Could a rangefinder camera be what I am looking for?

[chris.platten]

I am looking for a camera with a 'flat' profile that I can tuck into

the chest pocket of a waterproof jacket and use while climbing. I

would take mainly landscapes with a few pictures of other climbers.

When on a roped climb it is nearly impossible to get a camera out of

a rucsac and having one slung round the neck is dangerous for both

camera and climber.

 

I have looked at various threads for 'go anywhere' cameras and these

seem to favour non-zoom compacts. A fixed focal length is not a

problem for me, but the focal lengths offered are too short. Ideally

I am looking for something between 50mm and 85mm.

 

Currently I carry a Canon AE-1 (with 28 f2.8, 50 f1.4 and 100 f2.8

lenses) in my rucsac and a Canon IXUS as the pocket camera. The IXUS

is surprisingly good for 4x6 prints, but panoramic prints or

enlargements are usually dissapointing. This is a known limitation

with APS and I have been accepting this as the price to pay for

having a pocket size camera.

 

I have tried using the AE-1 with a 50 f1.8 (slightly shorter than the

50 f1.4) and this just fits in the pocket, but is difficult to get

back out again. It is not the body that causes the problem, it is the

protruding lens. The combination is 90mm deep. This made me think of

using a rangefinder as an alternative as they appear quite slim. I

would keep the resolution of 35mm film and have a smaller/flatter

profile to fit into my pocket.

 

I know very little about rangefinder cameras, but they appear to have

a dedicated following. I am hoping that if I list my requirements

people will suggest possible makes and models. If my requirements ask

for the impossible, I would apreciate some idea on which are

realistic and which I should just forget.

 

1) The case should be no more then 50mm deep. 40mm would be better.

Weight is less critical, but should be less than 500g

 

2) Focal length between 50mm and 85mm. Lens quality should be

equivalent (or better) than my Canon 50 f1.4 SSC

 

3) Fairly bright maximum aperture (I use Kodachrome 64 or Fuji Sensia

100 most of the time)

 

4) Some form of built in metering that can be used in a similar way

to aperture priority on an SLR. (can you get a spot meter in a

rangefinder???)

 

5) Exposure compensation to allow for snowy scenes when ice-climbing

and to make bracketing exposures easier.

 

6) Be fairly robust. A metal body would be preferable to plastic.

Should also be able to cope with low temperatures and the odd

raindrop.

 

7) Price is also a big issue. I will be using the camera outdoors in

all weathers. It will also be stuffed in a pocket rather than

carefully wrapped up in a backpack. I need to be able to afford to

replace the camera if I break it. This means I am looking at used

equipment at under £150 (that is about $200). I suspect this means

1970's copies of earlier Leica designs.

 

The bottom line is....Will a cheap rangefinder be any advantage in

this situation and if so any suggestions on which one?

[dan_fromm2]

Kodak Retina II. Lacks auto exposure, but not a bad camera to fall on if you have to fall on it. And thinking about what you're doing won't hurt very much.

[keith_van_hulle1]

Something like a Canonet GIII-17 would probably fit most of your reqs but the lens length. Many of the popular/inepxensive RFs had sizes in the 40's. But what you're really describing is one of the more advanced RFs that, definitely as a used item, may be out of your price range. And some of them weren't that small either (depth measure).

[richard_oleson]

I would give the Canonet QL17-GIII a try. Its 40/1.7 lens is quite good, it has autoexposure but also manual meterless control. You're not going to find a camera with a longer-than-50mm lens that forms a package less than 50mm deep, other than the retinas as mentioned above. I replaced a Retina IIa as a user with the Canonet due to its crisper, more contrasty images, quieter operation, built-in meter and better viewfinder... and it's much cheaper to replace and possibly slightly more rugged in the bargain.

 

The only rangefinders with spotmeters that I know of are pretty expensive: Leica CL, M5 and M6, and an Olympus model that may not have been too high when it was new but is a rare collector's item today.

 

rick :)=

[ed_nicholson2]

You may have a conflict between 1 and 2 since it is rather difficult to construct a lens that is between 50 and 85 mm long and yet is under 40 to 50 mm long on the camera, which also has some depth. An interchangeable-lens rangefinder with a short lens comes closest to your description, except for price, of course. This would lead me to suggest a Canon Canonet or small Minolta rangefinder from the '70s. But the camera I would recommend, although it violates a couple of the points you listed, is a Petri Color 35. It is about as small as the Rollei 35 but is a lot easier to use, especially in those situations where you don't have both hands free and/or a steady place to stand. Although it has an under 50mm lens, the photos are generally good enough to be blown up (and trimmed if more distant "closeups" are wanted), depending on the film, of course. Anyway, good luck and watch your step up there!

