Modern Photography Lens Test data from 1972-75
Related Local Links:
Canonet FAQ [4/2001]
Contax T3 [3/2001]
Jupiter Lens Data (German) [7/2001]
Kiev 4 Pages [7/2001]
Koni Omega Medium Format Rangefinder Cameras
Lens Registration - Leica Vs. Konica [10/2002]
Mamiya Universal Rangefinder Cameras
Medium Format Rangefinders and Press Cameras
Rangefinder Adjustments (Konica S2 Auto..)
by Winfried Buechsenschuetz
Rangefinder FAQ
Rangefinder Lenses (Russian, Leica clone..)
Repairing Rangefinder Gaskets
by Winfried Buechsenschuetz
Repairing Stuck Canonet GIII Rangefinder Shutters
by E.J. Kowalski [1/2001]
Related Links:
12mm Heliar Test Shots [12/2000]
35mm M39 SLR Cameras (Nate Dayton) [6/2001]
Alfred's (Russian/Soviet) Camera Pages (lenses, cameras, manuals) [10/2002]
Bessa R Pages (Mike Elek) [1/2001]
Bessa Rangefinder Adjustment Tips [1/2001]
Bessa T - Economy M mount Rangefinder [3/2001]
Bessa T Review
Bulgarian Dealer List [7/2001]
Canonet pages (KYPHOTO)
Canonet QL17 III Pages (S. Gandy Cameraquest Pages)
Canonet QL17 Repair Notes Pages
Classic Rangefinder Repair Forum
Contax G1/G2 RF [11/2002]
Distance estimating device [8/2002]
Fed 5 Manual [1/2001]
Fed 5 Pages [1/2001]
Fed/Zorki info [3/2002]
Fujica Rangefinders [4/2001]
Heliar and Elmar compared (Erwin Puts site)
Konica Rangefinder Shutter Repair Adventure
by Kar Yan Mak [4/2001]
Kyle Cassidy's Canonet QL 17 Pages
Leicas for Leftys [1/2001]
Minolta Rangefinders [5/2001]
Nikon S3 Announcement (Japan)
Olympus Stylus Epic Review
Rangefinder Accuracy (Erwin Puts)
Rangefinder Envy Pages (QL17 Ultra Cool Pages)
Rangefinder focusing accuracy (Leica, Mr. Putts)
Rangefinder Focusing Tips (Kevin Kalsbeek)
Rangefinder Renaissance 35mm.. (Bob Shell, Beststuff.com) [8/2002]
Rangefinder Adjustments (Alfred's Camera Pages) [10/2002]
Rangefinder Site (Photos..) [1/2001]
Ricoh 21mm Rangefinder Fixed Lens Superwide Camera [10/2000]
Russian Fake Cameras (Alfred's Camera Pages) [10/2002]
Russian Leica Copies
Russian Lenses Table
Russian Rangefinder Lenses and Cameras (Japanese site) [1/2001]
Russian Rangefinder Pages (Manuals and articles)
[Fed1/zorki1, fed3, fed5, zorki5, zorki6, gost table, articles...]
Vito C Rangefinder
Voigtlander Bessa-L (Cameraquest)
Voigtlander Bessa-R (Cameraquest)
Voigtlander Pages
Werra RF [3/2002]
Yashica 35mm Rangefinder Models and Chronology [8/2002]
Yashica Rangefinder Pages (Cameraquest)
Yashica Rangefinder Pages (Yashica-guy) [5/2001]
Yashica Rangefinder Repair tips
Yashica RF List..
Yasuhara New RF TO12 Camera [10/2002]
Zenit Mfger Page [02/00]
Rangefinders come in many sizes, ages, and flavors, with differing
features. Identifying a "best buy" rangefinder is a combination of
conventional wisdom and experience about a particular model. But you have
to do your homework and decide which features you need, and what level of
quality you can afford and live with!
A recent review (circa 1/2000?) by Herbert Keppler, Senior VP for
Popular Photography, recommended the compact and lightweight
Olympus stylus epic (non-zoom) and a similar Yashica T4 for pocket
cameras. At
under half a pound in weight, yet with many electronic features, this
Olympus camera sports a relatively fast and surprisingly sharp 35mm f/2.8
lens for circa $80-90 US (street price). The Yashica T4 is equally nice,
but
twice the price of the feature rich Olympus model.
The vast majority of
rf/P&S also-rans generally had poor quality optics or very slow lenses,
mandating fast films and use of flash. Zoom lensed models seem to be
poorer optically as well as really slow, mandating fast film use, and
subject to more repair problems too. I find it a rather sad commentary
on the state of current rangefinders and point and shoot cameras that only
a few (2) out of a hundred+ models had optics as "fast" as f/2.8. By
contrast, many of the larger older rangefinders sport lenses as fast as
f/1.7 and even f/1.4 (e.g., Lynx).
The other compact cameras often recommended are the older Rollei
35S..35LED and autoexposure Minox 35GT.. series and Ricoh GR1, among
others. These cameras are compact, with very well regarded optics, but
they tend to command premium prices as many are considered collectibles
(e.g., $250-350 US). Some models don't have metering built-in, and the
controls are in sometimes odd places due to the small body size (e.g., on
bottom). The lenses are generally excellent, slightly wide (40mm
typically), relatively fast (f/2.8 to f/3.5) and sharp wide open.
I am a fan of the 50mm normal
lens as the sharpest, fastest, lightest, and cheapest lens available
in most lens lines. But most users today want a wider angle lens than the
50mm. So most recent rangefinders sport lenses ranging from 35mm
(average) down to 30mm and even 28mm as their fixed lens
offering. Unfortunately, lens speed tends to get traded off against such
wide angle coverage. So while you can find 50mm f/1.7 and even 50mm f/1.4
fixed lens rangefinders inexpensively, you probably won't find any 30mm
f/1.4 or even 28mm f/1.7 low cost rangefinders out there. Instead, these
wide angle lenses tend to be more like f/2.8 or even f/3.5, if you are
lucky. As Keppler noted in his reviews, the majority of today's
rangefinder and point and shoot cameras sport lenses that are surprisingly
slow (e.g., even f/5.6..).
The Konica Auto S2 (vs. S or S3) is often cited as a very good budget
rangefinder with a relatively fast f/1.7 lens (slightly wide too, at
around 40mm). The Canon Canonet QL 17 G-III is another relatively fast
fixed lens rangefinder that gets high marks from users. Other Canonet
models may be larger physically, or slower (e.g., Canonet G19 is f/1.9, QL
17 is f/1.7..), while QL indicates the quick film loading feature. Similar
examples include the Olympus 35SP or 35RD and Minolta Hi-Matic 7S and
7S-II and later Hi-Matic 9 series. I also like some of the Fuji
rangefinders, especially their Lynx models, one of which sports a fast
f/1.4 lens of surprising quality.
Some of these camera models have auto-exposure options, often shutter
priority, along with full manual controls. Surprisingly, these
rangefinders often sell for under $75-100 US!
At the other end, you can find lots of fixed lens rangefinders from the
past, including many bellows mount models that fold up compactly. Most of
these oldie rangefinders had modest optics, and the ones with higher end
optics by Zeiss and Schneider and other big-name makers typically command
collectible camera prices. A few examples are still optical bargains, such
as the Mamiya 6 folder rangefinder used a moving back
focusing system with surprisingly good Zuiko (later Olympus) lens.
One of the alternatives to the collectible older Zeiss lensed rangefinders
are the Soviet/Russian-Ukraine copies, such as the Moskva-5 rangefinder. While the finish is not as
refined as the original Zeiss optic Super-Ikonta C, this camera is a
remarkably compact 6x9cm rangefinder for under $100 US on the used market
(versus $500-750 and up for the original Zeiss model).
Some older medium format rangefinders such as the Koni-Omega and Mamiya
Press/Universal models are worth investigating too. These cameras
often have removable backs in some models, permitting use of polaroid and
various format backs (e.g., 6x7cm and 6x9cm on Mamiya Universal). The
really delightful surprise is the surprisingly low cost leaf shutter
lenses, such as the contrasty 58mm biogon wide angle lens design for the
Koni-Omegas
and similar offerings for the Mamiya press camera series. You may be able
to pick up a camera, back, and standard lens for $200 US and up. Some
models permit using ground glass backs and even limited back
movements. But these cameras are unpopular largely because of their weight
and ungainly shape, as well as orphan status (for repairs).
Kodak Ektar lenses were some of the sharpest
lenses ever made, and the original lenses on the first Hasselblads were
Ektars, among many others. The Kodak
Medalist I and II cameras featured interchangeable lenses and a brick
solid body with high quality construction rangefinder design. So why are
these great cameras often sold for only $125-175 US? The short answer is
that they use 620 film. Unless you know the secret
of respooling common 120 film onto 620 spindles, you will probably
prefer the bodies converted to 120 film. But this doubles or triples the
cost of these rangefinder cameras.
The last of the Soviet block Leica clones differed significantly from the
Leica
rangefinders, with features and innovations (some from the Contax II/III
models) that may be of interest. The Fed 5C is the last and latest
variant, and can readily be purchased from stock for $75-100 US with its
built-in selenium cell lightmeter, fast wind lever, and other
features. Russian optics can also be surprisingly decent, if you luck out
and get a good example. However, quality control of both camera bodies and
lenses was highly variable, so try to get a return warranty or other
guarantee until you can properly test the
camera and lens(es).
While collectors continue to snap up all manner of Leica items at often
outrageous prices, you can still find some user condition Leica
rangefinder bodies such as the M3 and later variants for prices from $500
and up. The
conventional wisdom is that the M4-2 and related rangefinders are a
current "best buy" if you don't need built-in metering, with clean models
under $1,000 US. On the other hand, some Leica models have declined by 50%
or more since the (largely Japanese) collecting frenzy of the late
1980s has waned.
Older Leica screw-thread lens mount rangefinders such as the IIIc models
can also be found in user condition for circa $300-500 US and up. The
older Leica lenses also can be found in user condition, making it possible
to find such classic cameras for $500 US and up as a user (versus
collectible ) camera. But be forewarned that using and even loading film
into these cameras is an acquired taste and art! Don't forget to budget
for a handheld meter too.
So if you have the cash available, you may want to consider buying a
classical Leica rangefinder. If you are really name brand conscious, and
likely to be unhappy because you haven't got the "real thing", then by all
means "invest" in a Leica rangefinder. You will have plenty of company if
you decide the money is well-spent. You will enjoy a relatively compact
and classical rangefinder design of high mechanical and optical
quality.
However, many of the budget rangefinders costing under $100 US cited here
may well be easier to use, have more features like auto-exposure and
built-in metering, and even offer extended flash synch speeds. Many of the
later designed budget rangefinder lenses will also outperform the earlier
Leitz/Leica lens designs in many technical parameters. And no 35mm lens,
even by Leica, is likely to provide the tonality and enlargeability of
even such modest cost medium format rangefinder lenses as those Kodak
ektar lenses cited above, simply due to the advantages of the larger
medium format negative.
| Herbert Keppler on Leica vs. Pentax M42 Optics |
|---|
| Which is Leica photo? Which is Pentax photo? Identical scenes
were shot with modern Leica M6, 50mm f/2 Summicron lens and 1964 Pentax
Spotmatic with 50mm f/1.4 Super-Takumar at f/8 on Kodak Tmax 100. Each,
when enlarged to 8x12 inches - using glass negative carriers for maximum
flatness - produced virtually identical high-quality prints (see full
sized detailed images center and corner [in original article]...
In my opinion, you'd have to go to 16x24 inches to see differences - if
there are any even then... But if Joe had used slide film and examined transparencies, would the Leica have pulled ahead of the Pentax? Probably not at f/5.6 or f/8. Maybe at f/2. But could the Pentax have come out ahead? It's possible... |
The above quoted article by Popular Photography's Herbert Keppler raised an understandable storm of protest on the Leica mailing lists. I have generally given the superb Leica optics the benefit of the doubt, and suggested that they are perhaps 10-15% better (in resolution or aberration corrections) than their average SLR or rangefinder competitors, but at 200-300% higher costs. The Leica camera and lens mechanics may well be rather better, contributing to a finer quality feeling in using Leica cameras. If you are not doing a lot of prints at 16x24", you probably won't see major improvements over your current SLR or rangefinder despite large investments in Leica optics, based on the tests reported here. If you really need higher quality prints in 16x24" range, you should probably be shooting medium format anyway.
The lens test data below for a Leitz 50mm f/1.4 Summilux lens for the M series rangefinder may surprise some readers. This Leitz lens is clearly optimized for wide open shooting. If you are buying a very expensive fast lens over the cheaper f/2 and f/3.5 normal lenses available, you might prefer for the wide open apertures to be optimized too! Note that this lens also has more "excellents" for edge resolution (5) than center resolution (3). But the mid range aperture performance is rather less refined per these tests. A majority of 50mm normal lenses stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 would rate excellents in both center and edge in similar tests.
I grant you that lens resolution is not the sole criterion for lens selection, and undoubtably the Leitz lens has very good distortion and other characteristics. Still, you can find many modest lenses on lesser cost cameras that will perform better in the overall center and edge resolution parameters than this Leitz optic.
| Leitz 50mm f/1.4 Summilux for M Series | ||
|---|---|---|
| f/stop | center lpmm | edge lpmm |
| 1.4 | excellent | excellent |
| 2 | excellent | excellent |
| 2.8 | very good | good |
| 4 | very good | good |
| 5.6 | good | very good |
| 8 | excellent | excellent |
| 11 | very good | excellent |
| 16 | very good | excellent |
Modern Photography Lens Test data from 1972-75
The above two charts will offer little solace for those who are looking
for an excuse to upgrade to Leica lenses. The two samples of the Pentax
50mm f/1.4 SMC Takumar performed very well against the Leitz 50mm f/2
Summicron (for the Leitz SL2 SLR) in both center and edge resolution.
You can readily see how Keppler's tests at f/8 on the Pentax 50mm f/1.4
optics was at the "sweet spot" of these fast lenses. My own pentax SMC
50mm lenses are also outstanding in both M42 and K-mount versions, despite
less than $100 invested in both fast lenses. The classic 50mm f/3.5 Elmar
from 1955 got blown away by the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 SLR lenses, especially
in the edges. Ouch!
The Minolta Rokkor MC 50mm f/1.4 for classic Minolta SRT101 series also
substantially outperformed the Leica 50mm f/2 at all but one of 16 tested
stops. Again, I have often advocated the low cost Minolta SRT101 and MC/MD
optics as a very low cost but high quality and high resolution lens line.
A number of us believe that the bokeh of the
Minolta optics is often very nice too. While the Modern Photography
tests were of the 50mm f/2 Summicron for the Leitz SL2 SLR of mid-1970s
vintage, Keppler's tests of the latest 50mm f/2 Summicron for M6
rangefinder suggest these older Pentax and Minolta 50mm f/1.4 lenses are
still quite competitive against the slower Leitz lenses.
Source: Modern Photography, June 1985 (for Leica M6 with 50mm f/1.4 summilux) and
April 1977 (for Minolta SRT202 and 50mm f/1.4)
Again, the above comparison of the 50mm f/1.4 Leica summilux (from 1985) with the
rather older Minolta 50mm f/1.4 (MC for SRT from 1977) shows the Minolta lens on average has
higher resolution both center and edge and higher edge contrast. In this 50mm f/1.4
lens comparison, it is remarkable how well an older Minolta lens holds up against
the reknowned Leica 50mm f/1.4 summilux for the M6 rangefinder in both resolution
and contrast.
You may also realize that the tradeoffs and corrections for a fast 50mm f/1.4 lens often result in the slower and
easier to design and build 50mm lenses at f/1.8 and f/2 being even better
corrected and sharper than their faster cousins? If you are using a
slower f/1.7 or f/1.8 lens of the above lens lines, you may be enjoying
even higher resolution factors. For example, it is generally believed that
the slower f/1.8 and f/2 nikkor AIS lenses were often sharper than the
faster f/1.4 and especially f/1.2 nikkors. So comparing a Leitz or Leica
50mm f/2 Summicron (new for M6 or old for SL2) against an older 50mm f/1.4
lens is prejudicial - but against the older but faster lenses and in
favor of the high priced optics tested here.
Resolution is only one factor in choosing a lens, while other parameters
such as distortion or bokeh or flare resistance may be very important
criteria depending on your needs. But don't buy into high priced and
heavily advertised optics of any 35mm brand and expect to do much better
than these cheapy 50mm normal lenses on the classic Pentax and Minolta
SLRs! The differences are much more subtle than that, and more like slight
improvements in distortion in the corners wide open or better baffling to
reduce off-axis flare. Similarly, don't be
surprised if the rangefinders from the same 1970s period also perform
amazingly well in resolution, even against the most costly lens
lines.
Modern Photography Lens Test data from 1972-75
If you are using a decent quality rangefinder or 35mm SLR with good
technique, chances are excellent that few folks could tell your photos
from identical shots taken with a Leica at any print size below 16x24", as
noted in the above article. Technique and factors like using the optimal
"sweet spot" of the lens and high resolution films will have more
influence on your final results than the lack of pricey Leica brand lenses
compared to even older SLR lenses. So stop obsessing about the need to
"compromise" on a budget SLR or rangefinder, and get out there and use
it!
Besides the Voigtlander rangefinder offering, Nikon has just announced its
own limited edition high end S-3 rangefinder (for its much earlier classic
collectible S rangefinder series). Other manufacturers including Canon
have indicated an interest too. My guess is that a modest number of high
end rangefinder models will now become available. Unfortunately, most of
these rangefinders will not be in the budget rangefinder price range, and
many will be instant collectibles due to limited production runs (e.g.,
Nikon S3). But the new lenses will provide a range of more competitively
priced lenses for users of original Leicas and Leica clones alike.
| Warning about Leica M Clone lens registration distances | ||
|---|---|---|
| Camera | Lens Registration | Resolution (lpmm) with 50mm f/2 Summicron |
| Konica RF | 28.7 mm | 22 lpmm |
| Leica M6 | 27.6 mm | 57 lpmm |
| Voigtlander T | 27.0 mm | 57 lpmm |
The above article concludes with "Warning: When cross-dressing Leica M and Voigtlander M
lenses and cameras, be careful. Some lenses may fit the mount but not slide properly into the
interior of the camera."
Dante Stella's excellent lens
registration article examines this issue for Konica Hexar RF and Leica M series bodies. I believe
his explanation for the above discrepancies in poor focusing effects is reasonable. The Leica
lens registration distance in practice is essentially identical to that of the Konica Hexar RF,
with a small allowance (.05mm) for film buckling. This observation makes much more sense than
the claims that Konica cloned the M-bayonet mount, but got the lens registration wrong. [Update 10/2002]
As we point out on our Leica Clones pages, you simply have to test
your lenses to be sure they match your camera body(s), especially if you are using Russian or
Ukrainian lenses (e.g., in LTM to M mount adapters). Shoot some critically focused shots
wide open with a fine grain film, and compare with other known good lenses (for a resolution
standard). If the new lens shows poor performance wide open, ask a lens repair technician to
check it and your cameras for lens registration distance mismatches. A few shims or adjustments
may yield a surprising and gratifying increase in performance.
This check is probably especially
important with older screw mount and Russian or Ukrainian clone lenses, which may vary more in
lens registration distances between sundry lens samples. Unfortunately, this "Babel" of lens
registration distances means you can't assume that a lens hasn't already been adjusted for
another camera model (e.g., M mount voigtlander, versus Konica RF, versus Leica M).
This discovery helps explain why some folks have gotten great results with some bargain or
clone lenses, and others have gotten terrible results from the same optics. A 0.2mm or less
difference in critical focusing position with fine grain film
can cut lens resolution in half! So if wide open performance is less stellar
than expected, consider having your lens(es) and camera checked for possible lens registration
distance mismatches.
You will be hard pressed to beat the optical quality, convenience, and
features of the compact 35 rangefinders typified by the Konica Auto S2 and
Canonet QL-17 GIII series. While these rangefinders are similar in size
and weight to many compact and larger SLRs, they offer leaf shutter flash
synch at any speed (up to 1/500th second) and more accurate focusing in
poor light conditions (thanks to long baseline rangefinder
designs).
If you really must have an interchangeable lens 35mm rangefinder with
built-in metering for under $100 US, consider the Fed 5C. The Russian and
Ukrainian optics can be quite good, if you get the right production
sample.
In medium format, you can go with either the fixed lens Moskva-5 copy of
the Super Ikonta-C, or the Kodak Medalist I or II with interchangeable
lenses for slightly more than our $100 budget. If you have $200 or more to
spare, you might find an original Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B/C (see posting
below) or a budget Koni-Omega interchangeable lens rangefinder model with
fixed backs (slightly more buys an interchangeable back model).
The postings below and related rangefinder FAQ
and Leica Clones pages provide additional notes,
links, and resources.
Be aware that there are at least two major variants of the most desirable
models (QL 17 and QL 19) - not counting all-black cosmetic versions. The
compact versions (usually labeled G-III) is quite a bit smaller and
lighter than the full size models. Compact here means 4 3/4" x 3" x 2
3/8" and only 20 ounces.
The Canonet QL 17 G-III is usually the most recommended model, largely
because of its surprisingly good Canon SE f/1.7 lens. That's 1.5 stops
faster than the f/2.8 lenses found in today's fastest point and shoot or
autofocus rangefinders. The f/1.7 lens is generally rated higher, perhaps
because it is a 6 element lens versus 5 elements for the f/1.9 lens on the
standard models? In case it isn't obvious, the number after the model
references the maximum f/stop of the lens; QL 17 -> f/1.7, QL 19 -> f/1.9,
QL 25 -> f/2.5, QL 28 -> f/2.8, and so on.
The compact QL 17 and QL 19 models (e.g., QL 17 G-III) have a wider
40mm lens, versus a 45mm lens on the non-compact models (QL 17). Here
again, the slightly wider lens would be a plus for most general users (cf.
35mm focal length on most point and shoots today).
You can use these QL 17 or 19 model cameras in full manual mode, with the
built-in CdS meter (with battery), or in full-automatic shutter priority
mode. You select a shutter speed, and the camera sets the aperture
automatically. Standard flashes can be used with the X-synch top shoe (or
PC cable outlet on left side of camera) by setting aperture and distance
on lens manually to match flash guide number. The Canonlite D flash has
some automatic features to set correct aperture based on distance set on
the lens.
The quick loading device (QL) is designed to reduce loading errors and
speed loading film. More importantly, you can also tell that film is being
moved or wound through indicators on the camera.
The viewfinder is surprisingly bright if you are used to slow zoom lenses
on SLRs. Magnification is about 0.7x (estimated). The viewfinder shows the
aperture selected on automatic mode (except E models, see notes below).
Two arrows in viewfinder show when manual settings will be under or
over-exposed. In automatic mode, you can't trip the shutter unless there
is enough but not too much light to take a properly exposed photograph.
One nice feature of the full sized QL 17 and 19 models is their shutter
speeds go down to 1 second, versus the 1/4th second for the compact
models. If you need these slower speeds, you might want to consider the
full sized models. But keep in mind you may be able to use a neutral
density filter to permit manually timed longer exposures with the
Bulb setting.
Among the few gotcha's of the compact QL series is the small 48mm filter
ring will usually require a step-up filter ring (e.g., 48mm to 49mm, 48mm
to 52mm). The #625 mercury battery is hard to find, but there are sources online, and they last a long time
(3-5 years intermittent use).
The bottom line is that the Canonet QL 17 G-III represents a "best buy",
often for $60-80 US on Ebay. Many
dealers will ask $100-140+ US, so buy while these out-of-favor prices
hold! You will have a relatively compact rangefinder with full flash synch
(1/4th to 1/500th second) and a surprisingly good 40mm Canon lens that's
1.5 stops faster (at f/1.7) than even the fastest f/2.8 point and
shoots! Moreover, you will have full automatic shutter priority and full
manual setting capabilities.
Source: Canonet Guide Focal Press 1979
Personally, I recommend that if you really need high quality images, that
the easiest way to ensure getting them is to use medium format cameras,
thanks to the larger film area. But whether rangefinder or SLR, most
medium format gear is much larger and heavier than most 35mm SLRs or
rangefinders. But if you can live with the Moskva-5 or original Zeiss
Ikonta B/C, you might be surprised by the resulting quality images.
My personal style of photography involves a lot of closeup work, exotic
wide angle and fisheye lens work, and some telephoto landscapes as
well. So I prefer a small compact 35mm SLR such as the Pentax ME Super or
Nikon FE for my style of photography. If you are into photojournalism or
street photography, you may find the small size and quiet of an
interchangeable lens rangefinder to be more ideal. But there are
lots of budget rangefinders with surprisingly good optics and
featuares out there for under $100 US, so why not try one out to
see how you like rangefinders?
| Yashica Electro 35 CC vs. Electro 35 GT | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yashica: | 35mm | f/1.8 | 45mm | f/1.7 |
| f/stops | center | edge | center | edge |
| max | acceptable | acceptable | good | excellent |
| 2 | acceptable | acceptable | good | excellent |
| 2.8 | excellent | excellent | acceptable | very good |
| 4 | very good | excellent | acceptable | excellent |
| 5.6 | excellent | excellent | good | excellent |
| 8 | excellent | excellent | good | excellent |
| 11 | very good | excellent | very good | excellent |
| 16 | very good | excellent | acceptable | very good |
See the original source for more on lens testing techniques and standards. Here
we are comparing two 35mm rangefinders by Yashica in the same Electro-35 series.
The Electro 35 CC features a 35mm f/1.8 color yashinon DX lens, while the Electro 35
GT has the 45mm f/1.7 color yashinon DX lens. A quick look at the chart shows that
these lenses are quite different. The 45mm f/1.7 has no ratings of "excellent"
and only one "very good" rating in center resolution, while the 35mm f/1.8 has three ratings
of "excellent" and "very good" respectively. Moreover, the 35mm has more "excellent" ratings
in the edge (6) than the 45mm.
So which camera do you want? Do you shoot exclusively wide open in "available darkness"?
If so, then you probably want the 45mm f/1.7. Surprise! While the 35mm lens turned in
a great performance from f/2.8 onwards, the 45mm lens beat its "acceptable" only ratings
by providing good and excellent resolution when used wide open. On the other hand, if
you rarely shoot wide open, then the 35mm lens certainly looks very attractive, yes?
Notice how both cameras share a surprisingly high number of "excellent" ratings in edge
resolution. We might hope that a similar pattern would govern similar color Yashinon
lenses.
| Three Minolta CLE Lenses Data | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minolta CLE | 40mm | f/2 | 28mm | f/2.8 | 90mm | f/4 |
| f/stops | center | edge | center | edge | center | edge |
| 2 | 52 | 41 | ||||
| 2.8 | 66 | 41 | 56 | 50 | ||
| 4 | 66 | 46 | 63 | 56 | 53 | 53 |
| 5.6 | 58 | 52 | 56 | 63 | 53 | 53 |
| 8 | 58 | 58 | 63 | 56 | 59 | 59 |
| 11 | 58 | 52 | 63 | 56 | 67 | 59 |
| 16 | 52 | 52 | 56 | 50 | 59 | 53 |
| 22 | 50 | 40 | 47 | 42 | ||
See the article for more information on the lens tests and interpretation standards. The M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 had only 0.47% barrel distortion, versus under 1% pincushion distortion for the other two. The 40mm did have a surprisingly high 1.5 stops of light falloff, versus only 0.25 stops for the telephoto 90mm and 1.125 stops for the 28mm wide angle.
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999
From: Paul and Paula Butzi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What is the advantage of range finder camera
Ching-Hui Lin [email protected] wrote:
>Are there other advantages of range finder camera over SLR besides the >low noise operation. How would the view changes when different lens >were mounted? Or this is not a valid question. > >Regards, > >David Zhu
There are a bunch of *differences* between an SLR and a rangefinder.
Whether they are advantages or disadvantages depends largely on
how you intend to use the camera.
The differences are:
1. No reflex mirror
2. Direct viewing through a viewfinder, as opposed to seeing the
image projected on a focusing screen.
3. Focusing is done with a split image rangefinder instead of
viewing the image on a focussing screen. (or the camera's focus
system viewing the image on a focus sensor).
The consequences of (1) are:
a) The movement of the reflex mirror at the instant of the exposure
produces noise. No mirror, no noise.
b) The movement of the reflex mirror at the instant of the exposure
produces vibration. No mirror, no vibration.
c) The movement of the reflex mirror introduces delay between when
you press the shutter button and when the shutter opens. No mirror,
no delay.
The consequences of (2) are:
a) because you are not viewing the scene through the taking lens
parallax error is introduced, making framing less accurate.
b) because you are not viewing the scene through the taking lens,
you do not get focus or depth of field preview.
c) because you are not viewing the scene through the taking lens,
the viewfinder can be substantially brighter, and does not depend
on the widest aperture of the taking lens.
d) All of the scene appears to be in focus in the viewfinder with a
rangefinder camera.
e) Unlike non-pellicle mirror SLRs, the viewfinder does not go
black at the instant of exposure.
The consequences of (3) are:
a) Some people find focusing with a split image rangefinder slower or
more difficult
b) ease and accuracy of focus in poor lighting is substantially better
with a rangefinder than with an SLR.
Different rangefinder cameras do different things to make the field of
view change when you change lenses. The M6 projects different
frame lines in the finder. Some cameras use moving masks to show
the field of view adjusted both for focal length and parallax.
A reasonably lengthy review of the Leica M6 which highlights some of
this stuff can be found at:
http://www.asymptote.com/butzi/articles/reviews/leicam6.htm
-Paul
--
Articles on B&W photography, camera and equipment reviews, and
photographs at:
http://www.asymptote.com/butzi (updated 10/21/99)
(Latest change - review of lenses for Leica M cameras)
[Postscript..]
And one more point:
Because there is no reflex mirror, the rear element of the lens can
be much closer to the film plane. As a result, wide angle lenses
are not forced to be a retro-focus design, and can avoid the
compromises that retro-focus design might impose.
-Paul
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999
From: [email protected] (David F. Stein)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: RF best buys URL Re: What is the advantage of range finder
camera
Great answers. For me, rangefinders-in all sizes and price levels-are
more fluid and generally quieter cameras. Not owning a Leica, one of
the traditional advantages are the leaf shutter lenses, which can be
more compact and durable and have more shutter blades because the leafs
don't move during exposure. There were leaf shutter SLRs but they had a
short life. Until SLRs started exceeding 1/60th and then 1/125th flash
sync, this was also another tremendous advantage of leaf shutter
cameras. There are so many great SLRs out there hamstrung by 1/60th top
flash sync when working outdoors.
Too bad Contax G choose only 6 blades! And what's that top flash sync
speed on the Leica M to this day!
While a lot of SLR work seems to be shoot away, in slower, thoughful
hands, an SLR can be great because you can do groundglass focusing and
assess depth of field. I generally use an SLR for macro lenses and
special great lenses like the Minolta 45mm.
Have fun, DFS
Robert Monaghan [email protected] wrote:
> for medium format rangefinders, see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/rf.html > includes benefits of rf cameras etc., low cost med fmt rf cameras... > > for 35mm rangefinders etc., best buys in low cost 35mm rangefinders etc. see > http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/rangefinder.html > > see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/albro.html for individual 35mm > rangefinder camera model pages and links (G2 etc.) > > see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/cameras.html for various medium > format and related rangefinder camera links, esp. koniomega and mamiya rf > > regards bobm
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: small leica question
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
To: "Rollei List" [email protected]
A Leica Minilux or Minilux Zoom would be perfect. They have excellent
lenses, carry the fashion statement of a Leica, and are simple for anyone
to operate and get good pictures with. Genuinely good cameras.
(I have a Leica CL with 40/2 lens. If you're only going to use a 35-50mm
lens, the Rollei 35S takes pictures on par with it and costs half as
much, is smaller too. The major reason I bought the CL was so that I
could have the standard 40, which I use for most of my picture taking, as
well as an ultra-wide-angle lens. But if your wife isn't photographically
savvy, a Minilux or Minilux Zoom will take pictures of equal quality and
is a lot easier to operate.)
No need to buy an M or an R unless you really want one of those for you
to "share" with your wife... :)
Godfrey
...
From: "roland" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 35 Image Quality
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999
7-27-99
Oakland, California
Several years ago, I purchased a Rollei 35 with a 2.8 Sonnar which had been
manufactured in Singapore. I took a test roll and was amazed at the sharp
images on every frame.
One week later, I took the same pictures with my Olympus XA and the found
the results to be inferior.
I sold the XA to a buyer who inspected the camera and the prints from my
comparative test.
Later, I purchased a German Rollei 35 with the f3.5 Tessar. I took some
available light pictures in a factory using 1/15 sec at f3.5 with very
clear results for business use.
I now own two Singapore products with f2.8 and two German products with
F3.5. I will not part with them.
Best regards
Roland Smith
----------
> From: G. Lehrer [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 35 Image Quality > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 11:50 PM > > John A. Lind wrote: > > > > you wrote: > > >I am interested in purchasing a Rollei 35. Can anyone tell me how the later > > >models(Sonnar) stack up against more modern mini's like the various > > >Contax's, Yashica's, Minilux and the not so mini Konica Hexar. I am more > > >interested in hearing about imaging characteristics than I am camera > > >features. Thanks! > > > > The 40mm f/2.8 Sonnar HFT on the 35S is a superb lens. It may be possible > > to find a few around with ones made by Carl Zeiss, but I cannot attest to > > this. It was formulated by Carl Zeiss, but the vast majority, if not all > > of them, were manufactured by Rollei under license from Carl Zeiss. > > Instead of the Carl Zeiss T* multi-coating, it has Rollei's HFT > > multi-coating. > > > > It is a newer formulation of the Sonnar using 5 elements in 4 groups. The > > original 50mm f/2 Sonnar was designed by Carl Zeiss in 1930 specifically > > for the Zeiss Ikon Contax with 6 elements in 3 groups. Hot on its heels > > was the faster 50mm f/1.5 with 7 elements in 3 groups. It is noted for its > > flat field, extremely low distortion, extremely low falloff, high contrast, > > and exceptional resolution. > > > > My experience has lived up to its reputation using Elitechrome 100 and > > projecting the slides on a 50" matte screen (using an Ektagrphic with a > > Schneider Prolux lens). Often I will go up to the screen and look at the > > image from only a few inches away. > > > > The resolution in photographs of subjects with fine detail is astounding > > and approaches the limits of the film. In addition it has excellent flare > > control and exhibits near zero fringing at high contrast sharp edges in the > > image. The contrast is very high, although it seems not quite as high as > > the 35T I had with a Tessar lens. On the other hand, the Tessar had a > > slight falloff that I have not seen with the Sonnar. > > > > I have also projected the images on a very smooth, aluminum panel painted > > flat white, about 24" square. After looking at those I would not be afraid > > to ask for 11x14 prints of some of the photographs I've taken with it! In > > short, I have yet to see anything coming out of a modern P&S that matches > > the 35S. Its Sonnar holds its own against the 50/1.2 MC on my OM-4, the > > postwar 50/1.5 (Sonnar) on my Contax IIIa (which also amazes me), and > > approaches the 80/2.8 on my 645 SLR (which has the advantage of a frame > > about 3X the area of 35mm). > > > > The trick I've found to getting this level of lens performance is mastering > > the scale focusing. Some users find this takes a little practice to > > estimate distance to within a foot out to about 15 feet or so, perhaps a > > little more accurately with fast apertures under 5 feet. If in doubt on > > distance, I use a slower shutter speed and faster aperture. After about > > 15-20 feet, the 40mm focal length is very forgiving of distance estimating > > error. There are times when I wish it had a rangefinder, but find I > > actually focus the 35S faster than I do the Contax IIIa which has one. > > > > No, you can't buy mine. It's not for sale and probably won't be until my > > surviving relatives dispose of my estate, and I don't plan on that > > happening for at least a few more decades. I use it like a P&S when I > > don't want to fiddle around with the 35mm and medium format systems. > > > > Hope your experience with one turns out to be as good as mine. > > -- John > > Gentlemen > > I cannot agree more strongly! > > I use a 35SE and echo all John's accolades on the 2.8 Sonnar. Slides > seem sharper than those from my Nikon F2 with f2.8 Micro-Nikor. > > Jerry
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 35 Image ; tessars
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
> Reading other posts I now remember that the small Olympus suffering > from vigneting tested against my 35SE was a XA but I have doubts now > that this was actually a 6-element lens.
In my testing of 35mm point and shoot cameras I've found that almost all
of them suffer from visible vignetting. I really like the Leica mini, and
carry it in preference to the Rollei 35SE because I am not good at guess
focusing. But comparison photos taken with it and the Rollei show vignetting
in the Leica. Even the Konica Hexar shows some vignetting!
Bob
From: Ted Llewellyn [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Know anything about the Fed 5C?
Date: 30 Jul 1999
The Fed 5C has arrived. First impressions are not good, but I think
this camera may be a late-bloomer in a photographer's heart. It's cheesy
looking. Openning the case pulls the lens cap off and the cap is going to
be awfully easy to loose if I don't tie it to the lens. The lens had a
spot on it that looked like a flaw in the coating, but it came off with a
little gentle effort with a Pec pad. Then the manual (in English! sort
of) made no mention of how to remove the lens, and I was afraid for awhile
that it wasn't really an interchangable lens camera. Never owned a
screw-mount. One good twist, of course, and it comes right off.
On inspection, though, things get better. The lens is a 55mm Industar,
based on the anastigmat design (I have a Bessa with a 11cm anastigmat, a
coincidence there, or easier to clone a design if you simply half the
focal length?). The anastigmat may be an ancient design but my Bessa is
very sharp; combined with the optical coating there is no reason why this
Industar shouldn't be a fine lens.
Everything works; it has a hot shoe that fires my Sunpak, the timer
works, the meter works. And the meter surprises me by being accurate.
I've spent some time checking it against my Autometer III with a 10-degree
spot attatchment. Allowing for some inaccuracy in getting them to meter
the same things in the field of view, the readings come out quite close.
By adjusting the dial of the calculator on the camera a little on the low
side of the ISO number, it'll be more than accurate enough for print film.
And for anything else, I have the hand held meter.
The shutter speeds sound right, not that I'm any expert. But more
important for me, it's quiet. Maybe not a quiet as the Leica I'd like to
have, and probably more prone to cause some camera shake -- for a tenth
the price of the Leica _without_ a lens, no complaints.
I expect to grow fond of this Fed.
From: Ted Llewellyn [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Know anything about the Fed 5C?
Date: 30 Jul 1999
Well, I'm not a very good camera reviewer. Two important points I left
out. The view finder is dark, and the rangefinder spot, while of course
lighter, is very tiny. However, using it only once convinced me that I
would find it easier to use than the split-image rangefinder you get it
SLRs. With this camera you are merging the whole image, not trying to
tell if the upper and lower halves are lined up. Still, it's such a small
spot that it's easy to lose your focus point if the camera moves as you
focus. Probably get used to it.
The viewfinder lacks the bright line frames it's supposed to have.
Didn't have them in stock that day?
The shutter isn't abominable, but when it releases the camera can move.
Something else to get used to.
From: [email protected] (Colyn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What are there in reasonable used rangefinder
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999
Jim Bisnett [email protected] Let his/her fingers do the
walking and came up with this message:
>Can someone tell me what reasonable priced used rangefinders with leica >screw mount.
Many of the Leica copies will command higher prices than Leicas since
most were made in fewer numbers than Leica.. The newer 39mm thread
mount cameras are for the most part viewfinder cameras which means you
have to guess the distance..
>Leica would probably be too much money.
Actually Leica screwmount cameras can be had fairly cheap.. A good
used IIIc will run with lens approx. $300-500. and a good user IIIa
about a hundred dollars less.. Some people will tell you to stay away
from the pre-war models such as the IIIa and IIIb but these cameras
are as reliable as the post war models.. I have a IIIa made in 1936
that has seen well over a thousand rolls of film and is as reliable as
my M3.. However, I would caution you against using anything older, not
so much from the standpoint of condition but these older models are
more collectable....
Colyn
Leica Information: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Veranda/9472
From: Bill Schaffel [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Minolta lens question
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999
The XE-7 was the first new body after the SRT series and was used for the
R3. Minolta bodies were used for the R3 through the R7 but I'm not sure if
they were all the XE-7 body. The first Leica designed body is the R8.
[email protected] wrote:
> Now, I got confused. Which one is more closer to Leica R4 or better > camera, the XD series or XE-7? > Thanks. Wei
....
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Zoom or primes for travel shots?
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999
That's why I stick with a Rollei 35S, Minox 35GT-E or Ricoh GR1 as a
35mm compact. Plenty of control, tiny size, and a lens the equal of many
SLRs. You can carry one of them instead of an SLR and not be at a loss
unless your specific needs require the flexibility of interchangeable lenses.
Godfrey
Jim Bisnett wrote:
> I mentioned the compact only as a backup. I own both of the compacts I > mentioned. The use of the prime lenses on the elan would give him better > control. Both the T4 and the style epic have very little exposure control. > It is possible to get much better pictures with the SLR.
From: [email protected] (R. Saylor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Zoom or primes for travel shots?
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999
Although a little larger than those you mention, the Leica Minilux
40mm also offers all the control one normally needs and is my usual
carry-around camera except for backpacking, when I use the T4 Super
for light weight, compactness, and weather resistance. My Pentax SLR
system generally gathers dust except when my wife uses it. I have
rediscovered an exciting new world of photographic creativity using a
fixed lens.
I would still prefer the Rollei 35 if I hadn't sold mine in a moment
of weakness when I needed some quick cash, and my job was so demanding
that I didn't have much time for photography. The Leica, however, is
almost as good, but requires a different technique, which I am still
in the process of learning.
R. Saylor
Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected] wrote:
>That's why I stick with a Rollei 35S, Minox 35GT-E or Ricoh GR1 as a >35mm compact. Plenty of control, tiny size, and a lens the equal of many >SLRs. You can carry one of them instead of an SLR and not be at a loss >unless your specific needs require the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. > >Godfrey > >Jim Bisnett wrote: >> >> I mentioned the compact only as a backup. I own both of the compacts I >> mentioned. The use of the prime lenses on the elan would give him better >> control. Both the T4 and the style epic have very little exposure control. >> It is possible to get much better pictures with the SLR.
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999
From: Mark Walberg [email protected]
Subject: Re: fast 50mm for club shooting
>From: Matthias Ochs [email protected] >Also, I'd like very much to have a fast standard lens (mainly for shooting at >night and in jazz clubs),...... >Matthias
Matthias, For shooting in a club, you really should consider using a
rangefinder. Since you want to use a normal lens, you can get something
reasonable for not much money to start with. For example, a Canonet or a
Konica Auto S2 or several others with very good lenses somewhere near 40mm
f1.7 can be had in great shape for less than any of the lenses you are
talking about. THe rangefinder cameras are great for this for several
reasons. They are small and unobtrusive and remarkably quiet. The whole
thing fits in your pocket - you can get one in where they say "cameras not
allowed". Rangefinders are easier to focus in available darkness than are
SLRs, after you get the hang of it.
If you want different focal lengths, or a faster lens, you can get a
Leica III or IIIC with a Jupiter 50 f1.5 for around $300. This is a very
good lens and a really great camera - again it takes a little getting used
to first. For big money, you can get a Leica M with a fast lens (like the
50 f1), but you will have to sell a lot of pictures to pay for that. Any
of these setups - from the Canonet to the Leica M - will probably work out
better than the Nikon for club shooting.
-Mark Walberg
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999
From: "Anderson, Ferrel E" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Minolta CLE Rokkors
I don't know personally how the Rokkors compare with the comparable M
lenses, but a lot of photographers used the 40mm Leica CLE lens on their
Leicas. Their comments were that the Leica CLE lens was as good or better
than the 50mm Summicron at the time. I don't know about the 40mm Rokkor,
but the 90mm f4 Rokkor is the same as the 90mm f4 Elmar CLE lens. Jim Lager
in his book on Leica lenses, states that the 90mm Rokkor is the only Leica
made 35mm format lens that has been sold under another Company name!
From: [email protected] (Stefan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Minolta lens question
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999
[email protected] wrote:
=>Hi Sam-- => =>So... XE-7 is better camera than XD 11... what about the XK (except the =>interchange finder feature) on the shutter and mirror design?
As I wrote in another post the Leica R3 was based on the XE-7, the Leica
R4 and on were based on the XD-7.
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999
You're welcome Bob. There is the S, S2, and S3. The S2 is the one you
want.
Incredible lens....
Peter K
From: Robert Monaghan [mailto:[email protected]]
thanks for the tip on the S2, Peter, I'll put it on my Xmas list, I'm
looking for a low cost but decent one-lens camera (esp. a rangefinder...?)
that's in my student budget range, and this is about it? ;-) grins bobm
From Rollei List:
Why do you want to sell the prominent? I have owned a couple of these and
found them to be superb cameras (my first was acquired when I was about
14) particularly with the 50mm Nokton lens. Not as popular as the
contemporaneous Contax or Leica SM cameras, but still superb. Cannot hold
a candle to the M3 which first appeared in 1954(?), but no one has ever
surpassed the M3's high standard.
SA
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999 [email protected] wrote:
From Rollei List:
The Rollei 35B, 35C and 35LED were the economy versions of the Rollei 35
and divorced from the standard versions by a plastic chassis, less
expensive shutter without slow speeds, and a much less expensive lens.
The Triotar 40/3.5 lens is a simple 3 element lens and is nowhere near
the equal of the Tessar 40/3.5 (or Xenar 40/3.5) on the more expensive
models. It can take a decent picture, but the difference in lens quality
is apparent to anyone immediately.
The Sonnar 40/2.8 lens ranks up there with the best lenses in the focal
length anywhere, at any price, in my opinion ... I have often compared
photos from it with various Nikkor and Leica lenses and it does not come
off poorly at all.
If you want a truly excellent camera, go for a standard Rollei 35 with
Tessar or a 35S with Sonnar. All the "collectibles" in the Rollei 35 line
are fitted with these lenses anyways ... the Rollei 35 S Silver
Anniversary, the Rollei 35 Gold Edition, the Rollei 35 20th Anniversary
Edition, the Rollei 35 Classic 75th Anniversary Edition, etc. But I'd not
really plan to use these collectibles as an everyday user ... that would
hurt their value a lot. Rather buy yourself a good Rollei 35T or 35S for
a good, working camera which can take fine pictures.
Godfrey
From: [email protected] (Kyle Cassidy)
?!? $1000 for an m4 might sound good to a leica collector but i don't
think it addresses the origional poster's question. answer is: keep the
elan IIe and get yourself a canon ql17 to go along with it. you can find
them for $35-$80 used.
kc
From: "Isaac H Crawford" [email protected]
....
You can pick up an M3 with DR summicron for around $500-$600 in "user"
condition... I know this because we're selling one right now (ahem!...).
There's no reason to spend $1000 on an old body, you just have to look
around a little. That way you can enjoy one of the best cameras ever made
and take advantage of the amazing new lenses (when you save up enough!).
Isaac
From: "Joerg Scherbaum" [email protected]
Recently I got myself an old Canon 7 RF which employs the 39mm Leica thread.
I bought it with those new Voigtlaender lenses in my mind which are
outstanding. The advantage is that you can set the viewfinder-frames
manually and do not have to rely on automatic coupling. The disadvantage is
that the Canon7 has no accesory shoe. So if you want to use a flash or a
lens wider than 35mm - where you would need an additional viewfinder - this
camera is not for you. But it�s built like a Leica or better and it�s a lot
cheaper than say a M3.
And: Voigtlaender will soon introduce a body with an internal viewfinder.
Joerg
....
From: "TravGlen" [email protected]
....
Have used a Canon 7 with Canon 35mm/1.8, so I know what an outstanding
camera system this is. Recently though, I got a Voigtleander Bessa-L +
15mm/4.5 Heliar. The Bessa-L is an outstanding & exceptionally well
engineered camera body, and priced at $250, a steal. The 15mm Heliare can
challenge anything from Leica or Zeiss, and at $420. The Voigtleander
Bessa-L will provide the basis for the new rangefinder. Incidentally, I
carry my Bessa-L + 15mm/4.5 everywhere. It's an amazing street camera.
People like to pose for it.
From: R. Saylor [email protected]
You can sometimes find a good deal on a Leica M4-2. (These Canadian
made Leicas are not so highly prized by collectors.) The guts of the
camera are almost the same as the M6, but it has no meter. Fit it with
a 50mm Summicron (or even a cheap 35mm Summaron), get a decent
handheld meter, and you're all set.
An alternative to the M4-2 would be the M2, but it's harder to load.
Richard S.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Let's say you're interested in casual street photography. Most people I
know doing this sort of thing prefer a 35 to 50mm lens. They want manual
control of focus and lens opening so they can set the focus by depth of
field markings, zone focus rules in street photography. And they want
quiet, unobtrusive operation.
You don't need a Leica M for that. A Rollei 35 or a Minox 35GT-E will
both do exactly what you want very easily, are about half the size of a
Leica M, and have superb lenses of reasonable speed (40mm f/3.5 or f/2.8
on the Rollei 35, 35mm f/2.8 on the Minox 35GT-E). The Rollei is a fully
manual camera with coupled match needle exposure meter, speeds from
1/2-1/500 second plus B, the Minox is an aperture priority AE camera
with speeds from 16 seconds to 1/500 sec.
Rollei 35s are only available used now, mint 35S examples with the f/2.8
lens go for about $350 or so, vg to exc users are less. The Minox 35GT-E
is about $350 from B&H new.
What don't you get? Well, you don't get interchangeable lenses, you
don't get a rangefinder (focus is by scale and DoF markings only). What
do you get? An affordable camera with a top notch quality lens and
manual controllability.
If you want an interchangeable lens, modern rangefinder camera, you're
going to spend a lot more money for a Leica M, Contax G or the new Hexar
RF when it becomes available. If you don't need the interchangeable
lenses, the Minox in particular is an amazingly good alternative.
Godfrey
....
Subject: Re: Rangefinders
....
On the other hand, if you DO want a camera with a real rangefinder (as
opposed to guess focusing) and DON'T need interchangeable lenses, you can
choose from scads of well-made Japanese "compact 35s" from the '60s and
'70s, such as the well-known Canon QL17 G-III, Olympus 35SP and RD, Minolta
Hi-Matic 7s and 7sII, Konica Auto S2, and various others of their ilk. Most
came in several models, so look for the ones that have full manual control
as well as autoexposure. Most have these have semi-wide lenses that are
ideal for street shooting and generally the optical quality is quite good
(I can vouch for the Olympus 35SP and Minolta Hi-Matic 7SII, both of which
I own, having optics comparable to good SLR lenses.) And if you hunt around
on the used market you can find them for a lot less than a $350 Rollei or
Minox ("less" in the sense of $200-$300 less!)
From: [email protected] (Raskolnikov)
I can personally vouch for the Minolta Hi-Matic 9 (with which I have
fallen in love). Lens not quite as sharp as my SLRs 50, but sharper than
my 135 and way sharper than any under $500 zoom. Better winding/loading
mechanism than any of Minolta's manual SLR's (I'm still an AF virgin, so I
couldn't comment on them). And $20 on e-bay. Try something like this
first, to see how you like rangefinders, before you drop a huge wad 'o
cash on a Leica. My favorite thing about this leaf-shutter rangefinder is
total absence of "jump" -- I can handhold reasonably clearly to 1/15 and
about 50% of the time to 1/8 -- try that with mirror slap and focal plane
shutter jarring (the latter which you even get on a Leica). But watch out
for battery issues - many of these cameras take not-sold-in-the-US mercury
batteries, including my Hi-Matic 9 (but I live in San Diego, so it's not a
problem). But most just need it to run the meter - the shutters are purely
mechanical. I'm pretty sure the 7sII does take modern batteries - but it's
a much smaller body, a shorter/flarier lens, and a slightly less effetive
rangefinder. They're $70-$90 on e-bay.
....
From: "West Mass Guy" [email protected]
Do you need interchangeable lenses? If not, then there are a lot of
rangefinders from the 1960's and 1970's that could fit your bill.
Yashica, Canon, Konica, Minolta, Kodak, Olympus and many other companies
made/sold fixed-lens rangefinder cameras with fast lenses (less than f2.0)
during that time. Many had auto-exposure capabilities. Many also had leaf
shutters, making them very quiet and giving them flash sync throughout their
shutter speed range (usually 1-1/500).
People seem to like Canon, Yashica, and Konica rangefinders from this time
period, mostly due to their lenses. Just look out for batteries, many of
these may use mercury cells to power their meters (although they will have
mechanical shutters). They always show up on eBay.
Jim
....
From Leica User Group
Let me add to the answers about the Contax and Kiev a suggestion that
people seek out a nice Kiev 5. This has many of the virtues of the
earlier Contaxes and Kievs (except for the neat focus wheel on the body)
and adds to them a wonderfully contrasty rangefinder with
parallax-compensated bright line finder, with bright lines for 50mm and
85mm. Using the entire finder gives you a good, but non-parallax
compensated 35mm and the rangefinder patch is an adequate 135mm. The
camera is nicely finished and has a built-in meter and side-mounted rewind
crank. While the film advance is not exactly M Leica smooth, it works
well with both lever and knob wind - this is the only camera that I can
think of with this feature.
The downside is that the camera is somewhat bulkier than the earlier
Kiev/Contaxes, and not as well balanced in the hand with the 50mm lens
mounted. However, it is better balanced with the 85mm f2 mounted. And I
can say from experience that it is a joy to use.
The Kiev 5 indicates the direction that Zeiss might have gone in to
produce a camera more competitive with the M Leica. Definitely one of the
great examples of an underrated camera.
From Leica User Group:
In response to some of the responses to my posting on the Kiev 5, I've
owned mine for several years and know several others who own the same
model. I have never had a problem with the lever film advance, nor do I
know anyone else who has. Has anyone on this list (including you Steve)
experienced such problems, or is this basically hearsay? I must admit
that I use the knob wind on mine as frequently as the lever wind, so maybe
I just haven't been making much of a demand on this component.
As far as Kiev/Contax lenses not fitting the Kiev 5, it lacks the inner
bayonet mount of the other Kiev/Contax cameras. Hence, it takes a
dedicated 50mm lens that fits via the same external bayonet mount that is
found on all other Kiev/Contax camera. All other focal lengths in the
standard Kiev/Contax mount will fit with no problem. I've never seen a
Kiev 5 for sale without the 50mm lens, so I doubt that this variation
would be much of an inconvenience.
I should point out that not all models of this camera have bright lines
for 85mm. This is a distinct advantage and the ones with this feature are
the ones that should be sought out.
McKeown's lists this camera's value as around $350, as I recall, but I
know that some were listed for auction on eBay some time ago and did not
come close to this figure. A clean Kiev 5 with 50mm Jupiter lens should
be obtainable for less than $250.
From Leica User Group:
[email protected] writes:
I've long thought about getting one of the modern medium format rangefinders
but I can't justify the price since I have no idea what I would actually do
with the camera. The old folders are interesting though. I checked ebay and
there's a small boatload of Moskva 5 cameras offered for sale right now. Most
of them are offered by the same guy and they all start at $75. Most of them
have received no bids. A quick check of the completed items shows that
similar cameras went for not much more than $75. I may have to try one .
. .
OLC (obligatory Leica content): Of course, truth be told, I'm sure I
would much rather shoot with my Leica.
Bob
From Leica User Group:
I really like my Mamiya 7 -- as a thing of its type -- but with 20/20
hindsight I now realize I don't use it *nearly* enough to justify its
stiff price. I just take better pictures with a Leica, so I reach for
a Leica more often, which means that I'm more used to it, which means
that I'll take better pictures with it... It'll take some force of
will to break that cycle, if indeed it's possible: I've gotten too
spoiled to put up with an f/4 lens very often.
The fixed-lens Fuji rangefinders, though -- they might be almost
sensible, since a camera with lens costs about as much as a Mamiya
body *or* lens.
From Leica User Group:
[email protected] wrote:
This is silly. A Zeiss Ikon (NOT Zeiss!) Super Ikonta B or C, Postwar,
with a coated lens and X-synch can generally be had for around $200 to $300
in good condition with some shopping around.
Marc
[Ed. note: Marc is a noted author and expert on Zeiss and related topics
such as Leicas and Rolleiflex and related cameras and optics... ;-)]
From Leica User Group:
$200-$300 maybe true of a Super Ikonta B, but you need to tell me where a
late Super Ikonta C in truly good condition can be had at that price.
$700-$800 seems to be the lowest I'd ever see on one of those, looking
through a Shutterbug, on-line ads, etc. God forbid if one ever came up on
ebay. It might fetch $1,500. A box for one would probably get $250!!!
From Leica User Group:
Marc, it would take a lot of shopping around. I don't know if you've priced
these lately. They start at about $350 for the 6x4.5 and 600 for the 6x9, and
those aren't in such hot condition. I spent a lot of time looking for one of
these, and I think have a pretty good feel for them, unless the market
dropped out in the last nine months. The prices you describe are more in line
with the ones with no x-synch or non-coated lenses.
The 6x6 versions are pretty economical, but they're not the same camera. But
they're much more fun to use.
.....
From Leica User Group:
If you want a cheap 6x9cm look at the Kodak Medalist II.
It has a lens which will make other optics look sick but it is not small.
They run about $150-200 but the problem is the camera uses 620 film.
It costs $250 to covert to 120 bringing it to a $500 investment,
but that 100mm Ektar lens is unbelievable even compared to todays optics.
Peter K
From Leica User Group:
I have had a number of old folders including the Agfa Viking, Bessa,
and a Fuji 645 folder. All of them have presented bellows problems
and lensboard alignment errors. I finally got a "Texas Leica" Fuji
GSW690II. Three pounds of mechanical camera, superb 65mm view camera
lens (equal to a 28mm on a Leica), and a quirky but reliable shutter.
It has double stroke lever wind, a classic split image rangefinder,
and accepts 120 or 220 rollfilm. The camera is available in 90mm lens
model, and 6X7 version. All these pro models have a roll counter and
can be overhauled by Fuji. Ya' gotta see a 6X9 transparency or neg to
believe it.
Bill Lawlor
From Leica User Group:
The most fun Fuji Texas Leica is the G690BL, which is the
interchangeable-lens one. Too bad I couldn't get the shutter adjusted on
mine, but the Tessar-type 100mm lens is fantastic, and very un-planar-like
in its outlook.
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000
You are very welcome. As you can see, I'm not working too hard right now.
The main advantage to the Russian lenses over original Leitz products, to my
mind, is that they are recent, usually non-fungused and non-hazy, and the
coatings are hard and not as prone to cleaning marks and scratches. I really
don't like the Industar-61 53mm 2.8 lens that came with my FED-2,
If you are looking for a budget rangefinder, I can't recommend the Canon
QL-17 G-III too highly. The lens has at least 5 times the glass of the
little lens on your XA, and it's quality. I paid $45 for mine on eBay and it
couldn't have had more than 10 rolls of film through it. They sold thousands
and thousands to casual photographers; they were not considered a
"professional camera", so they got used lightly, and now they resurface at
estate sales. They have a dedicated flash that couples to the rangefinder so
it sets itself automatically to the distance to the subject, and it syncs at
any shutter speed. Also cheap and common, usually 20-40 bucks. The same
Cameraquest site I sent you has a discussion of this camera that prompted me
to try it; I wasn't getting dead-on results with my FED and wanted a
"modern" rangefinder with a meter. Another significant plus in my mind was
that the instruction book for camera and flash could be downloaded free, but
my link doesn't seem to work. Anyway, if you buy one of these things, I have
it and can mail a copy.
....
From Leica User Group:
Jeff Moore wrote:
I used to use a Mamiya Six a lot but made the mistake of using slower
films and a tripod too often and eventually saw no point in using an RF
instead of an SLR. But at the time, I hadn't experimented with Tmax 400
and Xtol which would've made the Mamiya much more of a handheld
available light camera. Even if the Tmax had been on the grainy side
(which it isn't) that's a big negative we're dealing with.
Subjectively, however, I found the Mamiya Six optics about as different
from my Leica and Zeiss glass as they could be, being more on the hard
and crispy side. With my 35 and 90 M Summicrons, I can work with very
shallow depth of field and still get something that looks good though
maybe a little soft. With the Mamiya, I had to be much more careful with
such compositions and even so, preferred deep depth of field and f/8 or
smaller.
- --
From: "Shinichi Hayakawa" [email protected]
Steve,
All of the Kiev rangefinder cameras are based on either prewar Contax II or
III, not postwar IIa. Also, I don't think there is a model named Kiev IIa.
Does your Kiev has a meter housing in the middle of the top deck? If so,
your camera must be either III, IV or 4M, and the dial in question is for
reading the exposure. There should be two rotatable dials below the rewind
knob. One is for setting the film speed in GOST (a Russian standard; looks
like "TOCT" in the Cyrillic), and the other is for aligning the meter needle
with a "diamond" mark. When the needle is aligned with the mark, you can
read the possible combinations of shutter speeds and apertures from the
dial. Oh yes, you must open the meter lid by pressing the little button on
the top right corner of the lid first.
GOST is close to (but not identical with) ASA. However, since almost all
Kiev meters are off one way or the other even when new, you'd better compare
it's reading with that of reliable modern camera's and determine your own
setting. I have two Kiev III's made in '56. They take great pictures, but
the meters are useless. I wish you better luck with yours.
Hope this helps,
Steve Unsworth [email protected]
From: Richard Cochran [email protected]
Taro Ikai [email protected] wrote:
It's not so bad, but an SLR has a few slight disadvantages compared to
a rangefinder.
1) Dimmer viewfinder than a rangefinder
2) Poorer focusing accuracy (a rangefinder can triangulate distances
using a longer baseline)
3) That flopping mirror, contributing to camera shake.
4) Noisier than a rangefinder, which can be a disadvantage if the
reason you're shooting without flash is in order to be as
inconspicuous as possible.
The viewfinder brightness thing depends somewhat on the particular
cameras and lenses involved. The focusing accuracy thing is most
evident with lenses 50mm and wider.
Still, SLR's aren't without their advantages for available light; most
obvious to me is the ability to see the full effect of shallow DOF on
the composition.
Use whatever you have, just try avoiding that awful on-camera flash
look if at all possible!
--Rich
From Leica Mailing List:
OK gang. It's time once again for REALITY 101.
Point #1--If you think $1,600 (US) is a lot of money
for the HEXAR RF, just wait until you see what Leica
is going to charge for it's competitive model. I'll
give you a hint...your wife had better be proficient
at CPR because you are going to need it after you see
Leica's price. And, for those of you with short
memories, wasn't the M6 (non TTL model) was selling
for $1,995 at this time last year.
Point #2--If we want to talk about gouging...let's
look at the M6. This product has been around for 15
years or so. If I were to make a guess at the "true
cost" for manufacturing the M6 (without any "funny
accounting" numbers added) I would say that it is
somewhere between $200 & $250 (US). If you think I am
wrong, tell me how else Leica can stay in business.
Point #3--Let us look at the price of lenses for a
minute. All of these prices are based on a current
B&H add.
28f2,8 lens: Leica $1,800. Konica $1,120. Is the
Leica lens worth paying 50% ($680) more for...does it
give you 50% better pictures.
50f2 lens: Leica $895. Konica $560. Is the Leica
lens worth paying 60% ($335) more for...does it give
you 60% better pictures?
90f2,8 lens: Leica $1,145. Konica $720. Is the
Leica lens worth paying 60% ($425) more for...does the
90mm give your 60% better pictures?
Now, you can bet your Bippie that as Leica sees the
potential of it's market share slipping away, you will
see prices "drop like a rock" if they haven't started
to already. If I was in the market for a Leica
product, I would wait until January when, in my
opinion, you will most likely be able to save 20%.
You see, Leica has put itself in the position where it
can only react to what competitive companies do (i.e.
cut prices). This is because Leica marketing and
public relations are totally ineffective and unable to
mount an aggressive sales, marketing and PR campaign.
And, management has refused, for what ever reason, to
bring in the necessary outside help to rectify the
problem.
To compound their existing problems, Leica is, in
reality, starting to lose dealers. Unless something
is done quickly, this trend is going to accelerate at
an ever increasing pace as small to medium size
dealers find they can no longer rely on the used Leica
sales to justify carrying the Leica line. More and
more, upper income people who are Leica's customers,
are turning to EBAY and other Internet sources to
dispose of their old equipment. They know that no
matter what they get for it on EBAY, it will be more
than what a dealer will offer them.
End or REALITY 101....for now.
Regards,
Bill
From Leica User Group
For those UK LUGgers that are interested, the editor of Amateur Photographer
magazine is on a quest to find himself the ideal screw mount Leica. In the
issue dated 18th December there is a nine page report on his findings, from
a user's point of view, of the models I(c), II, III(a), III(f) and III(g) .
He also tries out the new Voigtlander lenses as well. There's even a short
quote from fellow LUGger Jem Kime!
Kind regards,
Paul.
From Leica Mailing List:
Don't hold your breath on the wide-open shots. I just got one too and did
some testing. It does focus properly wide open (on my Canon P), but don't get
too excited about it - Sonnars have something that could be called "focusing
halo" that means gradual and pretty focus dropoff - both from center to edge
and from focused subject to objects out of the plane of focus (as opposed to
Planars - Summicron - etc - that have pretty harsh dropoff). In my testing,
which includes both outdoor shots and projecting negatives through it using
my Durst, you get good frame-edge sharpness around 2.8-4. Which is par for
the course with Sonnars. It will be a dreamy portrait lens.
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000
Dear Robert,
Thanks for your reply. I think that Konica lens is a "repro lens". I
don't need it as I only use 35mm camears. Anyway, it has gone.
By the way, have you used any Konica cameras? I just bought an old Konica
rangefinder camera (Auto S2). The lens on it is super sharp. (sharper than
my Canon and Nikon 50mm prime lenses). I am very happy with it. I heard
that the Konica Hexanon lenses are not just on par but actually far better
than Nikon lenses. I think that it is a fair statement and that is the
reason why I am considering to sell all my Nikon equipment and replace them
by Konica.
best regards
From Leica Mailing List:
I have been using M-cameras for a looong, looong time! M2's have broken
down, M3's have broken down, M4's have broken down, M5's have broken down
(slightly higher frequency than any other M I have owned), M4-2's, M4P's and
M6's. At one time or another I have had technical problems with them, but
they did not break down often and very rarely did it require major 'surgery"
to fix. I did teach myself to reset rangefinders on M2/M3/M4-2 and M4-P. It
does not require any major tools or a degree in engineering to do. Cameras
are rather complex pieces of equipment and they are often treated in a less
than "coddled" fashion when you make your living with them. Looking back I
think that most of my problems happened with M3's and M4-2's. On the M3 the
rangefinder would go out of alignment if it was dropped or bashed into a car
door. The early DS M3 had problems with the shutter-brake once it got a bit
worn and occasional problems with the rewind knob. The later M3 was better.
The M2's were prone to slipping film-take-up spools (easily fixed by bending
the "flanges" on the shaft with a penknife. The M4's had a lot of adjustments
that could go out of whack in the rangefinder and was highly sensitive to
airline travel. A lot of small screws would loosen and things would come
adrift. The M5 had problem with the rewind and on one of them, the metercell
decided not fold out of the way during exposure, leaving me with the problem
of explaining to the client "The strange looking thing in the sky is not part
of your product". The first batch of M4-2 had a tendency to develop a shutter
bounce at 1/250 (nice crescent shaped 1 stop over exposed area). The later
M4-2 had none of these problems, except that the lens lock screw would
unscrew after 3-4 hours in a single engine bush-plane (I carried several
bodies and at one time, all the lens lock screws had fallen out, limiting the
shoot to whatever lenses were on the various body at that time!). The
M4-P is
the version I had the least problems with; the odd shutter curtain bounce or
rangefinder adjustment and a couple of rewind cranks bent out of shape (bent
them back with a screwdriver). The first M6's that I had required new
meterchips (warranty repair) and the last "classic" M6's have held up very
well. The M6 TTL 0,85 is doing fine, munching away at the batteries but much
less so after my surgery in the battery compartment.
If you disassemble an M2/M3/M4 there are more screws and nuts holding it
together than the later M6. This is not necessarily better as they can
vibrate loose or even worse become stuck and break off if you have to work
on them. Leica, just as any other manufacturer, is making full use of
advances in the metallurgy, machining, computer design etc that has
happened in the last 30-40 years. Sometimes less is better, at lest when
it comes to long lived design. What is remarkable with the M-camera is not
how much it has changed, but how little it needed to change to be a
modern, usable camera in year 2000.
I have used Nikons, Canons, Hasselblads, Pentax, Linhof, Sinar, Alpa etc
too. All in all, I had more technical problems with these cameras than with
any of my Leica's and none of them feel so good in the hand as an M! Some of
my M's go back to the late 50's or early 60's and none of them are "babied"
in my hands. They are serviced reasonably regularly (every 7-10 years, unless
something goes wrong) and I can do minor service on them myself
(rangefinders, rewinds etc, not shutters or replacing parts in the
rangefinders). At least 50% of repairs have been through my careless handling
of the camera, dropping them on concrete floors, closing car-doors on them
(will also dent the door!), subjecting a M2 to dripping chocolate ice-cream
(don't ask!), having "The Big Strobe In The Sky" burning a hole in the
shutter curtain (happened last year again, seems to be a 10 year cycle with
this problem). Any M is a rugged piece of camera equipment and with
reasonable care it will last longer than most photographers.
Tom A
From Rollei Mailing List:
Simply put, I would NEVER waste money on a Japanese P&S of any sort over a
Rollei 35. The difference in quality is astonishing and immediately felt.
The scale focusing is a matter of minutes to get used to, the camera can
readily be recalibrated for alkaline cells, and it is tough and rugged
beyond all measure.
And those lenses! Wow! The Triotar is a fine lens, the Tessar is
astounding, and the Sonnar a real pip.
And prices on the Rollei 35's have collapsed over the past decade. Ten
years ago, even a simple 35 cost three or four hundred dollars; now they
are often seen around $125. The Sonnar-equipped cameras used to run at
above $500, and now they can be had for around $200. At these prices,
nothing else comes remotely close.
And, no, there is no difference between the German and Singapore models.
I've owned a slew of these puppies and kept a Singapore 35 as my glove-box
camera, where it has done valiant work for some years, mainly with
chromes.
Marc
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999
Dennis Waltke writes:
The Xenon on the Retinas is an under-rated optic with wonderful character.
The Retinas have most of the advantages of the Rollei 35s with a couple of
nice extras, such as a range of accessories, battery-less operation,
convertible lenses, rangefinder. They are also less expensive on the used
market and all were beautifully constructed in Germany...
Eric Goldstein
From: "������ ��������" [email protected]
Try
but they can use cyrilic charset only
best regards
From: "West Mass Guy" [email protected]
Try:
http://www.kievusa.com/
http://www.andrius.net/photo/index.htm
http://inshop.dedal.cz/
Jim
From Rollei Mailing List:
Lucian Chis wrote:
Actually, I don't think it is a Tessar-type, either. I'm doing this from
memory, but I think the Epic is a four element in FOUR group lens, a
tessar type is 4-3.
I'd once again offer a word of caution about the Epic... I found the
lens to be really marginal at wider apertures... YMMV. A four element 35
mm f/2.8 lens is not going to be well-corrected, it is were Nikon and
others would be all over it for their rangefinder compacts... f/3.5 is
about the best you can go, and even then you have some
illumination/resolution fall off in the corners...
Eric Goldstein
From: "Keith (R.K.) Berry" [email protected]
Anders Svensson wrote
Nicely put. I saw a Kodak Retinette with battered case at a car boot sale
last year and bought it for a fiver because for years I'd had an as new
case for it. When I got home I remembered that I'd given the case to a
charity shop a few months before - because I was never likely to buy such
a camera!
I took the camera out for a day - no meter or rangefinder - and exposed a
film using my estimations of exposure and focus and I was pleasantly
surprised by the results. The only thing that let the pictures down was
the lack of good lens coating as there was a lot of flare wherever the
ground met the sky. I did enjoy again the look and feel of leather and
shiny metal though, and within a couple of months I'd bought a Retina IIIc
and a Voigtl�nder Vitomatic IIa because of it!
I had a Kiev 4 outfit in the early '70s when a new body and 50mm lens was
�29.95 and the lenses, 28, 35, 85 and 135mm, were �19.95 each! It was a
most enjoyable camera in all respects and I was sorry to have to sell it
to help finance the expansion of my Olympus OM outfit. The only thing that
stops me buying another is that I now wear glasses and both the camera's
range/viewfinder and the universal viewfinder have pretty small peepholes.
Regards,
From: "C. Zeni" [email protected]
...
This last fact (peephole syndrome) on older gear is a major
roadblock...I have a Moscow-5 mdeium format I bought from a fellow on
this newsgroup. Takes great photos, great fun to use, but as an
eyeglass wearer it's really a pain to use the viewfinder, and the
rangefinder window is even tinier. It's tough to frame/compose when you
can't see all four corners of the viewfinder at the same time - lots of
head shifting to and fro. Ditto for the Kiev II I have...When I travel
by air on business, I carry a Retina IIIC. It's a joy to use and makes
great images. We've debated the tactile pleasures of old gear before on
this newsgroup...for some, the end image is all important. For others,
myself included, creating the image is as much a part of the pleasure...
--
Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni at mindspring dot com
From: [email protected] (Joe B.)
Stuart Willis [email protected] wrote:
I think the early Kievs actually were Contax clones- they were built
on the same machinery and to the same designs. The lenses also.
I had a Kiev many years ago immediately after owning a Contax II. The
Kiev I had was a really good one and compared favourably to the
Contax, plus it was a more modern camera and could be expected to last
well. The problem with the Russian?Ukranian cameras is the variable
quality control. But from the comments I have read from a number of
people who have used Leica, Contax and the Russian?Ukranian cameras,
the 35mm Kievs appear to offer the best options for careful
construction and usability- as long as you find a good one.
Joe B. (remove glop for email)
Postscript:
But from the comments I have read from a number of
people who have used Leica, Contax and the Russian?Ukranian cameras,
the 35mm Kievs appear to offer the best options for careful
construction and usability out of the Russian?Ukranian cameras- as
long as you find a good one
Joe B. (remove glop for email)
From: "Mr. Pookywinkel" [email protected]
That's not an easy question to answer. The Russian and Ukrainian Leica
clones do have the 39mm Leica thread mount, and they *should* accept any
lens made for Leica thread mount, *but* some Russian cameras have a
rangefinder cam with a point that catches some Leica lenses and prevents
the lens from being threaded. (Other Leica clones have a rounded
rangefinder cam and there's no problem.)
So the answer to your question is "maybe". It's Russian Roulette. Maybe it
works; maybe it doesn't. Sorry that I don't have a clearer answer for you,
but I speak directly from experience with my own equipment.
I didn't realize that Carl Zeiss made Leica threaded lenses. I know that
they made Contax mount lenses, which is a totally different thing.
From: [email protected] (Jeff Parker)
I missed your original posting but if you really want a Russian
rangefinder there is nothing wrong with risking a few pounds on a
Zorki or a Kiev. I have a Kiev 4AM with a Helios standard lens and
quite enjoy using it. Kievs can be bought at camera fairs for about 50
pounds, and most Zorkis should be a bit cheaper.
However, I do agree that you would probably find a rangefinder with a
leaf shutter more suitable. If you don't need interchangeable lenses
then an old Olympus 35RC is hard to beat for features, quality and
price (it's very compact as well). Expect to pay 40 to 60 pounds for a
good one.
If you need more than a standard lens, perhaps you should consider the
Agfa Ambi Silette. The range of lenses (35mm, 50mm, 90mm and 135mm)
are fairly easily found in the UK and are of very good quality. The
camera has built-in finders for the first three in the range and an
add-on finder for the 135mm. The built-in finder has parallax
correction and the rangefinder is clear and sharp. The camera body
with a 50mm, f/2.8 lens should be about 80 to 100 pounds and the other
lenses between 30 and 50 pounds each.
For more information on both of these old timers, try Stephen Gandy's
CameraQuest site and, specifically, these pages:
http://www.jetlink.net/~cameras/olyrc.htm
Happy hunting!
Jeff Parker
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
As others have said, there are loads of cheap used Russian cameras
around...
There is a company called Global Cameras advertising new Fed cameras in
Amateur Photographer, including the Fed 5C which has all of these, and
costs
�59! Their phone number is 0181 427 7492, or e-mail:
Hope this helps!
Dave Pearman.
[Ed.note: Mr. Bob Shell is a former repairman, pro photographer, currently
editor for Shutterbug and workshop instructor...]
Be very careful on buying a Leica CL. This camera has been out of
production for a long time and repair parts are scarce. The rangefinders
are prone to flaking of the silvering and are VERY expensive to get
repaired if this happens. I would buy a CL or CLE only for a collection,
not as a user.
The new Voigtlander Bessa-R just was introduced last week. It is a modern
camera with TTL metering, excellent bright rangefinder and lenses of very
high quality. The body will sell new for well under $ 1000, possibly as
low as $ 600 in some places. It is Leica screw mount, though. If you
want a truly modern camera with Leica bayonet, take a look at the new
Konica Hexar RF. I liked how it handles and may consider selling my M3
and buying one.
Bob
[Ed. note: Mr. Small is a noted Leica/Rollei/Zeiss expert]
Bob Shell wrote:
Gag me, Bob. The new Cosina -R was introduced last week. Let us not
sully
a proud reputation for excellence as Voigtlander set forth with this
Cosina
stuff. Cosina made a decent LTM camera and some decent LTM lenses. Had
they pride in their work, they'd not have embarked on this
badge-engineering insult to the Voigtlander family and the entire
Voigtlander tradition. Let us call them "Cosina", as they are. And as
they are being sold in the Orient.
As to an M, the later the better. The M6 is a better-built camera, for
complex reasons, than the earlier models. Not that the M3 is a bad
camera, or the M2. Here is my advice:
M3: Get a late DS. The early ones and very late single-strokes are
going
way up in price due to collectors. Have the DS changed to SS and the
flash
sockets changed to PC. Neither change costs much.
M2: Same as M3. I don't particularly care for the M2, but it is a hot
item, and often costs more than an M3.
M4: Wow! Avoid this turkey, despite the recent fall in
prices. Everything
is adjustable, so something is always out of adjustment. I have owned
several, and all were unsatisfactory. This model has THE reputation but,
in general, is less satisfactory as a user camera than the M3.
M5: Interesting, but too big.
M4-2/M4-P: Sleepers. Great cameras, underpriced in the user
market. Grab one if you can find it at a decent price, as you should be
able to.
M6: My choice. Everything a user needs, no more, no less. And the
best-built Leica yet, with the M6TTL.
M6TTL: Interesting, but too big.
CL and CLE? Avoid. They are effectively unrepairable and too fragile.
LTM bodies? Absolutely. All are fine picture-takers.
Buy used whenever possible.
Marc
[Ed. note: not an endorsement, just a note about sources and
prices...]
We have the new Zenit122, 122k (Pentax), 212, 212k, 12xp - for $89
each.
Zenit AM2 (1...1/1000 sec) - $95, Zenit APK (1...1/2000 sec) - $109.
Zenitar 2.8/16m (screw), Zenitar 2.8/16k (Pentax) - $109,
Zenitar 2.8/16n (Nikon) - $189.
Kiev 88 kits (new) - $215, Kiev 66 (new) - $150.
Horizon 202 - $289.
And many other items if You specify it (binoculars, night vision devices,
telescopes and so on).
Also we have the used Leica Russian clones Zorki...Zorki 4 in good
condition - $49 and lenses for them.
All prices include the regular mail delivery (within 3 weeks). The
accumulated discounts are available.
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000
I was just cruising eBay and was surprised to see that the average price
of an older "FeD" Russian Leica copy is around $50-$60 for completed
sales!
Back in the 1970's these things were getting $100+ (in 70's dollars!).
I wonder how many "investors" got burned when the Iron Curtain opened and
everyone had a relative send one over!
John
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000
Good statements about planned camera model obsolesence... I have both
the Olympus XA and the Yashica T4 Super. If I had to give up one, I'd
give up the T4 even though I absolutely love it. The XA is, perhaps,
not quite as sharp lens-wise, and it's certainly not as convenient to
use as the T4, but I marvel at this little camera. The battery in it
is eons old, and it keeps doing the job. I have no problem whatsoever
with having to wind my film to each successive frame. I wish that
camera makers (and computer and software makers for that matter) would
get a clue and stop piling on the features in place of quality. One
final thought about the T4, though. The T4 does seem to have a better
lens than the XA. The T4 produces consistently sharper images...
unless that pesky auto focus gets fooled. I'd sure love a complete
manual override for it. It took awhile to remember to do a focus lock
when I was taking a fairly closeup picture of (for instance) two
people standing together with a deep background. (The T4 likes to
focus on the wall between/behind the subjects for this situation.
Easy to correct. Just gotta' remember to do it!)
....
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000
[email protected] (IA Nichols)
wrote:
I missed your original posting but if you really want a Russian
rangefinder there is nothing wrong with risking a few pounds on a
Zorki or a Kiev. I have a Kiev 4AM with a Helios standard lens and
quite enjoy using it. Kievs can be bought at camera fairs for about 50
pounds, and most Zorkis should be a bit cheaper.
