Looking for a rangefinder--need suggestions

[juan_c.]

<p>Hi<br>

Not sure why, but I've been bitten by the rangefinder bug. I love my Minolta SRT-102 and my XG-M, but I had a taste for something....different. Maybe I want something I can kinda toss anywhere? Anyway, I thought I'd give a rangefinder a try. I figure asking for suggestions would be of help, since most everyone here has a HUGE amount of knowledge for vintage cameras. <br>

This is what I want in the camera:<br>

--normal-ish lens ranger (35-60mm)<br>

--preferably at least f1.8 or so<br>

--manual operation (obviously! lol)<br>

--preferably only needs battery for the meter; not a deal breaker, but after playing with the SRT, I'm rather fond of battery-less cameras<br>

--be able to select manual mode? Not sure if rangefinders let you select manual mode like most SLR's do<br>

--Cheap!!!!!!!!<br>

I've been eyeing Minolta Hi-matics, but as much as I love Minolta, I thought I'd branch out and see what else is out there. With so many manufacturers, I figured a lot of you would have experienced plenty of the models enough to make recommendations. </p>

<p>All help is appreciated. Thanks!!</p>

[ridinhome]

<p>Konica Auto S2 fits the bill. Not very compact but outstanding lens, great VF, parallax adjusted framelines which move as you focus. Also has the meter on top of the camera in addition to inside the VF, which is a very handy touch if you are street shooting. Prices are going up but they can still be found relatively inexpensively since most collectors seem to prefer the Auto S3. I bought mine in pristine condition for $25. Best camera purchase I've made till date.<br>

If you get a Konica Auto S2 try and make sure it comes with the built in lens hood. Mine didn't but I got lucky and found a hood with retaining ring on ebay for $10.</p>

[bueh]

<p>Do you want a meter? Because there are tons of meterless rangefinder cameras from the Soviet Union, many of them with interchangeable lenses, too.</p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>I have a Yashica 35 with a 1.9/45 Yashinon lens, but you can't have it. ;-)</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Juan, there are dozens and dozens of cameras to fit the bill. The Konica Auto S2 is one of the better ones. Minolta Hi-matics are popular, The Canon Canonet's are nifty, Yashica made a slew of 'em. Olympus SP, check! Then there are the off beat ones, Petri, Aries, Taron, etc. Then there are the many German brands that are well made with good optics. You are going to get a <strong>lot</strong> of relies to this question. A lot depend on what you mean by cheap. The least expensive one I've seen is the Kodak Signet 40. They go between $5-$10 in working condition. No meter though and you have to charge the shutter separately, but a darn good lens. <br>

<a href="00Y5R4">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Y5R4</a><br>

Any rangefinder you get may need service so keep that in mind as you budget. Good Luck</p>

[juan_c.]

<p>Oh god yes, meter is needed! Lol, can't believe I forgot that one... My sunny 16 ain't the greatest. As far as cheap, I'm thinking $50 or less. Will be looking into that Konica :o)</p>

<p>I figured I'd get a lot of responses. After reading lots of "what is the best SLR for me?" type threads, that is what I have come to expect here :o) </p>

[silverscape]

Try an Argus C3, C4, or C-44. The C3 is dirt cheap, and it's a really good camera. I learned how to use manual exposure with an Argus C3 about 4 years ago, and it's still one of my favorite 35mm cameras. It's a little bit awkward to use, but it takes excellent pictures, especially if you align the rangefinder (which is easy to do).

 

The C-4 and C-44 are a little bit harder to find and tend to sell for a little bit higher, but they're great cameras too and they're also a little more sleek and "ergonomic" than the C3.

 

All of them are completely manual, mechanical cameras. No batteries whatsoever.

[Matthew Currie]

<p>If you're willing to go a little slower on the lens....</p>

<p>The Olympus 35RC would be a nice choice if you can find one. Another nice little rangefinder if the Olympus proves too expensive or hard to find is the Ricoh 500G, also sold as the Sears 35RF. Both of these are very compact, with 40 mm. 2.8 lenses and CdS meters that used a mercury cell. The meters, therefore, will usually need a little compensation with modern batteries, but both the examples I have work quite well with about a 1/3 stop offset on the ASA dial, and both give nice sharp results. The Olympus is really outstanding. Both have hot shoes for flash, and the Oly has settings specific to flash. Both provide either auto exposure or manual, but the Olympus meter does not read out for manual settings.</p>

<p>If you want toss-anywhere capability and more modern metering, consider the Olympus XA. The XA family does not have a hot shoe for flash, but uses a small dedicated flash that attaches to the end. These flashes work all right, but are slow to recharge, and easy to break. But the XA is a wonderful little machine, rugged, quiet and well suited to slipping into a pocket.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There are a number of Canonet cameras that meet your criteria well. The only problem at all is that you have to get shorter-life batteries these days than the mercury batteries they originally had for their built-in light meters.</p>

