BernardL
Well-known
Why did the OP list the 35RC? A nice camera. But the 35RD would have been a more meaningful comparison with the other cameras listed.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Meaningful in what terms? The 35RC might outresolve the majority of them...
Ruhayat
Well-known
I had the 35 RC first, but the body/lens was so cramped it made it tough to turn the ring (aperture, I think, I can't remember now), so I bought an Electro GSN. Which was nicer but when I bought my M6TTL I found the GSN was about the same size, so I sold it for a Trip as a pocketable backup to the Leica.
In terms of quality, the GSN gave sharp results, great for colour, but a bit sterile, has no fully manual option and I was not a fan of the 45mm image look. I preferred the RC for its shutter priority. While I had it I thought the RC had inferior image quality to the GSN (it does), but in retrospect, when flipping through my film scans, I like the character in B&W and also the 38mm FOV.
But the RC and GSN were goldilocks cameras to me -- too big and too small. Recently I handled a friend's Canonet and it felt just right. The best of both worlds to me. So that was what I voted for.
PS, if the OP had given an option for the Olympus 35 RD, I would have chosen that instead.
In terms of quality, the GSN gave sharp results, great for colour, but a bit sterile, has no fully manual option and I was not a fan of the 45mm image look. I preferred the RC for its shutter priority. While I had it I thought the RC had inferior image quality to the GSN (it does), but in retrospect, when flipping through my film scans, I like the character in B&W and also the 38mm FOV.
But the RC and GSN were goldilocks cameras to me -- too big and too small. Recently I handled a friend's Canonet and it felt just right. The best of both worlds to me. So that was what I voted for.
PS, if the OP had given an option for the Olympus 35 RD, I would have chosen that instead.
bmattock
Mentor
Not the RD. Probably not the Yashica.
I love my RC. But it's not the best lens; just amazing for what it is. Like the XA, it surprises with unexpected quality, not because it's sharpest.
bmattock
Mentor
Agreed. I sold my RD, though. Too good; it produced images I could not tell from my best SLR lenses. Plus, they go for silly prices.
Now I go for quirk and cool. Like Ricoh Five-One-Nine and such. Definitely not as good, so I love them.
Danlo
Established
I like my Olympus 35RC better then my Konica Auto S2 because it has a sharper lens, hexanon must be overrated or there is something wrong with my Konica.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
If you dont mind resolution on edge, they are all good and good enough lenses. However cameras with Tessar/Tessar variation lenses like Oly 35RC, Yashica E35 FC, etc. all have relatively lower resolution on edges. It's fairly easy to tell, without pixel peeping. They are just one or two steps behind the double Gauss lensed bodies, nothing serious unless you really pursue it.
flavio81
Well-known
However, it is smaller than the Electro 35 which is on this list.
flavio81
Well-known
Ok, so the list is:
Canonet QL17 GIII
Konika Auto S3
Minolta HiMatic 7SII
Olympus 35 RC
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
Now, if the OP is looking for the "Sharpest", all of them have sharp lenses for all practical purposes.
From the list the one with the most beautiful image rendering is probably the Electro 35GSN.
Neither would be my choice of rangefinder. The OP should consider the Minolta Himatic 7S or the Himatic 9 if he's considering the Electro as well.
Canonet QL17 GIII
Konika Auto S3
Minolta HiMatic 7SII
Olympus 35 RC
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
Now, if the OP is looking for the "Sharpest", all of them have sharp lenses for all practical purposes.
From the list the one with the most beautiful image rendering is probably the Electro 35GSN.
Neither would be my choice of rangefinder. The OP should consider the Minolta Himatic 7S or the Himatic 9 if he's considering the Electro as well.
Daryl J.
Well-known
The Canonet QL17 GIII I have is ok. The lens is pretty meh. It randomly leaks light. But as such use it as an art lens. In my book, 35mm + grain/soft images/light leaks= fun art projects. So I use it as a rugged Holga 135.
From what I gather, other's QL17 GIII's render better.
From what I gather, other's QL17 GIII's render better.
Last edited:
johnnyrod
More cameras than shots
I've got a Konica S with a Hexanon lens and it is very good. They are prone to barrel wobble which wouldn't help. Depends what problems you are seeing with yours.
charjohncarter
Mentor
This is not on the list, but these all probably have great lenses (leaving the too picky out). This is an image I took years ago in Turkey at Sardis with a Konica C35 and an enlargement of a small section (I've posted this before):
Sardis by John Carter, on Flickr
Crop by John Carter, on Flickr
Sardis by John Carter, on FlickrCrop by John Carter, on Flickr
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I've used the Canonet Giii and the Yashica. Both made excellent images.
I like aperture preferred auto, that pushes me to Yashica. I found the Canonet hard to use in manual mode, the controls awkward.
But, in the Yashica line, my favorite is the GX, not the GTN. Smaller, lighter, 40mm lens, more recent vintage. All these cameras will have needed work by now. I think they are $100 gems; I gave up trying for a $20 miracle.
I like aperture preferred auto, that pushes me to Yashica. I found the Canonet hard to use in manual mode, the controls awkward.
But, in the Yashica line, my favorite is the GX, not the GTN. Smaller, lighter, 40mm lens, more recent vintage. All these cameras will have needed work by now. I think they are $100 gems; I gave up trying for a $20 miracle.
charjohncarter
Mentor
Right, these all have great lenses, even my Petri 7s. But the build quality is definitely a problem (with others). I've had over the years 5-6 of these (some duplicates) and the best one was; for build quality, was the Petri 7s. The meter sucked and it was too big compared to the 35RC. But it is the only one that hasn't given me trouble.
Disclaimer, I never bought a Yashica, my Canon is just OK but I've had a few problems: not a listed camera from above.
zuikologist
.........................
Agree with the above, the condition is as critical as the original specification. My favourites are the Oly SP and Yashica GX. Of those on the list, I have a good Oly RC - it has great contrast and is excellent with colour print film.
CliveC
Well-known
How would any of these fare against something like a Rollei 35S based on the lens quality alone? I'm deciding on one to take on vacation and I think I'm down to either the Olympus 35RC or the Rollei 35S. Yes it's rangefinder vs. scale focus, but I'm purely looking at it from a size/performance capacity.
charjohncarter
Mentor
I have the 35RC and only have slides taken by a friend's Rollei 35s. I can't really tell any advantage in IQ for either. But then again I'm not blowing 35mm negatives up to 11x14. My experience is I'm not good a judging scale focus, and the 35RC has a great RF if adjusted correctly.
LukeBanks
Established
Big fan of the Konica 38mm Hexanon lenses, they render very nicely for a cheap RF so they get my vote.
Only downside, which I think would apply to the S3 also, is that the light meter cell on the lens has no on/off so you need a lens cap to keep it covered when not shooting. Without one they eat batteries. If a sale doesn't include the original then a cheap third party replacement is readily available.
Bargains can be had still, I took a chance on a £12 ebay C35 Automatic listed as faulty and all it needed was new light seals. Everything else was absolutely perfect.
Only downside, which I think would apply to the S3 also, is that the light meter cell on the lens has no on/off so you need a lens cap to keep it covered when not shooting. Without one they eat batteries. If a sale doesn't include the original then a cheap third party replacement is readily available.
Bargains can be had still, I took a chance on a £12 ebay C35 Automatic listed as faulty and all it needed was new light seals. Everything else was absolutely perfect.
