eclat

Finding one that actually has been taken care of and the person wants to sell, I should have added...

Okay, am shocked and amazed. Not a single vote for what is, in my 'umble opinion, the nicest fixed-lens 35mm of them all, and I've owned, tried, and subsequently sold all of the ones on Gandy's site except one -- my Yashica GX (the 35CC comes close, but when I had to part with one, I held on to the GX).

 

Having said this, if lens quality were all I cared about, I *might* give the edge to the Minolta 7s ii (or possibly the Canon QL 17 -- not the 19! -- though having said that, the 6 element yashinon lens on the GX is outstanding). But there's more to a great rf than the lens alone, particularly when talking about cameras this small. Ease of use (controls and knobs in the right place) a clear vf, asa range (the GX is 25-800!), top shutter speed (GX = 1/500th) min. focus (GX = 2.5 feet), etc., etc. Plus the GX has parallax correction, which almost no other fixed-lens rf has (the QL 17 does).

 

Total package, the GX stands alone. Now, good luck finding one.

I'd like to ask a question that's been dogging me ever since I got my k10d last week. The

pics, regardless whether I'm using manual or autofocus lenses, or in Green, P, or one of

the other modes, or whether I'm shooting JPEG or RAW, there seems to be over every

daylight picture a slightly blue cast to everything... what I mean is, it looks like a digital

photo. Now, before you ridicule me for saying that, I wonder if any of you know what I

mean? I've been shooting pretty seriously all over the world for over 20 years now (strictly

as an amateur) and have gotten pretty great results on a fairly consistent basis (some of

my work has one regional awards). But I'm very late to the digital game, as you can tell, for

precisely this reason: up until recently, I wasn't sold on my friends' digital shots--they,

too, had that industrial blue cast to virtually all of their shots. And unless you know what

I'm talking about, this may not make any sense. So here's the question: is there any way I

can manipulate the custom settings to get a "warmer" tone? Or is the processor in this

camera just defaulted to this blue--and about 1.5 stops overexposed in Green/JPEG

mode--what I'm left with??? Any answers to this question will be greatly appreciated. (And

just to be specific, the "blue" quality I'm referring to renders the sky a little more blue than

it ought to be (not necessarily a bad thing) but, likewise renders my driveway quite a bit

whiter than the yellow cast it gets from the normal light of the sun.)

 

Ok, have at it.

Good analogy, Steven. Where the analogy gets tricky, of course, is when you talk about an amateur on a good horse and Willie Shoemaker on a pony. Stick me on a good horse and I'll be thrown off before the first turn or still trying to coax him out of the starting gate, whereas Mr. Shoemaker will get that pony to run faster than she ever thought possible. Not even Secretariat could carry an amateur to the tape.

 

All things being equal, of course, the guy with the best equipment usually wins. But how often are all things equal? I have spent many hours looking at Cartier-Bresson's images that he took with a single 50mm lens on his Leica Rangefinder. Admittedly, he owned a Leica, but he generally shot with a single lens, which defies a lot of conventional wisdom these days about what sort of equipment a professional photographer should have.

I've taken pictures for twenty years and consider myself a serious amateur. I've

been through many iterations in that time: 35mm, medium format, SLR,

rangefinder, street photography, landscapes, portraiture. I've also gone through

my share of brands: Contarex, Leica, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus,

Ricoh, Beselar. What have I learned about photography? Here's a random sampling:</p>

 

Photography is about catching life unaware, even if it's not a candid shot.

 

In the right light, anything looks amazing.

 

It's mostly about the light.

 

So, I want my equipment kept to a minimum for the sake of simplicity.

 

Equipment is the means, not the end, of photography.

 

I've taken great shots with all of my equipment.

 

I've taken lousy shots with all of my equipment.

 

The kind of camera makes a difference.

 

So does the kind of lens.

 

So does the kind of film.

 

So does the kind of processing and developing.

 

So does the kind of photographer.

 

Mostly the kind of photographer.

 

The nicest lens I've used, a $1400 Contarex Planar, really did make a difference.

 

The nicest picture I've ever taken was with a $150 Rikenon lense.

 

No equipment in the world can substitute for a good eye.

 

A good eye comes with hard work, not expensive equipment.

 

Digital still can't touch film for power of resolution and light capture.

 

Film isn't nearly as convenient as digital.

