bacsa Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 1: has a great(=good reputation) coated lens of max aperture f/1.4 to f/2<br>2: has metered manual exposure or aperture(or shutter) priority showing the (approx.) shutter speed (resp., aperture value)<br>3: its meter works in low light, i.e. EV4 or lower<br>4: film speed can be set up to at least 800iso, preferably up to iso1600<br>5: the shutter has the slowest speed down to 1s, preferably much slower (see the yashica GSN's 30s as a great example)+Bulb<br>6: the shutter works (at least at one speed, preferably at all) without battery too (no metering, of course)<br>7: it has a self-timer<br>8: it has a tripod socket<br>9: it is reasonably rugged (i.e. it won't be damaged or misaligned by putting it down on the table or shaking it a bit)<br>10: it is smaller than a small slr+50mm lens (i.e., the yashica GSN or minolta Hi-matic 7 is waay too big; something like the canonets' size is great)<br>10+1: it is not too expensive, which is, say 100-150$ in good used condition.<p> Well, any candidates?:) If there's one single condition within conditions 2 to 10 that is not satisfyed by a camera, I could live with that.<p> Thanks and have a great light today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 PS: i'm not restricted to 35mm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 :o) the bessa r does not satisfy the compulsory last condition, not even without a lens. And I certainly will need a lens for it... Oh, and without a lens, it also does not satisfy the first compulsory condition... But thanks, anyway. Probably my question is kinda poetic, or should have been formulated like "how would a seventies rangefinder ideally look like". Really, i wonder why they couldn't pack all these features into one camera, instead of spreading them into 20 different ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_gifford Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 http://cameraquest.com/olysp.htm Be well, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 Hmm, the oly sp comes quite close! Does its shutter work without a battery? Thanks, Jim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_gifford Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 I am not sure, sorry. All I have is a hunch that it will do so. Several are for sale on e*bay and if you're registered (free, no obilgation) as an e*bay member you could ask one of the sellers to give the shutter a try fast/slow with an empty battery compartment, looking through the back... should be a quick test. Be well, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rj Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Csab, Others (me too) found the Konica Auto S3 to be a wonderful light and robust street shooter, covering true infrared photography right through to cross-processed work. It should fulfil your requirements; it has a first class Hexanon f1.8 38mm fixed lens (multi-coated) with shutter priority which can be overridden with a little experience by +/- 4 stops with a pocket torch or focal light source) and an ISO dial from ISO 25-800. This is possible using the exposure lock on the camera. The aperture values show via a matchstick needle and the rangefinder system is bright and contrasty. There is a default shutter speed when the battery fails, and I may be correct in stating that the aperture remains fully open. It is well within your budget (even with a CLA) and is highly durable despite its aluminium chassis is extremely lightweight. Its self-timer is a mechanical one and the tripod bush is standard too. Filter thread is an easy 49mm and the metering cell fits within the filter ring for ease of metering with polarisers and/or colour correction filters. All the other clones of this camera, including a Canon and Olympus type however the characteristics of the Hexanon f1.8 lens is stellar compared to modern Zeiss lenses, for both black and white and infra-red photography. The only mild and minor exception is no.4 (shutter speed is 1/8th second - 1/500th sec + B) and its meter works down to 4.5EV for me, or f1.8 at 1/8th sec. If the Auto S3 is hard to find, the C35 is a reasonable alternative (however program mode only). This has to be one of Konica's best kept modern classics. Thus my enthusiasm for it. Have a good day too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_hay1 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 The Yashica Electro 35 CC is close to this. It has 35 1.8 lens, very unusual. It is much smaller than Electro 35 GT etc. The only condition it does not fulfill is that max film speed is 500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gustavo_friggi Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Canonets have a good reputation, and are so cheap... doesn't meet requirement 5 (slowest shutter is 1/4s - has bulb). The problem is the freakin' 1.3v battery - never found one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in Austin Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Csab, The Olympus 35SP has a fully mechanical shutter, with shutter speeds in normal increments from 1 full second to 1/500th of a second. Its light meter is superb and allows for spot metering in either manual or full auto program. The meter is always on, so this is one of the few Japaneses compact range finders to offer metering in its manual mode. It meters down to EV 3. The optics on the 35SP are superb. It's the main reason I still use mine. With regards to your 6.) requirement for an ultra fast lens, believe me a f/1.7 lens is more than enough The best reason to spring for a 1.2 or 1.4 lens is to brighten the viewfinder on an SLR. The viewfinder on a typical rangefinder camera is already bright. Now for the bad news regarding the 35SP - IT'S BIG. I'd say as large as the Konica Auto S-2 and Hi-Matic 7. My personal pet pieve is if the full program AE mode is used, the camera doesn't give the user any indication as to what aperture and shutter speeds were selected. Next, although the light meter is always on the 35SP, it is an LVS meter which quite