[douglas_green1]

I'd agree with the recommendation of a Canonet 17 QL G-III as a great little rangefinder camera. But assume that any one you buy 2nd hand will need to have the light seals replaced, unless the prior owner recently had it done. This camera is rather a pain in the rear to replace the seals on, compared to most 35mm SLRs - I've done 2 of them compared to dozens of SLRs. Most SLRs take 10-15 minutes to do the seals on, most Canonets take nearly an hour.

 

Other reasonable choices would be an Olympus 35 SP, or a Konica Auto S2

 

But forget about a lens of 50mm or longer. These will all have 40mm to 45mm lenses.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

Doesn't meet all of your criteria, but my first thought was a Pentax MX or ME Super with the 40/2.8 'pancake lens':<br>

<a href="http://www.ne.jp/asahi/japan/manual-camera/mx1.htm">http://www.ne.jp/asahi/japan/manual-camera/mx1.htm</a><p>

 

You can get set up for about $300 from www.keh.com; maybe cheaper if you look around.

[leslie_cheung]

i second the conflict with #1 and #2. i recommend the olympus epic,

but it's a fixed 35mm f2.8 ultra compact with spot meter. there'a

similar short zoom model epic as well which is the closest to your

needs i know, but it looses the f2.8 due to zoom. the rangefinders

focal lengths are toward the wide and ones with interchangable lens

focal lengths are out of your $range

[Brian]

There are some old Zorki rangefinders with collapsible 50mm lenses around. These are robust metal cameras, totally mechanical. A Russian copy of a Leica. Quality is variable but the good ones are very good. No in-camera metering, though, which might rule them out. The price is right though.

[jeffpolaski]

My Retina IIa and Retina II fold into a nearly indestructable flat configuartion that fits in my hip pocket. Not point and shoot, you have to think about what you are doing. Also good for self-defense.

[chris.platten]

Thanks for your answers so far. Canon very helpfully list all their cameras at http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/index.html (other manufactures either don't or hide it better). The final model the GIII-19 has a 45mm F1.9. A quick check on Ebay has the QL17 well within budget, and there are even some UK sellers. The GIII-19 seems to be a rarer beast (which is probably why it was not the suggested model). The real drawback is size. At 60mm it is just too deep

 

The Kodak Retina II is how I imagined the larger lens could be fitted into the small package that I require (see comments about requirements 1 & 2 being mutually exclusive). Kodak's website is not very helpfull, but http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1391825166 has some very nice pictures of a clean example (for the next 6 days or so!!). I love the looks of this camera and it does meet the focal length target. From the pictures on Ebay, I would guess it meets the 50mm depth as well. I could buy the Retina II and I would feel I had got value for money just from looking at it. For my particular application I do want built in metering and this rules out the Retina II (another snag is that this particular example is available for US buyers only - please, someone on the other side of the pond give this camera a good home).

 

Next we come to the Petri Color 35 (and possibly the Rollei 35). There is a Petri Color 35 on Ebay, unfortunately with a busted meter. It does look small, but not that strong. There is a photo of the whole back being removed, to change a film. I can just see the back ending up dropped on a climb if I have to reload. In the same response there was a mention of the Rollei 35. I was rather surpised when clicking to http://www.rollei.com filled up my screen with cyrillic script, http://www.rollei.de gave a more useful result. Unfortunately they are not too keen on listing the older products (could they be worried people might prefer them to the current line). Looking at the dimensions the Rollei looked a good bet..Yes it is pricey, but all I need is function. It can be highly cosmetically challenged as long as it works and the price is right. I re-read the the comment and something drew my attention to 'ease of use'. A quick check on the web (just put Rollei 35 into Google and you get plenty to choose from) gave me a bit of a shock. This is not a camera to use while climbing.

 

Some Olympus and Konica models got a mention. It seems harder to get info on these. The Konica S3 has a good spec and is smaller than the Canonet, but way too expensive. The Pentax is an SLR and although the 40 f2.8 is a compact lens, I already have an SLR system.

 

The question was 'could a rangefinder be what I am looking for'. I think this has been answered in the negative. If I am prepared to accept a 40mm or 45mm focal length, the Canonet comes close to fulling my requirements, but is still too large. The Rollei 35 wins the size contest, but is just too difficult to use. The Petri Color 35 might be the answer, but would I ever find one in the UK? The Kodak looks promising, but lacks in-camera metering. I may still buy either the Canonet or the Kodak. The Canonet is cheap enough to have a try with and I have always been impressed with the performance from the Canon gear I already have. The Kodak in particular would be fun to use once in a while, but I think I would rather take my time with it in Italian sunshine than hurry in a Scottish winter.