 

Decide whether convenience is more important than quality, or vice-versa.

 

Then go out and shoot.

 

And shoot.

 

And shoot.<div></div>

Can anyone tell me about the quality of this particular lens? I hear

about the 50mm all the time as the greatest 50mm lens, but I haven't

been able to get much information on the 55. Has anyone used one, how

does it compare to the other Planars or other 55mm's? Thanks in

advance for any help.

I've got what I assume is a simple question re. my newly purchased (on

eBay) xa4, which appears to be in fine working order. Is there

supposed to be any information in the viewfinder? How do I know what

shutter speed and aperture it's set at? How does the exposure work on

these beasts?

 

Thanks in advance for any help anyone can give.

Good point, Dan. I should've qualified "fully" functional. We'll just go with "functional," to the extent that cameras were functional for, say, Henri or Ansel, etc.

BTW Jorn, the one you say on eBay is the one I'm talking about... and which I purchased. For $9.

Here's another pic from the back. Does this answer any more questions??<div></div>

Tremendous help, everyone. As soon as I've tried it out--I should be getting it in about a week--I'll report back what I've discovered. The lens is what initially interested me in this camera--it almost seemed like an early prototype of the S3. And when I couldn't find any information on it on the Net--and I mean ANY--I decided that it might be an interesting camera to have. Now, whether or not it works is an entirely different Oprah.

 

Thanks again for all of your interest and helpful suggestions. The mystery will be solved soon enough.

Hmmmm.... having some trouble uploading the pics. Strangely enough, however, the lens I have looks almost *exactly* like the link Ray has on his post. I think it's probably the very same kind of lens, from what I can tell. Does that solve the mystery once and for all?? Can you tell if it's a thread mount for a Leica or is it, as Rays suggests, a cheap old Hexanon??

Thank you all for your helpful info. Here's a pic of the lens to solve the puzzle (hopefully) once and for all. I only have this pic, as I have not yet received the lens in the mail. But maybe this is enough for some of you to answer definitively.

 

Thanks again.

Thanks Mark and Wilson. It looks as if my post was moved to where you suggested, Mar,... so perhaps I'll get an additional answers. As for the McKeowns listing, Wilson, I tried to find the exact copy in my McKeowns and I wasn't successful. I guess I'm just looking for more info on it--good lens? Decent system? I own seven 60's-70's RF's (Yashica GSN and MG-1, Olympus RC, Konica S2, Minota 7S-II, and Canonet QL17), but have never run across something like this. Anyway, thanks both of you for your helpful info.

Can anyone tell me what kind of RF this is: it's an older Konica with

the word "Electronic" across the right front just under "KONICA" and

it has a 38mm f/1.8 Hexanon. Is there such a thing as an Auto SE???

I'm stumped. I'll try to upload a pic if I can. Thanks much!!<div></div>

I have inherited a Konishiroku Hexanon 50mm 1:2 lens, and I have no

idea what kind of camera it's for or how much it's worth. Can anyone

enlighten me? Thank you kindly.

Sorry, mates. Iggy, Wiggy, what's up with these names?? Guess there is no wee-Willy properly named, 'xcept my aunty's little shitz-u, or however you spell those dogs. Funny little dogs, them. Anyway, off to the pub. Ta ta... and again, nice pic Iggy. Or is it Wiggy?!? Ah krikey...

Don't mean to piss on anyone's parade here, because the Canon QL 17 is a very nice camera with a great lens and all, but what brilliant engineer decided to put the shutter-speed dial on the lens rather than camera body?!? I own a GSN, a 7S-II (acutally a Revue 400SE, but same camera) and a QL 17, and I must say that the QL 17 is, to put it delicately, an ergonomic nightmare. That little 3mm aperture ring is so small and so tightly squeezed in between the focus and shutter speed rings that it's damn near impossible to turn the thing without bumping into the others. Now I realize that we humans have a distinict advantage over the rest of the animal kingdom in that we have an opposable thumb and all, but let's get real!! You'd need the fingers of a concert pianist--or a Lilliputian--to operate this thing in a tight spot on a deadline. The lens rings alone are enough to keep me holding on to my GSN. As for lens quality, I've never read a single creditable review that said anything about the Canonet's lens quality being better than the Yashinons (though I'd be happy to see one if any of someone could direct me to such a comparison.) As far as I can tell, the picture quality of all cameras mentioned are almost identical. They're all fabulous, in other words. What it comes down to then, IMHO, is ease of use and durability. Oh yeah, that's right. You better not drop your precious QL 17, because it will be Humpty-Dumpty all over again. On the other hand, you can practically pound nails with the GSN. I don't know, but I have a strange feeling part of this Canonet-mania gig has to do with that whole Pecker thing and is Canonet 28. Blah...