However, I do agree that you would probably find a rangefinder with a
leaf shutter more suitable. If you don't need interchangeable lenses
then an old Olympus 35RC is hard to beat for features, quality and
price (it's very compact as well). Expect to pay 40 to 60 pounds for a
good one.
If you need more than a standard lens, perhaps you should consider the
Agfa Ambi Silette. The range of lenses (35mm, 50mm, 90mm and 135mm)
are fairly easily found in the UK and are of very good quality. The
camera has built-in finders for the first three in the range and an
add-on finder for the 135mm. The built-in finder has parallax
correction and the rangefinder is clear and sharp. The camera body
with a 50mm, f/2.8 lens should be about 80 to 100 pounds and the other
lenses between 30 and 50 pounds each.
For more information on both of these old timers, try Stephen Gandy's
CameraQuest site and, specifically, these pages:
http://www.jetlink.net/~cameras/olyrc.htm
Happy hunting!
Tel: +44 (0)1865 407511
From: [email protected] (DMark35522)
.....
Me too. My problem with my XA was the small viewfinder and the fact that
the lens, though fast, really wasn't fast enough for available light in
subways, etc. I also found the negs lacked a lot of contrast, but that
might have been a porblem with the one I owned. I tried a Canonet QL17
and fell in love with the lens and fast (f1.7) max aperture. I didn't
love the fact that it jammed midroll.
I recently went on ebay and found an old Minolta 7SII for 60.00. Not
quite as small as an XA, but pretty tiny for a full manual rangefinder
with a contrasty 1.7 lens. I love it.
DENIS
Date: 18 Jan 2000
Guy Bouchard [email protected] wrote:
There's some info at http://phr.www.cistron.nl/canonet-faq.html.
From Leica Mailing List:
More to the point than Leica vs. Nikon is the question of Leica vs.
Contax, namely the G2. It's become apparent that the Japanese-made Zeiss
optics are equal or better than many/most Leitz offerings. Coupled with a
better view finder, a very good auto focus and much less money, Contax has
to be the leader among 35 mm rangefinders. Right??
From Leica Mailing List:
John wrote
I have been shooting with the M6
for so long now that I consider the noise it makes to be normal and
sometimes even loud (at least I notice it).
you should try a 1970's Yashica electro 35. You won't hear the shutter.
There is no delay. AND you will be astounded at the optics on a camera
you can buy for less than $50.
I admit there are the down sides....but I'm choosing to talk only about
the up side.
Dave
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000
Kodak Retina IIIc and IIIC are pretty nice RF camera too, and they uses
Schneider lenses as well.
Wei
[email protected] wrote:
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000
Yes, but the Retina lensmount is not used by anything else, so you can't
choose from a wide range of lenses from many eras and manufacturers as you
can with 39mm screwmount lenses. Also, because the Retinas used a leaf
shutter, the available lenses were limited in focal length range and
maximum aperture. A Retina is a beautiful camera and fun to use, but if
you want to be able to buy a wide range of lenses you're better off with a
screwmount camera.
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
I read your posting about lack of sites. I agree. I would respond in the
forum, but my computer here at work is not set up for the usenet.
http://www.jetlink.net/~cameras/ltmlens.htm is a site dedicated to user
classic & collectible cameras with an extensive discussion of leica
screw-mount lenses, and, just as important, accessory finders. I have also
turned up good information finding relevant threads using Dogpile usenet
searches and the terms leica, russian, ltm, screwmount, etc. The following
awkward cite is for a search for "russian" in the Leica Users Group pages:
http://lq.corenetworks.com/lq/search.cgi?ln=leicausers&mid=&sp=&q=russian&b=
1&s=1&o=0 . Lots of opinions being aired there.
My own experience with my FED-2, an early-sixties model, and a leica IIIF,
is that the modern Jupiter lenses are excellent in terms of their optical
capability but very hard to focus accurately. I have a Jupiter 135mm lens
that is outstandingly clean and sharp, but I can't quite place the depth
of field where I want it for tight portraiture with either body. I'm not
sure whether the rangefinder coupling is quite right. The Jupiter-9 85mm
is supposed to be a very fine lens. It is big and fast, and a lot of glass
for the money. Russars are said to be good. Basic Leitz screwmount lenses
are not horribly expensive on ebay, but the problem is the fifties models,
like the 90/4 elmar of my granddad's that I use, are prone to internal
hazing that may not be apparent to the sellers of these lenses. The
relative newness of the russian lenses may make up for any optical and
mechanical difficulties. I also find ebay helpful, just in terms of having
the opportunity to look at pictures and prices of various lenses.
I like the Fed-2 generally; it has a broad rangefinder base and the
rangefinder is easy to adjust-I followed directions at
http://www.ameritech.net/users/cameraman/resource.htm. I gave the
rangefinder area a light internal cleaning (there was a dead moth inside)
and this brightened up the rangefinder focusing area substantially.
On the other hand, the most consistently good pictures I take are with a
Canonet QL-17 GIII. The lens and meter and dedicated flash are all super.
Only the fixed 40mm lens is a little limiting. Some people have the meters
recalibrated for a non-mercury battery, but the batteries I get at the
camera store give me good exposures, so my sense is they are close enough
even if they aren't an exact match.
I've enjoyed your site considerably. Please feel free to post this message
if you think it is useful.
Edward C. Carman
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
As others have said, there are loads of cheap used Russian cameras
around...
There is a company called Global Cameras advertising new Fed cameras in
Amateur Photographer, including the Fed 5C which has all of these, and
costs
�59! Their phone number is 0181 427 7492, or e-mail:
Hope this helps!
Dave Pearman.
Date: 31 Dec 1999
Your choice will boil down to which lens mount system to invest in;
A.Kiev which takes Contax/Nikon RF lenses,or
B.Fed/Zorki and their Mir/Leningrad derivitives,which use the Leica/Canon
39mm screw mt.
Loads of info on ebay,do an individual search on the different makes, and
read up on what's what.
Good used Kiev 4/4A go for under $100.US
Ditto Zorki 4s.
Two final points; the first two digits of the serial numbers will
indicate,(usually) the date of manufacture,and not all of the Feds and
Zorkis were made with neck-strap lugs--which would limit you to having to
use the never-ready case!
Ed
[Ed. note: see correction/update below this post..]
Wally wrote:
The Russian cameras to which you refer were never really "clones" of
Leica and Contax. Aesthetically they appeared so - by the Russians made
lots of compromises and technical (cheapening) shortcuts.
A "chalk and cheese" situation.
That is not to say however that those Russian models are not reasonably
capable cameras.
The only true clone of Leica was the the post-war British "Reid" as with
an 2 Taylor-Taylor-Hobson. Although it was not synchronised, this was
easily rectified in the aftermarket. In some respects it was actually
better built than the Leica from which it was cloned - and in any case
walked all over the Canon and other pseudo Leicas.
If any Leica aspirant should occasion upon a "Reid", then such could be
worth a lot of money.
FWIW
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
Stuart Willis [email protected] wrote:
Sorry Stuart,
You are wrong here - russian cameras noted were EXACT copies of german
ones, not even clones! The very first FEDs were manufactured according
to Leica's technical drawings and equipped with german Tessar lenses
(lately changed to russian clone "Industar"), and Kiev was the full
copy of Contax - even manufacturing equipment and machines used were
german, obtained after Secont World War as compensation.
Of course, modifications were added after several years of
manufacturing, but it is totally untrue to call these cameras "only
aesthetically similar" - the difference was only in materials used and
employee skills (i.e., in overall quality).
Artur.
Date: 31 Dec 1999
Wasn't the entire Zeiss factory,along with the tooling moved from Dresden
to the Ukrane in early 1945,while at the same time the engineers and
workers went to the west? Plus,they actually improved on the Contax
IIA/IIIA with the later Kiev 4M/4AM by adding a rewind crank.
The Russian/ Ukranian cameras are really making the rounds at the camera
shows, in the Southeast, and there's a wealth of info,from some very
knowledgable sellers on EBAY.
Do a search on,Kiev,Zorki,Fed,or if you want to find some off the wall
stuff,do a search on,"Russian Cameras".
Lot of fun,and at this point in time,almost affordable collecting.
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
Just thought I would get the thread back to one of the original
thoughts, that being the quality of Russian cameras.
While I can't speak about Kiev cameras I do have a Lubitel and I agree
with the previous poster who say the viewfinder is poor, but opitcs
good. With some patience, the Lubitel is a fine performer, but patience
IS required. I also have a Moskova 4 and I think that anyone
interested in 'entry level' medium format should give these cameras a
serious thought. The one I has excellent optics. Combined with the
folding size and coupled rangefinder, the Moskova 4 (and I assume 2 and
5) are fine cameras.
BTW, I have a Zorki 35mm camera that is a copy of the Leica 2. It has
performed well for me for over a year giving really superior negs.
chuck k
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999
Algelo,
Over the years I have owned Kiev, Fed and Zorki rangefinder cameras. I
currently own a kiev 4 with meter and 35,50,85,135 lenses (Kiev/contax
mount). Available S/H about �50. It's OK but you have to set the mount
(and lens) to infinity before you put on a lens. The meter is OK if not
actually pointing at the sky, but I always use a seperate meter anyway. I
never realy took to the fed, and think the zorki 4 is probably the best of
the bunch (if a bit heavy), but the shutter speed dial has to be set after
cocking the shutter or you may break the camera. The dial only goes so far
round. No meter though. Zorki and fed have leica screw mounts and probably
slightly cheaper than the kiev.
Hugh Spence
From: [email protected]
....
Hi Guy,
I forgot to mention in my earlier post, that of the Zorkis that I have,
the Zorki 6 appears to be the best, but I've not had time to do any
testing with it yet.
What I don't like about the popular Zorki 4K is that the shutter speed
numbers, etc. are printed onto the metal, wheras most of the others,
everything is engraved, or stamped, and can't be defaced.
If somehow you wind up having to choose between the FED 4 or 5, go with
the 4- the quality seems better, although both are considerably larger
in size than the FED 3, or the Zorkis.
FWIW, the "Russian" RF normal lenses are more probably descended from
the Zeiss Tessar, and also Sonnars. The early FED Industar 10s are
copies of early Elmars, but after the second world war, the Zeiss
designs took prominence in Soviet production.
Best wishes,
Kevin
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999
I'm currently shooting with a 1952 Kiev II with 50/2 lens. It's not
small and does not have a built in meter, nor is it particularly fast to
load. But it's a very sturdy, simple camera with a good lens. There are
many Russian lenses available as well as Nikkor RF and Contax RF lenses
for the Kiev (Contax bayonet lens mount). And they're cheap. A mid-'70s
Kiev 4a is often available from Ebay for $60-80.
There are lots of other alternatives. For Leica thread mount, the FED
and Zorki cameras are fairly attractive and go for similar money.
Godfrey
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000
I find the Yashica T4 and the Olympus Stylus to be great cameras with the
sharpest lens I've seen in P/S in this pricerange.
.....
From Rollei Mailing List:
Refer to the following :
1. The GR1 Essental page -gives specs on the camera
2. Point and shoot photography discusses the GR1.- It compares it with
the Yashica T4 that has as 3.5 Tessar and is a lower priced counterpart
.. $150
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/9273/gr1.html
Roger
Date: 28 Dec 1999
The Russian/Ukranian KIEV 35MM Rangefinder cameras are clones of the
pre-war Contax II and III exactly. Made with tooling from Zeiss in Germany
and help of German technicians. Many of these cameras are beautifully made
and they and the lenses compare with the German originals. They are far
better cameras than the Zorki and Fed Leica copies.
The Kiev cameras (1947 to early 1980s) do vary with versions from year to
year. A Mint example from 1964 is a fine quality camera and the lenses are
sharp and crisp.
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999
I agree with Sam. I've come to enjoy my Kiev II very much. It's a solid,
well made camera with a good lens. I'll get a 35mm lens for it
eventually too.
Godfrey
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999
These cameras are a pain to use !
You have to wind it up first before selecting the shutter speed
on a dial.
The focusing screen is small and I find it very hard to use with the split
image focusing aid.
Lenses are not bad.
The cameras are quite tough thou but soo.... heavy !
Boris
Date: 29 Dec 1999
I believe there were several rangefinders in the mid-to-late '60s and into
the '70s that were mechanical, and yet offered autoexposure.
These include: the Canon Canonet QL17/QL19 series, and the Minolta
Hi-Matics. The Canons were shutter priority, and set aperture
automatically with auto-lock out for under and over exposure. Plus, the
Canons were built like tanks.
I am sure there were many others, but these are the only ones I have used.
Don
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999
[email protected] wrote:
Hi Angelo,
none of the Russian RF cameras have meters that can be depended on, but
it's possible that you you might find a Kiev with a working meter that
is accurate, just not probable.
I would recommend a FED 3L/D, preferrably, combined with a good hand
help meter.
I have a good selection of Russian Leica screw mount lenses: 20, 28,
35,various 50mms, and 85, and 135, which will cover almost anything- and
you should be able to use Leica lenses also, if you wish.
I have a great many FEDs and Zorkis to choose from, but the FED3 is my
favorite- it has a feel of quality about it.
Best wishes,
Kevin
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999
I highly recommend Kiev 4 or 4M. Mine is older than me, never had
any problem, and makes marvelous pictures. Their optics rivals
Zeiss (no wonder since they basically took the factory after WWII :)
It has battery-less meter, which still works. Downside - it's heavy.
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999
I had a Kiev 4 with the meter and the meter was usless. Died pretty
quickly. Didn't take long for the entire camera to croak. Maybe I got a
lemon, but it wasn't much of a camera. Pain in the a__ to load; not very
discreet.
If you can get away without intechangeable lenses, I' recommend a
Minolta Himatic 7Sll or a Canonet QL17. There are some other small and
good used rangefinders out there. Obviously, there is a great variety of
new point & shoots with zoom lenses. They are not particularly quiet and
you would need to see which allow you to turn off the auto flash.
Dennis
.....
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999
A Zorki 4 will do all that you ask but doesn't have the built in
lightmeter. Takes Leica screw lenses, 35mm cassette, coupled rangefinder.
Can pick them up for �30 easily.
Simon
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999
I used to own a Kiev 4 with four lenses and a universal viewfinder and it
of all the cameras that have come and gone, it is the one I miss the most
- it taught me a lot about photography and camera techniques. The meter
needle is easily knocked off its gimbals by a jolt but it's not very
difficult to reseat it. The only other problem I had was when jamming a
newly acquired 85mm Jupiter into the body. T&OE (the importers at the
time) unjammed it by return post and included a note telling me to take
more care when fitting lenses. I've often considered buying another but I
wear glasses nowadays and I think that there'd be a problem with the
little viewfinder. It wasn't the easiest of cameras to load with film
because you have to find somewhere to put the detachable back but I soon
got used to it. If you buy one make sure there's a decent guarantee
because there's a possibility that the shutter (made of brass strips
linked by silk thread) may not have stood the test of time well. When
changing lenses keep the body in the shade - I occasionally got light
streaks when I forgot.
Regards,
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999
Angelo Villaschi
[email protected] wrote:
If you could do without interchangeable lenses, I would get what I got
my brother for Christmas, a Olympus Stylus Epic Zoom 80. It will
probably take the pictures you want and is about as tiny and discreet
as you can get. It has a nice lens and I would seriously consider it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999
Hi Guy,
I have a number of FED, Zorki, and Kiev cameras. For a user, I prefer
the FED-3 L/D (the L/D has something to do with Lanthanum Lens
elements). The 3 seems well built, and has single stroke lever film
advance, and diopter adjustment on the view finder/rangefinder.
The later FED 4s and 5s are rather large, and don't seem to be as well
built.
The Zorki-4K is also ok, but for some reason, the FED-3 remains my
primary RF user. You should be able to pick one up for $100, or less.
Best wishes,
Kevin
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999
Overall, the FED and Zorki are not nearly as well finished and assembled
as the Leica or Contax. I have used both the FED and Zorki as well as
various Leicas (screwmount and M-series). The Leica is overall a superior
device.
But I do have fun with the clunky funky FED 5B and its Industar-61 lens
(possibly similar to the 2.8 Elmar, but I haven't confirmed this) performs
outstandingly well. I don't have the Elmar to compare it with it with. The
FED's viewfinder and rangefinder spot is rather dark and not as well
defined as the Leicas.
For $85 for a new FED 5B, I cannot complain, but the overall quality
doesn't compare to that of a Leica.
(I've never used the Contax or comparable 35mm Kiev.)
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999
Zenits and Zorkis are pretty serious cameras overseas where the people are
not prosperous. Third World photographers still use screw mount cameras
and even preset lenses to run a whole photo studio. These cameras are
repair enthusiast's delights since their quality depends on the mood of
the Russians making them that particular day. You can really tune them up.
Lenses are usually excellent, and they are practical, reliable and simple
to use. You might like Ivan Maisenberg's book: ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT
THE DESIGN AND REPAIR OF RUSSIAN CAMERAS available from us and a few other
book dealers. Praktica is a similar camera that is fun too. Lubitel is fun
in medium format, very low priced yet fairly sharp stopped down.
Yours faithfully,
Ed Romney
[email protected] wrote:
From Rollei Mailing List:
I had three Olympus XAs. They were good cameras. Each one broke,
irreparably: film transport failure. No parts. The lens, while good, was
rather prone to flare and off-axis wasn't really sharp until stopped down
to f/8.
I bought a Minox 35EL after the third one died and was delighted with the
improved lens quality and more solid construction, the ability to use a
standard flash unit. I believe the Minox 35 predated the Olympus XA by a
couple of years, and is smaller to boot. It was the first real
competition to the Rollei 35 in my opinion. Anyway, I shot with the Minox
35EL for a while and enjoyed it immensely.
Along the way, however, someone offered me a Rollei 35 Tessar. One roll
of film and I was sold on it. The Tessar was far superior to the early
Minox lens and it was obviously a camera made to more robust standards. I
sold the Minox 35EL to a friend, who still has it, and proceeded to take
pictures with the 35 Tessar for several years. In '84, I sold it to
another friend and left the world of compact 35s for a while.
By the early '90s, I was back into compact 35s again and missed my old
Rollei 35. I found a mint- Rollei 35S at my local dealer and have been
using it ever since. It takes the best quality pictures of any compact
35, and I've had a lot of them now. I've acquired a Rollei 35 S Silver
Anniversary, a Rollei 35 Classic Platinum and reacquired my original
Rollei 35 Tessar from my friend (when I helped him purchase a Rollei
35SE).
In a moment of nostalgia, I also bought a new Minox 35GT-E about two
years ago. A camera much improved over the original 35EL in every way.
The lens is better, the body is better, everything about it is far better
finished and more solid to the touch. I would rate it's lens as being
almost the equal of the Rollei 35S Sonnar now, and better than the 35
Tessar. The electronic shutter and aperture priority AE is a nice
convenience. It's a great camera, and not 'cheap' or plasticky at all.
But nothing beats the Rollei 35S or Classic in a compact 35 yet.
Completely controllable and with a lens that is the equal of almost
anything. Yes, it's a little heavy, but that lets me hold it still more
easily.
If I could only have one camera, a Rollei 35S would likely suffice
nicely.
Godfrey
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999
The advantages to a rangefinder camera that I envy most are
fast response (no mirror to flip around), low noise (again,
no mirror), and light weight. I have only looked closely at
the Contax G2 so I don't know what other cameras do about
lens focal length or parallax, but the G2 has curtains that
close in on the viewfinder to restrict your field of view
based on the focal length of the attached lens, and
parallax (for close focusing) if applicable. Being an
autofocus camera, the original meaning of "rangefinder" has
become somewhat of a misnomer for the G2, but most
affordable systems (for me, that means pre-owned) use the
image coincidence system for focusing -- something I have
trouble with on older RF's.
-P
[Ed.note: these are long sold, but features and price points may be
handy..]
I've got four Canon Canonet rangefinder cameras, including the
QL17GIII. Why am I selling these? I have too many cameras.
Also a Ricoh 500GX rangefinder, which is even smaller than the
Canonets, has 40mm f/2.8 lens, and most amazing of all, multiple
exposure lever. Great little camera if you want to try weirdo
effects. Takes modern silver cell, not mercury.
All US$30 each.
I'm located in Brisbane, Australia.
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999
I am interested in buying a used a rangefinder. I have seen occasional
recommendations in these newsgroups for:
Are these good choices?
Any different recommendations?
How much should I expect to pay?
I do not want to pay a lot (so, no Contax or Leica). Any
recommendations?
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999
[email protected] wrote:
Hi John,
I have 4 Zenits currently: E, ET, 12XP, and 122S (from Photosniper).
I'm sorry to say I do not use mine very much as my Kiev 88 is sort of my
primary camera.
A friend wanted some illustrations for his web site recently, and were
to be of Russian cameras, so I thought it appropriate to use a Russian
camera so I got out my 12XP and the MC Jupiter 9, and did it- they came
out great.
The Zenits seem to smooth out the more you use them- seems like they
need to be "run in".
I have found the lenses to be very good in general, but I do not shoot
them wide open- I'm usually down around f8 or 11, so don't have the
complaints the "wide open" types have.
With the demise of the K1000, the Zenits would seem to be a very
reasonably priced alternative. certainly they are good learning cameras.
The screw mount 500 and 1000 mm Rubinar lenses are fabulous- MC and very
flat fields- very special lenses.
Regards,
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999
First, thanks to everyone for your recommendations - I see one of these
in my future... in reference to the Bessamatic/Retina Reflex - what
is the importance of a "single action" mirror - is it different
from a modern SLR mirror?
[email protected] (Ejkowalski) wrote:
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999
Raskolnikov wrote:
The mirror doesn't return to the view position until you wind the
film advance.
The Retina Reflex SLR line (S/III/IV) and the rangefinder Retina IIIs
are unique in that they share lenses (with the exception that the
IIIs rangefinder requires a cam slot on the back of the lens that
not all Retina SLR lenses have to set the brightlines in the
viewfinder). The system includes 28f4, 35f2.8, 50f1.9, 50f2.8,
80f4, 135f4, 200f? lenses. I believe that the 200 is only usable
on the SLR models.
See: http://www.toptown.com/nowhere/kypfer/index.htm
http://www.jetlink.net/~cameras/classics.htm
http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/
Dave
rec.photo.misc
I have both a Yashica T4 that I've owned for four years and recently
bought an Olympus Epic for my girlfriend. Both produce awesome sharpness
and quality ESPECIALLY for the money. The minilux cannot possibly be worth
THAT much extra. I also have two Nikons with a variety of Nikon lenses
and a Fuji 6x9. The Olympus and Yashica more than hold their own for
convenience, price and quality, especially considering the price.
Richard
Date: Fri Mar 31 2000
I have had the Stylus Epic (no zoom) for a couple of years now. I use it
to take mainly slides of my climbing trips. It is very small, and I have a
compact case and sling it under my arm for the entire climb usually. When
aid climbing, I like to take it on lead, and get great exposed shots,
looking back down at the belay. I usually use it in full auto mode, so
just push the button. It works great one handed while belaying for
horizontal or vertical shots. If you want to get fancy with it, you need
two hands, and you can use the spot meter or exposure lock. I find the
multiple flash modes for daytime fill flash and self timer pretty useful.
The camera is very durable, and the clamshell lens cover protects the
lens, flash, sensors, and viewfinder. I have the all weather model
(silver) and it is supposed to be water resistant. I have taken the thing
up the Nose on El Cap, Leaning Tower, Spaceshot in Zion, Lunar Ecstasy,
Rainbow Wall, and Lone Pine Peak in the Sierra, and always got good sharp
slides back. You dont really need a zoom for climbing shots. The drawback
about the camera for mountaineering, is you cant use polarizing filters or
adjust the exposure, for those tricky white snow and black rocks scenes. I
have seen slides from my friends Yashica T4, and they are as good or
better than the Epic, but there is not much in it. I like the Epic better
cause it is smaller, and more durable with the clamshell cover. I have
beat the hell out of that little unit and it still works great.
Howard
Date: Fri Mar 31 2000
I was facing the same choice not long ago and I chose the Epic
for two reasons- Price and compactness.
Neither of those cameras would be a substitute for your SLR, so
when you need to get good quality shots reliably you would need
your SLR.
There are some technical points by which these cameras differ.
Yashica has compensation and infinity lock, but epic has a
spotmeter. However, in the end it comes down to understanding
that both of these cameras will deliver results close to what
your SLR gets but not as reliably. These are point-and-shoots
anyway and I felt like if I am going with a camera that I want to
take when my SLR is too big to take with me I should get the
smallest one. Also, there was no other compelling reasons to get
the Yashica over the Epic.The lens in Epic is very good, so if
the shot is in focus, it will be very sharp.
If you want more control and can pay more money B&H has a special
on Nikon 35TI. Supposed to be a gorgeous little camera and it has
a lot more controls than Epic. Six time as expensive though...
The bottom line-if you need to save weight and size and can
accept the possibility that a once-in-alifetime shot will be
out-of focus, tyhen go with the Epic. If you absolutely must get
that shot, get a used small rangefinder or get a Pentax ZX-M with
a used 40 mm pancake lens and you will have a reliable and fairly
compact package that will give you the assurance.
Alex
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000
ATRiot 1 wrote:
I have a Zorki 4 with Jupiter f2 lens. I've owned Russian cameras
before, but was very pleasantly surprised by the quality of the Zorki.
The machining is professional(I'm an engineer, and I appreciate good
machine shop work), the parts all fit together properly, the cover
material has no ragged edges or loose areas, and all mechanisms work
silky smooth, including the winding. The rangefinder/viewfinder are very
clear and focus is accurate. The lens has absolutely no looseness either
up, down, sideways, or back and forth, and I haven't had any other lens
that focuses more smoothly. I do wish it had click-stop f number
settings. It's a very well made camera and lens and takes excellent
pictures. I've not blown my prints up to larger than 11x14, but my
11x14's are great. For $41 complete, I consider it a steal, and I'll
probably end up buying another, maybe a 4K. My student from Russia
claims the Zorkis are used professionally there, and I wouldn't be
surprised -- it's built very sturdy. She claims they have a good
reputation for longevity, in Russia. Mine's 30 years old and still looks
& works perfect. No, it isn't for sale :>), it's the camera I find
myself carrying around, while my Pentaxes stay home ( I really love
rangefinder cameras ). I had a Leica IIIC and sold it, I didn't like the
rangefinder. I honestly don't see $300 worth of difference between the
IIIC and the Zorki.
Bill Martin
From Nikon Mailing List:
I hate to say this, BUT one of the BEST P&S cameras out there is the
Olympus Stylus EPIC. I use this as a good shirt pocket camera, at the
times I do not want to lug the nikon around. Stan ---I use 400 MAX Kodak
with Excellant pic's--
From Nikon Mailing List:
Forgot to say the Epic is under 100.00, or the Epic QDX version is
slightly higher aroung 110.00 to 120.00. QDX version is champage color,
and date/time stamp and a carring case is included.
From Nikon Mailing List;
....
I agree. The Epic (35mm f2.8) has a very sharp lens, effective red-eye
reduction, and (I think) a spot focus/metering option. It's also very
small, class 4 (I think) weather resistant, and stylish. I've seen 20x30
enlargements from this camera that were shot on NPH and the sharpness is
excellent. No zoom, but you lose so much speed and quality by having one
that it might not be worth it for you. OTOH, if you're looking for a more
expensive model, there are other companies that make non-zoom p&s's,
thought I can't remember them off-hand. Leica, I believe, as well as
Rollei... have a look through a recent mag and you should find some.
chris
From Nikon Mailing List;
Don't do anything until you check out the Yashica T4 Super.
EXCELLENT P&S for $150US and Zeiss 35mm lens!!!
This P&S is so good I can run slide film in it without any problems. I
can't think of a better P&S for the money.
Gen
Date: 19 Oct 1999
The best known are the Fed series. I think the current production is the
Fed 5c. These have interchagable Leica screw thread lenses. The lenses are
adequate (4 element Tessar formulation, I think). The problem is a quality
control one. I think a fair amount leave the factory with the shutter or
lens not well callibrated.
Kiev USA has a website. They sell the Fed 5c for I think under $200 which
is still a lot since you can get a Yashica T4 for less than that and it
will be a much better camera!
The Feds were selling for as little as $49 each about 5 years ago. Kiev
USA is supposed to tune them and gurantee them. They charge accordingly.
Charlie
Date: 19 Oct 1999
CharlesW99 ([email protected]) wrote:
There are a great number of inexpensive Soviet cameras on the used market,
including the Contax copies (Kiev) and Leica copies (Fed, Zorki). Your
best bet would be one of these, as they are commonly available for less
than $150. Soviet lenses can be superb, from the collapsible Industar 22
and 50 which are copies of the Leitz Elmar, to the Jupiter lenses -- the
35mm f2 copy of the Zeiss Biogon, and the 50mm f2 or f1.5, 85mm f2 and
135mm f4 copies of Zeiss Sonnar lenses. The Soviet designed 53mm Helios
is a superb performer by any estimation. Optically, the lenses can be
first class (the chrome ones are coated, the black ones are multicoated),
although mechanically they are not as well built as their German
counterparts. They tend to have aluminium mounts, rather than chrome over
brass. It is a commonplace that there is considerable sample variation in
the lenses, but I have yet to get a dud. I find the Soviet lenses to be
more reliable than the bodies. But a good example of a Soviet camera body
should be a decent performer and something that you can count on.
Someone looking for a quality system rangefinder for a modest price would
be hard pressed to find equivalent value for the money.
Mark
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999
I'm almost positive that what you have is a Zenit. They make (and made)
all kinds of cameras. Kiev USA sells Zenit cameras, maybe they can help
you out.
http://www.kievusa.com/
Not knowing what kind of Zenit you have makes it hard to direct you
somewhere for more info. But try this link for info on a Zenit Auto:
http://freespace.virgin.net/d.chadwick/html/photo/zenit/auto/auto.htm
Good luck.
Jim
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000
he Epic is a simple triplet lens with plastic elements. Not bad for the
price. You're still probably going to get redeye with either, so don't
base your decision on that. Remember that old adage about, "If you have to
ask?" All of these point and shoots, with one-hour-photo-processing,
provide decent prints, so don't waste your money unless you've got it to
burn.
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000
"TravGlen" [email protected]
wrote:
The Stylus Epic actually has a four element glass lens (except perhaps the
asherical element). The older Stylus has a triplet.
I actually dealt with the Stylus Epic vs. posh p&s question several months
ago.
I decided to go with the cheap camera (Stylus Epic) and have never
regretted it. I figured that an expensive p&s just would too often end up
staying at home in it's case for fear of loss/theft/damage, while the
cheap cam would be (and has been) taken everywhere, and with very good
results, I might add. I could go through several Epics before meeting the
price of one posh cam.
I also considered the Yashica T4 but had arbitrarily set my spending limit
to $100.
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000
[email protected] (Gordon Sharpless) wrote:
Excellent advice! I would bring along an "urban only" camera that is
easy to use and inexpensive. I have two Canonet QL17s just for this
purpose. They look old-fashioned, inexpensive and not worth stealing.
But these cameras allow full manual focus and exposure control, and the
40mm/1.7 lens is excellent for available light pictures. Because these
little cameras can also operate without battery, they are also very good
as backup to the main gear.
A older and small point-and-shoot is also good for urban use. The
Olympus Stylus and Pentax UC-1 are quite capable. These little cameras
(not the zoom versions) easy fit into fanny packs, purses and jacket
pockets.
ABSOLUTELY! It's better if there are trustworthy traveling companions.
Remember to bring lots of film!
--Tak
Date: 02 Apr 2000
Lots of info on Ebay--some of the sellers post quite a bit of info on
these cameras.
Russian Camera email reflector at;
http://www.egroups.com/group/russiancamera/
Zorki 4 generally consideed best by a lot of users.
Russian/Ukranian optics are very good--sharp and contrasty.
You can determine the age of most of these cameras--the first two digits
in the serial number indicate the year of manufacture.
One problem with some of the Zorkis and the Feds,is that quite a few were
made without neckstrap lugs,which means the camera must be carried inside
the "neverready case". If that's a problem,ask first/look at the photos on
ebay.
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000
This dealer has a fair amount on these cameras:
http://www.bpwltd.com/
Also, try to find a book called: Princelle, 400 Leica Copies.
Unless you are bent on LTM lenses, look at the Kiev-an excellent
copy/clone of the pre-War Contax RF. Excellent rangefinder and, again,
quite excellent lenses.
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000
NOT.
The original Contax had a troublesome roller blind shutter which was
imperfectly copied by the Russians. While you may get lens compatibility,
you are simply trading one source of trouble for another, IMHO.
John
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000
I have owned the Stylus Epic for a few months and really love it. It's
a great camera.
First, the flaws -
It's a red-eye monster. The "disco light" red eye reduction is useless.
The flash is less than an inch from the lens, so this shouldn't be much
of a surprise.
Occasionally, the multi-beam AF will focus on something other than the
subject. (OTOH, it has hit off-center subjects in grab shots, which I
think it should have missed.)
The control buttons on back are too small.
Noisy. Rewinding the film in a quiet setting is agonizing. This is not
unique to the Epic, though.
And the high points -
Outstanding quality. The lens is great. The Epic will hold its own
against an SLR any day.
Excellent exposure. Mine is great with prints, or slides. I think it
does a better job than my EOS's evaluative meter.
Convenience. Take it anywhere. Take it everywhere. Take photos of
everything.
Overall, I can forgive the Epic's minor faults when I get the film
processed. It's a great camera.
The Yashica is probably great, as well. These are the kind of camera
every photographer needs to own.
Erik Stiegler
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000
I was facing the same choice not long ago and I chose the Epic
for two reasons- Price and compactness.
Neither of those cameras would be a substitute for your SLR, so
when you need to get good quality shots reliably you would need
your SLR.
There are some technical points by which these cameras differ.
Yashica has compensation and infinity lock, but epic has a
spotmeter. However, in the end it comes down to understanding
that both of these cameras will deliver results close to what
your SLR gets but not as reliably. These are point-and-shoots
anyway and I felt like if I am going with a camera that I want to
take when my SLR is too big to take with me I should get the
smallest one. Also, there was no other compelling reasons to get
the Yashica over the Epic.The lens in Epic is very good, so if
the shot is in focus, it will be very sharp.
If you want more control and can pay more money B&H has a special
on Nikon 35TI. Supposed to be a gorgeous little camera and it has
a lot more controls than Epic. Six time as expensive though...
The bottom line-if you need to save weight and size and can
accept the possibility that a once-in-alifetime shot will be
out-of focus, tyhen go with the Epic. If you absolutely must get
that shot, get a used small rangefinder or get a Pentax ZX-M with
a used 40 mm pancake lens and you will have a reliable and fairly
compact package that will give you the assurance.
Alex
From: "Howard Young" [email protected]
I have had the Stylus Epic (no zoom) for a couple of years now. I use it
to take mainly slides of my climbing trips. It is very small, and I have a
compact case and sling it under my arm for the entire climb usually. When
aid climbing, I like to take it on lead, and get great exposed shots,
looking back down at the belay. I usually use it in full auto mode, so
just push the button. It works great one handed while belaying for
horizontal or vertical shots. If you want to get fancy with it, you need
two hands, and you can use the spot meter or exposure lock. I find the
multiple flash modes for daytime fill flash and self timer pretty useful.
The camera is very durable, and the clamshell lens cover protects the
lens, flash, sensors, and viewfinder. I have the all weather model
(silver) and it is supposed to be water resistant. I have taken the thing
up the Nose on El Cap, Leaning Tower, Spaceshot in Zion, Lunar Ecstasy,
Rainbow Wall, and Lone Pine Peak in the Sierra, and always got good sharp
slides back. You dont really need a zoom for climbing shots. The drawback
about the camera for mountaineering, is you cant use polarizing filters or
adjust the exposure, for those tricky white snow and black rocks scenes.
I have seen slides from my friends Yashica T4, and they are as good or
better than the Epic, but there is not much in it. I like the Epic better
cause it is smaller, and more durable with the clamshell cover. I have
beat the hell out of that little unit and it still works great.
Howard
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000
Michael E. Gordon wrote ...
Hello,
FWIW, I have a review of the Stylus Epic (non-zoom, sorry :-) ) on my
website.
Patrick.
From Leica Mailing List:
Mark,
not to disagree, they are as you say, P&S cameras that are also
rangefinders, after a fashion. My issue is the speed and lack of
control. I just want full manual control, and fast glass. F:3.4 - F:6.7
is not fast, hell, its not even medium . . .its damn slow.
Top shutter speeds of 1/250 - 1/400 aren't much better, I'd like at
least 1/500, but more importantly, want to go down to 1 sec in
full stop increments.
Give me a small simple body with full shutter speeds 1 - 1/500th, and
using a 35mm F:2 lens, and life is good. If it takes a 28 mm and
or a 24mm (read M mount here!), even better. Hell, it doesn't even
have to have frame lines for the widest lenses, just tell me where
its metering, I'll manage the rest.
The only thing that keeps me from buying the Minilux or the TVs is
the lack of total control. Well, that and the lack of range in speed
or aperture. At least my $50 canonette gave me that.
Maybe I should find someone who could mount a summicron 35
onto a canonette. It would be a misogynistic beast, but it would
give me what I want. Yeah, I know the shutter is in the lens on the
canon, but still . . .what could be done along those lines, anyone
know for a fact????
Norm
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999
....
I'm amazed at the print quality from the camera I got my mom last
Christmas, an Olympus stylus with the 35 f2.8 *NON ZOOM* lens.
Focuses pretty close and won't fire if you're too close for it to
focus. It's about as small as a camera can get and still accept a
35mm film cartridge. It looks better than the prints I've seen
from the "giveaway" slow zoom low end SLR's come with... It's a
nice camera if you can live with a 35mm lens.. I use an old
Olympus XA and it's got a nice zuiko 35mm f2.8 lens too but is
manual focus and aperture priority exposure system.. Great if you
want some manual control..
Stephe
http://stephe_2.tripod.com
From Panoramic Mailing List:
rangefinder help: i have a number of small ones made mainly for 3 to 20'
then inf , limited distance measuring because of small base. to separate
accurately for example l00 and 125' you will have to get something used
for artillery , surveying , and such. possibile edmund scientific might
have something. offhand i'd say you need a minimum of a 1' base and the
normal photo ones are about 2".
--
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000
Tried both and fed film through to test.
Basically, Epic is just like an improved Stylus. Light, pocketable,
quick response, and works. 2.8 means you can take sharp shots inside
w/o flash.
Sharpness is good, but not amazing like a Leica. Modern day SLR zoom
quality.
Yashica T4 betters the Epic in one noticable point - much better color
saturation so your pictures look richer than the Epic.
d =)
From Rollei Mailing List:
The GR1 has an exceptional 28/2.8 lens, it is a great little camera
with tiny size, automation with sensible controls and overrides.
The GR1's lens in lens tests performs quite comparably to the second
generation Leica Elmarit-M 28/2.8, later models of the Elmarit-M
outdo it a bit. The Rollei 35S 40/2.8 is indistinguishable from the
Leica Summicron-C 40/2 lens on the Leica CL.
If you want a 28mm lens and some automation, I'd say you can't go
wrong with GR1 for a compact 35. I tend to prefer using the Rollei 35
because I prefer the longer focal length lens and direct scale
focusing.
Godfrey
From Leica Mailing List:
The Ricoh GR1 is a wonderful camera with a superb lens, quite comparable
to the earlier series 28/2.8 Elmarit-M I owned. Only trouble is that
Ricoh has pulled out of the US market now and there are darn few of them
left available for sale. You can still get them in Japan or Europe but
it's getting pretty hard to find one in the USA.
I'm very glad I bought one before they disappeared.
Most everyone I know who has bought a Minilux Zoom has been extremely
pleased with it. I'm not fond of that slow a lens, I'd take the standard
Minilux if I couldn't get a Ricoh GR1. It's a longer lens, however: 40mm,
I believe.
Godfrey
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999
Even in the RF world, there are other choices. I cashiered my M6 because
it had a number of glaring design problems, like
(1) Eyestrain-inducing 0.72x finder
(2) Poor synch cord placement (in my eye)
(3) Too small to hold onto
(4) Bitchy loading system
...so I bought a Canon P, which compared to contemporary Leica screwmounts
was light-years ahead, and has a 1:1 finder for 35mm, which is something
Leica has never had. Much cleaner lines than the M3, I might add. and 1/4
the price of an M6.
The biggest advantage of the rangefinder world is that the wide-angle
lenses are often a lot better, and the rangefinder focusing system is much
more accurate.
But like you said, people need to work these things out.
------------
Dante Stella
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 [email protected] wrote:
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999
Dear Valery, Thank you for your respose.We have a forum on delphi with
people especially intrested in Russian and Ukrainian cameras and lenses.On
the western markets things are very confused now concening these cameras
large differences in price but also in quality.What is worst very few
people can repair the more complicated Kiev 88 cameras(at a resonable
price) I was very curious to learn what is going on camera and lense wise
in your country,so thanks again Jan de Monchy pm nothing left in Beloruss
as far as you know? ppm I copied your response into the forum
(http://forums.delphi.com/kievreport/messages/
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999
Some of the new cameras coming out (e.g. Cosina/Voigtlander) have Leica
39mm screw mounts, but are NOT "rangefinder" cameras -- i.e., they don't
have an optical device for adjusting the focusing distance, so you have to
guess. This works OK for cameras intended for wide-angle use, such as the
Cosina, but would be a problem with normal or longer lenses.
So, if you want a used camera with 39mm Leica screw mount AND a
rangefinder, your main choices are an older Leica or a Canon. There were
other makes with these specifications, but most are now rare enough to be
hard to find and command collector prices.
Of the Leicas, the most recent and nicest are the IIIf and IIIg, but these
will be quite expensive. The IIIc is common enough to be reasonably
affordable and recent enough to be reasonably reliable. I'd stay away from
prewar models such as the III and earlier. Even a IIIc will be getting on
toward 50 years old now, but should be suitable for moderate-duty use
providing it's in good working order (get it cleaned and lubed if
necessary.)
Older model screwmount Canons such as the fairly-easy-to-find model IVSb
look very much like the vintage Leicas, have similar controls, are built
to similar high standards and also can be good choices. One advantage they
have over an old Leica is that the rangefinder and viewfinder are combined
together -- handy for follow-focusing of moving objects. However, ALL
these cameras have vintage-era quirks such as squinty eyepieces,
non-parallax-compensating viewfinders with no bright frames, slow knob
wind and rewind, inconvenient loading through the baseplate, etc. If you
want a screw-mount RF camera that's has more modern features, your best
choice is probably the Canon 7. It's one of the "newest" cameras of its
ilk (introduced in 1961) so is less likely to have deteriorated with age
than a late-'40s Leica. And it has most of the convenience features you'd
expect on a modern rangefinder 35, such as parallax-compensated brightline
frames for lenses 35-135mm; all shutter speeds from 1 to 1/1000 on a
single, non-rotating dial; conventional hinged back for loading; and rapid
advance via thumb lever and rewind via crank. It was the most popular
Canon RF model and sold very well, so it's still fairly easy to find in
good condition. These cameras have built-in selenium meters, but the meter
often fades with age and isn't too sensitive even when working properly,
so you'll probably want to use a separate handheld meter.
Other possible Canon choices are the 7's successor model, the 7s (same
body and specs, but with a CdS meter instead of a selenium; this meter is
much more usable, but since the camera is newer and more rare, it commands
a higher price) and the model P (based on the previous VI series; more
compact body, beautiful construction, but the viewfinder frames are
reflected rather than projected and aren't quite as easy to see.)
There are some interesting profiles of these and other vintage rangefinder
35s on Stephen Gandy's Cameraquest site at:
http://cameraquest.com/classics.htm
[Ed. note: check Brit. Jrnl of Photography for Bessa-R review by Roger
Hicks, noted photographer, author, and camera/lens reviewer...]
Cover Story
35mm
[Ed. note: not an endorsement, just possible source worth knowing
about?]
Olexandr.
Date: 11 Apr 2000
Malcolm Daly-->"I've got an N90, and Olympus XA and a Nikon FM. When I
go to desperate places I always take the XA or the FM depending on space
and weight."
I wish you wouldn't put thoughts like this in people's minds, Malcolm.
Decent XA's are already becoming too expensive.
Carl May
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
IMO the best camera for high-altitude mountaineering is a little camera
with sharp lens and one BIG RED BUTTON to press. (I am tempted to paint
shutter release of GR1s in red :-).
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000
Andy Mabbett wrote:
1. Look out for an A16 flash - rare (particularly so if unattached to
an XA!), but provides a useful extra bit of oomph.
2. It is straightforward to modify the lens-cover slide so that it
pushes the focus lever to around the "3m" mark when closed. This means
that if you've been taking close-ups, then grab the camera for a
snapshot, it's more likely to produce an in-focus image.
3. In my experience of XAs, there is a standard wear-and-tear problem
which shows up every five years or so. The effect is to produce a dim
second exposure, due to the secondary shutter failing to operate
correctly. It seems this part of the mechanism becomes sticky, so that
the primary shutter return isn't fully blocked by the secondary.
Standard service always provides a full cure. But there's no way of
knowing that the problem is coming up.
4. Don't drop it. (All too easy since the camera is so small - fits
into pockets and slips out of its own accord.) Although the camera will
survive the drop (I've dropped one onto a tiled floor from around 4
feet, and onto a stony surface from about 10 feet), the back almost
always springs open to expose the film - the hold-shut spring is far too
weak (IMO).
5. The f/2.8 maximum aperture means you can use slow and slow-ish film
without worrying (so much) about camera shake in typical UK non-summer
outdoor situations (eg dull light, heavy cloud, dusk).
6. The wonderful no-movement pressure-sensitive shutter release can
spoil you for more conventional types.
7. The electronics is good enough for fairly lengthy time-exposures to
be tried. I've done things like church interiors and nightscapes which
have turned out fine. (The XA, unlike some of its competitors when it
was launched, has got a proper tripod screw.)
8. Fill-in flash works - turn the flash on (and set to correct
filmspeed), then reset aperture to f/5.6 to get useful "extra" direct
flash.
9. To screen the lens against sun glare, hold your left hand palm-down
and above the camera, then lower it until it is just visible in the
viewfinder. Unless the sun is very low, this will shadow the lens but
your hand won't appear in the picture.
The FAQ mentioned elsewhere is GOOD.
Enjoy.
--
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
FYI: I've also had problems with my Olympus Stylus. It simply focused
on
the wrong spot, generally 10ft short of the subject. Olympus refused to
honor their warranty on this camera also, it's a long story. Anyway, the
short of it is that I will not touch another one of these f2.8 cameras,
partly because of their utterly shabby approach to customer service.
Incidentally, a search on the internet will show that others have had
focusing problems with the f2.8 infinity as well.
m. Mine works very well, altho I don't like it for slides. OTOH, none of
the P&S cameras in that class work well for slides, IMHO. Previously, I
used an XA and an XA2. They were better for slides because the ASA was
adjustible as a form of compensation when non-standard lighting conditions
were encountered (most of the time.)
On the whole, I find the current crop of P&S handy and useful, but less so
than the previous editions that had some forms of exposure compensation.
The worst problem with all of them is the time lag from pressing the
shutter until it functions. That makes it almost impossible to capture
what you want when action is random, such as with kids and animals. I
haven't yet found any P&S at any price that overcomes that limitation.
From Rollei Mailing List;
It's interesting to me that these cameras get rave reviews from some
people and reports of rather serious deficiencies from others. I have one
of the original Olympus Infinity Stylus cameras. While it has returned
its fair share of excellent photos, it does not do so consistently.
Several of the folks I've talked to who bought the Stylus Epic rave about
them, then I hear from an equal number of people stories of poor focusing
and lens quality problems.
I guess you get what you pay for. The Stylus Epic sells on the street for
anything from $70 to $150 ... at that range of street pricing, the camera
is reflecting what must be its production variability.
Me, I'll stick with a Rollei 35S, Ricoh GR1 or Minox 35GT-E.
Godfrey
From Contax Mailing List;
When the G1 first came out I brought this up with some Contax people
at photokina. Seems like they were all SLR people brought into the
project and just didn't know how people used cameras like Leica and
Contax rangefinder (the old ones). I don't think hyperfocal focusing
ever occurred to them!
I am constantly amazed when talking to young camera and lens designers
and engineers just how little they often know about traditional
photography, or even their own company's history. In this regard
Contax is no worse than the others, but it is always a surprise.
Bob
Date: 15 Apr 2000
Before you spend the mondo cash for
the M6, have you thought about getting
a Canonet GIII QL? It's a very nice
rangefinder with many nice features and
a very good, fast lens. (about $100). This
gets you in the rangefinder class to see
what it's good for. Another alternative is
a Leica IIIF black dial with a Summarit
f1.5 lens (I got both for $650 ex+).
Both of the above are very quiet, small,
light and inobtrusive.
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000
[email protected] wrote:
Having "been there and done that", I'll chime in. Over the years (exactly
how many is nobody's business ;) I've shot using everything from 16mm
Minox
to 4x5 (and I currently have deeply lustful instincts for an 8x20). I have
owned 4 or 5 different 35mm cameras, about the same number of MF systems,
and 3 different LF cameras - this is all I can remember at the
moment. So,
I know the angst you are going through. Here are a couple of suggestions
to ponder as you make the choice:
1) Are you primarily interested in making pictures or are you fascinated
by the hardware? Both are legitimate aspects of photography, but with
very different goals. (I, BTW, have both diseases.) If you like the
iron,
I'd buy the Leica because of its beauty and elegance. Actually, I'd
wait
until Nikon reintroduces the S rangefinder at $4000, 'cause that is
just too
cool. 'Course, the mortgage would have to wait a few months...
2) Do you seek status? I'm not trying to be cruel, but an awful lot of
people
enjoy the status points associated with a Leica, a 'Blad, or and SLR
that
weighs
more than my car. This is mostly harmless - who among us isn't proud
of
a prestigious toy - but you have to come clean with yourself about
motive or
you'll spend a bunch of money on something that does not really do what
you
want,
in this case, make you proud of your trinket.
3) If you truly want to make pictures, you have to decide what kind. I
had a
debate here a few years ago with someone who was an equipment hound
themselves,
and they finally got it through my thick skull that different kinds of
equipment encourage or discourage different kinds of shooting. At the
time,
I was in the purist "a good violinist can play symphonic music on an
$80
rental instrument" school-of-thought. As I've matured, I've realized
that
this is a crock - the hardware you choose has to match the intended
task
in photography just like any other discipline. The right camera will
encourage you to shoot in your desired style, the wrong one will prevent
it.
For *most* things, I have a preference for the largest possible
negative.
(If I could effectively shoot candids with an 8x10 view camera, I'd get
one.)
Strictly from an image quality and tonal fidelity POV, an average
ancient
Mamiya
C TLR will consistently blow the socks off the best
Leica/Nikon/Canon/Contax 35mm
because 'there ain't no substitute for square inches of neg'.
Caveat: You have to understand and love that old 'C' - the older
lenses
are flarey, and the really old ones do not fit into the above category
-
they have the resolving power of a Coke bottle - that's what makes them
fabulous for portraits which is where I mostly used them.
However, image fidelity is not the whole story. Fast action is best
done with some sort of rangefinder with a very snappy shutter - I used
a Mamiya Universal press for that. REALLY fast action requires a motor
drive and a mule to carry the camera and lenses around - an camera
bag loaded with F5 paraphenalia and lenses probably weighs more than
my backpack full-o-'Blad. Inobtrusive means small and quiet - Leicas
excel here, 'Blads suck at this. View cameras really suck at this.
4) The great news is that you do not have to choose. Listen carefully
Grasshopper - new camera equipment is almost always a waste of
money unless you absolutely must have a feature that is just now
becoming available (not true in your case because of the choices
you face) or the item you seek is expected to become collectable
(the aforementioned Nikon S and the special edition Leicas come
to mind here). If you do your homework, figure out what you really
want, and exert patience, you can easily end up with some version
of both formats in your bag for about the same price of either new.
No, you won't get a deal on eBay, but there are plenty of reputable
dealers in Shutterbug who will help you spend money responsibly.
One of the best cost-saving devices out there is to buy a camera
one or two models older than what is current. Buy a used Mamiya 7
instead of a 7-II or a 'Blad 500 C/M instead of a 501 C/M, an
old M3 or M4 instead of an M6. Sure, you may have to pay some
dough to have the thing cleaned and adjusted, but you'll still
be way ahead if you shop carefully. This point was hammered home
to me this summer. I had a bag full-o-'Blad with me in Spain
and was robbed of all my possessions by an evil troll near an
on-ramp in Barcelona. Among the items stolen was an old 40mm
'C' Distagon which cost me $1500 used and another $175 to rehabilitate.
I replaced it with a new one (insurance covered it, or I would never
have bought one new) - new price: $4300!!! Is the new lens
better than the old one - sure, but it is really tough to see the
difference in the final pictures between the two lenses, you REALLY
have to be looking. In most cases you cannot tell.
Why is this the case? Because the premium manufacturers like
Leica, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Nikon, Canon, etc. have been doing such
a good job for such a long time that these days they are tuning
really small improvements into their stuff. Another example:
I shot stuff on an ancient Leica IIIf with an equally ancient
f/3.5 Collapsable Elmar that what every bit the equal of the
latest Nikon lenses I had later in life. Sure, if you push
the gear to the very edge of its performance, the newest IS better,
but how often do you shoot straight into the sun without a lens
shade and count on the multicoated optics to save you from
flare (that won't work anyhow even *with* the newest lenses ;)
Now, I'll come clean. After having too much stuff in my possession
gathering dust, I got rid of everything I didn't need or use and settled
on:
A Wisner 4x5 Technical for what I love most: big beautiful arty B&W
prints.
A Hasselblad for the same purpose when the subject or the shooting
environment or the amount of time I have cannot sustain 4x5 suffering.
A Fuji GA645Zi for making decent pictures of the above type without
unduly annoying my family while vacationing - they seem to think
that vacation has other purposes than taking pictures. The nerve!
A Sony DSC-F505 digicam for snapshots, family pix, and the like.
It's got that lovely Zeiss zoom glass on it and I think it's the
best value in digicams around. In the 6 months I've owned it, nobody
has come out with more features for less (or the same) money - in the
digital world that's a bloomin' miracle. It's only good for 8x10s,
but I never put anything bigger than that in the family album anyway ;)
Nope, no 35mm. Except for very specialized use like really LONG lenses,
practical 35mm photography using traditional processes is DEAD. Yes,
I know there is lots of it still out there, but photojournalists,
sports photographers, and commerical photographers are all switching for
a very good reason. I'm essentially a B&W art photographer who does
all my own processing etc., and some will consider this heresy, but
facts is facts. For the kind of photography at which 35mm excels,
digital is coming like a freight train. The output technologies are
excellent, affordable, and widely available. The only thing stopping
it in the consumer space is that you need a computer to fiddle with it.
Once someone gets smart (hey Polaroid and Sony are ya listening - your
first efforts in this area were horrible) and produces a cheap way to
make high-quality snapshots from the serial or USB port on a digicam,
the whole 35mm consumer space is going to self-destruct - I still be
in the darkroom using silver myself...
--
Tim Daneliuk
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000
After making several versions that were cheaper, they evolved it into the
Stylus AF line. But the orginal had (I think) six elements in the lens
and
you could set the ASA and easily shoot chromes.
The rangefinder base was a bit short, but usable. They are often found
underpriced on eBay and make fine companions when you are toting your
larger
MF camera.
John
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000
yorkovich
[email protected] writes
The problem with the G series is the noise they make when focussing
(along with the fact they do that immediately before and after the shot
- even in 'manual' focus). The resulting 'zip click whirr' is very
easily identified as a camera, especially with virtually all P&S's
making the exact same noises.
Many manual focus SLRs make a less obtrusive noise because it only lasts
for a split second, one reason I didn't buy the G2 (my Pentax MX will
also fit in a pocket).
The Leica will probably be much quieter.
--
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000
A quote from an associate:
"If you want speed, get a Canon. If you want quality, get something
with an image bigger than a postage stamp."
I shoot Canon G-III QL17, Pentax ZX-M, Fuji GA645, and Crown Graphic.
Each does its job nicely. No matter how good a job 35mm does
(irregardless of manf.), it's just not up to the performance of the 645
and 4x5. Fujinon lenses.
Depending on what's being shot, an RB/RZ or Pentax 67II is also a nice
choice.
My 2c.
Date: 15 Apr 2000
Leica lenses are superior to the Contax lenses. That's not to say that
the
Zeiss
Contax lenses are bad and there have been many tests to prove that the
Leica is
better, particularly at wide open or at F11 or more.
Oh, you may be correct within the confinds of such a carefully worded
statement! On the other hand Photodo MTF tests show the Zeiss G lenses for
the Contax rangefinders have overall higher scores than the Leica M
equivalents and outperform the M's from 1 stop down through F:8 for the
28, and 45 (50 for leica) focal lengths. The 90g is just a hare's whisker
away from the leica 90 2.8 and sample variation could easily reverse the
score here. Also, I think we can agree the 16 and 21 Zeiss Biogons are in
a class by themselves.
Doug
Date: 16 Apr 2000
Just a note: The Olympus XA is a "real" rangefinder. It is aperture
priority auto and has a wonderful 35mm 2.8 lens.
This is the ORIGINAL XA, not the XA2.
I actually have carried one with my MF geat to use as a quickie light
meter!
John
Agreed on the XA. I had one. However, I also had an XA2 and its (slower)
lens was as good, and unlike the XA, did not vignette at larger apertures.
While I prefered the XA overall, the XA2 could perform.
On one occassion I had a PJ job covering a parade. A back spasm made
carrying my regualr gear impossible. So I set out with my XA and XA2 and
a pocketload of film. The resulting 5X7 prints were quite satisfactory,
and I couldn't tell which camera produced which photos. BTW, it as quite
a liberating experience. I wish I had the guts to do it more often.
Date: 15 Apr 2000
I'm probably going to buy a Leica M6. I just have to convince myself
this is what I want, and I realize nobody else can make that decision for
me. I started thinking, though, that I could get something like the
Mamiya 7 for about what a Leica will cost.
I'm not interested in debating the merits of 35mm vs. medium format. But
I figured other people here have made similar decisions at some point.
I'm interested in which direction you went and why.
I think I already know that I'm going with a Leica 35mm. I already have a
nice Nikon SLR system, and one of the reasons for wanting a Leica is to
have something that isn't so bulky and noisy. But my brain keeps saying
that the Mamiya is about the same size as my Nikon, and the resulting
images will blow away anything that I can do with a much smaller film
format. I'm wavering, though, and would like to hear others' thoughts.
Well, I went down this road many years ago. I had the Leica M5 with a 35,
50 and 90 lens and was very satisfied with it for a long time. Then one
day I bought a Pentacon 6 from a friend, as a medium format trial camera.
The images that were produced by this $175. camera blew away what I was
making with the Leica.
The Pentacon was a great shooter for a couple years, but the body proved
to be unreliable. Soon the Hasselblad bug got me. I traded the Leica stuff
for a nice used 500CM outfit. What a great disapointment it was to me. It
was not at all hand holdable for me below 1/125th, and the images from the
Pentacon Zeiss lenses looked better to me than those from the "real" Zeiss
lenses of the Hasselblad. So the Hasselblad was sold and a used Leica M6
was bought. It was a nice camera to use. The metering was awesome, and it
could be easily hand held down to 1/8th with hardly any vibration.
But,... it was still making a 35mm slide, and after seeing the MF detail I
still wanted more. I had seen some images taken by a friend in his office
and was impressed by them. What did you make those with I asked. It was a
Pentax 645. So I tried the Pentax 645 and was hooked. It is very hand
holdable at 1/15th, and produces slides with lots of detail and good
color. I also use the Pentax 120 macro lens and like it a lot. The Leica
M6 was sold and I have been happy with the P/645 for a few years, but I
kind of miss that square film format. If you buy quality used equipment at
the right price, you should be able to trade or sell and not lose money.
Try them all and sell them when your ready to try something different.
Bob H.
Date: 16 Apr 2000
I went through the same debate with myself about 6 weeks ago and here's
what I did.
For the past 15 years I've never considered the M6 because of it's old
shutter. Then I heard about the new Konica Hexar RF camera, It comes with
a 50mm f:2 lens and a compact flash. This camera has a very quiet shutter
with flash sync @ 1/125 and 1/4000 top speed. I bought it. It utilizes the
same lens mount as the M6. Just last week I broke my bank (again)and went
out and purchased a new Grey/direct market 35mm F1.4 asph Leica lens from
Tamarkin with a 2 year warranty. Go to www.konica.com to check this camera
out. The M6 now has some very serious competition with the G-2 with it's
new 35-70 zoom, and now this new Konica Hexar RF that can utilize every M
lens ever made.
I also own a Mamiya 7-11 with the 65mm and 150 lenses.
Bob Mc.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
John, I agree that there is a "trendy" component to today's
rangefinder frenzy. I have to say, though, that among trends, I
welcome the re-emergence of the rangefinder's popularity. I still
have an old Kodak Retina IIa that I got many years ago. I still take
pictures with it sometimes, because it's a capable camera, sturdy but
compact, it has a sharp lens, and it's really quiet! (By contast, my
G1 has a sharper lens, works better overall, but it's a bit noisy --
sound-wise and visually. I wish Contax would've ... well, a lot of
people have expressed that sentiment...) -Dave
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
The Mamiya *is* a good camera.
But it's not really optimal for handheld use in low light and my
experience with the Mamiya 6 was that lens changes weren't real fast,
what with the need to draw the darkslide first. Still, I liked my 6
while I had it and particularly when paired with the 75mm lens, liked
travelling with it. I don't miss it much after two years though--I was
much more taken with the Fuji GA645 except when the AF refused to lock
in low light (that's a slow lens too but it *does* have a handy if
glarey little flash built right in), which was too often.
When you buy your first Leica, you probably will be euphoric for awhile
and surround yourself with photos of Henri Cartier Bresson and Oskar
Barnack and eagerly follow particularly glowing lens reviews. You may
find yourself a little freaked-out about security and want to tape over
the red logo for fear that it will attract covetous eyes. Sooner or
later, reality of the system costs will sink in and you may sell the
camera at a substantial loss. Maybe you'll want to try a Contax or
something for awhile because it's more "modern" and much cheaper. After
a year, you'll make the mistake of getting your hands on an M camera
again and want it back real bad.
A few hints: Don't bother disguising the camera because few folks under
70 will know what it is much less care and no, chrome or black; it won't
make much difference. Peel off the protective plastic sheet from the
bottom and recycle the packaging: Even a like-new M6 with original
packaging will sell at a substantial loss so stop thinking of this as an
investment. If you are thinking of also buying a point and shoot to
spare your Leica some useage, just buy the point and shoot!
--
Jeff
[Ed.note: NOT an endorsement, I haven't dealt with these folks, but
here simply as price check info only...]
We have the new Zenit122, 122k (Pentax), 212, 212k, 12xp - for $89
each.
Zenit AM2 (1...1/1000 sec) - $95, Zenit APK (1...1/2000 sec) - $109.
Zenitar 2.8/16m (screw), Zenitar 2.8/16k (Pentax) - $109,
Kiev 88 kits (new) - $215, Kiev 66 (new) - $150.
Horizon 202 - $289.
And many other items if You specify it (binoculars, night vision
devices,
telescopes and so on).
Also we have the used Leica Russian clones Zorki...Zorki 4 in good
condition - $49 and lenses for them.
All prices include the regular mail delivery (within 3 weeks).
The accumulated discounts are available.
From Nikon Mailing List;
UNFAIR I tells you! Leitz M lenses should not be compared with any reflex
lens, including Leitz R lenses. The rangefinder lens will win every time
based on design and optical formula which gives rangefinder cameras an
advantage over SLR's.
I dont know, maybe I just got an extra good batch of Nikkors, but the
things I am reading just dont apply to my situation.
Steven K Witt
[ed. note: Steven's point is a good one, namely that the freedom the
non-flipping mirror rangefinder bodies allow the lens designer can easily
produce superior lenses, especially wide angles using non-retrofocus
designs...]
From Leica Mailing List:
"John M. Niemann" [email protected] asked:
No, having produced screw-Leica clones, the Fed and Zorki teams than
slowly developed the basic design into modified forms which owed
little or nothing to the M series. These cameras retained the
traditional screw-mount lenses.
The nearest thing to an M which the Soviets designed was the
late-1950s Kometa, an ugly-looking camera with its own pattern of
bayonet mount, and with a Contax III-style built-in meter. Only two
prototypes were built, and exhibited at the 1958 (or was it 1959?)
Brussels Fair.
In the 1970s, the Chinese produced the Red Flag 20, a camera which
resembled the Leica M5 and used Chinese copies of M-bayonet lenses,
but which had no built-in meter. Only about 200 were built.
Regards,
Doug Richardson
From Rollei Mailing List:
All of the lenses except the 15mm and 25mm are rangefinder coupled,
and work fine on SM Leica or M Leica with the adapters.
Bob
----------
From Leica Mailing List:
Today's New York Times Magazine ran a series of self-portaits by noted
photographers, including one by Robert Frank. He's pictured in the middle
of
a bunch of Swedish photography students, most of whom are pointing Olympus
point'n'shoots at the camera. In the printed version, Frank appears to be
holding a (gasp) disposable! See
http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000507mag-selfportrait.6.html
for the on-line version.
Chuck Albertson
From Nikon Mailing List:
My hands-on favorite: The Olympus Stylus Epic. No one
that has followed that suggestion has ever been
disappointed. For the details, see:
http://home1.gte.net/rhashiro/photo-olympus.htm
From Rollei Mailing List:
Just a quick note of thanks to all those who gave me their opinions
regarding these two cameras...
The most valuable responses came off-list. Most on-list respondents cited
feature comparisons or wondered why I was comparing these two cameras;
folks, i can read the literature as well as anyone else and honest, I have
my legitimate reasons for the comparison of these two; I know about the
Konica RF but the price point is so dramatically different that IMO a
comparison is not reasonable or fair.
A quick summary of those shooters who provided thoughtful and informative
responses: they ranged from the Contax body being a "superb instrument" to
it being "an insult to serious photography." Regarding the Voigtlander
body, only one voice decried it's construction as little better than "a
piece of plastic;" most viewed the camera as a well designed and
fabricated piece with (an) excellent viewfinder(s); viewfinder
shortcomings generally topped the list of negatives on the Contax but
there were others. Reviews of the Voigtlander glass were really quite
good; it was generally felt that the lenses were not quite as strong as
the latest and greatest Leica aspherical RF glass but of course the
differences in price are staggering. Little experiences with the 75 mm
thus far cited. General description of Voigtlander lens character: crisp
with high contrast and with very long tonal scales, neutral color cast,
not suffering from the typical japanese "sterile" quality so many cite
from Pentax and others but quite neutral. Excellent coverage and
abberation control even with the super-wides.
No one had anything but praise optically regarding the Contax glass and in
fact I have never heard any negatives on this front from other sources
either... it all seems to hinge upon whether you can live with the body
(and lack of DOF scales) and views vary widely here.
Bob Shell promised to give us his shooter's opinion when he completes test
drive of the R... looking forward to hearing what you have to say, Bob. If
anyone wants a complete set of responses on this question, drop me a note
and I'll try to get something together for you. I'd also recommend you
check
out:
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigrf.htm
which is by far the most comprehensive information I've seen thus far
regarding the Voigtlander RFs and lenses.
Regards and thanks,
Eric Goldstein
FRom Pentax mailing list:
(This has nothing to do with Pentax at all but given the discussion on P&S
I think some of you would find it interesting.)
I bought one recently to use on my trip, and after putting 6 rolls
throught it this is what I have to say:
I am quite impressed by its metering accuracy. It rivals and sometimes
exceeds what I'm capable of with my manual SLR. However, it occasionally
falters in very bright (sunny) conditions where tends to overexpose by a
bit. The flash metering is excellent, except for the nasty redeye (I
didn't try the redeye reduction mode).
The camera is rated "class-4" weatherproof but as as my friend and I
discovered (by accident) it can survive brief submersion in natural hot
springs, with the front clamshell closed. I am fairly certain that the
weatherproof rating applies to the clamshell being open and it seems
logical to assume that the camera would be even more resistant to water
with it closed, since the lens is no longer exposed.
Film used included Royal Gold 200 and 400 (great!), as well as a roll of
MAX 400 (yuck).
Images look nice - sharpness is good when focus is locked-on properly,
though on 4x6's (Royal Gold paper) my SLR setup is still a tad sharper in
some cases. It is very close, though. I haven't done any enlargements yet
and I have no film scanner with which to examine the negatives. I should
note that there is *no* light fall-off at the corners as is the case with
some other P&S cameras. Interestingly, the Stylus Epic also has a
spot-metering mode but I haven't had a chance to try this out yet.
To conclude, the Stylus Epic has performed beyond my expectations. I have
a feeling that I'm going to be using it a lot due to its very compact
size, versatility, night-time capabilities, and good results in general.
I'll reach for my clunky SLR when I need absolute control over the shot as
well as the best possible results, instant "shutter response", and zoom
lens. This recent experience has also made me a believer of 400 speed
film, and I will probably be using it a lot with this P&S.
Following are some photos taken with the Stylus Epic (pardon the slow
server):
Please note that these were scanned in using a very cheap flatbed, hence
the poor sharpness and lack of shadow and highlight details.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
Gerald
From Rollei Mailing List:
Well, You are comapring an AF with a Manual Focus Rangefinder. The
Voigtlander uses the defunct Leica screw mount mount, and the Contax its
own mount.
Now if you are really looking for the best Rangefinder you can get today,
consider the new Konica Hexar RF. I currently have one with the 28, 50,
and 90mm lenses and cannot say enough good things about it. It is a
motorized rangefinder camera that can also use Leica M mount lenses as
well. Its great if you already own Leica lenses, but also once you try
the new optics that Konica debuted along with the Camera you will not need
to look any further. They are every bit as good as Leica M-glass.
This is the camera that Leica should have made, but of course they are
driven by inertia....standing still in the face of progress!!
...
From Rollei Mailing List:
Richard Coutant wrote:
Don't laugh, but take a look at the Olympus Stylus Epic with 35/f2.8
lens. Pretty impressive little camera for the price and it takes great
pictures. I bought one for my daughter and now my wife wants one.
Randy Holst
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
If you have the, money get a good Contax with Zeiss lens from a reputable
dealer ($250-$500).
If you are on a budget get a good Kiev 4a for $50 to $125.
Nobody on this planet will be able to tell the difference in the quality
of photos from good examples of either camera.
- Sam Sherman
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
I agree in principle with what Sam says, but there's a caveat: Kiev's
quality varies widely, camera to camera and lens to lens. I have two
Kievs (a Kiev II from 1952 and a Kiev 4a from 1971). The Kiev II is
beautiful, the 4a is less satisfactory in finish and tends to be more
prone to shutter jamming, etc. Both can take a good picture, but neither
are the equal of the pre-war Contax IIa with Zeiss lens I've used.
If you can find a good one, a Kiev 4a is quite a bargain at the going
rate. But finding a good one is not necessarily as predictable as just
buying one marked "mint". If you're not in need of interchangeable
lenses, a Canonet QL17 is a superior camera.
Godfrey
...
From: "John G. Silver" [email protected]
You might like to take a look at the Ukrainian Fed 5 b or c. They seem to
sell for about the same price and the 5c has a selinium meter. It seems
to work well enough for my purposes.
The latest lens is a f2.8 55mm Industar using the latest glass. It is
little short of brilliant. Gee it is good!
The camera itself is very good and strong. Mine works perfectly,
rangefinder is a bit dim and could be better, it is also a little off
centre, but I can live with that! A bit noisy and the shutter speed is a
top 1/500. But all seem spot on.
About $50:00 the set. You can't go wrong!
JS
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000
Hi Wei,
Well, either you just happened to snap that shot of the fountain when
a swarm of very small UFOs were passing or the camera has problems.
Those spots are not flare, but caused by pinholes in the shutter most
likely. This is not uncommon when the rubber coating on the silk
cloth deteriorates.
You can replace the shutter curtains, or you can paint them with black
acrylic.
Bob
P.S.: As you can see in the flower shot those old Steinheil lenses are
super. They were more highly regarded than Zeiss in their day.
- ----------
From: Bob and Amy [email protected]
Best ever small rangefinder (FIXED LENS!) is the Canonet QL 1.7. No joke,
I used it for years professionally (when most people were not looking!).
It's GREAT! 43mm 1.7. Canon quality. Great auto exposure (really
matched my Gossen Luna-Pro. - Bob.
....
From: [email protected] (LuvAntique)
This camera may have had good optics, but construction-wise, it's pretty
tinny.
If you afford to spend $400, you can dig around and find a solid but
cosmetically deficient M3 or even something like a screw mount IIIF.
Nikon S or S2 are also solid possibilities, and available in non-collector
condition for your price. Collectors are looking for the ones without
blemishes, and a rub or a scratch in the finish knock the collector value
of soundly usable cameras down to within easier reach. Absolute finest RF
35 ever made was the Nikon SP, but that would be out of your price range
even for a beater. Worth handling some time though. It will give you a
different opinion of Leica's Godhood.
Michael Cleveland
From: Hallaj [email protected]
Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected] wrote:
I found very good and detailed information in english at:
The prices are as you have mentioned exept for the lenses which are
cheaper. Ranging from 250 to 320 $.
Hallaj
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000
"greg kerr" [email protected] wrote
I have both of those, and both are excellent cameras. The Olympus Stylus
Epic is much the better buy as far as I'm concerned. I'll be putting my
Yashica T4 up for sale on eBay one of these days, when I get around to it.
Neil
From: "Neil Harrington" [email protected]
"John R" [email protected] wrote
I already have both.
A couple of reasons, John.
First, I just like to buy cameras. Frankly I don't do anywhere near enough
photography to justify the number of cameras I already have, but I still
enjoy buying cameras during those periods when photography is one of my
main interests. (It comes and goes.)
Second, the Stylus Epic has a couple of neat features that none of my
other point-and-shoots do. For example, it has a tiny IR remote control
available as an accessory. The reason that appeals to me is I'm interested
in stereo photography, and was thinking of getting a pair of Stylus Epics,
mounting them side by side, and using the remote to fire them both
simultaneously.
I'm still thinking about that but haven't gotten the second Epic yet. One
possible fly in the ointment that I wasn't aware of before I got it is
that the remote doesn't fire the camera immediately, but with a
three-second delay. In some respects that's a good thing--the camera
doesn't respond to the remote behind it, so the delay gives me a chance to
use the remote from the front and then get out of the way. But I suspect
that the delay may make releasing both shutters less than perfectly
simultaneous.
Neil
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000
greg kerr [email protected] wrote:
I have the Epic and a T3. They have the same fast lens but the
Epic is US$90, smaller, and has a built-in sliding lens
protector making it much easier to put in your pocket without
any other case. The Epic's lens produces very sharp images as
does the T3. It's small enough to fit into almost any kind of
pocket as well.
One other thing I like about the Epic is that it takes great
night shots. Just start the 10 sec timer and set the camera on
something rigid and you'll get very nicely exposed shots.
From: [email protected] (WFeathe662)
On journeys a few years ago I felt naked if I did not carry an F-3 and a
FE, for backup, with at least a half dozen lenses. This "stuff" does get
heavy. It is nice to have the exact lens at hand for a given shot ---But,
I grew tired of being a pack mule together with the realization that I
always had the wrong lens on the camera.
My latest trip - to Germany and France (Normandy) I carried a Leica M4P
with a 35mm f2 Summicron lens and a Stylus Epic (the one with the 2.8
lens). B & W in the Leica and color in the Epic. I am completely
satisfied. No need to comment on the Leica. The Epic performed splendidly.
My only objection to the Stylus is that I wish it had a no-flash default.
From: [email protected] (Jerome Bigge)
"Ken Rosenbaum" [email protected] wrote:
To get into the spot metering mode, you must press both the
flash mode selection button with a finger nail and the self
timer mode button with a finger nail AT THE SAME TIME.
This takes a bit of practice until you get the hang of it.
The spot metering mode is a rectangle up in the upper
left of the LCD panel. This also changes the auto focus
from multi-beam to single beam, resulting in more accurate
focus if you happen to have a small subject (one that does
not fill the finder) or something just to the side of the subject,
but in front of the subject.
Practice a bit with the camera, use
different targets for the camera to focus on, with something very
close to the camera (just to one side of the aiming cross hairs)
and you will see that there is a difference between the spot mode
and the default mode which uses a wider angle view for metering
and the multi-beam auto focus. The single beam mode (spot) is
quite similar to the method used by the old Stylus Infinity, and in
my opinion is a more accurate way of doing things, but requires
more knowledge upon the part of the user than the multi-beam,
wider angle exposure mode that is the default mode for the Epic.
Jerome Bigge
Author of the "Warlady" & "Wartime" series.
From: "Omar" [email protected]
Hi folks,
I have pretty much finished setting up a webpage for a Yashica Autofocus S
Rangefinder:
http://www.geocities.com/omar5193/yashica_autofocus_s.html
I am still requesting that any of you with info on years and dates of
manufacture, and who designed or manufactured this cheap little 35mm
camera for Yashica. I purchased mine for $9.95 at a thrift shop!
I suspect that some other company must have built it for Yashica since it
is really a cheapo plastic and aluminum camera that is not up to the
standards of other Yashica rangefinders.
Soon you'll see online images taken with this camera, and please email me
or post any comments on how best to improve my new webpage (I've already
jazzed it up a bit since last weekend).
Regards,
[Ed. note: re: 3 element lens in the popular Olympus stylus camera
P&S]
When you consider that it only has a THREE ELEMENT lens, the
performance of the lens is amazing.
Bob
- ----------
....
From Pentax Mailing List:
BTW, its called the Mu 2 in Europe.
I've recently bought one as a backup/When I cant be bothered carrying a
full SLR around camera.
I've only shot B&W through it so far, mainly fp4 and agfapan, and I've
been amazed at the contrast range of the lens for a P&S, and the overall
image sharpness.
I'd second the comments on the utility of the flash (very accurate) and
the overall image exposure.
Its also quite ergonomic, allowing quick one-handed opening and firing.
Its time to arm (from opening the cover to taking the shot) is also
extremely low in the non-zoom version, so its ideal as a snapper camera.
Its actually replaced my old old Ricoh 500 ME as my P&S compact camera
thingy.
Pity Pentax doesnt have one!
Buy it!
T.
From Pentax Mailing List:
One thing you have to watch out for using the Epic is with its flash.
The location of the flash on the camera causes redeye big time. So be
careful when using it on people and pets.
GQR
...
From: "Siu Fai Au" [email protected]
I have a GIII and have just finished re-foaming a QL19 (no-GIII) of a
friend of mine. As far as I can tell, both are identical in size. The GIII
may be a bit heavier. Probably the biggest difference is the focal length
of both camera, i.e. 40mm for the GIII and 45mm for the QL19. As you may
know, both are meant to use mercury PX625 batteries which are hard to
find. There is a company on the internet which still offers them. Since I
still have a couple spare batteries I haven't treid it. Here is th URL:
http://buttononline.heha.net/
I haven't done any scientific testing of it but my GIII performs as good
as my EOS prime-lenses (so does my Oly Mju II BTW). Metering is not as
sofisticated as modern AF SLR, so you need to be aware of that when using
slides. It tends to underexpose a bit when some parts of sky is included
in the picture but it can easily be compensated by first pointing down the
camera a bit and meter, hold the metering by pressing the release button a
bit and then re-frame and shoot. The guide number flash system of it works
excellent. The use of 48mm filter is a bit rare so you may order a step-up
ring for it.
Overall, I'm very happy with mine.
You can find more info about these nice camera's here:
http://www.cameraquest.com/canql17.htm
http://phr.www.cistron.nl/canonet.html
here is a online manual:
http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/manuals/canonetql17.html
Happy shooting!
BTW: Check the sealing foam of the camera. If it hasn't been renewed than
it has prbably turned bad.
[Ed.note: I have tended to be inclusive herein with true rangefinders,
autofocus rangefinders, and even some viewfinder cameras cited where they
are similarly used, and so potentially of interest to a 35mm user wanting
a non-SLR option...]
How can a rangefinder with no rangefinder be a rangefinder? It's
gotta be a zone focus, or a fixed focus, no? Or it can have a
rangefinder on it, a Kalart for instance, and not be a rangefinder, like
a Graphic. Or have a scale rangefinder, like a Conley, and still be a
flatbed.
But as far as I can see, if you got a rangefinder with
no rangefinder, you got no rangefinder.
Bob Hickey
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000
Well, that's what I think, too. But in another thread, others have been
saying that because they personally are in the habit of calling *any*
viewfinder-type non-SLR camera a rangefinder camera, it must be "common
usage" and we all should learn to accept it. I think that's asinine
(although before getting insulted they should reflect that I mean
"asinine"
to mean what *I* intend it to mean, not necessarily what *they* think it
means. Which just goes to show what happens when you put Humpty Dumpty in
charge of word usage...)