<p>The Canonet 17 models are especially good and can be used manually without a meter very nicely as well as with Zinc-air batteries and the like. Sometimes called the poor-man's Leica.</p>

[ridinhome]

<p><strong>Juan</strong> - on the battery issue - the Konica Auto S2 also uses the mercury batteries but you can either buy a CRIS adapter, use hearing aid batteries and adjust exposure manually or send it to Greg Weber who can adjust the battery circuitry for the differing voltage.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

Most of the standard models have been named. The Yashica Lynx Series 1000, 5000/e 14/e. Most of the ideal cameras for your criteria were made in the 60s/70s and the "meter" requirement was happily filled with the poignant dependable mercury battery. So the Yashica Electo /Lynx Series, The Canonet Series, Minoltas and Konicas. There'S the Olympus XA and mixed in a some that are totally battery dependent and other tht only partially. The devil is in the details. As many of the stated model have moderately fast lenses 2.8-1.7 and slightly wide 40 or 45mm as opposed to the 50mm but of course 50mm as well. In the Lynx series the 1000 has a selenium meter but these are often no longer dependable.the 5000 needs the dreaded mercury battery and the 5000e needs a special battery or a substituted stack of lr-44s both are only needed for the meter. The 14/14e same battery problems but a huge 1.4 lens. In the Elctro 35 series the battery runs the shutter priority in comination with the meters so I think with no battery you get 1 shutter speed (1/500??) As you can see the fewer vices the wider the selection of dance partners. Imagine a hand held meter and then a slew of cheap great Russian RFs like the FED/Zorki line or the Kiev with interchangeable lenses... No batteries, no meters no worries !! Another thing to consider about pricing is those Canon QL17 and some of the Minoltas and Rollei 35 are not that cheap especially if the meter is working, so an untested ,or one that the meter doesn't work will always be cheaper and if you can make do with a hand-held meter so much the better! You mentioned the fun with the SLT. I like the Kiev; all camera, cool vertical shutter, tried and true "german" design, variable lenses- typical fast 1.8 Helios/Planar lens ! The Lynx 5000e I have is also just a straight ahead camera. Very reliable shutter to 1000 with fast 1.8 lens. The meter does work, but I find the battery jury rig for the meter a PIA and just shoot the camera, often on experience. I always have my meter with me and I usually make a base reading and then work from there. Get a meter, get any manual RF!

[alex macphee]

<p>If you can relax your lens speed requirement, the Oly 35RC has an outstanding reputation for a damn good reason. It really is that good. </p>

<p>Otherwise, you could look at the Yashica Lynx 14e, which Chuck has already remarked on. It's big, it's fearsome, and it looks great around your neck in a 'mine's bigger than yours' kind of way. </p>

<p>You'll never get all your requirements satisfied in just one camera. Thank heavens. The 35RC is reliable, and is the business, but it can be too easy to overlook the similarly specified Ricoh 500G series, which has one advantage over the 35RC in that it has an extra speed at the low end, 1/8th to the Oly's 1/15th. The Yashica Ministers are also nice, and personally, I think the Minister III the best looking of the range. I regretted selling mine, not least because the shutter was phenomenally accurate, to better than 7% throughout the range 1-500, which is right inside the exposure tolerance of slide film.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I'll toss in a vote for a 1957-60 Ricoh 500 (not the 500C or 500G), but the one with the rapid trigger wind beneath the body. No meter (you could use a hand held meter or clip in meter in the accessory holder on top of the camera, or good old Sunny 16 rule). I've owned 5 of them in the since 1958, the best of the lot was the much more rare model 519 which had a slightly faster lens (f1.9) and better correction. These cameras are very easy and fast to focus and shoot with, and give great results. You can usually find a decent 500 for around $50 USD on the big auction site. You can easily adjust the RF if over the years it has fallen out of ajustment. Besides....a clean version is a really neat looking camera...no plastic, no rubber...looks almost as nice as a Leica. I refurbished my last one about a year ago and sold it for almost 3x the cost of the camera (it needed a little cleaning up when I bought it) and materials to recover it.</p><div></div>

[User_4525289]

<p>Juan, get yourself a Leica - save a lots of money.</p>

[jodys]