 

I have learnt a lot over the past 24 hours. One piece of pure trivia was the origin of the 'Canon' name.....For the answer go to http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/history/canon_story/f_index.html and click on 'full story'.

[richard_oleson]

Hi again Chris:

 

If the Canonet QL17 (about as small as you're likely to find in a non-folding rangefinder) is too large, how about a Minox 35? That's what I use when I want to go smaller than the canonet. It folds to the size of a pack of cigarettes, has automatic exposure control and is very easy to use. It has a plastic body and is not overly rugged, but it's so flat you can easily carry it in an inside pocket. the lens is only 35mm, though, i think, and f/2.8.

 

I really think you ought to look at a Canonet first-hand, though, before giving up on it; I think it may be the closest thing to what you're after.

 

rick :)=

 

http://rick_oleson.tripod.com

[matt_otoole]

The Canonet is one of my favorite cameras of all time, but as an ex-climber I know what you're talking about- it really isn't any easier to carry than a compact SLR. Plus, it doesn't seem particularly rugged.

 

Another camera to consider, which I think is the ultimate climber's camera, is the tiny Ricoh GR1. It has a 28mm lens that rivals *any* 28mm lens. In fact, I'd probably carry this little camera instead of a 28mm lens for my SLR- it's a better shape, and it's always ready to go.

 

Back in the day, the Pentax K1000 was very popular with climbers. With the 45mm "pancake" lens it was very compact indeed. Plus it's fairly cheap and easy to replace when you drop it! A similar, but better quality setup is a Contax 139Q with the Zeiss 45mm pancake lens. I used this combo for awhile. Pancake lenses are extremely compact, hardly bigger than the body itself with no lens mounted. They're technically not as sharp as a standard 35 or 50 mm normal lens, but they're still excellent. They're also not too expensive. Either of these setups will slip in and out of a pocket with no problem.

 

Finally, read some of Galen Rowell's books, if you haven't already. He's hauled cameras where the rest of us can't even haul ourselves.

[chris.platten]

Two years later and time for an update.......

I bought a Petri Color 35 shortly after my last post. It did not get the use I expected. This was mainly due to me carrying the SLR for summer hikes. In the winter, I used my wife's Canon G2. I used the Petri enough to decide that the 40mm focal length was a good compromise. Not quite the 50mm I was looking for, but not too wide either.

I kept looking at the Rollei 35 auctions. It always seemed too expensive. What finally tipped the balance was finding that Singapore models were cheaper in Germany than they were elsewhere. I had also shifted my requirements slightly. Using the G2 seduced me towards digital. Autofocus was never a good enough reason to spend a fortune on new lenses, but the convenience of digital + autofocus is beginning to tempt me. If I make the switch, I will want a compact, high quality backup that can work without batteries if required. Also one that will be in my pocket if my camera bag ever gets stolen (which would mean that the backup film body was also lost)

I like the pull out and twist to extend the lens. The small dial on the petri that extended the lens took a lot of turns and was slow. Both cameras require one to estimate distance and I think that depth of field indicators outway a focusing scale in the viewfinder.

I was lucky enough to find a Rollei 35, 35SE, dual bracket and dual cable release being sold as a bundle for stereo photography. The 35SE was the model I was looking for. The best lens of the range and (if my research is correct) voltage correction circuitry that allows the use of a 6V silver oxide substite for the 5.6V mercury battery without recalibration.

Time to buy that battery and see if everything still works or whether it was cheap for a reason......

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Another camera to consider is the Contax T2. As I recall, it has a 38mm Zeiss lense that is very sharp. It's also small and light, but at the high end of your price range. They do show up at KEH.com sometimes.

 

Robert

[jim_sawyer1]

Hi., re., your enquiry for a pocket sized camera, haveing been involved in great deal of mountain walking over the years one of the best pocket sized camera,s i found myself were the excerlent Olympus XA capsule cameras the best of these is the ariganal XA model which is fitted with a rangefinder and an exceptional 35mm F2.8 wide angle lens, metering is via a c.d.s. cell linked to a programed shutter, when closed they will fit into a shirt pocket and they are a tough well made camera, the ariganal XA version is still sought after and sells well on Ebay, but you should still be able to pick on up for 50 to 60 pounds posibly less if your lucky, but buy from a seller with good feed back so your sure of getting a working camera trust this is of help best of luck with your search. Jim.