From: [email protected]
Maybe you compared two different series of cameras.
There was an older version of the QL19 (and of the QL17 as well) which
was indeed somewhat bigger than the "new" QL19 and "new" QL17.
The "new" QL17 was later replaced by the QL17-GIII. The main difference
was the battery test light of the GIII instead of a indicator in the
aperture scale of the QL17. The QL19 was still continued, the Q17-GIII
and Q19 have the same manual, and it says that the QL19 has no battery
test light and the GIII no battery indicator in the viewfinder.
The "new" QL19, the "new" QL17 and the QL17-GIII have the same size.
The main difference is the lens, the QL19 lens has 5 elements and the
QL17 lens 6. Maybe that makes a little difference when you use the QL19
lens at full aperture.
I have a "new" QL17 and I think it's a really feature-loaded "general
purpose" camera. If you do not feel the need for interchangeable
lenses, it' a great performer. In Germany, imported mercury cells are
still available - if you know where to buy them.
Winfried Buechsenschuetz.
From: [email protected] (Gerry Palo)
Tony Polson [email protected] wrote:
His main argument would be that the autofocus makes the G2 one of a kind.
And therein lies the main controversy. The two cameras offer you the
choice, either autofocus (and eletronically assisted manual focus with no
visual confirmation but a light) or a coincident image rangefinder. He
insists that the G2's electronic system does everything that the other
system does and you don't need a rangefinder (i.e. people who want one
want it for vague subjective reasons not based on logic or objective
reality). And since that is the case, you get, in addition, full
autofocus as well. In other words, you get everything a high end p&s
offers plus interchangeable lenses plus manual controls.
It seems to me, from all the testimonials I have read, that the G2 is so
good at what it does, essentially p&s mode shooting, that the user would
be inclined to let the camera do the work in most cases. For the
photographer who wants to do it himself, make his own judgements about
exposure and focus, a good deal of the time, the camera has its
limitations. It is really a darned good p&s, with "Superb Zeiss Optics".
I want one.
By the way, one thing that all the ae rangefinders - Leica, Contax, Hexar
- seem to have in common is a rather primitive ae system. No spot
metering, for example. The Contax doesn't show the settings in the
viewfinder. Do the others? And at most they do aperture priority in
automatic mode. This again points to the fact that the kinds of
photographers who want a rangefinder camera tend to be less interested in
automation, and the question is always, how much do you add? Voigtlander
decided not to add anything, and only Contax added af.
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000
Hi Robert,
I know that Winifred is an English female name, but my real name is
WINFRIED which is a German male name - just to mention it.
I have included a description of my procedure I performed on the Canonet
and (of course with necessary modifications) on some other rangefinders.
It is based on some newsgroup postings from other people, especially
Stuart Willis from Australia.
The material I used is called "moosgummi" in German (mossy rubber), I did
not find a translation yet. It is some kind of dense foam rubber,
available in many dimensions in craft shops, some people use it for
cutting ornaments etc. A similar material is sold by industrial suppliers
for cutting custom gaskets. I also heard that Micro-Tools sells "light
baffle" material, unfortunately there is no such supplier selling to
individuals in Germany.
Regards,
Winfried
[Ed. note: Thanks again to Winfried for the Update on above...]
Hi Rob,
I just found the English translation (or what I believe it is) for the
German word "Moosgummi". According to the English version of a website of
a manufacturer of this material, the English word is "sponge rubber".
I think the users of your rangefinder site would appreciate if you would
integrate this information in my gasket replacement instructions.
Also, these instructions might help people who own other cameras. The main
difference is that the Canonet QL17 has most of the gasket material on the
rear door, while most other just have gaskets in the body grooves. Some
cameras require a pad of 3...5mm thick sponge rubber to keep the film
cartridge in place (most cameras have a leaf spring there, but some a
rubber pad only).
Again, thank you for putting my article on your website.
Regards,
Winfried
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000
Hi Robert,
Sponge rubber may sound exotic to you, but this material is just under
your right hand ... most mousepads are made of this material.
So one of the easiest ways to get some stripes is to sacrifice a mouse pad
and cut it into some "slices" approx. 2mm thick. Then you have sponge
rubber stripes 2mm thick and 3...5mm wide. If you need smaller ones, take
these stripes and cut them again to proper width.
You may add this as an update to the gasket replacement description.
I have adjusted the rangefinders of some 70's cameras now, and I think
that this is not very difficult for someone who knows how to handle a
watchmaker's screwdriver. If you think that this might be interesting for
your readers, too, it will a pleasure for me to put the procedure in
words.
There is not a rangefinder craze in Germany. Of course, our photo
magazines write about the Bessa R and Hexar and all this stuff including
the Contax rangefinder (which is rarely mentioned in the US, I think). But
there are a few people who appreciate the virtues of these things -
fortunately not too many, and it is still possible to make real bargains
at ebay.
Regards,
Winfried
How to replace light gaskets of a Canonet QL17 (-GIII)
[Ed. note: see Repair Tool Resources Pages
for more on tools and foam strip sources... or
Micro-tools Sales Site]
Concerning the light seals, help may come from R. Monagha's site. He
posted my description of how to replace the light seals of the Canonet
QL17 on his webspace. The Canonet 28 seems to be quite similar, so you
may use this description with minor modifications.
I am planning to update this description from time to time. The next
update will tell you that the material called "sponge rubber" is just
very close to you - most mouse pads are made of this. If you cannot get
any thinner material, you can cut of stripes approx. 2mm wide and cut
them by the length again to obtain stripes of approx. 2x2mm.
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/rangefinder.html#gasket
Filters with 48mm thread are still available. I do not know US
suppliers, but in Germany they are available from dealers specialized in
these things.
Concerning the lens shade, this will be a little difficult. The
viewfinder is pretty close to the lens, and standard lens shade will
partially cover the field of view. Canon had a special slotted lens
shade. I have seen many Canonets, but only one with a lens shade and one
lens shade for sale on german ebay.
The camera needs the PX625 mercury cell, and they are slowly
disappearing from the german market, too. If you have the chance to buy
some, take a pack of ten - in your fridge, they will survive a decade.
Or you buy the MR9 battery adapter for approx. USD 30, which accepts
silver cells.
Winfried from Germany.
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Gary Davis wrote:
That's what I found, too. It's the same material. If there is a printed
coating on the mousepad, in most cases, you can tear it off easily and
completely.
In case the mousepad is too thick (>2mm), just cut slices, and cut the
slices by the length to obtain narrow and thin light seals. To obtain
wider lightseals (like the lower one on the Canonet), use a mouse pad as
thick as possible to cut slices.
Winfried Buechsenschuetz
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
I have had to replace foam in a number of my older rangefinders. I found
a couple of tools at the drug store that helped me do the job more
efficiently.
One is to use wooden cuticle manicure sticks in addition to toothpicks.
They are sturdy and longer than toothpicks, therefore easier to hold.
Also, one end is a slanted chisel end that can be used very effectively in
narrow grooves. Mine came in a package of two.
The other is to use theatrical make-up application "Q-tips" instead of the
standard ones. They have firm formed tips, don't shed nearly as much and
seem to clean out the foam gunk without leaving as much debris behind.
I purchased both at our local Walgreen's drug store, so I assume they will
be available easily.
Happy Holidays. ...Omar
John Scott wrote:
From: David Littlewood [email protected]
Gerry Palo
[email protected] writes
If you lust after a Mamiya 7 II, you could try looking at UK prices.
Best price I can find on a (fairly quick) look through the current AP is
UKP1345 for body plus 80mm lens. At today's exchange rate that's about
$1975.
All the fixed lens Fuji rollfilm cameras are available for less than
UKP1000 ($1450) even the 690GSW.
I think your US Mamiya/Fuji importers have some explaining to do, but
for me it is a refreshing change after decades of seeing this
differential the other way round.
--
From Leica Mailing List:
[email protected] a �crit :
Jo -
I bought one of these new in about 1970, and still have it. In a side by
side comparison with my then-new M3 and 50mm/2.8 Elmar, using the same
film, developed in the same tank and printed at the same time, shots taken
hand held outdoors in daylight were generally indistinguishable in terms
of image quality (the Elmar field of view was slightly narrower, of
course.) It has an excellent lens, and is quite a handy little picture
taker. If the battery dies, everything still works except the meter (just
like a Leica M.) You're lucky to have one.
Cheers,
Kip
[email protected] wrote:
Thanks Kip for the one thing I didn't know : that everything works when
the battery is dead . This is very good news .
I'll try to look for those small things at the next sales .
Cheers
Jo GOODTIMES , France
From Rollei Mailing List:
(My ISP has been having lots of problems with my sent mail. If this
arrives so late as to be out of context, please forgive.)
I have Roillei 35S, the original Rollei 35 made in Germany, two minox
35s-GL and GT, an Oly XA and a XA-2 and at least a half dozen other
rangefinders from the '70's as well as Leica M's. The only one that
comes close to the Leitz Summicron 35/2 or 50/2 is the 35S. However
the contrast of the Sonnar is less than the Leitz lenses and the
Rollei 35 Tessar.
I carried an M6 with 50 and 35, two Minox 35s, and a Ricoh GR1 around
the world. The GR1 is SO GOOD that I used it mostly for slides. The
only way I can tell which slides were shot with the Ricoh GR1 and
which with the Leica is by the appearance of the wider angle Ricoh
28mm lens. In color and b&w prints up to 16X20 I can't tell a
difference. However, under a 100X microscope I can see that the Leica
is sharper. Slide film was Provia 100 and Agfa RSX II.
I used the Minox 35s, the perfect stealth camera, for negative films.
I don't think the AE is good enough for slides. If I had carried the
Rollei 35 I would have used it in a similar manner. I shot at least
60 rolls of b&w film and recently did some more 11X14 prints of the
trip. I am very impressed at how good the Minox is, no contrast
problems in my experience. But, out in the corners the Leica and GR1
lenses are clearly superior.
Bill Lawlor
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
At Radio Shack I bought an adhesive-backed thick black plastic belt clip
and have it on the back of my Oly Stylus. Since the Stylus is small and
slippery, the belt clip is an improvement, making it a lot easier to
hold. Of course this wouldn't work on an older camera with a pebble
covering on it, I don't think.
--Michael
...
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
I've been meaning to try this belt clip. Anybody have one?
Dan
http://www.clipsystems.com/history.html
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Well, there is not too much of a choice ... There is another rangefinder
from a japanese company, but since the introduction of the prototypes
not too much was heard of it. The only other recent camera I know that
will accept LTM lenses is the Konica Hexar, it will need the LTM to
M-mount adapter ring.
Used Leica CL bodies, which will accept most of the LTM lenses with the
same adapter ring (they have M-mount, too) sell for around DM 700 - 1000
(USD 350 - 500) in Germany. This would be my first choice, especially
when you can get a revised one (they seem to have problems with light
meter adjustment after one or two decades of usage).
Winfried
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Hello,
I have found some exploded Canonet diagrams and useful tips for freeing
up stuck aperture and shutter blades at this site:
http://kyphoto.com/classics/articles.html
I have since been able to un-stick the blades of my Canonet, Konica S2,
and Hi-Matic 9 (without actually removing the blades from the shutter)
with the basic set of three lens spanners from microtools, lighter
fluid, fine graphite (from the hardware store), and a can of air (from
the office supply store). Not especially hard, just tedious.
The blades do not have to be especially dirty to get stuck in the shut
position, which then also hangs up the entire shutter-release and
winding mechanism. One two of the cameras the blades did not
immediateley open when I squirted the lighter fluid and graphite mixture
on them, and I had to poke at the blades very gently and push them back
towards the closed position with a soft and blunt object (toothpick,
ballpoint pen) to free the whole thing up. Tile the camera around so
that the solvent gets to the parts of the blades that you can't see.
Work the aperture blades back and forth and fire the shutter a while
before you blow everything dry and reaasemble.
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000
[email protected] (Jcavins) wrote:
In an SLR, you view and focus through the same lens that is used to
make the picture. The SLR manages this by using a mirror to reflect
light up to the viewfinder; this mirror flips up out of the way when
the shutter release is pressed.
A camera that has a separate viewfinder, not using the picture-taking
lens, is called a viewfinder camera. If a viewfinder camera has a
split-image distance measuring tool coupled to the lens focusing
mechanism, it's called a rangefinder camera. There is some colloquial
"slop" to these terms, and you'll sometimes hear viewfinder cameras
called rangefinders even though they use fixed focus, zone focus, or
autofocus only.
By eliminating the SLR's flopping mirror, rangefinders (along with
other types of viewfinder cameras) gain several advantages. They're
quieter and easier to handhold at slow shutter speeds. They're
faster, with little or no shutter lag. They can use simpler, smaller,
non-retrofocus wideangle lenses (SLR's need to use retrofocus lenses
for short focal lengths to keep the lens away from the bouncing
mirror).
By using a separate optical viewfinder with split-image focusing, they
gain some more advantages: The viewfinder is always bright, regardless
of how slow the lens is or what kind of filters are in use. The
viewfinder usually shows an area outside the frame of the photo, with
frame lines telling you what will be in the picture, so you can see
moving things before they enter the camera's field of view. The
split-image focusing is extremely precise, because it can use a long
baseline, regardless of how fast or slow the lens in use is. Everything
in the viewfinder appears in focus to your eye (this can be an advantage
or disadvantage). They don't need the bulky heavy prism of an SLR.
These advantages come at a cost. They lose the SLR's biggest
advantage, its precise through-the-lens viewing. Some mechanism is
required to change the viewfinder's field of view when using different
focal length lenses. There's no depth of field preview. When used for
extreme close-ups, the viewfinder sees the subject from a slightly
different perspective than the picture-taking lens will see (parallax
error). The rangefinder focusing isn't as precise as through-the-lens
focusing for really long fast lenses (even though it's more precise
than TTL focusing for short lenses). Good mechanical precision is
required to keep the viewfinder and focusing mechanisms aligned
properly.
As a broad generalization, rangefinder cameras are nice for wide-angle
use, inconspicuous candid people photography, and/or low-light use.
SLR's are much better for macro work or extreme telephoto work.
There's a lot of "middle ground" where either type works well.
A big part of the rangefinder fanaticism comes from the impeccable
craftsmanship of Leica, the most famous rangefinder maker. Leicas
have jewel-like qualities, and Leica owners aren't always completely
rational in their devotion to their fine cameras.
--Rich
Date: 10 Oct 2000
...
Rich has correctly summarized what SLRs and rangefinders are and their
pros and cons.
I have used old Nikon rangefinders and Nikonos viewfinders for 30 years or
so. I also have owned and used SLRs and a TLR. My opinion is that
rangefinder/viewfinder 35 mm cameras are very handy to carry around and
take bumps better than SLRs. Although they are quieter than SLRs, they are
not completely silent, so people can hear the shutter. (My recollection is
that the TLR was the quietest camera I have used.)
I keep my Nikonos in a small camera bag the size of a fanny pack, and I
can easily carry it when I'm not expecting to take any photos. I've gotten
some really good candid shots that way. Rangefinders really are smaller
than SLRs. I have 35mm and 80mm lenses for the camera, and I use them
both, although the 35mm is on the camera when it's in the bag, so it gets
more use. I had an 8.5 cm lens on my Nikon rangefinder, and it worked
quite well for general photography.
Although there is no depth of field preview, non-telephoto lenses (dare I
say "prime"?) have markings on the lens that tell you where the zone of
focus is, easily letting you move the zone of focus to the front or back
of your subject.
Rich mentions Leicas, and I mention Nikons and Nikonoses. If you have not
used a quality rangefinder/viewfinder camera, it may be hard to fathom
their benefits. Using a 335mm point and shoot does not even begin to tell
the story.
Philip Stripling
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000
I have two Moskva 5's and one Moskva 4. The 4 is an exact duplicate of
the Super Ikonta C while the 5 makes some improvements on the
rangefinder/viewfinder. I also have a Bessa II and have had a late model
C in the past. The Moskva's are very good and, at least on mine, the
lenses are comparable to at least a YashicaMat. Not quite a Zeiss or
Planar but more than good enough for a 6x9 negative.
The Super Ikonta design, with the folding struts, is a much better design
than the Bessa I and II. Even a heavily used Super Ikonta or Moskva will
maintain the lens board square to the film. Something that can't be said
about the Voightlander. The only really nice user Super Ikonta's are
those made after WWII but before Voightlander went belly up. They are
rare and way too expensive. Pre-war ones are Uncoated and don't have
flash synch. If anyone is interested I have a nice Bessa II for sale, I'll
keep the Moskva's.
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000
Hi!
You can look up the site of the producer:
- if you are interested.
Regards,
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000
Mark Bergman wrote
A Ward's 1954 camera catalog shows:
So, I would put its price as low to middling for a high quality camera.
It has increased in value with the best of them - a true test of quality
in both design and construction.
--
[Ed. note: caveat repairer! more for info on how its done for general
info..]
Here is a good outline of the procedure:
"Noah Spam" [email protected] wrote:
[Ed. note: again, for info purposes - caveat repairer!]
I'm the guilty party... although actually I did post the procedure later
(in a separate message, because it's fairly lengthy.) I'll post it again,
below, BUT be sure to read the cautionary notes before you take the
plunge!!
Okay, here's the info, BUT FIRST READ THIS: If you do not have *exactly*
the right size jeweler's screwdrivers AND/OR do not use a light touch, you
can easily do damage that will be very expensive to repair (and WILL NOT
be covered by your warranty.)
If your Bessa' rangefinder is off, by far the best thing to do is simply
to return it to the importer for adjustment. The second best thing to do
is to turn it over to a local camera repair technician (if you like, print
out these instructions to show to him or her, in case s/he isn't yet
familiar with the Bessa-R's innards.) A good repairperson will have the
correct tools and the necessary "feel" for adjusting delicate mechanisms
-- plus, if something does go wrong, it's his/her fault, not yours!
So, consider the do-it-yourself option as the last resort -- if you're
stranded on the Lower Zambesi, or if you've got a once-in-a-lifetime photo
opportunity tomorrow and absolutely no backup camera available.
Now then... remembering that you CAN damage your camera if you don't do
this exactly right, and that you WILL void your warranty by attempting it,
and that you SHOULD let a professional or the importer handle it if at all
possible, here are the emergency-use-only instructions:
1) The adjustment screws are concealed beneath the hot shoe, and to get at
them you'll need to take the hot shoe off. It's held down by three screws
that are concealed under a spring-steel cover plate that's held in the
shoe by spring pressure.
To remove the plate, take your safety pin (or other sturdy, easy-to-grasp
pointed instrument) and GENTLY slip it under the two little tabs of the
plate that fit under the front edge of the hot shoe. Work these tabs up
and forward CAREFULLY. After a bit of nudging, they'll move forward enough
to clear the front edge of the shoe, and the plate will spring up a bit.
Now, using your pin, carefully slide the plate backward until it can be
slid out the rear of the shoe. The front edge of the plate will probably
hang up on the plastic piece of the shoe that has the flash contact in it;
use the pin to gently lift and ease it past this.
2) Once the plate is out, you'll see that the accessory shoe has four
holes and is secured by (only) three crosspoint screws. Use your
crosspoint jeweler's screwdriver to loosen these; then lift the shoe off,
taking the screws with it. Be careful not to mix up the screws, as their
lengths are not all the same.
The center contact of the hot shoe and the plastic insulating piece that
hold it stay with the camera, so there are no wires that you need to
unsolder.
3) Once you've removed the shoe, the rangefinder adjusting screws are
visible toward the right of the flash contact. Looking down into the shoe
area from above and behind the camera, you'll see a VERY small slotted
screw toward the front, and a slightly larger screw behind it. (On my
camera both screws have slotted heads, but apparently there are some
Bessas out there on which the rear screw is a crosspoint.) Disregard any
other screws you may see down there; they're for holding the camera
together, not adjustments. An easy way to distinguish the two correct
screws is that they will have dabs of plasticky sealer holding them in
place.
4) The vertical adjustment is the FRONT screw -- the really small one.
Because it's so small, you MUST use **EXACTLY** the right size jeweler's
screwdriver to turn it. DO NOT try to use a "too big" or "too small"
screwdriver and compensate by pressing down harder -- at best you won't be
able to get the adjustment correct (the pressure throws it off) and at
worst you'll slip and wreck the rangefinder! The screwdriver should fit
the screwhead like a key fits its lock. With the correct size screwdriver,
you'll be able to turn the screw with little or no downward pressure.
5) Now that you've been suitably warned -- sight through the camera at a
distant object that has prominent horizontal and vertical lines. If only
the vertical adjustment is off, you'll need to adjust only the front
screw. Notice whether the moving image needs to go up or down; then pick a
direction and turn the screw VERY slightly. Check to see whether this gets
the image closer or farther off, and re-adjust accordingly. The sealer
will make the screw a bit difficult to turn -- but if the misalignment is
slight, there should be enough "give" in the sealer to let you get it
adjusted. (If the misalignment is more than slight, I'd send it back and
let the importer deal with it.)
6) Once you've got the vertical alignment the way you want it, check that
the infinity position hasn't been thrown off. A *slight* readjustment of
the vertical alignment shouldn't affect the infinity position, but if
you've turned it more than slightly (or applied too much pressure) it may
have drifted a bit. Focus a known-good lens at infinity, sight your
distant object, and make sure the stationary and moving images line up
correctly. If they are *slightly* off, adjust the REAR screw using the
same procedure you did with the front screw. (Again, if they're off more
than slightly, you're better off letting a professional solve the
problem.)
7) Once you've got the RF perfect, reattach the shoe and slip the cover
back into place. In my experience, once the RF is adjusted it tends to
stay put, so you shouldn't have to do this again for a long time, if ever.
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
I posted a fairly detailed procedure to this list a while back. If you go
to the website version of this group and look back in the archives you
should be able to find it. I also posted it here:
http://www.rangefinder-network.com/shoptalk/equipment/
under "Bessa R secret Cure Revealed"
Beware of using any force whatsoever on the screws, however. I stripped
the head on one of mine, and the unit is in the shop now.
K
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
here is a post I located on same, hope this helps.
are you referrring to a rangefinder which does not coincide with actual
lens focus?
if you, do, are the rangefinder images still aligned?
*to correct rangefinder calibration (images assumed to be aligned
vertically), look for the large screw located to the right of the front
viewfinder window. Take out this screw and you should be able to find a
smaller screw head inside. Set the lens to infinity and look for a
distant object and point the camera to it. The image should appear with
a separate ghost image. Using a 1mm screw driver, reach for the screw
head inside the other screw you just took out and turn it to the
direction of the ghost image, (if the ghost image is on the left, turn
the screw to the left, etc.). Turn sparingly, to prevent further
miscalibration. Its better if you can mount the camera on a tripod and
point it to its distant target, and turn the said screw until you
achieve correct infinity alignment. Once this is done, the rangefinder
should now be in synch with your lens. Restore the cover screw back.
*if your camera focusses at infinity correctly, but the rangefinder
images are vertically misaligned, do this: remove the front left
viewfinder window. You will then see a metal ring with two notches (this
is actually the collar of the rangefinder lens). Mount the camera on a
tripod, point it again at a distant target, set the lens at infinity,
and turn this metal ring whilst observing the rangefinder image's
alignment. Be careful, though because an aligned image may be achieved
without getting correct distance calibration. Be sure that the lens is
at infinity and that you get an "infinity" object in alignment
vertically (window adjsutment) and horizontally, for correct focus.
Michael Darnton wrote
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
The Yashica web site, www.yashica.com, has a battery chart in its
support page that appears to list every product they've ever made. IIt
doesn't seem to be arranged in chronological order so some scrolling is
required but the're all there.
Regards, Gerry
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
My advice is to buy a Canonet QL17 G3, or QL19 G3, for less (probably way
less) than $100, and get it CLA'd for around $50 at a local camera store.
I jumped up from one to an expensive screwmount system (including the
Bessa R)and wished I hadn't. Also, when I did sell the Ql17, I got back
more than I invested in it.
K.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
I swapped a M6 for the Konica (course I still have my M4 and M3). The
Konica is very quiet and I do like the AE mode. The autowind is
unbelievable quiet also. If you ever tried an M6 and winder you'll know
that really sucks. Yes I think it as quiet or maybe quieter than the M6.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
"Routh" [email protected] wrote:
The Epic lens is excellent, but not quite the equal of my Nikon 50mm F
1.8. Pictures taken side by side by both my Nikon FG-20 and my Epic will
show a slight difference. (You have to use a magnifying glass to see it).
Jerome Bigge
...
From Leica Topica List:
There is no question that the CL can produce negatives that are
*identical* to negatives produced with an M. That's a matter of the lens,
focus, and exposure, period.
Conceptually and design-wise, the CL was an excellent effort. Much
smaller, lighter than an M. The rangefinder's accuracy was just fine for
the lenses designed for it.
Where the CL fell down was in build quality and design shortcomings. The
CL was manufactured by Minolta to Leica specifications and it is well
known that Leica had to rework over 50% of the units as received during
QA. This is a bona-fide case of quality of manufacture being lower than
specified or anticipated. Also, there are some implementation flaws, like
the fussy film loading, the fragile sensor arm, and the meter readout
needle problems that are well known.
All this being said, a good CL is a very good camera and a fine
Leica. It's not up to the standard of build quality that an M, any M, is,
but that is not a disparagement. It's small size and light weight are what
attracted me to one in Summer of 1999. I enjoyed it a lot, except for the
film loading problems I had with mine, and decided to re-enter Leica M
camera ownership because of it. My M6TTL is significantly better made in
all particulars, and I've grown accustomed to its larger size and heavier
weight again.
Godfrey
From Contax Mailing List:
Generally speaking, rangefinder lenses shorter than about 40mm focal
length can be considerably better than equivalent SLR lenses. This is
because shorter lenses for SLR must employ reverse telephoto or retrofocus
designs to allow room for the reflex mirror. This requires a more complex
design with more elements.
The 90mm for the G does not benefit from this, but benefits from being an
exceptionally good design manufactured to exceptionally tight tolerances.
My colleagues at Color Foto magazine in Germany also found the 90 to be
the best medium telephoto they have so far tested. It, like the 50mm
f/1.4 Planar, is one of those benchmark lenses.
Bob
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000
From: [email protected] (Dave Haynie)
Marek [email protected] wrote:
I don't have this one, but it's on my list. This is one of the later
model Olympus compact rangefinders, all of which were pretty nice. It
uses the unobtainable 625 mercury battery (USA, anyway); you would
need to consider one of the work-arounds in powering the meter.
Some folks swear by these. I have found the Minolta compact
rangefinders, in general, a bit too cheaply made (well, other their
their collaborations with Leica)
This is a wonderful camera, with one of the best lenses ever -- nice
and wide, too, at 38mm/f-1.8. I've been looking for one, at a good
price, for years. It doesn't meet your qualifications, though, as it's
aperature-priority auto-only, no manual speeds.
If you get one, get the flash, too; the S3 has the most sophisticated
automatic flash coupling system in any rangefinder of the day
I have one of these; highly recommended. These are fairly easy to
find, too, since Canon sold over a million of them, in the model's
10-year run. The 40mm f-1.7 lens is nice and sharp. It's got a nice,
comfortably large film-advance lever for this class of camera. It has
manual settings, but you don't get the meter with these (like many of
these types, the meter simply sets the exposure and tells you about
it, it's not geared to work as an uncoupled meter). The viewfinder is
bright, and has real, moving parallex correction marks, kind of rare
in this class of camera.
The one downside (and really, this is the only thing I have a problem
with -- I still actively use mine) is that, like many early-to-mid 70s
cameras, the GIII QL17 takes the 1.35V 625 mercury cell, which is
outlawed in the USA. You can easily use the 1.5V alkaline version,
76A, but these are far from ideal -- they start out high, but die
slowly, so you'll be well below 1.35V before they croak outright. The
reason everyone used mercury was that they stayed dead-on at voltage
until the bitter end. Silver oxide batteries are similar in this
respect, and you can get a 1.5V silver oxide in the 76S type. Ideally,
you'd have a regulator added, or (if possible, and opinions vary) a
recalibration of the meter for 1.5V, to make this really work.
I generally use the 76S and adjust the film speed. Given today's
latitudes, this gives results well within the capabilities of the
camera, at least for print film.
There are other solutions.
I don't know a great deal about this one. However, the combination of
the relatively slow f-2.8 lens and that same mercury battery would
rule it out for me. One of the main advantages of the small
rangefinders is a fast, sharp lens.
Dave Haynie | frog pond media | [email protected]
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
I have the following Electro 35 variations:
The earliest model, G, has a Yashinon-DX lens, the others a
Color-Yashinon-DX.
I assume the Color designation means a new coating technique was
introduced.
Possibly a rare-element lens? Anyone know?
I like the Electro 35 line myself. I prefer the aperture-priority AE to
the shutter-priority AE that most other RFs of the era use. I've found
the lenses to be plenty sharp for the kind of pictures I'd use the camera
for. I have found the AE system to be very good in sunset/sunrise
conditions. With the modern battery substitutes for the banned mercury
cells, I've still gotten great slide exposures with film rated at the box
ISO. In comparison to my Canonet G-III QL17 and my Konica Auto-S3, I'd
rate the Electro 35s as good as the Canonet in terms of picture quality
and build quality, and a bit less than the Konica for picture quality.
Of course, I'd love it if any of these cameras offered non-AE exposure
metering, but within the limits of the camera's features, I like the
Yashica.
Benno Jones
...
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Drayton,
I have an Electro 35G and concur with others in favour of this line. The
lens is not razor sharp in the manner of a good modern SLR normal lens,
but I find the slight softness quite pleasing and there is plenty of
detail and contrast there. I would report on colour rendition and
exposure accuracy but the first roll of slides is still in it.
Here is a page with what must be every variation ever (in Japanese mostly
- can anyone translate?):
http://www3.justnet.ne.jp/~youka/camera/camera3.htm
Regards,
J
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Hi Ballard,
I can recommend Leonid Treskunov. He has over 27 years experience
repairing Russian Kiev cameras and Zeiss Contaxs. The price for a clean,
lube, and adjust on my Kiev 4AM was $75 plus shipping. He has also
rebuilt the shutter in my Kiev 4M. When he finishes on my cameras, they
perform wonderfully. Advance is smooth, with spacing correct. Shutter
speed is on the mark. He stands by his work. When I pick up a camera he
has fixed I know it will work and perform. (He is busy so do not expect
one week service.)
He can be reached at:
I would recommend you get the Kiev fixed and put the cost difference
between the Contax IIa and the repair job towards either a Zeiss lens,
Jupiter lens or film/developing.
Best Regards,
Dale
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Hi, It depends of the problem. If the shutter tapes are worn/ Broken,
you will have a hard time getting new tapes. The best cure, really
would be to buy a quantity of Kiev=B4s and rebuild from these a few good
ones.
As Digital images are not permitted on this forum, all i can say that
the key to opening the kiev ( & contax) is to loosen the screw just
besides the rewind button, slide the film chamber plate down, & you have
the shutter in your hands. The contax shutter ie great in the feature
that you have it operational & complete out of the camera. You can lube
it & adjust it, put on side & again reassemble it in a body you find
best .
As a valuable advice:. Kiev-4s with a meter can be bought in St
petersburg by the Kilo. 20 dollars is now the
going price. I usually buy 10 kilos. There might be 5-7 repairable
bodies & lots of 50mm lenses!
From: [email protected] (ShadCat11)
I have sold several P&S photos to publications. They looked great in
print. Also, one year (1989 or thereabouts) the Pulitzer Prize winner for
spot news was taken by a photog in exactly the pickle you describe. He
used an Olympus XA. I don't remember his name or the exact subject
matter, all I remember was that it was of a guy on the move in a public
place who didn't want his picture taken. The photograph meant little to
me, but a group of professionals decided it was best in category, and
that's what counts in the Pulitzer game.
Allen Zak
Date: Fri, 15-Dec-2000
Have just tried it and it works. Perhaps you could try at
http://www.kyphoto.com/ and follow the link "Favorite Classics".
I suppose I could send the manual to you but it's rather big (2.19MB).
Let me know.
These are some of the items:
cheers
[Ed. note: thanks to Mr. Grabowski for sharing this tip online!...]
Che Guevara
David Grabowski
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000
If it was anyone else I'd probably ignore them, but for you, I'll
furnish an explanation: With a 50mm mounted on a slr, whether the
viewfinder shows 90%, 95% or whatever, that is all you see.
A rangefinder, on the otherhand shows much more of the viewfinder area
with the 50mm framelines superimposed. (With the Bessa-R, I think it's
approximately the field of view of 28mm.) And, at least for me, this makes
all the difference in the world.
It's easy with a RF to see what's in and what's not in the 50mm frameline,
making it that much easier to decide on compositional elements. I think of
it (with a 50mm mounted on a RF) as taking a slice of the total viewfinder
image.
An slr is limited to seeing what the lens sees, which is OK, but I feel,
at best, claustrophobic, like I'm always missing something. Then I'm
forced to move the camera (50mm on slr) all around trying to see what's
missing and what isn't. But there's no doubt about the fact that I like
zooms on af slrs, damn the make or brand!
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000
actually, the original early SLRs had magnifications and lens focal
lengths (58mm etc) that were set to give you an "identical" view of the
scene, hence normal lens - you looked thru viewfinder with one eye, and at
the scene with the other eye directly, and saw the scene with the
viewfinder superimposed but still fully to sides thru the other open
eye. Interesting idea, but soon dropped as took time to learn trick etc.
and was mainly done to placate rangefinder types who wanted to see edges
while not making prisms so large they would weigh a ton etc. (Keppler had
a column on this years ago in SLR column in Pop Photo etc)....
grins bobm
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
As an old Konica hand, I cast my vote (as did your first entrant) for
the Konica Auto S-2. Granted, it's not as small as either the C35 or the
S-3, but it CAN be manually set and it has a piece of glass that's as
good as it gets. About the only thing that keeps it from being a
"modern" (i.e., 90's) camera is its top shutter speed and ASA 400 film
speed in the metering system. Oh, and of course, the lack of a built-in
flash.
I dusted off my S-2 and have used it almost exclusively to document the
2000 holiday season.
Drayton Cooper
From: LoveThePenguin [email protected]
I shoot a G-III QL17 rangefinder.
Mine cost $20 (with flash) in a thrift shop and my 13-year-old son's
recent acquisition of one was $15, also via a thrift shop.
The ONLY problem is dealing with the batter --
that PX625 issue that crops up so often.
The originals were 1.35 volts, but the current ones
are 1.5 volts. The solutions to the problem are
(a) have the camera meter modified to get along with 1.5v
I've chosen the latter. They're cheap. Just add the correct
washer (metal or plastic) to fit the camera and there you have
the solution--cheaply.
Besides, the images I've taken with mine are outstanding.
Collin
[email protected] (Jim K.) wrote:
From: [email protected]
After tinkering with Canonets with different defects (scratched lens,
stuck shutter and damages by streetrobbery) I now own three of them,
including one I bought in good working condition.
I think the Canonet QL17 is one of the "ultimate" rangefinders of the
70's. As far as I know, only the harder to find Olympus 35RD allows
manual (non-metered) override. If the 35RD has the same body as the
35RC that I own, it is a little smaller than the Canonet.
BTW, there are several models with the QL17 designator: the original
one with a "full size body" (somewhat larger and heavier than the G-III
models), a redesigned QL17 and a slightly modified QL17-GIII. The
latter ones are basically the same, even most of the parts are
interchangeable.
There are quite a few websites covering some problems that might occur
during 30 years of usage (but how many years will today's p&s plastic
cameras last at all?): stuck shutters (can be fixed by any skilled
mechanic), loose lens (somewhat harder to fix, sometimes you have to
live with a slightly loose lens assembly), rotten light seals (see
www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/gaskets to fix) and misaligned rangefinders
(not very hard to fix). There is a website covering many technical
aspects of these oldies: www.kyphoto.com/classics/forum.
I own quite a few of those rangefinders, and the Canonet QL17 is the
most versatile of them. Next in ranking is the Olympus 35RC (with a
2.8/40mm lens), which allows manual override and indicates both speed
and aperture in the viewfinder. As mentioned above, the 35RD (that I do
not /yet/ own) is very much the same, having a 1.7/40mm lens.
If you are used to interchangeable lenses, it's quite a different. But
you will be amazed what you can do with a single lens, especially if
you don't have forgotten how to use the "leather sole zoom" (using your
feet to get the best point of view instead of a focal length ring).
Winfried from Germany.
From: Andy-J [email protected]
I was in search of a small camera of better quality than off the shelf
pocket-type cameras from Walmart, and so obtained a Canonet QL17 GIII.
I figured I could toss it in my pocket or brief case or glove
compartment--just so I could have a camera around when my normal
(larger) 35mms or medium formats weren't around. Essentially, I was
looking for knock around camera.
Boy was I surprised. I take good care of my Canonet because it performs
wonderfully--far better than I would expect to have gotten. Granted, I
haven't done 30x40 blow-ups to compare with images taken with my finest
Nikkor lenses, but I haven't been able to distinguish between any of the
prints I have made so far.
Hey--it isn't a Leica. But how much shooting do you do that would bring
forth the Leica quality differnce anyway? For really large blow-ups, I
use medium format. 35mm, for me at least, stays limited to about 11x14
unless I get lucky. So definately, it isn't a Leica, but it is a GREAT
camera--and I think more and more people will pick up on this fact as
time goes by.
I would recommend the QL17 GIII--which I believe is the newest model.
The rangefinder is bright, quick and easy. It has a fast, f/1.7
lens--that speaks for itself! Like all lenses, you will find it sharper
at some f-stops than at others. LENSES ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE! But if
you are looking for a camera to carry about easily, this one is great.
The lens is 40mm--just a wee bit wide so it is really versatile,
especialaly for street photography (or taking pics in theaters during
performances that you are not supposed to be photographing).
Oh, and it has a leaf shutter--so flash synch is at ALL speeds. Also,
it is just about as quiet as they can be.
Hey, grab one--pay no more than $60 and you can get rid of it for the
same amount you spent on it. It is no Leica, but it can perform all the
tricks that you want from a small, compact camera of good quality. It
is great for "grab shots" as you call them, but it does sooooo much
more.
This is a web site from a guy with a Leica and a QL17 (not the G-III
which is smaller, but otherwise the same camera).
http://www.netaxs.com/~cassidy/images/equipment/ql17/ql17.html
Also, this is another site that lists all the Canon and Canonet models
to compare. http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/f_camera.html
From: Lisa Horton [email protected]
I bought one some time back, mostly as a lark and because it looked
cool. The big surprise for me was how very sharp the lens was. I got
it at the same time as a used Rebel with the execrable 35-80 kit lens,
so ran a test roll through each at the same time. The images from the
Canonet were dramatically sharper, more contrasty and better looking.
A difference so large that it was immediately obvious even with 4x6
prints. This with the cheaper Canonet 28 no less.
OTOH, the Olympus Stylus Epic at about half the size offers image
quality as good or better, with more control, better low light
capability, ability to use 800iso film, auto flash and motor drive:)
Lisa
Here's a procedure I posted to a Newsgroup subscriber some time ago (and I
quote myself):
"This shortcut has been successful with every GIII I've subjected to it.
Going in through the front of a GIII is difficult because of all the
delicate stuff packed into the lens barrel. I take a backdoor approach.
Looking in from the film chamber to the inside back of the lens barrel,
there are three retainer rings; the outermost looks a bit different and
holds the entire lens barrel in place. The innermost holds only the
rearmost glass element. The middle one holds the entire rear lens group.
This is the one to extract. Sometimes it's easier done with good pinhead
pliers rather than a spanner wrench because there ain't much clearance.
You need to have a good grip on the front of the lens barrel with your
left hand while working the tool with your right, you never want the tool
to slip from the notches.
When the lens group is correctly removed, the shutter leaves are exposed.
If you set the aperture to f 22, the next glass element will be somewhat
protected from the cleaning procedure.
Be careful to put the very minimum of pressure on the shutter leaves; if
they are dislodged from their little posts, it's very bad news. For
cleaning I use a little lighter fluid (Ronsonal) because it dissolves the
grease and gum but tends to evaporate without residue. Apply carefully; if
it gets on the light seals in the doorway, it could damage them; if too
much gets into the focusing threads, it will loosen them; and you don't
want any up in the viewer or rangefinder. Best to let it drain forward and
down. Applying a few drops to the shutter, work it at various speeds to
let it get into the pivots. If you're very careful, you can soak some
dirty fluid up with len tissue.
When you think you have fast speeds, set it down for a few hours to dry,
protecting the open back from dust, and come back to it.
Try it at 1/500 while watching the blades. If it didn't work, you can
clean it again, and walk away from it again.
Let it sit overnight. If fixed, open it up to f 1.7, set it at B, and
check to see if the backside of the front elements needs any cleanup by
looking through at your desklamp from both sides. Then make sure the front
of your rear lens element is clean with breath fog and lens cloth before
reinstalling.
Make sure you don't crossthread the retainer ring. It should catch the
thread and turn easy for a while. Turn it until it stops, then snug it a
bit without undue force.
Beats a complete teardown if one is not needed.
Good luck."
EJKowalski
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000
I remember this posting, and I'm glad you are citing it. Saved it in my
camera repair folder. I followed this procedure on several cameras (the
last one was a Taron Auto EE with a completely stuck shutter and
aperture) and it never failed.
I'd like to make some amendments, however:
1. You can check whether the shutter is trying to release by putting a
tiny particle (even a sandcorn) somewhere on the blades. In most cases,
the blades are just trying to move, and the particle will hop around.
Sometimes there is even visible movement of the blades.
2. Of course, you will have to get access to the shutter blades first.
I think it's easier to go through the front lens. Unscrew the outer
silver retainer ring, remove the name plate. Now unscrew the front lens
assembly with a spanner (or the blades of a cheap caliper gauge). In
some cases, the first lens retainer ring is so tight that the front
lens assembly comes out with it. If it doesn't, however, you either
have to take the rear entrance, or have a look at www.kyphoto.com/classics
There is a repair manual online, showing how to make a special tool to
remove the front lens assembly by turning it by the grooves deeply
hidden in the gap between the front lens barrel and the filter thread
flange.
Winfried
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001
[email protected] (B N) wrote:
What you say is true, but you leave out one advantage of wideangle
retrofocus lenses. They generally don't suffer from light fall-off at
the edges as much as non-retrofocus wideangle designs.
A simple 20mm lens has its center, by definition, 20mm in front of the
center of the film frame. But that same point is, according to
Pythagorus, about 29.5mm from the corner of a 35mm frame. Assuming
the same effective aperture diameter, the f number goes up by about
50% at the corner. You've lost more than a stop of light. Retrofocus
lenses can have a larger effective aperture diameter at the corners,
and can provide more even illumination across the frame. (notice that
a 24mm f2.8 lens theoretically ought to have a front element 8.6mm
wide, but measure the diameter of a retrofocus 24mm f2.8 for an SLR,
and it's probably closer to 45mm in diameter -- the retrofocus design
uses a different subset of the front element for each point on the
image.).
But you are absolutely correct, rangefinders have the advantage of
being able to use non-retrofocus lenses (they could use retrofocus
lenses, too, if anybody wanted to). Retrofocus designs for SLRs are
bigger, heavier, with more flare-causing elements. But retrofocus
designs aren't completely without their own set of advantages.
--Rich
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001
One of the biggest advantages of the retrofocus design form, in
addition to the reduction of light falloff which you mentioned, is that
it is much better suited for fast wideangle lenses. This is much more
difficult with the more symmetrical Biogon types. The main faults of
retrofocus lenses aside from bulk are distortion and lateral chromatic
aberration, which can be corrected by the use of aspheres and abnormal
partial dispersion glass, respectively.
Brian
...
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001
According to Erwin Puts (the Leica lens testing guru), Leica RF lenses are
to some extent retrofocus in order to permit the M6 metering system to
work. According to Puts, modern retrofocus lenses can be as good as
symmetrical lenses of the past.
Also, I seem to recall that lenses like the pre-ASPH 35 Summicron have a
larger REAR element in order to reduce vignetting. I suppose it all
depends on the type of lens design in use.
--
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Winfied asked earlier today about the Seagull 205 from China.
This 35mm RF is currently sold as the Phenix 205 (there are at least two
models I've examined in stores in China). Mine, marked 205DS, came with
an attachment that enables you to expose half of the view at a time so
that you can shoot yourself twice in the same picture.....an odd accessory
packed with a camera. Although I've looked at these many times in China,
I bought mine through ebay from a seller who turned out to live within ten
miles of my home! It was cheaper on ebay.
The camera has an amazingly good viewfinder, probably better than on any
other RF except the M3. It has a 1:1 viewfinder like the M3, but much
better eye relief. (I've been using M3s and an M2 for 25 years) There's
a rubberized covering and a fake battery grip on the front that makes this
easy to hold. The rangefinder image is distinct and easy to use. The main
focusing negative is the fact that the focusing ring is right against the
camera body with no focusing knob and thus a bit inconvenient.
The viewfinder has a projected frame with moving parallax correction but
not frame reduction (as on Konicas). It has a plastic-feeling top plate,
plastic rewind, and plastic wind lever. This is a camera that sells for
about $35 to 40 in Beijing from what I remember in 1999 (I was in Beijing
last summer but didn't check this pricing.) It's also a bit outclassed by
all the point and shoots available from Chinese and East Asian
manufacturers, but certainly more fun to play with for someone like me.
There is no metering, of course, though one Phenix brochure I picked up in
China mentions a battery. Not exactly!
When I bought this camera (it was new) last year, the shutter worked just
fine, but I never got around to shooting with it. But now the shutter
works at only one speed, so that doesn't speak well for mechanical
reliability. I've exercised it a lot tonight, but nothing changes.
My other Chinese cameras, several bought in markets in Beijing or
elsewhere or given to me, have been mechanically reliable and fun to play
with. The shutter, by the way, can be cocked by a lever on the side, so
that you can shoot those double exposures if you wish.
Of course it has none of the solid feeling of any of the 70s or 80s
Japanese RFs.
This camera wouldn't be any good for today's point and shoot crowd, but at
$30 to $40 in Beijing (I bought mine on ebay for $25 or 28), it's
something different to play with.
For a "street" camera it has the advantages of an easy grip, a great 1:1
viewfinder, and such little value that theft wouldn't be a major problem
(a friend lost his Nikon F3 to street folks who decided they wanted it).
The focusing collar is not very convenient, as I've mentioned.
This is an interesting group and I enjoy reading all of the messages,
which are certainly numerous!
--David Lewis
[Ed. note: caveat repairer! just for general interest on how its done
etc.]
[email protected] wrote:
are you referrring to a rangefinder which does not coincide with actual
lens focus?
if you, do, are the rangefinder images still aligned?
*to correct rangefinder calibration (images assumed to be aligned
vertically), look for the large screw located to the right of the front
viewfinder window. Take out this screw and you should be able to find a
smaller screw head inside. Set the lens to infinity and look for a
distant object and point the camera to it. The image should appear with a
separate ghost image. Using a 1mm screw driver, reach for the screw head
inside the other screw you just took out and turn it to the direction of
the ghost image, (if the ghost image is on the left, turn the screw to the
left, etc.). Turn sparingly, to prevent further miscalibration. Its
better if you can mount the camera on a tripod and point it to its distant
target, and turn the said screw until you achieve correct infinity
alignment. Once this is done, the rangefinder should now be in synch with
your lens. Restore the cover screw back.
*if your camera focusses at infinity correctly, but the rangefinder images
are vertically misaligned, do this: remove the front left viewfinder
window. You will then see a metal ring with two notches (this is actually
the collar of the rangefinder lens). Mount the camera on a tripod, point
it again at a distant target, set the lens at infinity, and turn this
metal ring whilst observing the rangefinder image's alignment. Be
careful, though because an aligned image may be achieved without getting
correct distance calibration. Be sure that the lens is at infinity and
that you get an "infinity" object in alignment vertically (window
adjsutment) and horizontally, for correct focus.
[Ed. note: more on sticky shutter fixes, caveat repairer! ;=)]
Hi Marcus,
The manual is available from
http://www.kyphoto.com
I'll try to help Gary with his shutter problem as well. Sticky shutters
are a very common problem with the QL17 and other rangefinders. The
shutter blades do not necessarily any oil traces. You may find the
answer on the above-mentioned website as well, but I will describe my
method in short:
1. Remove the outer retainer ring that holds the plastic ring with the
meter cell window. You may use a spanner wrench, or the inner diameter
measurement blades of a caliper gauge. Remove the plastic ring.
2. Set the caliper (or wrench) blades exactly to the notches of the
first lens retainer ring, press them firmly into the notches, and turn
it counter-clockwise.
3. In most cases, the first ring is so tight that it unscrews the
complete front lens assembly. If only the ring comes loose, DO NOT
REMOVE THE FIRST LENS ELEMENT. Tighten the ring again. The method for
unscrewing the front lens assembly is described below.
4. Now the shutter blades are in front of you. Take a Q-tip, drain it
with some drops of lighter fluid, and wipe the blades with lighter
fluid.
5. Cock the shutter, set it to B and keep the button depressed. Try to
push back the shutter blades with a small screwdriver (if the shutter is
completely stuck). If there is only some delay, wiping the blades again
with some graphite powder (very little) will be enough.
6. When the shutter blades open again, you're on the right way. Release
the shutter several times, and finally wipe it again with lighter fluid
and graphite powder.
7. When the front lens assembly does not come out when turning the first
retainer ring, you have to make your own tool from some metal tube just
fitting into the gap between the front lens assembly and the outer
flage. There are two notches 180 deg. apart on the bottom flange of the
front lens assembly. Two cams on the tube must exactly fit into these
notches. A drawing of this tube tool can be found in the Canonet QL17
repair manual mentioned on the website above.
Winfried
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
According to a friend of mine who has close contacts with Voigtlander, the
cause and solution to the RF problem is quite simple.
As previously reported on this list, there are two screws underneath the
Acc shoe which adjust the Rf.
the trouble is said to come from not using enough of a sealer on the
screws. The vibration of the plane trips works it loose. the RF just has
to be reset.
this Bessa RF adjustment problem has been a pain, but I've also had Leica
M6's whose RF adjustment also went out -- without being dropped or badly
treated. it is not unique.
There may be other causes, but that is the story I was told.
Stephen
[Ed. note: thanks to Tom for sharing this tip, see also our Photo Battery FAQ...]
Hi, I have found a very simple way to make a battery adapter for my
Yashicas that works in several cameras for me now. The regular battery
you need is the 5.6 volt or 6 volt in the battery section of Porter's
catalog for classic cameras. The trouble is they cost $10-11, plus $6
shipping. As a former Vo-tech instructor I figured this out.
First cut a piece of 5/8 " O.D. plastic plumbing pipe (CPVC 412)
1 1/2 inches long. This will be the insulator and the basis for your
adapter, While at the hardware store pick up a small spring 7/16 diameter
by 1 1/2 inches long, and four SR 44 watch batteries. Put the piece of
plastic pipe in the battery compartment, the four batteries and
spring(watch for positive and negative markings on compartment and the
batteries) and replace your battery cover.
This has been working in my Yashica for over a year and
takes only a few minutes at Ace ot True Value to get the stuff, you will
have to buy a few feet of plastic pipe, but mine all together cost less
than $7.50 and now I can get replacement batteries at Kmart or anywhere
without ordering.
Tom Hutchinson
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
I have a Fed 5c. The Industar lens is sharp, but has a terrible flare
problem.
I suspect that the reason for this is that the factory didn't seem to
paint the interior of the lens barrel black. You can see quite a lot of
bare steel inside the lens if you look just beyond the front element.
I am planning to pull the lens apart and rectify the problem.
I bought my 5c new and, even then, the rangefinder alignment was slightly
out in the vertical plane. Once again, this is probably a simple thing to
fix, if you enjoy camera repair.
The camera istself is of heavy duty construction. On close inspection,
much of the machining and finishing is of poor quality. However,
everything seems to work OK. The camera certainly has a rugged feel to it.
Your thumb will get a good work-out everytime you wind on a shot. The
built-in selenium meter is surprisingly accurate, too.
The camera's advantages
*Cheap. You can get them new (w 55mm Industar lens and ER case) for 59 GBP
in the UK, that's about 1/10 the cost of a Bessa R w 50mm lens).
Disadvantages
*lens flare problem
The Fed 5c is a very economical first step into Leica screw mount RF
photography. I bought mine as a way into the new voightlander lens range.
(My next purchase is the uncoupled 25mm color snapshot lens w finder.)
Maybe one day I will be able to justify spending hundreds of pounds on a
Bessa, or even a Leica M, but until then I'm stuck with the Fed and my
Konica auto s2.
Hi Bob,
I saw this message of yours in rec.photo.equipment.35mm and I thought
I'd mention that the 18 November 2000 issue of Britain's AMATEUR
PHOTOGRAPHER magazine had a very positive review of Voigtlander's
75/f2.5 manual focus lens. This lens initially came out a year or two
ago for its Bessa cameras (in the venerable Leica screwmount), and the
review is for the lens now available in manual SLR lens mounts for Canon
FD, Nikon AI-S, Minolta MD, Olympus OM, M-42 and Yashica CY-MM. It's
list price is #299, around USA $450 list. (The lens in Bessa RF-mount
sells in the USA for $450.)
I spoke to a Voigtlander rep at the Photo Expo in NYC several weeks ago,
and the U.S. importers are not sure whether there's enough demand in the
US for them to import the lens, so for now anyone in the US interested
in the lens will have to buy mailorder from Europe. (My guess is that if
they do import the lens, to maximize sales, it will only be in the Nikon
and Olympus mounts, since those are the only mounts in which cameras are
still being built.)
According to the review's summary charts, the lens ranked in the top 25%
of all lenses tested by the magazine for resolution. The lens showed the
following tested lines per millemeter resolution for HIGH CONTRAST
images at the center and edge:
The lens showed the following tested lines per millemeter resolution for
LOW CONTRAST images at the center and edge:
For some reason the ratings don't go beyond f/16 even though the lens
stops down to f/22.
One of the two reviewers, Joel Lacey, admits in his part of the review
that 75mm is a natural portrait length, but says that the lens is so
sharp (he uses the term "mercilessly unforgiving full resolving power")
that he urges caution in using it for that purpose, and then says this
explains the absence of portrait shots in the test.
But Lacey is apparently not all that familiar with manual focus lenses:
he starts off saying that he "thought the resistance of the focusing
ring was stiff until it dawned on me that this is how manual focusing
lenses were before we got used to AF dual-purpose lenses. Given the
degree of accuracy required in focusing a 75mm f/2.5 lens at full
aperture, this stiffness is a real boon...." They let this guy do the
review?
Given that the final rating for the handling of the lens is 24/30 (see
below) it seems that the lens might have been compared to the prejudiced
preferences of reviewers more familiar with an AF lens. So, despite the
positive review, perhaps the rating ought to be higher.
Here are some quotes from the review:
From Manual Nikon Mailing List;
The Olympus Stylus Epic is a great small point and
shoot camera. Small, light with very good optics.
Photo Techniques name it one of the 25 best cameras
ever. It is a fixed focal length P&S. If you want a
zoom I suggest getting a small zoom range so that the
optical sacrifices are not too great. Also, get a
monopod to mount the P&S on. It can double as a
hiking stick. I have found that even a cheap Pentax
38-70 P&S that sells for less than $100 can give good
results when used on a monopod.
In order to keep this a bit on topic, you might also
consider the Nikon FM10 with the 50mm f/1.8 on that
monopod. I bit heavier but lens is faster and
sharper.
=====
That's just it Mark. They haven't done anything to
refine that rangefinder since M4 days and that wasn't
an improvement. For me, the idea behind using a
rangefinder is to have better focusing accuracy than
you would going TTL. I am not confident of the Ms
accuracy with anything over a 50/2.
To see what I
mean, try focusing a 135 or 90 or even a 50/1.4 as
follows. With the M on a tripod pick an easy to focus
object or texture a few feet away. Now start focusing
in from the infinity side
until you feel the images are properly overlapped. No
backtracking please! Mark the spot with a pencil or
marker.
Now try focusing it again but this time coming
in from the near side. Once again mark it. Now compare
the distance between the marks? Are they farther apart
than the max aperture DOF hash marks? Probably not.
Of course Leitz could have done alot to improve their
rangefinder. By reworking the advance train they would
have been able to stretch the physical base more than
1cm. But they haven't even tried.
Javier
From: greg [email protected]
It was your excellent article that got me into rangefinders. Prior to that
I was strictly an SLR guy with an OM-1 and F90x. I now have two GIII
QL17's, Minolta Hi-matic 7s, Konica S2 and Yashica Electro GT. They are
all tremendous bargains but I am now investigating RF's with
interchangeable lenses.
It seems that none of them with this option are cheap. Which really makes
me wonder. If I had a M6 outfit, I would probably utilize it most of the
time with the 35mm lens, so do I really need anything more than those
wonderful 70's rangefinders. The lenses on the QL17, Konica S2/3, Olympus
RC/D, etc. are excellent, not quite Leica class perhaps but still damn
good. Let's see, sixty bucks for a GIII QL17 plus two months in the
Caribbean taking photos or for the same price a used M6 with 35mm.
Decisions. Decisions.
From: [email protected] (Dave Haynie)
....
Well, there's always the Argus C44, or C3, for matter. Or the Perfex
series :-)
But if you're looking for something actually _better_ than the GIII
QL17 and S2 (I have one of each -- the Konica S2 was actually my first
"real" camera, back in the early 70s), you might take a look at Leica
Thread Mount cameras. I have one Leica IIIc, but the better buy are
the Canons (I have a III, a IVSb, a Vt, a P, and a 7). No, you won't
find anything for $25 at the flea market in all likelihood, but you
can find bodies with basic lens for under $200-$400, depending on what
you're looking for. No meter in any of mine 'cept the Canon 7, and
that's a small-cell selenium, not too sensitive. But in my travels
I've picked up small and large Weston selenium meters (for that
totally low-tech, no battery fun) and a Grossen Luna Pro.
The LSM stuff is really fun to collect, because things were just so
different back then. You can find Leica, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and
other lenses all for this mount, weird new stuff made in Russia, even
Chinese bodies and lenses. You do have to shop carefully -- collectors
sometimes make it nuts (eBay was once a reasonable place to find some
of these things, but I suspect it's grown way too large in the last
year for any "deals" to be found on this kind of gear).
Of course, you have to figure what you want the rangefinder for, too.
Compact and quiet, sure, but it depends -- my Canon Vt, P, and 7 are
more evolved than the Barnack-Leicas (Leica moved on to their
bayonette mount before changing shape). but they're larger than any of
my Olympus OM-series SLRs, and only a little quieter.
Got mine for $25 at the local flea market. Barely used :-)
Dave Haynie | frog pond media | [email protected]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001
greg [email protected] wrote:
The CL is a money pit. It's not a real Leica, and the parts are either
expensive, or near impossible to get, or both. Avoid.
The Leitz lenses for the CL are good, and reasonably priced, but are at
high risk of fungal attack. When it gets to the balsam that cements the
lens elements together, it's time for a mortgage.
(This is the voice of experience. Don't go there.)
Buy a user M6 instead. I've seen several on eBay at reasonable prices -
by Leica standards that is. You have the advantage that the recent
introduction of the M6 TTL has seen the residuals of plain vanilla
non-TTL M6s dropping significantly.
Buy older used Leitz lenses, and buy them carefully. They are not as
sharp and contrasty as the latest Leitz optics, but they are still
better than just about anything else on the planet, and are reasonably
priced.
The advantage of continuing Leica development is that earlier
now-obsolescent versions can suddenly become affordable.
--
From: "Ken Rosenbaum" [email protected]
Michael,
The battery powers only the meter when the camera shutter ring is
set on the "A" position. On every other speed, the camera is fully manual
and the battery isn't used. In fact, when I'm not using mine, I always
turn my shutter speed dial off the "A" position to make certain there is
no battery drain.
Ken
Michael J Hoffman wrote
Can this camera be used in full manual mode, or only shutter priority
AE? Is the shutter battery dependent?
Michael H
From Leica Mailing LIst;
Frank wrote in part:
I disagree. First of all, the vertical misalignment is inconsequential as
far as RF accuracy is concerned. Mind you: it is not OK, but more of
nuisance than a functional error. This is another myth. The vertical
alignment has no relation to the RF accuracy. If your lens focusing five
feet beyond your implied plane of focus, than there is someting rotten in
the state of Denmark (free from Shakespeare). Then of course a check of
the lens/body combo is in order. My remarks were related to the
proposition that the Noct or the 1.4/50 or 1.4/75 needed specific (lens
related) adjustments, which is not correct.
The bayonet flange is machined to an accuracy of 1/100mm, the RF cam has a
tolerance of 1/100mm too and the lens is adjusted to get maximum contrast
at 30 lp/mm. These measures ensure exact focus with any lens/body
combination. Of course a failure like yours is a bad instance of missing
QC for your lens.
I would without any doubt accept, that the bodies/lenses as delivered from
the factory are within specs. And your proposal that we need to check
every lens/body combination is several bridges too far. To infer from a
few bad examples that the state of Leica quality is below any reasonable
industry norm is untenable. If Leica cannot hold a machine tolerance of
1/100 mm in general, they should close the doors immediately!
Erwin
From: [email protected] (Ilanshanon)
Mark:
Around Message #22, this thread began to get nasty. I think there
was a lot of good advise before then. I had a Nikon F5, F4s, FE2, and a
host of the best manual and AF Nikon lenses. Made the switch to Leica M
(Leica M6 ttl, M2, 24mm asph, 35mm asph, 50mm f2, 90mm f2.8) about a 18
months ago, but kept my Nikon F4s, 50mm f2, 35-70 f2.8 and 80-200 f2.8.
For all the reasons already noted, I can tell you that I love my Leica
system, that the results are exquisite, etc. I must admit, that I'm glad
I kept my basic Nikon system, because there are things easier done with
the slr, and now and again it's a nice diversion from the slower all
manual way of shooting. (e.g. at a party when I use it more like a point
and shoot). A lot of people are recommending the 21mm as the wide angle
choice. I'd seriously consider the 24mm. Don Chatterton, a well known
Leica dealer, talked me into the 24 over the 21. I've gotten some
absolutely spectacular results with this lens.
Ilan Shanon
I do not know that camera in detail, but removing the top cover works
almost the same way with all those rangefinders.
1. Remove the advance lever. If it is held by a screw with two tiny
holes in its head, try to move them with pliers with sharp-edge blades
(there are some types of pliers with conical pins). Turn it
counter-clockwise. If there is only a ring around the shutter release
(like the Canonet QL17), try to move it with pliers with
leather-protected blades, or turn it by pressing a metal or wooden tube
covered with some rubber on the ring.
2. If there are no other screws holding the top to the body, it is
probably held by a ring nut around the advance lever axis, and by screws
underneath the rewind crank. Sometimes, there is a ring nut around the
rewind crank axis, too. To remove the rewind crank, in most cases, just
block the fork inside and turn it counter-clockwise, even if there is a
screw head inside the rewind crank (this holds just the leaf spring). In
a few cases, however, you will have to loosen that screw under the crank
lever.
3. Remove any other screws holding the top cover to the body (usually 3
pcs.).
4. Gently lift the top cover. There may be some wires leading to the PC
and/or hot shoe. If necessary, solder them off.
It is really no problem if you tinker around a bit and look where there
might be screws or ring nuts holding the cover.
Winfried
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
The shutter-speed ring on my Konica S2 was also very stiff. I took it
apart to find out why, and finally fixed it- though not before
considerable trial and error. I had to take it apart and reassemble it
about 4 times before I got it right. I think what had happened is that
something had come loose or shifted out of position under the
shutter-speed cam. The hard part was getting the shutter speed cam back
in properly, with the little spring-loaded escapement pins and the
click-stop lever in position. Then you want to get just the right amount
of torque on that threaded brass retaining plate behind the meter, so
that the ring turns freely without binding, but nor so loose that
something will be able to slip off its position on the cam plate. Of
course you need a lens spanner to get the first retaning ring out, then
jiggle out the plastic meter ring, unscrew the front lens element, turn
the lock screw enough to unscrew the brass retaining plate. Then the cam
plate comes off- just take a good look at how it fits in there before
you take it out! also how the click-stop lever fits in.
This isn't especially hard, just tedious. The S2 is much easier to fix
than the QL17. If the shutter gets stuck, it's not hard to remove the
whole lens/shutter assembly from the body, and then unscrew the back
element if you want to flood-clean the shutter.
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
The question of holes in shutter curtains came up a while ago on another
list. One of its resident technicians said "A dot of rubber cement (like
Pliobond) applied to the INSIDE surface. Then after it's dry paint it
flat black."
HTH
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
I read it as being between lens and shutter. With the back off/open, the
shutter curtains are outside and immediately accessible, so he wouldn't
capitalise INSIDE if he didn't mean the other, harder to get to, side. The
advice related to an Olympus OM camera BTW, but the principle should be
the same.
Regards,
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
Joshua L. Wein wrote:
Probably the easiest (and most reversable) way to add an accessory shoe
is to use the precut (1" sq) Scotch double face tape. Clean both
surfaces, camera and accessory shoe, with alcohol, let dry then apply
the tape to the shoe. Carefully position, remove the protective paper
and position on the camera. Press down for about 30 seconds. Allow to
stand overnight before sliding anything into the shoe. As long as your
device weighs no more than a half pound or has a strange center of
gravity, you should be fine. I have used this method to secure
additional hard drives to portable computers without a bond failure.
Regards,
Marv
From: [email protected] (Rabbitbert)
...
Assuming you want only a cold shoe (no electrical contacts for flash
operation), you might also consider the Stroboframe Shoe Mount, part #
300-SHO.
It can be attached with a 1/4--20" stud on it's base. I can think of two
possible ways to attach it. The most secure would be to drill and tap the
camera top to 1/4--20" dimension, insert a short 1/4--20" stud, then just
screw the shoe onto the stud. A less complicated way would be to use a
very strong adhesive such as 3M Weatherstrip cement to fasten the shoe to
the camera.
--
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
[email protected] (Heavysteam)
wrote:
While most amateurs may not be able to justify the expense of Leica
gear, I'd bet my last Summilux that most new Leicas are bought by
amateurs. When I was shooting as a pro, it was very easy to justify a
'blad and a good 4x5. The choice between a Leica and a competent 35mm
SLR was much murkier. Leica is very, very good at a few things, SLRs
are quite good at a whole lot of things. As a pro, I couldn't afford
to have a camera system that couldn't tackle all the tasks I might
need it for.
As an amateur, that's less of a concern. You can say "I don't shoot
butterfly closeups" with no worries about paying the rent next month.
You can afford to fall in love with quirky, limited, demanding gear -
you can even afford to think of it as something more than just a tool.
BTW, it's Cosina that's doing so well with the Voigtlander name.
Konica has the Hexar RF that takes M lenses. They're not doing so
well with it, though I'm not sure why - I have one and it's a nice
body. It may be that Cosina is projecting an image of commitment to
the concept, while Konica looks like they're dabbling. Cosina seems
to be building their own market, while Konica is riding Leica's
coattails. That's a dangerous game, since people who have invested in
Leica glass (the users Konica appears to be wooing) have a pretty
ferocious brand loyalty.
Paul Chefurka
From Russian Camera Mailing List;
Parlin,
You can use rubberised textile paint (the kind used for printing t-shirt
designs, embossed type, meaning the paint doesn't go through the fabric),
black colour. I've used it to cure the holes on my Zorkij 1. Sealing it
off with some clear nail varnish (applied THINLY) can make it stay put
longer.
Jay
From: Bill Tuthill [email protected]
John McCormack [email protected] wrote:
http://www.geocities.com/jpmccormac/tips.html
It's worth remarking that P&S cameras like the Olympus Stylus Epic
are *better* in some ways for low-light photography than SLR monsters.
At shutter speeds between 1/10 and 2 seconds, P&S cameras produce images
without camera shake produced by SLR mirror slap. The Epic program
goes out to 4 seconds. Just be sure to use a tripod and the (extra-cost)
infrared remote control unit.
From: Kyle [email protected]
Bill Tuthill wrote:
A problem you might run into, though, is that the Epic and it's like will
*always* shoot wide open (f/2.8) in these low light conditions. If that is
what you want (shallow depth of field), then it is no problem, but with an
SLR (or any other camera with manual controls) you can set the aperture at
a smaller opening for more depth of field, and use a longer exposure to
compensate.
Also, if your "SLR monster" has mirror lock-up, you can avoid the
potential problems associated with mirror-induced vibrations.
Kyle
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
the rangefinder / viewfinders for the Xpan, G2, and Konica Hexar RF come
out of the same factory, an independent.
Stephen
From Leica Mailing List:
Effective baselengths in mm = focusing accuracy
As you see, Bessa T will focus Noctilux as well, as your beloved M6 TTL
.85 Special Edition LHSA Black Paint...
Also, screwmounts with 1.5x RF will do it as well... And Minolta CL(E)
is hopeless here... Will not focus even old Hektor 135/4.5 accurately....
Here is another table, found on Erwin Puts' website:
So you see that Nocilux _can_ be focused wide open on Minolta CLE,
albeit with great care. Also - you cannot use Hektor 135/4.5 SM
on M6 .58 wide open..
Jim Brick writes:
So Jim is completely wrong....................................
- -----
From: greg [email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
The 70's rangefinders more than hold there own against the current
crop of P&S cameras, including the high end ones. There are a number of
them that are all very good and comparable to each other - Canonet GIII
QL17, Minolta Hi-matic 7SII, Konica S3, Olympus RD, etc. They are
referred to as "poor man's Leica's" because they are all fixed lens
rangefinders having fast lenses of either F1.7 or F1.8. The glass on
these cameras is very good, even by todays standards. I can't
distinguish any difference between my GIII QL17's and my SLR primes.
I've owned several of these type of cameras and consider the Canonet
among the best, currently having two of them. The biggest limitation of
all the 70's rangefinders is the 1/500 top shutter speed. On a bright
day or using fast film this makes a ND filter necessary. Other then that
these are great cameras for street use.
1.2 million GIII QL17's were made, so there all all kinds of them
available on ebay. The main thing to look for is that the foam sealing
on the back cover has not deteriated or you will get light leaks. The
viewfinders are bright when cleaned, so you might have to get this done.
It has a great little dedicated GSN flash unit and you'll love the quick
load mechanism for changing film.
For more info http://cameraquest.com/classics.htm
From: Collin Brendemuehl [email protected]
How does it compare optically?
It's not as good as SLR lenses, but it's better than
most zooms. It's a multi-coated optic that is easy
to use, compact, and very practical in design.
It's alsy very well-contructed. It used an old mercury
battery, now unavailable. Today, use a 675 (1.4v) hearing aid
battery and put a rubber washer around it to make it fit.
The small voltage difference is insignificant to the meter.
For daytime street shooting, try B&W Neopan SS (100).
For night shooting, TMax 3200 might be really nice.
It depends on what you want to get out of the film.
In my G-III I use Fuji Superia 200 film. Good all-around
film for general use, and cheap.
Collin
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Yep, and Herb was pulling his punches too. He fell short of saying the
Takumar was better, and judging from the enlargements, the Takumar was
slightly sharper than the summicron.
If you dig through the tests, the pop photo tests also rate the Canon
28-70L better at 50 than a lot of comparable Zeiss lenses. I just wish
they would hurry up and finish their new bench already!
From: [email protected] (Bob Hickey)
Having both a Summicron 50, and an SMC Takumar 50, I'd say I like
the Leica pix best, or maybe it's just the whole set-up.
But I really don't think the Leica is $900 better. Cost wise, there is a
20 to 1 ratio. That's absurd.
I remember the 4 camera comparison they did. The Pentax shot was, IMO,
the best by far, excellent detail thruout with the best color.
They went on to say: the meters in all the cameras were perfect except
the Pentax, which overexposed.
I look at the pictures they show this month, and remember the 50, 1.4
shootout a while back, and can't believe the improvement in the Leica.
Actually I can't believe much of anything they print.
Bob Hickey
From Rollei Mailing List:
At the risk of offending the list (it is a Rollei list ;) ), here is
another suggestion for a small camera: the old Zeiss-Ikon
Contessa(-matics). I picked one up a couple of weeks ago for a business
trip (I didn't want to take my Rolleiflex, but wanted Tessar-style quality
for a roll of slide film of downtown Hong Kong at night...) for about $50.
Afterwards, I was absolutely amazed by the quality of the slides.
The camera has a f2.8/50mm Tessar and comes with a match-needle Selenium
meter (so no need for the mercury-type batteries of the -- undoubtably --
great Rollei 35s). Although mine is just the viewfinder model, there are
models with coupled rangefinder (but they also cost more money). The
camera is a bit bigger than the Rollei 35s, but not much -- it won't fit
in a shirt pocket...
Mike
...
From Rollei Mailing List;
Rollei Users list digest at
[email protected] wrote:
How do I love thee, 35 S? let me count the ways...
First the XA rangefinder was a total PIA to use-- even before I needed
glasses...
The bright line VF of a Rollei 35 is fine with bifocals, and I find I do
not miss the absence of a rangefinder....
Second the XA is aperture-priority auto exposure -- which is not really
bad as you can bracket by shifting the ASA dial. With the Rollei I just
switch either f stop or speed to bracket by a stop over or under....
As far as loading goes, the XA may be better. At least the back is
attached. And being plastic composite it only gets dull with use, it does
not dent.
Both have a plug-in auxiliary flash -- more light than you get with the
built in flash on some contemporaries, but you better remember to bring
it.
The Rollei 35 S has a half-stop larger aperture -- both the XA and the
plain 35 are f3.5 lenses.
The XA's clamshell design is way better than the Rollei's leather case and
wrist strap, imho... and the lens caps on my 35s are forever falling off.
BUT you can get filters for the Rollei -- I don't think anything will fit
on the XA.
The Rollei is somewhat heavier, but both fit in my shirt pocket
The 32.5 Tessar is a much sharper lens than the triplet on the XA and the
2.8 Sonnar brings a whole new meaning to the words sharp, contrasty and
"excellent color rendition."
The more I use other small 35s the more I like my Rollei 35 . In fact i
just got my fourth one! To get yours, see next month's swap day ad...
Mike levy
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Go to
http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/canonet.html
They have everything you would probably want to know about these
classic cameras, including down-loadable instruction manuals. LM
drayton cooper wrote:
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
The current Leica Fotografie has an article about rangefinders and a
photograph of the M6 rangefinder. Look at the picture and find the roller
cam follower (mid picture, bottom) Go directly up from there to the main
RF and you will see a small hole with a flat piece of metal, with a half
moon cut out if it which encircles the hole. This is the vertical RF
adjustment mechanism. The special tool is a tiny eccentric, a pin coming
out of one side of a round tool end. The pin sticks into the little hole
and the round part fits into the half moon. When you turn the tool, it
slides the flat, half moon metal, up or down. This is the adjustment. It
is very fine in that just a minuscule amount of movement has a large
effect on the vertical RF alignment. You do this, with the special tool,
through a tiny hole under the red dot. You do it blind as you cannot see
what you are doing. You have to push the roller cam follower all the way
back to get the eccentric plate to somewhat align with the little hole, so
that you may then stick the tool in, try to get it seated, then make a
teeny tiny movement. Remove the tool, and check the RF. Repeat until
correct. Sometimes it take five minutes. Sometimes it takes 30 minutes.
Your M6 comes from Leica with a varnish on this adjustment to help hold it
in place. This does not seem to keep the vertical alignment from moving if
your M6 gets a bump. The first adjustment is more difficult because you
have to turn the tool really hard to break the varnish seal, but not hard
enough to send the RF into orbit.
FYI,
Jim
From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]
McEowen [email protected] wrote:
I have to side with Keppler on this one. I own an early Pentax SMC 50
f/1.4, same optical formulation as the Super-Tak, and two versions of the
Summicron 50 f/2.0. The Pentax lens holds its own. At f/2 the older (late
1950s vintage) of the two Leitz lenses is a few hairs sharper, the later
(1980s) Summicron adds a contrast boost to the equation but the SMC wins
the smooth bokeh award. In terms of flare resistance at wider apertures
the newer 'cron is best, followed by the SMC and then the older 'cron.
From f/4 on down in a blind test I couldn't tell you which lens took which
photo.
FWIW in my experience the 50mm lens with the most distinctive and pleasing
optical "signature" is the old Zeiss f/1.5 Sonnar. Just last week I looked
through a friend's portfolio and picked out five b&w prints that had the
Sonnar "look." I was right all five times. :-)
-Dave-
From Leica Mailing List;
ara ayer wrote:
Dear Ara,
Yes, the Canonet is the poor man's Leica, limited to the 40/1.7 on
the camera. The shutter might even be quieter. I have two. Most of them
need the viewfinder haze cleaned out and the foam seals in the back
replaced. So you might find that your $65 camera needs $125 worth of work
to bring it up to spec. Unless you need the faster lens and manual focus,
a Yashica T4 might be a better choice. (Smaller, too.)
I have found batteries at
http://www.photobattery.com/
and Stephen Gandy has a nice review at
http://www.cameraquest.com/canql17.htm
I have found the Canonet will give me a very nice 11X14 in terms
of sharpness, but I wish the iris diaphram had more than five leaves.
Regards,
From Leica Mailing List;
I've had several. Within specs, they performed very well. The lens was
okay, if not brilliant. Under most conditions and degrees of enlargement,
it will acquit itself on par with most SLR lenses, IMHO, but don't expect
Summicron.
The inboard meter reads broadly, like a selenium cell. It was a better
than nothing feature, but I seldom relied on it without some extra
screwing around. Approaching a subject closely and trapping the setting
or taking a substitute reading was the only reliable way to use it. It
was somewhat clumsier in operation than manually adjusted built-ins in
SLRs, but oh well.
The viewfinder had a parallax correcting floating frame and a rangefinder
patch, both bright enough for easy use, better than just about any P&S
with which I am familiar. Loading was easy with a drop in system, all
controls came readily to hand. Everything operated smoothly and
felt/sounded nice. Mainest problem was a resistant shutter release. It
took way too much pressure to make an exposure, not good for sharpness.
I had to spend some time practicing a good handhold to compensate for the
stiff spring in that action.
The electronics fried in my last one, so I used it without meter until the
VF frame shifted into a cocked position. That was after @ 8 years of
"light to moderate" use. It may be fixable, but I haven't bothered. Nor
have I looked for a replacement, so make of that what you will.
Check carefully before you buy. I had one with what seemed to be a
properly adjusted RF that misfocussed because the lens was out of
tolerance. It would have cost more to fix than replace.
It is a charming little camera that would certainly work for what you
specify. Good luck on finding a solid sample.
Allen Zak
you wrote:
Wondering if any of you have had the opportunity
to shoot/own a Canonet GIII QL17?
I'm thinking of buying one as a beater cam - something
I can carry on my person in the city without worry.
I'd be interested in hearing any informed opinions on
picture quality and value of this 70s classic.
I know its hard to find batteries for the meter these
days....yet I'm still curious.
Thanks,
Ara
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Herb Mooney wrote:
Maybe. A colleague told me that on his slr the aperture blades got stuck
after placing it in the sun for some time. In this case, the oil had
separated from the grease.
I think it's somewhat similar with your camera. I had a "reluctant"
shutter on a Yashica Lynx5000E and could cure it by cleaning the shutter
blades with lighter fluid and some graphite particles.
I did not have to get access to the shutter of my Olympus SP, but in
most cases you have to remove a (retainer ring and) nameplate ring of
the lens and unscrew the front lens barrel. For the rest, see
http://www.kyphoto.com/classics
and read Henry Taber's article about "Canonet blade cleaning".
Winfried
From Leica Mailing List;
Mi'y'a. And with great pleasure.
Somewhat heavy. But sharrrp! :)
Very fast focusing because of focusing tab. Very Bright
Rangefinder. Very nice viewfinder with parallax corrected
framelines. f/stops visible in viewfinder. Av + Manual.
Small, QUIET!, shuitter worx without baterries
(I *H*A*T*E* this word. The same problem like with
Mississiippii.. :)
VG wide open (1.7). Exc. from 2.8
Way underrated (metal chassis, brass + steel guts,
rare earth 7-element lens, very smooth winding..)
Meter is simple to adjust to new bat's. Or you can use
Wein cells. Or forget it and use handheld meter and
Canonet on manual.
Rangefinder adjusting and camera repairs are very simple
and cheap :)
Canonet Manual:
Camera info:
http://www.cameraquest.com/canql17.htm
For more info - mail me at
..and buy it. Definitely.
- -----
From Leica Mailing List;
Leica picture quality, taken on the same film, will exhibit lot worse
tonality than 6x6 photo.
If your Yashica EM had a Yashinon (4 element Tessar clone), not
Yashikor (3 element), photos from Leica may be less sharp.
What is 4R size? If it is 5x7 inch or less, you probably won't notice.
If 8x10 you will.
Different tools, different advantages...
I have a Rodenstock 6x9 folder from 1918 with 3-element f/5.6 Trinar.
No 35mm photo I saw can possibly rival this beast results quality.