 

Ok, so I pissed wee-Willy off. But didn't mean to, honest. Just had to get that whole "ridiculously-tiny-lens-rings" thing off my chest. I feel much better now. <burp>

 

And BTW, great pic there, Iggy. White band and all. A really nice pic.

Don't know if I can lend anything new to this discussion except to say that you may be surprised, first of all, just how big/heavy the full-sized RF's are, like the Yashica GSN. The compact 35 RF's are another story: Olympus RC/RD, Canon G-III 17, Konica Auto S3, Yashica Electro 35 CC/GX, Minolta 7sII, and Rollei 35S. (The Olympus XA and XA4 are also small, but I'm not into their Auto-exposure only systems.) Having said that, the GSN is, at this point, my favorite. The light control the old Yashinon lenses have is truly stunning, and the camera is ergonomically perfect. Just the right heft. After exhaustive research--you don't even want to know--I can tell you that the five cameras that seem to have the most consistently rave reviews from owners/pros are, in no particular order: Olympus RD, Canon G-III 17, Konica Auto S3, the Yashica GSN, and Minolta 7sII. Some will say that the Yashica GX should be in this bunch. Only trouble with them is that they are near impossible to find, and when they do become available, 30 other people who have been salivating for years to have one are willing to put up crazy money to get one. And when all is said and done, Mr. Yashica Guy prefers the GSN--or so I've heard. And while we're on expense: the Auto S3 is also, in my opinion, over-priced. But if you do a lot of flash photography, then the Auto S3 out-classes all other cameras mentioned here. It's simply not a choice. Just Google Konica Auto S3 for the specs and you'll see what I mean. I'm about to try a 7sII (which I found in its Revue 400SE incarnation--same camera, cheaper price), so I'll post a review when I've tried it. Can't wait.

 

Oh yeah, and one more thing. All cameras mentioned above--fully functional without a battery. Try that with a $350 P&S.

 

Happy hunting.<div></div>

Thank you all. A wealth of knowledge. I inherited my father-in-law's Konica FS-1, and lo and behold, the film advance motor is fried. Apparently there's no replacing it. But he did leave me with the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8. You all have now helped guide me to my next step: finding a Konica body so that I can put these fabulous lenses to use.

 

Thanks again, everyone.

How do Hexanon AR 35mm lenses compare with Nikon/Minolta/Pentax lenses

in general, and while I'm at it, what bodies are compatible with Hex.

lenses besides Konica? I'm so confused about what lenses are

compatible with which bodies. My main interest lies with the 70's and

80's vintage equipment. Thanks for any help I can get with these

questions.

Apparently, Z, in the battle of the SLR's, the RF's won out. Go figure.

I'm no genius when it comes to ME Supers, but it seems to me that if it consistently underexposes slides by 1-1.5 stops, then whenever you use slide film, just adjust the ASA setting to compensate for this and your pics should turn out fine (e.g. if you're using 200 speed film, set the ASA at 160). Or am I totally missing something? (Entirely possible.)

Thanks Derek, Z, and James. I've decided, after much consideration and great advice, to try out the Yashica GSN 35 and the Minolta Hi-matic F. I bought both at ebay for less than $100. I'm also interested in the Yashica TL Electro, which I'll soon be getting for the sake of comparison. Ahhhh, so many choices, so little time. I'll give an update once I've had the chance to use them both.

 

Thanks again, everyone, for the great help and advice. This site rocks!

Thanks again, all, for great suggestions. Have just placed all my Nikon equipment on ebay -- 8008, 4 lenses, filters, bag, manual, etc. Have decided to part with the excellent system for a smaller, more compact but equally good optic system. Am considering Minox GT, and will also throw into the mix, Steve and Tam, your helpful suggestions. Some of your suggestions, Tam, I think are a bit out of my $400 price range. But I will look. Miracle finds occur on ebay, I've heard.