<p>All of these cameras have their quirks. The Yashica 14E, for example, has a foam light seal around the rear lens element. It degrades with time, of course, little bits fall off (right near the shutter....). Enterprising sellers squirt in some lighter fluid, which will get the shutter clicking again, but will also move around those bits of degraded foam, further into the shutter. Next time you pick up the camera, it's dead (don't ask me how I found out). The repair job is more than most people are willing to attempt. Minolta? Well, the self-timer tends to jam up the whole shutter. Konica? I've had trouble with the 'auto' functions. Canon? Quite reliable, in my experience. I have a Canonet that looks like it was used as a hammer on more than one occasion, but it takes perfect pictures and the meter is spot-on. Taron? Your meter will be dead (cell losing flaky white things). Aires? Probably out of your price range. Balda? Kewl-looking camera. Same for Kodak Signet 35, excellent lens to boot. Prices are down for those, people don't think such a diminutive little Kodak is a serious camera. Lenses are slow though (3.5).</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>Canonet QL19. Way cheaper than the QL 17 and lens is just as good. 1/3 stop darker is not much to worry about.....a well made Russian Kiev 4 or Fed 2 is a fine piece of metal magic. Just try before you buy.</p>

[ninrud_lahtac]

<p>i had a fed 5 for a long time, they are good, if you get a decent one. viewfinder was a bit iffy, but the meter was very accurate.</p>

[tom_s.]

<p>After using a Minolta SRT-101 for a while, I tried a Canonet GIII QL-17. It fits all your requirements:<br>

-- 40mm, f/1.7 lens<br>

-- can be used fully manual, or sets f-stop automatically if the meter is working<br>

-- doesn't need a battery, except for the meter<br>

-- price - don't know, I bought mine years ago. <br>

The main difference from the SRT is that the Canonet does not have the option for "match-needle" metering. Instead, the aperture is set automatically from the meter.<br>

Due to the aforementioned battery issues, I use a separate meter, which I think is the most sensible choice if you're using classic cameras these days. I use a Gossen Digiflash because it's quite small; though not cheap, it's not too bad when you consider that it makes all classic cameras you own that much more usable. It's also far more sensitive than an old built-in meter; no more moving the SRT around the scene to try to get the needle to come up off its stop!</p>

[drpath]

<p>Sure, that Canonet, Yashica, Konica, etc seems innnocent enough. They all take good pictures, and show you the world with a different perspective than you get with an SLR. But RF buyer beware! Soon you start wanting a screw mount camera (or God forbid, an M3). They're such beautiful machines, and some are so cheap now. Before you know it you'll have 5 screw mount bodies, even more lenses, and be developing your own Tri-X. Because, after all, color just isn't good enough for RF. Still, your restless sleep will be haunted by the dream of that Summicron with glass you can actually see through, that somehow you can afford.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>Canonet GIII-QL17--one of my favorite cameras!<br>

Olympus 35RC--amazing camera in a small package. Superb lens, AE, full manual if you want it.</p>

[juan_c.]

<p>Wanted to thank everyone for their recommendations!!! Apparently the decision was made for me this afternoon, lol. Found a rangefinder for sale at the local antique mall for $10... Tested it with a borrowed 1.35V battery (a broken SRT 101) had it. Worked like a charm!!! Glass is scratch and fungus free. Shutter was snappy. Just need to sit down and read a manual on it. <br>

And the lucky winner? *drumroll* It's a Konica Auto S2. Woot! Comes with the hood and everything. It is bigger than my SRT 102, but also much lighter. And wow, does it feel solid!! <br>

Dr Path: I've been afflicted by that already, lol. Have a great Minolta system, decent Nikon one, and now going into rangefinders. Even have an old folder camera, too, lol. And develop my Tri-X/BW film. Crap, I'm screwed, aren't I? lol.</p>

[ridinhome]

<p>Congratulations <strong>Juan</strong>. Word of warning - buying the Konica Auto S2 can lead to a nasty Konica addiction. Since buying it I've added two Konica SLRs, 4 AR mount lenses and a Konica Hexar AF.</p>

<p>Please post pics when you can (including of the camera - we're camera porn junkies around here).</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>I'm still using my Nikon S2 since 1964, still love it.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

[juan_c.]

<p>Camera porn coming soon. Thought I'd clean her up a little ;o)<br>

What is the Auto S2 made out of? The metal on it is like the shiniest on any camera I have seen. Makes it seem rather jewel-like...<br>

Konica addiction? Hmmm.... AT least it is plenty cheap :o)</p>

[juan_c.]

<p>Ok, camera porn time! I love that term!!<br>

<a title="DSC_0004 by Valkyrie_VF2X, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/38387748@N00/5510017209/"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5213/5510017209_318a7fc7f3.jpg" alt="DSC_0004" width="500" height="333" /></a></p>

<p>Only think I have found wrong with her is dented filter ring. Other than that (and a battery...), she is ready to snap up some pics!</p>