But I have yet to try a streetphotography with it! :)
- -----
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
No, it is not the same shutter. The shutter used in the Bessa cameras is
a special one with a double set of blades. This is needed because a
shutter with a single set is not 100% light proof. In an SLR you don't
need the double set because the reflex mirror blocks the light until just
before the shutter fires. Only top end SLR cameras have double blade
shutters which allows them to also have mirror lockup. Because this
particular shutter is used only in the Bessa cameras it costs more on a
per unit basis due to low production volume.
Bob Shell
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Hi,
You should have a look at this site
http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/marine/569/rusrngfdrs/index.html
It explains perfectly how to cut a filmleader for the Zorki 1.
I had the same problem, but after I learned how to cut
a filmleader for it... I love my Zorki 1. Feels great and
shoots great. :-)
L8trs... Tom
...
From Russian Camera List:
Hi Tim,
I suspect that the light leak may be due to an improperly
installed back. You must make sure that the back is firmly in the correct
position and that when it is correctly latch, it doesn't "droop" downward.
To be honest, you shouldn't have to go back to your Nikons, but you chose
probably, in fact argueably, the worst of the FED line. I would recommend
a FED-3 or perhaps 2 as being the best users. Several of the Zorkis are
also fine users. Be sure to make sure the shutter is cocked before you set
the shutter speed, otherwise you could wind up with a jammed up camera.
This is true of almost all the Soviet RF cameras, and is a wise habit to
develop soonest.
BTW, i still use my Nikons, but the RFs are a fine and pleasant
alternative, and I enjoy them a lot.
Best wishes,
Kevin
[email protected] wrote:
[Ed. note: Nikon and Contax Rangefinders are different, hence
adapters...]
Hi,
The Contax and Nikon mounts are almost the same, but there is a small
discrepancy. This difference affects the focusing at normal to tele lens,
but due to the wide-angle lenses natural greater depth of field, it
doesn't show on the pictures. Besides, if you stick to apertures starting
at 5,6/8, it is guaranteed that no focusing problem will arise. Buy it
now!!!
Paulo
Portugal
From Nikon Mailing List:
Lance wrote:
[snip] I'm going to Russia this summer. I've been wanting a short focal
length lens, something like a 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20. Something in that
range. [snip]
You might browse the market for a Mir 3.5/20mm, or a Zenitar 2.8/16mm. I
own the former, and am very satisfied with the results, for reviews on the
16mm you might check out the Nikon manual focus mailing list (go to
www.yahoogroups.com and search for NikonMF). Another recommendation would
be a Kiev35 P&S camera. It makes a great backup (it's a copy of the Minox
GT/GL, so it's VERY small), and wouldn't set you back more than 30-40
dollars.
You mentioned your 'fear' of fakes, but as far as i know that only counts
for older stuff, like the Zorky, Fed and Kiev RF cameras. Since most of
them are copies of well-known German designs (Leica, Contax), you
shouldn't be surprised to find 'authentic' Luftwaffe Leicas on every
street corner ;-).
You shouldn't be too afraid about them lenses, only thing I'd recommend is
to check whether it functions OK before buying it.
- - Check the lens elements: no cleaning marks, no chips/scratches, not
too much dust inside?
- - Check the aperture: does it open & close smoothly, no oil on the
blades? (Russian/Ukranian manufacturers are notorious for using
tractor-like lubricants on lenses and cameras)
- - Check the focussing ring: does it turn smoothly in both directions?
- - Last, but definitely not least: check whether the lens mounts properly
on your camera, lens 'bodies' are standard factory issues, but sometimes
the mounts are added in a later stage, which means the lens won't mount OK
on your camera.
You mentioned your wife is Russian, great: let her do the negotiations...
Hope this helps,
Pim
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
OK, Tim, you asked for it. After singing the praises of my departed
Minox 35s, I will now do the same for the Yashica Electros.
Yeserday I bought a Bogen minitripod with precision ballhead and
telescoping add-in section ($70 total). I affixed the legs--more or less
permanently--into the tripod bushing of my Electro GX. The Bogen adds
about 10 ounces. While the legs protrude a couple inches beyond the GX's
otherwise-short bottom panel, the whole affair still slips into my belt
pouch. The telescoping midsection stays in the pouch's pencil holder
until needed.
The Bogen is extremely well-built. Its rubber-tipped metal legs let me
hold my Yashica against a wall, or on a book resting in my lap, and take
rock-steady exposures of several seconds. It has extended the Electro's
best-in-class low-light capabilities into a new realm of stealth.
Today came the proof. Two hours ago, my family and I returned from a day
of museums in nearby Washington, DC. At the National Air and Space
Museum, we took in an IMAX movie, "To Fly." As my 10- and 13-year-old
daughters watched in rapt attention, I unfolded the Bogen's slender
black legs onto the day bag resting in my lap, then quietly snapped two
shots of the girls' wide-eyed faces from two seats away. Even at ISO
800, my f/2 exposures were at least 0.8 second long.
The fast Electros (f/1.7), such as my GX, can meter up to a rated 30
seconds; many users report perfectly usable exposures of 1 minute or
longer. Even the later M-series Yashicas, with their lesser f/2.8 lenses
and nonmoving framelines, offer metered exposures of 2, 4, or 8 seconds.
Try THAT will a Canon Canonet QL17 GIII, a Konica Auto S-1.6, S-2, or
S-3; a Minolta Hi-Matic 7, 7S, 9, 11, or 7sII; an Olympus ERC/RC/RD/SP;
or a Ricoh 500G/GX. Most cannot expose longer than 1/15, 1.8, or 1/4
second. An Auto S-1.6 or S-2 date from the early to mid 1960s; they will
take you to 1 second but will not let you rate your film beyond ISO 400.
An RD will allow 1/2 or 1 second but cannot meter in the murky realm of
a movie theater.
Indeed, most of the aforementioned rangefinders will lock the shutter
release when conditions are dimmer than EV 3.5 or EV 5.5. If you're
lucky, you will record a memory that is underexposed. More typically,
your camera will not even allow you to depress the shutter release,
except perhaps with the shutter speed set to the unmetered "press and
guess" setting of B.
In short, only the Yashicas could have allowed me to record these
priceless memories. Not to mention similar "dim" memories to come.
Yes, many 1970s rangefinders are smaller. Most are lighter. Some are
quieter. All provide more exposure information in the viewfinder than
the Electro's bare-bones pair of LEDs (LED arrows, from the GTS onward).
But if you're serious about available-darkness photography and need a
fixed-lens rangefinder with a lens faster than f/2.8, it's just about
the only game in town.
....
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
The current issue of the National Geographic has photos made by David
Doubilet with the M6 and Nikor 16 f4 and 28 f4. How is it possible to put
Nikor lenses on the M6? I have never heard of this.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0106/feature5/zoom1.html
David Enzel
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
at http://www.cameraquest.com
sl
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
you wrote:
Rick Oleson has a fair amount of Contax info.
This is his main tips page, has a few Contax links (incl. how to CLA):
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-27.html
This is his page that covers the curtain tapes:
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-29.html
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
These are the introduction dates for 1950's SuperWides
Best regards, Stephen William Foyle
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001
"D. M. O'Regan" [email protected] wrote:
I used a Yashica Electro 35 for 25 years and recently tried a Canonet
G-III QL 17 with the f/1.7 lens. The Canon lens is better; it's sharper
at the edges wide open. At apertures other than wide open they are very
similar, except that the Yashica seemed more prone to flare.
I'd go with the Canon every time. It's not over-rated, because it can
still be bought at a reasonable price. When its price reaches the dizzy
heights of the Olympus 35RD or Yashica Electro 35 CC, that's when it
will deserve to be called over-rated. Until then it's a bargain.
--
From Russian Camera Mailing List;
OK guys, here are the facts according to "300 Leica
Copies", Pont & Princelle. First "copy" the model
CHANG CHIANG 1958 /1961 - identical "copy" of Fed 2
(model 2) About 100 produced. Lens looks identical to
Industar - 26. With the exception of the markings on
top of the camera, this is a Fed 2 - MANUFACTURED IN
CHINA.
Second, "NANJING" - 1959 - 1961. Another exact copy
of Fed 2 (model 2). The only difference is the
restyling of the grooves on the advance and rewind
knobs, and the markings on top and on the face of the
camera. Same lens. About 2000 produced.
Third, POPULAR, aka DALAI. This was in "production" in
1956. Exact copy of Fed 1.(Leica II). The lens is an
exact copy of F3.5 Fed 50mm . Supposidly, only one
camera exists. MANUFACTURED IN CHINA.
I had heard that FED had supplied lenses to the
Chinese.
The cameras that are seen on "Lemiu" (Ebay) are
offered in a shiney chrome finish, not an original
satin chrome. At times his cameras appear to be a
Zorki and not a Fed ( small collar w/ cable release
socket), as well as with a leather covering instead of
a vulcanite type covering.
Steve Berkowitz
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Jeff Spirer wrote:
I went back into the archives on the LEG list and found Kirk Tucks post on
his findings with Hexar Rf lenses on Leica cameras. As I said before, I
don't think this is a widespread problem but as in this case it DID
happen. Here is a copy of Kirks post.
Dave Saalsaa
Jun 15, 2001
After reading post after post here and on other site, debating the
compatibility of M Series Leicas and Hexar Rf lenses and cameras I
finally had a good reason to inquire. I bought a 50mm Hexar lens dirt
cheap. About the price of a Leica UV filter. And, as I like to shoot
close up and wide open I quickly decided the lens was a bad performer.
Obviously not sharp. Then I tried the infinity focus test. (at least a
1/4 mile away). The lens would not focus on infinity. I tried all four
of my bodies and, nope. No inifinity focus. All the Leica lenses
focused on infinity just fine, by the way.
I took the lens to my Leica repair guy, Jerry Sullivan at Precision
Camera, here in Austin. He put it on an instrument called a collimator
and said, "nope, doesn't focus on infinity." With a few deft twiddles
of some screwdrivers and spanner wrenches he had the thing apart and
repositioned the ring that controls the location of the rear rangefinder
ring (or cam?) Did the final adjustments on the collimator, etc.
We checked for infinity focus and close focus. Perfect. He looked at a
test grid through the collimator and said, "Let's compare this test
grid with a new Summicron." We took one off the shelf and tested it
alongside the Konica lens. They were identical in performance wide
open.
This led me to do an on film test. Tripod, velvia, same body, same
roll, cable release. Absolutely no discernable difference between the
two for sharpness and contrast.
Wrap up. Konicas and Leicas have a different distance between the lens
flange and the film plane. Konica Lenses can be adjusted to work well
on Leica cameras. I assume Konica RF's can be adjusted for Leica
lenses. You just can't mix the two.
Finally, having seen a bunch of konica 50's that were ditched so that
Leica owners could use the RF with their stable of Leica lenses I can
only conjecture that for the purchase price of around $100 in a box and
the expenditure of approximately $85 in tech service you can have a lens
that is the equivilent of the 50 Summicron at $995.
Just trying to figure out how to get the Leica logo on the lens.
Roasting but still focusing in Austin. Kirk
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
[email protected] at [email protected] wrote:
Dave,
That's an urban legend, nothing more. The genesis of it was that Konica
said that Leica lenses may not focus properly on their Hexar RF. The
reason they said that is that they didn't want a bunch of Hexar RF buyers
sending their cameras in to Konica asking to have the focus adjusted for
Leica lenses. Can you blame them? They're a film and paper
manufacturer--cameras and lenses amount to a boutique product for them.
All rangefinders including the Leicas can be slightly off with certain
lenses. To get absolutely precise focus, the cams need to be adjusted for
one specific lens--over the whole range of focus. I know Leica
photographers who will only use each body with a particular lens for this
reason, although I personally think that's taking it a bit far.
It kind of makes me chuckle when people worry themselves to death about
slight misalignments of focus at infinity. Talk about erecting windmills
to joust at. Even at f/1.4, you'd be hard pressed to get the horizon out
of focus at anything near an infinity focus setting--d.o.f. is huge. At
f/8, you'd have to focus on something as close as 25 feet away to even
begin to see significant blur at the horizon. I doubt you could get a
Konica or Leica rangefinder to go that far out of spec if you were trying
to do it.
--Mike
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Hi Mike,
This is a curious statement. Why would Konica tell buyers that their
RF may not focus properly with Leica lenses when in fact they would focus
fine. It seems like faulty logic on their part. It would seem to me that
RF owners who wanted to use this camera with some Leica lenses that they
may already own, would all the more want to send them in for adjustment.
If it was a marketing ploy to sell more of their own lenses to be used on
only their cameras, it was a weak plan. I guess I can't believe that
Konica would purposely make a camera using the M bayonet system that could
not make use of not only the many Leica M lenses but also the numerous LTM
lenses with adapters. Are you saying that Konica purposely wanted to
limit sales of their RF and lenses because they are basically a paper and
film company and could not handle the demand if their product took off.
Now I'm really confused.
Dave
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
I agree with your comments about fast lenses in RF. They might not have
been designed as high-end lenses, but they sure perform like the best! My
Yashica Lynx has an extraordinary sharp 45/1,8 lens, much sharper than an
Olympus 50/1,8 or come to that, a Nikkor 50/1,4. Personally and optically
I trust completely in the performance of those lenses (the Canonet 17 GIII
is another fine example). On a different level, I always marvel at the
quality produced by Canon's LTM lenses, and believe me I am not a
"Canonist", as I don't have any Canon reflex camera, but I really like the
built-in quality of Canon RF cameras....
Paulo
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Michael wrote:
Yes. The reason is that the rangefinder image is "superimposed" to the
"direct view" image by a half-silvered mirror. This mirror reflects
approx. 50% of the light coming from the rangefinder window, and
therefore can't transmit more than 50% of the light coming from the
direct view window (unfortunately, in optics, there are no "rectifiers"
which might block light from one direction completely and transmit light
from another one without any reduction.)
The reason why the "direct view" image is a bit blueish and the
rangefinder image is yellowish is because these colours are quite
contrasty. The base glass of the half-silvered mirror (or, more
professionally, beam-splitter mirror) is tainted a bit blueish, and the
"silvering" has a golden color.
But - to enlighten the rangefinder a bit, you may clean it. As Steve
says on his page, it will change an OK rangefinder into a bright one. If
you manage to take off the top cover (the ring around the release button
is hard to unscrew, do not use pliers to grip it at its circumference,
they just leave scratches), DO NOT wipe the mirrors, just blow off dust
gently. Clean all glass inside with lens cleaning tissue, as well as the
inner surface of the window in the top cover.
Winfried
From LEica Mailing List:
It is not even close to being a screwdriver. It is a very very tiny
eccentric head and offset post at the end of a long hex rod, necked down
to a very tiny round throat at the eccentric head. The tool is so fragile
that I have mine taped to a steel rod for storage. Not exactly easy to
make. That and a limited demand is probably responsible for the price.
It doesn't take too many FedEx bills and Leica (or whomever) repair bills
to eat up the price of the tool. So you have three choices. Pay up front
and never again. Pay continually out the back. Don't ever pay and never
re-align your V-RF when it goes out.
Jim
Marco Camplone wrote:
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001
NI happen to own and to use a few of the cameras mentioned. It was
already said that they all have their pro's and con's, and none of them
offers all features all together.
-Yashica electro 35: Bulky, heavy, impressive look (especially with a
black body). The rangefinder is easier to focus due to somewhat wider
range and wider turning angle. Very wide range of automatic shutter
speeds. The only rangefinder I know with a DOF scale. NO indication of
speed selected, only "tripod times" and overexposure indicator lights.
NO manual override except changing the ASA setting (or using flash
speed of 1/30 or mechanical default speed of 1/500).
-Canonet QL17: Perhaps the best compromise besides the Olympus 35RD.
Quite a bit of useful features (cocked shutter and film advance
indicator, automatic coupling with Canonlite flash). Manual override,
but only non-metered (as usual with these cameras).
-Konica S3 (I own the Revue 400SE, very probably a german retailers'
brand version of the Konica S3): somewhat lighter than Canonet, no
manual override. The original Konica has a very advanced fill-in flash
mode feature.
-Olympus 35RD: From what I can judge from the 35RC (slower lens) and
the 35DC (programmed shutter version of 35RD), these cameras are very
well designed and made. The DC (with the same body as the RD) looks
smaller than the Canonet, although the dimensions are almost the same.
I am just shooting my first roll with the 35RC. The 35RC indicates both
shutter speed and aperture in the viewfinder, AFAIK the 35RD has the
same feature (all others except the non-indicating Yashica only
indicate aperture in the viewfinder).
I did not find much difference between the lenses. I got back my first
roll with the Yashica and was impressed by the lightmeter accuracy,
even for nighttime shots.
So take any rangefinder in your hands whereever you meet one, and check
which one you just like better. It's not so very much a matter of
reason to tell which one is "better" or "worse".
Winfried from Germany.
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
When I first tested out my cheap-o Jupiter-3, I found that it was HORRIBLY
out of focus when used at f1,5 to 2,8 and up close. It wasn't a bad lens
from 2,8 and upwards, where sharpness and contrast improved considerably,
but at f1,5 to 2 it was sharp as a marshmallow.
I was sitting at my desk (procrastinating) and decided to to tear the
Jupiter apart -it was a dog anyway, so no great loss if I mucked things up
royally. Idle hands are the devils hands (as my grandmother would say).
Well, I tore it apart, decided to clean it and re-assemble. Not before, I
decided that it would look better black. So I found a can of spray enamel
and painted it. Then I put it back together. I figured I had just made
myself a nice black loupe.
Much to my surprise, when I decided to informally test it, that it was
actually better. Surprisingly usable, even wide open. Again, no where near
my 50/2 Summicron, but fun nonetheless. You get lucky sometimes.
I don't endorse the DIY-CLA, but you can check out an interesting result
at:
http://www.members.home.com/w.gower/LTM/Jupiter-3.html
Regards
William
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000
All of them are generally quite good. There is a club on Yahoo dedicated
to the use of these cameras, and the message load is pretty light. Go to
A lot of photography currently handled by whizzy-interchangeable
lens-multimode-AF whatever-SLR cameras can be done more effectively with
one of these simple, elegant fixed-lens rangefinders... :)
Godfrey
greg kerr wrote:
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000
...
Greg,
You'd be hard pressed to single any of them out. I'd go for a 35RD,
because I've had one. But I've also used a Canonet (not the one you
mention), and it performed just as well as the 35RD. Have a look at this
marvellous site
http://cameraquest.com/classics.htm
It is an amazing mine of very useful information about all sorts of
classic cameras, with a special section devoted to helping you choose your
first RF.
Beware, though, as I had to give up on RF because I was struggling to
focus accurately. I think it's because, unlike a SLR, you have to be able
to see clearly to the object you are focussing on (not a focusing screen
in a SLR's case). But if they work for you, and you aren't troubled by the
lack of interchangeable lenses, your SLR might find itself on the
shelf....
Dave
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000
Don't forget to look at the following two rangefinder cameras.
Konica Hexar RF
- It accepts the same lenses as for the M6 (Leica M Mount)
- Has Aperture Priority, auto rewind, and better film loading than the
M6, has a very solid built quality.
- Doesn't have TTL, doesn't focus as accurately as the M6 for the
fastest lenses. Cosina Voigtlander Bessa R
- It accepts the older Leitz screw mount lenses.
- Aperture priority, manual rewind, better film loading than M6 (not
hard to achieve), very good and bright rangefinder, TTL
- Built quality not at par with the other ones. Lots of high impact
plastic used (the camera is lightweight compared with the M6, G2 and
Hexar).
- It's also much much cheaper than all of the other listed rangefinders.
Don't forget to look at the excellent reviews of all these models at
CameraQuest http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm
"Michael" [email protected] wrote
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000
....
Just to offer a correction, the Voigtlander does not have aperture
priority or TTL. It is completely manual with a +0- LED meter in the
viewfinder. Otherwise, from most accounts, still a good camera.
Rad
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Using a Kiev, like using a Contax or Nikon rangefinder camera, is a
different experience. You have to get the knack of pressing down the
infinity release lock tab while turning the little knurled wheel to focus.
You can use your right forefinger to press the release and then focus by
turning the lens with your left hand as well, but with the normal lens I
generally use the focusing wheel.
The rangefinder is good and very bright if you get a good example, and
exceptionally accurate if calibrated properly.
If you get a good one the shutter will work just fine. The shutter
mechanism is overly complex and hard to repair, though, and the silk tapes
that move the metal curtains will wear out in time. They can be replaced,
but because it takes a lot of man hours it isn't a cheap repair.
Bob
From Russian camera mailing list;
I've gone through 4 Kiev35a's, all factory sealed. Two had defects from
bad materials (non-opaque shutters) and two had mechanical problems. The
boxes were sealed (string and paper seals bearing factory stamps) and had
passports stating their state of worthiness, but nonetheless the cameras
still bore defects which ordinarily would have prevented them from even
leaving the factory.
Date: 02 Jul 2001
A poor man's Leica is usually a piece of pure sh*t, that has all the
dis-advantages of a Leica and adds a few of it's own. The original poor
man's Leicas were pretty decent Japanese copies of the original by
companies that have since gone on to be leaders in SLRs - and no longer
make a poor man's Anything.
That's pretty good . . .
And for what it's worth, a Leica rangefinder DOES have many disadvantages:
*You can't focus close
*You can't use long lenses
*You can't frame precisely
*They don't have auto meters, auto focus or autowind (OK you can add a
Leica winder but that doesn't count)
* No bells and whistles at all, in fact (newer ones don't even have a self timer)
*They cost an arm and a leg
*They load differently
*They don't flash synch with fast shutter speeds
*They top out at 1/1000
*No depth of field preview
*Polarizers are a pain in the butt
*Some people call you names because you use one
I probably left a few of the disadvantages out. I'm sure someone will
remind me of a few more . . . Hmm, with all these disadvantages why would
anyone use a Leica M, much less pay so much for them?
Well, let's see:
*It's likely the quietest/most discrete 35mm camera with interchangeable lenses ever made
*They're extremely easy to focus accurately in low light -- especially
with wide angles*You can hold them a stop or two slower than an slr
*The viewfinder viewing offers a sensation that some people like
*They're marvelously crafted pieces of machinery
*And feel great in the hands
*They mount some of the sweetest lenses to ever grace a 35mm camera
*THey are the ultimate in simplicity with no bells or whistles whatsoever
*They work better for zone focusing techniques because you DON'T view the image through the taking lens
*They have no mirror blackout during the moment of exposure
*They offer slightly less shutter delay than an SLR
*Although expensive they hold their value better than other cameras
Basically, it's a trade off. THere are some very real disadvantages and
some very real advantages. Some are important to some people others are
not. Obviously if you shoot a lot of sports or macro work you don't want a
rangefinder. On the other hand if you are primarily shooting human
interaction photos in low light you probably couldn't ask for a better
tool than a Leica rangefinder.
BTW, I say Leica rangefinder because with the exception of the
Cosina/Voigtlander Bessa-R there really aren't any alternatives (the
Konica is for all purposes part of the Leica system). Canon, Nikon and
Contax all used to make similar cameras but haven't for years. Contax (a
different company than the old Contax) offers a viewfinder camera with AF
focusing and interchangeable lenses that offers some of the advantages of
Leica -- but not all -- plus some added features of its own.
Bottom line: It's a case of "horses for courses." If your course requires
an SLR horse then get an SLR. Not all courses are run best with an SLR,
though . . .
Date: 04 Jul 2001
The quickest "kabosh" on Leica fever is an empty wallet or a maxed out
credit card - or common sense if it doesn't fit your particular shooting
needs.
Many a photographer has started with a used Leica body and one or two
lenses -- about a $1,800 hit -- and then took a look at the price of a
21mm (or now 24mm) and choked. The more affordable bodies and lenses are
do-able for almost anybody if you shop used and are willing to accept
glass that is a generation or two old. But those really wide lenses and
the latest lenses purchased new are a killer. They take a little greater
commitment.
My thinking is anybody who has a marginally decent job and conducts their
financial life in a reasonably prudent manner can afford a system of used
Leica equipment IF they make it a priority. It costs no more than many
other things people spend money on -- It's just a question of opportunity
cost: DO you want that vacation to Cancun this year or do you want that
24mm Elmarit? Do you want a new shotgun or do you want a 90mm lens? Do you
really need that big screen TV or would you be happier with a M6?
Not everybody has the option of chosing the camera equipment ("yes,
dear"). Many people have other things they would rather spend their money
on. But still, if you are serious about photography and want Leica
equipment you can do it.
You just have to swallow really hard first . . .
Date: 5 Jul 2001
John Bateson ([email protected]) wrote:
John,
I too used to be a believer in this old canard. But just as a pre-war
Leica is likely to need its curtain material replaced, pre-war Contaxes
need their shutter tapes replaced. Once replaced, their shutters are
quiet and reliable. I own several Leicas (maybe that's why I'm a poor
man) but in my opinion, the real "poor man's Leica" is the old Zeiss Ikon
line of Contax. My postwar IIa compares favourable in quality of
construction and finish to a Leica M3. The shutter is quiet and within
1/3 stop at every speed but one. Not bad for a 50 year old mechanical
shutter.
The rangefinder, while not as bright and crisp as a M Leica, is excellent.
The camera takes a variety of superb quality Zeiss lenses and surprisingly
inexpensive Soviet lenses -- and Voigtlander/Cosina has just come out with
a line of lenses in Nikon/Contax RF mount. A Contax II, III, or IIa and
IIIa can be had in good working order for less than half the price of an
equivalent M Leica. And since the shutters are made of metal, you don't
have to be paranoid about burning a hole in the shutter, like you do with
a Leica.
I'm a big fan of 60s & 70s Japanese rangefinders. To my knowledge, the
one that is most frequently referred to as "the poor man's Leica" is the
massive Yashica Lynx 14E with its high quality f 1.4 lens. Almost every
Japanese camera company made a good example of a leaf shuttered
rangefinder and you really can't go wrong with any of them. My favourites
are the Konica Auto S3 which has one of the best lenses I've ever
encountered. The Auto S2, Olympus SPn, Minolta 7s or 9, Canon QL17 and
their ilk are all fine performers yielding low light capability that most
modern p&s cameras lack. And it is in shooting with available light that
rangefinders tend to really shine.
Mark
Mark Langer
From Russian Camera Mailing List;
Try the following eBay sellers from Russia and Ukraine:
[1] "moscows" (Edik Gainullin)
[2] "fotoua" (Aleks Komarov)
[3] "asper_camera"(Oleksandr Prysunko)
[4] "ustas" (Pavel Gubanov)
[5] Soviet Camera /sovietcamera.com.ua (V Trifomov) -note that this is
different from sovietcamera.com (M Birman)! Avoid the US-based "soviet
camera", unless you're looking forward to having headaches.
All these sellers delivered as they promised - the equipment I got were
great. I've even ordered some off-auction items from "moscows" and
"fotoua" and these too, were fine.
Jay
From Russian Camera Mailing List;
There are some decent sources in the Ukraine and in Russia. I've dealt
with the following to general satisfaction:
Pavel Gubanov ( ustas on ebay, but he sells off-ebay) russia
Igor Tretchiakov (ijtrade on ebay , ditto) - russia
Vikentiy Tromikov (www.sovietcamera.com.ua) - ukraine
Alexandr Komarov (fotoua on ebay ) - ukraine
Maxim Martynov (maxuta on ebay) - Russia , not bad. New stuff only.
Those I am aware of:
Gejza (cupog on ebay) - slovakia . I hear his stuff is serviced
holms (holms on ebay) - ukraine? I hear his service is good
another which I only know as [email protected] on ebay... is it holms?
From Leica Mailing List;
When I joined the LUG, many years ago, I could not for the life of me, see
why people would use a range finder camera. I had three R7's and a gaggle
of lenses from 15mm to 350mm and extenders.
My first real camera was a Rolleicord when I was 15. 1953. I used some B&W
but mostly Ektachrome and processed it myself. E2 I believe. Long arduous
process. In late 1959 I went to Brooks Institute of Photography where the
view camera is king. Used a 4x5 for two years, sold the Rollei and bought
an Alpa. In 1962 I bought a Hasselblad. All ground glass cameras,
Hasselblad, Graphic View II, Alpa.
One of the main thought processes learned at Brooks was that in cameras
like a view camera, Hasselblad, and Alpa, the ground glass is completely
representative of the film. A flat 2D plane that shows exactly what will
be on the film. DOF is completely viewable. No guessing. I venture to say
that since Brooks (40 years) I have not used a ground glass camera without
using DOF preview except for the "Happy Snap" times.
I hear frequently "when I stop down, I can't see anything." Well, I went
through that in 1959 and after a few mess-ups, I learned the secret. Even
though my eyes are 63 years old and not nearly as good as when I was a
young pup, they can still see DOF on a GG when the lens is stopped down.
To me, using a GG camera without taking advantage of its inherent
capabilities, makes no sense. I would not own a GG camera that did not
have DOF preview.
I used GG cameras exclusively (mostly Leica R) until 1996. I believe that
is when I joined the LUG as a Leica R user. One discussion back then was
"should R users be allowed on the LUG?" In late 1996 I had the opportunity
to buy an M2 with a damaged pressure plate for less than $500. I bought
it, bought a new pressure plate ($20), replaced the damaged plate, bought
a very well worn 35/2 (2nd generation) and started to play with the M2.
I discovered a different kind of photography.
Photography that could easily capture urban life as well as static scenes
where DOF is not a dominant factor. I soon graduated to a black M6 and
35/1.4 ASPH. Then another M6, chrome. I treat these cameras as "carry
around" cameras. Photograph anything, anywhere, anytime. They rarely see a
tripod. But my GG cameras (Leica R, Hasselblad, Linhof 4x5 Technikardan)
live "only" on tripods.
It is amazing what you can photograph when carrying a Leica M camera that
you cannot photograph carrying an SLR. The M framing allows you to see a
large scene and frame the important part for the photograph. With an SLR,
you cannot see what is outside the frame. This is why I like the .72 over
the .85 M6. More to see. And when photographing in this mode, DOF is
irrelevant as it is the subject of the photograph that needs to be in
focus. Everything else can fall where it is. A very enlightened
dissertation on this type of photography was recently given by Erwin. When
photographing static scenes, simple (and informed) use of the DOF lens
scales will tell you what you need to know.
The SLR/M techniques can indeed crossover. Brian Bower very successfully
uses an M camera for landscapes and Ernst Haas was extremely successful at
depicting life using an SLR. Likewise with many LUG folks.
The bottom line for me is that I like large film sizes. All of my serious
GG photography is done with a Hasselblad and Linhof. My Leica R will see
little use, if any. My M cameras will do what they are good at doing.
Photographing life. A slice of time. Where you are. What you are doing.
Perhaps why you are doing it.
Jim
[Ed. note: Mr. Puts is a noted lens tester, Leicaphile, and author of many
articles (and a CD-ROM!) on Leica and photo-related subjects - thanks to
him for sharing these interesting tests on the Konica vs. Leica flange
distance issue; but you may just want to get in on his generous offer
of a free newsletter detailing his work and efforts...]
In the past two months, while silent on the Lug (for obvious reasons), I
have produced a newsletter for a small group of people, who have a keen
interest in the optics, mechanics, engineering, secrets and use of
mechanical precision engineered 35mm camera systems. With these
afficionados I discussed topics like: a indepth test of the new Hexanon
2/35 lens, the philosophical and ergonomical differences between the M6
and the Hexar RF, the essence of the SLR and RF viewing systems, the
engineering arguments behind the Hexar/Leica incompatibility, the
artistic differences between Provia100, Kchrome 64, the issue of film
flatness, the concept of depth of focus, and so on. Find below an
excerpt from the latest newsletter.
If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, send me an email with
your address and topics you may wish to have discussed in the future. It
is free, no $18 fee for this service.
Having established in previous newsletters that there is more to
Konica/Leica lens compatibility than the simple measurement of the
distance from flange to pressure plate, I did some further research, now
testing in real life with 100 ISO slide film all leica lenses from 24 to
135mm on a calibrated M6 and a factory provided Hexar, which had the
distance from pressure plate to flange of 27.95mm, thus identical to
Leica but differing from the Konica specs.
As you recall, the Lug was very quick to some simple checks, which in my
view were done not to find the truth, but to 'prove' that nothing is
wrong. This view has been canonized in Nemeng's FAQ.
My results are different. I used a tripod, a high resolution test chart
and a measured distance of 4 meters. All Leica lenses on Leica body were
focused manually several times and the average setting on the distance
ring calculated. All lenses were within 3% of the factual distance and
the slides showed accurate focus under the microscope at the 40X
enlargement. The Leica lenses on the Konica body showed on average a
misalignent of close to 10% and that consistently over all lenses.
I did a special study of the 75mm lens, but not at the allegedly
critical setting of 1 meter (which is not that critical if you study the
shape of the curve). The 3 meter setting is more critical. I first set
the Leica body and the 75mm on the tripod etc. Made a series of pictures
and then I kept this distance setting carefully when using the lens on
the Hexar. Results (microscope) showed a loss of micro contrast, a drop
in edge sharpness and a loss of the very fine detail, including closely
spaced lines. Then I refocused the 75mm using the Hear RF system.
Results were truly bad: slides were unsharp and only the gross outlines
of the test patterns could be detected. I also used the 75mm/hexar at 1
meter distance. Results were much more acceptable, but not really good,
but not knowing the other results could mislead you in assuming that
the focus was within range.
I did this test three times on several days, using several films and
creating every time a new setting and so tried to eliminate any specific
bias. Of course this test is not conclusive, but it does indicate that
the Lug has been too quick to bury the subject. But as Bob Dylan used to
sing: sleep well, Mr President.
The monster test of the BW films is underway....
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
The point is, Isaac, that with a traditional rangefinder, the focus
subsystem, tells you what it thinks the lens is focused at. With the
Contax-G, the only form of feedback is a distance readout - not very
useful.
Even in "manual" focus, the same problem exists. You turn the focus knob,
and the camera tells you when it think it's focus is achieved. (using the
*same* focus detection system) But on what? You have to hope that you
correctly instructed the camera what you wanted it to focus on (auto mode)
or what the camera will indicate focus on ("manual" mode).
With a traditional rangefinder, true there can be an error in the focus
subsystem, or in the coupling between the subsystem and the lens, (these
are different problems than the ones discussed above, but also problems
that the G's system can have) but when everything is working, at least the
focus subsystem, tells you what going on. The G doesn't do this.
Conclusion: The G's system shares some disadvantages with regular
rangefinders, but has a disadvantage (and some advantages, that I don't
want to write about right now) that a traditional rangefinder does not.
As an aside, you know, the disadvantages that the G and the traditional
rangefinder share, namely that the focus subsystem can be misscoupled with
the lens, exist just as much with an SLR. An a Misalignment of the focus
screen, can cause just that!
also as an aside, I consider the G's focus conformation easily
miss-usable. I think it's primary use should be to pre-set focus, and then
use depth of dof to make the shot. Another use would be to infinity lock
(really a special case of the previous). I don't consider it reasonable
to simply put the crosshairs on the subject and then focus manually - you
are using the SAME focus detection subsystem, that you would have used,
had the camera been in auto focus mode. This and the same auto-mechanics
to turn the lens barrel... Your net contribution to the effort is to see
when the little green dot appears. This is not a job best suited to a
human :-)
Caveat: I don't own a G. I've only extensively researched getting one a
few times. I hope I don't give anyone the impression I don't like the
camera. I do!! It seems an interesting set of compromises. I just
bought a leica, but I think for a lot of uses, the G is a really nice
choice. I may one day get a G. Certainly I like Contax's pricing....
Greg
Greg Levonian
From Rollei Mailing List;
Hi Peter and Mark,
Here's an interesting URL on modern rangefinder practice from a pro:
http://www.photo.net/photo/leica/m6
This is a big web page.
This photographer is comparing the rangefinder against a Wonderbrick,
not against the Rollei twin lens. When HCB did his early images, films
were slower. Even Rollei didn't have the 2.8 lens in the '30s, it was
3.5. So, the 50/1.5, that's just shy of three stops, that, and the
ability to fire off three dozen shots without reloading, in the effort to
actually capture that 'decisive moment', was a deciding factor in favor of
the Leica.
Anyway, I can't afford 2 M6s, an M5 with 21/2.8asph, 28-35-50/4,
50/1.4 and 90/2asph, that's $12,000. I've got a $50.00 Zorki. It's a
rangefinder and I use it for many of the same reason's in the above
article.
"Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote:
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Chuck DeSantis wrote:
The problem with the S2 shutter is that it will block everything once
the shutter blades are stuck. The shutter cocking pin also gives a
"feedback" to the advance mechanism when the shutter is successfully
opened and closed again. Once the shutter is free again, it is very
likely that the rest will work, too.
Concerning the light meter, I have encountered severe corrosion on the
battery test switch (which switches over power from the meter cell to
the test circuit) on several Konica S2. If the battery test works, but
the light meter doesn't, this is very probably the reason. Just remove
the bottom and the battery compartment. After opening the bottom of the
battery compartment, you will see the contacts of the battery test
switch. In some cases, cleaning the contacts won't help. I made a new
contact from a strip of nickel-plated sheet metal (originally a clip
from a tape measure!)
To open the lens to clean the shutter, see the repair article about the
very similar KonicaS1.6 on
http://www.kyphoto.com/classics
Winfried
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001
The ground glass method works just fine if you don't have a collimator.
How you set up a MF camera depends on the camera. A camera like the RB67
needs to have the body length set to a certain distance (infinity) and
then the lenses shimmed to infinity so that all lenses will focus
correctly on the body. If you have a lens that you know is shimmed
correctly you can use it to set up the body and finder. When focusing to
infinity you will want a subject at least 100 to 200 yards from you to
insure accuracy. Some range finders may require adjustments at several
distances.
"Roland" [email protected] wrote
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001
Hello William,
To use a Polarizer on a Rangefinder you can do the following.
1. Place a mark on the side of the Polarizer.
2. Look through the Polarizer and turn it until you see the desired
effect.
3. Note the position of the mark.
4. Place the Polarizer on the camera.
5. Turn the Polarizer until the mark is in the same position.
Bruce W. Johnson
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001
I have Zorki 4, in fact 3 of them -- I'll probably need the spares,
they're soviet, you know. Seriously, mine have all been around since the
1960's, and they still work fine. Seems like a pretty good track record to
me, especially for what little you have to pay nowadays. I think with
Soviet cameras, it's wise to buy an old one that works, not a new one that
may or may not work. The story goes that if you get a good one, it's
likely to last a long, long, time. So buy one that's been around a
while.Bought one of mine for $29 on ebay, with lens, and had it for 2
years with no problem. Some of the lenses are excellent. Jupiters seem to
be the best choice. I have a 50 f2, 35 f2.8 and 135 f4. They all seem to
be quite good. What the heck, when they no longer work, I'll throw'em away
or keep them for parts and buy another one for $25-$40. Pretty good value,
I'd say.
Iskandar Taib wrote:
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
I think the Canonet GIII 17QL is a good bet:
1. They are plentiful, thus it's easy to buy an excellent quality
example.
2. Nice f1.7 lens.
3. Quiet shutter, one of the quietest.
4. Very easy to load, study flim transport system that holds up over
time. This is a weak point of some other older consumer RF's.
5. Although they take an old mercury battery for the aperture priority
light meter (and can be adapted to take newer silver cells), you don't
need it! They work fine and fast in all-manual mode.
Our host has a good review of the GIII,it's quite accurate:
http://www.cameraquest.com/canql17.htm
My daughter has a GIII as her daily user, you'll see it in the right
corner of the following photo:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=314181&size=lg
Yes, it's a black one, they're a little less common than the silver
finish. The silver one are much less expensive. The other girl uses a
Konica S3 (unseen, behind chair). Also a great little camera, but
battery dependant. Who says twins are alike?
Good shooting,
Rob Conley
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
yep, generally all the compact RF's I sell are CLA'd before sale.
any 1970's camera (the most likely exception being a Nikon F or F2)
probably needs a CLA to work properly over a quarter of a century later if
it has not seen maintenance since it left the factory.
Most Leica M's, for all their quality, need CLA's every 10-15 years to
keep their shutter speeds accurate. the slow speeds go out 1st.
my point is that while most Leica M owners cough up the $ for Leica
maintenance easily -- because Leicas are valuable cameras, many owners of
less expensive RF's don't want to spend $ with the camera repairman,
because the CLA can be as much or more than they paid for their camera.
while I see the point, that 70's RF (like the GIII) would probably sell in
the $400-500 range if it were made today. (maybe more).
so, for many of the compact RF's, the term "low priced" is mis-leading.
"Bargain Priced" would be far more accurate.
Stephen
....
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001
You can use one CR123A and two PX625s stacked on top of each other; this Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 From Russian Camera List: [Ed. note: So you can only buy heavily used Leicas as new, or lower cost
heavily used rangefinder clones ;-)] > When things get "worn in" they can become smoother, yet the tolerances have From Russian Camera Mailing List: From Rangefinder Mailing List:
From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001
From: "Christopher Williams" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Leica IIIF and Leica lenses and bodies in General
And did the British Intelligence mention that the Leitz factory had almost
no materials at the time to build any Leicas? Germany after all, was
destroyed. That's why the post-war IIIc's have chrome pitting and flaking.
And remember the poorly made US Kodak shutter material that was put into
some of the Leicas?
Seems to me the quality returned to Leitz after the Brits and Yanks left.
Chris Williams
New Orleans
from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002
From: "srosenbach" [email protected]
Subject: Stoisha in Toyland... or... a Visit to Nathan's...
Last Saturday at noon, after I had gotten up early to do a number of
chores for "the Boss", I got into my 1994 Cavalier (modified to look
like a 78 Lada Sputnik), left my home near Annapolis, Maryland and
headed West on US 50. At the Capital Beltway, I headed towards
Baltimore, then a short jaunt on US 95 North to Laurel and my
destination, the American Institute and Museum of Soviet and Eastern
Bloc Photo-Optical Technology, a.k.a. Nathan Dayton's house.
I drove through the pleasant suburban neighborhood, parked my car,
and walked up to Nathan's split-level, where he welcomed me at the
door. Nathan, a hospitable and engaging guy in his 50's, took me
downstair to the den, which also servers as the "outer sanctum" of
his collection.
As this was my third visit to Nathan's it was easier this time not to
be distracted by the display cases full of Salyuts, Zenit 80's, Kiev
80's and 88's, Pentacons and Praktisixs, Kiev 6 and 60's, and all
manner of "Contax"-style Kiev rangefinders, inlcuding 2 Kiev 5's. As
we settled in, Nathan and I just started to chat about typical middle-
aged guy stuff - health, work, and... WHOAA!! Is that a RARE, *minty*
W@W! L@@K! Zarya sitting there on the shelf, Nathan!? Like I said,
not too distracted.
I had schlepped some new purchases with me, and after a while, like
two kids taking their show-'n-tell stuff to school, we started to
show each other our latest goodies. Nathan had some new, very
impressive long lenses - we're talking serious glass here! He also
had just received a beautiful and rare (really) Zorki 5a, the Zorki 5
model with the "Soviet Red" engraved logo. Not only was this 5a in
excellent condition, but it had a round, knurled rangefinder window
in place of the plain square window that this model was designed
with. Nathan had never seen one like this, and of course, that's why
he bought it for his collection. Nathan has a great photo of this
extra-rare Zorki 5a on his site at
http://commiecameras.com/sov/35mmrangefindercameras/cameras/zorki/index.htm
For comparison, look at the rangefinder window of a "normal" Zorki 5a at
http://commiecameras.com/sov/35mmrangefindercameras/cameras/zorki/index.htm
I hauled out some new stuff of my own, including a beautiful Fed 3a
and a 1937 "Trudkommuna NKVD-YCCP" Fed. Of course, this was like
carrying coals to Newcastle, but Nathan examined them with interest
and commented on how nice indeed the Fed 3a looked. In the same bag
as the cameras, I had brought back four of Nathan's books that Nathan
had generously lent me on my last visit, including a copy of
Princelle.
I asked Nathan about his "surplus" equipment that he is selling - he
had mentioned it on the forum the previous Wednesday, and the actual
list is on his site at
http://www.commiecameras.com/surplus.htm
Nathan pulled some of it out to show me, and it is really amazing,
mostly collector-quality stuff. I looked at some more serious glass,
like the Tair 300mm lens for Salyut - very impressive and beautiful
condition.
The Kiev 10 and 15 he has (he's selling these with lenses and
accessories as a set) are in near-mint condition. Nathan showed me
the totally unique fan-shaped focal-plane shutter these cameras have -
it doesn't look like anything else I've seen and it's hard to
explain - you have to see it in action.
He also has some Kiev RF lenses that look as if they just came off of
the assembly line at Zavod Arsenal a few minutes ago. When Nathan
said they were like new, he wasn't kidding.
(Once I got back home, I looked at the online list again, and I can
say all the descriptions are accurate... this is good stuff.)
For me, my favorite part of Nathan's "museum" is the "inner sanctum",
the office just off of the den. There are two large wardrobes, the
kind that people used to buy in the very old days when walls were
plaster-on-lathe and bedroom closets weren't built in. Each wardrobe
has several shelves, and on each shelf are lined up, like ranks of
Soviet soldiers in parade formation before Lenin's Tomb on May Day,
dozens upon dozens of cameras. Of the two wardrobes, my favorite it
the one with the 35mm Zorki and Fed rangefinders - several shelves
six or eight columns of cameras about 10 deep. Now what you have to
realize is that being part of "the collection", every one of these
cameras is collection-quality. Even here on my third visit, the sight
or even the memory of it still makes me a bit ferklempt! (Talk
amongst yourselves... OK, I feel better now...)..
Of course, like many of us, I am in an advanced stage of Russian
Rangefinder Syndrome (RRF), but I also have a stronger sub-addiction
to Fed 2's. So this time, I spent about 20 minutes looking at each
and every Fed 2 in the wardrobe, taking notes. There are 15 in the
collection, including a Fed 2L (a Fed-3-looking Fed 2) and the very
rare, red-engraved "50 Years of October" commemorative model. Each
one of the 15 is different from the others.
Having all this amazing stuff in one compact area is, I must tell
you, very dangerous for anyone even mildly interested in cameras, not
to mention someone with me with advanced RRF. Being at Nathans has
caused a marked spread in my RRF as well - when it stared, I was only
interested in 35mm rangefinders. Now, the Zenit and Krystal SLRs are
starting to look awfully attractive to me, not to mention the
Pentacon 6X6's and the Hasselblad-like Salyuts, Zenit 80's and Kiev
80's.
Nathan has a number of really unusual items as well. For example, he
opened a large, well-made, well-finished wooden box, and the
contents, as best as I can describe it, looked to me like a Zenit SLR
with some plumbing and lonnnnnnnnggggg tubing and wicked-looking
stainless steel fittings and ... uh... probes?.. I said it looked
like something that would be used by a proctologist, and he
said, "You got it!". Nathan, there are some things that you just
shouldn't show a guy over 50!
Well, I can go on and on, and someday I will. Meanwhile, for those of
you in the Baltimore/Washington area, you really owe it to yourselves
to see the "museum". If you contact me, I can arrange for reserved 2-
hour visits for only $79.99 if you call or email me at least 4 weeks
ahead of time. Just kidding... I *did* try to arrange a "pilgrimage"
for this visit with one or two of the local Forum members that I've
been in touch with, but unfortunately, neither one was free. Maybe we
can try again in the near future - us "pilgrims" and Nathan can zip
over to nearby greater downtown Laurel and "do lunch", and then go
back to his place and see the sights and talk shop. It would almost
be like a mini-convention!
As I said, Nathan is a hospitable guy. He didn't let me leave empty
handed, lending me his copy of Maizenberg and "Leica Copies." I'm
already looking forward to the next visit, maybe in the approaching
Spring.
Nathan, thanks again for having me over!
Your Forum's Pravda/Izvestia Stringer in Central Maryland,
SteveR
postscript:
Whoops, my bad!
the two links I gave to see the Zorki 5a photos just go to the Zorki
page, not directly to the photos. You have to scroll to near the
bottom and click on the thumbnails to see the photos.
SteveR
From: "Ned Ludd" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Best 70's rangefinder for wide open performance?
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002
"Joe B." [email protected] wrote
> The classic rangefinder cameras from the 70s are often recommended and I find
> these very interesting cameras. I do a lot of available and low light
> photography and I wonder if anyone can tell me if any of these various
> cameras have lenses that perform really well wide open. The main intended
> use is for fast black and white film (Tri-X, T400 CN etc) and making
> enlargements 8" x 12", maybe larger if the image holds together. The ability
> to get something good at around f2 is important.
>
> TIA for any suggestions.
> --
> Joe B.
Fine condition Minolta Hi-Matic 9's and 7s's with 1.7 & 1.8 lenses often
sell in the $20 range on Ebay. My lowest acquisition price for a Hi-Matic 9
was $9.25 + $3.95 shipping- no tax.
Another time, I bought an old rangefinder that was described as being in
good condition but when it arrived, the viewfinder/rangefinder was loaded
with crud inside and didn't work. The seller (a big general merchadise
seller, rather than a camera guy) apologized, said it was an honest mistake,
refunded my money--- and told me to just keep the camera for my trouble-- as
he couldn't resell it.
So with nothing at risk, I got into the camera repair business. I bunged it
up a just little getting it open-- and once I got it cleaned out, it worked
just fine. (You don't want to know what was in there).
Ned
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Jupiter 3 & 8
I don't understand a lot of the discussion to this point. The Carl Zeiss
Jena (CZJ) 2/5cm Sonnar was regarded as a fine lens but the 1.5/5cm Sonnar
was regarded as an epic design, and so it is -- "Mehr Lecht!" the Zeiss ad
campaign ran, in reflection of Goethe's dying words. The 1.5 Sonnar is a
MUCH better optical design than is the f/2 lens, in almost every regard.
Similarly, the Jupiter-3 ought to outperform the Jupiter-8 in almost every
regard.
I own a single Jupiter-8 in LTM and a single Jupiter-3. The Jupiter-3 is
clearly a superior lens, and is the one I use when I shoot with these
guys.
Similarly, I own a single Jupiter-3 in Contax/Kiev RF BM (thanks, Yuri!),
and six or seven Jupiter-8's. As expected, the Jupiter-3 shoots rings
around the Jupiter-8's. I also own a couple of 2/5cm CZJ Sonnars in LTM
(one collapsible and one rigid) and a single 1.5/5cm Sonnar in LTM. The
f/1.5 Sonnar beats the f/2 versions. Same-old with the Contax lenses I
own.
The f/2 design was a fine design from a master designer, Ludwig Bertele.
But, then, he also designed the f/1.5 Sonnar and he regarded this as one
of
his best two designs, along with the 4.5/21 Biogon. In the end, the f/1.5
5cm Sonnar will go down in history as a titanic lens, clearly one of the
best out of the 20th century (after all, it took Leitz 30 years to equal
it, and they still haven't beaten it!)
Go with the Jupiter-3. Any other conclusion is flawed and silly.
Better yet, buy five of each, with return privileges. Do a shoot-off.
Keep one, and return nine. The one you keep will be a Jupiter-3 ...
Marc
[email protected]
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002
From: "srosenbach" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Zorki-5/6 RF
Hello Allen!
Welcome to the madhouse! I just read Comrade Jim Blazik's reply to
your post, and everything he said is true. But I hope you ignore all
his warnings and jump into this madness with both feet (I'm sure he
does, too.)
If you haven't already, you should, right away, check out Nathan
Dayton's excellent "Communist Cameras" website at
http://www.commiecameras.com
Here's a shortcut to the part of the site about Soviet 35 mm
Rangefinders:
http://commiecameras.com/sov/35mmrangefindercameras/cameras/index.htm
You can see he has some good details about the Zorki 5 and 6 family,
as well as a lot of information about the entire line of Fed, Zorki
and Kiev 35mm rangefinder cameras (plus a lot more!).
IMHO, the Zorki 5(a) is one of the best-looking of all Soviet 35mm
rangefinders...if you get a clean one with nice chrome and engraving,
especially one with vulcanite (rather than ribbed nylon) covering and
with a lens *other* than the rigid 50mm Industar-50, preferably a
clean collapsible Industar-50.
Now, I'm just talking about looks, not operation. The rigid Industar-
50 is a great lens. On the other hand, the camera itself is a bottom
loader, somewhat harder to load than many of the other, later Zorkis
and Feds. Also, while Feds from the 3(a) land later have shutter
speeds of 1 - 1/500 and Zorki 3/3M/3C/4/4K family had shutter speeds
from 1sec to 1/1000, the Zorki 5's only have 1/25 to 1/500 and the
Zorki 6 1/30 to 1/500.
Of course, some might view this as a good thing - that is, the
shutter is simpler and less to go wrong, and who uses those dang slow
speeds and 1/1000 anyway.
The Zorki 5(b) is essentially the same camera as the 5(a), but not as
pretty - the front of the rangefinder housing front is just plain and
flat, and the nameplate is a chintzy little tacked-on thing rather
than the beautiful "Soviet Red" engraved logo of the 5(a).
The Zorki 6 looks just like the Zorki 5(b), but as Comrade Jim said,
it's has a hinged back - the only "classic" Zorki or Fed rangefinder
that has one.
As far as I know, the Zorki 5(a) and 5(b) were the first Soviet 35 mm
rangefinders to have "rapid wind" lever advance instead of knob wind.
This was in 1958, pre-dating the first lever wind Fed (the 3b) by 5
years. The only other Zorki to have a lever wind is the butt-ugly
Zorki 4K (that should get some reactions), first produced in 1972.
The Zorki 5's were the first try by KMZ at rapid-wind levers, sort of
a "beta", and some say that this is a weak spot for these cameras.
These sources also say that the problems were ironed out for the
Zorki 6. I'd be curious to hear from the members of the Forum if they
really have experienced lever wind problems with Z-5's.
One advantage of the Zorki 5 and 6 family is that they use the same
69-mm rangefinder base as the Fed 2. The longer rangefinder base
should theoretically result in more accurate focusing, particularly
with longer lenses. These two families of cameras had the longest-
based rangefinders in the Zorki and Fed families. Pre-war Feds used
38mm, same as the screw mount Leicas from the II to the IIIg. Most
post-war Feds and Zorkis, all the way until the end, used RF
baselines of 38 to 41 mm.
Although we joke a lot in the forum about "RARE!" cameras, the Zorki
5's are *relatively* rare, as Zorkis go. Only 125,000 Zorki 5(a)'s
were produced in 1958-59, and only 11,500 of the Zorki 5 (b)'s were
made for it's one year of production, 1959. Compare this to almost 2
million Fed 2's made from 1955-1970, over 2 million Fed 3's from 1961-
1980, and about 2.25 million Zorki 4 and 4K's made from 1956-1978.
So a measly 136,000 or so Zorki 5's made in a short period of only 2
years makes them a lot less common than most of the Soviet RF
cameras.
Despite their "rarity", Zorki 5(b)'s do not command a very high
price - you can usually find nice ones for under $50 on eBay - rare
to see one for $50 or more. The somewhat more plentiful Zorki 5(a)
usually goes for $60 or more in good shape. Zorki 6's (385,000 made
beween 1959-1966) in good shape go for $40 - $50 (these prices are
with a collapsible I-50 lens.)
I think if you have a feeling that you will like the Zorki 5/6, go
for it! If you're looking for a very practical shooter, I'd say go
for a Zorki 6 (easy to load) with an Industar-50 or even a Jupiter 8
lens. If you'd like better looks and don't mind bottom-loading and
are willing to spend a few more bucks, go for the Zorki 5(a).
If you get either one and end up liking it, you will eventually get
the others in the family. And then get a vulcanite one if you have
the nylon-cloth covered one. And them a Fed 3b. And then a Zorki 3...
and then... and then.... Jim's right... turn around and run away as
fast as you can! It's your only hope {g}
Best regards,
SteveR
Stephen Rosenbach
Arnold, MD
--- In russiancamera@y..., "Blackdog" blkdog@e... wrote:
> Greetings!
> I just registered with this group a few days (weeks?) ago and have
been searching your previous threads on yahoogroups about the Zorki-
5/6 RF. Apparently I cant seem to find any topic on this model.
> Anybody here have this unit as part of their collection? What is
the general comment/feedback on this model(s)?
....
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002
From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Super Ikonta rangefinder adjustment
One other thing: when you are adjusting the vertical, you are also moving
the wheel back and forth while looking at a horizontal line. In essence,
what is happening is that you are changing the �slide� angle of the RF
image, hopefully to horizontal. True vertical alignment is not really
possible without monkeying with the beamsplitters inside the camera or
bending the arm/front standard � this angle adjustment is what passes for
it in most instances. They way you can tell that you are screwed is if
the image never lines up vertically, anywhere along its path.
Dante
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
From: "tigerarm2000" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fed 5 rangefineder vertical alignment adjustment
...
I have all the Fed 5 models and they are the same with nameplates.
With the camera facing you and push the name plate toward the
selenium side then you can pop it off. I think by now you have
already done that. And rorate the small round window you can adjust
the verticle alignment.
Zhang
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
From: "tigerarm2000" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fed 5 rangefineder vertical alignment adjustment
...
> Hi Zhang! Do you mean the _whole_ rectangular assembly
> that encompasses/surrounds the viewfinder through the
> meter cell window?
>
> Brad
Hi Brad,
Sorry I didn't explain it clearer.
No, I mean the thin metal plate either black or chrom with the
cameras's name on it. Maybe You should push harder toward the left
with the camera facing you? There is a small leaf spring on the left
side of the thin metal plate.Make sure you don't lose it.
Zhang
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001
From: "Mark PEARCE" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Do inexpensive Russian RFs change the equation?
A rank amateur. But I'm getting pretty good.
I do think the Contax/Kiev design is superior to both the original screw
mount Leica and the Soviet 'product improved' models. I also think that QC
overall is better for the Kievs. Note that I refer to the Contax- clone
Kievs of the late forties to the mid seventies and NOT the Hassy knock
off. I've never had a Kiev (and I've had half a dozen, all bought used,
with god knows what service life behind them) that didn't work on
purchase, or break down to the point that I couldn't fix it in an hour. I
can't say the same about the various Zorkis and Feds I've had. BTW, I've
sold all my Kievs and bought a pair of Contax IIs.
Mark
...
> Mark -
>
> Are you a professional repairman or a "shade tree mechanic"? And do you
> think the Kiev a better design or is it just better execution?
>
> - Dave
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001
From: "Mark PEARCE" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Do inexpensive Russian RFs change the equation?
Try to get one from the middle fifties. The first two digits of the serial
# are the year of production. The Kiev 2 and 3 are straight copies of the
Contax II and III. The meter on my 1955 Kiev 3 even worked! The 2a and 3a
have a pc terminal for flash synch. The 4 series have Contax IIa style
backs and floorplates. Try 'lemiu' out on the west coast; his descriptions
are quite optimistic, but he's good about exchanging stuff until your
happy, and its easier to deal with someone in the States. (if you in the
States, that is!). Good luck.
Mark
...
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001
From: Peter Kelson [email protected]
Subject: Inexpensive russian RFs
Soviet quality control may have been poor- but the cameras on the
secondhand market are generally the ones that worked or the ones that have been
fixed. Even if repairs are needed you can get them done cheaply by
sending them to a repairer in the Ukraine.
Peter Kelson
Peter Kelson, [email protected]
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001
From: "Mark PEARCE" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Inexpensive russian RFs
My repair guy just got a Contax I sent 32 DAYS ago. Airmail even! Unless
we can get FedEx to fly to Kiev turnaround will be the stumbling block.
Mark
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001
From: marcus [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Inexpensive russian RFs
I bought a Kiev from Fedka, and it works very well. He
claims them fully serviced and repaired before he gets
them, guaranties them, and charges a bit more than
other people; but it was still just over a hundred
U.S. bucks for a great functioning steel brick with a
good lens that I trust at least as much as my Cosina
product. For some reason I love this camera. It's like
the '64 Rambler Classic I had, no frills, no class, no
problems. -Marcus
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001
From: John McCormack [email protected]
Subject: RE: budget rangefinders
>Arie Vandenberg wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> This is my first posting to the list. I have come to the conclusion
> that rangefinders are of interest to me and I want to know more about
> >them.
> Yesterday I was in a second hand store that had the following >cameras
> in a glass case. These were a Yashica GTN, Ricoh 500G, and >a Minolta
> Himatic F. My question is are these cameras if in good >working order
> any good? Do they have good lenses? What I am >basically saying is are
> they worth buying. Looking forward to seeing >a reply.
>
> Thks
>
> Arie Vandenberg
Arie,
The Minolta HiMatic has a good lens but it's been many years since I
used one (won my first big $ prize with it in 1986).
My favorite among the older rangefinders is the Canonet QL III 17, which
I still use. Much has been written about it; strengths and weaknesses
are discussed at these sites:
http://cameraquest.com/canql17.htm
http://www.phr.cistron.nl/canonet-faq.html
http://www.netaxs.com/~cassidy/images/equipment/ql17/ql17.html
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001
From: "Jeffery Smith" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] budget rangefinders
I'm not familiar with those models, but would steer you clear of any
"automatic" rangefinder (such as the Konica Auto S3) where you pick the
shutter speed and the camera chooses the aperture or vice versa. The
problem is that, when the light meter dies, you have a useless camera.
These are capable of taking good pictures, but don't spend a whole lot
on them, and beware if they are not capable of being used fully manual.
Another caveat is that they might use outlawed batteries (mercury).
Jeff
...
From Rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject: RE: budget rangefinders
Denis Turbide wrote:
> Arie,
>
> I'm not sure about the Ricoh, but I've had a Yashica
> 35, not GTN and the Hi-matic F. Both are good cameras
> with good glass. I personally liked the Hi-matic
> myself. Smaller than the Yashica and well built.
All the Yashica Electro35 non-G/G/GS/GT/GSN/GTN basically work the same.
There are differences in the internal metering circuitry, the lens
(Yashinon and Color-Yashinon) and the ASA range (400/800ASA).
They will fire the shutter without a battery but at 1/500 sec only. But
you can select the aperture manually, there is even a DOF scale (not
found on most other rangefinders).
The Hi-Matic F needs a battery to fire the shutter, without it, it will
click, but the shutter doesn't open (and you'll loose one frame).
The Ricoh500G/GX needs the battery for the meter only, both shutter
speed and aperture can be selected manually. Similar concept as the
Olympus35RC. The RC displays both shutter speed and aperture in the
viewfinder, the Ricoh500G displays aperture only. But the Ricoh 500G
meter will work when switching the camera to manual mode.
It is not easy to give a recommendation. If you get a good working one,
I would recommend the 500G. If you are prepared to paying somewhat more,
buy an Oly35RC. It's really worth it!
Winfried
...
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001
From: "Jason Elias" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] budget rangefinders
Hi Arie,
I am unfamiliar with the Ricoh but use an Electro 35G (almost identical to
the GTN) and have used a Hi-Matic F. The Minolta's advantages are compact
size and light weight. It's downsides are f/2.8 lens and lack of any
exposure control (full-auto mode only). The Yashica has a faster lens and
aperture-priority auto, making it more suitable for serious photography.
It is also capable of very long shutter speeds, good for low light. But
as you probably noticed it is a lot heavier and bigger.
I would go for the Yashica if the price is right. Check eBay first to get
an idea of current prices (dealers will of course be a bit higher, but
then you get at least some service).
Good luck and good shooting,
Jason
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001
From: "Philippe Murat" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] speaking of Kievs
I just bought a Kiev 4M a month ago and it arrives 1 week ago. The camera
is
in very good shape and I shot a roll of film with it: lens is good as are
shutter and diaph. It cost $10 more for shipping and altogether it was a
very pleasant experience that I'll redo anytime.
Philippe
-----Original Message-----
From: Denis Turbide
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject: RE: Konica Auto S2
Philippe Murat wrote:
> Spent the week end playing with an Ebay acquisition: Konica Auto S2 (I
> do
> not have enough money for the S3 :-) ), is there not a switch for the
> meter?
> I can find anything on the body!
No, there is NO such switch. The only way to switch off the meter is to
cap the lens. Some other cameras, like the Minolta Hi-Matic7 or
Ricoh500G, do this more sophisticated by covering the meter cell by
setting the ASA ring to OFF or the speed ring to B respectively.
BTW, many Auto-S2 seem to suffer from rotten contacts in the battery
test switch. If the battery test works, but the meter does not, you
should remove the bottom cover, remove the battery compartment and open
the switch. Sometimes you can clean the contacts, sometimes you'll have
to replace one of them with a piece of nickel plated sheet metal.
Winfried
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002
From: Frank Earl [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] FED Rangefinder
There is an access screw on the front of the FED 2
underneath the E in FED. If you remove this screw
there is access to an adjustment screw underneath.
This adjustment screw can fix some of the problems.
Focus on something that is at infinity (remember that
infinity is farther away than you think) with the lens
and adjust the screw until the finder images are
superimposed. Then focus the lens at its shortest
focal point and check that the images are still
superimposed. If this adjustment won't do the job,
then you are into some disassembly. Find a copy of
Maizenberg's book "All You Need to Know about Design
and Repair of Russian Cameras".
I think the FED 2 with the collapsible Industar lens
is the best looking of the Fed Cameras. I had to put
some moleskin around the back finder window after it
scratched my glasses. I have been looking for a
collapsible Industar-50 to replace the original
Industar-would trade a Kiev 35 or a FED 5 for one
straight across.
Good Luck - it's a fun camera.
Frank
From: Dick [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Yashica electro 35 help
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002
[email protected] says...
> A friend of mine has just unearthed a Yashica G Electro 35 and I'm
> looking for some information on the camera. Any useful tips would be
> very welcome.
>
> In addition, the battery type appears to be a large 5.6v mercury type
> (TP164 I believe). Is there an equivalent available today?
>
Go to http://www.yashica-guy.com/index.html for information on the camera
and where to get batteries.
The manual can be downloaded at
http://members.fortunecity.com/canoneos/manuals/yashicaelectro35.html
Another site that has a battery that will work is
http://photobattery.com/
Dick
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002
From: Jorge_M._Trevino [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] T4 vs Rollei 35 vs Minox?? Why not?
I'd venture to sugest the Contax T3 as a yet better option.
On the plus side:
Very sharp and well corrected six element lens, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 35/2.8.
Ability to set aperture manually.
Ability to set focus manually.
Distance indication on the LCD display.
Close up focusing to 0.4 m.
Close-up focusing indicator in the viewfinder.
Accurate AF, even close up and wide open.
Easy fix of AF and AE.
Exposure compensation +/- 2 stops.
Defaults to ISO100 if magazine not DX.
Small, fits shirt pocket comfortably.
Bright viewfinder with good albada lines with parallax correction marks.
Approximate shutter speed indicator in the viewfinder.
Several custom functions for leader out, retention of adjustments etc.
Currently in production.
On the minus side:
Pricey.
Setting focus manually requires fumbling with a push button and a small
knob. Not fast nor intuitive.
Focus done in steps, not continous (although that doesn't seem to matter for
accuracy)
Internal flash weak.
Dedicated external flash pricey and requires special adapter although that
enables using 3d party flash guns.
Use of filters requires pricey adapter, odd filter size.
(again) Defaults to ISO 100 if magazine not DX. :-)
I could never effectively use a Rollei 35 nor a Minox for candids --fared
much better with a IIIf with a collapsible Elmar 50/3.5 or 35/3.5 even if
it's not exactly pocket sized. The Contax T3 is fast becoming my everyday
choice due to its versatile array of features, superb lens and small size.
--Jorge.
From: Stephen J Dunn [email protected]
To: rollei [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002
Subject: [Rollei] T4 vs Rollei 35 vs Minox?? Why not?
> Why not also include a discussion of a comprise between the Rollei and
> the T4: The Minox GT-E 35mm camera. Just like the others it uses full
> frame 35mm film..
>
> Specifications:
>
> Hot shoe on top of camera; insertion of flash foot sets the camera to
> 1/125 shutter speed. Lightweight plastic body and much smaller than the
> T4. Easily fits in a pocket.
>
> Currently in production
>
> Lens MC Minoxar f/2.8 35mm; made in Germany. Between the lens shutter.
> T4 is a little slower at f/3.5
>
> The Minox has manual f stops from f/2.8 to f/16. Nothing to set on the
> Yashica T4--it even reads the film speed from the bar codes.
>
> Auto exposure: You set the f/stop and the camera sets the shutter speed.
>
> Exposure needle in the viewfinder indicates the shutter speed to be set
> by the camera: up to 1/500 second max speed. T4 has a max speed of
> 1/700th sec but no indication of what setting has been selected by the
> camera
>
> Minox camera capable of using ASA 25 - 1600 film. T4 limited to nothing
> slower than ASA 50.
>
> Minox can use slip on filters with integral rubber lens hoods available
> from Minox -- Great for black and white. Can't use anything with the T4.
> Dual stroke film advance with the Minox.
>
> Manual guess focusing on the Minox like the Rollei.
>
> Self timer on the Minox
>
> The Minox has a 2X exposure compensation switch
>
>
> Well now that you've got an idea of the setup, there's always the
> comparison between the Minox and the Rollei: You can't select both the
> f/stop and shutter speed on the Minox as you can on the Rollei is the
> frequent criticism. Well, actually you can get there from here: First
> set your f/stop. Then adjust the ASA setting dial on the camera to get
> the shutter speed you want. It always provides the required setting I'm
> looking for in any particular shot. I agree it does add a cumbersome
> aspect to the shutter time selection but it does allow for user selected
> speeds and stops.
>
> What about the limitation of the 125th shutter speed when using a
> flash? Well, there's a little probe in the hot shoe that's moved when a
> flash is inserted into it and that triggers the selected 125 speed. I
> have an auxiliary hot shoe with a cut off corner. When inserted into
> the hot shoe, it transmits the signal to the flash but allows for my
> selection of an f stop and shutter speed as noted above. Works fine.
> If the 125th speed is OK for the shot I just don't use the extra piece
> for the flash.
>
> The lens is as sharp as you could ever hope for and gives great
> contrast.
>
> I hope this adds a little to the mix. BTW, I have the Minox GT-E
> and the ML (an older model) and the T4. Alas, no Rollei.
>
>
> Steve Dunn
From: "Will" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: old cameras vs new ones
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002
Disagree ... the classic rangefinders have glass that rival Leica, let the
photographer decide the final image - not the on-board computer.
Photographer decides the precise point of focus, not the computer. The
guide-number flash system (on a number of the classics) is foolproof, unlike
today's TTL metering which can produce incorrect exposures.
As far as the "then and now" argument ... there is NO currently available
rangefinder (Leica, Contax or PS) with a faster than f2 lens (compared to
the classic f1.7 lenses) - at ANY price, and no modern camera can compete
with most of the features in cameras from that era.. Add to that the fact
that a mint condition classic can run you only $50 - $125 (unless you wanna
go nuts over a collectible rarity - but then that's not looking for a camera
to make pictures with).
Finally, you will become a better photographer with a classic.
Will
"Londo" [email protected] wrote
> The 35mm-cameras were pretty mature technology in the 70s. Yes, there were
> improvements in the optics, in particular zoom and coating but these were
> gradual improvements, nothing drastic. The main difference of modern cameras
> and 70s gear is in the electronics, i.e. the lightmetering and autofocus.
> So, you can make "good" pictures with an old camera, resolution, colour
> quality etc. won't be any worse than with a "modern" camera. BUT: Thanks to
> the electronic gadgetry built-in nowadays, you just makes for more good
> shots, more properly exposed and properly focused pictures per roll of film
> than in the old days.
From: [email protected] (Anon Terry)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: old cameras vs new ones
Date: 20 Feb 2002
"Will" [email protected] wrote
> Disagree ... the classic rangefinders have glass that rival Leica,
Well, you know what they say about generalizations... I have a
Minolta Hi-Matic 9 that's acceptably sharp, but I have yet to see any
lens wide open that can rival my 35/1.4-M ASPH...
> guide-number flash system (on a number of the classics) is foolproof,
Unless you need fast recycle times, have specific depth-of-field
requirements, or wish to have a close subject with a properly exposed
background that isn't motion-blurred. Flashmatic is just another tool
with its inherent advantages and disadvantages.
> As far as the "then and now" argument ... there is NO currently available
> rangefinder (Leica, Contax or PS) with a faster than f2 lens (compared to
> the classic f1.7 lenses) - at ANY price,
Pure, unadulterated bullshit. Please, at least do a little research
before spewing nonsense and misrepresenting it as fact. I submit:
Voigtlander/Cosina: 50/1.5, 35/1.7, 28/1.9
Konica Hexar RF: 50/1.2
Leica: 35/1.4 ASPH, 50/1.4, 50/1, 75/1.4
All the above are in current production and in stock at B&H Photo in
New York.
> and no modern camera can compete
> with most of the features in cameras from that era..
What the heck is that supposed to mean?
> Finally, you will become a better photographer with a classic.
Ah, the icing on the cake. Your bullshit knows no bounds, does it?
From: "Will" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: old cameras vs new ones
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002
I agree whole-heartedly. Was going to reply to Londo's reply to my original
post, but was going through a cooling-off period. Londo needs to have his
mother wash out his mouth, take an extra Xanax and go to his room. My guess
is that he's a Leica sycophant.
Heckubiss had originally asked if his compact Yashica Electro 35 (nice
camera) was good enough for travel - or shoot he buy a modern P&S. Londo
pulled in the apples vs. (rotten) orange argument, with a touch of profanity
and persecution (also made my "kill" list).
Here are a few links from THE definitive info source on the old
rangefinders - you decide ...
Compact rangefinders of the 70's: http://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm
Classic camera profiles: http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm
Yashica Electros: http://www.cameraquest.com/yash35cc.htm and
http://www.cameraquest.com/yash35gx.htm
My personal favorites:
Canon G-III QL17: http://www.cameraquest.com/canql17.htm
Olympus 35RC: http://www.cameraquest.com/olyrc.htm
Olympus 35RD: http://www.cameraquest.com/olyrd.htm (be sure to read this
one - it smokes the Leica M3 with f2 Summicron!)
Will
> "Londo" [email protected] wrote
> > The 35mm-cameras were pretty mature technology in the 70s. Yes, there were
> > improvements in the optics, in particular zoom and coating but these were
> > gradual improvements, nothing drastic. The main difference of modern cameras
> > and 70s gear is in the electronics, i.e. the lightmetering and autofocus.
....
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002
From: Franka T. Lieu [email protected]
Subject: RE: Werra Rangefinder Camera
My experience with the Werra limited to my Werra ( original Tessar model
), Werra 3 and Werra 5. This camera is actually quite rugged. The
mechanics are generally good ( if found in decent condition , however
many are found in lesser condition ). If the mechanics are OK, then a
good tech can do a CLA for you and when kept properly can last for quite
a while. Just make sure you find one with decent mechanics and clean
view.
The film winding is fun but require substancial effort. The back slide
off ( good old Contax style ) so loading is straight forward. Just
remember to reset the counter. I have no problem with the shutters.
The view is fairly bright and big ( compare with RF of the same vintage
) All models had the same view, just that the 3 & 5 has Frame line for
the 35 & 100. The Range finder is a split image instead of double image
type.
The lens are just as you would expect from CZJ. Tessar and Flektogon are
comparable to the SLR version. The 100 Cardiner is IMHO a good
compromise in focal length. Soft at anything wider than 5.6 and reach a
crisp sharp definition at around 8.0. For all of the lens, do not expect
top rate resolution though they perform well enough. Contrast is on the
relatively low side ( depending on your shooting style, it might be good
or it might not be ).
Franka T.L
Regards from Hong Kong
[Ed. note: ratings are highly individualized, see the mailing list for more
information and current ratings and experiences of buyers...]
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002
From: Stephen Castello [email protected]
Subject: Re: best and worse sellers
Ebay sellers I've had no problems with:
kievcamera
fotoua
www.russiansouvenirs.com
cupog
ustas
moscows
In the middle:
lemiu (only bid on what is described as perfect and it may work)
Worst sellers:
.mediumformat. which is Hartblei, now NARU, they haven't sent the item I won and
haven't responded to any emails. Back in December they declared their Prague
outlet bankrupt and claimed they were going to honor all the completed
auctions.
Stephen
"o_garcia_suarez" [email protected] wrote:
>Hi! I don't have bought a lot of equipment, so, I don't know deeply
>the quality of sellers that offer soviet cameras in ebay or in their
>own websites. I think it could be interesting if you could share your
>experiencies about it. Which are the best and worse sellers,
>regarding price, state of the goods, mailing procedures, etc?
>
>Thank you very much.
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002
From: "srosenbach"
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: True Leica Thread-Mount
uen1y wrote:
>Do I understand you right: soviet M39 lens mounts are not
>interchangeable? If so: could there be something wrong with your eyes
>or your equipment?
You guys REALLY need to pick up a copy of that fine book, NON-LEITZ LEICA
THREAD-MOUNT LENSES: A 39mm DIVERSITY, published by Rita Wittig in Germany
and available in the US from Petra Kellers at
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: True Leica Thread-Mount
Robert Chiasson wrote:
>Actually, Whitworth is 55 degrees and ISO metric, German standard metric,
>French standard meter, NF, NC, NPT (and most other thread system profiles
>after WWII) are 60 degrees. BSF I can't remember - never had to cut one of
>those, we used taps and dies for them.
Thanks for the correction, Robert. We had this discussion on another List
a couple of months back, and the consensus was that Whitworth was a
superior design, albeit at 55 degrees and the other guys were at 60.
Marc
[email protected]
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Source of Camera Repairs
The difficulties of getting Russian cameras repaired is a perennial
topic, so I'm very pleased to announce that an associate over there will
begin handling these. His name is Andrey Ostapenko and he lives in southern
Russia, in the city Krasnodar, Kuban region. Andrey doesn't do the repairs
himself, but he is a skilled photographer, knows a lot of English, has
email, and works with a local "master" (repairman).
The procedure will be to make arrangements with Andrey by email at
[email protected] , then ship the equipment to Andrey who will then take it
to the "master", explain what needs to be done, verify the repair, then ship
it back to you. When you're filling out the customs declaration, I'd
recommend writing down that it's a russian camera being returned for repair
and setting a value well below $100 so duties aren't charged by Russian
customs. I've never been charged duties on cameras coming from Russian into
the U.S.
I've gotten two FEDs repaired this way. I bought them on eBay and
they originally arrived in below-average condition: cloudy viewfinders,
misaligned rangefinder images, questionable shutter speeds, unsmooth film
winding and focusing, case locks not working, etc. They came back from
Andrey in a month or less with all these problems beautifully corrected, in
just sparkling condition. Turnaround was a month or less -- faster than some
local repairs I've had lately, it seems. I'll leave it up to Andrey to set
his own prices, but generally I'd expect them to be similar to Vikenty
Trofimov's prices at www.sovietcamera.com.ua so you can expect a CLA
without really major stuff like shutter curtain replacement to cost you less
than $50 including shipping both directions.
It used to be that you needed to know the Cyrillic alphabet and
russian conventions for writing addresses on mail to Russia, so my original
idea was to have cameras shipped to me and I'd forward them to Andrey.
However Russia's postal system has been modernized to where you can write
address in the roman (western) alphabet and in the same format as here. And
it's been 100% reliable in my experience. I've always sent packages by
regular airmail which promises delivery in about a week; I haven't tried
surface mail which is a little cheaper and a lot slower. Anyhow it seems to
me that my original plan of being a middleman would only get in the way and
I'm happy to help get this going and then fade out of the picture and let
Andrey run it. And no, I won't be taking commissions either.
Questions? Comments?
Dave Mason
From Russian Camera Mailing list:
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]
Subject: Re: re: prices, peanuts for monkeys, and "russian RF roulette"
--- Robert Monaghan [email protected] wrote:
> When folks ask me about trying out RF cameras, I
> have to generally
> recommend the excellent Japanese rangefinders (QL17
> GIII, auto S2..) which
> often sell for $50 with built-in meters, leaf
> shutter lenses, and high
> quality optics with usually excellent reliability
> and construction
> quality. The current pattern of mailing out
> defective and over-rated
> broken cameras will only reduce the interest and
> perceived value of
> russian cameras and optics among an ever smaller
> pool of potential overseas
> hard currency buyers. Too bad, but you reap what you
> sow... bobm
Bob:
I've been picking up some of my favorite Japanese 35
RF's along with Russians for the last 6 mos on e-Bay.
"Russian Roulette" has the same odds with the Japanese
cameras as with the Russians.
I am not claiming that this is a scientific sampling.
First, cameras that have laudatory webpages like
Yashica Lynx's and Ministers are priced higher than
unknowns like Minolta AL's, even thought the Minolta's
may be slightly better cameras. Of the 6 Japanese RF's
I've bought so far, all came with undisclosed defects,
ranging from bad light seals to the worst, a jammed
Yashica shutter that had already been subjected to an
amateur repair. All of the defects save that Yashica
shutter were easily repairable, but none of the
cameras were useable, "out-of-the-box". These cameras
are just old, many have been subjected to leaking
batteries, impacts or moisture.
Second, of the six Russians I bought over the same
period, Only 3 came with undisclosed defects. A Kiev 4
had bad light seals and an improperly machined film
guide rail. The previous owner was apparently willing
to live with blurry pictures since the camera was used
extensively. A Fed 5B had a filmplane-lens flange
register problem that was quite egregious. That
probably explains why the camera was in almost mint
condition when I bought it. A Moskva 5 (only three of
my purchases were 35's) had a broken self-timer arm.
