Popular Science Guide to Rangefinders

[cklammer]

Popular Science September 1975, page 72: PS' Guide to Rangefinders

More than 30 seventies RFs listed in one table.

The author rates the Fujica GER highest.

[FPjohn]

Hello:

Thanks for the post. They do state that the Leica CL is the best camera, the Fujica the best buy!

yours
Frank

[btgc]

Uh, I've seen this article while researching Yashica Electro 35FC to find it's one from cameras having 1/1000 as max speed.
This times websites have taken away readers of such articles

[Brian Legge]

Thanks for sharing that article. An interesting read as I have... a lot of rangefinders at the moment. I'm picked up a bunch cheaply to repair, test and sell. Seeing the price variation alone is interesting info.

One of my friends was looking for a nice, cheap rangefinder. I wonder if she'll go for the Fujica GER or the Ricoh 500G.

[julianphotoart]

But wait.....I need to go right out and buy a '74 Vega or, better yet, a Pinto. The review PROVES it. And on the week-ends, nothing better than an RV built onto the back-end of a VW Beetle.

[awilder]

I suggested a Ricoh 500G back in the late 70's for my dad on his trip to Hawaii. Although competant, it's build quality was just adequate and what you would expect from a camera made in China for Ricoh. Nowhere near as nice as their better cameras from the late 50's like the Ricoh 519. I'm certain Canon, Minolta, Olympus, Konica, Fujica and Yashica would be a better bet.

[amateriat]

That '75 issue of PS was such a blast from the past (and a hoot).

One sentence in the article caught my eye: in comparing compact 35s to their then-current 110-format counterparts, the article mentions the singular drawback of 35mm: the need to manually thread the film in most cases. The author then mentions that threading the film "takes about as much skill as tying your shoelaces." Funny thing, perspective.

Day before yesterday, I walked into CVS to get a roll of film developed. Ahead of me was a Mom with her kid asking to have some prints made with the card she took out of her digital camera. Problem was, she hadn't realized she'd removed the battery from the camera instead, and had left the camera at home. She was quite embarrassed when this was pointed out to her (not by me).


- Barrett

[amateriat]

Originally Posted by julianphotoart

But wait.....I need to go right out and buy a '74 Vega or, better yet, a Pinto. The review PROVES it. And on the week-ends, nothing better than an RV built onto the back-end of a VW Beetle.

Yeah...and don't forget your pack o' smokes. (Man, I nearly forgot how many cancer-stick ads ran in a given issue. If I showed this to a young magazine ad rep, I might have to run and lock the office windows...)


- Barrett

[cklammer]

Originally Posted by FPjohn

Hello:

Thanks for the post. They do state that the Leica CL is the best camera, the Fujica the best buy!

yours
Frank

Thanks, Frank, for pointing that out.

IMO from the cameras listed in the article the Leica CL is of course the best camera - that literally went without saying (or posting it) for me.

When I read this article first this Fujica GER verdict id surprise me. Especially after I re-researched the Fujica GER (on an un-related note I'd take the Olympus ECR any day given the choice between the Fujica and the Olympus but note that this is just me).

The schematic in the article is NOT from the manual - I checked.

(furtively looks left and right and over the shoulder): I have made a pdf - please PM if anyone wants it ...

[cklammer]

Originally Posted by amateriat

Yeah...and don't forget your pack o' smokes. (Man, I nearly forgot how many cancer-stick ads ran in a given issue. If I showed this to a young magazine ad rep, I might have to run and lock the office windows...)

Put up a webcam and do it ...

[bobby_novatron]

Nice article! Somebody should find an article from the 1890's about a comparison between Daguerrotype vs Tin-plate ferroplates ... a 19th-century field camera smackdown!

I'll prepare my horse and buggy while I'm waiting.

[bobby_novatron]

Funny, browsing through the PS ... it's always been such an eternally optimistic magazine, such a cheerleader for technology. According to PS, by 2010 we should all be living in orbiting space stations eating hydroponic lentils and living to 200 with our artificial organs. We'd need the bionic organs because of all the smoking. LOL!

