Wow, you had me from the launch. Really great video. I ate up all the details. My only (so far) film camera is a Fujica Auto M from pretty much the exact same era. This has me really thinking it over. Quite impressive video, and even the part where you talked about "gave up on taking certain photos," I feel so validated. :)
Cool video and interesting camera! In some shots there was a Fujica Compact D, will you do a video like this for that camera too? It's a very special camera design as well.
Enjoyed the video! I owned Lynx-14E for a couple of years and while it certainly wasn't the most versatile or easy to use rangefinder I've come across, it did have a particular sweet spot (to my eye): f/2-2.8, mid-distance, very sharp and slightly contrasty b&w film (think Tmax or Delta), maybe a touch of backlighting. That combo of low contrast/low(er) sharpness lens and a sharp, contrasty film was bringing something very special to the portraits I took with it.
sure after the Nikon S-Cameras, the Canon rangefinder, like 50 different Zeiss and Voigtländer Rangerfinder and anything Leica has done... Konica is a good option... just absolutely not worth the ridiculous price people are asking for it... why pay Leica prices and then get a Konica?
@@shang-hsienyang1284 so let me get this straight... you think a light tight box... is worth $3000... but not when it's a brand that proved that it can make cameras that last 60 years without problems... because you think the performance of that light tight box... which is nothing but the shutter... which is incredibly unrealiable and the times are off by a significant amount and nobody makes parts or knows how to repair them... is better than that of a name brand.... when said no name brand (Konica isn't a no name brand it's just became popular again because some influencers used the camera and idiots of course had to jump on that) uses the name brands mount and lenses which actually dictate picture quality? Good sir you might be an idiot
I have tried one. The internal meter is unreliable. The ergonomics is poor. It's also very difficult to get the focus right when the focusing distance is close. So I agree for most people a good SLR and a f/1.4 lens is a better choice.
As far as the pertect rangfinder is concerned, it was and still is the Leica M3. From the mechanical quality to that superb viewfinder and the precision of the rangefinder it is still unsurpassed. All other Leica 'P' desginated cameras that came later were pretending to aspire to the mecahnial/optical quality of the M3. The caveat is that a decent M3 is still very expensive, and the Leica optics even more. Persoanlly I wouldn't recommend the use of a very fast lens with a rangefinder camera. For fixed lens rangefinder, I still use my old Olymus 35 RC and RD. Very nice video, BTW.
I prefer the M4 but i've been using it since '72... but i wholeheartedly agree with the shooting wide open... i don't know when that trend started... it's just a bad idea because especially with manual focus you'll miss way too many shots... Olympus, Minolta, Canon... all made very very very amazing Rangefinder that you can find under $100
These cameras are fun to use. But shouldn’t be treated like a serious rangefinder. That 1.4 lens sounds great, but back then, people don’t shoot wide open because the photos were soft.
having large aperture lens is one of the least important to me and overrated IMO. the best price with a great lens and awesome viewfinder is konica IIIA/M imo.
I have been using film cameras for over 50 years and Leicas for longer than I can remember. I have great difficulty getting critical focus with my M6 and 35mm Summilux F1.4 ASPH at close range even if I put the 1.2X magnifier on. Even with a my Nikon F3 HP and 50mm AI-S F1.4, a real effort is required to get acceptable focus at close range @ F1.4. I normally opt for F2.8 and if I really had to F2 at a push to shoot at close range. I have a 50 F1.2 but I only use it @ F1.4 or F2 with my M TYP 240 using the focus aid, otherwise forget it. With cameras having good AF, the use of these large aperture lenses becomes more practical, aesthetics not withstanding.
It's a really... meh lens... nobody who uses a rangefinder wants to shoot wide open... you'll miss focus way too much... also it's just a soft lens with some bad CA... if you want a cheap rangefinder go for a Canon 7 or Minolta Hi-Matic 7s you'll get a lens that's better and the camera isn't going to die because If you want to get serious about photography stop thinking about aperture or whatever useless spec you find on datasheets... photography is all about the image and every image you see on posters, advertisement, in books and from great photographers is not shot wide open but between f4-f11.... make your backgrounds interesting... they're part of the story... study people who have actually created the art that inspires you... be it photographers or painters or sculptors... the camera doesn't matter... the lens doesn't matter... the film stock doesn't matter
My first 35 was a Yashica Lynx 1000. I worked in a camera store and sold some 1.4 Lynx, but never owned one.
I own lynx-14 and still using it, after CLA it was amazing picture from this camera, love it.