It only impairs the self-timer feature. The other 3
worked fine as soon as the dust and grime was removed.
My own experience has been that (1) Japanese cameras,
when they are in excellent condition, are both easier
to use and more consistently reliable then other
cameras (Russians and Germans. They also primarily
have leaf shutters which generally means, no
interchangeable lens mounts, but easy flash sync and
fill-flash), (2) Russian cameras are more robust and
easier to perform home-repairs on then Japanese and
German cameras. When they have problems, they usually
originate from built in defects. Most also have
standardized interchangeable lens mounts but limited
electronic flash capabilites, (3) one should keep
one's expectations low when buying on e-Bay.
This is why I disagree with the premise that Japanese
RF's may be a better buy. My own belief is that unless
you are a knowledgeable buyer and are able to test
camera performance and evaluate those results, all
used camera purchases on a sight-unseen basis are
risky. We should encourage camera buyers to first buy
a camera that works before we encourage them to go
bargain hunting.
-Paul
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002
From: "Jay Y Javier" [email protected]
Subject: Translated Instruction Manuals, was Re: Is there an English version....
Contact Andrey Ostparenko [email protected] for translated instruction
booklets. He is known as "kubanoid" on eBay and I recently ordered some for
the Moskva 5, Kiev 30, and the Zorki 1 (don't really need it, but just for
posterity :).
Jay
[email protected] wrote:
>I'm looking for info on adjusting a Leningrad
>motorized camera. Can anybody help? Thanks.
From: [email protected] (ROBMURR)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 15 Apr 2002
Subject: Konica Auto S2 rangefinder users?
I found one of these locally cheap (actually two of them) I have not shot them
but I have found lots of info on the internet about them. A poor mans Leica?
Can anyone tell me if the lens on these things is really as good as I am
reading? If it is sharp as most normal 50mm SLR lenses I would be thrilled.
It has the best rangefinder view I have ever seen so I was attracted to them...
Very quiet shutter like all rangefinders.
I have a local repair man that instead of repairing these type cameras really
takes his time and fully reconditions them to like new cosmeticly and
functionally..I just saw one he redid, turned out beautiful.
Heck I cant even buy a Leica lenscap for the price of these cameras!.
I would use this strictly as a black and white camera...any
recommendations on a small auto flash is welcome.
I don't want a Vivitar 283 too big (it needs to have a pc cord too) !
Thanks!
Rob
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002
To: [email protected]
From: Patrick Harris [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Photos taken with Russian/Ukrainian lenses
WOW!! I just want to give the URL for a little further in at this site for
a great part on FED/Zorki maintenance - fortunately the adage "one picture
is worth a thousand words" really applies.
Pat
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~hd9f-segs/fed-maintenance.htm
From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica M lens tests URL followup was Re: Leica...Is It Worth It?
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002
can you check the URL? thanks! bobm
Simon pulled the page due to (admirable) concerns about copyright
violation.
The pages included tests of the three Konica M-mount lenses (28, 50, 90)
and some VC LTM lenses including the 28/1.9 Ultron, the 50/1.5 Nokton and
the 75/2.5 Heliar as well as a couple of the VC 35mm lenses.
The Nokton was execrable - rating below "Poor" on both center and edge at
1.5, and never climbing above "very good" even at the center.
The Heliar scored similarly - well below the 75 Noctilux.
The 28 Ultron also scored "Poor" for center and edge at 1.9.
All the lenses tested came in about 20% below their Leica counterparts, if
you take the Poor -> Outstanding scale as being linear. That is, they
generally scored nearly a full category below the Leica lenses at all
apertures from maximum to optimal.
Paul
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Vikentiy Trofimov [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Few words from the owner :-)
I'm the owner of sovietcamera.com.ua (priluk on EBay).
Thank you for these good words about me. For me is more importaint to
understand that I'm making a good job, then to make money on this.
Now the cituation on EBay is very pure for such sellers as I. Fedka already
wrote about this on his site. A very big number of sellers and very little
prices make me imposible to sell cameras on EBay.
My excellent+ and excellent+ of those sellers are different, but people
think that they are the same.
That's why I've began to work on my new store. The old URL:
http://www.sovietcamera.com.ua/ but the new store.
I'll try to do my best to fill it up with all the items that I have. All
them are now prepairing to be sold there.
Yes, the prices will be bigger, than on EBay (not so expensive as Fedka, but
the same or better quality), but you'll get a really good cameras. All the
purest will be sold "AS IS" on Ebay.
I need to say - if you want not to pay 5-15 USD more - buy on EBay from
anyone you want. How do you think, can the repairman for his job get $10 per
hour? I think so. And that's why how can people sell CLAed items on EBay
with such small prices? The only one answer is that those items are bad.
OK, I think in a week or two there will be already ~50 items for sell. The
future of this sore will be interesting.
So, you are welcome! :-)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Starter Rangefinder system
Using a rangefinder to supplement an SLR would be an excellent choice, but
the true advantage of rangefinders is wide angle shooting. There are some
excellent short telephotos available for rangefinders that would be nice to
use for portraits, but they can be equally duplicated on your SLR.
Rangefinders are advantageous when doing street and travel shooting,
especially with the high quality assortment of wide and super wide lenses
from various manufacturers. You could almost pick a system based on the
available lens choices you would like to use.
Consider buying used rather than new. The Voigtl�nder system is fairly new,
so not much used gear out there. There are some Contax G1 and G2 that come
up used
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002
From: "Bryant Wetzel" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Timing Leica/Russian shutters at highest speeds
Mark,
Yep, sounds like the right tool. Fargo sells a great set for that, but
it is a bit pricey. Remember that once you get the front ring off the lens
underneath is just pressure fit so you can twist it back and forth to get it
out. Twisting the same lens is one setting for the rangefinder so you may
want to mark the lens front with a marker prior to disassembly.
Of the five or six Russian rangefinders I own, all are buttery smooth
and the shutters are right on. It just takes a bit of lube to get things
going. I use a product called Zero Friction on the gears and other sliding
parts, while the rotating parts get some RemOil diluted 50-50 with naphtha.
( The Naphtha evaporates and leaves half as much oil as you thought you were
putting on ). I also wipe down the interior surfaces with Tuf-Glide on a
cloth as a matter of precaution.
Most speed related problems with the Leica type shutters has to do with
the proper lubrication of the upper/high speed assembly and the proper
setting of CTT.
Bryant
...
[Ed. note: thanks to Kevin Kalsbeek for supplying these resources (see links below)]
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: more 300 Tair lens hack
Bob,
I must be getting senile, as I thought that I had seen a translation -
partial- of the Tair article. I searched around and found one done by a
Ukranian fellow I am acquainted with.
Along with the Tair translation, I am attaching another file about the
Industar-61 lens from the FED RF cameras. Though only a 4 element f 2.8
lens, I have gotten excellent performance from it, and the article is
interesting anyway.
Both are RTF files, so keep that in mind when you try to open them.
Best wishes,
Kevin
Creation of Tair (PDF)
Industar-61 (RTF)
Industar-61 (html)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002
From: Ken Thorland [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Nice interview with Yuri
>From the rangefinders list comes this nice short
interview with Yuri by Donnie Alfonso. Hope you don't
mind me posting it, Yuri?
http://home.cfl.rr.com/lenswerks/new_page_91.htm
I got my first rf (a great little fed3a) from Yuri
many months before I found this list. A good man to
do business with.
regards, Ken
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Shippments from Russia
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Paul Shinkawa at [email protected] wrote:
> Does anybody know what really costs to ship from
> Russia or the Ukraine? I think some shipping overhead
> is justified.
If postal rates are the same throughout Russia, which I don't know about,
it shouldn't be very expensive. I have a friend in St. Petersburg who sends
me cameras and it is always less than $ 5 for airmail for an ordinary
camera.
When it becomes a problem is with heavy stuff. There is a 2 Kg limit on
getting the cheap postal rate, he told me, so if the item weighs more than
that it can be very expensive to send by air. When he found me a
Krasnogorsk 16mm movie camera it was just too heavy to send by air, so he
sent it by surface mail and it took about a month to get here.
I have heard unconfirmed stories, though, of some post offices adding
strange surcharges on top of the postage lately.
Bob
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Shippments from Russia
Does anybody know what really costs to ship from
Russia or the Ukraine? I think some shipping overhead
is justified.
I've paid $10 for surface shipping from Tomsk (12
weeks) and 15$ for air shipment from Donetsk (14
days). I think some Eastern European sellers have
figured out that Americans will willingly pay for
quick gratification. I certainly do not think that $15
is too much for 14 days while I do think that $10 is
too much for 12 weeks.
-Paul
From: [email protected] (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 01 May 2002
Subject: Re: the other 50% ;-) Re: Leica...Is It Worth It?
...
I know Roger (Hicks). Met him and his wife Frances while I was living in
California. His knowledge and familiarity w/ a wide range of formats impresses
me (still does). I have been in a few of his books (either my photos or mention
of me) and have done my own tests on the subject w/ a friend about a decade
ago. We double shot a building in Portland (Oregon) both w/ Leica R (could have
been M but I'm pretty sure it was the R) against the Pentax 645 (manual focus
medium format) - most probably on the old Reala film.
The Leica results were superb... until you compared them against the 645 which had less grain, better
tonality and separation of tones, better fine detail. I wish I could remember
the magnification we blew up the images but I can't. The finished prints were
either 8x10 or 11x14" (most likely) and possibly central sections of the image
(though again this is too long ago for me to correctly ascertain). Leica
lenses, whether M or R are truly excellent and are second to none in 35mm. They
give alarge format "look" primarily (n my opinion) because of the way they
separate subtle tones/hues whether in black and white or color this
micro-contrast gives them a more 3D look (in terms of clarity not stereoscopy
since we are talking about a 2D image).
But when all is said and done, and I've
seen some Leica M + Ektar 25 shots that looked like they were at least taken by
a 6x7 format camera, not even Leica lenses and K25/Ektar 25 could beat medium
format, not because of any lack on the Leica's part but because the larger
neg/chrome of medium format (and above) always had the extra edge by sheer
volume of tonal information/clarity. Its a cliche but its atrue one, format
makes up for a multitude of sins. Now if there were Leica lenses on medium
format cameras then my bet would be that the Leica would win or at very least
be a wash against the Carl Zeiss and Schneider optics offered by several medium
format brands in their lens lines.
As it is, even the "lowly" Pentax 645 lenses
beat out the Leica lenses, not because the Pentax lenses are that much better
(they are good lenses though) but because the medium format they record their
images on can hold just that much more information.
Another important factor is that for the price of some Leica gear you could
just as easily own medium format gear and get more quality (if not less
weight). And as far as features even the Pentax 645, though a medium format
camera, is much better specced w/ its multiple exposure modes and built-in
motor drive and rather cheap price. Though I'm pretty sure that shutter lag,
while not bad, is not anywhere near close to the Leica M.
But past a certain point of "excellence", and depending on the type of
photography/subject matter and the photographer's needs/preferences ie. Leicas
way a lot less than medium format Pentax gear) the excellence of Leica lenses
is/may be more than good enough. I've seen roughly 4x6' prints off of a Leica M
rangefinder camera and the 35mm f/2 Summicron I believe that had stupendous
qualitiy. I've done roughly 30x40" prints off of the 35 Summilux M lens that
looked excellent. But at this magnification it is the enlarger lens and the
film that are your main problems if you are making optical/chemical (ie.
non-digital enlargements...
Fortunately I rarely go beyond 16x20" anymore, and though I no longer own Leica
M/R gear (though I've owned/used both in the past) my Contax w/ its Zeiss
lenses and even my Minolta Maxxum 7 and its excellent 24-50mm and 70-210mm f/4
zooms do me quite well.
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002
From: Roger Wiser [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Canonet QL17
Hi Philippe,
I owned & used the Minox Rollei, Gr1s , Canonet and the Konica S2 (that
Peter Kotsinadelis mentioned). I like them all.
In fact, I bought the S-2 at Peter's recommendation. The S-2 is now one
of my favorite cameras .The S-2 may be too large in size for the needs
of your friend. It has the automation that she needs but is the typical
35mm range finder size. As Pete mentions, you can get one for around
$40 if you can find a deal on eBay. Greg Weber will charge over $100 for
one that is reconditioned. It is range finder focusing and shutter
priority automatic exposure. Manual is also available. I like the meter
and the range.
The best Minox I had was a GTS with the better 4 element lens. Picture
quality was excellent. I also had the GT. The GTS was around $300 new
(expensive) Used GT's are in the range of $100. They have an electronic
shutters which are subject to failure, although I never had that
problem. While the Minox has an aperture priority metering system , I
feel uncomfortable using it with slides. The heavy use of plastic make
me feel uncomfortable with the durability. The size is small and handy.
The Canonet QL17 has a great lens, range finder focusing and automatic
and manual exposure features. The cost is very reasonable. The battery
problem can be solved by buying hearing aid zinc air batteries ( 4 for
$5 ) that can be easily modified to fit.
The Olympus Stylus may be one that she may consider if she wants a
smaller and fully automated camera in the $100 range.
The Rollei 35's produce fine results but have no automation and are
relatively costly
In summary from what you have described, your friend's options may be
the Canonet or the S-2 if cost and partial automation and are major
considerations. .
Roger
Philippe Tempel wrote:
> I'm on the lookout for a small camera for my neighbor.
> I've been looking at a Canon Canonet QL17 and a used
> Minox 35GL. She already has a Pentax SLR (forget
> which one) but wants something smaller for her hiking
> trip. The QL17 has a lower price and faster lens but
> has the PX625 mercury battey issue. The Minox costs a
> little more but is smaller probably not as rugged and
> no rangefinder. I like the Rollei 35 personally, but
> she wants some sort of automation (even if it's only
> aperture or shutter priority). I could go for the
> newer point and shoots cameras we talked about
> earlier, but am interested if anyone has any
> experiences with these two.
>
> Thanks,
> Philippe
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001
From: "Vadim A. Averkov" [email protected]
Subject: Re: The meaning of some Russian words
Dear tigerarm2000,
you wrote:
tyc> Vega, Volna,
vega.. hmm.. can't explain. :)
Volna's the russian for wave.
tyc> Zenit,
zenit is the russian word for that state of the Sun when it's on its
highest point in the sky.
tyc> Zenitar,
should be something related with the previous. Don't know exact word
that would fit the translation/
tyc> Tair, Helios,
helios, as far as I remember, is a Greek god of Sun :).
tyc> Zm, MTO, and Telemar.
no idea. :) combinated words/abbreviatures.
hope that helped,
--
sincerely yours,
Vadim -- mailto:[email protected]
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: The meaning of some Russian words
Vadim A. Averkov wrote:
>tyc> Zenit,
>
>zenit is the russian word for that state of the Sun when it's on its
>highest point in the sky.
ZENITH
>tyc> Zm, MTO, and Telemar.
MTO = 'Maksutov Telescope Objective" in English; the Russian is quite close.
Marc
[email protected]
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The meaning of some Russian words
Hi,
Vega is the brightest star in the Summer Triangle, a group of stars
easily visible summer evenings in the northern hemisphere.
Regards,
Vladimir Gritsuk
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The meaning of some Russian words
[email protected] writes:
Zm
ZM is for Zerkal'nyi Maksutova (Maksutov's Reflex), same as MTO.
Tair, I believe is a lake somewhere in Russia (Ural area).
Vladimir, you should have some reference books handy.
Yuri
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001
From: "J-2" [email protected]
Subject: Re: The meaning of some Russian words
Hi Zhang
Zenit probably is the same as the english "Zenith" (peak), "Zenitar" is its
derivative, for lenses, akin to the practice of makers to add the suffix "-ar"
to lens names. "Volna" is wave. "Helios"/"Gelios" refers to the sun, and
"MTO", I believe stands for "Maksutov Tele Obj'ektiv", after its inventor (?)
Jay
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian lenses - Mir 24
Here's another interesting site for Russian lenses. They show a 58mm f/2
Helios and a 20mm f/2.8 Jupiter-super as still being in production for
Zenit cameras.
http://www.jupiteroptics.com
These people had a nice stand at photokina last year with lots of night
vision stuff and specialty optics on display, as well as a handful of
photographic lenses.
Bob
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002
From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: Scoring the rangefinder renaissance
The release of the umpteenth limited-edition M-Hexanon lens drew me into
thinking about just how many cameras and lenses have come out in the
so-called Rangefinder Renaissance, which we will date to 1996, when the
first new LTM lens since 1968 came out. Here's the score, in terms of
rangefinder-coupled bodies and lenses (each optical computation counted
once, and counting every lens that made it to market):
Cosina: (2) bodies (R and T); (8) RF-coupled LTM lenses 21/4; 28/2; 35/1.7;
35/2.5 (2 versions); 50/1.5; 50/3.5; 75/2.5; 90/3.5 APO
Kobalux: (4) RF coupled LTM lenses: 21/2.8 (3 optical versions); 28/2.8 (2
versions sharing 1 optical computation).
Konica: (1) body (Hexar RF, 2 versions); (4) RF-coupled LTM lenses: 35/2L;
35/2UC; 50/2.4L; 60/1.2L; (6) M lenses: 21-35/3.4; 28/2.8; 35/2; 50/1.2;
50/2; 90/2.8
Leica: (1) camera body (M6TTL - 3 versions); (3) RF-coupled LTM lenses: 35/2
ASPH; 50/2; 50/1.4; (6) RF-coupled M lenses: 21/2.8 ASPH; 28/2 ASPH; 35/2
ASPH, 90/2.2 APO; 135/3.4 APO; Tri-Elmar
Nikon: (1) camera body (S3 Millennium); (1) RF-coupled lens (50/1.4)
Pentax: (1) RF-couled LTM lens (43/1.9)
Ricoh: (2) Rf-coupled LTM lenses: 21/3.5 GR; 28/2.8 GR.
If I missed any, someone let me know.
Just for reference, from ye olden days, using the same counting standards,
the Soviets made only *6* RF-coupled LTM lenses (28; 35, 50/2, 50/1.5; 85/2;
135/4) and Canon made (hold your breath): *31* Rf-coupled LTM lenses from
19-200mm, counting each focal length/aperture combination ONCE. Sheez. I
don�t have a count for Leica (I'm guessing fewer than 12) or Nikon (I
believe they had 12 total?)
Cheers
------------
Dante Stella
http://www.dantestella.com
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002
From: John Sparks [email protected]
Subject: RE: Scoring the rangefinder renaissance
[email protected] wrote:
> If I missed any, someone let me know.
How about the Bronica RF 645 body and 3 lenses, Hasselblad XPan and
whatever lenses it has (wasn't that after 1996), Mamiya 7 II and at
least the 50mm lens (anyone know the intro dates).
John Sparks
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002
From: Peter Evans [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Scoring the rangefinder renaissance
> If I missed any, someone let me know.
Yasuhara T981 body: http://www.cameraquest.com/yasuhp.htm and
http://www.yasuhara.co.jp/jpn/products/camera/t981/top.html
Yasuhara's next camera. Information about this is available on the
website (I've seen it), but the company doesn't want this publicized yet.
This seems to me to be a bizarre way of attempting to protect
confidentiality,
but that's what they request, so I'll honor it. Anyway, the camera isn't
yet available. (Very briefly, it resembles the Chinese product linked
below a lot more than it resembles the one linked above.)
Compact, fixed-lens Chinese rangefinder. Two versions (with and without
an exposure meter), both cheap:
http://www.yasuhara.co.jp/jpn/import/h205/top.html
Yasuhara 50mm f2.8 LTM lens
http://www.yasuhara.co.jp/jpn/products/lens/top.html
> Just for reference, from ye olden days, using the same counting standards,
> the Soviets made only *6* RF-coupled LTM lenses (28; 35, 50/2, 50/1.5;
> 85/2; 135/4) and Canon made (hold your breath): *31* Rf-coupled LTM
> lenses from 19-200mm, counting each focal length/aperture combination
> ONCE.
Well, er, since that was prefaced "for reference":
I don't know offhand if the ultra-wide "Russar" is rangefinder-coupled,
so won't argue with its omission, but I don't think the 19mm Canon is
rangefinder-coupled.
Peter Evans [email protected]
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002
From: "Merritt, Robert (ING)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Scoring the rangefinder renaissance
I should have picked up on this before -- there are a couple of Industars
-- the 61 (55/f2.8) and 50 (55/f3.5) -- in LTM. There are probably some
other Soviet lenses I'm forgetting.
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002
From: Joachim Hein [email protected]
Subject: RE: Scoring the rangefinder renaissance
Hi Dante,
you forgot the Contax G. I know that many here don't like it, but I
think it is important for the `Rangefinder Renaissance'. Since it sold,
it showed that there is a demand for non-SLR high quality camera with
changeable optics. If I remember correctly, the G1 was in 1994, hence I
would like to dispute your 1996 date.
In 1994 they started:
1 body (G1) and 4 lenses: 16/8, 28/2.8, 45/2.0 and 90/2.8
In late 1996 they added:
Second body (G2) and 2 additional lenses: 21/2.8 and 35/2.0
The latest addition was in 2000:
zoom lens 35-70/3.5-5.6
In summary: 2 bodies, 6 lenses, 1 zoom
My understanding in 1994 was, that many Leica M users liked the Contax
T2 and encouraged Contax that they want it with changable lenses. The
outcome was the G1.
Another one you do not list, is the Mamiya 6, which is even earlier.
Considering all this, the rangefinder renaisance is not as singular as
it might look in first place. There have been frequent attempts to
market systems in this way. I think the cheap offers from Voigtlander
was, which set the thing under fire. Suddenly a rangefinder with quality
lenses was available at prices which were unheared off before.
At this time a Contax G1 with a 35 or 45 lens costs about as much as a
Bessa R with 35 or 50. Hence there is even a real choice at this price.
from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002
From: "helleboreuk" [email protected]
Subject: Re: where the hell does lemiu get all his stuff??
Keith
Perhaps you are right about Kievs. The rangefinder arrangement on the
Kievs is independent of the lens so that it rarely goes out of
adjustment. They are prone to film transport problems caused by
deformation of the back. This part is flimsy and is easily bent so
that too much pressure is put on the film, which makes transport
difficult. It often also causes light leaks. This is a problem
common with Kievs that is rare in my experience with LTM cameras.
Often the reason why LTM cameras don't always work properly is that
they need a CLA. This is not surprising given their age. I have
found that buying from dealers who have connections with repairers
usually ensures that you get a camera in a usable state (eg Priluk,
Cupog). I have bought cheaper from other less well known dealers, bu
I have often found that the film transport is very stiff or the
shutter sticks. Rangefinder adjustment is often needed, but is simple to do.
In my experience ( perhaps others may have different experiences):
SLRs usually work well as received (Zenit C, 3M, ET)
Zorki 1/Fed 1: OK if bought from good dealer. Otherwise may need CLA
or shutter replacement,
Zorki C/2C: Usually needs CLA. Industar 50 rigid lens always needs
lubrication and is awful without it.
Zorki 3M: Prone to pinholes in shutter. More than other types. Why?
Zorki 3C/4: Usually need CLA.
Fed 2: Often fine as received. Perhaps the most reliable Soviet
camera. If only it had a better viewfinder!
Fed 3/4/5: Usually in full working order. Usually, even the meter
works (except Fed 3, 5 b of course). Presumably because these cameras
are relatively young.
Finally, one of the worst cameras I have bought was a Kiev 4 from a
well known US dealer (not West coast). The shutter slats dropped down
after winding and the lens was missing a piece of glass. I got a refund.
Please never mention the word 'nesra' again! This brings back painful
memories.
Peter
--- In russiancamera@y..., "Keith Berry" keithberry@b... wrote:
> The Kiev 2 - 4 range cameras are much less sensitive to how good a
seller is than the LTM cameras. I have only one faulty Kiev out of
eight and even that was as described. They've all been as good as, or
better than, expected straight out of the yak hair parcel, including
the first two, which were from lemiu. (I didn't intend to buy two, I
accidentally bid on a second one after thinking that it was the one
I'd already bid on. When I emailed lemiu to tell him of the error he
said he'd pack them in the same parcel to save postage!)
>
> On the other hand, apart from a Zorki 1 from fedka and a FED 2 from
the notorious nesra, my FEDs and Zorkis were received with problems
and still have elements of 'reduced functionality' that I have to
try to remember for each individual body.
>
> Regards,
> Keith
from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: slightly off-topic - Phenix JG50 Chinese RF camera...
Jay Javier at [email protected] wrote:
> It had to take a bigger manufacturer like Cosina making cameras like the
> Voigtlaender Bessa to convince the shutter makers or camera assemblers
> to redesign the shutter so that it could be fully compatible with RF
> applications.
Actually it was Kyocera with the Contax G series. Once the redesign of
the blades had been done it was no big deal to make a mechanically timed
version for Cosina.
Bob
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002
From: "Sheldon Strauss" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] 70s rangefinders- best wide open?
Hi,
I use a Yashica Electro 35 and Electro 35 GSN both very good wide. I had a
Konica S2 whch I used for rock concerts and was excellent wide open. I also
use a Yashica Lynx 14e with its wonderful f1.4 lens. Earlier I had used a
Kodak IIIc with Scheider Xenon f 2.0 but had soft edges wide open and still
does, but was very sharp stopped to f 5.6.
Sheldon
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: When Did FED Quit Making FED Cameras?
srosenbach wrote:
>The FED factory is still in business in Kharkov, but it now makes
>components for the aviation industry - an echo of its history from
>WWII when it was evacuated to near Novosibirsk. But no more cameras
>or other optical manufacturing, unfortunately!
Like the man said, when did they stop?
The last Zorki was made around 1980, and the last run of KMZ LTM lenses was
in 1994 or '95. I believe Kazan and Zagorsk and Lytkarino soldiered on for
a year or two after this, but they ended LTM lens production around 1997.
So, when did FED quit? This is an important question, as it marks the end
of the line for the Leica Thread-Mount, in continuous production since
1931.
Marc
[email protected]
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: All production KMZ- alas for Kiev/Fed/Zorki
srosenbach at [email protected] wrote:
> Wouldn't it be wonderful if KMZ produced a modernized LTM
> rangefinder - something that could compete with the
> Cosina/Voigtlander Bessa R -- but I wouldn't hold my breath.
There is a possibility that Zavod Arsenal may make a more modern
rangefinder 35. They are checking to see how much of the Kiev 4
tooling they still have. Roger Hicks is working with them trying
to make a reality of this project.
Bob
from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002
From: "parlin44" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nice Fed 3a on eBay - with inscription!
Steve R, (too many steve's here...)
It doesnt get any better than this, a good thing my impulsive buying
days are over...
So far I find Fed-3 to be the best user LTM camera when all things
consired: Fed-3a has the best combination of a good user (with slow
speeds), good looking and cheap, which wont be anymore if we keep on
rambling about it here, look what happened to Fed-2 and Zorki-3!
that's why I restrain from yodeling about Fed-3a :)
A good thing this poor dude still received a good looking Fed-3a,
imagine if it was a Fed 3b with rigid I-50 (W@W!! that's double
ugly!!) to farewell him to the butt-freezing Siberia
Fed 3a going rate was $30 then while Fed-3b was $20 (still is now, I
think but a bit more) but now Fed-3a has gone up to about $40. Gone
up 30% over in less than a year - which stock portfolio can give you
that much gain in such a short time? Zorki-3 is even better, it went
for $50 then and now is $80 and above.
I just opened my Fed 3a recently to clean up the RF, now it's a fair
bit clearer and more contrast - small amount of windex on cotton swob
did the magic
parlin
....
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002
From: "Jeffery Smith" [email protected]>
Subject: Bessa-T Anniversary Review and Rangefinder Review Forum
I have posted a biased review of the new Bessa-T/Heliar 50/3.5 Anniversary
kit on a BestStuff site at:
http://www.beststuff.com/forums/list.php?f=20
I would like to get reactions and responses from those of you who have
bought and used this kit in recent months. I would like to use this forum
for equipment review and discussion. The advantage over the Topica forums
is that the responses are in chronological order and don't arrive in your
email all day. The threads stay in one string, so reading them is much
easier.
This forum is dedicated to rangefinders other than Leica. This is not a
slap in the face attempt, but an attempt to complement the LEG and LUG. I
would also like to see ContaxG reviews and comments (that poor camera
seems to be ostracized by just about all forums except ContaxG forums).
The often recondite Dante Stella is the co-administrator of the forum. I
hope that his wealth of information and the reviews on his web site will
spark some threads on the BestStuff site. He is a massive compendium of
photographic information that I hope will serve as a great resource for
all of us.
Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002
From: "Brian" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica M6 and 50mm f/2 Summicron Versus Older Pentax M42 Spotmati
If I remember correctly, the original article, which was excerpted at Bob
Monaghan's site, directly compared real world results, and had nothing to do
with test charts.
Actually, the old Takumar is an excellent lens. The former editor of Photo
Techniques, who has tested and extensively used a wide variety of equipment,
and who (I believe, still) owns varied equipment including Leica M gear, has
repeatedly stated that the Takumar 50/1.4 is his favorite and most-used
lens. (To improve on what that lens can deliver, he now seems to be
considering switching to medium format: The Bronica 645 RF might do the
trick for those who want what a larger negative can offer, yet still want to
do wide-to-normal street shooting with a rangefinder. . . .)
"Kinon O'Cann" [email protected] wrote...
> I don't question their results, but there's lots more to a lens' performance
> than simple resolution tests and charts. Trust only what you see on film.
>
> "Jeremy 1952" [email protected] wrote...
> > I came across this page yesterday. As a Pentax user, it was gratifying to
> > see it.
> >
> > Have a look:
> >
> > http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/rangefinder.html#keppler
From: Josh Matthews [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Helios lenses: Arsenal or LOMO?
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002
It depends. I don't think "Helios" was a brand, so much as a name, like
"Sonnar" or "Nikkor." Some Helios lenses were made by KMZ (and satellite
plants) in M42 and M39 (different mount-to-film distance than Leica)
mount. Different ones were made by Arsenal in Nikon Ai-mount for
Kiev-17,19, and 20, in Contax-RF mount for Kiev-4(a)m, and in a
proprietary mount for the Kiev-10 and -15 SLRs. Arsenal may also have
produced a Helios for Keiv-60 or -88 mount (These may have been later
called "Arsat." Some of the Vega lenses for K60 were renamed like that).
LOMO itself only used triplet "T-" lenses on the Smenas and Lubitels, but
may have made a Helios or two when it was called GOMZ. The
Russiancamera-User list at http://www.beststuff.com/forum/index.php?f=25
may be a better place to ask.
{Bait}They're a bit more anachronistic there.{/Bait}
Josh
From: Ron Todd [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Helios lenses: Arsenal or LOMO?
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002
AIR, "Helios" is what the Soviets used to designate a Zeiss Planar
formula lens.
Josh Matthews wrote:
>
> It depends. I don't think "Helios" was a brand, so much as a name, like
> "Sonnar" or "Nikkor." Some Helios lenses were made by KMZ (and satellite
> plants) in M42 and M39 (different mount-to-film distance than Leica)
> mount. Different ones were made by Arsenal in Nikon Ai-mount for
> Kiev-17,19, and 20, in Contax-RF mount for Kiev-4(a)m, and in a
> proprietary mount for the Kiev-10 and -15 SLRs. Arsenal may also have
> produced a Helios for Keiv-60 or -88 mount (These may have been later
> called "Arsat." Some of the Vega lenses for K60 were renamed like that).
> LOMO itself only used triplet "T-" lenses on the Smenas and Lubitels, but
> may have made a Helios or two when it was called GOMZ. The
> Russiancamera-User list at http://www.beststuff.com/forum/index.php?f=25
> may be a better place to ask.
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Best 70's rangefinder lens?
I own an Oly 35 RC and a canonet QL 1,7/40.
I consider the best one is clearly the OLY 35 RC. It's a very compact
camera with a bright rangefinder and a stunning lens. This 2,8/42mm lens is
not as fast as the canon one, but provides very sharp and contrasted
pictures. I think the quality can be compared with some excellent reflex
lenses.
The canonet is very useful, very well made, with a great finder too.
But I consider the lens is smoother compared with the zuiko.
Out of your list, I've had excellent results with a Minolta Himatic E, with
a Rokkor 1,7/40mm. It's an excellent rangefinder with a great finder, a
fully automatic exposure mode, and cheap price (I've bought mine in
excellent shape for 30$).And the lens is great. But Stephen Gandy
(wonderful Cameraquest's site !!!) did'nt expertise it, because, I
suppose, it has no ability to control speed aperture or selected diaphragm.
Xavier Menette
From: [email protected] (Kelso Lundeen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Suggestions about a russian range finder
Date: 6 Jun 2002
Check out Fedka.com for high quality, used Russian rangefinders. I've
bought a lot of stuff from Fedka, and it has all been as advertised.
He also has several Kiev 4s and Feds in stock with (still) working
light meters, if that's what you're looking for.
The other alternative is to buy a Fed or Zorki or Kiev without a light
meter and either get a used (but still working) Leica meter or one of
the new Voigtlander meters (both attach to the hotshoe.)
Kelso Lundeen
http://www.crabgrassfrontier.com (Russian rangefinder pictures on the site)
From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Range Finders
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002
Mark Rosen
From: "Paul C. Ross Ph.D." [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Anybody try a Russian Leica knockoff?
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002
It is quite true that Russian Rangefinder cameras (Fed, Zorki and Kiev) will
vary in quality from sample to sample. I have several Leica and Contax
knockoffs. I regularly use a Kiev 4AM (Contax knockoff) and it produces
excellent quality pictures and is as reliable as one can expect when using a
camera made more than 20 years ago. As far as the optics go, I find the F1.8
sharp, contrasty and yields pictures in color that are well worth the time
and effort spent.
I also have several Fed (Leica knockoffs) and I regularly use a Fed 2 with
f2.8 lens. It too produces excellent quality photographs. My major problem
with the later Fed cameras I have is that they (Fed 3,4 and 5) all lack neck
strap loops making them somewhat difficult to carry as I travel. All of my
Fed cameras all have the f2.8 lens that seems to be a copy of the Zeiss
Tessar and is apparently well executed. The metal used in the mount however
may be more of a problem since some of the cmaeras have mounts that seem to
have worked loose over time, however the image quality from these old
cameras remains excellent. BTW, the Fed cameras all (2 to 5) have a handy
eyepeice diopter correction.
When I compare these cameras to many of the modern crop of cheap plastic
automatic cameras, costing several times what an old Russian Rangefinder
cost, I find these old cameras more fun to use and much more robust than
most of the electronic automatic junk made today.
I also want to comment on someone in this news group who mentioned that he
saw a old Fed (Leica copy) and claimed the camera looks poorly made and the
shutter release is clunky. I have both a Fed 1 and the Zorki 1 (Leica
copies) and a Leica IIIc. Yes, the Leica is better made, but it is not
apparent visually. As for the shutter release on both my Russian cameras, I
find them comparable to the release on my Leica. They are both silky smooth
and positive. Consider the fact that you can buy almost a dozen Fed cameras
in excellent condition, for what a single Leica IIIc in good condition costs
today. These cameras are a historical treasure and are fun to use.
"Colyn" [email protected] wrote
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Anybody buy and try one? Just curious as to whether they are
> >decent picture takers. (And no, I don't for a minute think they
> >would be anywhere near the picture takers real Leicas are.)
>
>
> I own but seldom use a Fed1 which is a knockoff of the Leica II. The
> lens quality is at best ok. In order to get a desent pic, I have to
> stop down to f/8-11..
>
> I would much rather use my Leicas..
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Doug [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Cleaning the VF glass in Z4: what a difference!
Hi all,
I just received a Zorki 4 whose viewfinder was essentially unusable. It was
like looking through brown water.
Assuming I had a desilvering problem, and thus assuming I could do no harm,
I pull the top cover to have a look. First observation: there's a lotta
glass surfaces in there. Second observation: they were a bit dirty.
So several Q-tips and drops of lens cleaning fluid later (plus a few
realignments to bent glass holders), the VF is terrific! Bright beyond
expectation, so much so that the RF is useable despite a dim secondary
image. So much so that I'm going to repeat this one all my Z4 and Z4K bodies.
Question 1 : Would anyone be interested in some closeup pictures with
annotations as to which surfaces I cleaned and the results?
Question 2: If so, should they go here or in the Camera Fix forum?
I hesitated to just post away because I'm unsure if there's any interest
(maybe I'm the only person who likes taking these things apart?) and because
I don't want to clog the inappropriate forum.
doug
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002
From: Erik Fiss [email protected]
Subject: RE: Yashica Electro 35 battery
The Yashica Electro was conceived for the PX 32 mercury cell(5.6 volts),
of course no longer available. Luckily, the circuit is *not* voltage
dependant, unlike moste compact RF cameras, so you van use any battery
from about 4 to 6 volts that you can get to physically fit into the
battery compartment.
So you don't have to have the meter readjusted even using alkaline
batteries.
You can thus make up your own adapter, using a PX 28 Alkaline cell (6v)
for instance plus some pipe and springs, aluminum foil or other
improvised conductors.
There's also a ready-made adapter available for litte money from
http://www.yashica-guy.com . I didn't test it myself yet, but reports
seem to be favorable.
The original PX 32 size was made out of 4 PX 640 cells, but I think that
size also isn't available any more.
As was mentioned befor in this forum, the Electro 35's are great
shooters. Try it at night with a (mini-) tripod. Have fun!
Regards
-- Erik
PS: T'was also my first subject of repair. To my own surprise, it worked
;-) Feel free to ask!
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002
From: Chris Chen [email protected]
Subject: RE: Classic Voigtlander list forum?
http://www.bubley.com/verein/
Andrew Amundsen wrote:
> Hello, Does anyone on the list know of a classic Voigtlander
> user/collector list forum on any of the photo sites? I was considering
> creating one myself but if there is already a viable forum running I'd
> just join it! Can you send me a link?
>
> Thanks, Andrew Amundsen
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002
From: "Andrew Amundsen" [email protected]
Subject: 2 new Topica list forums!
O.K. Nick since you asked...
>From: Nick Merritt [email protected]
>I won several of the "classic" Voigtlanders and would love to find a site
>similar to this one.
Dear Nick and the RFlist, I have been a member of various forums on
Topica and have had the desire to try to start a few myself. I have
chosen subjects that I am very interested in and find lacking
information in the present choices of forums. I don't like the idea of
saturating the field with 'photo' lists but feel my choices of subjects
are specific and unique enough not to cause any negative competition
with existing forums.
Here are two I have registered you may join here or link to messages:
For users and collectors of the classic german Voigtlander equipment:
http://www.topica.com/lists/DeutschVoigtuser/prefs/info.html
For users and collectors of folding bellows style cameras:
http://www.topica.com/lists/FolderFellowship/prefs/info.html
I hope to find even a small following to share in discussion/info and
images through these new forums! Read my first few posts to get a feel
for what I'm looking for.
Hope to see some of you there too!
Thanks for the time, Andrew Amundsen
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002
From: KelsoLundeen [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica is so overpriced.
"The real Yew" [email protected] wrote:
>Does anyone else think that Leica equipment is overpriced?
Actually, it's not. It's pretty reasonable.
In fact, I'm not sure why everybody gripes about the price of Leica. I
hear folks talking about buying $2000 Nikon digital cameras and $2000
Dell computers (for example).
But a good, user M6 or even a new M7 isn't that much more expensive.
In fact, a good user M6 TTL can be had these days for around $1000. M6
Classic slightly higher.
What's the big deal about dropping $1k on a Leica?
And if the price of Leica lenses seems a bit high, go Voigtlander.
*shrug*
I've done quite well lately with my growing Leica collection, and it
hasn't broken my bank. In fact, once I got the body and a couple
lenses (a mix of CV and Leica and a couple old Jupiters for good
measure), I find myself spending *less* on photography these days. Of
course, I'm not buying Nikon stuff or Russian stuff anymore now that I
have my M6 :)
Kelso Lundeen
http://www.crabgrassfrontier.com
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002
From: bigmikelf [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Re: Russian rangefinders any good?
Hello, I have 2 Fed 3's and have also played with Zorki 4's, Fed 2's,
Fed 4's, Fed 5's. And I've done a lot of thinking on this question
over the last 2 years.
The Industar 61 lens on my Fed 3 is one of the best lenses I have in
regards to sharpness (comparing it with Canonet QL17, Petri 7s,
Konica Auto S3, Olympus 35RC, Pentax f2.2 lens on Pentax SV etc...).
If you're interested in getting a Leica type mount rangefinder I
would recommend a Zorki 4 to start off with- only about US$20 on
ebay. Go for an earlier model (knob wind one with strap lugs and
engraved shutter speed settings). Try to get the f2 Jupiter lens with
40.5mm filter thread for ease of getting filters.
I personally haven't used the Jupiter lens but at f2 it opens
slightly more than my f2.8 Industar. If you want an Industar 61 lens
it would pay to get a Fed 3 later model with straight top- these are
really cheap on ebay too, but have no strap lugs.
Regards
Mike
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002
From: Peter Evans [email protected]
Subject: LTM Lenses in a Nutshell (was: Russian lens books?)
[O'Reilly Books, are you listening?]
Andrew Amundsen says:
> I am getting more and more fascinated by the history of
> the Russian lenses following these posts.
>
> Is there a good book on the subject of Russian Contax
> and LTM lenses that also would describe the best performers
> and how to identify them?
M J Small replies:
> There are a number of good books including my own
> NON-LEITZ LEICA THREAD-MOUNT LENSES.
(To his credit, he continues by recommending other books as well.)
I bought this book and don't regret having done so. It's compact -- lots
of informative text per square centimeter -- and has plenty of
historical information and clears up some technical conundrums. I don't
have the book with me here -- it's in my office in Tokyo, I'm in SE
England -- and so can't comment in detail. However, my memory tells me
that he says very little about performance of the Soviet or other lenses.
Indeed, I'd even say that he's curiously evasive when it comes to the quality
of most of the lenses. There are a lot of mentions of terms such as
"excellent", "superb" and "worthy", but one doesn't (or at least I
didn't) figure out which lens was better than which. (Is "excellent"
better than "superb", or vice-versa?)
The book obviously isn't intended as a working photographer's guide to
LTM lenses and it's unfair to criticize it for not being what it doesn't
claim to be. Still, I wish it had two more appendices:
1. The LTM lenses (those from Leitz included) that I (MJS) use most
often, and why.
2. The LTM lenses (those from Leitz included) that I (MJS) would first
try to get if I lost my entire collection in an earthquake or flood, and
why.
(Uh, yes -- I'd agree that both appendices could be titled more
concisely and feliciously!)
My own impressions about LTM lens choices -- from what I've read in
various places and from a bit of personal experience taking my own snaps
(mediocre for technology-unrelated reasons) -- are very likely worthless
but anyway are these:
1. Soviet lenses are a bit of a crapshoot. You may get superb quality
and anyway you won't pay all that much. If you are keener on quality
than on saving money, skip eBay and buy from http://www.ritzcam.com/ or
http://www.fedka.com/ -- but there'll still be no guarantee. (And be
sure to read Dante Stella's new webpage.)
2. If you have more money but aren't rich, and are interested in quality
and not at all in brand or historical significance, forget any European
lens (indifferent or overpriced) and anything from Nikon (overpriced),
and get Cosina/Voigtlaender or late-design Canon. (There are a few other
lenses that give good value for money as well, e.g. at least one Kobalux.
But I forget the details.)
3. Don't withdraw all your antennae and close your mind. There are also
other excellent lenses. And yes, there isn't just one axis of
excellence; certain lenses have a special character that you may want.
Still, the time you spend reading up on this, looking for oddball lenses,
working to earn money to pay for collectable lenses, etc., is probably
better spent taking photos with the one, two, or three lenses that you
already have or could easily find.
Marc, I'll buy a copy of a revised and augmented second edition of your
book!
Peter Evans, [email protected]
From minolta mailing list;
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002
From: "peilator" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rangefinder vs SLR
Well, I'm even later than premis, but couldn't resist..here are my
two cents concerning the RF discussion:
If you want to try RF photography, why not with one of the russian
copies of the older LEICAs?
Some weeks ago I got a nice little FED2 "Zariya" and shot a role
with it - the image quality is really great. And: there are a lot of
lenses for these cameras out there (M39 "LEICA" screwmount), same
applies to the necessary viewfinders. You can use the cheap (and
good) russian lenses, or the original LEICA lenses with this mount.
The camera is quite quiet and very very light in comparison to most
SLRs.
Some interesting models: zorki II and III, FED 2 and so on.
Best regards, Nanno
[Ed. note: the latest Popular Photography has a blurb on the lens registration distances
between Leica M and the various Bessa... clone lenses - there are some differences which
need to be considered and taken into account by adjustment of some lenses or bodies...]
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rangefinder camera article
Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) at [email protected] wrote:
> BTW, you do not point out the 1.2 mm difference in the film to lens
> distances for Leica v. Konica.
> Your comments on that on this list were proven true in this month's Pop
> Photo where they measures the distance on the Hexar, Leica-M, and
> Voigtlander. The Hexar RF was the only one of the 3 that was out by 1.2mm
> which would make for an out of focus picture if you were using a Leica 50mm
> or longer focal length (or so it was said). Wide angles the difference does
> not easily produce soft focus especially when stopped down.
> Why on earth would Konica built a better M6 (or even an M7) and shot
> themselves with this small difference?
> Peter K
>
That article wasn't the place to go into that.
Yes, it was gratifying to see Pop confirm what I already knew to be true.
But I had my Hexar adjusted and it produces great photos with Leica lenses
now.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing list:
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rangefinder camera article
Jerry Lehrer at [email protected] wrote:
> How did you "adjust" for the difference? Did you machine away
> the flange, or add shims? You diid not say which was smaller or
> larger.
Honestly, I don't know. I just trusted Ken to get it right. Oddly, the
lens which came with the camera was already set for Leica back focus, not
for the body it came with. I've seen a visible increase in sharpness in
images shot before and after.
Bob
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002
From: "John A. Lind" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rangefinder camera article
Peter Kostinadelis wrote:
>BTW, you do not point out the 1.2 mm difference in the film to lens
>distances for Leica v. Konica.
>Your comments on that on this list were proven true in this month's Pop
>Photo where they measures the distance on the Hexar, Leica-M, and
>Voigtlander. The Hexar RF was the only one of the 3 that was out by 1.2mm
>which would make for an out of focus picture if you were using a Leica
>50mm or longer focal length (or so it was said). Wide angles the
>difference does not easily produce soft focus especially when stopped down.
>
>Why on earth would Konica built a better M6 (or even an M7) and shot
>themselves with this small difference?
>
>Peter K
Peter,
Looking at it from a Konica business perspective, why build a camera that
can easily use someone else's lenses if Konica feels it isn't an essential
feature to sell its cameras?
There may be some other technical considerations in camera body
design. Not having seen the original postings about it, or mechanically
analyzed either camera, this is my first thought. Camera makers are "for
profit" businesses and therefore wish to maximize total operating income
from their revenue (this is a balancing act between pricing, total revenue
and profit from that revenue).
On other parts of the article Bob Shell wrote . . .
Was interesting to read about Bob using Kiev's "Contax II clone" RF. I
have a ZI Contax IIIa and use it regularly although it's not the primary
camera.
Requires a different mode of visualizing and working with its mechanicals
compared to an SLR, 35mm or MF, but once one becomes accustomed to it,
using one can be enjoyable and rewarding, not to mention the image
qualities it's capable of producing.
-- John
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002
From: deanwst [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Classic 35mm Compacts] lens sharpness/first RF
Hi guys,
I have to throw in my 2 cents worth.
I don't see a whole lot of difference between any of the lenses on
the cameras suggested. My experience with the HiMatic 7s11,Canonet
QL17 ,or any of the Yashicas, as well as the XA is that either can
give very sharp pictures. I avoid the Yashica Electros due to the (in
my experience) troublesome electronic shutter. Even my mint appearing
Professional model needed repair. I prefer the Yashica Lynx model (I
have the 5000) with manual controls and a metering button for
over/under lights just like my Yashica SLR, plus it's smaller than
the Electros. If you're interested in the Yashica rangefinders, check
out this site:
http://www.yashica-guy.com/index.html
The Minolta Hi-matics are nice cameras, and seem to be cheaper than
the Canonets or Electros. I love my 7s11, with manual or auto
settings, and small size. If you don't mind the larger size (same as
Electro), and the EV scale in the viewfinder, then the HiMatic 9 can
usually be found for almost free. It has a very bright viewfinder,
(metered)manual or auto settings. Check out the Hi-Matics here:
http://www.sds.com/mug/
Click on body specifications, then HiMatic rangefinders for model
info.
The Canonet Canonet(QL) 17 or 19 are great as well. Nice bright
finders. Not too big really, but definitely bigger than the Minolta
7s11.
Just pick up something cheap and preferably manual, and give it a
whirl. It's always fun to upgrade later. In fact it gets to be a
continuous process;-)
Dean
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002
From: Roger [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Re: looking for 1st RF - need help...
I've a small collection of range finders from the 60s-70s era and once ran
some, admittedly rather basic tests on their lens performances.
http://www.rogerprovins.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/7seventies.html
From these results and from the day to day use of the cameras I can't agree
that the Cannonet lens is particularly sharp. Two examples of the Canonet
GIII QL17 returned very similar results which are not as good as the
Yashicas. Of course I could be unlucky and have two sub standard cameras.
Roger
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002
From: "kenny_xray" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rangefinder vs SLR
--- In ManualMinolta@y..., "wicknot" wicknot@m... wrote:
> Why would one choose a rangefinder over an SLR?
they are smaller, lighter and quieter due to having no mirror or
pentaprism. I recall reading some article about how the optics can be
made smaller and lighter and retain the same quality, I have
forgotten the reason though. I don't have a rangefinder, others on
this list will be far more knowledgeable than I, but those are the
main reasons. Also having no mirror means no mirror-slap though
that's not yet been a problem for me.
The main downside I can see is that you are supposed to get a
different viewfinder for each focal length, and just the viewfinders
can run into hundreds of dollars (!)
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002
From: "rej20002000" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rangefinder vs SLR
Definitely smaller and lighter... although weight is relative. I don't
have an x-700 but I'll bet its lighter than a Minolta Model II or
Super A rangefinder from the heavy metal construction. Lenses
are much smaller at every speed. But most of all, I find I can
hand hold a rangefinder at least one shutter speed slower than
the SLRs that I use most often. Definitely an advantage with 100
speed film. Most moder rangefinders have frames in the
viewfinder for at least some lenses, minimizing but not
eliminating the need for extra viewers. The Minolta CLE, for
instance (which I'm calling "modern") has internal frames for 28,
45, and 90 mm lenses. Rangefinders are not good for very long
telephotos... some would say anything over 90 mm and almost
everyone would say over 135 mm. Bob Johnson
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Rangefinder vs SLR
Add cheaper to the list. I got a Minolta HiMatic 7SII for $20. That's about
1/5 the price of a comparable Minolta SLR with similar lens.
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002
From: Don Eamon [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Rangefinder vs SLR
Add to the list: Because rangefinders have no mirror that needs to flip up, you
also will see a representation of your subject "as" the picture is taken. No
moment of blackout....
Don
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002
From: "robert5227" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rangefinder vs SLR
Part of this issue is temperament. Taking a picture with an SLR is an
event. The camera is heavy and large; and you see an image in the
viewfinder that's a world of its own, surrounded by blackness and
diodes. The image is not the same size as what you see with the eye:
again, it's a virtual world. If you are shooting in special
circumstances, you may use a tripod or motor drive. This style is
especially well suited for landscapes, still life, macro, copying, and
formal portraiture. The shudder of the shutter, the clashing noise,
and the lag between pushing the button and getting the picture don't
bother you: they are part of the event. With a viewfinder, the
camera is more of an extension of your looking around. The viewfinder
is just what you see "out there," and if you use an accessory finder,
you can still keep one eye open and stay in touch with what is around
the frame. Taking pictures then is part of an event, not an event in
itself. If you are using a wide-angle lens, as most rf people do, you
don't even have to bother with focus. I like to have both a
rangefinder and an SLR, because I do both formal and informal
shooting. For me anyway, mixing the two styles doesn't work. When I
put a rangefinder on a tripod, it seems very wrong. Likewise trying
to do unobtrusive street shooting with an SLR. Hope this helps.
Rob
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Rangefinder vs SLR
Another important reason for me is the viewfinder. On a rangefinder camera
it is always as bright as can be. With an SLR it can be dark with dark
filters. I like to take infrared pictures and I use a rangefinder. The IR
filter does not allow lany visible light to pass, but on a rangefinder,
composing and focusing is as easy as pie.
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002
From: "Hung2002" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Rangefinder vs SLR
Bill, Chad, get the cheap Minolta Himatic 7s. I have one and I love it. It
has auto mode, aperture priority and full manual mode. The meter works at
all times. Uses a px625 mercury cell but battery not required to work the
camera. Not a small size rangefinder but just right size for my hands. I
got mine from eBay for about US$60.
Hung
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002
From: "Hung2002" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rangefinder vs SLR
A rangefinder is very quiet in operation. Very suitable to take pictures
during a theatre/opera show. You only hear the soft click of the leaf
shutter. There is no mirror slap.
Because there is no focal plane shutter, just the leaf shutter in the lens,
you can use flash at any speed from 1 sec to usually 1/500 sec. Some
Minolta rangefinder goes to 1/2000 sec. But most to 1/500 sec.
[Ed. note: above only applies to leaf shutter model rangefinders, obviously ;-0) ]
Because there is no mirror flipping to block the viewfinder, you always can
see your subjects when you release the shutter. You can see the expressions
on the faces, etc. You can see people walking into the view, etc.
A rangefinder like the old Minolta Himatic series, eg, Himatic 7S is less
than US$70. Cheaper than slr with a std lens. Of course there are
rangefinders with interchangeable lenses and you pay for these. Just get one
with a fix 45mm lens and enjoy it.
And lastly it's fun to use!
Regards
Hung
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002
From: Allan Wafkowski [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rangefinder vs SLR
Quiet is the only reason that really matters to me. I have no need to
see the subject while it's being exposed (nothing I can do about it at
that point). One's work habits would hopefully include taking more than
one exposure of an important subject that may have blinked, etc. The one
very big disadvantage to using a RF is lack of interchangeable lenses. A
RF with leaf shutter is quiet enough to shoot in a theater, but a
45-50mm lens is too short to shoot anywhere but on stage. Even a few
seats from the stage and a 50mm renders the subject too small, and is
difficult ot expose accurately because of the great amount of stage
lighting surrounding the subject. All but a very few of the older
rangefinders allow manual exposure (e.g., Hi-Matic 7s II). The exception
is of course the leica M series cameras. For a mere $1700 to $2500 (lens
extra, please) one could have a Leica M6 or M7. You would then have an
expensive, quiet camera which is quite a bit less quiet than a Hi-Matic
7s because Leica's don't have leaf shutters.
I have a Minolta hi-Matic 7s RF, and it's a nice camera, but don't
expect too much. The lens is limiting because it can't be changed, and
because 50mm is not really wide enough to use as a candid street camera.
Allan
Hung2002 wrote:
> A rangefinder is very quiet in operation. Very suitable to take pictures
> during a theatre/opera show. You only hear the soft click of the leaf
> shutter. There is no mirror slap.
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Any Info On Kiev 17??
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Steven Berkowitz at [email protected] wrote:
> Could anyone enlighten me with any info on the Kiev 17
> SLR. This I believe was the first Kiev to accept Nikon
> lenses. Does it have a meter?? Was it well made?? Any
> help would be appreciated very much.Thanks!!
The Kiev 17 was introduced in 1978. It was the first Kiev SLR with Nikon
mount, and the first to use a new shutter. Although I have not had one
apart, the shutter looks superficially like it was patterned after the metal
bladed shutter used in late Praktica SLRs. The Kiev 19 has no light meter.
The Kiev 17B is identical but has a match-needle light meter. The Kiev 18
is also similar, but with automatic exposure control. The Kiev 20 came along
in the mid 1980s and had match-diode metering. The Kiev 19 is similar, but
shutter speeds only go up to 1/500 rather than 1/1000 second. The last one,
the Kiev 19M adds a light meter to that design.
Sadly, Mike Fourman just got back from a trip to the Arsenal factory and
tells me production of all 35mm cameras has been halted.
Bob
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002
From: magpie_38 [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Scotland and the Olympus 40/1.7
Dumped the tent, rucksacks and kids; kissed the wife and set off to
the local photolab, "One hour service please", ran back home helped
overworked wife set about the washing! One hour later, enter above
photolab, "can we ask what camera you were using?", "why?", "well the
photos are striking!". Anyway, to cut a long story short, people
always assume when they see well exposed and sharp photos that, "you
must have a really good camera" or in other words, "you must have a
really expensive camera". Well in this case it was my Olympus 35DC
and yes it is a good camera or should I say that the Zuiko 40/1.7 is
a really good lens! I love Zuiko lenses, the 40/2.8 is great but
I'm 'gobsmacked' and staggered at the quality of the 40/1.7. Finally,
I know I'm preaching to the converted, but spending big bucks or
tonnes of Sterling doesn't mean great cameras, great lenses, great
images.....on the other hand, classic 35mm compacts, olympus, Rollei
Yashica, minox, to name but a few, with their fine optics, often stun
taker and viewer alike with their end results! will post some photos
of Scotland this week! Incidently, the group is going from strength
to strength, 184 members, and as ever the atmosphere is friendly and
helpfull, thanks one and all for making this group what it is!
Best wishes Mike (magpie38).
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002
From: Dale Dickerson [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] USA repairman for Kiev RF
Jim,
USA repairs on a Kiev RF
Leonid Treskunov [email protected] Ukraine trained he does a wonderful
job on Kiev RF, Kiev MF, Nikon, Contax classic rfs, and Rollei tlr. My
Kiev 88 bodies came back working as smooth as my Rolleiflex 2.8C. (There
was a hair more pressure on the 88 as the mirror is moved, but then a
tlr has no mirror. ;-) ) My two cla on Kiev rf cameras with him were
first class. On the first use after the cla, I realized how good a Kiev
rf really is for using. Some times he is very busy, but worth the wait.
Kiev USA does them. (not my first choice. thye will fix them but high
repair cost)
Active Camera in NYC (no email) Repairman come for Ukraine in early
1980s know Russian cameras from Kiev. Good man
Dale
Jim Wong wrote:
>Dale -- Where would one go for a CLA on a Kiev RF? In the USA?
>
>Thanks. --Jim
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Affordable alternatives to Leica
Well, I hate to bring up these possibilities, for fear of retaliation
and ridicule, but here goes: Kodack Retina IIc, IIIc, and IIIC are
excellent alternatives. Also ( blush and hide my face ), I have a couple
of Zorki rangefinders that make excellent pictures, and I got them for
right around $30, so they're certainly affordable. Build quality on the
ones I have is fine, not up to Leica standards, but most folks don't
find any working Leicas for $30, so.....
Eirik Kj�lsrud wrote:
>Hi.
>
>First of all, I'm new to this group, so if this is a question that has
>already been covered in FAQ's or similar, please guide me to it.
>
>I'm an amateur photographer that currently uses an old Nikon FG camera with
>assorted lenses. It's an ok camera, but it is old and worn down with some
>vital functions not working anymore. I certainly like the old cameras, in
>both look and feel, and as far as I know, the pearl among old manual cameras
>is Leica. Now, looking at the prices of these kindof discourages me from
>replacing my not-fully-functional Nikon with a Leica, so I was wondering
>whether there might be any good alternatives in the top section of manual
>35mms available at a more affordable price ?
>
>What I am looking for is a manual camera with as much control possibilities
>as possible, good and more importantly solid construction, a good range of
>quality lenses and a proper viewfinder. Any recommendations ?
>
>Best Regards
>Eirik Kj�lsrud, Hamar, Norway
>
From: "Canon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: My Journey Into Leica Land
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002
This is a story of my Journey Into Leica Land And Back To Sanity!! This post
is a rather long read.
To capsulize, Leicas are high quality cameras but the system was not
designed for me. There!!!..... you need to read no further.
But for those who want to waste their time:
I "HAD" to have a Leica. I gave it a go!!! I gave Leica a try! I bought one
and became disappointed after a month and a half. I absolutely hate the
focusing system, the exposure system, and the lack of features. My OM-1n
focuses and handles better.
I bought a used silver chrome M5 and a used 50mm summicron, 5th edition,
(the type with the focusing lever) and I shot about 11 rolls over a period
of a month and a half. I honestly wanted this system to work out for me but,
alas, I gave up on it.
The biggest irritation for me was the focusing system. It just never felt
intuitive.
Without going into details, the manual exposure system on the M5 is only
fair. The camera lacks many of the features that pros & amateurs take for
granted.
There are some things I liked about the Leica. It's a solid well built
camera that will last a lifetime. Loading the film was easy and pleasurable.
But it's the lenses......THE ONLY reason for owning a Leica. Leica lenses
are magnificent. I bought a used 50mm Summicron. It was incredible....very
sharp, beautiful-vibrant colors, black and white tones were Zen-like, and
the bokeh was very very nice.
Having said that, the Canon 50mm 1.4 autofocus lens is in the same class
when used at F:2. at 1/3 the price
Leica Land has many weird inhabitants, one of which is the goofy
collectable. Small variations in production like the "Panda" which has a
black lever (& other parts) on a chrome body, are automatically touted a
collectable and command premium prices. There are other goofy collectables
like old Luftwaffe lenses from WWII, new special modern lenses but made in
limited production screw mounts, and other useless items.
The special edition black paint collectable M6 TTLs must remain in their
boxes or the soft black paint will show wear instantly.
Wear equals depreciation in Leica Land. When you pay $1750 to $2700 for a
body (or more), YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO USE YOUR LEICA. Most of them stay in the
box which is why you see so many near-mint 10 and 15 year old Leica M6's for
sale on EBay for $1200. They almost never got used.
Some users cover their ordinary M6 and M7 bodies with electrician tape and
weather stripping to keep the bodies mark free. For me, this over-concern
with collectability gets in the way of the photography.
I sold the whole Leica system at a small profit and bought a Canon Elan 7e
and 50mm F/1.4 for half the price and haven't looked back since!
What an incredible bargain!! ....the Canon NOT the Leica....
Leicas are crippled photography systems compared to a modern auto-focus SLR
like a Canon system. I have no use for Leicas what-so-ever. I'm staying out
of Leica land and its goofy inhabitants forever!
From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 07 Sep 2002
Subject: Re: My Journey Into Leica Land
To capsulize, Leicas are high quality cameras but the system was not
designed for me. There!!!..... you need to read no further.
But for those who want to waste their time:
I "HAD" to have a Leica. I gave it a go!!! I gave Leica a try! I bought one
and became disappointed after a month and a half. I absolutely hate the
focusing system, the exposure system, and the lack of features. My OM-1n
focuses and handles better.
Your experience is not uncommon and somewhat predictable. If you buy a Leica
only because of the allure you likely are going to be disappointed. A Leica
rangefinder is not a magical device, it's a tool -- a highly specialized tool
at that. I suspect that if you were doing a job for which the Leica is well
suited it might have grown on you more -- though it would have taken longer
than six weeks and 11 rolls of film.
A Leica is ideal for standing along the wall and observing and waiting for
moments, for following around a person at an elbows length away and looking for
interaction. It's a quiet, subtle tool for quiet, subtile photography. Often
this is wideangle work and you don't even use the viewfinder much -- you're
peering through a 21mm or 24mm brightline finder mounted on top.
It definately is an acquired taste. And yes, in many (most maybe) situations an
SLR is probably a better tool. But sometimes, the M is just the ticket.
THat being said, I recently sold my Leica gear as well -- not for any
disatisfaction with the camera. I just wasn't using it. We've made the switch
almost entirely to digital and I just haven't been shooting film. I would love
to find the digital equivilent of a Leica M but there just isn't one yet . . .
And yes, when I find it, it will be more modern than the old M. Using the F4,
F100 and now D-1 has spoiled me. I want auto focus. I want AE operation. I
don't want to go backwards any more. After 25+ years of serious photography I
have command over these things. I don't need to match needles to feel like I am
part of the process. Photography is a thinking process and a seeing process.
I'm more than willing to let the camera turn the knobs while I look for the
pictures.
Unlike you, I loved the Leica M but like you, it no longer is a tool that
serves me all that well
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002
From: Michael Frangos [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Russian Lenses - Rangefinder and 35mm SLR
Bob
I was reading your interesting article about these lenses where you have stated
that "The Russian 35mm SLR and rangefinders have vastly different lens
registration distances, but may use similar (Leica) screw thread lens mount
threads. So the lenses may fit, but they won't work properly if they are on the
wrong camera. The Leica (Fed..) and Contax (Kiev) lenses are not
interchangeable"
You may want to revise this statement. Here's a photographer who has used a
Jupiter-8 on a Fed-2 camera: http://fantastic-camera.com/gibutsu_01.htm. The
pictures are rather small to draw any serious conclusions but they do look
sharp enough to me. Of course it would be silly to expect results on par with
or even close to those achieved with Japanese or European lenses of the same
period.
best regards
Michael Frangos
from leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002
From: Jeffery Smith [email protected]
Subject: New Rollei RF
For those of you not on the CVUG, Rollei, or RF list, Rollei appears to
be preparing to announce a new 35mm rangefinder with Zeiss lenses (at
least in name...Planar and Sonnar).
http://www.k-repair.net/topic/topic_rollei6000AF.html
>From the rather shabby translation of AltaVista, it appears to have a
Leica M mount. Putting a Zeiss lens on a Leica is certainly not unheard
of.
Jeffery
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: russians out of prod'n? Re: Why can't Russians.. cameras?
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002
I believe the esoteric LOMO camera is still in production. I've heard rumors
that Sputniks and Lubitels are also still in production. There are a plethora
of them being offered on eBay from Eastern European sellers. The Sputnik I
bought from a Ukranian dealer appears to have never seen any use. Either
they're being produced or there's a warehouse full of them somewhere in the
Eastern Bloc.
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> actually, I'm wondering if Russians and/or Ukrainians are still producing
> cameras at all? Seriously. It appears the production lines are mostly shut
> down for many models, and even the kiev88 seems to be on again/off again?
From: Lassi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: russians out of prod'n? Re: Why can't Russians.. cameras?
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002
[email protected] wrote:
>
> I believe the esoteric LOMO camera is still in production. I've heard rumors
> that Sputniks and Lubitels are also still in production. There are a
plethora
> of them being offered on eBay from Eastern European sellers. The Sputnik I
> bought from a Ukranian dealer appears to have never seen any use. Either
> they're being produced or there's a warehouse full of them somewhere in the
> Eastern Bloc.
AFAIK, the enthusiastic lomographers promised some time ago to buy five
year's production, and the lines should still be running. Actually the
name refers to the factory in St. Petersburg, Russia (Leningrad Optical
Machinery sOmething, I think). They made also other interesting things,
like a 6 metre astronomical telescope in the Caucasus Mountains, the
biggest in the world at its time.
Arsenal/Kiev is another factory in another country (Ukraine). They have
made a Minox 35 copy that has nothing to do with Lomo. Also quite
another story is the Zenit 35mm system made in Moscow (derived from
Contax-S?).
Buying a Sputnik from Ukraine must be a coincidence. Sputnik is based on
Lubitel (a Voigtl�nder ripoff), both made by Lomo in St. Petersburg. I
don't know their production status.
-- Lassi
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002
From: simoon63 [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Classic 35mm Compacts] all set for a showdown
Hi group,
Well, I finally went and succumbed to the digital age (sort of).
I have got myself a film scanner - BenQ Scanwit (BenQ were formerly
known as Acer). The resolution from the slides / negs Ive played
around with so far is nothing short of breathtaking - in terms of
picture quality I can 101% reccomend this model to anyone considering
a filmscanner - price is good too.
My Leitz Valoy enlarger and the Walner colourhead will be on eBay
soon I guess ;(
OK, I am way off topic! - here is the reason for my post.
I hope to have a website of images by Christmas, - making images
being the real reason for owning / using any camera, but there is an
enquisitive itch within my soul too.
So, in the meantime I'm planning a 'showdown' between my various RF's.
I'll be easuring things like centre and edge sharpness, color
characteristics, etc.
The ScanWits resolution makes it easy to determine this, and also
have a highly enlarged section form any part of the slide to view of
course.
I know its not all about that, but lets be honest, most of us get
interested by these sort of things!
With luck, I should have the results ready for posting by November.
The head to head will include:
Konica AutoS2
Canon QL17 GIII (two models)
Vivitar 35ES
Konica C35 (two models)
Olympus RC
Ricoh 500G
Ricoh 35 ZF
Minolta Hi-Matic F
GAF Memo 35
Voigtlander VF35
(and anything else that may arrive in the meantime)
I'll be doing all tests on the same filmstock (fuji slide) under the
same conditions, and where ever possible the same camera aperture,
(i.e - f8 for all 'challengers') so as soon as I have a free day with
the right weather (that could take a while !), I'll be up in the park
with a bag full of RF's and the tripod. - and I'll be posting the
results for the group to view in a month or two hopefully.
Ok, I've made a public commitment now - so thats even more reason to
go and do it.
Cheers all,
Sim
PS
[Ed. note: wondering if it is safe to buy from some overseas seller - Ask on right lists!\
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002
From: Stephen Castello [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Russian cameras
John Pendley [email protected] wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>Does anyone know this dealer: http://www.sovietcamera.com/. If so, is he
>reputable or not. I'm just becoming interested in Russian Leica copies,
>and his prices seem high to me. OTOH, he's the only one I've found who
>lists cameras as "like new," "excellent," etc. If you have a favorite
>dealer, I'd appreciate knowing who it is.
>
>Best,
>John
I don't know about them. I've been getting mine on ebay.
Good ebay sellers that I've bought from: annoushka, cupog, fedka, fotoua,
ksavery, maksuta, [email protected], kievcamera.
Stephen
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002
From: Peter Evans [email protected]
Subject: Like-a-Leica site
A site I hadn't encountered before: PrimeLens
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/iannorris/home.htm . "This site contains
information on items that reflect my photographic interests. Primarily,
these are collecting and researching 'old' cameras (particularly Leica
copies) and taking and printing black and white landscapes."
The editor, Ian Norris, has collected info on "Leica copies" and "Leica
look-alikes". The contents are terse, and we don't get to read how good
these cameras are, or their non-obvious design flaws. I doubt that
there's any info here that's not in *300 Leica Copies*. Still, it's a
worthy enterprise, and perhaps on some pages I haven't yet discovered
the editor does wax lyrically or damningly.
Peter Evans || [email protected]
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002
From: Peter Evans [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Like-a-Leica site
>> http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/iannorris/home.htm
> It appears that the FED 2 I just bought is a Type III.
For more detailed (and more entertaining) research into the FED 2, see
"The Fabulous FED-2 and its Variations: With Illustrations from the
dzerJIMski Collection", http://www.geocities.com/fzorkis/fed2_1.html et
seq (which is a fancy way of saying "make sure you hit the link at the
bottom, and again, and again, and again. . . .)
> this could get to be fun
Yes, you can paint it black http://www.geocities.com/fzorkis/black.html
and dress it in leather http://www.geocities.com/fzorkis/fedish.html --
Barbie Doll substitutes for the middle-aged gent in all of us!
(I'm still waiting for my own FED 2 to arrive.)
Peter Evans || [email protected]
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002
From: Peter Evans [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Like-a-Leica site
Not like a Leica, but another thought-provoking site:
http://www.merrillphoto.com/JunkStoreCameras.htm
Peter Evans || [email protected]
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Pre-War vs. Post-War Zeiss Contax
Dante Stella wrote:
>
>Is it my imagination, or is the uncoated prewar 5cm f/1.5 Jena Sonnar
>finished a lot better than the postwar 50mm f/1.5 Opton Sonnar?
Hmm. Those who have extensively compared the various permutations of this
lens swear that the Postwar redesigned 1.5/50 Zeiss-Opton or Carl Zeiss
Sonnar is the best of the breed. Me? I have a slew of late Prewar,
Wartime, and early Postwar coated 1.5/5cm CZJ Sonnar T's in LTM and CRF BM,
and, frankly, when I exhaust the capacities of these lenses, I'll worry
about moving up to one of the Zeiss West models.
Marc
[email protected]
From: Don Farra [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Can you tell the difference?
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002
Howdy,
I was wondering if anybody out there in Net-land can tell me that they
can consistently tell the difference between a image created by an Leica
lens vs a non-Leica lens?
For example, without looking at the photographer's name & or technical
credits in a photo magazine point out all the images created by an
Leica? Can you do it without making any mistakes? Can you tell the
difference between an Leica R vs M series image?
If you can, I would like to know at what point does the reproduction of
the original image taken by the Leica make it so one cannot tell the
difference? By reproduction I mean, newspaper, magazine, books or
poster size prints, web pages, etc. Share your opinion on this one,
and if you can provide examples to support your opinion.
There is no need for a side by side comparison or comparing test target
images, I am talking real life, hand held, published results.
Now with that in mind what would be your guess as the public at large
telling the difference? For example do you think 100% of the people on
the street can see the difference and point out the Leica images? Or
can 50%, 20%, and so on.
The same question could be asked about old and new, Nikon, Canon,
Minolta, Pentax, 'point and shoots" and so on. Can people tell the
difference? Can you clearly point out the lens manufacturer on each and
every shot?
This is not to so that there are not differences, but asking the
question can you tell the difference? If so to what accuracy?
Just food for thought.
Please post your responses, opinions, comments.
Don
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected],
Subject: [HUG] (Photokina report)
Sept 28, 2002
Greetings all from the damp town of Bonn, just miles away from Photokina in
K�ln. I thought I'd share a few impressions I have from my few days of fondling
new gear ...impressions which you are all free to agree with or not.
1.) Canon D1s- this camera took the 'most visitors' award at this years
Photokina. I don't remember getting so many elbows in the face last time as I
did this time to get my grubby paws on this baby!
The camera is the first full frame CCD 35mm SLR that uses CMOS chips to get
higher resolution (11.1Megapixels) as well as the best speed I have seen on a
digital camera. (they say 3 fps and I believe it.) The camera has a firewire
port of course and some sort of low power consumption mode that lets it go at
full tilt for 600+ images. This sucker is a heavy one though! It is about 3lbs.
and feels it. That didn't stop the next guy from literally plucking it from my
hands...
2.)The Leica R9- this camera is best described as an updated R8. It looks
pretty much the same and is 100grams lighter. It has an LCD counter on the top
deck, a few more functions on the rear LCD (backlighting & EV exposures by
tenths)as well as a locking mode selector knob (thank God!) and of course the
HSS flash modes for high speed synch as we saw in the M7. The anthracite finish
is particularly nice on this...in fact I haven't seen this finish before on any
camera. I took a good few wacks at one that was out for abuse and I think it
probably wears better than even titanium or chrome finishes.
Overall I would have called that camera an R8.2 I think...but still for a good
workhorse SLR I think the R9 will be the perfection of the R8 line. I believe
the R8 will be discontinued shortly, though no one admits this.
3.) The 90f2.0 APO ASPH M chrome - finally!
4.) The 90f2.0 APO ASPH R - finally! Well, more can be said about this one. The
lens is only about 500 grams or so and around the size of the 50f1.4 Summilux
R. Nice looking with a lens shade that locks when you extend and then turn it.
I want that feature in ALL my lenses. This lens is supposed to surpass the 100
APO Macro in sharpness...and personally if it is on par with that lens I will
want one in my camera arsenal. The combination of the focal length, speed, size
and apparent optical progress will make this the winner of the show out of
Leica's entries.
BTW, Leica showed me a new hard cover handbook with all the new products that
will be out this year. A really nice horizontal format book reminiscent of the
books that watch companies send out. Very classy.
5.) Cosina-Voigtlander - As I sat across the table from the impressive Mr.
Kobayashi and Mr. Kayto of Cosina and next to Tom & Tulukki Abrahamsson this
morning I realized I didn't care if there was even one new product ...I was
just glad to be in such good company.
Well, with Cosina and the above mentioned company, there will be no show that
you won't walk away amazed. First I was shown the two new additions to the
Bessa R2 family...the Contax & Nikon mount Bessa R2-C and R2-S. Resplendent
with some vintage lenses I noticed that both these cameras were able to focus
better than my personal Nikon rangefinder as there focus wheels were new and
smooth, while my (and everyone's) old Nikon and Contax rangefinders were do for
an overhaul some time in the 70's and haven't made it there yet.
This was quickly followed by a second wave of gear that included a literal
suitcase full of gadgets! Finders, grips, caps, levels, shoes, cases,
winders...no category left unturned.
Somehow an 85mm APO lanthar found its way to the table with a Nikon mount on
the back that looked very much like the 'real' thing. When I asked how they
were able to produce this mount, everyone in the room just smiled. Tom is
looking through his M7 viewfinder and declaring that he was getting 1/500 sec.
in this dimly lit conference room.
Just when I thought I was missing the joke, that is when they took out the big
guns in a product I think is the most surprising of the show...
Cosina has made a prototype of what might very well be the first 35f1.2 ASPH
Leica M mount lens!!!!!
That is not a typo! It is the 'noctilux' of 35mm lenses I guess you could say.
It was explained to me that this lens has been in development for over two
years and features 3 Aspheric elements.
The feel of this lens is solid and the size not offensive either. Overall Tom
and I guessed it was in the neighborhood of 400-450 grams and by my eye it was
a bit less obtrusive in the viewfinder when compared with a Noctilux. Price is
not determined yet, but it will indeed cost less than a Noctilux while
delivering quite a punch.
A metal finder similar to the recently released 28 metal finder is also in the
works. This will be a boon to those who missed out on Leica SBLOO finders
before they hit house-mortgaging prices.
6.) Hasselblad - another show stopper was this booth. The Hasselblad H1 auto
focus 645 AF camera get nothing but praise from my brief encounter.
Mr. Bob Nunn of Hasselblad was gracious enough to give a quick tour of this new
marvel. The camera is stainless steel and feels and looks much better than any
competitor on the market. The autofocus is fast and positive and the balance of
the camera with grip is unmatched in this arena. The lenses are fuji as with
the Xpan, however it was stressed that this is a Hassy system with the same (if
not better) components that one would find in a 500-200 series camera.
The LCD screen on the H1 tells you everything but the weather...including
showing a histogram of the image just taken...something that will go well with
the Phase 1 Back made for this camera. I think we are seeing the birth of a
great new system!!!
7.) Imacon - The Imacon 646 is a nifty looking unit that replaces the Flextight
III and steps it up a bit. It uses the same CCD as the 848 and thus achieves
40/Mb per sec. speeds at 6300 dpi (for 35mm.) I think the new ICE type software
that will be included with this model with set a new standard for such software
packages in the future...and as testimony to the ethics of this company they
will offer it for free to older scanner owners who registered their machines.
8.) Wacom- in the 'I got to have one' booth is the new Cintique screens. These
are tablets with LCD screens built in featuring 512 levels of pressure
sensitivity. I used one for a brief moment atthe show and all I can say is
....SLAMMIN!
signing off from Germany for the night,
Rich
www.photovillage.com
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Best" Russian Leica screw lens
rtr400 wrote:
>This may have been covered before in which case could someone please
>direct me to the message no.
>I would like to hear opinions on which is the "best" Russian standard
>(5cm)lens for the Leica screw mount. Of course this is subjective
>but some must be better than others. I would like a lens that is
>sharp, contrasty, and delivers sparkling colour - just like my Canon
>RF 50mm f1.8 and my Asahi Pentax Takumars.
>Or am I expecting too much? TOM
I've used almost all permutations of almost all of the SPS normal lenses,
and I have found the late (post-1986) 1.5/50 Jupiter-3 to be a markedly
superior lens. The Tessar/Elmar-derived Industar-61 L/D IS a fine lens,
but the Sonnar-based Jupiter-3 is simply a finer lens by almost any optical
parameter.
Marc
[email protected]
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]
Subject: Re: RF Vertical adjustement and winding knob off on Zorki 4k
Damian:
Try Rick Oleson's site. He has some illustrated repair
instructions for the Zorki-4.
http://members.tripod.com/rick_oleson/index-58.html
-Paul
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Best" Russian Leica screw lens
Jay,
If the I-61 L/D flares, I would suspect that the lenses are misaligned
from an impact or some such problem. I have one that has been dropped
that flared ferociously. I replaced it with on that was about 3000
serial #s from the original and it is superb with NO tendency to flare
in truly difficult conditions. None of my other I-61 L/Ds flare either.
This is a really great collection of glass in a not so great mount,
unfortunately. If the camera or lens has obvious impact damage, beware!
Regards,
Kevin
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Help me decide which RANGEFINDER to buy!
From: Magus [email protected]
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002
Paul Rubin [email protected] wrote
> Magus [email protected] writes:
>> The Ricoh GR1 thats been suggested in this thread is an APS format
>> camera AFAIK?
>
> No. Very small camera, but full frame 35mm.
My ignorance - apols - not my intention to mislead.
