A Retro of Rangefinders

scott

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
332
That picture makes me think that the X100 must be smaller than I thought. I keep thinking of it as more like my GW690--not *that* big, but certainly larger than those film rangefinders. Wrong again.
 

entropicremnants

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
1,109
Real Name
John Griggs
That picture makes me think that the X100 must be smaller than I thought. I keep thinking of it as more like my GW690--not *that* big, but certainly larger than those film rangefinders. Wrong again.
The C35 is relatively tiny, and it is larger than the C35 but not by a lot. However, it's lighter than I thought it would be.

It's weird though: when I put it with those others it looks small but when I just see it by itself sitting there, or in pictures it somehow looks bigger than it is. I totally get how you'd think it was much bigger.
 

meyerweb

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,672
I'm curious where that name "rangefinder" even came from. None of these actually "find a range" (like the golf optic that tells you how far away your target is).
Actually, all of those except the digital have real rangefinder focusing systems that work the same way a golf rangefinder does. And that's the real give-away to the digital. It only has a viewfinder window, not the second window needed for a true rangefinder.

My first 35mm camera was a Japanese market Yashica "J" rangefinder. I don't have the original, but I do have another one bought a few years ago.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Note the separate viewfinder window (above and right of lens, as viewed from the front) and superimposed rangefinder window ( just above the lens).
 

entropicremnants

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
1,109
Real Name
John Griggs
Actually, all of those except the digital have real rangefinder focusing systems that work the same way a golf rangefinder does.

And that's the real give-away to the digital. It only has a viewfinder window, not the second window needed for a true rangefinder.
You're right... but if you read our posts so far we already discussed that, lol.
 

Ulfric M Douglas

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
3,709
Location
Northumberland
This is my Yashica Electro 35

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

entropicremnants

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
1,109
Real Name
John Griggs
This is my Yashica Electro 35

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
I have ONE Electro 35 GSN that works sometimes, one that works NEVER, and one more for parts, lol. The electrical contact problem, or that cushion on the shutter release inside.

It's ironic since the "G" in those models means they gold plated many of the electrical contacts -- but it didn't take care of all the electrical problems.

I think a LOT of them look like yours, lol.
 

scott

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
332
I just pulled out the Canonet--only real problem is that the back cover doesn't always lock. Hate to think what it would cost to fix that now.
 

dougjgreen

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
1,864
Location
San Diego
Real Name
Doug Green
I just pulled out the Canonet--only real problem is that the back cover doesn't always lock. Hate to think what it would cost to fix that now.
It might just be that the light seals are shot - when they degrade, the back gets sticky and it often interferes with opening and closing it. That's a common problem with the Canonet QL 17 GIII, and it's a do it yourself job. I used to buy ones that had messed up seals for $25-50, and turn around and sell them for over $100 after cleaning out the old gunky seals and replacing them with neoprene
 

dougjgreen

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
1,864
Location
San Diego
Real Name
Doug Green
Thanks--where do you find replacements?
The man to contact is a fellow named Jon Goodman. Send him an e-mail with the words: "camera light seals" in the subject line, and mention the type of camera you are looking to replace the seals of. Feel free to say Doug Green referred you to him.

His e-mail is Jon_Goodman@yahoo.com (the name is separated by an underscore character)

Favorite Classics / Jon Goodman's Seal Replacement Instructions

He will charge you no more than $10, probably less, for a replacement kit that could do several cameras.
 

entropicremnants

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
1,109
Real Name
John Griggs
The man to contact is a fellow named Jon Goodman. Send him an e-mail with the words: "camera light seals" in the subject line, and mention the type of camera you are looking to replace the seals of. Feel free to say Doug Green referred you to him.

His e-mail is Jon_Goodman@yahoo.com (the name is separated by an underscore character)

Favorite Classics / Jon Goodman's Seal Replacement Instructions

He will charge you no more than $10, probably less, for a replacement kit that could do several cameras.
After you do one or two you'll see how it's done. You can get the closed cell foam sheets at Michaels Crafts and cut your own. For what you pay for one of Goodman's kits you can do about 30 cameras or more, no joke. That's what I do to restore my collector cameras that I want to shoot.

At least with the QL you don't have to the mirror bumper -- that's the most critical job where you have to take special care. Door seals are easy.
 

dougjgreen

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
1,864
Location
San Diego
Real Name
Doug Green
After you do one or two you'll see how it's done. You can get the closed cell foam sheets at Michaels Crafts and cut your own. For what you pay for one of Goodman's kits you can do about 30 cameras or more, no joke. That's what I do to restore my collector cameras that I want to shoot.

At least with the QL you don't have to the mirror bumper -- that's the most critical job where you have to take special care. Door seals are easy.
Well the reality is, after I bought my first kit from Jon, he sold me the raw material neoprene foam sheets for a similar price to what a place like Michaels charges for them. I think Jon's raw materials may be better chosen specifically for the task of sealing cameras. He has several different thicknesses of neoprene, both with and without adhesive backing.

And actually, once you know what you're doing - Mirror bumpers are easy as well. Actually - the QL17 GIII is one of the toughest, messiest cameras out there to re-seal. Because the entire light-tightness of the camera is dependent upon those door seals. Most 35mm SLRs, the seals are really just a matter of insuring no small leaks, as the mechanical design of the doors is it's own light-resistant baffle - not so on the QL17 GIII. The seals on the QL17 GIII are relatively huge, and entirely critical to the functionality of the camera.
 

entropicremnants

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
1,109
Real Name
John Griggs
Yes, some of those old ones don't have the "ridge in channel" design that is easy to make light tight. I've had some like that but didn't know the QL-17 was like that.

Mirror bumpers aren't hard per-se -- but with the proximity of the mirror and focus screen you need to work very deliberately to ensure you don't slip and damage anything and that's why I feel they are more challenging. The worst I had was some nasty adhesive gunk somehow getting on the mirror and I hate cleaning old front-surface mirrors.

Well the reality is, after I bought my first kit from Jon, he sold me the raw material neoprene foam sheets for a similar price to what a place like Michaels charges for them. I think Jon's raw materials may be better chosen specifically for the task of sealing cameras. He has several different thicknesses of neoprene, both with and without adhesive backing.

And actually, once you know what you're doing - Mirror bumpers are easy as well. Actually - the QL17 GIII is one of the toughest, messiest cameras out there to re-seal. Because the entire light-tightness of the camera is dependent upon those door seals. Most 35mm SLRs, the seals are really just a matter of insuring no small leaks, as the mechanical design of the doors is it's own light-resistant baffle - not so on the QL17 GIII. The seals on the QL17 GIII are relatively huge, and entirely critical to the functionality of the camera.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom