In search of a compact rangefinder

[brian_m.1]

<p>A short while a go I bought my first rangefinder, a Yashica Electro 35. A solid camera but frankly I was taken aback by its size and weight. It is 5 1/2in wide. They don't look that big in pictures. Then I read good things about the Minolta Hi-Matic here. They look real compact in pictures again until I checked the specs. They too are over 5 in wide(correct me if I am wrong). Are there quality but smaller rangefinders out there?</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>Depending on what you want ... multiple options.<br>

In my limited collection I have -<br>

Olympus Trip 35 (silly simple tho) and the Canonet Q17 as my smallest.<br>

Good info here -<br>

<a href="http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?index-body.html.html~mainFrame">http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?index-body.html.html~mainFrame</a><br>

<a href="http://www.mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/">http://www.mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/</a><br>

<a href="http://www.yashica-guy.com/">http://www.yashica-guy.com/</a><br>

And there are many pricey models I'll let others mention.<br>

Jim</p>

[riffeym]

<p>I have the Minolta hi-Matic F, the Konica C35 and the endearing Konica Auto S-3. None of them are over 4 & 1/4" wide and lightweight.</p>

<p>All of them give great pictures.</p>

[richard_oleson]

<p>The later/smaller Canonets are among the more common, but there were Olympus, Minolta, Konica, and Ricoh rangefinders that were good quality and quite compact. I agree, personally the Yashicas are way too large for my taste.</p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>Always thought Hi-Matics are all the same size. Is the F smaller?</p>

[riffeym]

<p>The Hi-Matic F is 4 & 3/8" (I made a mistake earlier) wide by 2 & 7/8" tall by 1 & 1/4" wide and weighs about 13 ounces.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_medin]

<p>The compact rangefinders were made in the '70s mostly, and you should be able to find one from that era. Warning, a lot of electronics in later ones, so make sure you get one that's known to work. Consider the Olympus RC/RD line, too. Small cameras. The desired ones, like the Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII and Konica Auto S3, are a little pricey for me. My small carry-around is a Minoltina AL-s I've had for a long time, which is about the size of a Canonet QL17 (I have one of those, too, but it's a real beater), it's some years older and has a selenium meter. Still works great, though.</p>

<p>P.S. The old Hi-Matics (7, 7s, 9, 11) are big, but I had a 9 and liked it a lot until it needed fixing.</p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>There are a few F models for sale. Some of the descriptions are funny. Like the camera has been in storage for the past 20 years but it worked at the time it was last stored! Of course, he is selling an estate auction.</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>Yes, I understand about the Yashica. I had one once (a Lynx), but it was big enough that I always felt that I might as well just bring out the Nikon F3 and get more versatility with my arsenal of lenses.</p>

<p>I'm now partial to a Zeiss Contessa. It's very tiny, as it folds up. Yet, it contains a coupled rangefinder and a built in selenium meter. Mine is currently awaiting servicing by Henry Scherer (needs a new selenium cell and general CLA), but from what I've tested of it, it's lens is quite sharp, and the exposures are accurate enough for Kodachrome. Being a product of West Germany from the 1950s, it is all metal and glass. Though diminutive, it is not flyweight.</p>

<p>Cameraquest has a writeup on it here: http://www.cameraquest.com/contessa.htm</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>See if you can find a Minoltina S...just about the nicest little rangefinder I know, far better built than many of the later lightweights. I actually prefer a bigger camera, but this is a gem. See my 2008 post:<br>

http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Rdiv</p>

 

[john_robison3]

<p>A sleeper among small RF cameras is the Ricoh 500 G. They often go for 1/2 of what an Olympus RC sell for and have about the same feature set. I've never owned one but those who do have reported good results. I think you could fetch one for less than $50.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>The Minoltina AL-S (the American version of Rick's Minoltina S) is a pretty cool and elegant little RF. It has a maximum aperture of f/1.8 and a top shutter speed of 1/500s, all wrapped up in a very compact body. Another rarer but also very neat RF is the Fujica Compact Deluxe with an AE mode as well as full manual. It's unique in having a bottom-mounted film advance, a thumb-wheel to adjust focus, and an aperture range of f/1.8 to f/22. Then there are the more well known cameras from Canon and Olympus, the Canonets and the 35RC and 35RD, all excellent choices. And as John mentioned, the Ricoh 500G is a very nice camera as well with great performance at a much lower price than the Olympus 35RC.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> If compact-ness is a big consideration, check out the Olympus XAs. Galen Rowell and Manuel Alvarez Bravo used them.</p>