>> A clean secondhand Voigtlander Bessa RF would be the best choice all
>> round, followed (bearing in mind the caveat above, and if you dont
>> mind a fixed focal length around 40mm) by a Canonette QL17 or
>> possibly any of the models highlighted as being all round goodies on
>> Stephen Gandys' Cameraquest webpage.
>> You could buy a relatively cheap (working!) model on ebay, and then
>> spend much much more on a complete service on it, but you still may
>> have spent less than 150 bucks and for that money you could have a
>> little gem with a sharp lens that you know is in good shape for a few
>> years.
>
> I think a complete service on a QL17 will cost 150 bucks all by
> itself. And while QL17's are nice cameras in some ways, they're just
> not worth that much.
It doesnt have to be a Ql17 - some 70s rangefinders are cheaper (and 'better'?)
Konica auto s2 for example - with the almost legendary version of the
Hexanon - mine just rocks in the sharpeness / contrast dept.
It cost me 25 UK pounds (approx 39 USA dollars) and was mint
cosmetically, but needed a fair service at �40 (approx 62 dollars) and I
replaced the lightseals myself (didnt need too much at all and cost very
little).
Total:
1 mint, solid, sharp, contrasty, 100% functioning Konica Auto S2
Rangefinder for just over 100 US dollars all told.
Offer me twice that for it now and you still couldnt have it, as although
I have some more 70's rangedfinders, I couldnt replace the mint and
serviced S2 with anything comparable for that money.
Its a joy to use (only complaint - its a bit large)and the Lens is a true
whooper of Nikkors.
No really it is! - so no flames please, up until recently I had a 'set
of Nikkors and what I have said above is simply the truth, The S2's lens
is sharper than my 50mm or especially my 35mm Nikkor were.
M.
From: [email protected] (Barrett Benton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: RF focusing (expensvie vs cheap 70's models)
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002
"David Bindle" [email protected] wrote:
> I mainly use EOS AF equipment, and I also love to use a Hexar AF
>
> I really enjoy using my Olympus SPn rangefinder (when the light is good)
> I have not experienced a high quality rangefinder such as a Leica M or Hexar
> RF, or Bessa R2.
> I've tried using my Olympus SP in dim light at wedding receptions, and
> dances but the viewfinder is small and the rangefinder patch is pretty dim
> so I have a pretty hard time trying to focus on anything with it.
> My question... is focusing with the Bessa R2 (or such) in dim light
> situations, way easier than focusing with my Olympus, or just a bit easier,
> or no differece at all?
> I'm planning on buying some kind of rangefinder (or rangefinder like) camera
> soon, but I don't know which would be more useful for me.
> Contax G2 (autofocus... does it AF in complete darkness??) I'd have to wait
> and save a little longer
> Konica RF (I know they don't always focus well with Leica M glass, but I
> would be using Konca's glass anyways) again... I'll have to save a little
> longer
> Bessa R2 (seems to be a big improvement over the R) and I could afford it
> with the 15mm, 90 or 70mm and maybe the grip and speed winder right now...
> I just don't know how much I'd miss AF and auto exp.
> I love using the Olympus... it's just not exactly fast...
> any thoughts or suggestions???
I've been using a pair of Konica Hexar RFs since the beginning of the
year, with a trio of M-Hexanons (28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/2 and 90mm f/2.8)
exclusively, and have been very satisfied overall. The issue concerning
Leica lens compatibility, IMO, has been much ado about precious little
(for some insight into the issue, I recommend Dante Stella's thoughtful
article on the whole matter at
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/flange.html). My principal purpse
for getting the system was to get away from the weight and bulk of my
previous AF SLR system. I carry around the entire system a lot, and
without breaking a sweat, and that *alone* has been a big shift for my
photography; the other positive attributes of the system almost seem like
a big bonus. And, no, I don't miss AF as much as I thought I might.
The Bessa R2 is nice from a cost-effective standpoint, but one of the
major issues I have with the camera is shutter noise: while neither this
camera nor my Hexars are as quiet as, say, an M7, the R2's shutter is
noisiest of the three by an uncomfortable margin. This migt not be a big
deal for street shooting, of course, but in more quiet surroundings it
might be more than a small bother. My only other gripe is that it doesn't
have 28mm framelines in the finder (but, as Some R/R2 owners might remind
me, neither does a Leica M3).
As for the Contax G2...people have gone for each other's throats here
debating this camera, mostly over the issue of whether it can be truly
regarded as a "real" rangefinder camera. I'll sidestep that one for now,
and say that the G2 is a really nice, well-engineered camera, that has
only one feature I really don't like, but which was a deal-breaker for me:
an SLR-style viewfinder which doesn't allow one to "see" beond the
framelines � la Leica/Konica/CV. Those who own and love the G series
regard this as a non-issue, however, so it boils down to what's important
to you.
If you're unsure about going cold turkey without an AE option, the Hexar
RF (and perhaps the G2) are worth taking a look at. If you feel the need
for AF as well, the G2 is your only option at this point. Just remember
that *none* of these cameras a re bad, but they are all different, as are
those of us who use them.
--
BWB
from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002
From: "Peter Wallage" [email protected]
Subject: Kiev take-up spool
Hi,
Someone recently was asking about a take-up spool for a Kiev 4
or 4A. Try on Rick Olesen's page:
http://members.tripod.com/rick_oleson/kievspool.jpg
Henry Fisher wrote a piece there about making one from a
Kodak spool
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Bob Ludwig [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Zenitar Fisheye on a LSM Rangefinder
The standard trick is to combine a Pentax 42mm to Canon FL/FD adapter with a
Canon FL to LTM adapter. The Pentax to Canon adapters are common (both Canon
and generic versions), simple and relatively cheap ($10 to $30). The Canon
FL to LTM adapters go for $20 to $85 or so.
I have used the non-fisheye Canon 19mm R FL lens on Leicas extensively
without rangefinder coupling. The pictures were great.
Bob Ludwig
From Manual SLR Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Amazing New CV Stuff
Hi Folks,
Courtesy of a CameraQuest spy at Photokina, a few minutes ago I learned
of some rather amazing things about the new Voigtlander SL lens lineup.
To this point in time, the widest lens available for a Nikon F mount SLR
was the 13mm Nikkor. The widest Nikon or classic Contax rangefinder
lens was 21. Soon all of them can shoot with a 12 !
Next year Voigtlander will be marketing the 12/5.6 and 15/4.5 in Nikon F
mount, for mirror lock up. I am told these lenses will fit the Nikon F,
Nikon F2, F3, and F4. A special finder will be made to replace the
pentaprism on the F or F2. scale focus of course.
now the really neat stuff comes to play.
Voigtlander will make an adapter to mount the F mount 12's and 15's on
Nikon Rangefinders (and classic Contax RF's too, since they have the
same outside mount and back focus).
to go one stop further, the same adapter can be used to mount ANY Nikon
F mount lens on Nikon or Contax rangefinders -- scale focusing only, of
course, no rangefinder coupling.
and of course, if you buy the Voigtlander R2S or R2C, you will be able
to use any of these lenses with TTL metering.!
it's amazing these lenses are being made at all, just amazing.
Stephen
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002
From: Dante Stella [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Amazing New CV Stuff
These are amazing and entertaining things, but they don't really match
up with the R2s and R2c in utility, primarily because they seem to be
more expensive ways of expressing solutions Cosina already reached. The
new bodies let you do something new with old lenses. I am not sure that
is the case with the Nikon F lenses and the accessories, at least not
economically.
My question is: isn't it something of an expensive kludge to buy a $500
15mm lens in Nikon SLR mount, put it on what will probably be a $200
adapter to Nikon RF, then mount it on a $600 Bessa-R2s? One would think
you would instead buy that lens in LTM (which sells for under $300 in
quarters) to a $90 Bessa-L body, thereby saving 2/3 of the cost.
Actually, for the price of the resulting Nikon F - adapter - Bessa R2s
contraption, you could probably score a nice used M4-P, an LTM adapter
and a 15.
The Nikon to Nikon adapter is interesting, but Cosina wides are better
and smaller than many of the Nikon wides. What you would do with this
using normals or teles verges on masochism.
...(quotes Mr. Gandy above..)
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Amazing New CV Stuff
Dante,
from your comments, I don't think you understand -- not that you have to agree
by any means
Dante Stella wrote:
> These are amazing and entertaining things, but they don't really match
> up with the R2s and R2c in utility, primarily because they seem to be
> more expensive ways of expressing solutions Cosina already reached.
not true. no manufacture has made wider production lenses than 21 for NRF or
Contax mount cameras. if you want to shoot these bodies with wider than 21
lenses, there are no other 12 and 15 choices.
> The
> new bodies let you do something new with old lenses. I am not sure that
> is the case with the Nikon F lenses and the accessories, at least not
> economically.
Nikkor 13's have long been discontinued, are about the size of a gallon of ice
cream, weigh about the same, and only cost about $8,000 IF you can find one
for sale. I have no price for the F mount 12, but I would guess it is much
much less expensive, and weighs about the same as an ice cream cone. if you
don't see any advantage here Dante, there is not much I can say to explain it
to you.
> My question is: isn't it something of an expensive kludge to buy a $500
> 15mm lens in Nikon SLR mount, put it on what will probably be a $200
> adapter to Nikon RF, then mount it on a $600 Bessa-R2s? One would think
> you would instead buy that lens in LTM (which sells for under $300 in
> quarters) to a $90 Bessa-L body, thereby saving 2/3 of the cost.
> Actually, for the price of the resulting Nikon F - adapter - Bessa R2s
> contraption, you could probably score a nice used M4-P, an LTM adapter
> and a 15.
yes, and no. people shoot with the lenses and cameras they want to shoot
with. Whether the Bessa R2S with adapted 12 is a better choice for them than
a Bessa L with a screw mount 12, is a choice of the individual photog. it
matters not if others agree with their choices. why shoot with a Leica when
you could shoot with a used Vivitar? why use a $2500 Leica lens when you
could shoot with a 5 cent pinhole lens? every photog makes whatever equipment
choices they make, without approval from anyone else.
> The Nikon to Nikon adapter is interesting, but Cosina wides are better
> and smaller than many of the Nikon wides. What you would do with this
> using normals or teles verges on masochism.
the Nikon F to NRF or Contax adapters allow cross system versatility within a
photog's camera bag. I have most of the Nikon F wides, and if I want to go
out shooting with my F2AS and SP, this adapter will allow me to use my F mount
28/2 and 35/1.4 on my SP, without any extra accessory finders.
no camera or lens is for everyone, that's why we have so many choices. the
important thing about these products to me is that they allow photogs choices
they never had before, and in the case of the 12 for the F, a wider lens at a
fraction of the price of a used 13.
Stephen
...
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002
From: "Jay Y Javier" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Should Russians be honoured for making the heaviest
lenses in the world?
Zhang
The early lenses made by Nikon and Canon for rangefinder cameras are actually
heavier than some of their Soviet counterparts. Take the Canon Serenar 2/85 or
the Nikkor 2/85 - they are about twice the weight of the Jupiter-9. Ditto with
the 135mm. Even the 100mm Serenar was almost twice the weight of the Elmar
90mm and about 25% longer. The second generation Canon RF (marked Canon
instead of Serenar) did become lighter, the 100mm this time took on the Elmar's
specs.
Jay
[email protected] wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I have always been impressed by the amount of metals and glass the soviets
>put into making a lens. The tair-33, Jupiter-6 180/2.8 and Helios-40 85/1.5
>are just a few examples. I have never seen lenses made by other companies of
>the same specifications surpass them in weight and bulk.
...
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002
From: garcia Suarez [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Re: Large viewer and silent shutter
Hi, for glass wearers, as I am, the more comfortables are, of course,
some of the bulkier ones. For example, the Konica S2 has a beautiful
clear and brigh viewfinder when cleaned, it indicates the aperture,
but not the speed �but has parallax correction!
I think the best compromise between size and viewfinder is, by far
the Olympus 35 RC. It is the only one that indicates speed and
aperture, and it is also the smallest one. Also, it has one of the
more contrastier and good lenses that I have tested. And it is very
silent. All in all, one of the best rangefinders of all times.
Other of my favourites is the Minolta 7sII, only a little bigger that
the Olympus, another one of my favourite lenses (I have made copies
of 24 x 36 mm and the details are stunning), very silent and the
viewfinder is ok, showing the aperture.
Normally, the shutter sound is related to the size of it. So, the
little ones tend to be more silent (Olympus RC, RD, Canonet, Minolta
7sII) and the big ones sound almost as an SLR (Konica S2, Yashica
Lynx 14, Olympus SP.
All them are very addictive because they have different
specifications, all are very well made and a joy to use, but if I had
to select two (I just cannot have only one) they would be the Olympus
35 RC and the Minolta 7sII. Actually, I have at least one of every
model: Canonet, Olympus RC, RD and SP, Minolta 7sII, Yashica Lynx 14
and Electro 35 CC, Konica S2 and S1.6... and I can't sell any of
them!
Hope it helps,
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002
From: erikfiss [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Re: Large viewer and silent shutter
Viewfinder-wise the champs in my collection are the Oly SP and the
Konica Auto S3. The SP isn't really quiet, though (well, not really
_loud_, but the sound is somewhat metallic and might distract), the
S3 is silent. The Yashica Electros are _very_ silent and have a great
viewfinder with moving, parallax corrected framelines, but to my eyes
the RF spot is a little bit too small.
I do wear glasses.
Cheers
-- Erik
...
From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: My guide to buying old MF cameras on ebay
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002
"roland.rashleigh-berry" [email protected] wrote:
>I've webbed my guide to buying old medium format cameras on ebay here:
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/roland.rashleigh-berry/cameras/mfebay.html
On the russian cameras. I've found the samples I've bought straight
from russia to be MUCH better than the ones bought outside of the
eastern bloc. This includes folders and the kiev med fromal K-60's.
It seems the intended users of these over there know they must be
CLA'd before use (That's how these are shipped) and there are people
over there who know how to work on these. The "export" models ussually
were never CLA'd before use and as such are mechanically damaged from
no/poor lubrication. The moska V's you tried are well known to have
masive QC problems and it's no surprise you got bad samples of these.
The trick to buying good samples of these are find -well worn-
examples from russia as these are the ones that have good optics, the
poor performing ones look mint because no one would use them! Also the
iskra's that have been coverted to red window winding are good
performers as well. The logic here is it must have worked pretty good
for someone to wear out the counter and pay money to have it
converted.
Stacey
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Zhang XK [no address]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: MIR lens
Nikos Chatzoudis wrote:
>
> hello,
>
> I was having a look at Jim Blazik's page yesterday where he
> has a beautiful black painted Zenit 3M. This camera is
> equipped with a Mir 37 (?)mm lens. Does anyone know any
> details about this lens and how much it costs? (and if it is
> rare)
>
> Also I saw on ebay a 85mm 1.5 Helios (i think) lens for the
> Zenit M39 mount. That lens looks gorgeous, but has anyone
> actually used it? Is it worth it (i saw prices going up to
> 70-90 dollars.)
>
> Nikos
Hello, Nikos,
The Mir 1 is one of the Grand Prix winners at 1958 Brussels Expo. I have one
of these and according to Soviet documents, it has the highest resolution
numbers(l/mm, 55 in center and 35 at edges).
I had both chrome and black versions of the Helios-40, I think the early
chrome one (S/N000xxx), is more contrasty and sharp than the black one.Now I
only keep the chrome one.
In practical use, an early Jupiter-9 in M39 mount might be a better choice
since these are much lighter and cheaper while only 2/3 stop is lost.
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Jupiter F/2 85mm lens
As a long time user of the Jupiter F/2 8mm both on a leica M3 and a contax
11A I would say go for it. If you want to photograph graph paper the Leitz F2
I had was better, but for normal work they were both good but different.
Mostly I used the Jupiter for its more pleasing photos. In Uk prices about
�40 -60GBP
Chris Trewhella
From russian camera mailing list:
From: "Peter Schauss" [email protected]
To: "Russiancamera-User" [email protected]
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002
Subject: [Russiancamera] Lens contrast
The pictures (black and white) which I have been
taking with my two Jupiter lenses, a black Jupiter
8 and silver Jupiter 11, seem to have more contrast
as a rule than those I have taken with my more
modern cameras. Is this typical of these lenses?
Peter Schauss
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002
From: "Mike Mallett" [email protected]
Subject: Used Russian R/F prices
Prices noted in for secondhand Russian R/F kit in a Prague camera shop
Oct 02
50/1.5 LTM 1,500.00 K� GBP 30.00 USD 46.15
28/6.3 LTM 4,500.00 K� GBP 90.00 USD 138.46
35/2.8 Kiev 1,200.00 K� GBP 24.00 USD 36.92
85/2 ? 1,200.00 K� GBP 24.00 USD 36.92
135/4 Kiev 900.00 K� GBP 18.00 USD 27.69
Kiev camera 1,900.00 K� GBP 38.00 USD 58.46
Currency conversion is approximate ...
European and Japanese kit didn't seem to differ too much from UK prices
though accessories seemed about 25% cheaper
from chinese camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002
From: "k_lee_c_h" [email protected]
Subject: Club M39
hi all!
I have created a new club for fans of the leica threadmount M39
platform, and use a variety of all the various rangefinder lenses
from brands as diverse as Jupiter, steinheil, schacht, canon,
voightlander etc.
also for zenit M39 users!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Club-M39/
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Lens contrast
From: Peter Wallage
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Lens contrast
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Wayne Cornell at [email protected] wrote:
> I think you're correct. The older lenses were designed for b&w film and
> contrast was considered a very important attribute. With today's films
> that's not as big a consideration.
This is generally true of postwar coated lenses. Uncoated lenses tend to be
lower in contrast due to higher flare levels.
Bob
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002
From: Ken Velasquez [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Contax] Re: New Rollei RF
Hi everyone,
I just have to say this... The new Rollei RF makes me chuckle - why...?
It's a re-badged Voigtlander Bessa R2, made by Cosina, with lenses
designed by Zeiss, that are produced by Rollei, with a Leica M mount... ;)
Ken
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002
From: Jim Williams [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] zero-width rangefinder
Allan Ostling wrote:
> We all know that the wider the rangefinder base, the more accurate the
> focusing will be. But many of my SLRs have split image focusing
> screens.
> These act just like a rangefinder. How does this work, with only one
> window (the lens)? It would seem to be a "zero-width rangefinder."
>
> Well, I know these split-image screens have little prisms, but it is
> still kind of confusing.
The prisms -- which are 'wedged' in opposite directions -- redirect
your line of vision so that instead of looking at rays that came
through the *center* of the lens, you're looking at rays that came
through its *opposite edges.* The distance between these two edges is,
in effect, the base length of the rangefinder.
When the lens is perfectly focused, all rays from any image point on
the target object converge at the plane of the focusing screen. Since
the rays from the two opposite edges meet at this point, an edge of the
target object shows up as a straight line through the prisms.
But...
When the lens is extended too far (focused at too close a distance) the
edge rays from the target object cross in front of the focusing screen
and then diverge again, producing a separation by the time they arrive
at the plane of the focusing screen. This produces the familiar 'split'
appearance.
When the lens isn't extended far enough (focused at too far a distance)
the edge rays from the target object have not converged by the time
they reach the focusing screen. Again, you see a 'split,' with the
displacement of the two halves in the OPPOSITE direction compared to
the above.
Either way, the more the lens is out of focus, the more diverged the
two halves of the "split" will appear -- because the edge rays are more
distant from the point of correct focus, which means they're more
diverged.
If you find this hard to visualize, draw a schematic 'top view' with
the lens at the top, the focusing screen below it, and then sketch in
the lines from the edges of the lens to a point at the center where the
prisms would be. You'll be able to see directly how the lines diverge
more the farther they are from the plane of intended focus.
More points about this type of system:
-- The reason the prism wedges often 'black out' if you don't center
your eye exactly, or if you hit the DOF preview to stop down the lens,
is simply that the angle changes so you're no longer seeing through the
edges of the lens; instead, you're seeing the dark aperture blades or
the inside of the lens barrel. Some manufacturers have offered screens
with dual-pitch prisms to get around this problem.
-- Lenses with larger diameters have their opposite edges farther
apart, increasing the effective "base length" because the edge rays
have a chance to diverge more for a given degree of misfocus. But that
doesn't mean that fitting a larger-diameter, wider-aperture lens
automatically produces more accurate focusing. The angle of the prism
wedges is fixed, and manufacturers have to choose a fairly conservative
'slope' for them that will allow use of moderate-aperture lenses
without producing the blackout effect described above. That limitation
keeps the system from taking full advantage of larger-size lenses. Some
manufacturers have offered optional screens with prism angles chosen
for wide-aperture lenses in order to give photographers the option of
taking advantage of this effect.
-- Many lenses have some degree of an optical defect that causes the
edge rays to come to focus at a slightly different point from the
center rays (spherical aberration.) This means that when focusing such
a lens with a split-image screen, the split-image prism (which sees
only the edge rays) may indicate a slightly different focus point than
the surrounding groundglass (which is influenced more by the central
rays.) Old SLR instruction books used to warn that in case of such a
disagreement, the photographer should trust the groundglass rather than
the split-image. Apparently manufacturers now feel that spherical
aberration has been tamed enough that they no longer need to warn this.
All these add up to reasons that even though a split-image
'rangefinder' may SEEM as precise as, or more precise than, a
two-window optical rangefinder of the
Leica/Contax/Canon/Nikon/Cosina-Voigtlander/Kiev/Fed/etc. type, it has
far more variables in its operation that make it less reliable IN
PRACTICE... thus dragging me neatly back to some semblance of
on-topic-ness!
PS -- Many people don't realize it, but the 'phase detection' autofocus
systems used in almost all autofocus SLRs work on exactly the same
principle as a split-image rangefinder -- they use split prisms to
capture images from the two opposite edges of the lens, and a pair of
CCD detectors to measure whether the two halves of the image are 'in
phase' or 'out of phase.' By determining the direction and amount of
displacement, they can determine which way the lens needs to be focused
and about how much change is needed.
But they still have the same disadvantages as described above:
small-aperture lenses can 'black out' the image, making autofocusing
impossible (contrary to popular belief, this does NOT have to do with
loss of image brightness, but cutoff of the edge rays) and a lens with
spherical aberration will cause them to focus at an incorrect distance.
So again -- in principle, and assuming all other things equal, which of
course in practice they usually aren't -- a non-through-lens
phase-detection AF system such as the one in the Contax G2 should be
more reliable and less subject to variability than the through-lens
system in an SLR. And here we are, close to being back on-topic again.
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002
From: Jim Williams [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] zero-width rangefinder
Tom Musselman wrote:
> But only for normal focal lengths, right? Beyond about 90 mm, aren't
> SLRs more accurate? That's what I've always heard.
I've heard that, too, and I think it's basically valid -- but you've
got to keep in mind that (a) it's only a rule of thumb, and (b) the
reason for it is simply that the longer lenses on an SLR offer more
image magnification,, making them easier to focus accurately.
(You'll recall from Stephen's site that rangefinder accuracy depends
both on magnification and base length. To oversimplify only slightly,
greater base length increases accuracy by increasing the divergence
between the RF images; greater magnification increases accuracy by
making the divergence easier to see.)
This means that it's possible to put the RF camera back into the
accuracy picture for long lenses simply by adding more magnification to
the RF system. That's why Leitz put those eyeballs on the 135mm f/2.8
Tele-Elmarit lens, and why Leica now offers that cute little 1.25x
eyepiece magnifier. Canon built a similar capability into its IV-, V-
and VI- series models by equipping their switchable-magnification
viewfinders with a 1.5x position that could be engaged with a flick of
the finder-magnification control.
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002
From: jkalach [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Cheap Leica Replacement
You can try some of these sites for info.
http://www.cameraquest.com/soviet.htm
http://www.americanstate.org/kiev.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/marine/569/rusrngfdrs/
http://www.fedka.com/Frames/Main_Frame.htm
Jim
> I have seen some of the Soviet rangefinders for sale on ebay and have
> become quite intriqued by them. Does anyone know of any websites that
> may have some information so I can learn about these cameras?
>
> Also, has anyone had any experience with purchasing a camera on ebay
> from one of the sellers in places such as the Ukraine, Russian
> Federation, etc.? If so, what was your experience?
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
From: "Dave Saalsaa" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Best Fixed Lens Rangefinder?
On the cheap end, how about the Minolta Hi-Matic E. Great optics and very
idiot proof operation. On the more sophisticated end, the Minolta Hi-Matic
7sII or Konica S3 both with superb optics and full manual operation or auto
if you wish.
Dave Saalsaa
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
From: Douglas Green [email protected]
Subject: RE: Best Fixed Lens Rangefinder?
I'd say that the other legitimate contender is the Konica Auto S2.
Honorable mention to the Olympus 35SP(and SPn) 35RC, XA, and XA4,
the Konica Auto S-3, Auto S1.6, and the Yashica Electro 35GS.
Personally, I'd say that the Canon QL17 GIII would win on elegance and
quality vs. compactness, but the Lens and Viewfinder on the Konica Auto
S2 are so darn spectacular that it's a draw.
In my experience, the lens on the Auto S2 is as good as the 50mm f2
Nikkor-H for SLRs, and it gives the 50mm Summicrons I've used a run for
their money.
Dougman
Stephen Gandy wrote:
> the December 2002 issue of Popular Photography praises the Canon G3 QL
> as perhaps the "best fixed lens rangefinder" -- an interesting idea
>
> I am curious what other favorites might be nominated for this
> illustrious title
>
> I am, of course. working on an article of the same name.
>
> Stephen
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
From: Douglas Green [email protected]
Subject: RE: Best Fixed Lens Rangefinder?
Dave,
I'd have to say that there is a notable decline in build quality between
the Konica Auto S2 and the Auto S3, that more than makes up for the S3's
much lighter weight, smaller size, and GN flash automation. The Auto S2
was built like Konica's SLRs, and the Auto S3 was built like the
inexpensive C35 pocket camera (as has been discussed recently).
Fortuantely, the optics were still superb in the S3.
Dougman
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
From: "W J Gibson" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Best Fixed Lens Rangefinder?
I like the Yashica Lynx, although some people may find that next to a Canon
GIII, it looks like Sherman Tank next to a race car.
The Lynx is no pocket camera but I like the larger size and the finder.
regards
Bill Gibson
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
From: "Merritt, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Best Fixed Lens Rangefinder?
The S2 is a great choice -- terrifically made, with a great lens. The GIII
QL17 I can endorse heartily as well. (I missed that comment about the Canon
in PopPhoto; will have to look for it.)
A few more nominations: Retina IIIC, IIIc or IIc; Yashica Lynx 14/14E
(because of its great lens); Voigtlander Vitessa (Ultron versions);
Voigtlander Vito III. The Voigts probably lose overall because of their
squinty viewfinders, but you won't find better built, more elegant cameras.
The Ultron 50 is just terrific.
Nick
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
From: "Sheldon Strauss" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Best Fixed Lens Rangefinder?
My vote is for Konica Auto S2, the main points being the best lens, view
finder and shutter priority also make the best user camera. I used to
photograph rock concerts in the early 70's and used the Konica as back up my
much heavier and more difficult to load Nikon Ftn. I also have a Lynx 14e
great lens a little prone to flare and Electro 35 & Electro 35 GSN. Except
for the Lynx with the Electro 35's you're never quite sure what the exposure
is. If you're using the camera for available knowing the shutter speed is
useful information. As for build quality the Lynx 14e is a class by it self.
You have to remember these cameras sold for about $100-$125 in the late
sixties which is about $600 in today's money. If you go by this standard a
Konica Hexar Silver ( about $450 mail order) costs less than an Auto S2 did.
The Retina while being much better made doesn't count because they have
interchangeable front cells which are not just accessory lenses.
Sheldon Strauss
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
From: "Vern Rogers" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Best Fixed Lens Rangefinder?
I would have to agree with the choice of the Canon GIII QL17 as best. I
have one that has served me well since the mid-70's, and it is still going
strong. I have a belt clip that I use to carry it ready to shoot. It has
never failed me and I think it is a beautiful camera.
Vern
Vernon L Rogers
Springfield OR
[email protected]
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
From: "Bill Salati" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Best Fixed Lens Rangefinder?
My opinions go along with "Pop's" choice. I was selling cameras in the
mid 70s. The lineup in the display case at the time was the Yashica Electro
35 GS, Konica Auto S2, Minolta Hi-matics E & F, GAF Memo 35EE and Canon
QL-17.
The Yashica was big, shiny, garish and useless without a battery.
The Konica Auto S-2 I probably under-appreciated. It had an excellent
finder, the lens has become semi-legendary and you could use it without a
battery. It was a large camera, however, and seemed to belong to an earlier
generation.
The Minoltas were similar in size to the Canon, one of them had a
slower lens and programmed shutter/aperture. Again, both were paperweights
with a dead battery.
The GAF was very similar in spec to the lesser Minolta and very
inexpensive. Another camera that requires a battery to run it's programmed
shutter/aperture mechanism.
The Canon was compact and elegant. It had a self timer, parallax
correcting viewfinder, fast lens and good range of shutter speeds. I favored
it's shutter priority automation. The QL feature works well though I don't
consider it a big advantage. Best of all, when the battery expired, you
could still take pictures! That was a persuasive quality to me at the time.
The camera was immensely popular, the numbers sold speak for that. It
was a quality camera that was affordable, compact and easy to use. The
features and it's current availablity put it at the top of the list. Other
cameras will be championed, but try to find one! The Konica Auto S3, Minolta
7sII and Olympus sold no where near the QL's numbers. The Canonet "new"
QL-17 and G-III-17 are, arguably, the best camera of their type and of their
time, and very easy to find today.
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
From: Gerry Rosen [email protected]
Subject: RE: Best Fixed Lens Rangefinder?
...
Stephen,
I've got to go two parts to this question: favorite and best because for
me they ar different cameras.
For a favorite I've got to go with a Yashica of course, and my vote goes
to the original Lynx 14. It's a brick and the 1.4 lens may not be quite
as good as the 1.8 on the 1000 and 5000, but it's true manual match
needle metering, very easy to use, bright VF/RF and the build quality
has got be experienced to be believed.
For best I think the Contax T. Tiny, great lens in a usable focal length
and enough overides in an age of point and shoots.
Gerry
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
From: Matthew Phillips [email protected]
Subject: RE: Best Fixed Lens Rangefinder?
For 1970's vintage auto exposure models, I'd concur with the Canonet
GIII. For the more classic meterless folding models, I'd pick an Agfa
Karat 36 over any of the 1950's folders: more durable than the
Voigtlanders and a superior finder to any of the Retinas.
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002
From: Paul Winter [email protected]
Subject: RE: Gentlemen - you are all wrong! (Best Fixed Lens Rangefinder?)
Why do you want a rangefinder in the first place? Why not just carry a
reflex camera around? Is it because a rangefider is quieter, more
discrete in use, portable and mechanically robust or is it simply
because it is easier to focus?
I bought my first rangefinder to take pictures of moving objects (my
children) because my Nikon FE was`so slow to focus and I always lost the
magic moment. Switching to a rangefinder simply improved my pictures.
So, an accurate and bright rangefinder is essential if your camera is to
justify its existance! The clearest rangefinder, bar none, are found on
Agfas from the 60s (Super Silette Auitomatic/Optima 500S).
However there is a tiny snag, not build quality, because they were built
like tanks, but they handled like one as well!
Vitomatics - brilliant lenses and build quality - agreed, but handling?
Dreadful in a word - tiny, dim rangefinders, fiddly controls and the
wrong balance (front heavy!)
Paxettes? Dim rangefinders, tiny viewfinders, poor build quality and
horrible controls!
Konica C35/S3 - tiny rangefinder, poor build quality compared to most
Germans (and very battery dependant)
Yashica Electro 35GT? Robust, but Automation taking over.
Retinas? 11S (fiddly controls) 111 (all automatic) llF (miserable
rangefinder - controls OK) lllC (I'll never part with mine and the
Heligon lens is brilliant, but oh so fiddly in use)
Green Werras - the 5 was the best interchangeable lens model of its time
- you should see the extensive viewfinder display. The rest of the range
are a bit pedestrian and rough at the edges (good lens though).
Contessamatic SBE - now thats a different case - beautifully built,
Tessar lens, reasonable rangefinder, however, a trifle bulky and the
controls are not the easiest in use.
I have an example of each of the above (and a number of interchangeable
lens models that I are not in this debate) so what camera do I take on
holiday and out at weekends? Well, the best designed one of the lot -
not too small and fiddly, not too heavy or too light, one that has a
clear rangefinder (and parallax correction)
No automation, no battery to fail. No lever wind - yup, keep your eye to
the viewfinder and twist the key - Never miss a shot!
And - I have saved the best feature to last - your index finger rests on
a focussing wheel - no crude "to and froing" with the lens barrel - just
a tiny movement and "click" its in focus.
Lens? Well you can't have everything, but it is Tessar/Solinar like at
most apertures, bar f2.8.
However the clinching arguement is one that has not been mentioned so
far - affordability - get one for under $20 most weeks on ebay.
So the best all round rangefinder is a ..... Baldessa 1B
My case rests ............
Paul
PS I do think there is a equally strong case on economic grounds for the
Agfa Selectronic S (full viewfinder info, easy to use, Tessar type lens,
far, far better built than the likes of the Minolta 7Sll & Konica S3 -
available now for under $10 (When you consider it was 30% more expensive
than any of its Japanese rivals in 1972, it really should be your first
choice for a quality glovebox camera)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Odp: [RF List] Best Fixed Lens Rangefinder?
Well, just about all of these responses are 35mm oriented. I have to cast my
vote for the Fuji GSW690III. The lens is even better than the Hasselblad
Planar, it is simple the best lens I haave ever used, including the Leica 35mm
aspheric. The Fuji makes 20x30 and 30x40 inch prints with an astounding
fidelity to the subject, they are called Texas Leicas not because of any build-
quality resemblance, but because the lenses are so incredibly sharp and
contrasty, without that "glazed" look that characterizes the Mamiya lenses for
6x7 (I know becuase I had an M7 with 80mm and 150mm).
This camera is the steam locomotive of RF cameras---you don't have any
trouble reading the meter because there isn't one. You don't have to worry
about battery life, because it has none---just an aperture ring and shutter
speed ring. You don't worry about which lens to put one, becuase it has a fixed
65mm wideangle (28mm equiv). It is big, but how else you gonna get a 6x9 cm
neg?? If I could have only one camera for the rest of my life, this would be
the one. I've had H'blad 500, NIkon F3, Leica M6, Sinar 4x5----this is the best
image-maker bar none, for the kind of work I do (scenics in desert canyons, and
the stone canyons of Venice, Italy.) YMMV....
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002
From: bigmikelf [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Cheap Leica Replacement- fed 3
...
Optically the Industar 61 (plain or L/D) is an awesome lens. Much,
much better than the lens on the Canonet QL17 GIII for example and
much cheaper than a Canonet too. As long as you get a good example
from a reputable seller on ebay who know what they're talking about
you won't be disappointed. I would recommend a Fed 3 over a Fed 5
because it is much smaller and doesn't have a selenium light meter
like you requested. If you get an earlier Fed 3a you get strap lugs
too which comes in handy.
Mike
From: "John Priestman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens comparison, any pointers?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002
I bought a Zorki 4 as an impoverished student in the 1970's and its jupiter
50mm f2 lens produced very sharp images. Later I upgraded to a Zenit E with
the 58mm Helios lens -later adding a Jupiter 135mm. Looking back, I
remember, when I finally could afford a "good" camera, in my case an Olympus
with the 50mm 1.8 zuiko lens, I was slightly disappointed that the pictures
were not significantly sharper than those produced by those Russian lenses.
The camera was however easier to lug around as it was much lighter. May be
I was lucky that my Russian lenses were from good batches.
John
...
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002
From: Manuel Lingo [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Classic 35mm Compacts] More Fed 3 details, please?
No it does not have a meter at all, like the old leicas.
If you want you can put on a leicameter which looks really good.
Another meter from this period is the kodalux, both fit in the shoe.
The good thing is that you really learn to shoot without a meter when you use
such old cams like the leica 1-3 or the russian RFs.
This is an english manual.
http://www.classiccamera.org/fed%203%20online%20manual.htm
I like this page:
http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/marine/569/rusrngfdrs/focusing.html
You learn more about right exposure by shooting 5 films with this old Rfs than
you learn by shooting with a modern SLR for years.
Jim had some very good links:
http://www.cameraquest.com/soviet.htm
http://www.americanstate.org/kiev.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/marine/569/rusrngfdrs/
http://www.fedka.com/Frames/Main_Frame.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: David. Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002
Subject: [Classic 35mm Compacts] More Fed 3 details, please?
OK, the Fed 3 looks like an interesting plaything. In the
absense of a selenium meter, does the Fed 3 have a metering
system? How accurate?
Is there a web site that gives good inside information on these
cameras?
-David
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002
From: Kurt Weiske [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Classic 35mm Compacts] More Fed 3 details, please?
The Fed 3 has no meter. You might want to look a Fed 4, which is the
same shape as the 3 but has a meter.
Check out
http://www.commiecameras.com/sov/35mmrangefindercameras/cameras/index.htm
for information about the Fed and other Soviet-era rangefinders.
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Presentation
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Thomas Bogdan wrote:
> How does it work?
> I tried it with a Voigtlaender 15mm lens my dealer gave me for a day,
> but
> none of my Zorkis would allow the lens to be screwed in sufficiently -
> the
> stop between 10 and 11,30 o'clock. so the shade is worth nothing,
> infinity
> was not reached, and in addition I could not mount the viewfinder
> properly
> becouse of the time setting knob...but the pics are great...
Usually the problem is the other way around, since the Voigtl�nder body
has a shutter and some baffles which prevent some Russian lenses from
seating properly.
Bob
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Bellow cameras
To: [email protected]
Yes! and I have coveted one for a long time, but never
been able to find one at an affordable price. I have
all but given up on Voigtlander and Zeiss folders
because of their prices. I prefer the Russians beacuse
they seem to be equally functional, very strong and
optically very good. I certainly have no complaints
about the results i have been getting.
-Paul
You are referring to the the 6X6 version and not the
6X4.5 right?
--- Paulo Moreira [email protected] wrote:
> The voigtlander perkeo has no rangefinder but a
> skopar (tessar type), truly
> superb!
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002
From: Douglas Green [email protected]
Subject: RE: Canonet QL-17 GIII - Thanks to Popular Photography
Nobody said that the Canonet QL17 GIII is not a nice camera. All I said
is that they are presently overpriced because of the Popular Photography
article.
I wasn't comparing it to the junk point and shoots of today, I was
comparing it to the comparable stuff of the past like an Olympus 35RC,
and Konica Auto S2 each of which can easily be gotten for less than
$50-60. And, BTW, a Canonet QL19 went the other day for $43, and
Canonet 28s are still selling for $20-$35 so it's JUST the Canonet QL17
GIII that has gotten hyped and priced out of proportion due to that
article.
My Goodness, $200 for a used one now on ebay - That's just SILLY.
That's more than a Canon A-1, or Olympus OM-2n, or Nikon FG, with normal
lens goes for on ebay. And remember, these Canonet QL17 cameras are NOT
scarce, by any means: 1.25 MILLION of them were made.
I can get a NEW Voigtlander Bessa R with a Russian Jupiter Lens for
$300.
...
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002
From: Jim Williams [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Canonet QL-17 GIII - Thanks to Popular Photography
> see how many are there unfixable. You won't
> find the QL17 there.
Unless (for example) the proprietary ring-shaped variable resistor*
inside the front ring gets cracked or broken -- one good thump against
a door can do it. Then your QL17 is unfixable, too, unless you can find
a donor camera with a good resistor. Any camera, no matter how
well-made, has some vulnerable spots; if yours takes a hit on one,
you'd better hope that either (a) it's new enough to have a parts
supply AND expensive enough to be worth fixing, OR (b) cheap enough to
throw away. That's the trouble with the current price run-up on QL17s
-- it makes terrific sense as a $50 camera, but I'm not sure it makes
sense as a $125 camera...
[*Free tip -- a QL17 with a 'jumpy' meter needle may need only to have
the ground wire to this resistor re-soldered...]
from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002
From: "tigerarm2000 [email protected]
Subject: TK-2A is not a piece of junk
Hi all,
Today for the first time I tested the elusive TK-2A 2x teleconverter
for 39mm rangefinder lenses. I had thought that the 2x converter was
not made in large volume so that it might have some design problems.
That is why I had never used it before.
I tested it with a Fed-2 that I have used with very good results with
the I-61 black and white lens and a J-9 2/85 S/N 59xxxx. I used
Ilford Polypan F ASA 50 B/W film. I shot subjects at home and the
results are really very good.
I shot a microscope and some lenses about 4 meters away with a
combination of 2/85 and the TK-2A, the lens is stopped down to 5.6
and I used flash.The camera is mounted on a tripod. I then viewed the
film under a 42x microscope and I could read the engravings of Carl
Zeiss Jena and the S/N on the microscope very clearly. The slightly
larger numbers on the lenses are even more clear. I am very pleased
with the quality of both the TK-2A and J-9 2/85.
Other findings from the test:
I tested 2 J-9s in Kiev mount. The J-9 with S/N59xxxx performed
better than the S/N63xxxx one although the later looks in much better
condition.
I also tested 2 J-9s in 39LTM and the S/N58xxxx also performed better
than the like new black one with S/N 71xxxxx and engraving of
Jupiter in English.
I tested 5 normal lenses for Kiev including J-8, J-8M and Helios-103
ranging from 1952-1983. All are very sharp lenses and quality is very
consistant even viewed under the 42x microscope.
In LTM lenses the sharpest one is a I-61 and a J-8 made in 1955 and
followed by a I-50 made by LAZOS and then a I-10 and a I-22. A J-3
did not perform very well.
I shot my book shelf at about 1.5 meters for the normal lenses.
My conclusion is that Kiev rangefinder's normal lenses are of high
and consistent quality.
Best Russian normal lenses for Leica copies will approach the quality
of Kiev's normal lens but never supass it.
Earlier products' quality is more consistant than the later ones'.
Best regards and happy Xmas!
Zhang
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Bob Ludwig [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Some Further Testing
Scoop,
I have put my Jupiter 9s "head to head" with an Industar 61 L/D, a Nikkor
85mm f2 P C, a Canon 100mm f2, a collapsible 50mm Summicron and a Summitar
at f2.8 and f4. The Industar 61 L/D and Summitar are distinctly different,
but comparable in quality. The 61 L/D has superior contrast (splash; the
Summitar has superior resolution. Similarly, the Canon 100mm f2 and Nikkor
85mm f2 P C are distinctly different, but comparable in quality. The Nikkor
85mm has superior contrast; the Canon 100mm f2 has superior resolution -
after compensation for the difference in focal length. My Jupiter 9s are
significantly softer than either the Nikkor or the Canon. (Of course you can
buy 5 or 10 of the Jupiter 9s for the price of 1 of the Canon lenses in
excellent condition and at least 3 Jupiter 9s for the price of 1 of the 85mm
Nikkors in excellent condition.)
At f2 the Summicron wins; at f2.8 and higher f-stops the Summicron and
Summitar are comparable. At f4 or higher f-stops I would choose the 61 L/D
over the Summicron or Summitar for visual impact.
For planar (flat) targets, the Leica - Russian rangefinder incompatibility
is irrelevant for f2 or slower 50mm lenses or for 85mm lenses at f-stops
greater than 2.8. However, the incompatibility can be a significant problem
for close 3 dimensional subjects at f2.8 for 50mm lenses or even at f3.5 for
85mm lenses. When using Russian lenses on a Leica, I compensate by focusing
on an object roughly 2 inches beyond my desired point of focus.
Correspondingly, when using Leica compatible lenses on a Russian rangefinder
camera setup for Russian lenses, I choose a focusing target approximately 2
inches closer than my actual subject.
Bob Ludwig
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003
From: tripspud [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] russian lenses
Hi Art!
Check these sites:
http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/marine/569/rusrngfdrs/index.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/marine/569/rusrngfdrs/index.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/marine/569/rusrngfdrs/index.html
Rich
Arthur Schlaman wrote:
> I have been thinking of buying some russian lenses. The problem is that
> I have no idea what is a good lense and what isn't. Is there any
> information on-line to describe these lenses? Or Perhaps one of you
> could describe what to buy. I have a Bessa R.
>
> Thanks
>
> Art Schlaman
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003
From: "Jay Y Javier" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Question
Rob
One of the ails plaguing exSoviet lens mounts: non-standard threading which
result in non-standard starting and parking lens positions. Not only is this
the problem encountered with early FED, but the thread pitch is also a bit
different, so there may be risk of stripping the thread of either mount or
lens.
The lens mount CAN NOT be reoriented. The mounts have a milled portion behind
which would prevent this from being done. Most prewar FED are limited to being
used only with the lenses they came with. Hopefully the I-10 your camera has
is mated with it since working registers vary between specimens. I have FEDs
of this type which have mismatched registers (I haven't been able to adjust the
lens yet) which result in total fuzz. One of my FED (a "Kombinat") has a lens
mount which had been milled at opposite side- this allows the mount to be
reoriented 90 degrees.
BTW, one of my FED NKVD (early one with 5 digit sn) now sports a REAL Leitz
lens mount, donated by a dead IIIc. After adjusting its working distance to
28,8 mm, this FED can now take all LTM lenses.
Jay
[email protected] wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have a prewar FED1 - with uncoated I-10.
>But when I screw other lenses onto it, those end in 9 o'clock position.
>Does anyone know if those rings can be turned 90� clockwise (they have 4
>screws) so I can use the FED with other lenses more easily.
>
>Regards Rob.
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003
From: Bruce Feist [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] russian lenses
Arthur Schlaman wrote:
> I have been thinking of buying some russian lenses. The problem is that
>I have no idea what is a good lense and what isn't. Is there any
>information on-line to describe these lenses? Or Perhaps one of you
>could describe what to buy. I have a Bessa R.
>
You clearly need to visit Nathan Dayton's Communist Camera Site at
http://www.commiecameras.com/ . Follow the links and you'll get to
http://www.commiecameras.com/sov/35mmrangefindercameras/lenses/index.htm
, which is a listing of Russian LTM lenses. It's certainly a good
starting point.
Bruce Feist
From: [email protected] (DunxUK)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 01 Feb 2003
Subject: Re: Russian equipment
I use Russian and Ukranian equipment almost exclusively. The key issue is
variability of the build. You'll hear some dire descriptions of some lenses and
then glowing reports too. This is not due to the subjective nature of the
people commenting but actually due to sod-awful quality control.
I've had many Kiev lenses and bodies. Almost every camera had something wrong
with it but many faults are easy to fix. The lenses are harder to fix unless
they've missed out something fundimental like blacking the inside and I've had
some atrocious and some excellent jupiters.
I don't find they compare favourably to modern optics at all, in fact the
earlier lenses tended to be better than the modern ones I did some side-by-side
tests with 6x4 prints and I couldn't tell any quality difference between my
Kiev/Jupiter 3 from my Ricoh/Pentax f1.4.
Then again I just take pictures for the fun of it and all my equipment is junk!
From: "Ralf C. Kohlrausch" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Russian equipment
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003
mantreal [email protected] typed:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering, is there anybody is this newsgroup using Russian
> equipment? Especially, is anyone using lenses (Peleng, Zenitar) on
> bodies form Minolta, Nikon, Pentax, and the like? How is your
> experience?
> I'm asking since I'd like to know what the quality/price ratio is for
> these brands.
>
Hi,
I was using a Kiev 19 camera with Helios 2/50. It is a Nikon-mount SLR
with manual stop-down-ttl-metering. The meter eracted _very_ slowly to
changes in light and usually was +/- 2 steps around what my Nikons
indicated. I think, I could estimate more accurately ;-) The viewfinder
was rather dim with difficult focusing with slow lenses. Times were
1/8-1/500, IIRC, with 1/30 being sync-time. Operation was fairly crude
but reliable. The mechanical finish of the lens was definitley not up to
Nikon's, but optically it was just fine.
I also had two (the first got stolen with al lot of other stuff) MIR
2/35 with Nikon A/I-mount. Both focus a bit mor roughly than Nikkors and
again lack in finish but deliver verry good picture-quality with a faint
but noticable yellow tinge.
I was given the chance to testshoot the entire range available a couple
of years ago in Germany, all pictures came out fine in sharpness and
contrast. But then, they were offered by an importer offering his own
quality controll, warranty and repair facilities. I especially liked the
Yashma 2,8/300 which performed well but cost a lot less than the Nikkor.
I was not so fond of the 2,8/100 which wasn't bad but didn't offer any
real benefit over the Nikon 2,8/100 Series E. I would also recommend the
Zenitar 2,8/16 fisheye, if you like the effect, and the 2,8/35 shift and
the MTO 10/1000.
My general recommendation is to check the lenses prior to purchase and
to by at a place with a customerfriendly return policy. You can find
some interesting lenses from GUS-countries that would be a lot more
expensive if bought from western oder far eastern manufacturers, but
there are some rather dull and uninspiring types as well.
I also like the optical quality of my Tento 20*60 binoculars, finish is
simple but not really rough, but qualitycontrol seems to have been done
by gospodin Garbatshow, Wodka Gorbatshow. Nothing that I couldn't fix
with a pair of mini-screwdrivers, but not necessarily usable out of the
box either.
I would buy "russian" if they offer devices that I couldn't or dont't
want to afford from other sources.
HTH
Ralf C.
BTW, there has been a comparision of several russian made lenses with
Nikkors in Pop Photo a couple of years ago, might have been in 1994.
[Ed. note: a warning caution about taking serial number "official" listings too seriously!]
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Wayne Cornell [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Camera numbers don't add up
If you believe the numbers on the KMZ official site, there were 1,636
FED/Zorkis built the first year--1948.
I was just looking at Sovietcamera.com. He has two 1948 FED/Zorkis for sale,
both from 1948. One camera is numbered 2720 and the second, 4597.
The first thing the numbers tell you us that Zorki 1 serial numbers didn't
begain at "1" since 1,636 were allegedly made and the low serial number
(2720) is higher. The second thing the two cameras show is that if camera
serial numbers were consecutive, there were at least 1,877 cameras made in
'48 (4597-2720). But there's another flaw. A few weeks ago there were a
couple of FED/Zorkis with ZK lenses with numbers below 1,000.
Recently, I put together a chart based on KMZ production figures on Zorki
1s. One chart assumes the cameras started with number 500, another that the
numbers began with 1,000. In both cases the chart correctly identify the
year most 5- 6- and 7-digit Zorki 1s were made (1951-1954). But 1948-1950
seems very muddled.
Some forum members have suggested to me that the reason the numbering
starting point can't be nailed down is that KMZ was pretty cavalier about
serial numbers--especially during the first three years. And KMZ production
totals have to be a little suspect. For instance, if you believe the posted
company figures there were no Zorki 4s made from 1974 to 1978.
Has anybody ever got a handle on the numbers?
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Wayne Cornell [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Camera numbers don't add up
y
That makes sense. It was becoming clearer all the time that particularly
with the earlier numbers there wasn't much rhyme or reason. The later models
seem to be a little better organized as far as numbering.
By the way, Nathan, have you ever been able to determine approximately when
the "soft body" Zorki was replaced with the stronger alloy. I have an 11xxx
that is definately soft by a 12xxx that appears to be tougher. Apparently
the change was made right at the end of the 1B model.
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002
From: Paul Winter [email protected]
Subject: RE: Voting so far --Best Fixed Lens Rangefinder?
Report from the Polling Station 10am GMT 26/11/02
Voters are still quite active and there are some hours to go before the
station closes. An exit poll of member's emails conducted on very little
scientific basis indicates the following results:
Votes Cast Key: Favourite 1 Recommended 2
Japanese Makes
Canon GL17 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Contax T - 1 1 2 1
Contax T3 - 2 1 (Disqualified)
Fuji 35V2 - 2
Fuji 6X45 Wide - 2
Fuji GSW 690 - 1 2
Konica 11A - 2
Konica 11M - 2
Konica lllA - 1
Konica lllM - 1
Konica Auto S1.6 - 2
Konica S3 - 2 2 2
Konica Auto S2 - 1 1 1 1 2
Minolta Himatic E/F - 1 1 2 2
Minolta 7S11 - 2
Olympus S2 - 1 1 1 1 2
Olympus SP - 2 1
Olympus RC - 2 1
Olympus RD - 1
Olympus XA - 2 1 1 1
Olympus XA4 - 2
Omega 120 - 2
Petri Color 2
Yashica Lynx 5000 - 2 1 1 1 1
Yashica Lynx 14 - 2 1 1
Yashica Electro 35GS - 2 1 2
German Makes
Agfa Selectronic - 2 2
Agfa Karat - 1 2 2
Baldessa - 1
Kodak Retina 111S - 2 (Disqualified - interchangeable lenses)
Kodak Retina lllC - 2 1 (Disqualify? - interchangeable front components)
Rollei 35SE - 2 (Disqualify? - No rangefinder!)
Voigtlander VF101 - 1
Vitessa Ultron - 1 1
Vito lll - 1
Zeiss S312 - 1 1
Zeiss Contessa - 1 1
Zeiss Super Ikonta - 1
US
Century Graphic 2
Excuse my ignorance category
(I don't know which country to place these under!)
Galileo Condor - 2
Plaubel Makina 670 - 1 1 (Sounds German, but is probably Japanese!)
The organisers (?) point out that it is likely that some of the
candidates are liable to be disqualified for rule infringement. Those
currently under investigation are clearly marked
The accuracy of these figures is not guaranteed as it should be noted
that some list members have not only voted for several cameras, but have
also voted more than once!
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002
From: "Merritt, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Film vs. Digital
Jim -- I realize I'm about to show my ignorance of computers and digital
cameras here, but I'm not sure I know what you mean when you say that with
good digital cameras the image quality is "terrific...IF your finished
product is going to be a digital file." Isn't the end product we seek a
print? If all I want is to have a superb image that's viewed on a computer
monitor, I submit there's no monitor around that will capture the full
amount of information in the file (or the file is too big for it to be
viewed conveniently by others). So the moment that you convert that file to
a print you've lost any advantage you may have had.
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Williams [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Film vs. Digital
My experience with digital cameras (Olympus C4040Z for personal use, Canon
D60 at work) is that with good ones, the *image* quality is terrific,
possibly better than film -- IF your finished product is going to be a
digital file. It stands to reason: with a digital camera, the image only has
to go through one optical system (the camera lens) while when shooting on
film and scanning, there are two optical systems involved (camera lens +
scanner lens) and an intermediate storage medium (the piece of film.) Of
course, if your end-product is a slide or print, the advantage swings back
to film -- but within their limits, I feel the digital cameras give very
respectable image quality.
The problem with digital, IMO, is that the *cameras* are crap! Spend $800
with Stephen G. on Bessa stuff and you get a well-made machine you can use
with confidence and enjoyment; spend $800 on digital gear and you get a
plasticky point-and-shoot with a blurry viewfinder and balky controls. Even
at the higher levels your money doesn't go very far -- our office D60 works
fine and doesn't feel too sleazy, but you can really see the difference vs.
our old original-model EOS-1 -- especially in viewfinder clarity (important
for detailed work.)
I read a recent report that Contax is internally developing (not necessarily
for production) a G-style digital camera body, and something like THAT might
make me feel a lot better about it. But for now, for me, shooting with a
35mm RF vs. shooting with a digital camera is like driving a sports car vs.
a plumber's van -- you still get where you're going, but you don't enjoy the
trip as much!
Also -- as I finally realized after nearly a year during which I shot almost
100% digital for practical reasons -- the limitations of digital imagers
mean you can't "push the envelope" the way you can on film. With a film
camera I can risk shooting into the light, flirting with under- or
over-exposure, or tackling ludicrously wide contrast ranges, in hopes of
getting an expressive or atmospheric effect; with a digital camera, anything
much beyond the limits of a "technically correct" exposure is just a
useless, unsalvageable mess. The forgiving nature of film means it's
possible to have lucky accidents; on digital, any accident is usually bad.
In fact, during that same year I noticed I was getting less satisfaction out
of photography than I used to, but couldn't figure out why. Once I realized
that dodging around the limitations of digital was hampering my creativity,
I swore off using the digital cameras for anything other than strictly
utilitarian images, and I already feel a lot better about my pictures.
[email protected] wrote:
I'm curious about what others have learned from similar comparisons of high
quality RF's and the current generation of 4-6 MP digital gear. I doubt
that I'll be so overwhelmed by the pro-digital responses (especially from
the RF crowd) that I'll dump my new Bessa R2, but still I'd like to know in
case I decide to add digital to my arsenal.
PS- If this topic has been worked over during the past six months, please
just say so. "Search" isn't loading a results page when I query on
"digital."
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002
From: Bruce Feist [email protected]
Subject: Re: spare parts to Russian cameras
There's a Yahoo group/mailing list especially for such things. Check
out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/russian_camera_parts .
Bruce Feist
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003
From: Bruce Feist [email protected]
Subject: Camera Collection
I've just finished putting up a series of web pages describing my camera
and lens collection, which has emphasis on former Soviet Union cameras
(mostly FEDs, Zorkis, and Zenits), and a bunch of stereo cameras as
well. It has photos of the equipment (sorry, not in stereo!
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Canonet Lens Geneology
First QL17 (1965). Big body. 40mm 1.7 (5 elements in 5 groups).
First QL19 (1965). Big body. 45mm 1.9 (5 elements in 4 groups).
New QL17 (1969). Small body. 40mm 1.7(6 elements in 4 groups).
New QL19 (1969). Small body. 45mm 1.9(5 elements in 4 groups).
GIII 17 (1972). 1.7(6 elements in 4 groups).
GIII 19 (1972). 1.9(5 elements in 4 groups).
HTH For element/group swapping.
Roland F. Harriston
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Canonet Lens Geneology
[email protected] writes:
> Wow, that does help- I have a 'new small' QL17 and a GIII 17, but I
> swear, the front element is ground to a different shape...
That figures
Canon says that both lenses have 6 elements in 4 groups but that does not
necessarily mean that the lenses are the same. The Canonet GIII QL17 user's
manual states that the GIII has 4 newly designed "glasses". I would assume
that something was lost in the translation and that the term "glasses" most
likely means new "elements". I'll have to look around and get some
configuration drawings of the lenses and see how if the groupings are
different between the two lenses, if that is possible and I would think that
it would be.
On the previously discussed issue of where the GIII's were made: The assembly
facility in Taiwan started production around 1969~1970. After that, all
Canonets were made there. That would include all of the small body Canonets,
starting with the "new" Canonet 28 "Pecker" camera on up to through the GIII
17 & GIII 19.
I suspect that there might be some early small body QL17's and QL19's (not
GIII) that might have been made in Japan, because chronologically it seems
that these two cameras in production during the "transition" stage.
Perhaps some owners of these two models can confirm my deductions. On the big
body QL25's, QL17's and QL19's that I own, there is "Made In Japan" on back
of the top plate. All of the Taiwan products have "Made In Taiwan" on the
serial number plate on the back of the camera.
I have never seen a "Made In Japan: GIII camera.
But then I have not seen all 1.2 million of the GIII production run!
Roland F. Harriston
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002
From: Manuel Lingo [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Cheap Leica Replacement
I did some research on the russian rangefinders.
Some people thinke taht the late Industar 61 with the rare elemnt lanthanum. (I
never heard of it before)
The Industar 61 and especially the 61L/D seem to be very good.
The Jupiter 8(50/2) is also quite good, and looks better than the industar.
The Jupiter 9 is very good at 4.5 (85/2)
What i found interesting is that russian lenses won't work very good with
Leicas because the rangefinder does not correspond with the lens.
That's why many Leica users say that the Russian lenses are bad.
To the bodies:
The Zorki 4 has the brightest rangefinder and good quality.
The Fed 3 is the best user cam with its film advance lever and fixed take up
spool.
The Fed 2 d is the most beautiful russian RF with good quality, nearly as good
as pre war Feds and early Zorki 4s.
That's why i want to buy all three of these.
I saw Fed 2 d with Industar 61 L/D, perhaps i can make a comparison test
between the leneses although i don't suspect that there is a noticable
difference between the ''normal'' Industar and the L/D.
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003
From: Karen Nakamura [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Hierarchy of Fixed Rangefinder Lenses
Hi -
I'm a huge fan of fixed rangefinders that are sub $100. In fact I
have a home page dedicated to them:
http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index.html
My favorites are:
1) Yashica GSN and now the Yashica GX (which I just recently bought).
Aperture priority. Great 6 element 45mm and 40 mm f/1.7 lenses,
respectively. Very accurate metering. Parallax compensation. The
works. The GSN is a bit heavy, which is why I got the GX which seems
like it's fantastic.
2) My Canonet 28 is fine, but it's definitely a grade level down from
the Yashicas in terms of both fit/finish as well as picture quality.
I take it when I think my camera might get bashed around a bit.
3)My Ricoh 500 simply because no one has one (most have the very
different 500G)
4) My Bolsey C22 because no one has one and it's just so darn darn darn cute
Oh, I guess I'm new to the list so I should introduce myself. I live
in the Twin Cities (Minnesota). My day job is as a cultural
anthropologist specializing in contemporary Japan. I do a lot of
visual anthropology, which gives me an excuse to collect cameras
(yeah... right... that's it..). Nice to make all of your acquaintance.
Karen Nakamura
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Canonet Lens Geneology
[email protected] writes:
> I seem to recall reading that the "G" in G-III stood for gold,
Below is a snip from the URL:
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/f_camera.html
"The "G" in the camera designation stood for "Grade Up" which referred to the
quality improvement. The "III" indicated the third-generation Canonet series,
following the original Canonet and the New Canonet".
HTH
Roland F. Harriston
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003
From: Dante Stella [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Hierarchy of Fixed Rangefinder Lenses
If Canonet G3 (now at $200) is cheap, then these are my picks. I
shoot mostly b/w, so take it with whatever grain of salt you want.
1. Konica I with 50/3.5 lens
2. Novar 75mm f/3.5 on a pre-war Super Ikonta A
3. Industar-24 on a Moskva-5 (assuming it is parallel to the film plane)
4. 50/1.7 on High end Canonets
5. 50/1.7 Yashica Electro 35, 45mm on a Konica Auto S2, or the Olympus 35RC lens
6. Various compact Konica and Minolta RFs
[...]
100. Low-end Canonets like the New Canonet 28.
The problem with the cheap 70s RFs is that the lenses aren't really
good until stopped down. That makes the usable speed of the lenses a
lot less. I have had most of the cheap rangefinders there are, and I
think it's something of a waste of your life to screw around testing
them. They were always somewhat downscale cameras (their segment
became the p/s), and although it's fun to tinker, you shouldn't waste
your life's photo ops with anything but the best optics you can afford.
Don't ask me what I think about Lomography.
Really, if I could scrape only $250, I would forget about RFs, sell my
shoes and buy a Hexar AF, whose Summicron-style lens blows everything
from the 1960s and 1970s out of the water.
Dante
...
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Hierarchy of Fixed Rangefinder Lenses
I'm rather surprised that no one has suggested the original Voigtl�nder
Vito B with its Skopar lens. The camera is light, readily available, and
the lens is simply a killer.
Marc
[email protected]
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003
From: Bruce Feist [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian rangefinder question
Jasper C wrote:
>Having used Zenits and a Lubitel for the past few years I now find
>myself interested in trying a russian rangefinder camera.
>Unfortunately I don't know which one to look out for. Can anybody
>give me some feedback into what would be a good starting point.
>
>
What constraints do you have? Do you need dioptric correction? Flash
synch? Self-timer? Compatability with Leica screw-mount or Contax
bayonet mount? Slow shutter speeds? Are you more interested in using
the camera or displaying it?
There are three main groups of choices. Zorkis and FEDs are both based
on the Leica design; your Zenit is a descendent of the Zorkis and made
by the same factory (depending on the model). Kievs are based on the
Contax design, and were actually originally made on Zeiss equipment.
They're a bit more expensive but (especially with the earlier ones)
probably better made.
One model to consider is the Zorki 4. It's versatile and you might like
its connection to your Zenits. Have a look at the possibilities on my
web site if you like;
http://www.flock.org/photos/Digital/Camera%20Collection/index.html . Or
check out Nathan Dayton's http://www.commiecameras.com/ for more
comprehensive information.
Bruce Feist
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003
From: Jon Goodman [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian rangefinder question
Hi, Jasper.
Personally I think the Fed 4 is a good starting point.
The Zorki 4 is also nice, if you get one with the
Jupiter 8 lens. It has the higher 1/1000 speed, but
it is important to note it does not have a lightmeter,
and normally the speed indicator numbers are rubbed
off, making changing speeds a bit challenging...plus
it doesn't have a lever cocking design. Kiev 4 (with
meter) is an excellent camera if you get one in good
working condition. They are quirky, however. The
rangefinder design causes one of your fingers to
constantly block the window until you learn the drill.
Fed 5 has a hotshoe, and is not bad, but the 4 was
produced during better times in the FSU and its
mechanics are usually smoother. I would look for one
of those and let that be my start. All of them take
great pictures, but the Fed 4 is easier to use and
easy to like.
Jon
...
from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003
From: "wanatunda" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian rangefinder question
Hi Jasper, film loading can be difficult on the bottom loaders, but
no more so than the Leica. As far as shutter curtains are concerned
for the Fed/Zorki variety, yes they can, as anyting, deteriorate
over time, get holes burned in them, or leak light. A purchase from
a reputable dealer is always your best defense.
The type of photography you are doing does play the most impoortant
role in which camera you choose.
For candid and stealthy street pics I find the Kievs the stealth
leader. Very quiet. It is also the rangefinder with the widest base,
(distance between windows) that in theory gives you an advantage for
more accurate focus.
The earlier versions, Kiev 2 to the early Kiev 4A'a are a much
better build quality. Forget the models with the meters, they break
easily, are inaccurate and bulky. Use the Sunny 11 or Sunny 16 rule.
In the files section are some PDF samples to print out.
Having said all this, A nice Post War Fed 1 or Zorki 1 with the
collapsible 50mm lens makes a really nice, very compact, toss in the
bag camera. The coated fed/Industar-22 and collapsible Industar 50
are beautifully sharp lenses.
http://www.pbase.com/image/8406680
A stern word of warning is in order with any of these cameras
suggested by anyone in this group...they are habit forming!!!!
Ebay is a good place to start but be prepared son be prepared.
It is a dark world out there.
I will do a search of the sellers I have used without incident and
will post them here.
I am sure others will chime in as well. Many have changed there User
ID since I bought last
Best wishes
Sincerely
Felix
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003
From: John Shaw [email protected]
Subject: RE: Plane of Focus and Rangefinders
I have had similar difficulties at near focus with the Nokton. I got
used to shooting my old Summicron f2 wide open and had pretty good luck,
however my first roll from the Nokton, shooting similar photos wide
open, was slightly soft. I took some test shots and seemed to be ~2
inches off at the near focus -- the best focus was slightly in front of
the plane I thought I had focussed on. I figured I'd adjust the
rangefinder and be done with it. Now I am not so sure.
Before doing the adjustment, I set up markers at 3ft, 1m, 4ft, 5ft, 7ft
and laid a focussing screen across the film plane. The focus, after
many trials focussing by the ground glass then seeing what the
rangefinder showed, for each distance was pretty accurate: the image
_was_ in focus on the screen when the rangefinder images overlapped, the
scale on the lens _did_ indicate the correct distances. There were
uncertainties in my set up: the difference between points separated by a
few inches at the near focus corresponds to shifts of the focal plane at
the film of ~0.007 inches so getting the screen placed correctly is
important. I am forced to admit that the errors in focussing on my
first roll with the Nokton could be mine. The errors in my rangefinder
are apparently smaller than the uncertainties in my test set-up. Until
I test on film some more I'm not messing with the rangefinder!
JOhn
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Zhang XK [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Some resolution numbers
Hi all,
I found some lens resolution numbers recently in a book by a Chinese optical
expert and would like to share them with you.
Normal lens for 35mm slrs
Zeiss Planar 50/2 52 lp/mm at center 32lp/mm edge
Summicron 50/2 50 lp/mm 39lp/mm
Helios-81 50/2 52 lp/mm 37lp/mm *
Hexanon 50/2 43 lp/mm 24lp/mm
Auto-topcor 58/1.8 52 lp/mm 27lp/mm
Normal lens for rangefinders
Summicron 50/2 50 lp/mm 27lp/mm
Jupiter-8 50/2 39 lp/mm 24lp/mm *
( I would assume Helios-103 to be very comparable to Summicron)
telephoto lens
Elmarit 135/2.8 46 lp/mm 35lp/mm
Jupiter-11 135/4 52 lp/mm 35lp/mm *
Nikkor-Q-auto 200/4 54 lp/mm 33lp/mm
Jupiter-21 200/4 54 lp/mm 36lp/mm *
Zeiss Sonnar 85/2 50 lp/mm 36lp/mm
According to these figures, Some of the FSU optics are comparable to the
best brands of the world. We have talked about the very low resolution
figures from some Soviet publications but in practice found some of the FSU
optics were just as sharp as their western counterparts. I think these
figures more or less reflected the real performance of some of the excellent
Soviet optics.
Best regards
From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Kiev lenses/how sharp?
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003
"Thom" [email protected] wrote
> I just noticed that Kiev Camera has brought in some reconditioned Kiev
> 4's (copy of the Contax) for $79 and have wonder just how sharp the
> lenses are. Has anyone actually every used one and if shot on a
> tri-pod can you get sharp 8x10 and 11x14's out of them???
>
> THOM
I still have one, though it sees little use these days. Not exactly a
'slick' camera, but everyone who sees it is interested in it, which is fun.
Picture quality is excellent. Like all Soviet era Eastern European gear I
suspect you need to check that you don't get a lemon, but when the lenses
are good they are very good - all mine were. I had a 28, 35, 50, and 85mm;
and Zeiss 50 and 135mm. The Zeiss lenses for the Contax that was the
original of the Kiev are not that hard to find, and are often surprisingly
cheap if you avoid the early collectable ones - which aren't what you want
for picture taking anyway.
I used one in the desert in Iraq during the original Gulf war - the one
between Iran and Iraq - and it stood up very well. For a long time it was
my standard 'lightweight' outfit and went to numerous Chelsea Flower Shows
with me, never let me down. You do have to be careful not to overwind the
film at the end of the roll, but that's about it.
Quirky, but a good solid machine taking very fine lenses. The Contax
original costs more and is much better finished, but not really any better
as a user camera.
Peter
From: Jeff Sumner [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Kiev lenses/how sharp?
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003
> Quirky, but a good solid machine taking very fine lenses. The Contax
> original costs more and is much better finished, but not really any better
> as a user camera.
> Peter
My experience is similar- I bought a black one from Kievcamera and got a
good one. The rumor I've heard is that the ones painted black have a
better chance of having lubrication renewed, or at least having been
gone over for faults. I've one from 1969- and it works well for me,
after a few rolls of film. The spacing was off- too wide, then
occasional overlapping frames, but that problem has worked itself out
after just a couple rolls.
I've a 35mm, 50mm (f-2, the Jupiter-8), the 85mm and the 135mm. All are
at least snapshot decent, though I'm going to have to take the 35mm out
for testing again- it's the only one that doesn't latch onto the camera
and also the only one where the prints came back and I asked myself if
things looked that way when I took the picture- it doesn't seem as sharp
as I'd like for it to be.
I would eventually like to buy a new wide angle available from
Cosina/Voigtlander- they've done some pretty amazing things for the
Contax/Kiev-Nikon mount fans. I think the 21mm first.
The Kiev is my current "carry anywhere" camera and it does go with me
wherever I go. It has stood up to motorcycle rides, long car trips, &c.
I've not yet gone international, but for THAT duty, I prefer the larger
Mamiya 7.
The experience of shooting the Kiev is fun, and makes picture taking all
the more enjoyable.
At work last week, we had a retirement party. I was left flash-less in
an awful mix of incandescent and flourescent light. I had 100 speed
color print film, at which I shot at 1/25th second, lens wide open. I
could see individual hairs on people's head where the depth of focus
allowed- so the standard lens, at least, worked perfectly. There were no
missed shots, and only one or two where the individual had moved fast
enough to be noticed on film.
It has withstood my personal tests.
Good camera.
Of course, I bought one first that didn't do so well...
JD
2001 Moto Guzzi V-11 Sport
1999 Triumph Trophy (Shop Bike) 1200
From: T.P [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Kiev lenses/how sharp?
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003
[email protected] (Thom) wrote:
>I just noticed that Kiev Camera has brought in some reconditioned Kiev
>4's (copy of the Contax) for $79 and have wonder just how sharp the
>lenses are. Has anyone actually every used one and if shot on a
>tri-pod can you get sharp 8x10 and 11x14's out of them???
I have never used a Kiev 4, but I have used some of the same range of
former Soviet lenses on a Zorki 4K, which is a Russian rangefinder
camera with an L39 screw mount. The Kiev was made in Ukraine but some
of the same Jupiter lenses were made in both mounts.
I used 35mm, 50mm and 85mm lenses, and they were all decently sharp,
especially if stopped down. Flare resistance was surprisingly good;
obviously the lenses were not multicoated but the single layer coating
appeared to do a pretty good job. Build quality was "Titanic";
strong, but not without its weaknesses. ;-)
For $79 it is worth trying a Kiev just for fun, and treat anything
more as a bonus.
By the way, it is not a Contax copy, as the original Contax tooling
was removed from Germany just after WW2 by the Soviets and installed
in an optical factory in Ukraine.
From: Vasiliy -- [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Using Polarizer on Rangefinder
Date: Sat, 03 May 2003
There are two ideas, one is basically what you are doing, but it
involves a second polarizing filter and calibrated marks on the dials.
Another idea is to use a step up ring with drilled holes for the
rangefinder windows.
check this URL for details
http://nemeng.com/leica/036b.shtml
regards
Avron L. Gordon wrote:
> I tend to use a polarizing filer a lot on my 6x9 rangefinder
> Camera(Fujica). It's not easy using it when you can't look through the
> lens and see the effect of the filter. I generally view it off the camera
> and then screw it on the lens. Is there a more efficient way? Appreciate
> all thoughts.
[Ed. note: caveat repairer! just fyi on how easy/hard this is to do...]
From: winfried_bue [[email protected]]
Sent: Sun 4/27/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Re: Meter adjustment, Canonet GIII QL 17
--- In [email protected], "Kurt Weiske" maildrop@k... wrote:
>
> Is there any semi-easy way to adjust the meter on a Canonet QL 17
> GIII? With a brand-new zinc-air battery, my meter is reading 2 stops
> over. I can futz it if I'm shooting 100 film by setting the film
> speed to 400, but I'm out of luck with 400 film. Any suggestions?
First of all, it IS possible to adjust the meter of the QL17. But I am wondering how this happens.
Did you check the actual voltage of the battery you are using with a voltmeter (an 'El Cheapo' brand
digital voltmeter will do)?
To adjust the meter, first remove the top cover. Behind the galvanometer you will find a variable resistor.
Point at an evenly lit object (e.g. a bright wall) and set the resistor thus that the f-stop indicator changes
exactly 1 f-stop for each stop of shutter speed. Check this over the entire range. Second step is to adjust
overall sensitivity. On the mount of the galvanometer, towards the frame counter, there is a tiny set screw.
Loosen this screw, and turn the whole galvanometer until f-stop reading match with a properly calibrated
lightmeter.
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003
From: "Roger Provins" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Yashica Electro Battery Solution, at least mine.... Photo uploaded
Yashica's G series cameras do NOT need mercury cells as they are not voltage dependant and
can use anything from 4.5 to 6.5 volts. The correct battery is current and is easily obtainable.
in US http://www.photobattery.com/PX32.html
in UK http://www.batteryterminal.co.uk/prod03.htm
Regards
Roger
> I have been using Duracell PX32A in my GTN with out any problems.
> Chuck
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003
From: Dante Stella [email protected]
Subject: Polaroid rangefinders
I have just finished a page on what may be the only 5 worth owning.
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/polaroid.html
Cheers
Dante Stella
http://www.dantestella.com
From: "Sherman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newbie rents a Pentax 67...my thoughts :)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003
"Stacey" [email protected] wrote
> Tom Morley wrote:
> >> If you like shooting handheld in downtown-type locations, the Mamiya 7II
> >> is definitely worth checking out.
> >>
> >> Jerry
> >
> > The hardest part in changing from SLRs to rangefinders is
> > remembering to remove the lens cap. I have probably taking
> > dozens (hundreds?) of pictures of the inside of a lens cap.
> >
> Simple solution. Install a 'cap saver' string to the cap and attach it to
> the camera so the string goes across the rangefinder when it's on the lens.
> You'll never forget again!
> Stacey
When I had a rangefinder I taped a small piece of cardboard to the lens cap
and alway put the cap on so the tab of the cardboard stuck up in front of
the viewing window. Free and it worked great.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
From: [email protected] (Tom Morley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newbie rents a Pentax 67...my thoughts :)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003
Jeff [email protected] wrote:
> I taped the edge of my G690 lens cap with a bright yellow electrical tape.
> It's highly visible when looking through my viewfinder.
>
> Jeff
This is a good idea. I'll try it on my Fuji.
--
Tom Morley
From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newbie rents a Pentax 67...my thoughts :)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003
Tom Morley wrote:
>> If you like shooting handheld in downtown-type locations, the Mamiya 7II
>> is definitely worth checking out.
>>
>> Jerry
>
> The hardest part in changing from SLRs to rangefinders is
> remembering to remove the lens cap. I have probably taking
> dozens (hundreds?) of pictures of the inside of a lens cap.
Simple solution. Install a 'cap saver' string to the cap and attach it to
the camera so the string goes across the rangefinder when it's on the lens.
You'll never forget again!
Stacey
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Zhang XK [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Materials of Soviet cameras
Hi members,
Many of us might have a wrong impression that Soviet cameras sacrificed
quality by using poorer materials. At least this was my impression from the
aluminum lens barrels of so many russian lenses. But this is not true for
their cameras. After carefully examined the metals of many parts of many
Soviet rangefinder cameras including the latest Fed-5, I found that except
for the body case and shutter crate, almost all parts including the top and
bottom plates, all screws, small parts, gears and shafts,etc are made of
solid brass or bronze. So in fact , soviets were quite generous in using the
best materials in their cameras. The early collapsible I-22 and I-50 are
also made of solid bronze. I assume they also used the best optical glass
for their lens elements. While many old Chinese Seagull TLRs, on the other
hand,used a lot of cheaper aluminum, steel and even plastic parts. It is a
pity for these FSU cameras but a good thing for us that these cameras are
sold at a small fraction of the prices of their western counterparts.
I would also say that a later Zorki 1 is in fact a somewhat better made
camera than an early Leica II or III that still used stamped parts for the
shutter crates and body case. All my Zorki 1s and almost all my Fed-1s are
running very smoothly after a simple CLA. Now the only thing I wish is a
latest Summicron 50/2 quality lens for these M39 mount cameras at about
$20-30, because the very good J-8 is still no match to a Smmicron, right?
Then I will have nothing to complain.:-)
Best Regards
From rflist at topica:
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003
From: Peter Evans [email protected]
Subject: Bessa L and "pancake"
Dated 30 May, http://www.cosina.co.jp/l-owari.html (in Japanese)
announces the end of sales of the Bessa L and Color-Skopar 35/2.5P. I
suppose this means that stocks in Japan are low and won't be replenished
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Whither Rangefinder Renaissance
no creativity and innovation?
the Voigtlander 12/5.6 is the widest full frame none fisheye in the
history of 35mm photography
the Voigtlander 15/5.6 is a landmark design providing astounding
performance at an incredibly low under $400 price. the 15/8 M mount
Hologon was about $10,000 used.
the Voigtlander 28/1.9 is the fastest 28 RF lens in the history of 35mm
photography
the Voigtlander 35/1.2 is the fastest production 35mm lens in any lens
mount in the history of 35mm format photography
the Voigtlander 35/1.7 Aspherical is the lowest priced Aspherical 35 for
any 35mm RF camera, ever
the Voigtlander 50/1.5 is the ONLY Aspherical 50 for any 35mm RF camera,
ever
the Voigtlander 50/3.5 was tested by Pop Photo as the best 35mm camera
lens they had ever tested, period.
the Voigtlander 85/3.5 APO is by far the lowest priced APO tele for any
35mm RF camera, ever
the Voigtlander SC 12 and 15 out later this year, usable on classic
Nikon and Contax rangefinders via a Nikon F adapter, are the widest
lenses ever for those mounts.
the Voigtlander R/R2/R2S/R2C are the only RF/VF to rival the Leica M
brightness in the M's half a century of existence
the Voigtlander R is the lowest priced interchangeable lens RF with TTL
metering in the history of 35mm photography
the Voigtlander R2 is the lowest priced interchangeable M lens RF with
brightlines in the history of 35mm photography
the Voigtlander R2S is the ONLY production Nikon RF mount camera with
TTL metering in the history of 35mm photography
the Voigtlander R2C is the ONLY production Contax RF mount camera with
TTL metering in the history of 35mm photo
the Voigtlander L is the lowest priced Leica screw mount camera with TTL
metering in the history of 35mm photography
the Voigtlander Low Angle finder is a unique RF finder design in the
history of 35mm photography
Voigtlander currently offers the largest lineup of RF accessory finders
in the history of 35mm RF photography (for sale at the same time)
the new metal Voigtlander 28 and 35 brightlines are quite simply the
best ever made by any 35mm RF camera maker -- even though Leica has been
making 35 brightline finders for close to five decades
the Konica Hexar RF is the first, and so far the only interchangeable
lens 35mm RF with a built in motor drive, making it arguably better than
any Leica M series for motor drive photography
the Konica M 21-35 dual focal length lens is the widest such lens ever
for 35mm RF cameras.
after years of resisting AE exposure, Leica finally introduced the M7
in Feb 2002.
after a absence of only 28 years, Leica finally gets a clue and
reintroduces a high standard finish as on a production M camera, the
best selling MP of 20303
sustained change? many more RF unique designs are being prepared for
market by Voigtlander as well as Leica.
