I've never used one, but that's what I've read and been told. Sorry about the misinformation.
Not true, *if* a selenium meter is working properly, it's actually more linear and less influenced by colour than a CdS meter.
I've also never seen a Selenium meter "suddenly" die.
The Retinas have Selenium cellss which seem to be far more durable and lasting than most.
I have 2 Kodalux meters (made by the same company which made the in-camera Retina meters) which are spot-on.
Also my old Sekonic Studio Pro can still be used as a reference...
Selenium meters are basically an "all or nothing deal": either they work and are sensitive enough, or they're dead (or largely so)...
I've had far more insidious and complicated problems with CdS cells.
I don't understand though what problems can be caused by CdS cells. The only problem I have faced is the discontinued mercury batteries.
I'll second this. Small enough to carry everywhere, sharp little lens, fairly well built.
Originally Posted by perkeleellinen
You did not say if a built-in meter was a requirement.
Originally Posted by tomalophicon
* Olympus 35RC
* Ricoh 500G aka Sears rf|35
* Yamato Pax M3 (also sold under different names, no meter)
Folding German rangefinders from the 50's
* Retina IIIC
* Retina IIC (no meter)
* Agfa Karat 36/Ansco Karomat (no meter)
* Kodak Signet 35 (no meter)
Neither the Oly nor the Ricoh need the battery in manual mode, but the meter doesn't read in manual mode either. You should buy one that already has been CLA'd with new back seals. A clean rangefinder makes a huge difference. These have 42 or 40mm f/2.8 lenses, squarish aperture blades, and lack slow shutter speeds.
As said, the Retina's are compact when folded, but very heavy. (A IIIc weighs about 1.5lbs compared to the 35RC's under 1lb.) There is a difference between the big-C and the little-c versions: the big C have much larger viewfinders (and command a higher price.) But the III has an 50mm f/2 lens as do many of the Agfa/Ansco cameras (the II is a 50mm f/2.8)
The Pax has a 45mm f/2.8 and Signet has a 44mm f/3.5. Both only have shutters to 1/300th and no slow speeds (the Kodak is manually cocked.) The body of the Pax is the same length and height as the 35RC but the lens sticks out a bit more. The Kodak is a bit taller.
No a light meter isn't a requirement. I'll be guessing and using a hand-held meter.
So many to choose from. I'm gonna have to to do some major research.
Keep em coming.
The Bessa R sounds great but a bit expensive for me at the moment.
Retinas are very good cameras, also consider voightlander vitomatic, if you get one with a color skoper lens you will get one of the best "tesser types",if you can find one with the ultron lens,even better, big viewfinder,easy to use, built in selimun meter,maybe not working, I have two of them with the skoper lens and love them,Richard
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
* Kodak Signet 35 (no meter)
The Pax has a 45mm f/2.8 and Signet has a 44mm f/3.5. Both only have shutters to 1/300th and no slow speeds (the Kodak is manually cocked.) The body of the Pax is the same length and height as the 35RC but the lens sticks out a bit more. The Kodak is a bit taller.[/QUOTE]
I have a Signet 35 I do not use. I would sell it for 20 dollars plus shipping. It's a heavy, clumsy little beast, but that Ektar lens is stunningly sharp. The shutter was CLAed about two rolls of film ago. Oops, I see you are in Australia. Hardly worth shipping to the Antipodes, methinks.
John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA
Zorki 4k/ industar 61 panda lens, no battery,no meter. Small, great lens,and so cheap you can get half a dozen. That way if one breaks, just grab another.
Does that mean you have to carry half a dozen, or at least two, so that if one breaks, you can grab another?
Originally Posted by pakeha
I have a Retina IIa which I use and like. It is not, in my opinion, particularly difficult to operate. It is not, in my opinion particularly heavy; although you certainly couldn't carry it around in your shirt pocket. Of course, everything is relative,
Having owned both an Olympus XA and a Retina IIc, for me there'd be no contest. The Retina takes _much_ better pictures. In fact, I didn't really like the rendering of the XA lens at all.
The Retina is heavier, but, for me has better ergonomics, also. I think the only downside to the Retina is that the viewfinder is a little pokey and dim.