Wow, you had me from the launch. Really great video. I ate up all the details. My only (so far) film camera is a Fujica Auto M from pretty much the exact same era.
This has me really thinking it over. Quite impressive video, and even the part where you talked about "gave up on taking certain photos," I feel so validated. :)
Cool video and interesting camera! In some shots there was a Fujica Compact D, will you do a video like this for that camera too?
It's a very special camera design as well.
I have a brand new Lynx-14 in its box with all the guarantee cards and paperwork.
Enjoyed the video! I owned Lynx-14E for a couple of years and while it certainly wasn't the most versatile or easy to use rangefinder I've come across, it did have a particular sweet spot (to my eye): f/2-2.8, mid-distance, very sharp and slightly contrasty b&w film (think Tmax or Delta), maybe a touch of backlighting. That combo of low contrast/low(er) sharpness lens and a sharp, contrasty film was bringing something very special to the portraits I took with it.
Nice video, where did you pick up the 3rd party focus ring?
what about compared to the canonet ql17
For non-interchangeable RF, I'd say Konica Hexar AF is the goat.
sure after the Nikon S-Cameras, the Canon rangefinder, like 50 different Zeiss and Voigtländer Rangerfinder and anything Leica has done... Konica is a good option... just absolutely not worth the ridiculous price people are asking for it... why pay Leica prices and then get a Konica?
Because some people want to actually take photos, rather than having a prestigious brand camera which in reality the worst performance.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 so let me get this straight... you think a light tight box... is worth $3000... but not when it's a brand that proved that it can make cameras that last 60 years without problems... because you think the performance of that light tight box... which is nothing but the shutter... which is incredibly unrealiable and the times are off by a significant amount and nobody makes parts or knows how to repair them... is better than that of a name brand.... when said no name brand (Konica isn't a no name brand it's just became popular again because some influencers used the camera and idiots of course had to jump on that) uses the name brands mount and lenses which actually dictate picture quality?
Good sir you might be an idiot
Electro 35 where?
I have tried one. The internal meter is unreliable. The ergonomics is poor. It's also very difficult to get the focus right when the focusing distance is close. So I agree for most people a good SLR and a f/1.4 lens is a better choice.
As far as the pertect rangfinder is concerned, it was and still is the Leica M3. From the mechanical quality to that superb viewfinder and the precision of the rangefinder it is still unsurpassed. All other Leica 'P' desginated cameras that came later were pretending to aspire to the mecahnial/optical quality of the M3. The caveat is that a decent M3 is still very expensive, and the Leica optics even more. Persoanlly I wouldn't recommend the use of a very fast lens with a rangefinder camera. For fixed lens rangefinder, I still use my old Olymus 35 RC and RD. Very nice video, BTW.
I prefer the M4 but i've been using it since '72...
but i wholeheartedly agree with the shooting wide open... i don't know when that trend started... it's just a bad idea because especially with manual focus you'll miss way too many shots...
Olympus, Minolta, Canon... all made very very very amazing Rangefinder that you can find under $100
These cameras are fun to use. But shouldn’t be treated like a serious rangefinder. That 1.4 lens sounds great, but back then, people don’t shoot wide open because the photos were soft.
having large aperture lens is one of the least important to me and overrated IMO. the best price with a great lens and awesome viewfinder is konica IIIA/M imo.
I have been using film cameras for over 50 years and Leicas for longer than I can remember. I have great difficulty getting critical focus with my M6 and 35mm Summilux F1.4 ASPH at close range even if I put the 1.2X magnifier on. Even with a my Nikon F3 HP and 50mm AI-S F1.4, a real effort is required to get acceptable focus at close range @ F1.4. I normally opt for F2.8 and if I really had to F2 at a push to shoot at close range. I have a 50 F1.2 but I only use it @ F1.4 or F2 with my M TYP 240 using the focus aid, otherwise forget it. With cameras having good AF, the use of these large aperture lenses becomes more practical, aesthetics not withstanding.
It's a really... meh lens... nobody who uses a rangefinder wants to shoot wide open... you'll miss focus way too much... also it's just a soft lens with some bad CA... if you want a cheap rangefinder go for a Canon 7 or Minolta Hi-Matic 7s you'll get a lens that's better and the camera isn't going to die because
If you want to get serious about photography stop thinking about aperture or whatever useless spec you find on datasheets... photography is all about the image and every image you see on posters, advertisement, in books and from great photographers is not shot wide open but between f4-f11.... make your backgrounds interesting... they're part of the story... study people who have actually created the art that inspires you... be it photographers or painters or sculptors... the camera doesn't matter... the lens doesn't matter... the film stock doesn't matter