That's a great page, I've been referring back to often for some time now. My others are Stevs Gandy' page and http://www.claus-marin.de/indexeng.htm
I got to handle an RD once and it just seemed to 'fit'. As far as being a pain to use I'll have to give it a work out and see. I actually consider the SP rather a pain, I'll compare. The RC on the other hand is a joy all around, just want the faster lens when needed. Believe it or not the QL17 GIII focus 'lever' drives me nuts, I'd rather just have a ring like all my other cameras. Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:29 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT:Always wanted one! (Not a Pentax) > > > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3880789972 > > > Don > > > >The Japanese made some lovely RF's in the 60's and 70's, and they seem > >to be available for next to nothing these days. I have no experience > >with that one, but I bet it'll take great pix. > > > >Nice snag, Don. > > > >cheers, > >frank > > I understand your feeling as you already enjoy a CL. > > About the RD, I must say that it is a pain to use. Its three rings > (focusing, aperture and speeds) are not easy to distinguish by feel > and not that easy to turn. Impossible to use this camera with thin > gloves, contrary to the Canon GIII or the bigger Olympus SP. > > The RD is one of the most expensive of the 70s' RFs, but prices may > have gone down. It used to be well over 100$. For the price of an RD > you can probably get the smaller all-mechanical RC with one of the > best lens around (a non-Tessar 42/2.8) and a SP with a very contrasty > 42/1.7 and a spot meter. > > The three RFs are discussed here: > > http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~yue/misc/rangfndr.html > > I suspect that many if not all 40/1.7 lenses of that time were made > by the same company, but I (still) have very little to support that. > > Andre >
