| Author |
Message |
    
Jackson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 09:01 pm: | 
|
Earlier today I inspected and subsequently disassembled a Ricoh 500 G. For anyone who isn't familiar with this model, it's is a shutter-priority, auto-exposure rangefinder with a 40mm f/2.8 lens. It can be switched from manual to auto, and it's small size makes it ideal as an inexpensive, bang-around picture taker.
Unfortunately, this one had a bad meter. Although the electronics seemed OK, the meter itself was physically binding on its own bearings.
This particular camera was the first compact rangefinder that I have disassembled, and its internal construction has raised a question. I was very surprised to discover in this camera that the meter movement physically drives the aperture mechanism. I have since learned that the Canon QL III 1.7 uses the same technique.
Given the fragility and limited operating life of meter pivots under even the best of conditions, this truly seems like poor engineering. I can't help but think that most of these cameras are eventually destined for an early (or at least unrestorable) death.
My question is whether all the compact shutter-priority Japanese rangefinders of the '70s are built this way. I had wanted to expand my small collection to include something smaller and more convenient, but now I'm not so sure. This is not the way to design a camera, and I would prefer a larger model with better build quality than to sacrifice longevity for the sake of '70s mass marketing.
I guess I should add that I'm not trying to start a war over the pros and cons of camera design. Any useful information on this point will be appreciated. |
Michel Linn
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 09:37 pm: |
|
Yes, it's just bad engineering.
That's why the Japanese couldn't produce cameras that would last. If I were you, I'd avoid similar models including (but not limited to) such offerings from Canon, Nikon, Petri, Olympus, Mamiya, Minolta, Cosina, etc. They have all have had an early death, I'm sure, so I'd look for maybe a Soviet copy of a Minox for sure.
Perhaps you could offer the Japanese some advice. I would be glad to put you in contact with them. Thereby they might someday come to be a factor in the design of better cameras.
Perhaps someone on this board may have actually restored one of these defective models and might be able to help you. Perhaps not. It would be up to you to redirect your question, if desired.
I think that what we are actually hearing is the impatience of someone who has not:
1. Searched this site for help.
2. Constructively asked for help.
I will make a constructive recommendation to you:
Get an M series Leica (I retired from Leica in 2002 so I'm not unbiased) or, failing that get a Yashica G rangefinder. It won't have those pesky meter pivots.
Best Regards,
Mike |
Jackson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 11:32 pm: |
|
Thank you for your insightful comments. It is gratifying to learn that the pile of parts on my bench is not the lost cause I had assumed, but rather an exemplary example of fine Japanese craftsmanship that should last many lifetimes. The inherent quality evident in pieces such as this was undoubtedly a factor in rebranding them for Sears.
In return for your generosity, I would like to give you some constructive criticism as well. When you post a reply to me, consider what I asked. Try to pay less attention to your own ego and spend more time thinking of ways to help. Communicate whatever experience you may have available. No one, especially me, appreciates a useless diatribe of dull-witted drivel like the one above.
I still need an answer if anyone has one. |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 03:16 am: |
|
It is not true that the meter movement drives the aperture mechanism. The force which drives the aperture mechanism is part of the force imposed on the shutter button. The meter needle is "trapped" by a disk with sagged teeth, and the teeth are aligned such that this disk moves more or less forward depending on the position of the meter needle. This disk is linked to the aperture mechanism.
Needle-trap mechanisms as they are in most of the 70s rangefinders have been state of the art for at least two decades. The first camera having such a mechanism was an old Kodak prewar folding camera.
Cameras such as the Agfa Optima series of the 1950s with a simple needle-trap mechanism were million sellers and (in case the selenium cell has not faded) still work today. |
Andrew Yue
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 07:54 am: |
|
The main drawback to the needle-trap mechanisms is the shutter release button requires a longer amount of travel to activate mechanical assembly below. A light and slow pressure is needed when depressing the shutter release if one wishes to have consistant exposures.
With regards to the quality issue, it's what came afterward that didn't hold up as well. Mechanical shutters and needle-trap mechanisms went by the wayside when electronic shutters were introduced.
Electronic shutter are less espensive to fabricate and relied on an integrated chip to regulate the exposure. In theory, this method is more accurate and should have a longer life. In practice, while it is more accurate, the circuitry on the electronic flexboards were prone to failure and increased use of plastics through out the camera made for a less robust design over all.
So, it's all relative. On outward appearances alone, a couple of my 50's cameras make my Oly 35RC, 35RD and 35SP appear less well made.
