35mm Rangefinder suggestions

[BrianShaw]

"Hmmm... really? How so? Which Canonet? I love these off-hand statements of superiority - obviously, Coke is better than Pepsi, but other than that..."

I tried the Canonet (GIII QL 1.7) and I wasn't too happy with it. I can't quite figure out why this seems to have become a cult camera. The images were light in contrast. Recently I started using a Kodak Retina IIIc and have been much happier with it. It is smoother in operation and the quality of the negs is much more superior that those coming out of the Canonet... crisper and more contrast Unfortunately, the Retina is heavier. Oh well.

And... Coke really IS better than pepsi ;-)

[Trivette]

My favorite pocket camera is the Rollei 35. It is a basic all manual camera with scale focus, but both the Sonnar and Tessar versions have superb optics. I have posted some photos at http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...y.php?cat=5311

[gnashings]

"Hmmm... really? How so? Which Canonet? I love these off-hand statements of superiority - obviously, Coke is better than Pepsi, but other than that..."

I tried the Canonet (GIII QL 1.7) and I wasn't too happy with it. I can't quite figure out why this seems to have become a cult camera. The images were light in contrast. Recently I started using a Kodak Retina IIIc and have been much happier with it. It is smoother in operation and the quality of the negs is much more superior that those coming out of the Canonet... crisper and more contrast Unfortunately, the Retina is heavier. Oh well.

And... Coke really IS better than pepsi ;-)

I am not one to really go for the cult status, etc. I just happen to have one, and use it often, and find the lens lens compares very favorably with many top-notch SLR lenses, even side by side. Perhaps your example was lacking in some way? Coating damage? Rangefinder out of alignement? I don't know, the negs out of mine can be easily put up against anything else I've used...

And yes, Coke IS better than Pepsi - no joke there!

[celluloidpropaganda]

There's a big variation in Canonet quality, from what I've heard. Some are sharper and contrastier than others.

I love my new-to-me Canonet. It arrived on Monday from a member of the rangefinderforum - he cleaned up the viewfinder, changed the front element on the lens and sent an extra correct battery. Shutter-priority isn't so bad, as you can see the aperture being used in the viewfinder. And if all else fails, it's a fully-manual camera.

I've also got a Yashica Lynx 14 (big arse 45/1.4) that needs a CLA, but I picked it up cheap. I'm not as fond of the ergonomics, though a $25 f/1.4 rangefinder is hard to beat.

[jvarsoke]

Shutter-priority isn't so bad. . .

heh, I wish _more_ cameras had shutter-priority.

[André E.C.]

Please yourself with one Yashica 35 GSN, excellent meter and superb optic!

Cheers

André

[Lee L]

Without some more specific parameters for what your needs and wants are, I suspect we'll keep going until nearly every extant rangefinder has been mentioned.

That said, here are my comments.

I've used and sold a number of Canonets over the last 30 years. I've not seen or heard of a dog (or a mediocre lens) among them from friends or customers, as long as they are decently cared for. The 40mm f:1.7 I have now rivals the Summicron 50 and 40's that I've used for over two decades for contrast and resolution, especially at mid apertures. So I can't see it as performing poorly relative to other good glass from Yashica, Konica, Olympus, or others. I'd check those bad samples for poor service, fungus, etc. The QL film loading system on the Canons is very nice. I miss that in SLRs after trading my FTb's.

I'm with rbarker in recommending the current and recently discontinued offerings from Cosina Voigtlander, the Bessa R, L, T, R2, R2A, and R3A. There's a lot of good information on them at cameraquest.com, so read that carefully and see if any strike your fancy and fit your working style. Their lenses are very fine performers, especially at their prices.

I also like the Agfa Isolette and Record III that I have. Smaller and lighter than an SLR, and fit in a large pocket when folded, plus the larger negative is a big positive. I use them with a Gossen Digiflash meter that's small, fast, and accurate.

Lee

[Woolliscroft]

I tried the Canonet (GIII QL 1.7) and I wasn't too happy with it. I can't quite figure out why this seems to have become a cult camera. The images were light in contrast. Recently I started using a Kodak Retina IIIc and have been much happier with it. It is smoother in operation and the quality of the negs is much more superior that those coming out of the Canonet... crisper and more contrast Unfortunately, the Retina is heavier.

As (almost) always, I agree with Gnashings. You may have had a duff one, because this has not been my experience over decades with two different GIIIs. That said, no camera suits everyone, so go with what you are happy with.

David.

[BrianShaw]

... You may have had a duff one, because this has not been my experience over decades ...

David.

Yup, there's a possibility that mine isn't performing optimally. At first I was quite pleased with it (I bought it for 'really cheap' at a thrift shop about a year ago)... but became less pleased with the neg quality the more I used it. Maybe something has jiggled loose. After getting the Retina I gave up any thoughts of checking out the focus or rangefinder alignment. Maybe that can be a winter project for me! The one thing I REALLY liked about the Canonet was the light weight. I generally travel with a Nikon F-3 and motordrive, couple of extra lenses, etc, etc.

Brian

[rbarker]