9/28/2002 4:08:23 PM, Jim Brokaw <jbrokaw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I won't throw any rocks, but if you're going to look at spending the
>equivalent of the value of a clean OM-1n on a pocketable rangefinder, you
>should consider (in addition to the Canonet QL-17-GIII) the Olympus 35-RD,
>the Minolta HiMatic 7sII, and the Konica Auto-S3 as well. All are small
>rangefinders, feature wide-range leaf shutters (to 1/4 second or slower) and
>fast lenses (f1.7 for all I think). If you don't need as fast a lens,
>consider the Olympus 35-RC.
i'm leaning towards the canon since, as steven gandy says, one can find 5
canons for one of any other body floating around....
>Less pocketable, but probably a better camera overall than the Canonet is
>the Olympus 35 SP. There were other cameras in that 'slightly larger' size
>category, not 'pocketable' but very good cameras... If I estimate that your
>budget will be about $150 you should be able to get a very clean example of
>any of these cameras. A CLA for any of these cameras won't cost all that
>much less than the camera, however.
which is why i'm shooting for a CLAed version, if I buy one. the SP is harder
to find (relative to the canonet), and altho the spot is really nice, it does
get bigger and not so pocketable.
>The other thing, when you set one of these down next to an OM-1 with a
>50/1.8 mounted, they aren't all *that* much smaller than the OM's...
right. it comes down to how easily I can focus in those low light levels, and
then mirror slap ruining more than a fair share of them. granted i havent yet
tried using the compact rfs, my next visit to
camera store i'll see if they have any.
or maybe i should swap out to a 2 series screen (and dial in -2/3 comp), since
i believe that will make low light focussing easier
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|