Next, I wouldn't use the Ricoh as a benchmark with regards to build quality. The Ricoh 500 was definitely on the low end, while the Canonet QL 17 GIII was more of the norm for this range of camera. The Canonet sold for about a 1/4 of what a Leica body cost new.
And finally, with regards to the waste heap, the lack of mercury batteries, the usual service issues on a mechanical beast and the attraction of digital will inevitably send a good number of rangefinders into oblivion. |
Mike
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 09:56 am: |
|
Jackson-
Perhaps I was too hard on you for which I apologize. At least I didn't get into personal name-calling as you did. Almost all cameras which are the subject of this board, and which have light meters, have meter pivots. To attack the whole lot is just bizzare and illogical.
As far as making a constructive suggestion, so far I am the only one to actually give you a specific suggestion for a 70's rangefinder model with no meter pivots- a Yashica G. |
Will
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:16 am: |
|
>>And finally, with regards to the waste heap, the lack of mercury batteries, the usual service issues on a mechanical beast and the attraction of digital will inevitably send a good number of rangefinders into oblivion. <<
Hopefully into the eBay oblivion. And not just rangefinders - SLR's, Twins, MF etc. too. I think it will be a buyers market for all these mechanical classics over the next few years. I'm looking forward to it!
Will |
Jackson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 04:53 pm: |
|
Thanks to everyone for the information.
Mazda sold hundreds of thousands of rotary engines, but I don't like that design, either. It's only my opinion, but I'm entitled to it, right?
Mike, I didn't call you anything, I just objected to your attempt to humor the forum at my expense. Thanks for the tip on the Yashica G. I have a few GSNs already, but have been trying to find a smaller design for the glove box. Maybe it's hopeless on a limited budget.
As for the Canonet, I had a chance to operate one today. I'll keep my opinion to myself on this one. I can tell this group is in no mood.
Meters, meters, meters. I don't object to meters, I just prefer that they convey information, not dictate operating conditions. I'm also skeptical that any of these companies (Ricoh, Canon, Nikon, Mamiya, etc.) manufacture their own. I suspect one could find a defective meter in any grade of camera. I also suspect meters used in meter traps fail more often. Again, that's only my opinion, there's no hard data to back it up.
Let me phrase my question differently. Do any of the compact '70s rangefinders (size of Canonet and Ricoh 500G) offer AE without meter trapping? I think the Yashica GX probably does, but are there others? |
Andrew Yue
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 08:06 pm: |
|
Smaller, limited budget, need a camera with an electronic meter and shutter, but not a full manual mode?
Try an Olympus XA. It has an aperture preferred auto mode like your GSNs, but the XA's optics aren't anything to screem about when shot wide open at f/2.8. At f/5.6 and above it does quite well. It also uses SR44/76 silver oxides. Best of all, it fits in a shirt pocket.
With regards to need pivots, my Gossen Luna Pro is twenty five years old and has been all over the planet. It's still spot on and has never given me a lick of trouble. |
Roger
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:34 pm: |
|
Most Yashicas, the MC is very small and quite well made. The GX is a bit larger and the GL is larger still but the best of all. There are some size comparisons on my web pages. http://www.provins.org.uk |
Mike
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 06:42 pm: |
|
Hi Jackson-
Evidently I'm still "dull witted" per your posting but I'm going to attempt to move on with this in the hope you will follow.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but maturity is evidenced in how those opinions are controlled and expressed. If you don't like light meters that have pivots, or Mazda rotary engines, then don't blast in advance the very people from whom you are seeking help. I don't expect understanding from you, but, hoping that you want a camera that you will enjoy using, per all your requirements, I'm going to direct you to the definitive answer to your question, which is not on this website. Visit:
http://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm
I recommend you stick with the Yashica line. If you go there, please do so with an open mind and don't complain here that:
1. They cost too much.
2. You bought one but it doesn't work and you can't fix it so the engineering sucks. |
Henry
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 06:51 pm: |
|
I'm not really a rangefinder guy. So often I don't even read rangefinder threads. But I did this one and run across (again) something I've heard many times...but haven't been able to fathom the logic of.
Someone buys a 30 year old rangefinder to stick in the glovebox. Now I don't mean any offense. I'm just trying to figure the logic. A glovebox camera I would figure would be for quick snatch-n-grab shots. Something a modern P&S is made for...and can be purchased at a fraction of the cost of even the cheapest 60's or 70's rangefinder. In fact I have 15 or 20 P&S's that people have just given to me! Some of these approaching the optics of the classic rangefinders.