ALL of these events occurred a severe period of RF stagnation between
1965 to 1999 when Leica was the only major RF camera on the new
market. what you consider a Renaissance is certainly up to you, but
this Renaissance story line certainly does the job for me.
Stephen Gandy
Postscript:
correction, I forgot about the 50/1.2 Konica M which I think is also
Aspherical, which still leaves the 50/1.5 Voigt as the 1st, and the lowest
prices 50 RF Aspherical
> steve chan wrote:
>> A "renaissance" implies an explosion of creativity and innovation
>> that leads to a sustained change. As much as I like and appreciate my RF
>> equipment, and appreciate what Cosina has provided to the RF market - we
>> should not kid ourselves that there is real innovation - and there can't
>> be a renaissance unless/until there is the will to go beyond recycling
>> the static forms of existing designs.
>>
>> Steve
Subject: Re: Rangefinders....
From: Karen Nakamura [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003
I have the rangefinder fetish as well. And am rather an exhibitionist
about it, so you can read about my RF exploits on my web page:
http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/
My current favorites:
Canon QL GIII
Nikon S2
Yashica GX
Karen Nakamura
www.photoethnography.com
From: Jeff Sumner [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lenses for Kiev 4 camera
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003
"Jim MacKenzie" [email protected] wrote:
> "John Fields" [email protected] wrote
> > I recently purchased a Kiev 4 rangefinder (Contax knockoff) and have
> > been looking at various soviet lenses. there appear to be two
> > different bayonet mounts in the photos.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the Kievs have two sets of bayonets so all of these
> lenses will likely fit.
>
> The best lenses, based on my research: Jupiter-8 50/2 (sometimes 52/2),
> Jupiter 12 35/2.8, and Jupiter-11 85/2. I own the 35/2.8 in Fed/Zorki/Leica
> mount and it is a keeper.
>
> Jim
DON'T buy the 50mm for the Kiev 5, if you ever see one. The Kiev 5 was
an update to the Kiev 4 and DOESN'T include the internal mount in the
camera for the standard lenses. The Kiev 5 standard lens takes that into
account and is too larget to fit on the Kiev 4.
Jupiter-3 is a good lens as well, a 50mm f-1.5 formula that has an even
better reputation than the Jupiter-8 (but I don't have one, that's
hearsay, I've only 3 Jupiter-8's and none are bad)
If you are lucky, keep an eye out for an Orion-15 in Kiev mount. On
e-Bay they usually sell for $300-$400, though you'll see sales start
around $500.
Know too that wide angle lenses for the Nikon rangefinder series also
fit (actually, ALL of the lenses fit, but the focus error in the longer
lenses, except at infinity or well stopped down, prevent the acceptable
use on the true Contax mount cameras) and new ones are being made as
well, by Cosina-Voigtlander. The latter lenses have an even better
reputation than the originals.
Good luck. It's a fun camera. The only reason I _don't_ like them is the
quality control- I've three of the things, and all three take pictures.
Only one has a working flash sync- of the two that don't have working
flash sync one needs a solder blob put back on the rear of the sync
connection, the other needs shutter work to find out why it's sync is
always shorted. The one that DOES have a working flash sync is on its
way back to Michael Fourman, as the shutter isn't straight and at high
speeds severely mucks with the exposure, making it un-even and
un-useable...
--
JD
From: "Jim MacKenzie" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lenses for Kiev 4 camera
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003
"John Fields" [email protected] wrote...
> I recently purchased a Kiev 4 rangefinder (Contax knockoff) and have
> been looking at various soviet lenses. there appear to be two
> different bayonet mounts in the photos.
If I'm not mistaken, the Kievs have two sets of bayonets so all of these
lenses will likely fit.
The best lenses, based on my research: Jupiter-8 50/2 (sometimes 52/2),
Jupiter 12 35/2.8, and Jupiter-11 85/2. I own the 35/2.8 in Fed/Zorki/Leica
mount and it is a keeper.
Jim
From: "Sherman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: In Praise of Pentacon 6X6 Cameras
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003
"Stacey" [email protected] wrote
> Andrew Price wrote:
> > [email protected] (Tony H) wrote:
> >
> >>>There are many older excellent East German lenses; Sonar 180, 300, and
> >>>Russian ones as well. The lenses do not require you to mortgage your
> >>>house and they are still capable of awesome images.
> >>>
> >>All very true, but then I guess you haven't hit the frame overlap
> >>problem yet....... but you will eventually.
> >
> > Stacey posted a winding technique to get around this problem:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/pentaconfix.html
>
> Yep and works 100% of the time. Shame (or a good thing for me?) that this
> winder problem was never fixed.
> --
> Stacey
I have just purchased a Fed 5C (Russian 35mm Leica screw mount rangefinder)
and though there are no frame spacing problems using your "easy wind, slow
release" technique seems to ensure that a single wind of the lever fully
advances the film and cocks the camera. Letting the lever go too quickly
can result in the shutter not being properly cocked requiring another 1/2
swing of the lever (though film spacing is strangely unaffected).
Maybe Russians just have a kinder, gentler winding technique? Anyway the
technique seems good even for cameras without spacing problems.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003
From: Robert Perkins [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Sharpest lens for FED2?
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
Dear Greg,
Best/sharpest lens for the Fed 2? My choice, the Jupiter 8, or the
Jupiter 3 (f1.5). J-3's are a bit pricey, but they are good performers in
the sharpness/contrast catagories...and they look so nice on the Fed!
Sincerely, Robert Perkins, [email protected]
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003
From: Henry Chavez [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Sharpest lens for FED2?
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
Gregg,
I'm surprised. I've had good luck with this lens. That said, you must
try the Industar 22, Jupiter 8 and the Industar 61 L/D all great standard
lenses. I'm sure my comrades here will also voice their favorites.
Poka,
Henry Chavez
From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003
From: "Dale Dickerson" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Kiev 4A
I used the 4a, 4am, 2, and 3. The 2 and 3 are best made. However, I keep
a 4am with me most of the time. The optics are great. The 35mm lens is
very sharp. The lenses are pre-wwII Zeiss designs and glass made on the
Zeiss optic equipment. For very little money you can get a very nice
system. I use the 1.5/50mm with 800 portra during weddings. The
results are out standing. The light meters are mostly not working. The
cameras are very fine and really great RF.
I had planned to by a Leica, but like the Kiev rf to much to change. The
f1.8 lens is as sharp as the f2/50mm Leica. The distance used in the rf
is greater and more exact then Leica. These Kiev rf cameras are the only
35mm camera I use any more. At weddings you will see a Kiev 88cm and
4am around my neck, with a Rolleiflex 6008 in hand. The wedding albums
look great and the Kiev rf helps put food on the table.
Get one, it is a great camera.
Dale
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003
From: Arthur Schlaman [email protected]
Subject: Super Ikonta
Hi again,
Here is the web site that has instructions for tearing down the Super
Ikonta and also rangefinder CLA. This guy also has some other great
info.
www.davidrichert.com
Art Schlaman
Chicago
From 35mm classic compacts mailing list:
From: davek57 [[email protected]]
Sent: Thu 10/23/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Why XA? My reasons
After owning and playing with all the Olympus XA variants (except the
lowly XA1), I've found these are probably the most versatile,
functional compact 35mm cameras to carry. In no particular order,
here's why:
1) Detachable A11 and A16 flash units that actually have variable
output settings (for ISO 100, 400, and "Full"). Long flash battery
life.
2) Manual ISO override, even with the DX coded XA3 and XA4.
3) Batteries: SR44's are cheap, widely available, and last forever in
these cameras. The audible battery check is a handy feature.
4) Pretty good lenses. Yes, the XA's 35mm lens gets a little soft at
wider apertures. So I rarely go there, opting for longer exposures
at middle apertures. The XA2 and XA3 have surprisingly sharp 35mm
lenses, and the XA4's 28mm is hard to beat.
5) Built-in manual backlight control (+1.5 EV) on the XA, XA3, and
XA4. And that little lever makes a nice stabilizing "foot" if no
tripod's available.
6) 10-second (or more) exposures available on the XA.
7) Flat bottom camera. You can place the XA on a horizontal surface,
sans tripod, and get a level image. While I also enjoy the Stylus
Epic, it's quasi-rounded body doesn't do as well at this trick.
8) XA2, XA3 and XA4 zone focus is excellent for Lomo-esque street
shooting.
9) Very quiet electronic shutter release, and no motor drive whirr to
distract passers-by.
10) Flash is more than 2 inches from the lens, thereby vastly
reducing the opportunity for red-eyed subjects in flash photos.
11) Light seals are easy to replace. I've used Foamies from craft
stores, 60 cents a sheet.
12) Manual rangefinder focus. It has its limitations, but the XA's
is easier in this instance than that odd yellow diamond in the
Yashica Electro 35's rangefinder.
13) The self-timer blinks and beeps audibly, changing tone in the
last few seconds before firing.
14) On the XA, you can cut back the aperture after engaging the flash
to mix ambient light with the flash.
15) On the XA: shutter speeds are indicated in the viewfinder.
16) Black is beautiful. There are too many auto 35 cameras that look
like spray-painted silver clams.
I have paid as much as $80 and as little as $20 for these cameras --
found anywhere from eBay to a roadside barn sale -- and have yet to
get a DOA model. Not one has failed to come to life after cleaning
the battery contacts. About the worst I've experienced is the black
paint on the back cover of the camera. It scratches off easily on
the earlier models.
This is way too much, right? OK, I'm done for now. Thanks for
indulging me.
-David.
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
To: 'Robert Monaghan'
Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999
To: Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)
Subject: RE: [KOML] Subversive thought--- 135mm f3.5 Lens
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999
From: "S. Arterberry" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Rollei Users list digest V5 #62
> I will join the Rollei SLR list when it comes up.
>
> I don't really know if I want to sell anything (except a great 35mm Voigtlander
> Prominent system), but I moved out into the middle of Missouri and am doing
> mostly Photoshop consultation/instruction now. I may start a photo side
> business but mostly just hate seeing all my stuff sit there while I get my new
> life together. I think a nonprofit coop where we can rent equipment from our
> colleagues affordably would help us all out.
>
> David
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 35 lens quality?
>I'm planning on the purchase of a Rollei 35 B camera . I'm not
>looking for a classic collectable and plan to use the camera.
>My question is what is the quality of the Triotar 40mm 3.5
>lens? Is this lens considerably inferior to the Sonnar 40mm 2.8
>(not considering the speed advantage of the Sonnar)?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rangefinders
Date: 3 Nov 1999
: >I'm in the market for a really good rangefinder. I know if I had the money I'd
: >get a Leica M series. However, I'm a struggling artist and soon to be grad
: >student. I'm trying to rid myself of my Canon EOS Elan IIe and go a more pure
: >approach to my street photography. Any good suggestions?
:
: Good deals on used Leica equipment are pretty common. The bodies are
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rangefinders
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rangefinders
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rangefinders
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rangefinders
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999
>I'm in the market for a really good rangefinder. I know if I had the money I'd
>get a Leica M series. However, I'm a struggling artist and soon to be grad
>student. I'm trying to rid myself of my Canon EOS Elan IIe and go a more pure
>approach to my street photography. Any good suggestions?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rangefinders
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999
From: "Jim Williams" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999
>If you want an interchangeable lens, modern rangefinder camera, you're
>going to spend a lot more money for a Leica M, Contax G or the new Hexar
>RF when it becomes available. If you don't need the interchangeable
>lenses, the Minox in particular is an amazingly good alternative.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rangefinders
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rangefinders
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000
From: Mark Langer "mlanger@ccs"@ccs.carleton.ca
Subject: [Leica] Contax/Kiev
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000
From: Mark Langer "mlanger@ccs"@ccs.carleton.ca
Subject: [Leica] Re: Contax/Kiev
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] what 6x9 cm folding camera to buy?
>Get a Moskva-5 and make sure to get the 6x6 mask for it. It's way
>heavier-duty than a Super Ikonta C, has coated lenses and X-synch (which
>would set you back $1300 with a Zeiss). They're under $200 . . . .
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000
From: Jeff Moore [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] what 6x9 cm folding camera to buy?
> I've long thought about getting one of the modern medium format rangefinders
> but I can't justify the price since I have no idea what I would actually do
> with the camera.
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] what 6x9 cm folding camera to buy?
>Get a Moskva-5 and make sure to get the 6x6 mask for it. It's way
>heavier-duty than a Super Ikonta C, has coated lenses and X-synch (which
>would set you back $1300 with a Zeiss).
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] what 6x9 cm folding camera to buy?
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] what 6x9 cm folding camera to buy?
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] what 6x9 cm folding camera to buy?
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000
From: Bill Lawlor [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] What 6X9?
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Fuji M3
From: "Carman, Edward C. III" [email protected]
To: 'Robert Monaghan' [email protected]
Subject: RE: 39mm ltm lens sites
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000
From: Jeff S [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] what 6x9 cm folding camera to buy?
> I really like my Mamiya 7 -- as a thing of its type -- but with 20/20
> hindsight I now realize I don't use it *nearly* enough to justify its
> stiff price.
Jeff Segawa
Somewhere in Boulder, Colorado
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Kiev IIa
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000
Shinichi
> I've just purchased a Kiev IIa which I believe is a Russian Contax IIa
> copy. The camera came without a manual, I've managed to work out what
> everything does with the exception of the dial under the rewind knob.
> Can anyone tell me what this is for?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
>
> Steve Unsworth
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fast lenses are sweet
Date: 12 Nov 1999
> May I ask you why available light photography is so hard with a SLR?
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999
From: Bill Erfurth [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Konica Prices vs. Leica Prices
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999
From: "Paul Bolam" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Review of old Leica LTMs
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Russian 85/2
> Any comments on the Russian Jupiter 85/2 for SM? Looking at one for sale.
From: Ricky Choi [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Konica Lens
ricky
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] M reliability
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Rollei 35 Praises
From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 35 Praises
> (snip) My second favorite camera for candid
> and casual is the Retina IIa with schneider xenon F2. It and the Rollei
have
> the advantage of collapsible lens and compactness while still giving a
> dedicated photographer control of the image.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Camera from Eastern Europe/Ex-Soviet Republics
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999
>Hi all
>
>Does anybody know any online-store sell those cameras?
>
>Thanks in advance
http://www.foto.ru/index.htm
http://www.photoweb.ru/
Serge
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Camera from Eastern Europe/Ex-Soviet Republics
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999
From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]
Subject: Re: R: [Rollei] Rollei 35 Praises
>Now I have and have had 35 and 35S cameras but rely on a Olympus Stylus
>Epic for P&S; stainless steel geared camera which can be had for under
>$100. Great lens (Tessar formula 4 element) and fast at f2.8.
>Not a Sonnar though, even though I have some nice transparencies shot with
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000
>A big reason is the different look&feel of using old style equipment. The
>apparent simplicity of such a camera can be refreshing, as is the knowledge that
>all parts of the photo process is under your own control (and
responsibility).
>
>Sometimes we take the bicycle for a ride and to smell flowers and mud, sometimes
>we use the car and do the same trip in comfort...
Keith Berry (Birmingham, England)
[email protected]
http://homepages.which.net/~k.berry
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000
http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fed or Kiev Russian camera ????
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999
>Wally wrote:
>>
>> Overall, the FED and Zorki are not nearly as well finished and assembled as
>> the Leica or Contax. I have used both the FED and Zorki as well as various
>> Leicas (screwmount and M-series). The Leica is overall a superior device.
>>
>> But I do have fun with the clunky funky FED 5B and its Industar-61 lens
>> (possibly similar to the 2.8 Elmar, but I haven't confirmed this) performs
>> outstandingly well. I don't have the Elmar to compare it with it with. The
>> FED's viewfinder and rangefinder spot is rather dark and not as well defined
>> as the Leicas.
>>
>> For $85 for a new FED 5B, I cannot complain, but the overall quality doesn't
>> compare to that of a Leica.
>> (I've never used the Contax or comparable 35mm Kiev.)
>
>The Russian cameras to which you refer were never really "clones" of
>Leica and Contax. Aesthetically they appeared so - by the Russians made
>lots of compromises and technical (cheapening) shortcuts.
>A "chalk and cheese" situation.
>
>That is not to say however that those Russian models are not reasonably
>capable cameras.
>
>The only true clone of Leica was the the post-war British "Reid" as with
>an �2 Taylor-Taylor-Hobson. Although it was not synchronised, this was
>easily rectified in the aftermarket. In some respects it was actually
>better built than the Leica from which it was cloned - and in any case
>walked all over the Canon and other pseudo Leicas.
>If any Leica aspirant should occasion upon a "Reid", then such could be
>worth a lot of money.
>
>FWIW
>
>Stuart Willis
>Sunny Queensland, Downunder.
>_________________________
>mailto:[email protected]
I just want to qualify that statement- it could be read to mean
something quite different from what I meant! I should have said;
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000
Subject: Re: Russian Cameras?
> I see a lot of Russian cameras on ebay that are listed as Leica clones.
> Does that mean you can attach the Carl Zeiss lenses that were made for
> Leica? Or do the clones only LOOK like Leica's but take only Russian
> lenses?
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
>: If you think a Zorki is going to be quiter than an SLR, think again!
>: You need a leaf shutter camera, not a focal plane shutter camera!
>
>I'm not expecting a *Zorki* to be quieter (my SLR is an OM, not a Zenith),
>but I'd like to lose the delay and, possibly, a bit of the shake.
http://www.jetlink.net/~cameras/agfambi.htm
From: "Dave Pearman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
> I am looking for a recommendation on a rangefinder I can *use* day to
> day, and that I can afford (i.e. �100 UKP / US$150 or less)
> . Interchangeable lenses (with a widely used mount)
> . Takes standard 35mm cassette
> . Coupled rangefinder
> . Built-in lightmeter
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Leica acquisition question
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Leica acquisition question
>The new Voigtlander Bessa-R just was introduced last week.
From: Rustem Salikhov [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: FS:inexpensive Russian cameras, lenses
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Subject: Russian Leica copies bottomed out??
From: [email protected]
From: Dave
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: discussions on Camera formats
>The best pocket camera I ever owned was an Olympus XA with the A11
>flash. Out of several hundred rolls of film, I never had 1 single
>picture that was out of focus. This is undoubtedly because the camera
>has an excellent rangefinder and a manually focusing lens. The
>aperture preferred autoexposure system was quite accurate, and never
>failed even 1 single time to give me a satisfactorily printable
>negative. The tiny A11 flash never 1 single time gave me a picture
>with "red-eye," even though it had no red-eye reduction feature. Yet
>the Olympus XA is barely larger than a pack of cigarettes - smaller
>than any 126 Instamatic and only slightly larger than an APS camera.
>
>So why did the Olympus XA go out of production? Same reason as all
>the others - market saturation. The point was reached where everyone
>who wanted an Olympus XA already had one - and there was no reason to
>buy another. In order to stay in the camera manufacturing business,
>Olympus had to convince consumers that manually focusing a camera was
>difficult - and that autofocusing would be more convenient and
>therefore make them happier. Likewise, they had to convince consumers
>that manually winding the film was difficult, and that a "motor drive"
>was required. Etc., etc, etc. Thus, the Stylus and Stylus Epic were
>born and the manufacturer stayed in business. Yet the manually
>operated XA will consistently outperform the Stylus Epic or the
>Yashica T4 if excellent results on every shot is the criterion.
From: [email protected] (Jeff Parker)
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
>~David~M- ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>: If you think a Zorki is going to be quiter than an SLR, think again!
>: You need a leaf shutter camera, not a focal plane shutter camera!
>
>I'm not expecting a *Zorki* to be quieter (my SLR is an OM, not a Zenith),
>but I'd like to lose the delay and, possibly, a bit of the shake.
http://www.jetlink.net/~cameras/agfambi.htm
Jeff Parker
JP Books
10 St Johns Row
Long Wittenham
Abingdon OX14 4QG
United Kingdom
E-mail: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Advice for replacing an Olympus XA
Date: 13 Jan 2000
>Part of the appeal of the XA is the manual control of aperture, exposure,
>and display of shutter speed. MF control is nice for me too.
>All this in a shirt pocket size full frame 35mm.
>For these reasons the Yashica T4 doesn't cut it for me.
>I don't like shooting blind to this information and control.
>Gary Frost
From: [email protected] (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Canon QL17 GIII manual or Help
>Got a QL17 but i don't have the manual. Would like to find a photocopy or
>something else about the manual or Help.
>
>I have figured out a lot of thing but flash function. How does it work. I
>think it is something about guide number (i don't have canolite flash).
>Please tell me.
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Leica vs. Contax wars
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000
From: "Dave Stratton" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica vs. Contax wars
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
> > Frankly I'm a bit leery on quality control on Leica Russian copies though I
> > use the Russian lenses. Why not buy a RF Canon or old SMLeica and use the
> > Russian lenses on it ..You'll be gladyou did. Ed Romney
From: "Jim Williams" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
>Kodak Retina IIIc and IIIC are pretty nice RF camera too, and they uses
>Schneider lenses as well.
>
>Wei
From: "Carman, Edward C. III" [email protected]
To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]
Subject: 39mm ltm lens sites
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP
[email protected]
From: "Dave Pearman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
> I am looking for a recommendation on a rangefinder I can *use* day to
> day, and that I can afford (i.e. �100 UKP / US$150 or less)
> . Interchangeable lenses (with a widely used mount)
> . Takes standard 35mm cassette
> . Coupled rangefinder
> . Built-in lightmeter
From: [email protected] (Ed Bruchac )
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
> I am looking for a recommendation on a rangefinder I can *use* day to
>> day, and that I can afford (i.e. �100 UKP / US$150 or less)
>
>As others have said, there are loads of cheap used Russian cameras around...
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999
From: Stuart Willis [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fed or Kiev Russian camera ????
> Overall, the FED and Zorki are not nearly as well finished and assembled as
> the Leica or Contax. I have used both the FED and Zorki as well as various
> Leicas (screwmount and M-series). The Leica is overall a superior device.
>
> But I do have fun with the clunky funky FED 5B and its Industar-61 lens
> (possibly similar to the 2.8 Elmar, but I haven't confirmed this) performs
> outstandingly well. I don't have the Elmar to compare it with it with. The
> FED's viewfinder and rangefinder spot is rather dark and not as well defined
> as the Leicas.
>
> For $85 for a new FED 5B, I cannot complain, but the overall quality doesn't
> compare to that of a Leica.
>
> (I've never used the Contax or comparable 35mm Kiev.)
From: [email protected] (Artur Yelchishchev)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fed or Kiev Russian camera ????
>Wally wrote:
>>
>> (I've never used the Contax or comparable 35mm Kiev.)
>
>The Russian cameras to which you refer were never really "clones" of
>Leica and Contax. Aesthetically they appeared so - by the Russians made
>lots of compromises and technical (cheapening) shortcuts.
>A "chalk and cheese" situation.
From: [email protected] (Ed Bruchac )
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fed or Kiev Russian camera ????
>Kiev was the full
>copy of Contax - even manufacturing equipment and machines used were
>german, obtained after Secont World War as compensation.
From: [email protected] (Charles Kleesattel)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Russian???
From: "Hugh Spence" [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fed or Kiev Russian camera ????
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
From: "rich" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: What is your favorite p/s for under $150?
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000
From: "Roger M. Wiser" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: $500 GR1 OT
http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~kennetht/GR1specs.html
Whitewater, WI
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fed or Kiev Russian camera ????
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fed or Kiev Russian camera ????
From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fed or Kiev Russian camera ????
From: [email protected] (DSJKALLEN)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Can mechanical camera have autoexposure?
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
> I am looking for a recommendation on a rangefinder I can *use* day to
> day, and that I can afford (i.e. �100 UKP / US$150 or less)
>
> It needs to be discreet and compact, and have the following features:
>
> . Interchangeable lenses (with a widely used mount)
> . Takes standard 35mm cassette
> . Coupled rangefinder
> . Built-in lightmeter
> I really don't care about name/brand: I just want something that works!
> I've hit a dead end looking for information on the different
> Russian-made (Kiev, FED, Zorki) models and would appreciate if anyone
> who owns one or has knowledge of them could recommend a model.
>
> Thanks for the help!
> Angelo.
> --
> Angelo Villaschi mailto:[email protected]
From: Poul [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
From: "Simon Watkins" [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
From: "Keith (R.K.) Berry" [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
Keith Berry (Birmingham, England)
From: Gary Sanford [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Affordable/Russian rangefinder recommendation
>I am looking for a recommendation on a rangefinder I can *use* day to
>day, and that I can afford (i.e. �100 UKP / US$150 or less)
Gary Sanford
Email here only:
[email protected] (pgp public key available)
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fed or Kiev Russian camera ????
From: "Wally" nojunkspam@nojunkspam
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fed or Kiev Russian camera ????
From: edromney [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Semi-serious Zenit users
> [email protected] wrote:
> > I notice that a steady stream of Zenits sell on the auction sites.
> Are
> > these collectors thinking USSR stuff is scarce, or real users? I've
> seen
> > some nice Zenit stuff in UK mags..even a few prize winners. Anyone
> using
> > one? John
> > [email protected]
> >
> Hi John,
> I have 4 Zenits currently: E, ET, 12XP, and 122S (from Photosniper).
> I'm sorry to say I do not use mine very much as my Kiev 88 is sort of my
> primary camera.
> A friend wanted some illustrations for his web site recently, and were
> to be of Russian cameras, so I thought it appropriate to use a Russian
> camera so I got out my 12XP and the MC Jupiter 9, and did it- they came
> out great.
> The Zenits seem to smooth out the more you use them- seems like they
> need to be "run in".
> I have found the lenses to be very good in general, but I do not shoot
> them wide open- I'm usually down around f8 or 11, so don't have the
> complaints the "wide open" types have.
> With the demise of the K1000, the Zenits would seem to be a very
> reasonably priced alternative. certainly they are good learning cameras.
>
> The screw mount 500 and 1000 mm Rubinar lenses are fabulous- MC and very
> flat fields- very special lenses.
> Regards,
> Kevin Kalsbeek
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Rollei 35S Classic - and competitors
From: pmb [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What is the advantage of range finder camera
Date: 28 Oct 1999
From: Christopher Biggs [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Subject: Canon Canonet QL17 compact rangefinder cameras, also Ricoh 500GX
QL25 (works well) 45mm f/2.5 lens.
QL19 (works well) 40mm f/1.9 lens.
QL17 (works well) 40mm f/1.7 lens.
QL17GIII (shutter needs cleaning) 40mm f/1.7 lens.
From: [email protected] (Herman Heijermans)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Which rangefinder?
Minolta Hi-Matic 9
Canonet QL17 GIII
Yashica Electro GSN
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Semi-serious Zenit users
> I notice that a steady stream of Zenits sell on the auction sites. Are
> these collectors thinking USSR stuff is scarce, or real users? I've seen
> some nice Zenit stuff in UK mags..even a few prize winners. Anyone using
> one? John
> [email protected]
Kevin Kalsbeek
From: [email protected] (Raskolnikov)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm rangefinders w/interchangeable shuttered lenses?
> >Subject: 35mm rangefinders w/interchangeable shuttered lenses?
> >From: [email protected] (Raskolnikov)
> >Date: Thu, 28 October 1999 05:58 AM EDT
>
> >
> >I'm having great fun with my new (old) Hi-matic 9 (a lens shutter
> >rangefinder)
> >and am wondering if anyone ever made a 35mm rangefinder with
> >interchangeable lens with lens shutters as opposed to the focal
> >plane shutters in Leicas, Canon, CLEs, etc. Perhaps the Kodak Ektra??
> >
> >I've found that without a mirror and focal plane shutter flying about
> >I can get sharp pictures down to an 8th of a second about half the time.
> >All of my handheld 8th or 15th shots with an SLR come out as absract art.
> >
> >
> >
>
> There were a few.
> The Voigtlander Prominant is one system that comes to mind.
> There were some Japanese systems made, not as easy to find today.
> And there were also some leaf-shuttered, smooth and quiet SLRs with single
> action mirrors, such as the Voigtlander Bessamatic system (usually still
> reliable) and the Kodak Retina Reflex with its excellent Schneider lenses (no
> longer as reliable).
>
> EJKowalski
From: David Albrecht [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm rangefinders w/interchangeable shuttered lenses?
> First, thanks to everyone for your recommendations - I see one of these
> in my future... in reference to the Bessamatic/Retina Reflex - what
> is the importance of a "single action" mirror - is it different
> from a modern SLR mirror?
From: "rich" [email protected]
[1] Re: Stylus Epic vs. Minilux
Date: Tue Mar 28 2000
rec.photo.marketplace.35mm #4920 (4 + 29 more)
From: "Howard Young" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
[1] Re: Yashica T4 vs. Olympus Stylus Epic
From: AlexZN [email protected]
rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
[1] Re: Yashica T4 vs. Olympus Stylus Epic
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Zorki Cameras--questions
> I'm looking for information on the Russian Zorki line of Leica imitations--what
> is the quality of the pictures? What problems, if any, do these cameras have?
> Which model is recommended? Answers to any of these questions or any other info
> at all on these cameras is greatly appreciated, thanks!
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Need Reliable Point and Shoot
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Need Reliable Point and Shoot
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
From: Chris Brogden [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Need Reliable Point and Shoot
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
From: Gen Kanai [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Need Reliable Point and Shoot
From: [email protected] (CharlesW99)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Current production Russian rangefinders?
>I heard that there are still some Russian 35mm rangefinder cameras
>in production. Is that true? And what about lenses?
From: [email protected] (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Current production Russian rangefinders?
> The best known are the Fed series. I think the current production is the Fed
> 5c. These have interchagable Leica screw thread lenses. The lenses are adequate
> (4 element Tessar formulation, I think). The problem is a quality control one.
From: "West Mass Guy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Help on russian 3ehnt et camera
> Hello, I'm a newbie at photography and I just bought a manual 3ehnt et
> russian camera at a rummage sale, I desperately need any info or websites
> about the setings of this camera.
From: "TravGlen" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Stylus Epic vs. Minilux
From: [email protected] (qwerty)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Stylus Epic vs. Minilux
> The Epic is a simple triplet lens with plastic elements.
> "akula" [email protected]
> > Is the Minilux worth the 6x premium? Can the lens be that
> > much better (I know its titanium, too)? 2.4 is not that
> > much faster than 2.8. Is one paying for the name? I don't
> > want to buy the Epic just to turn around and buy the
> > Minilux to avoid redeye or obtain more control. Then again,
> > I don't want to overpay for similar output from a heavier,
> > non-waterproof item. Or is there a better suggestion -
> > Konica or whatever. Thanks!
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique
Subject: Re: Backpacking/Photography Tips
> When walking in urban areas do not, I repeat *do not* wear an SLR
> camera around your neck. Your camera has a nice thick strap- may I
> suggest you loop it around your wrist three times, - put your arm
> through the strap - twist - put your arm through again - twist again-
> do this a third time giving it a final twist - this should leave just
> enough slack to comfortably maneuver the camera in your hand. It takes
> some getting used to, but I would have lost a Canon EOS in Saigon last
> year if I wasn't doing this. Although this won't prevent forcible
> theft (i.e.- a gun in your face) virtually all theft in Asia is
> stealth or hit-and-run. It's almost impossible to grab a camera that's
> attached to its owner's arm.
> The backpack does not scream "steal me", it's the traditional camera
> bag that begs to be grabbed. Your average petty thief has no idea
> whether your backpack is carrying $2000 worth of photography equipment
> or six pairs of dirty underwear. Still, don't ever let the bag out of
> your sight. If you're on a train and you go to the toilet - take the
> bag with you. Use it as a pillow when you sleep.
> For equipment, you're doing fine. One body, anIS lens, a speedlight.
> I'd say you have the basics covered.
> Gordon
From: [email protected] (Ed Bruchac )
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Subject: Re: Zorki question
>I'm looking for information on the Russian Zorki line of Leica
imitations
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
From: [email protected] (David F. Stein)
Subject: Re: Zorki question
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Zorki question
> Unless you are bent on LTM lenses, look at the Kiev-an excellent
> copy/clone of the pre-War Contax RF. Excellent rangefinder and, again,
> quite excellent lenses.
From: Erik Stiegler [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Subject: Re: Yashica T4 vs. Olympus Stylus Epic
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
From: AlexZN [email protected]
Subject: Re: Yashica T4 vs. Olympus Stylus Epic
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000
Subject: Re: Yashica T4 vs. Olympus Stylus Epic
From: "Patrick Hudepohl" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Subject: Re: Yashica T4 vs. Olympus Stylus Epic
> I'm looking to buy a compact, simple camera for rock climbing and
> mountaineering photography that can be operated with one hand.
--
Photos, scans, reviews and links:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/pmj
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999
From: Aubin [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] rangefinders . . .cheap ones that is.
From: "Stephe" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: lens quality: compacts and SLRs
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000
From: ralph fuerbringer [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: help
> From: Peter Miller [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: help
>
> Anyone know of a rangefinder I could use with the GX 617 180mm? I'm
> in situations where a tripod or groundglass don't work(like in
> streams with waders on focusing on a casting fly fisherman).
From: David Chien [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Subject: Re: Yashica T4 vs. Olympus Stylus Epic
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Rollei 35 vs Ricoh GR1
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] I am about to buy a Minilux
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Dante Stella [email protected]
Subject: Re: Are Leica users dummies?
> I used to think that people who shelled out the money
> for Leica equipment were stupid.
> Now I use a Leica M6.
> Now I think people who DON'T use Leica equipment
> are stupid.
>
> However, rangefinder's like the M6/M4/M4-P/etc. are
> NOT for everyone. Some people don't care for
> rangefinder cameras.
> Fine.
> To each his/her own.
>
> regards,
>
> Bob Keene
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Russian Leica-type camera question
> Dear Jan,
>
> As you know former USSR is now represented by several independant states.
> So, Russia has few plants. The biggest are in Krasnogorsk, near Moscow (now they
> are manufacturing only SLRs Zenit, 35 mm panorama camera Horizon and lenses) and
> LOMO in St. Petersburg (simple cameras and special optics). Krasnogorsk mechanical
> cameras are priced from some $60 with lenses (K-mount or old ?42mm). Horizon is a
> special camera, that is available for the price of $200. Lenses are of rather high
> quality and low price, suitable for Pentax SLR (manual focusing). Fish eye F/2.8 is
> $160. Ukraine is producing some mid-format and 35 mm SLR cameras, but I don't think
> they make some Leica-type any more. I am not sure, but seems Kiev 88 TTL
> (Hasselblad analog) is still in production. Nice camera for professionals.
>
> Basically new cameras are not "the state of arts", and reliability is sometimes not
> as high as expected to be, but probably they are of the best price/quality ratio
> comparing to brand names.
> You can still find new (or at least almost new) SLR, Leica-type and medium-format
> cameras at "flea-markets", in newspapers ads or in specialized photo shops (you'll
> pay here several times more).
>
> Valery
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Jim Williams" [email protected]
Subject: Re: What are there in reasonable used rangefinder
>Can someone tell me what reasonable priced used rangefinders with leica
>screw mount. I know of the new ones comming out, I am looking for info
>on ones by Canon, Nikon etc. Leica would probably be too much money. I
>would rather spend the money on the lense, instead of the camera. If
>there is such a thing out there, does it have a meter?
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: PPN: 12 April 2000
PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS' NEWSLETTER (PPN)
Jon Tarrant represented the UK on the judging panel for The Agfa European
Portrait Awards. He reports back from Barcelona on their deliberations and
the results.
The Voigtl�nder Bessa-R comes with two 35mm f/2.5 lenses: Roger Hicks
assesses the package.
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
From: "Olexandr Kalynychenko" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: FS: Russian photo cameras and lenses.
For sell: Russian photo cameras and lenses:
= MOSKVA-2 , MOSKVA-4, MOSKVA-5, ISKRA ( 6x6, 6x9, Super Icon copy )
= KIEV-2, KIEV-3, KIEV-3A, KIEV-4, KIEV-4A ( Contax copy )
Jupiter-12 35/2.8
Gelios-103 1.8/53
Jupiter-11 4/135
View-finder for lens 35mm , 85 mm.
glass filters and clous-app for 40.5 mm
plastic lens hoods for lens 50mm
= FED-2, FED-3, FED-5, FED-5B, FED-5C ( Leica copy )
= ZORKI, Zorki-S, Zorki-2S, ZORKI-4, ZORKI-5, ZORKI-6 ( Leica copy )
Lenses for FED, ZORKI:
Industar-22 3.5/50 ( Leica lens copy )
Industar -61LD 2.8/55
Industar-26 2.8/50
Industar - 50 3.5/50 ( Leica lens copy )
Jupiter-12 2.8/35
View finder for 35 mm and 80mm lens.
Glass filters
Plastic lens hoods for 50 mm lens
= Kiev-Vega, Kiev-Vega-2 KIEV-30, KIEV-303
( Subminiature cameras, analog MINOLTA-16 )
= Russian half frame cameras ( 18 x 24 mm ) Chaica, FED-MIKRON.
= FED-MIKRON-2
= 35 mm SLR cameras KIEV-10, KIEV-15
From: [email protected] (CHIP5FALL)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: High Altitude Photo Tips/Equipment?
From: Aleksei Rozkov [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: High Altitude Photo Tips/Equipment?
From: Tim Forcer [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Olympus XA
> Having finally acquired an Olympus XA, complete with A11
> flash and original packaging, in near mint condition ;-)
>
> ...I'm interested in hearing hints and tips from other XA
> owners.
Tim Forcer [email protected]
The University of Southampton, UK
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: [Rollei] OT: Olympus Stylus Epic
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Olympus Stylus Epic
>FYI: I've also had problems with my Olympus Stylus. ...
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] CONTAX G2 Opinion please
From: [email protected] (MLapla4120)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: leica or move up to medium format?
> I'm probably going to buy a Leica M6. I just have to convince myself this
>> is what I want, and I realize nobody else can make that decision for me. I
>> started thinking, though, that I could get something like the Mamiya 7 for
>> about what a Leica will cost.
From: Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: leica or move up to medium format?
> I'm probably going to buy a Leica M6. I just have to convince myself this
> is what I want, and I realize nobody else can make that decision for me. I
> started thinking, though, that I could get something like the Mamiya 7 for
> about what a Leica will cost.
>
> I'm not interested in debating the merits of 35mm vs. medium format. But I
> figured other people here have made similar decisions at some point. I'm
> interested in which direction you went and why.
>
> I think I already know that I'm going with a Leica 35mm. I already have a
> nice Nikon SLR system, and one of the reasons for wanting a Leica is to have
> something that isn't so bulky and noisy. But my brain keeps saying that the
> Mamiya is about the same size as my Nikon, and the resulting images will
> blow away anything that I can do with a much smaller film format. I'm
> wavering, though, and would like to hear others' thoughts.
[email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: leica or move up to medium format?
From: [email protected]
> I've read so many good comments about the Olympus XA that it makes me wonder
> why Olympus ever stopped producing it.
From: John Halliwell [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: leica or move up to medium format?
>No . . . quieter than my F5 was, also there's no mirror slap. I have heard
>that it's a slightly noisy camera - but that it's only for the user, not the
>subject. Personally, I haven't noticed it. The G2 is also very compact
>(about the same as some P&S cameras) and will slide into a coat pocket.
John
From: LoveThePenguin [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: leica or move up to medium format?
Collin
From: [email protected] (DBaker9128)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: leica or move up to medium format?
From: [email protected] (ShadCat11)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: leica or move up to medium format?
From: [email protected] (ROBOHAT)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: leica or move up to medium format?
From: [email protected] (TheYankeeSnapper)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: leica or move up to medium format?
>Subject: leica or move up to medium format?
>From: [email protected]
>Date: 4/14/00 7:02 PM EST
[email protected]
From: [email protected] (Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.
+ photo.equipment.medium-format
[1] Re: leica or move up to medium format?
Date: Sun Apr 16 2000
From: Jeff S [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
[1] Re: leica or move up to medium format?
Date: Sun Apr 16 2000
> I'm probably going to buy a Leica M6. I just have to convince myself this
> is what I want, and I realize nobody else can make that decision for me. I
> started thinking, though, that I could get something like the Mamiya 7 for
> about what a Leica will cost.
Somewhere in Boulder, Colorado
rec.photo.marketplace
From: Rustem Salikhov [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.adverts,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.
+ marketplace
[1] FS:inexpensive Russian optics
Date: Mon Apr 24 2000
Zenitar 2.8/16n (Nikon) - $189.
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Nikkor vs. Contax Carl-Zeiss
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000
From: "Doug Richardson" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Russian Copies
>Does anyone know if the Russians made an M3 copy?
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re:Voigtlander/Cosina ultra wide lenses
>From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]
>Subject: [Rollei] Re:Voigtlander/Cosina ultra wide lenses
>Date: Tue, May 2, 2000, 3:43 PM
>
> Has anyone mounted any of the cosina rangefinder lenses on a sm leica body?
> Does the rangefinder couple with the longer fls?
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000
From: [email protected] (Chuck Albertson)
Subject: [Leica] Another Myth Shattered
Seattle, Wash.
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000
From: Ron Hashiro [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] RE: Best pocket point and shoot?
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000
> From: Tristan Tom [email protected]
> Subject: [NIKON] Best pocket point and shoot?
>
> I want to get a pocket point and shoot since as much as
> I'd like to, I can't carry my F100 around with me
> everywhere I go. I think I've narrowed it down to either
> the Yashica T-4 Super or the Olympus Stylus Epic. Which
> one is better?
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000
From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] OT: Voigtlander RF versus Contax
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000
From: Gerald Wang [email protected]
Subject: OT: Olympus Stylus Epic impressions
http://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~gtwang/trip/icetreat.jpg
http://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~gtwang/trip/volcanarenal.jpg
http://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~gtwang/trip/crvegetation.jpg
http://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~gtwang/trip/goldchapel2.jpg
http://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~gtwang/trip/irazucrater.jpg
http://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~gtwang/trip/fancymall.jpg
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT: Voigtlander RF versus Contax
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000
From: Randy Holst [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] point 'n shoot advice sought
> Our old faithful Yashica T4 that my wife uses has just about bit the
> dust - literally.....
[snip]
> ........I'm not really in the market for an $800+ Minilux
> or a Contax or a QZ. As always I will appeciate your thoughts.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Date: 15 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Kiev's vs. Contax?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Kiev's vs. Contax?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: A good rangefinder
> Hi
> I primarily shoot with a K-1000 and Pentax 67 (105 and 55mm lenses) for
> my documentary work. I borrowed a friends Leica M4 and did a bit of
> shooting with it and totally fell in love with it. I still havnt
> developed the film but loved the handling, the quietness and its size.
> Thus I am thinking about getting a small rangefinder camera. There is
> no way I can afford a Leica and probably not a Konica Hexar either. Is
> there any other small rangefinder that produces decent result and that I
> could get for under say $400? Any advice would be appreciated.
> Thanks
> Sheheryar
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] pictures from Exakta VX IIa
>From: "wei zhang" [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [CONTAX] pictures from Exakta VX IIa
>Date: Fri, Jun 30, 2000, 6:57 AM
>
>Hi gang,
>
>I just got the pictures (first roll from Exakta) back from the local photo
>shop today... and scanned two pictures. The lens I was using was a
>Steinheil 55mm lens. You can see them at
>http://www.wsu.edu/~mlklover/flower1.html
>&
>http://www.geocities.com/widelux_1999/ex2.jpg
>
>As you noticed, the second picture has heavy flare problem. I don't really
>know what could be the cause. Seems like all the outdoor shots are
>suffering this problem. And all the flare spots seem stay at the same
>location.
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>Wei
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: A good rangefinder
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Date: 04 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: A good rangefinder
>Best ever small rangefinder (FIXED LENS!) is the Canonet QL 1.7.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: A good rangefinder
>The Bessa-R is featured prominently on the Cosina website at
>http://www.cosina.co.jp/; Cosina produces the Voigtl�nder products. I
>don't know where the same information is available on an english
>language website yet.
http://www.aaacamera.com/voigtlander_slr.html
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Neil Harrington" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Olympus Sylus Epic vs Tashica T4 vs others
> I've decided I need another camera. It has to be small and fit easily
> into my pocket and to be with me at all times for those special
> occasions when I just don't happen to have my F90x or 124G with me. So
> far I'm leaning towards the Olympus Stylus Epic or Yashica T4. Any
> opinions on these or any other cameras that could be carried at all
> times. I'm on a bit of a budget so would rather not spend any more than
> a few hundred dollars.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Olympus Sylus Epic vs Tashica T4 vs others
> >I have both of those, and both are excellent cameras. The Olympus Stylus
> Epic is much
> >the better buy as far as I'm concerned. I'll be putting my Yashica T4 up
> for sale on
> >eBay one of these days, when I get around to it.
>
> Yes it is 2/3rds the price of the T4, You already have the T4,
> so why spend
> $$ on the Stylus?
From: jc [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Olympus Sylus Epic vs Tashica T4 vs others
>I've decided I need another camera. It has to be small and fit easily
>into my pocket and to be with me at all times for those special
>occasions when I just don't happen to have my F90x or 124G with me. So
>far I'm leaning towards the Olympus Stylus Epic or Yashica T4. >
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 10 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Olympus Sylus Epic vs Tashica T4 vs others
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 28 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Stylus Epic, so small
>Mike,
>I have this great little camera, but lost the manual. How is the spot
>metering done?
>Thanks.
>Ken
Download at "http://members.tripod.com/~jbigge"
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000
Subject: Yashica Rangefinder Info for website
Omar Alvarez
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] T2/ standing up for the Stylus
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000
From: Terence Mac Goff [email protected]
Subject: Re: Olympus Stylus Epic
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000
From: Gary Richards [email protected]
Subject: Re: Olympus Stylus Epic
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Canon QL17 G-III & QL19
From: [email protected] (Bob Hickey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: What's a prime lens - I give up
From: "Noah Spam" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What's a prime lens - I give up
> How can a rangefinder with no rangefinder be a rangefinder? It's
>gotta be a zone focus, or a fixed focus, no? Or it can have a
>rangefinder on it, a Kalart for instance, and not be a rangefinder, like
>a Graphic. Or have a scale rangefinder, like a Conley, and still be a
>flatbed. But as far as I can see, if you got a rangefinder with
>no rangefinder, you got no rangefinder. Bob
>Hickey
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Canon QL17 G-III & QL19
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 24 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Rangefinders
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> If I sound zealous about the G2, it's because I am. I am perfectly
>> aware of its shortcomings, but I find that they are mostly
>> inconsequential when it comes to the job of producing high quality
>> images in a fast, efficient manner. All cameras embody
>> compromises of one sort or another. It is up to the buyer to decide
>> which compromises to make in order to obtain certain desired
>> features and qualities. The G2 is not suitable for everyone. But if
>> you want an automated rangefinder with world class
>> interchangeable lenses, there really is no other choice.
>
>I am surprised that the Konica Hexar RF is not available in your
>country. Because if it were, your last sentence would not be true.
Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
[Ed. note: special thanks to Winfried for sharing this information on
Canonet Gasket Repairs, a commonly needed service routinet that many users
may now be able to do on their own - Thanks!!!]
From: winf_buechsenschuetz [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Canon Canonet question
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Gaskets for Canonet
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Gaskets for Canonet
Addendum:
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 15-Oct-2000
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject:
Date: Thu, 21-Dec-2000
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject: RE: Canonet Light Seals
> I have read that rubber mouse pads do a good job.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000
From: Omar Durant [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] good source for light baffle, tools, etc.
> I prefer dealing with a company called Cam Comp for light baffle
> material. For what micro-tools charges for a tiny strip, you get a large
> sheet from Cam Comp.
>
>http://www.cam-comp.com/cgi-local/webc.cgi/st_main.html?catid=25&sid=C4x-FUm
>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rangefinders
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000
>I'm not looking for anything that small and light. If it is a question
>of diverting from 35mm, what I would rather see is an affordable 6x7
>rangefinder camera. Remember when most Brownies used 620 film, and you
>could get a pretty nice foldable 120 from Germany for a reasonable
>price? A Mamiya 7II will set you back about $3,500 or more with one lens,
>and a fixed lens Fuji will still be around $2,000, or more with a zoom.
>Whew. Maybe those old Zeiss Ikontas were comparably priced in constant
>dollars.
David Littlewood
London
Energy Consultant and Photographer
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] A Rangefinder for 50 bucks
> Hi . I spent my sunday morning in a small used photo equipment sale in France
> and falled on a nice 1970 Olympus 35 RC .
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000
From: Bill Lawlor [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Rollei 35S vs compact 35's
Date: Sun, 8-Oct-2000
From: Michael Darnton [email protected]
Subject: RE: Concealed Carry 35
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000
From: "Daniel J. Hein"
Date: Mon, 9-Oct-2000
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject: RE: Other Leica screw mount rangefinders
Date: Sat, 14-Oct-2000
From: John Scott [email protected]
Subject: freeing stuck Canonet shutter and aperture blades
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rangefinder vs 35mm SLR?
> I've been using a 35mm for a few years. I'm intrigued by some
> peoples love for Rangefinders. I'm ignorant on this point. What is a
> Rangefinder and what is the difference between a Rangefinder and a
> 35mm SLR? Can you do things with a Rangefinder that you can't do
> with a 35mm SLR?
From: Philip Stripling [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rangefinder vs 35mm SLR?
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/
From: "Mark Bergman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moskva 5 - coupled rangefinder?
> Does anyone know if the Moskva 5 copy of the Super Ikonta C camera has
> a coupled rangefinder or not? I'm thinking of getting one to play with,
> as I cannot yet afford a V. Bessa II or real Super Ikonta C. I know the
> Bessa II has a coupled rangefinder, Does the Zeiss (the real one) have
> one too?
>
> Oh, and how well do you think the Moskva Industar lens handle color
> film? I know it is a copy of a 4 element Tessar, and I have heard some
> good things about it, any experience? Does it suck? If it does I'll
> still probably get the camera since it is cheap, I just may not use
> color film.
>
> -Josh
From: Vladimir Mishchenko [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Russian cameras?
Vladimir
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: rangefinder replacement
> I don't think the Super Ikonta C was ever a common camera. In it's day it
> was extremely expensive and few people could afford it.
Super Ikonta C, 3.5 Tessar $114.00
For comparison:
Contax IIIA, 1.5 Sonnar 412.00
Exakta VX, 1.9 Xenon 408.00
Speed Graphic, 135 4.7 Optar 331.45
Rolliecord IV, 3.5 Xenar 149.50
Retina IIa $125.00
Kodak Holiday 3.95
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio [email protected]
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Adjusting Bessa R rangefinder?
"jiri" [email protected] wrote:
>Some days ago there was a message in this group stating that the rangefinder
>of the Voigtlander Bessa R can be easily adjusted for vertical coincidence
>with a pair of jeweler screwdrivers and a safety pin; unfortunately the
>author of this message didn't mention the procedure.
>
>Now, my Bessa R developed a slight vertical mismatch that wasn't there when
>new -probably the result of a bump somewhere- but that is not enough to
>warrant sending it back to factory for correction and being without it for
>several weeks.
>
>Does anyone has found the way to adjust it?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>>http://www.rangefinder-network.com/shoptalk/equipment/messages/2706.html
>>
>I found those instructions a little lacking in detail, so am appending my
>own.
>
>
>>>> In any case, if it hasn't been solved already by Cosina, you can solve
>it
>>>> yourself in five minutes with a safety pin and two jeweler's
>screwdrivers
>>>> (one regular, one Philips.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Please, how is that done? My Bessa-R has a very slight vertical
>>>descentering. It's very slight and I'm reluctant to send it back.
>
>Okay, here's how -- but keep in mind that if you slip even slightly, you
>WILL screw up the rangefinder in a big way, and you WILL have voided the
>warranty so THK won't fix it for free (as they will if you just send it in
>and ask to have it adjusted.) So I suggest you retain this technique as an
>emergency, avoid-missing-photo-opportunity-of-a-lifetime resort:
>
>1) The adjustment screws are concealed beneath the hot shoe, and to get at
>them you'll need to take the hot shoe off. It's held down by three screws
>that are concealed under a spring-steel cover plate that's held in the shoe
>by spring pressure.
>
>To remove the plate, take your safety pin (or other sturdy, easy-to-grasp
>pointed instrument) and GENTLY slip it under the two little tabs of the
>plate that fit under the front edge of the hot shoe. Work these tabs up and
>forward CAREFULLY. After a bit of nudging, they'll move forward enough to
>clear the front edge of the shoe, and the plate will spring up a bit. Now,
>using your pin, carefully slide the plate backward until it can be slid out
>the rear of the shoe. The front edge of the plate will probably hang up on
>the plastic piece of the shoe that has the flash contact in it; use the pin
>to gently lift and ease it past this.
>
>2) Once the plate is out, you'll see that the accessory shoe has four holes
>and is secured by (only) three crosspoint screws. Use your crosspoint
>jeweler's screwdriver to loosen these; then lift the shoe off, taking the
>screws with it. Be careful not to mix up the screws, as their lengths are
>not all the same.
>
>The center contact of the hot shoe and the plastic insulating piece that
>hold it stay with the camera, so there are no wires that you need to
>unsolder.
>
>3) Once you've removed the shoe, the rangefinder adjusting screws are
>visible toward the right of the flash contact. Looking down into the shoe
>area from above and behind the camera, you'll see a VERY small slotted
>screw toward the front, and a slightly larger screw behind it. (On my
>camera both screws have slotted heads, but apparently there are some Bessas
>out there on which the rear screw is a crosspoint.) Disregard any other
>screws you may see down there; they're for holding the camera together, not
>adjustments. An easy way to distinguish the two correct screws is that they
>will have dabs of plasticky sealer holding them in place.
>
>4) The vertical adjustment is the FRONT screw -- the really small one.
>Because it's so small, you MUST use **EXACTLY** the right size jeweler's
>screwdriver to turn it. DO NOT try to use a "too big" or "too small"
>screwdriver and compensate by pressing down harder -- at best you won't be
>able to get the adjustment correct (the pressure throws it off) and at
>worst you'll slip and wreck the rangefinder! The screwdriver should fit the
>screwhead like a key fits its lock. With the correct size screwdriver,
>you'll be able to turn the screw with little or no downward pressure.
>
>5) Now that you've been suitably warned -- sight through the camera at a
>distant object that has prominent horizontal and vertical lines. If only
>the vertical adjustment is off, you'll need to adjust only the front screw.
>Notice whether the moving image needs to go up or down; then pick a
>direction and turn the screw VERY slightly. Check to see whether this gets
>the image closer or farther off, and re-adjust accordingly. The sealer will
>make the screw a bit difficult to turn -- but if the misalignment is
>slight, there should be enough "give" in the sealer to let you get it
>adjusted. (If the misalignment is more than slight, I'd send it back and
>let the importer deal with it.)
>
>6) Once you've got the vertical alignment the way you want it, check that
>the infinity position hasn't been thrown off. A *slight* readjustment of
>the vertical alignment shouldn't affect the infinity position, but if
>you've turned it more than slightly (or applied too much pressure) it may
>have drifted a bit. Focus a known-good lens at infinity, sight your distant
>object, and make sure the stationary and moving images line up correctly.
>If they are *slightly* off, adjust the REAR screw using the same procedure
>you did with the front screw.
>
>7) Once you've got the RF perfect, reattach the shoe and slip the cover
>back into place. In my experience, once the RF is adjusted it tends to stay
>put, so you shouldn't have to do this again for a long time, if ever.
>
>Incidentally, if this procedure sounds scary, note that it's actually
>easier than most! The Bessa is relatively good about the vertical and
>horizontal adjustments not interacting with each other -- not as good as a
>Nikon S-2, but better than a Leica IIIf, for example (with old Leicas
>there's no way to adjust the vertical position without throwing off the
>horizontal adjustment.) And the adjusting screws are fairly easy to reach
>(much more than, say, a Leica M) and while the vertical adjustment takes a
>delicate touch, there are worse ones out there (Canon 7, for example.)
>
>I'd still say leave it alone unless you've had enough experience to be
>comfortable handling jeweler's screwdrivers and camera innards, but if you
>are it's a good technique to know. What various people have posted is true
>-- there's a big difference between a rangefinder on which the vertical
>adjustment is only "almost" perfect and one on which it really is!
>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000
From: "Noah Spam" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Adjusting Bessa R rangefinder?
>Some days ago there was a message in this group stating that the rangefinder
>of the Voigtlander Bessa R can be easily adjusted for vertical coincidence
>with a pair of jeweler screwdrivers and a safety pin; unfortunately the
>author of this message didn't mention the procedure.
>Now, my Bessa R developed a slight vertical mismatch that wasn't there when
>new -probably the result of a bump somewhere- but that is not enough to
>warrant sending it back to factory for correction and being without it for
>several weeks.
>
>Does anyone has found the way to adjust it?
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000
From: "kevin vilbanks" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Bessa RF adjust?
Date: Fri, 23-Feb-2001
From: mike p [email protected]
Subject: RE: Oh, no...
> I bought a Fed I last from a guy with the handle of lemiu. It came with
> a 50/3.5 that I didn't try for a while because I was sure it was trash.
> Turned out to not be too bad at all at 3.5! It's no Summicron, but then
> the camera AND the lens set me back all of $65. So a couple of weeks ago
>
> I hunted down Mr. Lemiu's listings and bought a Kiev 4, but it's not
> shown up yet. On the other hand, I bought a Russian 85/2, and though the
>
> lens is fine it doesn't track with the RF, and the closer it gets the
> farther off it is--about 6" at 3'! I've been meaning to take it apart
> and mess with the spacing of the elements to see if I can bring the FL
> around to match the RF camming. Anyone with any ideas, I beg you to
> share them.
>
> --Michael
> [email protected] wrote:
> > I just caved in to a twenty year desire...I just bought a Zorki 1 from
> > an established eBay seller. Actually, I rather like my Kiev's glass.
> > I'm hoping this thing will be at least usable! Pray for me...
> >
> > Any Russian camera enthusiasts here in the list?
> >
> > Regards -
> >
> > Ken For
Date: Fri, 27-Oct-2000
From: Gerry Rosen [email protected]
Subject: Yashica Battery Chart
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000
From: "kevin vilbanks" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] First Rangefinder!
From: "Mark Bergman" [email protected]
Date: Sun Nov 05 2000
[1] Re: Why would anyone ever buy a Leica(or a Porsche)
From: [email protected] (Jerome Bigge)
Date: Sun Nov 05 2000
[1] Re: Sharpness of Olympus Stylus vs 35 mm prime lenses
>Hi Friends! How does the sharpness of 35 mm f2.8 lens of Olympus Stylus Epic
>compares with the prime 35 lenses of SLR cameras? With thanks.
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: It's illogical, was: hard decision.........
> > > The CL is not a M camera. ;-)
> ----------------------------------
> Most folks who say that have never used a CL, or learned to use it. Actually
> it is a scaled down progenitor M6 to two lenses. M advantages have been
> worked into the CL but concealed in a small package. M precision is in the
> CL. It's almost impossible to tell CL negatives from M negs.
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] N1 vs G2 Picture Quality
> From: Lotus M50 [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] N1 vs G2 Picture Quality
>
> Contax (Blake) says that the G lenses ate about 10% sharper than the SLR
> lenses. The G 90/2.8 was called by Popular Photography, "the best medium
> telephoto we have ever tested". The trade off with the lenses you list is the
> fast f1.4 aperture, if that is important to you.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Old, cheap, bright rangefinder full frame 35mm
>Hi,
>I am going to buy a backup for my SLR.
>I think about not very expensive, bright full frame rangefinder.
>Compact PS's don't allow manual mode.
>Medium wide angle lens is enough for me.
>
>Private investigation results:
>Olympus 35RD
>Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII
>Konica Auto S3
>Canonet GIII QL17
>Ricoh 500G
>I am happy to know your opinions and/or other solutions.
>
>Best regards - Marek
"Whomever dies with the most cameras wins"
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000
From: "Benno Jones"[email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Yashica Electro 35 variations
G
GT
GSN
GTN
GX (1 chrome, non-working, 1 black, working)
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000
From: "Argonaut" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Yashica Electro 35 variations
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000
From: Pastor D L Dickerson [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Kiev 4a
Leonid Treskunov
9-A Poplar Lane
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
[email protected]
(732) 679-5805
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000
From: "Jukka Vatanen" [email protected]
Subject: Vs: [RF List] Kiev 4a
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 05 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: who cares what the pros use?
> Jeff Swysh wrote:
>
> > There are times when all your equipment is either in the bag or all
> > broken down in to its respective parts... like no lens on the body,
> > etc... and a situation pops up where its either a p&s or nothing. Thats
> > why its usually a small one in someones shirt pocket. Im not saying
> > you're gonna see those kind of pics in magazines and stuff...
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: New to RF / Photography
Instruction Manuals
Canon Canonet QL17 G-III
Canon Canonet 28
Olympus Pen F & FT
NEW Olympus Trip 35
NEW Olympus 35RD ...[more]
Repair & Camera Articles
Repair Tools
Test Equipment
Olympus Pen Technical Exploration
Olympus Pen FT Repair Tips...[more]
Repair Manuals
Canon Canonet QL17 G-III
NEW Canon Cine Canonet 8
Canon Demi S
Olympus Pen FT
Michael
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000
From: [email protected] (David Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Leica vs Medium Format??
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Question on 50 mm lens
> How can lenses of identical focal length, which will take identical
> pictures, be "boring" on one type of camera but "magical" on another?
>
> Your "logic" is lost on me, and I suspect many others too.
>
> --
> Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: early SLRs why 50mm etc. Re: Question on 50 mm lens
Date: Mon, 1-Jan-2001
From: drayton cooper [email protected]
Subject: RE: What would you get?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Canonet - poor man's Leica?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000
Great lens. Lightweight. Reasonably priced.
(b) use 675 hearing aid batteries.
> Anyone have any experience with these little rangefinders?
>
> I've heard them called the "poor man's Leica" and they look like fun
> little units for grab shots.
>
> Be interested to hear what you think.
>
> Jim
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Canonet - poor man's Leica?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Canonet - poor man's Leica?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000
> I've heard them called the "poor man's Leica" and they look like fun
> little units for grab shots.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Canonet - poor man's Leica?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000
From: [email protected] (Ejkowalski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 30 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Canonet - poor man's Leica?
>Subject: Re: Canonet - poor man's Leica?
>From: "Ken Rosenbaum" [email protected]
>Date: 12/29/00
>There's a reference here to stuck shutters on the GIII rangefinder. I have
>one in absolute mint cosmetic shape with a stuck shutter. Who fixes these
>things reasonably?
>Ken
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Canonet - poor man's Leica?
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: General comparison SLR/rangefinder lenses
> [snip some stuff]
> When it comes to focal lengths shorter than normal (probably including
> the normal lens), they are constructed in a non-retrofocus fashion,
> with fewer lenses. A retrofocus lens has the same effect as looking
> into the front lenses of a pair of binoculars. Retrofocus lenses have
> to be used in SLR's because of the mirror swing.
> [snip more, part of which talks about compactness of RF lenses]
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: General comparison SLR/rangefinder lenses
From: "Bud Cook" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: General comparison SLR/rangefinder lenses
Bud Cook
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001
From: David Lewis [email protected]
Subject: Chinese rangefinders--Seagull/Haiou and Phenix
From Russian Camera List:
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001
From: "Jay Y Javier" [email protected]
Subject: CORRECTING MISALIGNED RANGEFINDER/ZORKIJ C (S)
>Hi folks
>
>Two more questions for the group re: repair.
>
>Firstly, I tried to open up the Moskva 5 to see what the problem may be... I
>didn't get further
>then the 4 screws in the film chamber which leads to the frame holding down
>the bellows.
>Where are the screws to open up the camera? Sad to say, the shutter release
>still don't work ... :(
>
>I tried to clean the lens too, and got at the rear group. Would I risk
>problems with the rangefinder
>if I attempted to open up the front group?
>
>Second question pertaining to Zorki C.
>
>A Zorki C was opened up recently, and now after reassembling, the cam adjust
>seems to be out.
>Does anyone know how to adjust the cam focus?
>
>kelvin,
Date: Fri, 19-Jan-2001
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject: RE: Canonet G-III QL17
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Voigtlande Bessa Alignment Problems
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000
From: "Tom & Joyce Hutchinson" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Yashica MG-1 battery
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000
From: Stewart Gardiner [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] FED 5C
*weird retro-styling will earn you strange looks from those serious SLR
guys
with multi-pocketed vests and phallic zoom lenses.
*no lever rewind
*1/30 sec flash synch
*no strap lugs on body
[Ed. note: the following may prove interesting data for Bessa fans!]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000
From: "S. Gordon" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cosina lenses
> re: Cosina as mediocre
>
> kind of hard to tell; Cosina has made lenses for Tokina, Nikon, Olympus,
> Ricoh, Canon, Yashica and even cameras - both SLRs and rangefinders/lenses
> - the editor of the #3 USA photo mag says "Cosina makes very good optics."
> see related postings at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/mfg.html
f-stop Center Edge
f/2.5 81 71
f/2.8 90 80
f/4 110 100
f/5.6 118 118
f/8 120 120
f/11 118 118
f/16 98 98
f-stop Center Edge
f/2.5 60 50
f/2.8 65 58
f/4 80 70
f/5.6 90 89
f/8 90 90
f/11 90 90
f/16 88 87
The new Voigtlander Color Heliar is a very up-to-date
computation, lacking only the currently fashionable
composite sandwich in its optical makeup.... The optical
train is made up of six elements, a pair of which are
cemented making up an objective of five groups
How good is this new Voigtlander lens? It is all but free
of linear distortion and its colour rendering is
effectively neutral. Its image contrast characteristics
would match the expectations of even a professional fashion
photographer. An even larger group will be attracted by its
compact size and weight. Its length on camera is a hair
longer than 40mm and its diameter is 53.6mm. When you focus
to its near point of 0.7mm, its 50.6mm length is still less
than its diameter. On top of this (in spite of its
traditional body construction) its weight is only 239g.
I have only one gripe... the lens hood with its unique
location-locking bayonet is supplied as an extra -- and at
#50 it's a very substantial extra. I admit that I was able
to deliberately establish flare only within a limited set
of circumstances, but the otherwise crisp, bright imaging
made it quite startling as it blinked into view.
HANDLING -- I've had the opportunity of using most of the
Voigtlander lenses for Leica L-39 mount rangefinders since
the Bessa-L camera was launched. Without exception, they
have proven their quality on the laboratory bench and in
the field. For this test the lens was fitted to a
colleague's AI-S mount Nikon FM2 and seemed perfectly at
home with its gun metal lens hood and 'wrong way around'
focusing.... There was not a sniff of vignetting, either in
the FM2's bright viewfinder or on the final slides.
Contrast is punchy, with bright and natural colors.
Defocused highlights have a very pleasing look thanks to
the smoothness of the iris diaphragm's overlapping nine
blades. Flare is not an issue with non-axial light, as the
lens has an accessory hood that really sets off both the
look and the optical performance of the lens. Even with
backlit subjects, flare control is super.
###
AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER VERDICT
This latest lens marks a new aspect of Voigtlander's bid
for world domination. Not content with ruffling Leica's
feathers by marketing exceptional and very affordable
lenses, the firm is now attacking the vintage SLR market.
Is it a serious assault? Well, all in all, the 75mm f/2.5
handles like a dream and produces absolutely cracking
results. The impeccable record for Voigtlander continues.
OPTICAL QUALITY: 27/30
HANDLING: 24/30
BUILD QUALITY: 19/20
VALUE FOR MONEY: 17/20
AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHY TEST SCORE: 87%
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001
From: Paul DiBiase [email protected]
Subject: Re: Digest Number 865
Owner of the Pacific Northwest Photography E-mail list at
http://www.egroups.com/group/pnwphoto
and
the film discussion group at
http://www.egroups.com/photofilm
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001
From: Javier Perez [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] gettn kinda Leica-OT What is it with the 25mm Focal length
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: are there any "user" Leica's
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: are there any "user" Leica's
> Let's see, sixty bucks for a GIII QL17
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: are there any "user" Leica's
> Obviously the answer would be a new M6 with an assortment of lenses but
> if not wishing to finance through a second mortgage on my house I am
> wondering if there are genuine practical alternatives with the Leica
> name engraved on the camera. The problem I have with the older Leica's
> is that they don't even have a light meter. Solid construction yes, but
> so was the Model T and pot bellied iron wood cooking stoves so I can't
> imagine a non metered camera anymore than daily driving Henry Ford's
> original or cooking on iron.. What about the M5 or CL? Or is it just
> more practical/realistic to go for a Bessa R.
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Canonet QL17 Rangefinder
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Calibration
>Erwin, in these days of vertical RF adjustment being off on a brand new
>camera, I think that all new Leica buys needs to be checked. We can not
>assume they are correct direct from the factory.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 08 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Leica Conversion?
>I currently have a Nikon F5 system (24-120, 80-200, 300, SB-26, etc), and
>have decreased my usage where it really shines (i.e. fast moving sports
>photography).
>
>During the past 10 years I have primarily used large format cameras (4x5 and
>5x7) for my fine art work, and have really enjoyed (and grown, I think, as a
>result of) its more contemplative approach.
>
>Since I no longer have a significant need for autofocus and motor drives,
>I've been giving very serious thought to converting to a lighter weight and
>more basic/simpler approach to my 35mm work, i.e. a Leica M6 TTL system with
>2 or 3 lenses.
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 6-Dec-2000
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject: RE: Konica Auto S2 rf adjustment
Date: Thu, 7-Dec-2000
From: John Scott [email protected]
Subject: stiff shutter-speed ring on Konica S2
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: "Keith Berry" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Patching the curtain
- Keith Berry
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: "Keith Berry" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Patching the curtain
- Keith
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Add acc.shoe to top of rangefinder?
> I was wondering if anyone had a simple solution to how I could add an
> accessory shoe to the top of my Moskva rangefinder camera. The top of the
> camera is smooth metal. It seems that a shoe that comes with small screws
> could be screwed into small holes tapped into the top of the camera. I have
> a side bracket but I'd like to be able to mount a flash on the top of the
> camera for a bit more convenience. As an example, the later Bessa II's have
> a shoe while the earlier ones don't - it seems like it's a simple addition
> that could be made to any camera. Thanks for any help.
>
> -Josh Wein
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 23 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Add acc.shoe to top of rangefinder?
Rabbitbert
From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: I would buy a Leica but.....
>Leica costs are similar to other professional equipment, especially when you
>consider that they are not mainstream SLR products and have lower production
>numbers. The fact that most amateurs can't afford a Leica is irrelevent--
>most amateurs can't afford a fast Nikkor or Canon telephoto lens, either.
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001
From: "J-2" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Patching the curtain
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: how to shoot low light with point and shoot camera
> Yuan Xiao wrote:
>> How successful does a point and shoot camera tackle low light situations?
>
> Unless your P&S has a "Bulb" or "Time" mode that permits long (> 3-4
> seconds) exposures, you will be limited to the programmed exposure limit
> of the camera, usually 2, 3, or 4 seconds. With fast ISO 800 film
> this may be sufficient if the ambient light is not too dark.
> Shooting in "low light" not absoluted darkness is best for
> getting some background in the picture, not just a black hole.
> The critical trick for success is to use some kind of steady support
> for the camera. A tripod is best but other methods are possible.
> See more on this on my Tips and Tricks for P&S Photography page.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: how to shoot low light with point and shoot camera
> It's worth remarking that P&S cameras like the Olympus Stylus Epic
> are *better* in some ways for low-light photography than SLR monsters.
> At shutter speeds between 1/10 and 2 seconds, P&S cameras produce images
> without camera shake produced by SLR mirror slap.
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Fuji TX-1 35mm Rangefinder / Xpan / G2 / Hexar RF
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001
From: "Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Bessa-T focusing accuracy
> Where *does* the Bessa stand in terms of accuracy relative to the M3, M2,
> LTM, etc?
M3 - 62
M6 .85 - 59
>Bessa T - 58
Screwmnt - 58 (II b-f, III b-g)
Nikon SP - 58
M2 - 49
M4,M4-2 - 49
M6 .72 - 49
Hexar RF - 41
Screwmnt - 41 (II - IIa, III-IIIa
M6 .58 - 40
CLE - 28
Bessa R - 24
CL - 18
Focal length Aperture Effective base length needed
50 2.0 12.5 mm
50 1.4 17.9 mm
50 1.0 25.0 mm
75 1.4 40.2 mm
90 2.8 28.9 mm
90 2.0 40.5 mm
135 4.0 45.6 mm
135 3.4 53.6 mm
135 2.8 65.0 mm
> So now everyone is wetting their pants over a camera that cannot possibly
> (well... one could get lucky) take sharp photographs with these lenses at
> wide open apertures. The very apertures that define Leica lenses
St.
(Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy)
http://www.geocities.com/Stanislaw_Stawowy
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cannonet QL 1.7 g111
> How good is this camera, and what would it compare with in today's
> market in terms of quality? Also, what is the best filf to use for
> travel/ street etc?
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cannonet QL 1.7 g111
From: "Tommy Huynh" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 15 2001
Subject: Re: Leica fans won't like this.(May issue Popular Photography)
> Just picked up the latest issue of Popular Photography and Herb
> Keppler(a Leica owner) made a comparison with a new M6 with 50mm f/2
> Summicron against his 1964 Pentex Spotmatic with 50mm f/1.4
> Super-Taukumar. Same shots on Kodak TMax 100 at f/8 and then enlarged to
> 8x12. Herb's conclusion was that he couldn't see any difference. He then
> went on to state that there are very good reasons to buy a Leica,
> notably the legendary build quality, but if you expect better quality
> photos from a Leica than with anything else you'll be sorely
> disappointed.
>
> As a side, let me state that Herb's conclusion doesn't surprise me one
> bit. I've never tested my 35mm's against a Leica but we did once test a
> YashicaMat 124G against a Hasselblad. Same film, same scene, f/8, tripod
> mounted, and saw no discernable difference. I'm sure the Blad would
> easily win at wider f stops and so might the Leica, but at optimum
> aperature there seems to be no difference.
>
> This sure flys in the face of some of the Leica posters on this ng who
> claim that their Leica images are so much superior than the rest of the
> world. Can hardly wait to hear what some of the Leica fanatics on the
> ng have to say about this.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Leica fans won't like this.(May issue Popular Photography)
Date: 26 Apr 2001
From: Mike Bischof [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re:Best Pocket Camera
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
From: "Michael B. Levy" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Olympus Xa vs Rollei 35
> In what way was it better?
Date: Sat, 28-Apr-2001
From: Lloyd Minaai [email protected]
Subject: RE: Canon GIII/QL 19 battery
> My son just picked up what appears to be a pristine Canon QL19 at a yard
>
> sale.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: M6 Rangefinder adjustment
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001
Subject: Re: "quiet" rangefinder wanted
>> (3) The Summicron vs. Super-Taukumar article.
>>
>> You may not like his conclusions, but IMO he is telling it as he
>> sees it. That's why I like the guy.
>
> At f 8.0 and 8x12 prints he could have probably compared a disposable
> camera with the Summicron and not seen a whole lot of difference. Try
> 20x30 prints shot at f2.0 in a backlite situation and see what conclusions
> he arrives at ...
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001
From: stiles [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Canonet Rangefinder=Poor Man's Leica?
> Wondering if any of you have had the opportunity
> to shoot/own a Canonet GIII QL17?
Phil Stiles NH USA
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Canonet Rangefinder=Poor Man's Leica?
Date: Wed, 16-May-2001
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject: RE: Olympus 35 SP
> I noticed my new (to me) 35 SP's shutter would hesitate about 1-2 sec.
> after
> I pushed the shutter release. This was last week, now it seems to be
> firing
> fine. Could this be attributed to atmospheric conditions (sun spots)?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001
From: "Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Canonet Rangefinder=Poor Man's Leica?
> Wondering if any of you have had the opportunity
> to shoot/own a Canonet GIII QL17?
> I'm thinking of buying one as a beater cam - something
> I can carry on my person in the city without worry.
> I'd be interested in hearing any informed opinions on
> picture quality and value of this 70s classic.
> I know its hard to find batteries for the meter these
> days....yet I'm still curious.
http://www.primco.org/photo/galleries/canonet_ql17_manual/
http://canonet.free.fr/
[email protected]
St.
(Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy)
http://www.geocities.com/Stanislaw_Stawowy
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001
From: "Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Question about Picture Quality
> I was wondering whether the print quality of a Leica 4R sized print is
> indistinguishable in sharpness from a 4R print taken by a 6x6. This is
> assuming that the prints are viewed at normal arm's length, and the lab
> conditions are good. Has anyone compared two such prints before?
St.
(Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy)
http://www.geocities.com/Stanislaw_Stawowy
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: What about Leningrad?
> From: "Kelvin" [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001
> Subject: Re: [russiancamera] What about Leningrad?
>
> Yeah. The Bessa L and Cosina S107SW aren't much better...
> it's hard to swallow when you consider the build quality and shutter is
> probably
> the same one as what they use in the contract-manufactured FM10, FE10 and
> Canon T60.... which sells for half the price, with a lens.
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001
From: "Tom" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Making a Zorki I take film without having to destroy the canister
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: FED 5C Light Leaks--Any Thoughts On How I Could Repair Them
Myself?
> I've seen much on the subject of light leaks, but not on this
> specific camera. Help!!!!
>
> I have a light leak which shows as streaking on the lower left side
> of my prints. The streaks only show up occasionally, so it's not
> consistent (doesn't even appear on every roll!!). The camera was
> recently CLA'd and I like it a lot, but the light leaks drive me
> nuts. Please don't make me go back to Nikon.
>
> Any ideas anyone might have on how I could fix this myself would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
From Zeiss Interest Group Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001
From: "Paulo Moreira" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Nikkor 35mm f2.5
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001
From: "Stouten, Pim (EBI)" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] RE: Of Russian lenses and etc
from still cloudy Amsterdam
Date: Sun, 20-May-2001
From: Paul Franklin Stregevsky [email protected]
Subject: RE: Kudos, Poor Man's Leica!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001
From: "David H. Enzel" [email protected]
Subject: M6 with Nikor Lenses?
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0106/feature5/zoom1.html
Chevy Chase, MD
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001
From: "Steve LeHuray" [email protected]
Subject: Re: M6 with Nikor Lenses adapter
> Where can I get one ?
>> I do it all the time. Adds great versatility to the M6. There's a
>> Japanese-made adapter for Nikon to Leica-M and also one for LTM. They
> cost
>> about $175. I think Godfrey was going to get one recently. Godfrey?
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001
From: Ron Schwarz [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Source for shutter ribbons for Contax
>Mark;
>I saw, not too long ago, a Website that walked you through the shutter tape
>job and provided the specs on the tape. I also saw a source of supply for
>the tape. I can't remember just where, but I was putting 'Contax' in various
>search engines. Start with Yahoo, as that's where I started.
>Mark Pearce
>Still have my old Kiev-4?
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001
From: "Stephen William FOYLE" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List]Robert Frank 1950's SuperWides
1950 Carl Zeiss Jenna 25f4 Topogon Contax Mount
1953 Nikon 25f4 W-Nikkor Contax/Nikon Mount
1953 Angenieux 28f3.5 R11 Retrofocus Exakta Mount
1954 Carl Zeiss Oberkochen 21f4.5 Biogon Contax Mount
1957 Angenieux 24f3.5 R51 Retrofocus Exakta Mount
1958 Leitz 21f4 Super-Angulon LTM and M Mounts (Schneider Design)
1959 Isco 24f4 Westrogon Retrofocus Exakta Mount
1959 Nikon 21f4 Nikkor-O Contax/Nikon Mount
195? Leitz 28f5.6 DoNotRememberName) LTM Mount
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: It's the rangefinder, stupid
> Runs on a 5.6V mercury battery that is no longer in production. There's
> a 6.0V version that costs as much as the camera (~$10). The old Yashicas
> are totally electronic and there is no way to gauge the meter's accuracy
> except for shooting slides. The optics are very good. In my opinion
> better that the Canonet (overrated).
Tony Polson
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From: Steven Berkowitz [email protected]
Subject: "Chinese" Fed - Feds !!!