[cklammer]

Originally Posted by bobby_novatron

Nice article! Somebody should find an article from the 1890's about a comparison between Daguerrotype vs Tin-plate ferroplates ... a 19th-century field camera smackdown!

I'll prepare my horse and buggy while I'm waiting.

I hope you are ready:
* not exactly what you wanted but from 1891!
* a few years later

Give your horse a candy from me.

[batterytypehah!]

Originally Posted by awilder

I suggested a Ricoh 500G back in the late 70's for my dad on his trip to Hawaii. Although competant, it's build quality was just adequate and what you would expect from a camera made in China for Ricoh. Nowhere near as nice as their better cameras from the late 50's like the Ricoh 519. I'm certain Canon, Minolta, Olympus, Konica, Fujica and Yashica would be a better bet.

I'd venture that Made in Taiwan in the 70s is a whole lot better than Made in (PR of) China today. And none of those brands still had the same build quality as in the 50s, I'm afraid.

[awilder]

I stand corrected, I now think it was actually Taiwan. However, the Canon GIII-17 QL was made in Taiwan and their build quality was pretty good.

[amateriat]

Originally Posted by cklammer

I hope you are ready:
* not exactly what you wanted but from 1891!
* a few years later

Give your horse a candy from me.

Oh, golly...some nice pickings there, including the Bicycle Camera and the PDQ (Photography Done Quickly...it really is an age-old concept) camera. Looking at all this certainly helps one maintain a bit of perspective. (No view-camera jokes, please.)


- Barrett

[t.s.k.]

That was fun. I remember almost every one of those ads.
The images...distinctive 70's colors.
Did anyone catch the AMC Pacer in the car review section?

Geez, the CL was expensive back then. That translates to over $2200 2010 USD !

[NickTrop]

I love reading these old articles about cameras, so thanks for posting. And, like many here, have owned several of the cameras on this list (not the CL). I can tell you, I'm not shocked he liked the Fuji the best among some stiff competition here - Yashica CC, Konica Auto S3, Rollei, Olympus ED, etc. I am down to one film rangefinder - It's the Fujica Compact Deluxe. Great camera.

[btgc]

500G were, I think, last model of FL RF made by Ricoh (I'm not going into diffs between 500G/GX/RF/ME which go more plastic towards later models) so don't be surprised by build quality. Those guys had to sell loats of cameras for their living and they already have learned customers are reading articles to choose camera, not judging them from engineer's viewpoint.

When I got my first FL RF from 70ies, I were amazed. Wow, sub-f2 lens is easy! (that were right after film AF compacts). Wooho, what a brick, pure metal-and-glass thing!

After cleaning and using FL RF from 50's I realized those Electros, Canonets and rest are cheap replicas of earlier cameras. Yes, they had AE, novelty at time, but basically they are like new compact cars compared to cars of 70ies. Fancy, economical, shining, having USB port to listen mp3's but lacking juice in chassis to last a lifetime.

[NickTrop]

Originally Posted by btgc

After cleaning and using FL RF from 50's I realized those Electros, Canonets and rest are cheap replicas of earlier cameras. Yes, they had AE, novelty at time, but basically they are like new compact cars compared to cars of 70ies. Fancy, economical, shining, having USB port to listen mp3's but lacking juice in chassis to last a lifetime.

Actually, I would beg to differ for a couple reasons. First off, many of these "cheap replicas" - Yashicas, Canonets are still fully functional 40 years later, still snapping pictures, and many here use them. So, obviously they were built well enough to last a lifetime. Perhaps, they were better engineered than their 50's counterparts? That is, they went "overboard" in some aspects of the 50's cameras? Could it be the 50's cameras competed on build quality, since technology didn't afford much differentiation otherwise, resulting in cameras that were needlessly heavy or over engineered to move units or justify a higher price point? Are you serious that AE is a "novelty"? What percent of even pro shots use this novelty? Can you really take "grab shots" and candids as well or as quickly using all manual techniques? I had a big heavy metal 50's typewriter years ago, "built to last a lifetime". Thank God I didn't have to suffer with that thing in college. I much preferred that lighter "cheap plastic" Brother that notified me with a beep and whited out my numerous misspellings.