So...besides the better (and some times killer) optics, what makes say a Canonet a good glovebox camera?
The excessive heat and cold adversely affects the mechanical accuracy of both shutter and meter. Many of the classics lack ASA's over 400 and have limited fast speeds so they can't utilize many modern films. And they don't operate fast enough to be flexible action grabbers. Their meters sometimes take seconds to register accurately when going from extreme light levels, like from lens cap on to bright light.
Any input or ideas?
But to answer the original posters query about these 60's designs being poor engineering. They were state of the art engineering at the time. By today's standards they are bone knives and flint arrowheads. But this is why we love them! If we wanted state of the art today we'd buy a Digital Rebel with an IS lens.
Btw, the best engineering doesn't mean designing a perfect mechanism that never fails yet costs enough that only NASA can afford it. It means designing a product that functions well enough at its intended purpose for a long enough time to become obsolete yet be purchasable by you and me.
Henry |
Andrew Yue
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 09:09 pm: |
|
"A man has got to know his camera's limitations,"
Don't get me wrong. There are features on a fully automatic camera that I do like. For example, the auto fill-flash and the slow shutter speed, "night mode" setting on many of the newer cameras are ten times faster to use than setting up a flash exposure on a 50 year old Retina IIa.
Then there are features that I don't like too, such as battery dependency and the lack of a focus/hyperfocus scale on most AF lenses.
Is it possible to grab a shot faster with a vintage camera that is offers only a manual mode than let's say someone standing nearby who has to boot up their Digital Rebel, play with their zoom a bit, wait a little bit for the AF to settle down and then shoot?
I've done it. You surely have to know your camera, but it is possible. The Leica folks do it all the time with street photography and you have to give them an A+ for being able to quickly reload a fresh roll of film.
The big stink over meters would have been superfluos fifty years ago. There are times you don't need a built-in meter and times when they are a godsend, but they too often become a crutch, as does the rangefinder. "Sunny 16" and zone focusing work pretty well for daylight photography.
With regards to film speed, I often shoot Delta 3200 at EI 1600 using one of my meterless, medium format cameras in a large, windowless, auditorium during our Monday training sessions. Keep in mind that these cameras are 50 years old and were built when ASA 200 was considered to be a lightning fast film.
Let me say that that I do have the good fortune of knowing the lighting in that room extremely well, as it is adjacent to my lab. 
A manual shooter can have bruising learning curve, but once mastered, those skills will come handy even with today's state of the art electronic wonder.
Oh, one other thing. Leaving a camera in the glove box 24/7 really does sound like a bad idea. |
Jackson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:20 pm: |
|
Roger, that's a killer site you've put together. Many thanks. I especially appreciate you making the manuals available. I know that takes a lot of work.
Henry, I do wonder whether a P&S might be better, maybe even one with AF. That's a whole 'nother area of investigation though, and it may take me a while to get there.
Andrew, I shot a Koni Omega for quite some time, so I know what you mean about limitations. I can estimate exposure values pretty close during dayling hours, and the Koni took beautiful pictures without the need to meter most shots. However, I'm more of a "shoot and run" photographer. The Koni kit just wasn't sufficiently mobile. When it's convenient to carry lots of gear, I use Nikon now. Oh yes, thanks for mentioning the XA. I'll take another look.
Incidentally, I have plenty of radio and audio gear with meters going back to at least the '50s. I wasn't complaining about meters per se. Rather, it's the idea of torquing the bearings to trap the needle that bothers me. I realize my perspective on this is different than most contributors to the group. I guess it's a concept camera enthusiasts are more comfortable with.
Regards to all,
Jackson |
Gary Turner
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 12:27 pm: |
|
From my point of view the best collectible & still usable compact 35mm rangefinder cameras at this point in time are those that have full manual (no meter) or at least manual overide capability. No doubt early metering automation was a popular marketing strategy regardless of any long term reliability concerns. In my mind the best affordable classic compacts now include: Olympus 35-RC & RD, Minolta AL-s (Minoltina), Ricoh GX and several others. Too be honest, I'm not fond of the Canonet GIII due to its engineering/repair complexity and potentially troublesome metering...however, if you have one that actually works in both auto and manual modes then they are great. If you can include the relatively heavy Konica III series as a 'compact' then they are probably at or near the top. |
Roger
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 01:29 pm: |
|
Thanks Jackson for your kind comment on my web pages. I'd be happy to put more manuals on if anyone cares to lend me some for long enough to scan them. The first Yashica 35 (the model immediately after the prohibitively expensive YF) is a very nice indeed. Fully manual and with a superb 1.9 lens and a wide based rangefinder. Well made and fairly easy to maintain. |
Jackson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 12:08 am: |
|
Gary, I've been thinking along the same lines, that what I really want is something like a match-needle manual. I recently acquired several Yashica GSNs, and I have to say, this model does a remarkable job for what it is. However, I need to be able to manually open or close a couple stops when I know it's needed.