[SCL]

<p>It sounds to me like you are actually looking for a point & shoot utilizing electronic focus and a viewfinder. A true manual rangefinder camera needs a reasonable base length to align the images in focusing - the greater the distance, the more accurate the focusing capability. An alternative would be something like the old Agfa Stilettes which merely have a viewfinder (not a rangefinder) and you guess or zone focus.</p>

[alex macphee]

<p>I can second, third, and fourth the Oly 35RC. It really is as good as its reputation.</p>

<p>I also have the Ricoh 500G (mine's the GX but the extra feature is just a multiple exposure facility), and although it looks bigger than the 35RC, the difference is only a millimetre or so. It is very similar in features, though it has an extra slow speed over the 35RC. The Oly runs from 15-500, and the Ricoh runs from 8-500. The Oly has both speed and aperture in the viewfinder, along the top and bottom edges, the Ricoh just aperture, down the right hand edge. Both are good, and if pushed for an opinion optically, I'd give the Oly the edge. The Oly also has a feature called 'Flashmatic', where you set the GN of your flash on the lens barrel, and thereafter, as you focus, the aperture changes automatically to give the correct flash exposure for the focussing distance. Both cameras require a 'naughty' cell, but only for the meter, and you can find acceptable substitutes or just use an external meter or Sunny 16.</p>

[donnie_strickland]

<p>Ricoh 500G (Sears 35RF)</p>

<p>Olympus 35ECR</p>

<p>Fujica GER</p>

<p>The last two are full-program, the 500G is shutter-priority or full-manual. All are f/2.8. These are the smallest I know of.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

The Yashica Electro MG-1 is somewhat smaller than the G series and has a f2.8 lens but still a solidly built camera.

[Andy Collins]

<p>I second the MG-1...even though it's 'just' a 2.8, it's a phenomenal lens!</p>

[alex macphee]

<p>I third the MG-1.</p>

<p>(I have far too many cameras.)</p>

[minhnguyen9113]

<p>Yashica 35 GX and 35 CC are small but rare than the GSN</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>Olympus 35 RC, Sears 35RF, Vivitar 35EE, Olympus XA, and of course, the Half-frame Olympus Pen D are small RF cameras.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Small correction; the Pen D is a scale focusing viewfinder camera, it does not have a rangefinder. People tend to call any camera that uses a viewfinder to frame the picture a rangefinder camera however on some of them such as the Pen D, Rollei 35, and Olympus Trip 35 you focus by estimating the distance to the subject and setting that on the focusing ring. With a superimposed image RF camera you focus by bringing the bright primary image and a fainter secondary image into coincidence so that they form one image. If alignment is correct and the mechanism is operating correctly it is a faster and more accurate way to focus. Estimating the distance can become a problem at short distances and larger apertures resulting in out of focus pictures.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>All of the above. I've got a Rollei 35 and a Canonet 28. Wonderful little cameras. As numerous posts here have shown, the era that saw "serious amateurs" going to SLRs, also saw the last gasp of rangefinder/viewfinder technology, with cameras that can produce astonishing and wonderful images.</p>

<p> </p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>It depends on what you are looking for. Do you want them to be fully automatic (except of course for focus) or do you want some manual control? There are a number of nice 70's fixed lens RF cameras to choose from and the link to cameraquest.com is good if you want to see what is available although he does leave out a few that are worth considering as well.</p>

<p>I have a number both large and small RF cameras and if I had to pick my favorite small one it would be the Olympus RC or the Konica Auto S3 with the Konica C35 not far behind.</p>

<p>Something to consider is that the smaller RF cameras are more expensive than the larger ones. For instance a Minolta 7sII can fetch nearly $200 on auction in good shape. In comparison, I just bought a pristine Minota Hi-Matic 9 (large bodied but has full manual and a terrific 45mm/1.7 Rokkor lens for $18. Also I find that the viewfinders in the larger bodied cameras are nicer and the controls easier to work with but that is just a personal preference.</p>

<p> </p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>I almost forgot...the Vivitar 35ES is a cool little camera. Shutter priority and a super sharp 40mm/1.7 lens. It's basically the same cameras as the Konica Auto S3 and the Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII but doesn't command the premium prices of the other two.</p>