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001
From: Dave Saalsaa [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Konica Hexar 90mm/2.8
> I'll repeat what I said before. I have yet to see a rigorous test to
> prove that there is a focusing problem. I find it really odd that so
> many people have done lots of physical measurements but not reported any
> focusing issues.
>
> Jeff Spirer
> www.spirer.com
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001
From: Mike Johnston [email protected]
Subject: [RF List] Konica Hexar 90mm/2.8
> I'm sure the Konica 90 is a fine lens. They have a great history of making
> some suberb
> optics. However, it may not focus properly on the M without adjustment to the
> focus cam.
> The lens flange distance to the film plane is different between the Leica and
> Konica and
> will be more apparent in a longer focal length lens. I would try to find a
> Leitz Elmarit
> M current model used and not take the chance.
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001
From: "Dave" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Konica Hexar 90mm/2.8
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001
From: "Paulo Moreira" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] How do fast lenses compare
Date: Sat, 21-Apr-2001
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject: RE: Rangefinder on Canonet QL17 GIII
> This may be a silly question, but here it goes. Is the rangefinder
> supposed to look slightly cooler and dimmer than real life, and is the
> double image supposed to be yellow?
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Vertical VF adjustment tool
>Anyone know of a source, other than Leica, that sells the vertical VF
>adjustment tool for M4-P, and M6 cameras?
>Or how to make one? I'm desperate. $240-$280 is too much for a
>screwdriver. Hell, maybe we could convince Tom A to make them. How
>about it Tom!
>
>Thanks,
>Robert
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: best 70's rangefinders?
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: William Gower [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Continuing misadventures with inexpensive LTM lenses
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Poor man's Leica's - 70's rangefinders
> I've never owned a 35mm rangefinder but I am intrigued with the idea of
> a small, quiet camera for low light type conditions instead of my F90x.
> Instead of remortgaging the house to pay for a Leica M6 with lenses and
> accesories I have decided to first pick up one of the excellent
> rangefinders form the 70's. I've narrowed it down to Canonet G3 QLI7,
> Olympus 35RD, Minolta Himatic 7SII, and Yashica Electro 35CC. They are
> all quite similiar other than than the fact the Yashica has a more
> desireable aperature priority mode instead of the shutter priority of
> the other three. I'm leaning to the Canonet just because over 1.2
> million were made and they're much more common than the others. Any
> comments on these rangefinders is appreciated.
From: "David Jenkinson" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Poor man's Leica's - 70's rangefinders
From: "Bernard" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rangefinders
> Is the Contax G2 rangefinder a good camera, and is it worth the extra
> $$$ over the G1? Do these cameras offer enough control to the
> photographer? I'm also looking at the Leica M6, but it lacks AF and AE
> and is substantially more costly. Never having used a rangefinder, I'm
> wondering if I should first try something cheap from the 1960s/70s to
> see if I like rangefinders, and what even to try. Thanks.
>
> Michael
From: Radimus [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rangefinders
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev-4 Handling/Usability?
> What is the Kiev-4 like to use? Good shutter, easy to handle?
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001
From: "J-2" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Military complex..?
>Hence, sometimes it may be better to buy a EX+ condition used camera than a
>out-of-the-box from the factory piece.
From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: poor man's leica?
From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: poor man's leica?
From: [email protected] (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: poor man's leica?
> The Contax II/III had a prism style rangefinder that could not go out of
> adjustment. (see Stephen Gandy) If ever there was a 35mm camera built like
> a tank it had to be the pre-war Zeiss Contaxes. Sadly, while they had a
> strong body, they had a weak heart since the Contax metal shutter was not
> the most reliable. But, had I been alive and had the money, I would have
> bought one.
Email address: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
From: "J-2" [email protected]
Subject: Re: new to the group, and need info on good camera suppliers...
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
From: "Kelvin" [email protected]
Subject: Re: new to the group, and need info on good camera suppliers...
NOT the same as
the US sovietcamera.com by by michal birman who is not good -
spotty experience. Stuff is sometimes not great, but service is good
and he makes good
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] True Confessions
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001
From: Erwin Puts [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] New Newsletter
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001
From: "Greg Levonian" [email protected]
Subject: Focus conformation
Personal Email: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001
From: Rich Lahrson [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei, HCB, Zeiss & leica
> Mark,
>
> In all my readings I have never heard this one. While I do not doubt what
> you say HCB preferred fats lenses since he used natural light. For this
> reason one of the prime lenses he opted for with his Leica was the Zeiss
> Sonnar F1.5. At the time Leica lenses were simply not near the quality of
> the Zeiss Sonnar. While times have changed, those who grew up on Leica still
> revere Leica. Personally, while I love rangefinders I prefer SLRs for 35mm.
> Less guess work in image size with longer lenses and you can easily use a
> macro lens. Just my opinion.
>
> Peter K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Rabiner [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei TLR in use.
>
> S Dimitrov wrote:
> >
> > That's what worries me about Leica M's. The ability to shoot intuitively
> > as that particular piece of gear seems to demand, takes a long time to
> > perfect. I'm wondering, considering the demands of the market place and
> > peoples attention spans, if there will be a willingness to invest the
> > time that it takes for even a modicum of mastery. I think that time is
> > against the M.
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject: RE: It's Amazing
> Now the
> mechanism is jammed (can't advance film or fire shutter),
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "NEDSNAKE" [email protected]
Subject: Re: film bulge/buckle and calibrating focus
> I have been calibrating the focus on some medium format cameras using a
> ground glass screen in the film plane, but it strikes me that this
> method is far from accurate due to film bulge/buckle in that the film
> itself does not lie flat against the pressure plate but rather buckles
> away from it and so is closer to the lens. I am wondering whether you
> can get special screens for this purpose that mimic the behavious of the
> film. Also I would imagine that film bulge/buckle is more for 6x9 than
> it is for 6x6. Alternatively, perhaps there is a focal distance these
> cameras can be set to such as 60 feet or whatever such that calibration
> with a ground glass screen at that setting would be equivalent to
> infinity with real film. Does anyone know if these screens exist or what
> these focal distance settings might be for 6x6 and 6x9 cameras?
From: Bruce William Johnson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Help!!!!
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian Leica copies
> Has anyone had any experience with these? I noticed a bunch of these
> for sale on ebay. The cheapest ones are the FEDs (supposedly named
> after the founder of the NKVD). The Zorkis seem to be the most
> numerous (these sell for about $40-60) and the most expensive seem to
> be honest-to-goodness counterfeit Leicas (they're engraved "Leica",
> "Wetzlar", etc.). These are somewhat "pricey" in comparison (over
> $100).
> All comments (other than jeers) welcome. I'm thinking of getting one
> or two of these just for the heck of it (and out of curiosity - I've
> never had a "Leica" before ^u^). The price is definitely right. A lot
> of these are being sold from interesting locations such as Sevastopol,
> Novosibirsk and Prague. Shipping is surprisingly cheap - about $10. If
> it turns out to be a rip-off, it won't be much of one, nothing I can't
> afford. What the heck, it's better than collecting Dianas.
>
> Iskandar Taib
> Internet: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001
From: Robert Conley [email protected]
Subject: RE: A rangefindercamera without batteries
> [email protected] wrote:
> I�m searching for a rangefinder camera with a fixed fast lens and a
> manual shutter working without batteries.
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] A rangefindercamera without batteries, CLA & Bargain Prices
From: "Jeff Duffy" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [RF List] Mercury Battery substitute
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donna Malter [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [RF List] Mercury Battery substitute
>
>
> Can anyone suggest to me what I might use as a substitute battery
> for my Yashica GSN until I get the battery adapter from Yashica Guy?
will deliver roughly the 6v the Yashica requires and fits well within the
battery compartment. There are warnings against using lithium and alkaline
batteries together, but I have used this in a pinch with great success in my
Electros (5 so far!).
Jeff Duffy
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Mercury Battery substitute
I believe that there is a difference in the internal resistance of the two
different cells.
This could cause some heating of one or both of the cells, a possible rupture
of one or both of the cells.
Mix cells of differing chemical makeup with caution.
Roland F. Harriston
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001
From: Peter Kelson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zorki 4 rangefinder alignment
In order to set up the rangefinder on the Zorki it is necessary to
check its operation at infinity and at closer distances.
The infinity setting is adjusted by removing the short screw at the
bottom left of the viewfinder window on the front of the camera. This
allows access to the rangefinder adjustment screw. This is turned a
few degrees either way with a 1 mm screwdriver until the rangefinder
images align when focussed on a distant object.
Having done this you need to check the accuracy at 2 or 3 metres.
This is done by placing the camera a known distance from a sheet of
paper on which you have drawn a large cross. Adjust the lens until
the images coincide and check that the reading on the lens
corresponds to the measured distance. If it doesn't you need to move
the rangefinder cam (the projection that engages with the back of the
lens) on its arm. This can be done with small pliers. You need to
decide whether the cam needs to be moved in or moved out. You can do
this by consideration of the fact that the cam is moved in as the
focus of the lens changes from infinity to near distances.
Alternatively, send the camera to a repairman. The cheapest option is
Sovietcamera.com.ua in the Ukraine. Cost $30 including return mail.
You get a full CLA for this price, which your cameras probably need.
Peter Kelson
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001
From: Bob Shell <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleiflex GX 12/24 capability
> increased. I do wonder if the GX will "wear in", and perhaps it is not as
> easy to judge the smoothness of a little used 5 year old camera against a
> well used 40 year old camera!
Interestingly, when I was at the Leica factory several years ago they showed
us a bank of machines. These machines do nothing but turn the helicals back
and forth hundreds of times to wear them in. They said they would not be
smooth enough without this extra treatment. I've seen no such machines in
any other camera or lens factory I have toured.
Bob
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001
From: "Parlin 44" <[email protected]>
Subject: Coating on jupiters
Hi group,
I have 3 jupiter-12 from 3 different 'generations':
1) fr mid-50's - smooth fairly thick purplish blue, also noticed on 2
late-50's J9. But my other late-60's J9 has thinner purplish blue.
2) fr mid-70's - thin yellow-orange
3) the other is fr late-80's - smooth fairly thick yellow.
The 50's J-12 and J-9 give excellent colour contrast, they fare very well
against even pro-level modern Japanese lenses particularly in colour
contrast.
What's the deal with coating transformation from blue 50's to yellow 80's?
parlin
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Need Battery For Canonet QL 17
>Does anyone know where I could purchase a battery for >the Canonet QL 17 in
Canada or the U.S preferably
Try these sites:
http://www.px625.com
http://www.7dayshop.com/acatalog/7dayshop_com_Other_Batteries_7.html
http://www.photobattery.com/
http://www.gis.net/~amjas/px625.html
John McCormack
From: Jeff S [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Fuji GA645Zi Vs. Bronica RF645
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002
My first exposure to the autofocus Fuji models was the GA645. I found it
very handy and liked it's optics. I grew frustrated with it's mediocre
low-light performance (lens isn't too fast, the AF has some trouble when
the light is dim, flash is good as daytime fill unit but not so hot as a
main source of light). Yet it was otherwise one of the most enjoyable MF
cameras I had ever used.
A couple of years and a number of cameras later, I decided to give the
GA-series another try and purchased the GA645zi, but this time I had no
delusions of using it in low available light. Result? I love it! I used to
own a Yashica T4 point and shoot, and I still own a Rollei 35 but I seldom
use it anymore because the GA645 seems just as easy to carry about, yet
when making prints 8x10 and up, there's no question that this is a medium
format camera! Where I often have to struggle to get a microcontrasty look
from a 35mm negative, prints from the -zi often look great with
surprisingly little manipulation. I was so pleased that I bought another
Fuji, a GSW690, this past summer. Yes, I like those Fujinon lenses very
much; I used to use T* CF Zeiss. Good lenses too, but I never really warmed
up to the Hasselblad system.
For handheld shooting in low available light, I went back to using a Leica
rangefinder camera. Sometimes I will carry both a Fuji and a Leica outfit
and like the fact that they don't weigh so much.
The GA645zi feels like an expensive hi-tech modern camera assembled by
robots and made of polycarbonate and titanium. Fuji packaging and
presentation are good but by no means lavish. These are pro cameras, not
luxury goods. Few bystanders or casual photographers will be impressed by
the Fuji name and that's just fine with me: It makes street photography
with the big GSW 6x9 camera that much easier ;-)
Jeff
Amr Ibrahim wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> Well....is it time to compare between both cameras? Both have the same
> format and the same lens range (more or less). I would appreciate very
> much
> an opinion from a member who owns/owned both. Points of interests include
> lens sharpness, contrast, and general feel/use.
>
> Very many thanks, and best regards.
>
> AI
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quality of voigtlander and cosina
I have been looking into the Voigtl�nder products extensively. The lens
quality is absolutely fantastic (build and construction). I noticed that most
of their lenses use 9 and 10 blade apertures. They feel very solid, especially
the few click stop ones.
I have only seen a couple Cosina lenses. I do not like the largely plastic
construction. I would not consider buying any of these.
Mr. Kobayashi is a camera collector and enthusiast. His influence has brought
about the Voigtl�nder products. If they sell, they will likely continue to
improve. The lenses, and lenses selection are very good already.
I have only looked at a few Bessa-L and Bessa-R samples. The L seems very
solid, but is a very limited and simple body. It would only be suitable for 25
mm or wider lenses. This is much like getting a Leica MD version, except for
the meter, and the price.
The Bessa-R is very easy to focus, and the controls fall to hand well. Like
the Bessa-L, it has a plastic back. The ruggedness of the rangefinder
mechanism, and other components will only be found out after a few years have
passed. The R is not my choice for easiest to focus rangefinder, but it is
fairly good.
I have been trying to find a Bessa-T to investigate it's build quality
relative to the others. It may be a better choice, even though it would be
slower to use. The ability to easily mount Leica M lenses is an added bonus
that you cannot do with the L or R. The T may also be easier to accurately
focus the faster lenses, according to some reports.
The other option is just to stick with a Leica body, and buy the lenses to
expand your available choices. You should be able to get 3 to 4 Voigtl�nders
for the price of one Leica lens. Unless you are doing technical chart
photography only off tripods, the image quality should meet your needs.
Perhaps Voigtl�nder may introduce an improved Bessa-R body. Either M mount, or
longer EBF would help make this a better choice. The current steel shutters in
all their bodies should last a long time, though the rangefinder accuracy over
time is a question mark.
I would consider buying used Voigtl�nder lenses, after inspection. I would not
currently consider buying a used Voigtl�nder body, since their longevity is
not yet proven IMHO. Besides, you could probably get a new one for not much
more than the cost of refurbishing an old Leica. Buy new and get the warranty.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com>
Christian Hilmersen wrote:
> How is the quality of the voiglander and cosina products? (Both mechanical
> an optical)
>
> Christian
From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What's the deal with Leica, anyway?
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001
"Mike Spadafora" [email protected] wrote:
>If Leica's were less money I
>would probably get an M6, but I cannot justify the cost. Do you get that
>much more image quality?
Nope. What you get is a different kind of camera. One that, in fact, you
might not even like much.
My best friend shoots with an F5 and a Hasselblad. He's always had a letch
for a Leica, just because he'd heard of the mystique. So I loaned him one
of mine for a trip to New York, and he despised it. He hated the fact that
everything looked in focus through the viewfinder. He hated the
coincident-image focussing system. And the fact that the lens protruded
into the image area in the viewfinder just drove him wild. The only quirk
of the Leica that didn't give him heartburn, oddly enough, was the film
loading. That weekend completely cured him of his Leica envy. In
contrast, you couldn't pay me to use his F5 - what a pig of a camera.
Proving yet again that cost justification is a very, very personal thing.
Paul
http://www.chefurka.com
From: Anthony Polson [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What's the deal with Leica, anyway?
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001
"The Dave(c)" [email protected]> wrote:
> "Anthony Polson" wrote
> > I can't resist such a challenge, so here are my
> > innermost thoughts:
> >
> > 1. When you are ready for a Leica, no one will
> > need to tell you.
>
> I didn't ask when I would be ready? I asked what makes Leica right for you?
> Features? Quality? Toughness? Image? What?
Hi Dave,
OK, I give in. {g}
Features? Never. There are very few features compared to an
all-singing, all-dancing auto-everything SLR.
Quality? One's perception of quality is 100% subjective, but I will
return to that point later.
Toughness? It's only a little more tough than several SLRs I could
mention.
Image? Never. IMO, the Leica M doesn't have *any* image, except on
newsgroups like this, and then only for trolls and the envious.
So why do I so greatly respect and admire the Leica M? There are many
reasons. They include, not in any particular order:
1) Sublime optics. People look for good sharpness and contrast, and
maybe low distortion from other optics. You get far more from Leica.
For some shots you may not see the difference; for many, the Leica glass
makes the difference between a competent and an inspiring shot.
2) Simple, intuitive controls, developed over years to have a near-ideal
feel when used; perfect handling, small, wieldy, well-balanced.
3) Minimalist features. The Leica M has all you need, but no more. It
enables your ability to shine without modification by electronics.
4) Extreme longevity, thanks to high manufacturing standards, the use of
quality materials and decades of design development. Only a small
proportion of lesser cameras will last 30 years and still work as new.
Most 2001 Leica M bodies will still be in use (or usable) in 2031.
5) Excellent reliability, although some other manufacturers are not as
far behind as all that.
6) High residual values. $2000 invested in a Leica body is probably the
best investment in photo gear you will ever make. You don't need to own
very much Nikon or Canon gear to lose $2000 of residual value *per
year*, which is less than I am losing now with my Nikon/Bronica gear.
7) Accuracy and consistency. The 100% mechanical Leica M shutter is
sublimely accurate throughout its life. Focusing is incredibly accurate
as well as fast. The M6 meter is sublimely accurate, probably one of
the most accurate built-in meters ever made.
8) Ultra quiet. Shhh! No need to say more!
9) Bright and clear viewfinder.
10) Perception. With a Leica M you are in control. *You* operate the
controls, not some anonymous CPU, and provided that you have enough
knowledge to do so, you will feel 'at one' with the camera and recognise
the results as of your own making.
With an all-singing, all-dancing auto-everything SLR, you are merely an
equipment operator. It's like the difference between riding a taut
motorcycle and driving a softly suspended car. In 1970s terms, Leica is
a Laverda, Canon is a Cadillac. To an able photographer, the Leica does
precisely what you want. Less able photographers value the
sophisticated automatic features that Leica M bodies lack, which alas
mean the photographer is no longer in control.
That's all I can think of, for now. Most of my other reasons for
admiring and respecting the brand are personal and subjective to the
extent that they simply aren't worth repeating on here.
But there are downsides too, apart from the high cost of M bodies:
1) Hugely expensive lenses, even if bought used. That's the downside of
good Leica M residuals. :-(
2) Weak performance with telephoto lenses. The Leica M does not attempt
to compete in wildlife/action photography with long telephoto lenses,
and even a 135mm lens is pushing against the envelope. However, to
those who recognise the speed and accuracy of coupled rangefinder
focusing, there is no better camera than a rangefinder for shooting with
wide angle lenses.
3) Maximum shutter speed only 1/1000 sec.
4) Maximum flash synch speed only 1/60 sec., rendering the TTL flash
worthless for most situations where daylight fill flash is needed.
5) No aperture priority AE, which could be useful at times, but would
need a different type of meter. You need a Hexar RF for that.
6) No TTL viewfinder, meaning that viewing depth of field effects is
impossible. Accurate framing of slides can be a chore.
7) Zero image. No-one except a Leica lover, hater or thief will even
know what you are using. They will think it's an old, quaint
anachronism. This is not a camera for the ostentatious person, unless
he/she chooses his/her friends only from that small group (lover, hater
or thief) who know what a Leica is.
If you want image, buy a Nikon F5 or Canon EOS1V. g>
There's one last thing we should not forget; very few Leica owners don't
also own and use another camera system.
Dave, now you've coaxed this out of me, I do hope it is useful.
;-)
--
Best regards,
Anthony Polson
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002
From: Jacques [email protected]>
Subject: "Look-A-Leica" FYI
To: [email protected]
Hi,
I just noticed your very nice, I may add, web page. Please be advised that the name "Look-a-Leica" was invented by me in 1971 and after the article came out in the Wall Street Journal Feb 12 1975, I went to a Patent attorny in Providence, RI and had the Name: "Look-a-Leica" copywrited for Leica clone products.
I have no problem anyone using the name and today it is all quite ancient history. I just would like to dampen the cavalier use of this product trademark.
Further, I have built nearly 1000 Leica cameras that people still use and that do not correspond to any Leica model using Leica Parts and my parts. When a strange unit is found out there it is usually mine.
jacques-
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001
To: [email protected]
From: winfried_bue [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Camera choice [Yahoo! Clubs: Classic 35mm Compacts]
Well, there ARE a few differences between the 70s cameras, and that's why I've got some dozens of them. In most cases, I try to shoot at least one roll with each.
1. Canon Canonet QL17-GIII: Good for general photography. No flaws, no major benefits.
2. Revue400SE: Same experience as with Canonet. No manual mode, but I did not miss it. AE works OK.
3. Olympus35RC: compact, an everydays camera good for snapshots but for general photography as well.
4. Yashica Electro35G: I enjoyed shooting landscapes and outdoors with this camera. Super wide range AE system, aperture priority and DOF scale are more important for this purpose than shutter priority.
5. Yashica Electro35CC: Nice for street photography due to its 'true' wide-angle f/1.8 35mm lens. Speed range limited to 1/250, you should not use high speed films to avoid overexposure (or carry an extra ND filter).
6. Olympus35DC: Program mode only but it works great. Fastest lens (f/1.7) I know together with program mode. Good for general photography, but no manual aperture/speed selection.
From: " E-MAIL" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Russian Cameras
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002
Robert, I'm suprised no one answered your request for information on
the Yahoo russian camera group. http://www.fedka.com/Frames/Main_Frame.htm
Fedka has high end priced stuff, is in NY and will replace or refund.
http://www.sovietcamera.com.ua/ Priluk is on the low end of the price
scale, ships from Russia and (claims) his gear is checked by a repairman.
The cameras are users but show up with case and lens cap and most purchasers
have been happy ..http://www.russiansouvenirs.com/cameras.htm Frank is an
American in Moscow and the prices are slightly above average but are
usually very good. I hope this gives you some comparisons, shipping will be
$10 to $15, Holding the camera in your hand and not waiting 3 weeks is
worth??
Kurt Arico
Calif.
From: "Webmarketing" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: handholding vs. high $$ for leica lenses Re: some points learned
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002
Bob, Leicas are designed to be handheld. They have tripod connections but
that isn't the purpose of a Leica. The purpose for me is to put a body with
lens in one pocket and another lens in another pocket and not even carry a
camera bag. I.e. I use it as a tourist point and shoot but if you think it
doesn't outperform a point and shoot then you're too tied up in llpm or
whatever and not tied up enough in photography. The Leica makes absolutely
stunning chromes on Velvia or Provia-stunning enough that my pretty decent
point and shoot camera (a Rollei for the record) can't come close, hand held
at any speed. If it did come close I'd use it instead because it's smaller,
lighter and more convenient. To compare it TO a medium format camera
doesn't make sense at all. One doesn't substitute for the other. My medium
format camera lenses don't fit in my pockets, let alone the camera bodies.
Your argument doesn't answer anything in my opinion. Good shooting.
--
Fred
Maplewood Photography
"Robert Monaghan" [email protected]> wrote
>
> no, I DO agree with you. There ARE times when a rangefinder and fast lens
> will be useful or needed. But when you are making those shots handheld, it
> so reduces the effective resolution of your lenses and randomizes your
> results (as far as resolution goes) at the slow shutter speeds typically
> used that you might as well be using a fast 50mm f/1.4 on a yashica lynx,
> say, rather than a $2k leica M6 and summilux or whatever $2-3k speed lens.
>
> You aren't going to beat circa 40 lpmm at 1/60th and below handheld
> (depending on shooter and lens etc). And you don't need $2,000 leica
> lenses to do that; the $100 lynx rangefinder and 50mm f/1.4 lens does the
> same job with the same rangefinder features (focusing..) and yields the
> same resolution. The clone lenses and bodies would seem to be equally
> capable and lots more cost effective if that is your style and needs.
>
> I believe Erwin Puts and others when they say there ARE these subtle
> differences between the various Leica and competing lenses. I just doubt
> that many of these subtle differences could be reliably seen in the
> typical Leica shooters style of handholding shots at slower speeds etc.
> So to my mind, it is like having a ferrari in a 40 mph zone with cops
> watching you; you can't get the performance you are paying big $$ for! ;-)
>
> now if you are shooting on a tripod, with very slow high res. black and
> white film, you CAN see resolution benefits from the leica lenses that are
> masked when shooting color film (whose max resolution limits tend to be
> 100 lpmm or so today). I respect the technical saavy and artistry of those
> who elect to do so, but I'd probably try to sell them into using med
fmt;-)
>
> But if I am shooting on a tripod, it might as well be with one of my dozen
> medium format rigs, as you noted. The results from a decent $100 TLR etc.
> with medium format film will exceed the resolution potential of any 35mm
> camera, including leica, simply because the film is so much larger. The
> tonality and other factors also favor med fmt over 35mm, and it is easier
> to handle in the darkroom. And you can pay for a lot of film with the $$
> saved on Leica optics ;-)
>
> so yes, I don't get IT ;-) The way the Leica users say they use their
> cameras, handheld and at slow speeds etc., it doesn't seem it would matter
> whether they used a much less pricey lens of similar speed/focal length
> since the handholding is limiting you in any case to about 40 lpmm or
> less. Conversely, if you use them with good technique (tripod..), the
> benefits of paying kilobucks for the glass would be better spent on medium
> format gear, IMHO.
>
> bobm
From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: handholding vs. high $$ for leica lenses Re: some points learned
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002
[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:
>
>no, I DO agree with you. There ARE times when a rangefinder and fast lens
>will be useful or needed. But when you are making those shots handheld, it
>so reduces the effective resolution of your lenses and randomizes your
>results (as far as resolution goes) at the slow shutter speeds typically
>used that you might as well be using a fast 50mm f/1.4 on a yashica lynx,
>say, rather than a $2k leica M6 and summilux or whatever $2-3k speed lens.
[snip]
You really don't get the hand-held ethos, do you Bob? It's not about lpmm,
it's about flexibility and getting unobtrusive images in a fluid situation.
Yes, you could do that with a Yashica Lynx and its 50/1.4, but if you take
that route, the minute you need a fast 90 or 28 (or a 28 or 90 of any
sort), you're screwed, blued and tattooed. When I need a 75/1.4 or a
90/2.0 or a or a 35/1.4 or a 28/2.0 on a camera with no mirror slap to
shoot candids in low light, Leica is (at the moment) the only game in town.
For that capability alone, the prices are justified, IMO.
If I then take that very same Leica and those very same lenses, lock it
down on a tripod, I have access to some of the very the best image-making
glass in the 35mm world. The point is that Leica does it all, within the
niche defined by a rangefinder camera. That capability comes at a high
price for a number of reasons you are very well aware of.
But with Leica the issue just isn't $$$=lpmm, no matter how much we all
tout the quality of the lenses. The issue is having a flexible camera for
hand-holding in a very wide range of available-light situations, with a
range of interchangeable lenses that let you do that - i.e. they're fast,
with exemplary qualities wide-open. Leicas are aimed at an entirely
different kind of photography than you apparently practice.
Frankly, I find it bizarre that in this age of price-point design, that a
company should by slagged off for trying to provide the very best quality
they can. Leica tries to do that, and to "get it" you have to consider the
entire system in the context of its usual use. It's not just the fact that
they make the best lenses they can. It's not just the construction quality
and non-obsolesence of the bodies. Its not just their reliability. It's
not just their repairability. It's not just the fact that they're
rangefinder cameras. It's not just the fact that they are completely
mechanical and manual. It's not just the fact that they're 35mm. It's the
fact that Leicas are that whole package, with *all* those attributes.
Nobody else makes a system like it.
If you need Leicas for your photography or if they're the right camera for
your kind of photography, you tend to know it. If you are the sort who
defines the photographic elephant by feeling just its lpmm trunk, for whom
those other system issues take a distant second place, you simply don't
need a Leica. No amount of railing that the lpmm capabilities of a their
lenses are wasted on us hand-holders will address the issue that it's the
uncompromised nature of the *entire system* that draws so many of us into
its pecuniary embrace. If the siren song of the whole Leica M system
doesn't appeal to you, then it doesn't matter how good the lenses are -
they're only one small part of the tune.
Paul
P.S. - Am I the only one who finds your habit of snipping the entire post
to which you're replying to be intolerably irritating? It really helps
your readers if they have some context for your replies, Bob - it's common
Usenetiquette.
http://www.chefurka.com
From: David Littlewood [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica (Pepsi-style) challenge? ;-) Re: The cheap philosophy
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002
Robert Monaghan
[email protected]> writes
>
>re: leica financials $3k/body sold doesn't reflect actual dealer/buyer $$?
>
[snip]
>
>Even if you assume that $3k in Leica sales figures means an average of $5k
>in $$ paid to the retail dealers, I think you are still in a quandry as
>far as how many lenses can be sold with all accessories for the average
>(not minimally priced as I used in my conservative calc's) M body sold
>with all accessories and lenses, and still squeeze that into $5k at
>retail.
>
>Either way, you are still somewhere under 2 Leica M lenses per M body
>sold, right? The fraction gets smaller the higher you raise the amount of
>accessories and the more of the higher cost bodies you add to the average
>mix too, and the more pricey and exotic the lenses.
>
I wasn't trying to make a case for any particular figure, but rather
suggesting a factor you may have overlooked. I take your point, though,
about accessories and the modest mark up of some dealers (though over
here it is probably more like 30%). Also, don't forget customs duties; I
don't know what they are in the US, but in general imported stuff may be
charged at say 5-15%.
I'm sure your conclusion is broadly correct though.
--
David Littlewood
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001
From: "Paul Shinkawa" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: updated link on Joshua Putnam
Joshua Putnam, linked under the Mockba 5 (Moskva 5) is now at http://www.ph=
red.org/~josh/photo/photo.html=20
-Paul
From: "eMeL" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Leica medium format?
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001
Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote
> a lot of those leica folks have a few russian made Jupiter or similar
> lenses they don't brag about, but which take pretty good pictures, despite
> being made in the USSR/PSU ;-) My bet is those factories make more leica
> mount lenses than Leica and Cosina combined ;-) Not better, maybe, but
> more ;-) grins bobm
I don't believe they make them anymore in any quantity, but yes...I always
bring a Zorki (FED, etc.) or two from Europe and by trial and error have
amassed the grand total of 5 decent lenses (one *really* good Industar for
Zorki...) Equally good are some Industar process lenses and some optics for
the 16 mm Krasngorsk movie cameras.
But a thought of Leica buying the Kiev's design made me chuckle...
Michael
From: ChrisQ [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica-Konica incompatibility?
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> Discussions of coefficients of expansion and such are red herrings.
> Engineers designing and building cameras know their materials and how to
> construct high precision devices.
I'm sure they do, but you can't void the laws of physics and unless you
make the frame out of Invar (heavy and expensive, but very low coef. of
expansion), you are still stuck with the fact that metals and (much more
so) plastics expand with increase in temperature and the variation can
amount to several thousands of an inch.
>
> Modern motor vehicle engines today are frequently manufactured with many
> tolerances in the sub-.001" range.
>
Many tolerances ?. Even the most stringent (Big end bearing and piston /
bore clearances) are typically +/- 0.001" and these are attained via labour
intensive selective fitting. Please give some examples of sub 0.001"
tolerances from an engine spec manual.
Normal engineering tolerances are +/- 0.005", 0.010" and 0.020", if you
look on a typical product tech drawing. Manufacturers make nothing to
tighter tolerances than is absolutely necessary, and it costs far more
money once you get past the 0.005" barrier. A good designer will be aware
of this and design products so that most tolerances will be in the +/-
0.010" or even 0.020" range and maybe only in a few cases, a +/- 0.005".
> Cameras and mechanical watches require
> higher precision tolerances than that.
Watches perhaps, but again, selective fitting takes care of that. Sub
0.001" tolerances really are too expensive in mass production.
> Read "Camera Technology - The Dark
> Side of the Lens" by Norman Goldberg. There are a lot of details to the
> discussion of focus tolerances, back focus and film flatness.
Plan to order a copy of that, sounds interesting, but meantime, how about a
relevant quote to support your thesis ?. Would struggle to convince myself
that you would ever get film to be consistently flat across the frame to
within 1/2 thou / 0.0005". Even more difficult, nye impossible in medium
format. The film thickness may even have a manufacturing tolerance
approaching that, even more so between different manufacturers.
As I said before, suspect you are at least an order of magnitude out. Spent
3-4 years of my education, many moons ago, doing mech eng and still have a
small machine shop at home, so may have a clue. There again, the earth may
be flat ;-)...
Chris
From: "Jerry Fusselman" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: ND filter and Rangefinder Mamiya 7 II
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002
Robert Monaghan writes:
>
> for closeups, the solution is easy, a wire framer that goes under the
> camera (eg tripod mount) and out to produce a U shaped frame at the
> precisely in focus distance (with lens set at infinity); tables are at
> http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/diopter.html for doing this easily
>
> for ND filters, you need a standard holder (Cokin..) modified with scales
> on both the filter(s) and side of the holder so you can line things up
> exactly and repeatedly. A series of test shots at various apertures, or
> sketches listing position and f/stop, can be used to generally place the
> zone of transition at various f/stops and for various compositions (rule
> of thirds etc). And bracketing helps in critical shots... ;-)
>
> similarly, you can calibrate a polarizer (many are already marked) and
> simply transfer readings from an eyelevel polarizer to those on the camera
> lens (or move the polarizer on and off preserving position).
Thanks Bob. Great ideas and an excellent strategy. You counsel testing for
advance preparation rather than a ground glass in the field. I would think
the advance testing you describe could be done, initially at least, with a
ground glass instead of film. Then you could test some of your conclusions
with actual film to be sure, yes?
That wire framer for closeups that you describe, would it be a self-made
item? What kind of wire? For hiking, I wonder if long pipe cleaners might be
made to work. I really want something that would pack small and light and
still be accurate for proper distance and framing. I guess it should be
collapsable. Sounds difficult---am I asking too much?
Jerry Fusselman
From: [email protected] (Hartmut Krafft)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hartblei?
Date: 6 Nov 2001
Stephe Thayer [email protected]>
wrote:
> Reading the kiev thread got me interested and followed some links and saw
> these. They -appear- to be much improved versions of the kiev 88 and the
> mirror lockup looks like a nice feature. Anyone know anything about these
> or own one? The price is higher than a base kiev 88 but seems to be much
> cheaper than the modified kiev's from kiev USA. They also have their own
> version that mates with hassy backs which might be nice. The tilt shift 45
> looks interesting as well. I don't shoot that often and I'm not a pro so
> durability isn't a big issue. I could never talk myself into spending the
> $$$ for a hassy but this system looks interesting. TIA
>From personal experience: Quality is as volatile with Hartblei as
with any other (cheaper) Kiev around... They just seem to be
unable to shed their nonchalance regarding crucial issues such as
shutter banding...
So, it's a hit-or-miss thing, and this applies to any Kiev I've
seen. You might as well go for a cheaper offer or a dealer nearer
to you.
Hartmut
--
Remove all numbers from email address to reply directly.
From: "Grant Dixon" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What's the deal with Leica, anyway?
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001
"McEowen" [email protected]> wrote...
> >It's because Leica has the market cornered.
> >
> >Aside from Voigtlander, can you name another all-manual rangefinder
> >system
> >being produced?
>
> Boy, if there's so much money to be made producing manual focus rangefinders
> you'd think Canon, Nikon and Minolta would jump in there and skim some of that
> gravy . . . What are they thinking????
In fact Nikon made a series of rangefinders that competed very well with
Leica, selling as many as 60,000 a year. In 1948 the first camera was
produce as the Nikon I and evolved until in 1960 the Nikon S3M was the last
model. I think there were at least 10 models made. The last flag ship was
the S3 SP and came with a 50 mm f 1.4 lens. Once Nikon introduced the 'F'
series that was the beginning of the end for there rangefinder line. For
the most part Professional photographers that favoured the Nikon line
switched to the SLR although a few favoured the S3 SP for wide angle use.
Canon started making rangefinders back in early 1939 with the S-Kwanon and
continued until the 1958 with the Canon VIL series with a 50 mm f 1.2
lens. In the 1965 the also made a high end rangefinder called the Canon 7s
that touted a 50 mm f 0.95 lens, I am not sure of the popularity of the
Canon line or what Canon attributed their demise to. But the fall of the
rangefinder did coincide with the rise of the SLRs.
Grant
From: [email protected] (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 21 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: What's the deal with Leica, anyway?
If you are hungry for some ice cream you can buy Good Humor or Haagen Dasz,
both will fill you up and taste good but for some people its worth the price
difference to go for the big H. Same w/ cameras. If you have the money to spend
and you want the best optical and mechanical quality in a manual focus, manual
exposure, mechanical interchangeable rangefinder camera you get a Leica M
camera w/ M lens, if you want the same thing basically w/ automation you get
either a Hexar RF/Konica M-type mount Leica M mountor a Contax G series camera,
if you want (I'm supposing) excellent yet affordable (screw mount) lenses w/ an
affordable mechanical MF rangefinder get a Bessa R?, and if interchangeable
lenses are not a priority but cheapness and rugged construction and an
excellent fast lens w/ some automation is what you want you get a Canon G3 QL17
(or a Contax T2 or T3 or a Yashica T4/etc. if you want a Zeiss lens). Every
camera I've mentioned is of high quality but at different prices w/ different
features. In the end, does it matter whether you understand or appreciate what
someone else does in the taking of photos if you have no intention of getting
the same thing yourself? If Leica's are too expensive for the features they
give you, you can indeed get just as good results (depending on the type of
photography you do) w/ the Pentax K1000 or any of the (mostly cheaper) cameras
mentioned above. Its not the monetary value of a piece of equipment that counts
but its value to you.
Regards from someone who uses/has used what others may call due to their
pricing a "crappy" Canonette rangefinder, "mediocre" (X700, 600si, Maxxum 7)
Minoltas, very inexpensive and expensive Nikons (FG, EM, F3/F3T) and sublimely
expensive Contaxes (mostly the lens(es) were the sublimely part) as well as an
ultra-mega-expensive Leica M4-P and R6 and an SL-2 as well as a meager Pentax
Super Program. The real value is in the photos, show me your photos, forget
about comparing bank accounts and values of cameras/lenses, you are not other
people so why should it matter to you whether you understand their
logic/enjoyment for what is essentially (oxymoron) a "custom made" quality mass
production item such as a Leica?
Lewis
From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: some points learned was Re: Leica (Pepsi-style) challenge?
Date: 7 Jan 2002
re: failure rates, Leica vs. plastic and metal SLRs
it doesn't seem to matter. Most folks with serious investments in leica
glass have acquired a backup body. This seems to be a generalized pattern,
as the total sales per M body (including cost of body and all lenses and M
accessories in total sales) sold by Leica is circa $3,000 US$. That
implies nearly one M body for every Leica M lens sold at current prices
;-) If you have several camera bodies, the issues of camera reliability
are far less critical. You can keep shooting with the other body etc.
the Leicas are more reliable, due to simpler construction and more rugged
design. This may be a useful factor for those amateur users who don't do
annual or bi-annual CLAs. My guess is that most pros do such CLAs
annually, whether using a Leica or a 'blad or a Nikon. In such cases, the
reliability of the basic SLRs is so high as to easily encompass the
expected use. In other words, very reliable. And again, most pros have a
backup body in the same lens mount too, just in case, though it may be one
of those plastic bodies. I would stack up my nikon F and F2 bodies against
any pro cameras for reliability.
while I prefer the metal bodies myself, the plastic ones have advantages
in adverse conditions (cold, wet..) and take impacts without damage
better. While I prefer cameras with mechanical shutters, the cost of a
spare battery doesn't seem problematic, nor are they that heavy for the
smaller ones. Batteries for the fully motorized AF ones are more of an
issue. But you can still buy all mechanical shutter cameras (nikon FM3a).
One of Leica's mfgering practices is to thoroughly exercise the mechanics
of the cameras on machines, so the "smooth" feel you get is the result of
many thousands of wear cycles during mfgering. ALong with closer
tolerances, this accounts for much of the differences in feel. Another
solution to the same problem is to buy your cameras used, in effect
letting someone else wear and smooth them out for you ;-) ;-)
grins bobm
From: " E-MAIL" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Russian Cameras
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002
Robert, I'm suprised no one answered your request for information on
the Yahoo russian camera group. http://www.fedka.com/Frames/Main_Frame.htm
Fedka has high end priced stuff, is in NY and will replace or refund.
http://www.sovietcamera.com.ua/ Priluk is on the low end of the price
scale, ships from Russia and (claims) his gear is checked by a repairman.
The cameras are users but show up with case and lens cap and most purchasers
have been happy ..http://www.russiansouvenirs.com/cameras.htm Frank is an
American in Moscow and the prices are slightly above average but are
usually very good. I hope this gives you some comparisons, shipping will be
$10 to $15, Holding the camera in your hand and not waiting 3 weeks is
worth??
Kurt Arico
Calif.
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
From: "tigerarm2000" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Fed 5 rangefineder vertical alignment adjustment
...
I have all the Fed 5 models and they are the same with nameplates.
With the camera facing you and push the name plate toward the
selenium side then you can pop it off. I think by now you have
already done that. And rorate the small round window you can adjust
the verticle alignment.
Zhang
from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
From: "tigerarm2000" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fed 5 rangefineder vertical alignment adjustment
...
> Hi Zhang! Do you mean the _whole_ rectangular assembly
> that encompasses/surrounds the viewfinder through the
> meter cell window?
>
> Brad
>
> __________________________________________________
Hi Brad,
Sorry I didn't explain it clearer.
No, I mean the thin metal plate either black or chrom with the
cameras's name on it.Maybe You should push harder toward the left
with the camera facing you? There is a small leaf spring on the left
side of the thin metal plate.Make sure you don't lose it.
Zhang
From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001
From: "Greg Hayes" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Leica IIIF and Leica lenses and bodies in General
Certainly the Nicca is a much better made camera than most of the Leicas of
the time. I have a report made by British Intelligence after they visited
the Leica factory after World War II. They found the shutter speeds were
quite a bit out. They saw the Leica workers testing and adjusting the
shutters by tapping the parts with hammers until they were about right. When
the report team asked the management of the Leica factory about the bad
shutter speeds, they just said that they were close enough for most peoples
purposes and implied that a person would get used to their own Leica and
its speeds.
Greg Hayes
---
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject: RE: Rangefinder
I don't know whether these items are very current in US. But many german
manufacturers made 'add-on' rangefinders for rangefinderless cameras in
the 50s and 60s. One well-known one is the 'Watameter'. They are
available as used items (of course) around USD 10-15 in Germany, I
recently bought a severely worn and misadjusted one for four bucks.
Winfried
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Rangefinder
Rangefinders for photographic use were very common in the 40's and 50's when
many cameras did not have rangefinders.
One of the most popular of these devices was made by Kalart. There were many
Japanese imitations of this product that were imported after the war,
Spiratone, Accura and other importers sold these devices.
Unlike rangefinders used today by archery or fire arms shooters or golfers,
these photographic rangefinders would provide range readings from 3 ft to
infinity.
The Kalart device gained fame because it was often attached to the side of
the old Speed Graphic cameras used by the press in the old days.
It seems to me that some of these devices should still be around and
available at camera swap meets and shows or certainly on Ebay.
Roland F. Harriston
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Why is the lowest shutter speed on a Leica M6 1/1000?
if you need 1/2000th, 1/125th sync, a metal shutter which does not burn
when turned toward the sun, a low cost rapid winder, diopter adjustment
built into the RF, and a low cost M body, all you need to do is buy a
Bessa T.
sure, it's no Leica, but it does offer important features the M6 does not,
and so it makes sense as a second body to compliment your M. camera
bodies are just tools. more tools give you more picture options.
Stephen
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001
From: "Michael E. Berube" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [RF List] CL or Bessa?
Philippe wrote:
>I am sure the subject has been beaten up already (and I do not want to start
>a huge discussion) but here is my question: in between a Bessa R new and a
>Leica CL used, what to choose. I would like it to have it with me all time.
>I used to be a photographer centuries ago...
I've owned (and traded in) both of these cameras:
The Bessa R's Pros: Inexpensive, faster flash synch (1/125), faster top
speed (1/2000), easy to load, brighter finder with more popular frames
(35/50/75/90), new and maybe less likely to need service right away, a bit
longer RF base for slightly better focusing accuracy at wide apertures.
The CL's Pros:
Much better built (all metal and finish is tough), takes M mount as well as
LTM, some like the vertical carry, smaller than the Bessa (though probably
not much lighter), easier to change SS at eye level
The Bessa R's Cons:
Not a "real Leica", cheaper finish wears very quickly, materials feel less
impervious to damage, takes only LTM, RF alignment is VERY delicate and at
cheapest $70 to have repaired professionally, can't use deep wide angle
lenses.
The CL's Cons:
Not considered a "real Leica" by the purists (if you are interested in
impressing anyone), short RF base and only really accurate for a 35, 45, 50
to f/2 and a 85/90 at f/4, some really don't like the vertical carry lugs,
only 45/50 and 90 frames available, can't use deep wide angle lenses,
remove back to load, aging electronics and parts.
Personally, if faced with the choices of only these two bodies fro similar
prices again, I'd probably get a CL if in good condition but I would try to
couple it with a nice 50 in LTM but it should work fine with any of the
Bessa's lenses (and the appropriate adapters&finders). I'm tough on my
cameras and if the prices and condition were similar between the two, I
think the CL can take the daily use for longer.
Carpe Luminem,
Michael E. Berube
http://www.GoodPhotos.com
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
From: Michael Reichmann [email protected]
Subject: Street Photography
I've just published two articles on street photography on my site, The
Luminous Landscape.
The first piece covers street shooting tools and techniques and the
second is the beginnings of a portfolio shoot at a country fair's
Midway.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/street.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/midway.htm
Equipment used includes M6 with Tri-Elmar and 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH,
and also the Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6 Heliar.
Finally, there is a new brief review of the M Lens Carrier about half
way down the page at...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/leica_m6.htm
Michael Reichmann
www.luminous-landscape.com
From minolta mailing list
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001
From: "Ze'ev Kantor" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Quality of older MC vs. MD
Susan,
Although I don't own now an XD-7/11, AFAIK, it does not have a Program
AE mode (only the X-700 has) - but only Aperture and Shutter Priority
AE. Actually the MD line of lenses was introduced with the XD-7/11 and
claimed by Minolta to be especially designed for Shutter priority
auto-exposure (XD-7/11) and Programmed AE (on X-700). This is to your
attention, although many minoltians are convinced that both MC and MD
work identically perfect in all modes of the X-700 and XD-7/11.
AFAIK, the MD series have a better coating and anti-reflection
buffering. Some/most lenses has improved iris construction and even
different optical construction. The older MC are more robust (all metal)
and handle better (smother focusing action) due to better choice of
materials (more expensive) in the focus helical.
In regard to the 28mm, I would go for the newer MD 28 f/2.8 since speed
difference is marginal but the wide-angle can benefit from better
multi-coating of the newer MD lens.
Ze'ev Kantor
[email protected]
.....
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Bottom Feeder's RF
In terms of what you get for your money, I can't think of better lower priced
rangefinders cameras than the Kiev 4 versions with Russian lenses, and the
Canon G3 QL. Of course there are other contenders, but most of them cost more.
For example the Olympus RD, Yashica 35CC and Konica S3 will sell for more than
the G3, but only because they are considerably harder to find. the huge
production numbers of the G3, with over a million made, keep prices down.
the screw mount Russian copies sell for the same or less than the Kiev's, but
are generally much less dependable and have lower workmanship.
Stephen
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001
From: Joachim Hein [email protected]
Subject: RE: small RF
Hi Frederic, did you consider Contax autofocus rangefinders? I got a G1
with 35/2 recently and am quite happy with it. This type of camera is
quite different from the CL/CLE you ask about, mainly due to its
autofocus concept. However from your posting, it seems you are looking
for something small to complement your SLR and not that you are explicit
after an optical rangefinder.
Especially, if you shoot slides, in my experience you would get the
advantage of still using Zeiss glass. It would be easier to mix the
results from the `mini' with the ones from your SLR without changes in
colour characteristics (the famous Zeiss glow ;-) ).
If you want it small and don't need interchangable lenses the T3 (fixed
Sonnar 35/2.8) is an option. In case of interchangable lenses the G1 or
G2 are the way to go (16mm ~ 90mm). I considered the T3, but in the end
the added controll of the G1 tipped the scale.
Links (I guess you know at least some of them):
http://www.contaxcameras.com (pages of US importer)
http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk (pages of UK importer, here you can get
info on the T3)
Contax G system description:
http://www.novia.net/~jlw/contax/index.html
The contax G pages (mainly pictures):
http://www.contaxg.com/
Contax G mailing list:
http://contaxg.com/mailman/listinfo/contaxg
On T3 from greenspun.com:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004u2K
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005ic4
I am sure other subscribers have their own views. Hope this is helpfull.
Joachim
.....
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: If not Fed 5 what then ?
...
--- In russiancamera@y..., Marc James Small msmall@r...> wrote:
> prmurat@h... wrote:
> >The Kiev 4 family is as un-practical as the contax;
>
> Pray, do not sound like a fool. The Contax II/III and Kiev clones are
> perfectly useable cameras. Those magnificent pictures of D-Day by Capa
> were shot with such, as was that heart-rending picture of Hillary
> staggering down Everest after he "knocked the bastard off".
>
> The Kiev was the 35mm camera-of-choice in the 'bwella SSSR', and with good
> reason. It is a magnificent camera with magnificent lenses.
>
> Marc
I fully agree with Marc's opinion. Kiev rangefinders are my favourate
among Russian cameras especially if they are made before the end of
60's.The rangefinder is very accurate and the lenses are excellent
even by today's standards. I also believe that they are the most
undervalued cameras on the market.back in the 70's a Kiev 4 was sold
for 1200 yuan a eqivalent of 30 months wage of a factory worker.
How much more can one get from a Leica M6 than from a kiev 4?
Zhang
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]>
Subject: RE: Yashica Lynx 14e
Les Grant wrote:
> I'm new (Hello Winfried), and just tried a search on the above subject,
> got 21 results, but no display of messages to read.
>
> I wanted to do research before asking about this Lynx 14e I acquired
> today--looks so good, but shutter doesn't move when button pressed. Yet
>
> advance lever works every time.
It's very probably a stuck shutter. It is no big problem to remove the
name plate ring (if the filter thread is OK) and the front lens tube.
Wipe the blades with a q-tip moistened with lighter fluid. Then spread
lighter fluid on the blades. In most cases, the shutter will move now.
Let it dry over night, and if it still does not work or moves
reluctantly, repeat this procedure.
BTW, check whether the aperture blades move when turning the aperture
ring. Sometimes the actuating lever gets unhooked from the aperture
mechanism.
When reassembling the lens after shutter cleaning, you should wipe off
residues of lighter fluid from the inner lens surfaces (this could be
avoided by removing the rear lens tube, too, but this is not easy).
The battery compartment is under the round cover next to the black
sticker beneath the advance lever. On both Lynx14E I have (and on the
Lynx5000E, too) the cover was extremly stuck due to leaking batteries
inside. The problem is that the cover has a very fine thread that sticks
like hell once it is corroded. I opened it with brute force with
plumbers pliers. In one case, the inner thread came off, too, and I had
to reattach it to the top cover.
The Lynx14E was designed to use two PX640 mercury cells. For a test, you
can use two PX625 alkaline cells with an additional spring or metal
bolt. I did not check whether meter accuracy suffers from using alkaline
cells instead of mercury.
If the indicators in the viewfinders do not light up when pressing the
light meter button, you should check the battery contacts. Sometimes
even the battery wire is corroded and has to be resoldered. Due to its
enormous body size and mechanical simplicity, it is no problem to remove
the top cover and resolder a new wire. However, it is no problem to use
the Lynx14E with a handheld meter if you can't get the internal meter to
work.
When you made your first trip with that 2 lbs. monster you will be glad
to receive your tiny Ricoh500G soon... But the Lynx14E lens is a real
banger, good results even with full aperture.
Winfried
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001
From: "David F. Stein" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: New Site?
Bob,
Have you seen this yet?
http://www.fujirangefinder.com
Sincerely,
DFS
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] LTM lens to Russian leica copy
Sun -
In principle the Leica lens should and work properly fit because Zorki's are
LTM clones.
According to Maizenberg's book on repairs, it looks like they sometimes
optimized mount to lens distances for the particular lens a camera came
with, instead of adjusting body registration and lens back focus exactly to
specifications. In this case you might want to send the Zorky and its lens
back to have these things standardized (and might as well get a CLA while
it's over there). With that done it should work properly with any LTM lens.
It's conceivable that the mount itself is out of tolerance, but those
screw onto the body and should be replaceable over there too. You can check that
by mounting a Leica lens.
Actually the I-62 normal lens (f2.8) should be at least as good as an
Elmar, and not more than 1/10 the bucks. However I can see the point with
a 35mm lens. The protruding rear element on a Jupiter 12 is an accident
waiting to happen!
- Dave
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject: RE: LTM lens to Russian leica copy
Some LTM lenses which have a rangefinder coupling 'tongue' instead of
the moving tube might interfere with the Zorki rangefinder coupling
design which uses some kind of 'sliding shoe' instead of a roll on a
lever. Some tele lenses use the 'tongue' design.
Winfried
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] Leica M's
In Leica-type cams, I'd look at Russian cameras, especially the FED 5's.
They offer many upgrades to the original Leica SM concept - lever wind,
unified viewfinder, hot shoe, rewind crank on 5B, much improve film loading,
all at a tiny fraction of the price of an M.
I'd look for one that has been serviced because unserviced used (and perhaps
even new) ones often have glitches that a competent repairman can clean up.
For example stiff focusing is rampant due to lubricants that probably
weren't much to begin with and certainly haven't improved with the passing
of 15-20 years.
I've found the FED 5B with its normal lens to be very good for shooting the
action at my daughter's soccer games. Soccer tends to be faster-paced
than street life, so you shouldn't run into many problems with ergonomics for
your purposes. The exception might be the M's built-in frames instead of an
auxilliary finder for some (but not all) WA or long lenses.
In a nutshell, if a FED doesn't work out for you, you'll misspend a hundred
bucks. If you get an M with an OEM lens or two when a FED would have
sufficed, you'll waste a grand.
- Dave
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] LTM lens to Russian leica copy
I have Industar normal lenses and Jupiter 35, 50/1.5, 85 and 135. All have
cylinders for the RF shoe to ride on, and all my FED (and one Zorky) bodies
have a shoe not a roller. But it seems to me my Leica iif has a shoe too.
- Dave
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001
From: "Wayne Harrison" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] first rangefinder outfit tips
----- Original Message -----
From: "yghor kerscher" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001
Subject: [RF List] first rangefinder outfit tips
> Hi, . I would like some help, if possible, to choose my
> new outfit.
> I use mainly handheld incident lightmeters, so meterless cameras are
> not an issue. My two main options would be a M2 with voigtl�nder 35/2.5
> "classic" or a voigtl�nder Bessa-T with the same lens.
well, now is as good a time as any to pronounce my own humble opinion
that the best first or last rangefinder is the konica hexar rf. i just
think it is so much more ergonomically pleasant to use, from tech features
to autowind to metering, than the m6 it replaced. although i retained my
leitz glass, the 50 hexanon that came with the kit is easily the equal of
the wetzlar products. of course, honesty requires that i note my total
unfamiliarity with voigtlander, save for what i have read. still, if the
bodies are similar to other cosina efforts, the quality inherent in the
konica is far superior.
just my view, doncha know.
wayne harrison
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001
From: "Michael E. Berube" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] first rangefinder outfit tips
> > From: "yghor kerscher" [email protected]
> > > I use mainly handheld incident lightmeters, so meterless cameras are
> > > not an issue. My two main options would be a M2 with voigtl�nder 35/2.5
> > > "classic" or a voigtl�nder Bessa-T with the same lens.
Yghor,
If you already are most happy with a handheld incident meter, you likely
aren't interested in electronic marvels of the Hexar RF. (Regardless the
fine camera that it is.)
If you have the extra money to spend that it may cost, then I'd suggest the
getting the M2. Having owned neither the M2 nor the Bessa T (I had a Leica
CL, an M5 and a Bessa R..all gone now in favour of a user Leica IIIc) but
having handled several of each of them and knowing MANY happy users who'd
never part with their own M2s, I conclude that the M2 is a FAR better made
body and has a more convenient VF arrangement for your money than the T.
The M2 has already proven itself in the market with decades of hearty use,
whereas the T is still yet to have been proven to be a camera to stand up
to any hard use and its younger cousin the R has had its share of delicate
RF alignment problems. If your choice were a new TTL M6 against the T, I'd
say go for the T as the M6 cost isn't as justified against the T, but an M2
should be much less than a new M6 and that makes the extra quality worth
the buy in my book.
I've also got a CV Ultron and not the CV Classic 35, but from all that
I've read you'll be very happy with either. The Ultron is more preferred
for speed, the Classic for compactness but both offer unbeatable results
for their value.
Either way, welcome to the list and I can't wait to hear which you've
chosen and maybe see some of the first results.
Carpe Luminem,
Michael E. Berube
http://www.GoodPhotos.com
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Most Usable Russian 35mm ?
--- In russiancamera@y..., "J-2" nikitakat@e...> wrote:
> Joop
>
> This is a common problem indeed with all bottomloaders - even with
> Leicas with perfectly positioned pressure plates. The slanted frames
> though, hardly happen with Leicas, but almost always with bottom
> loading Canons, and the soviet LTMs.
>
> Jay
>
> russiancamera@y... wrote:
>
> >Jay,
> >the frames are not centrally exposed (and even a bit slanted) compared with
> >the lines of sprocket holes. So I worry that the filmplane is not properly
> >defined.
> >Will try your and Kevin's suggestions.
> >Thanks,
> >Joop
When load film onto a bottomloaders I usually insert a name card
first between the sprockets and the the film pressure plate and then
put the film inbetween the name card and the pressure plate and then
take out the name card and ensure the sprocket teeth were in the
sprocket holes of the film and wind the film then.I found in this way
I could load the film quicker and surer.
But anyway I don't always shoot with a bottomloaders.
Zhang
From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001
From: Tom Burke [email protected]
Subject: 'Black & White Photography' article by Keith Cardwell
There's an interesting article (together with pictures) by Keith
Cardwell in the new issue of Black & White Photography. He also had an
article in the last issue; the one about Guterriez/Korda in Cuba.
The new article is also set in Cuba, and features dancers in a rehearsal
studio practicising/rehearsing flamenco. One or two of the pictures are
among the most dynamic I've seen, and they're all revealing and
illuminating. The perspective is a puzzle at first - there is a mirror
at the back of many shots, with an image of what the dancer may be
looking at while facing the camera.
But it's his comments that are interesting for this forum. He talks
about the use of the Leica M cameras. Here's a quote: 'We are all aware
that that when using an SLR we do not see the photograph being made
after the shutter is released as the camera mirror rises and blocks the
reflex system to the eye. The advantage of a RF is that at the moment of
exposure you can see the photograph being made. So one step further is
to not look through the screen.' He says that most of his photos are
made in this way, ie with the camera not up to his eye, but pre-focused
and with exposure pre-set. He can then just press the shutter whenever
he wants, without moving the camera to his eye. He says that images he
has exposed conventioally, ie with the camera to his eye, look flat and
uninteresting; he can tell the ones that he took in his more reactive
technique as they are the ones that are fresh, involving and do indeed
reveal 'the decisive moment'.
It's a good article and the photos are good evidence of the soundness of
this approach. He has a web-site - www.keithcardwell.com.
(Quote taken from Black & White Photography magazine)
Tom Burke
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Most Usable Russian 35mm ?**Zorki 6**
FWIW,(my$.02)--the Zorki 6 is a very user friendly camera.Bright,contrasty
finder,with a well defined rangefinder spot.The rangefinder is wide
based,like the FED2,the back is hinged for easy loading,and it has a rapid
film advance lever.
The shutter speeds are only 1/30 to 1/500,which are somewhat limiting, but the
lack of a slow speed mechanism makes it easier to set the shutter speeds.
Again,the criteria is easiest to use--not the best,right?
Edouard
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001
From: Steven Bailey [email protected]
Subject: Re: Most Usable Russian 35mm ?
Dear Tony,
I assume you're talking about rangefinders, so I'll
address those.
I can't claim to have used every Russian rangefinder,
but out of those I have, I have a fondness for the
Zorki 4K. Bright rangefinder square, rapid wind lever,
flash synch and the full range of shutter speeds plus
a selftimer. I have a FED 5b with a hot-shoe, rewind
knob lever and all these features (except 1/1000) but
the Zorki 4K exceeds in smoothness of operation.
From a Leica user's viewpoint, I am very fond of the
Zorki 3 which has the modern viewfinder/rangefinder
setup but the Leica screwmount-style fast and slow
speed knobs layout (no self-timer or synch, of
course).
The most significant drawback of either is the need
for a multifinder in the case of using other lenses or
for more exact parallax compensation.
For that, there is always the Leningrad. All this and
more. I can't claim to have used mine more than twice,
since the rangefinder is out of vertical adjustment,
but there you have all this and 50-85-135mm parallax
compensated frames in the finder, not to mention a
clockwork film advance system! And it's certainly no
heavier than a Nikon FTN!
Steven (stiltonkopf)
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Most Usable Russian 35mm ?
The Leningrad is great for sports....but it is REAL loud and heavy;
not good for theater or stealth...But it is a strong beast....I like
it for shooting hockey photos....( If I ever get a Jupiter 9 85mm F2
that focuses correctly I will be in fat city!)....the Zorki is a much
quieter camera...The Zorki 6 and Leningrad have a flash PC
socket.....and lugs on the camera for a camera strap....The 4k has
none....But it has a fast wind knob like the Zorki 6.....My zorki 6
has a diopter adjustment; so does the zorki 3C; 4; 4k and many other
zorki's....; also the Leningrad has one too....The zorki 6's shutter
may be fired by either the shutter release button concentric with the
wind knob; or the sprocket declutching button between the shutter
button and the shutter speed dial....If this button is used; the
frame spacing maybe goofed a bit......Sometimes I push the wrong
button by mistake; just like pressing the wrong keys and making
spellling mistakes....The goofy Industar-50 that came with my Zorki 6
is a sleeper......It is damn tack sharp at F3.5 wide open....I
thought it would be a dog.......Maybe Harry,HERMIONE or RON placed
some wisardry on my 50mm f3.5....... Philip
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001
From: "Emmanuel Seynaeve" [email protected]>
Subject: interesting : Minolta vs. Leica
Hello,
If you like Leica optics, but you can't afford them, buy (manual) Minolta. This is
the conclusion of 7 years of slide projection, thousands of slides,
Leica's and Minolta's all mixed up in slide shows.
Our films : Fuji Sensia 100, replaced by Provia 100, and finally
we ended up with Provia F as the best film for our purposes :
mostly nature ( from landscape to macro and everything
between), villages, travel ... Almost no portrait.
Our slides are projected with Leitz projectors with Colorplan 90,
Elmaron 120 and Elmaron 150mm. Some of the best projection
lenses on the market.
The lenses I mostly use are : MD 28 f2.8, MC 35 f1.8 Rokkor HH,
MD 50 1.7 Rokkor, MD 100 f2.5, MC 135 f2.8 Rokkor PF.
My friend's lenses : 35 f2 Summicron-R, 50 f2 Summicron-R, 90 f2
Summicron-R and 135 f2.8 Elmar-R.
It will be a VERY difficult job to separate our slides by an outsider,
and even my friend, who's a german lenses fan, shares this opinion.
He also prefers Minolta as the closest Leica match in japanese lenses.
The bokeh looks quite similar. Especially the 100mm (great lens)
matches very well the Summicron 90mm. The MC 135 can compete
easily with his Leica counterpart (from the same era at least).
Contrast, color rendition and saturation also are very close. The
environmental conditions at the moment when the picture was taken,
make much more the difference than the lenses themselves.
No sharpness problems on screen also.
We have never compared MTBF curves of both brands.
Some people out there with a similar experience ?
regards,
Emmanuel Seynaeve
From rangefinder mailing list
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
From: Kari Kuutti [email protected]
Subject: Re: Compact RFs with interchangeable lenses?
Winfried mentioned here Kodak Retina II/III c/C as one possibility. I
would like to suggest also a contemporary Kodak Retina IIIS, which
for some obscure reason has remained in the shadow of folding
Retinas. IIIS is a rigid-bodied version of the same Retina theme with
fully interchangeable lenses, parallel-corrected viewfinder & RF and
frames for different lenses, and the feeling of superb German
engineering (some might say over-engineering...). The body is
slightly larger than those of II/III, and as heavy. A range of lenses
by Schneider and Rodenstock between 28-200 mm fits, including a
1.9/50 for available light use.
A good point is the easy availability of lenses, because Kodak did
rather unique decision to use same lenses for both their reflexes and
rangefinders, and Retina Reflexes were made in hundreds of thousands.
While a good IIIS body may need some hunting down, there are lots of
Retina Reflex lenses continuously available (those from Instamatic
Reflex may not fit, however.)
--Kari Kuutti
From leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Facts revisited
It seems to me (logically speaking) that if a perfectly focused
(non-defocused) lens registers 100 lp/mm while on a tripod and only 20
lp/mm while hand held - to equal a defocused lens while on a tripod - if
you hand hold the defocused lens (already at 20 lp/mm) you simply
exacerbate the problem to worse performance.
You certainly cannot get "better" performance than you started with. And
you certainly can make it worse.
A camera that is NOT nearly dead-on in focusing on the film plane, is
simply going to, in all cases, give you WORSE performance than a camera
the IS dead-on in focusing on the film plane.
Why did Contax make the vacuum film plate? Why do MF and LF photographers
constantly whine about film flatness?
It is because the depth of focus parameter (where the lens focuses in
relation to the film plane) is extremely critical. There is NO fudge
factor here.
And all of you Leica folks (me too) love to use your lenses wide open. f/2,
f/1.4, and f/1.0 . Without precise focus ON THE FILM PLANE, you will get
crappy photographs.
You can get lucky. You can be off in your focusing and end up with the
subject actually "in focus." But don't rely on luck. Make sure your
equipment is built to do the job the way it is supposed to be done. This is
where heritage and lineage plays an important role. The best fast precision
lenses, on the best precision body. Pieces that actually were made for
each other. An M3 lens works perfectly on an M6. And a new 90 APO/ASPH lens
works perfectly on an M3. Heritage, lineage, history, and dedication is
what makes it happen.
So do you all still think that the flange to film spec, given to Erwin by
Konica, is an error in engineering or done for a reason? Why won't Konica
mate a Leica lens to a Hexar? Why have people attempted to have this done?
I personally think this is a self answering situation.
Jim
[email protected] wrote:
>
>So what's wrong with a visual inspection, then? If you can't see any
>degradation, does it matter if it is present? From a practical standpoint,
>what's it matter if the theoretical limit is 100 lp/mm for a photographer
>who hand-holds 95% of the time?
>
>I ask because I seek your expert opinion, Erwin. I'm genuinely curious.
>Does the defocus problem only really matter if you're using a tripod, slow
>film, and trying to get close to the theoretical maximum? If hand holding
>already degrades the image, how important does the mismatch between Leica
>lenses and Hexar bodies become?
>
>Thanks!
From leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Konica Facts revisited
Erwin,
If you had explained your sources yesterday, I doubt you would have got so many
questions on it. Part of the questioning you are complaining about comes from
your own lack of detailed reportage. There is nothing wrong with wanting to
know your source on an issue very important to people who spent their money on the
Hexar RF. This is not a trivial subject to someone interested in the Hexar RF.
Thank you for filling in the details. Even so, I've had people behind the
counter at national photo distributors give me wrong info. This information needs to be
confirmed by several Konica sources, to make sure you were in fact given accurate,
up to date information. This is a big deal, at least to Konica Hexar RF owners.
It's also very odd that, so far as I know, no major magazine made mention of it in
their Konica Hexar RF reports.
Even if the information is true, you overstate your point in yesterday's post, in
my opinion with "Most importantly however is the conclusion that Leica lenses
cannot be used with any degree of confidence or performance on the Hexar." as
though ALL Hexar RF's are at the outer limits of acceptable back focus, and
therefore suspect.
What about the Hexar RF's that were assembled with tight tolerances -- within Leica
specs ? Yesterday a LUGer who did not want to post publicly measured his Hexar RF
against his M6. Both were, according to his measurements, within Leica specs.
This helps explain why some people are very happy with their Hexar RF.
Hexar RF owners just need to have a good repair tech check the back focus, to see
if THEIR camera has the problem. An unknown percentage are apparently within
Leica specs, and an unknown percentage are not. Any good repairman can check the
Hexar RF back focus, and see how close it is to Leica standards. We need data on
individual cameras to see how wide spread the problem is, and more research to see
how easily it can be corrected, and at what cost. Is this a good thing? Of course
not, but neither were plastic M6 frame counters, M6 TTL's that eat batteries like
candy, or R8 motor problems. Despite best efforts, some mistakes seem to make it
past the end of all assembly lines.
If enough Hexar RF owners complain to Konica USA, perhaps they will even correct
the problem under warranty - though at this time they don't seem so inclined.
As for me, although I've noticed no focusing problems with my Hexar RF, I'm having
it checked by 3 repair techs to make sure I am getting accurate back focus measurement. If the back focus is not within Leica specs, I will be
exploring what needs to be done, how much it will cost, and I will be sharing the
serial number.
Stephen Gandy
[email protected] wrote:
> I am always surprised that anyone on this list can make statements without any
> proof or with reference to that famous " highly knowledgeable and official, but
> anonymous sources" phrase, without being challenged or asked to substantiate.
> If I make a statement or do a measurement, my person is made suspect, my
> methods are challenged or I am forced, preferably by legal means, to disclose
> sources by name, rank and position, I have to give quantities checked, any
> individual serial numbers and if I have to to obey to Stephen Gandy's demand I
> am not even qualified to make any statement unless I can proof I am a working
> optical designer with 20 years of practical experience and should have in
> addition an masters degree in mechanical precision engineering before my
> remarks gain a modicum of respectibility.
> Now if these in itself reasonable demands would apply to all members of the
> Lug, it would die instantly. But such is the force of demagogy that rules are
> for anybody but the person who makes the rules.
> Now on topic:
> The Konica facts have as source the Konica Headquarters Europe, in Germany. I
> spoke to the service people there, who reproduced wordly (from the English
> specification details) that the film register is 28.00mm plus/minus 0.03.
> He also noted that it is impossible for any company with engineering quality
> status as Konica or name anyone else, to depart from that figure significantly.
> He said that it is possible to match a Konica body to Leica lenses, BUT then
> you need to adjust the Rangefinder mechanism too. It is not enough to change
> the boyonet, if that could be done.
> He admitted that sometimes a user with a Konica body does not have problems
> when using leica lenses but that it not generally the case.
> End of discussion.
> To resume my remarks.
> I know of Hexar RF bodies that depart from the quoted specs. I do not know why
> that happens or whether these bodies have been adjusted individually.
> I do know that I do not trust the well known visiual inspection method: I shot
> pictures with a Hexar/Leica combo and see no problems.
> I know and again here Stephen Gandy will object, that handheld shooting will
> degrade te optical potential quality of a lens in such a way that no reliable
> conclusions can be based on this experience.
> To give figures: based on the formula to be found in any handbook of optics,
> that a defocus of 0.2mm will reduce the definition and contrast of a lens in
> the same proportion as handheld shooting can do.
> To be precise: if the optimum quality of a lens is 100 lp/mm, then a handheld
> shooting can reduce it to 20 lp/mm with low contrast. A defocus by .2mm will
> also reduce the optimum to 20 lp/mm. This being the case, any test with
> handheld shooting will mask the defocus reduction.
>
> Erwin
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Konica Facts revisited
Stephen Gandy wrote:
>
>Thank you for filling in the details. Even so, I've had people behind the counter
>at national photo distributors give me wrong info. This information needs to be
>confirmed by several Konica sources, to make sure you were in fact given accurate,
>up to date information.
Uh ... Planet Earth to Stephen? Erwin specifically stated that his source
were the SERVICE people at Konica in Europe and that the information they
gave him was the information THEY use in adjusting these cameras. These
are not "people behind the counter" -- these are technicians sharing the
standards they use in their daily work. Confirm it if you wish -- but I
have trouble believing that Konica has two different sets of standards, one
for Europe and one for the rest of the World. Or, again, are you
suggesting that Konica is so incompetent that they cannot tell their own
people how to repair their cameras? Oy vey! Shades of Zeiss Ikon!
Marc
[email protected]
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001
From: Michael Darnton [email protected]
Subject: RE: Canon 7S vs. Cosina Bessa R
OK, I can't resist. If you want THE most universal RF lens mount at the
current moment, it's the Leica M mount of the current cameras (and all
the Leica M cameras back to 1954 are exactly the same--beat that with
your SLR! :-), which will accept ALL of the previous (and discontinued)
Canon RF lenses, ALL of the Voigtlander lenses, ALL of the Leica lenses
back to about 1932, current and otherwise, using cheap adapters which
offer FULL functionality (unlike the usual SLR adapter) of the various
lenses. The Leica M mount is THE most versatile, not the most
proprietary. I have 7 different lenses for my Leica M4-2, and only two
of them are actually Leica M mount lenses--the rest are 1950s Canon,
modern Voigtlander, and ancient Leica thread mounts. Adapters are $100
for 3, from cameraquest.com--you don't even need to buy a Leica product
to do the job! If the question is simply versatility and quality of
viewfinder, buy yourself a current or old Leica M-something, not a
Voigtlander or Canon.
The thread mount on Canons, old Leicas, and Voigtlanders is exactly the
same mount, with no hitches. The camera side mount on the M cameras is
simply a bigger hole, closer to the film than the old thread mount, to
allow space for a simple adapter which shims the older thread mount
lenses out to fit the newer bayonet mount. With the modern cameras the
framelines in the finder are triggered by a finger on the back of the
adapter (which is specific for each focal length), so the adapter
becomes a permanent part of each lens--screw it on and forget it
thereafter--the old lens becomes an M mount lens.
--Michael Darnton
...
From leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Medium format camera for a Leica user?
I do much of my best work with the Mamiya 6; BTW, it is much easier to
focus than any Leica RF. Arthur
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Exchanging lenses between Zorki4 and Fed5
Basically find a military surplus optical bomb sight, one with an ocular
you look into. Make a power source for its illuminator. Mount it on a
vertical column like an enlarger upright. Those optical sights are set for
infinity and project parallel rays of light when they project their
targets.
Bob
> From: Laurent Dujat [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [russiancamera] Re: Exchanging lenses between Zorki4 and Fed5
>
> Hello, Bob, please, a blue-print for making my own collimator! (do not
> have any idea about what a collimator looks like, nor how to use one -
> just learnt the purpose of it)
> thanks,
> Laurent
From rangefinder list:
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001
From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Moskva 5 Pros and Cons.
The Photoapparat Mockba-5 has some features in common with the Super Ikonta
C but is sufficiently evolved to be its own beast. These are the principal
differences:
The Moskva has a one-piece removable back with a slot instead of a hinge.
Neither a plus nor a minus.
The body and back are made of a heavy aluminum casting instead of brass.
Probably a plus.
Instead of the cluttered Super Ikonta C top, it has a one-piece casting.
Definitely a plus, because it can't flip open and catch on things.
Where the Super Ikonta C has two RF windows with magnification (short base),
the Moskva-5 has a long base and no magnification. Neither a plus nor
minus. Probably easier on your eyes.
The finder on the Super Ikonta C was a flip up Albada type with framelines
for 6x9 and 6x4.5. Most such finders have deteriorated to the point of
being worthless, because the framelines separate and the reflective coating
goes bad. The Moskva has a simple galilean finder that has a mask that
moves to show the 6x6 and 6x9 frames.
Coated lens and synched shutter (PC connection). Definite plus, as getting
these features on a Super C makes it really $$$
Moment shutter - Ok Compur ripoff. Low top speed is a minus, but low
maintenance is plus.
Industar-24L lens - excellent for its price range. Optimal around f/8. A
lot more contrast that the uncoated Tessars on the cheaper Super Ikontas.
Tough bellows - plus
Tough leatherette (pigskin?) - plus
3/8" tripod socket - easily corrected
Shutter linkage - ok, could be better
In all, it's a nice unit for the price (if it is clean, from 100-200,
depending on whether or not you have the box, 6x6 mask, etc), and nice
condition means more expensive. Don't let anyone tell you that you can make
a 6x6 mask yourself. If you see the real one, you will know why. The 6x6
mask adds value because it gives you that 105mm lens on a 6x6 frame, meaning
a telephoto.
The only real caveat is that with anything this old (and this was sold as a
professional unit) is to make sure that the erector struts have not been
damaged. I was lucky with mine, but I have seen enough rickety Super
Ikonta Cs to be able to see the problems that abusive owners can cause.
Having said that, maybe it's time to do that page.
Dante
....
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001
From: Peter Kelson [email protected]
Subject: Inexpensive russian rangefinders
I am surprised by all the reservations about repairs in the Ukraine.
I have had three cameras repaired by sovietcamera.com.ua and have sent
three more for repair/ CLA that have not been returned yet.. The
results so far have been excellent. A FED 1 with a non working shutter
and a lens with oil droplets inside and a jammed diaphragm was transformed into a
fully working EX++camera for $20, and that included a take up spool and lens
cap. The camera was in such bad shape when I sent it that I
wondered if it was repairable.
I sent a Kiev 3a with a broken exposure meter window and a non-functioning
meter with the request for the glass to be replaced (not expecting that the
meter could be repaired). I got an email the other day to say that the meter
was now working and the camera had been CLAd. Again for $20.
OK so I have had to wait a few weeks. In my experience camera
repairers always take their time. That applies to the US (judging from
comments on various camera groups) and the UK and is probably universal.
I am prepared to be patient when the service is so good and so cheap.
Peter Kelson
Peter Kelson, [email protected]
------------
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Contax China
I bought one of them. It's a Fed converted to a Da Lai. I couldn't resist
it since it is a Russian copy of a Chinese copy of a Russian copy of a Leica!!
Bob
> From: "Kelvin" [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [russiancamera] Re: Contax China
>
> Hi Franka
> I'm chinese too, I can read it :)
> ... but having seen Zorkis/FEDs on ebay with chinese
> markings, I'm skeptical as to their authenticity.
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Bottom Loading
Peter,
It sounds to me like the film advance sprocket is not engaged properly.
See:
http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/marine/569/rusrngfdrs/fed1zorki1.html
which should help.
Kevin
Peter Kelson wrote:
> Does anybody use soviet bottom loaders, like the FED/Zorki 1, Zorki
> IC, 2C regularly? If so, do you have any tips on how to ensure
> reliable loading every time. Although I cut the film leader as
> described by Maizenberg, I find that sometimes winding on is very
> heavy for the first few frames and then becomes impossible. I have
> also had film break or tear the perforations after 20 or so frames.
> Sometimes I have no problems, but I don't seem able to load the film
> correctly every time. I have had this experience with several
> cameras.
>
> Peter Kelson
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001
From: Russ Brubaker [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bottom Loading
I too have had some of the film transport problems in a newly acuired
Zorki 2c . I traced the problem to the take-up spool ( a spocket spring
catch waas broken off ) I exchanged it for the Leica take-up in my IIIb
and solved the problem, at least for the next film load . Have to be
careful tightning the film "taunt" to insure the wrap on the take-up and
the sprockets are tracking the film as it feeds. Don't have to wind but
two or three holes to check. Make sure the loaded feedinng spool is wound
snug to indicate the the film is transporting . Too much play or space
between the film in the sprocket and the take-up roll as it is feeding
will lead to the binding .
Good luck with the practice trys. Carry a black film changer bag! Russ
Brubaker
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Buying from Russia or Czech Republic Reply
Javier Perez wrote:
>BTW: Does anyone know if the J6 was a med fmt
>lens adapted to 35? That's what I thought
>originally but I can't find any info on J6s
>on 88/1000f or P6 mount. It also seems smaller
>than the ols Sonnar it's said to be based on.
The Jupiter-6 IS a clone of the 2.8/18cm Carl Zeiss Jena Olympia-Sonnar of
1936, a lens designed for miniature-format (35mm) use. But, as with so
many other long lenses, it also covers medium format.
It is a nice lens in every regard, Javier.
Marc
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002
From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Super Ikonta rangefinder adjustment
Yes. You need to move the wedge prisms in relation to one another until
the rangefinder is vertically aligned. You have to physically take apart
the arm and do this one tooth at a time. It will take about an hour Then
follow these directions to finish the horizontal alignment:
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/superfix.html
Before blowing any time on the vertical alignment issues, read the part of
this article that discusses what it could be. If it is not a botched
repair, your camera is dead. If so, even if you get the vertical to line
up, you could end up with bad rangefinding.
Dante