The Lynx series is interesting, but if they're all like the 5000e (another recent acquisition), they're set up as shutter prefered. I'm much more comfortable with aperture priority gear, which is how I use all my SLRs.
The hunt goes on...
(My apologies to the group for this OT thread.) |
Howard
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 02:00 am: |
|
Hi Jackson. In line with your last post probably a Yashica Minister D or Minister 700 (if you can find one) would be ideal. These are both excellent CDS match needle manual cameras. have a look at the "Yashica Guy"'s website for all the info.
Regards Howard |
Andrew Yue
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 05:51 am: |
|
Jackson, I used a GT as a travel camera through out the 70' and well into the mid-80's.
Even though there isn't a meter needle to use as a guide, you can still use the ASA dial to lengthen the shutter speed. This also is pretty much the only method one can use to compensate for either a polarizer or B&W filters since the CdS cell is outside of the filter ring.
For subjects standing in the shade, try reducing the ASA dial to either 1/3rd to even 1/4 of the actual film speed. You may or may not find the blown highlights to your liking.
For daylight photography, you also have the option of using a fill-flash. The trick is to have your subject within 10-12 feet of the camera if you are using a compact flash unit with a GN rating of 60ft. The results can be spectacular, but it is imperative to stand at a distance so that the flash illumination reaching the subject is two stops below the aperture setting on the camera. |
John S.
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:06 am: |
|
Well, I think that some of those 30 year old cameras are reaching the end of their useful life. They were not expensive to begin with, so it's npot suprising that some of those old meters are either gummed up from inactivity or worn out from use. I don't think it is poor engineering as much as a combination of time and price. However there are lots of interesting alternatives, although not all of them are Japanese in origin. The Yashica Electro 35GSN can be had for practically nothing and is of course a good if not small RF. The Minolta Himatic 7s falls into the same category. The Fed 5 camera can be had for not much money, is metered and is a decent if somewhat noisy picture maker. And of course all those german rangefinders from the 1950's are great picture takers...all you need is a handheld meter. |
Luis Vernon
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:06 am: |
|
Greetings to all!
I'd like to chime in with my two cents worth as it pertains 70's rangefinder/viewfinder cameras.
On balance, the engineering of most of these little gems was quite good, as was the fit and finish. All metal top and bottom plates as well as chassis, early stepless electronic shutters, SPD for accurate metering (in some cases), very sharp 4 element lenses which do well today with most 35mm films. What's not to like? Admittedly, some had more features such as manual exposure control i.e Canon QL GIII and Konica S3. But, in terms of portability, lens sharpness, build quality and just handsome looks, they can't be beat. Now..to the question of obsolesence. I own several 70's rangefinders including Konicas, Canonets & Yashicas. I was and am still able to find original Mercury batteries that power their meters. Everytime I obtain a "new" camera I spent the $50-75 to have it CLA'd. These cameras serve as my vacation cameras and always produce excellent results.. So.. to all naysayers of 70's rangefinder/viewfinder cameras..I say.. shame on you!.. these old cameras are joys to hold, load and shoot with.. |
Will
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 04:04 pm: |
|
I just started collecting rangefinders. These are a lot of fun. My most recent is a thrift store find - a Yashica Lynx 5000 for $5.00 with leather case. Meter is dead but the camera is a great shooter otherwise. No way is this going in my glovebox!
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/798388/lynx5000.jpg
Will |
Jackson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 05:03 pm: |
|
That's a beautiful camera Will, and the price was certainly right. Unless it's physically broken like mine was, I'll bet the dead meter is a minor problem.
Have fun! |
Will
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 09:59 pm: |
|
Hi Jackson,
It's a wonderful camera. Totally manual. 1sec - 1000th +B Copal SV shutter, and a fast f1.8-f22 45mm Yashinon lens. The dead meter doesn't bother me. I just use my Studio Deluxe meter for exposure settings.
When I first got the camera I took it out to Arizona when I helped my sister move. I got some fantastic pictures using it. They were the first pictures from the camera, and I've never had to do anything to it since either. It was a lucky find.
Will |
|