[batterytypehah!]

Originally Posted by NickTrop

Are you serious that AE is a "novelty"? What percent of even pro shots use this novelty?

Gosh Nick, has it occurred to you that English is not btgc's native language? Don't make such a fuss over one word. I'm sure he meant "innovation" not "gimmick."

[batterytypehah!]

Originally Posted by t.s.k.

Geez, the CL was expensive back then. That translates to over $2200 2010 USD !

That's not even so bad. Check out the Scott "digital receiver" for $1,500 in 1975!

Me, I'll take that $8,000 Alfetta GT, thank you very much

[btgc]

Yes, English isn't my native language. I thought (and still think) "novelty" isn't same as "gimmick", it refers to innovation. Cameras of 50's also were marketed as automatic - you just attach selenium meter into hot-shoe, set ISO, read LV and transfer it to camera controls, that is, you don't have to know about light or what. That is automation! In 70's AE met on Electro or Canonet were new thing, you had to set either aperture or speed, camera calculated other factor itself. So AE were novelty at the time.

By calling Electros and Canonets cheap replicas, I don't want to diminish them, nor their role. Market had to pay for new features, automation, speed and ergonomics - manufacturers invested more into development and to make prices affordable, they had to simplify materials, constructions and opt for cheaper workforce. Oh, competition also cat prices, and that echoed at manufacturing process. Thus cameras got better and easier to use, yet at same time they were built cheaper. Call it paradox, but when technology advances each year, not decade, things should serve less because when market is saturated, people aren't ready to replace their old things just because new is better than old. Current digital cameras aren't made to last simply because industry would choke and collapse if people could and would use those high-end devices for say, 20 years. Yes, current compact camera is high-end device, in certain manner...because it has accumulated huge amount of innovation and technology built into $200 unit.

The better things you want use, the shorter time of lifecycle you can expect. Industry is ready to improve only if promise to upgrade often. This is closed system - increase one counter and decrease another.

[amateriat]

I agree with Nick: many of these "cheap" RFs were made at the tail-end of an era where the Yen was still dirt-cheap relative to the dollar, Japan's economy was going great guns, there were a lot of camera companies competing in the market, and bean-counters weren't ruling the roost quite yet. I was using a black Canonet GIII right alongside my F-1; no, the Canonet didn't have the last measure of build quality of the F-1, but it didn't have to...it was built better than it had to be the average snapshooter.

Which, in a way, may itself have become a "problem": with the new business model that was ushered in with cameras like the Canon AE-1 and the implications of ramped-up and automated production, cameras–even SLRs–were slouching toward commodity status. And new-product turnover needed to speed up to keep those new, high-tech production lines humming. New-model introduction used to be glacial in the business: suddenly, new or "improved" models were being announced every three years (which itself seems an eternity compared to the here-today-gone-next-year dSLR product life-cycles). When they come and go so fast, and the perceived "upgrade cycle" is commensurably shortened, you wind up with products–cameras included–that simply aren't built to last too long, unless you're buying top-drawer, where the product should still work ten years from now, but no one will be interested in buying something that's "obsolete."

(Something like...oh, I don't know, this.)


- Barrett

[btgc]

Originally Posted by amateriat

unless you're buying top-drawer, where the product should still work ten years from now, but no one will be interested in buying something that's "obsolete."

Right you say - industry can make things which last, even electronics. But then they cost accordingly, they aren't affordable to each housewife while they haven't aged beyond point when eventually no one wants them.


EDIT: I wanted to clarify that I'm not purist dismissing anything cheaply built. Some of cameras I use most of time, are from 70's, and some even from 80's. My comment were just observation of trend.