I'd keep it short

I own three Canon QL-17 GIII's, and I have found them to be disappointing, although I am a big fan of the Canon FD SLR systems. I highly recommend the Konica Auto S2, as others have done here. Large viewfinder/rangefinder, superb lens, accurate metering. A little on the large and clunky side, but pretty good looking and very convenient to load and operate. Its photo quality stands up to virtually any 35 mm camera, certainly any with a fixed lens. I consider it to be the very best bargain around at the typical price of US $35-80. And it comes with a built-in lens shade. When the battery is working (unfortunately uses lead battery) and used in auto mode (shutter priority), you cannot take a photo with the lens cap on. Without a battery, the camera is fully operable in manual mode, except for metering. The meter is in the lens barrel, so while not TTL, the meter does compensate for filters. I have read that the lens design was based on the Leitz summicron. As for longevity, the one I bought in Vietnam in 1966 for $35 brand new is still working great.

Many good response here, esp. some of the higher-end 1960s/70s Japanese rangefinders have great lenses (various Yashicas, Minoltas, Konicas, etc.).

 

One camera(-system) that has not been mentioned yet: the Kiev 4 (and it's variations), with Jupiter-8, -9 and -12 lenses are capable of great results.

 

And lots of older medium format folders and TLRs, esp. thoe with Tessar-type lenses, like the Iskra, and the various Flexarets, YashicaMats, etc.

 

Roman

Vokars are not bad. The Kowa made Graflex Century 35 has a slow but sharp as a needle lens. The Aires III-L is also fine. And the Aires will focus as close as 18 inches, which is very rare.

 

Jon

<p>WJG [with the link freshly linked, as it were]:</p><p><em>my Konica Auto S2 page with a link to some samples:<br><a href="http://www.wjgibson.ca/KonicaAutoS2.htm">http://www.wjgibson.ca/KonicaAutoS2.htm</a></em></p><p>That's an informative page but [cough] when you mentioned this page somewhere on <a href="http://nelsonfoto.com/phpBB2/index.php">nelsonfoto.com</a> (a fine place for comments on older cameras, by the way), I pointed out that your statement "Built in hood can be pulled out for use, pushed back for more compact carrying" is only true of some (many examples): the huge majority of examples here in Japan have no built-in hood and no indication that any built-in hood has been removed.</p><p>Not that it matters much, but people shouldn't order one of these cameras with the expectation that it will come with a hood.</p><p>Back to the question. I think any classic rangefinder -- and for that matter any non-classic rangefinder, classic non-rangefinder, etc. -- can "produce wow pictures", for precisely the reason that Jack Paradise doesn't want to hear. If you're talking about image quality, then yes, late Japanese rangefinders tend to provide good bang for the zloty. Note that Stephen Gandy's page, linked to and praised above, is about <em>compact</em> rangefinder cameras: compactness is generally a virtue, of course, but it came more or less together with electrification (and dependence on mercury batteries). His page says nothing about the Auto S2 and similar.</p><p>My favorite <em>name</em> for a Japanese rangefinder camera -- or indeed for any camera -- is the <strong>Lord Martian</strong> (I have the hood for one, now all I need is the camera into which to screw it).</p>