similar to a hand-held Gossen. Since, the meter is only coupled to the film speed dial, moving the aperture or shutter dials has no effect on the meter reading. You must use the LVS scale which printed on the lens barrel to set a manual exposure. There is always the Canonet QL-17 GIII, which is definitely smaller than the 35SP, but not quite as small as the Himatic 7SII. The Canonet's shutter speeds go down to 1/4 of a second. Also, the shutter speeds will work just fine, with or without a battery. Like most of the fixed-lens rangefinder candidates, the Canonet becomes meterless camera in its manual mode. Meterless manual modes were the norm and require one to switch back to the A mode to take a light reading. At which point, you need to reset the aperture. Best Regards - Andrew in Austin, TX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in Austin Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Most of the compact rangefinders from the 1970's had their shutter and self-timer gear assemblies fitted within the camera body. In the process, some of the slow shutter speeds were lost. My theory is that the loss of shutter speeds may have been more of a cost saving measure to deliver an affordable shutter preferred AE mode. Generally, you'll be limited to a pre-1970 fixed lens rangefinder, if you want one to go with a full range of mechanical shutter speeds. The downside is that 1960' 35mm rangefinder cameras tended to be rather large and heavy by today's standards. I have an Oly 35RD and use it regularly in a large dimly lit lecture room. It's a compact 35mm rangefinder with a fast lens and shutter speeds that range downward to 1/2 second, but I guarantee that if you do find one, it will definitely need to have its shutter serviced. Best Regards - Andrew in Austin, TX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahlster Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 If it were not for requirement #5 the Canonet G-III QL-17 would fit your spec's perfectly. So you might look into a way to attach a clock work timer to a cable release for long exposures. But as a collector of rangefinders I don't know of anything that would come closer to what you want then a Canonet G-III QL-17. As to the worry about the battery there are a half dozen ways to deal with that from modifing the circuit in the camera to voltage regulators to Zinc Air cells to just buying a merc off ebay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furcafe Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Huh? The best reason to spring for a fast lens is that you need a fast lens, which may have nothing to do w/focusing an SLR . . . --------------------- "The best reason to spring for a 1.2 or 1.4 lens is to brighten the viewfinder on an SLR. The viewfinder on a typical rangefinder camera is already bright." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in Austin Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 I've used a lone street light for illumination with a 1.7 lens. Is a 1.2 or 1.4 lens going to blow the doors off of most of the 1.7 or 1.8 lenses that were fitted to the better fixed-lens rangefinders of this period? Hmmmmmmmmm. Best Regards - Andrew in Austin, TX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furcafe Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 And I've shot in nightclubs where f/1 got me 1/30th sec. w/ISO 1600 film & that was the slowest shutter speed sufficient to reasonably stop subject motion (i.e., f/1.4 or f/2 would have been useless). You have a point about fixed lens RFs & lens quality, but your statement re: fast lenses was too general. There is a difference between f/1.4 & f/1.7 & that difference may be significant to a photographer for reasons that have nothing to do w/focusing an SLR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in Austin Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Don't get me wrong, I do like my fast primes for my SLR, a 1.4 50mm and a 1.8 80mm, mainly because I can see better in low light versus using those ever popular zooms. I guess a 30th of second hand-held, beats an 1/8th of second with both elbows on the table or my fall back positon, which is setting the camera on an upside down pitcher. Best Regards - Andrew in Austin, TX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furcafe Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Agreed. Slow zooms can suck! I wasn't trying to be (too) argumentative, just making the point that fast lenses have their place. Having a tripod, table, or beer pitcher available to steady the camera is great, but sometimes you just need the speed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_chan5 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Everyone else mentioned the easy solutions - how about a cleaned and working Kiev 4am with Helios-103, and a CV meter? :-) The CV meter may put you over the top, but not too bad if you buy it used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 OK, thanks for the great answers. By the way, i wrote f/1.4 to f/2, so i didn't even think about lenses faster than f/1.4... In fact, with slr lenses, the half stop difference will dictate a 200% price increase for the 1.4 version of a 50mm - this does seem unreasonable to me, irrespective to whether you need to brighten a viewfinder or stop low-light subject motion, or maybe both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_gifford Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 <<my fall back positon, which is setting the camera on an upside down pitcher.>> But if you flip the picher upside down, won't all the contents pour out? Oh.... I guess you have to drink what is in the pitcher, and THEN flip it over. But a pitcher is a lot to drink. That must be why this becomes a "fall back position." Be well, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in Austin Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 It gets worse than that, as there is usually two in need of a refill. Best Regards - Andrew in Austin, TX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now