oscroft
Mentor
That looks like a very interesting site, thanks.
And thanks everyone again for the latest ideas.
I've just won an auction for a 500G for £26 inc postage. The seller claims it is all working fine but the light seals are a bit crumbly (I'd expect that anyway, and would expect to replace the seals on whatever I bought), so we shall see.
(This doesn't stop me buying a 35 RC if I see a nice one, of course
)Rey
Well-known
Good choice, I think you will like it. The light seals on these always need replacing. I replaced mine with stick-on felt. Should last a lifetime!
oscroft
Mentor
I couldn't resist - I just won an auction for a 35RC as well, for £20.50 inc postage (it needs new seals, but that's to be expected).
My plan (in theory, at least) is to replace the seals and try them both, keep the one I like best, and resell the other. That's if I have the willpower to sell one, though if I don't have the willpower then wifepower might suffice - then again, if I keep them in different coat pockets she might never notice I have the two. (Hmm, but then, I've also just picked up a Canonet QL 17 - I'd better go check how many coats I've got )
My plan (in theory, at least) is to replace the seals and try them both, keep the one I like best, and resell the other. That's if I have the willpower to sell one, though if I don't have the willpower then wifepower might suffice - then again, if I keep them in different coat pockets she might never notice I have the two. (Hmm, but then, I've also just picked up a Canonet QL 17 - I'd better go check how many coats I've got
)oscroft
Mentor
Well, my Olympus 35RC arrived yesterday and my Ricoh 500G arrived today
Ergonomically, they both score pretty well - they're ever so small and easy to hold. Visually I'd say the RC is a bit understated, and the 500G a bit more brash (I think I marginally prefer the look of the RC). Both feel reassuringly heavy and solid.
But, there are a few things about the Ricoh where it scores over the RC. I find the Ricoh fits a bit more easily in my hand and is a bit more comfortable to hold and shoot - probably because the lens and shutter release are a tiny bit further to the left and leave a bit more space on the right to hold. I think the Ricoh shutter release is more comfortable, but the shutter is a bit quieter on the RC. The rangefinder spot on the Ricoh is brighter than the RC (though that might just be my specific examples - cleaning might help).
The Ricoh also scores better with the controls around the lens. The aperture is easier to set than on the RC - the ring is proud of the lens barrel and has knurlings that make it easy to grip, while the RC's aperture ring is very fiddly to operate. And the focus - the Ricoh turns about 110 degrees from infinity to 0.9 metres and has just the right amount of firmness, giving me confident fine control of focus, but the RC turns less than 45 degrees for the same range and feels a bit slack - coupled to the much brighter rangefinder spot, that leave the Ricoh winning it quite easily on focusing. And for AE cameras, when I'm adjusting the exposure using the viewfinder indicators, I prefer to have the shutter speed dial where it is on the Ricoh, around the lens (where, perhaps ironically, it is on my Olympus OMs). I also prefer the Ricoh's AE viewfinder display - it has a floating needle showing the aperture, whereas the RC only shows the aperture when you depress the shutter.
So that's it on ergonomics - the Ricoh wins it for me (though to put that into perspective, it is a contest between two ergonomically rather nice cameras).
So it's performance next. Unfortunately I need a new battery for for the RC before I can really try it (there's one in it, but it seems to be on its last legs). But the Ricoh has a fresh battery, so risking the goo that used to be the light seals (I'll replace them at the weekend), I loaded it with FP4 today and went out shooting. The results are just out of the soup and hanging up to dry, and they look to be pretty well exposed (I used a range of speeds between 1/30th and 1/500th, so that's very pleasing). What they actually look like will have to wait until tomorrow - I'll show some here.
Ergonomically, they both score pretty well - they're ever so small and easy to hold. Visually I'd say the RC is a bit understated, and the 500G a bit more brash (I think I marginally prefer the look of the RC). Both feel reassuringly heavy and solid.
But, there are a few things about the Ricoh where it scores over the RC. I find the Ricoh fits a bit more easily in my hand and is a bit more comfortable to hold and shoot - probably because the lens and shutter release are a tiny bit further to the left and leave a bit more space on the right to hold. I think the Ricoh shutter release is more comfortable, but the shutter is a bit quieter on the RC. The rangefinder spot on the Ricoh is brighter than the RC (though that might just be my specific examples - cleaning might help).
The Ricoh also scores better with the controls around the lens. The aperture is easier to set than on the RC - the ring is proud of the lens barrel and has knurlings that make it easy to grip, while the RC's aperture ring is very fiddly to operate. And the focus - the Ricoh turns about 110 degrees from infinity to 0.9 metres and has just the right amount of firmness, giving me confident fine control of focus, but the RC turns less than 45 degrees for the same range and feels a bit slack - coupled to the much brighter rangefinder spot, that leave the Ricoh winning it quite easily on focusing. And for AE cameras, when I'm adjusting the exposure using the viewfinder indicators, I prefer to have the shutter speed dial where it is on the Ricoh, around the lens (where, perhaps ironically, it is on my Olympus OMs). I also prefer the Ricoh's AE viewfinder display - it has a floating needle showing the aperture, whereas the RC only shows the aperture when you depress the shutter.
So that's it on ergonomics - the Ricoh wins it for me (though to put that into perspective, it is a contest between two ergonomically rather nice cameras).
So it's performance next. Unfortunately I need a new battery for for the RC before I can really try it (there's one in it, but it seems to be on its last legs). But the Ricoh has a fresh battery, so risking the goo that used to be the light seals (I'll replace them at the weekend), I loaded it with FP4 today and went out shooting. The results are just out of the soup and hanging up to dry, and they look to be pretty well exposed (I used a range of speeds between 1/30th and 1/500th, so that's very pleasing). What they actually look like will have to wait until tomorrow - I'll show some here.
Sam35mm
Newbie
I know this is an old thread, but I've gotten some really nice results with the 500 G.
Attachments
mconnealy
Well-known
I have the RC, the mju and the XA. They all make fine images. One advantage of the RC is that it is very easy to clean and adjust the light meter. I think Rick Oleson has good instructions on his site.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I used the 500G some years ago - nice camera but too small for my hands. The Rikenon lens is great (all Rikenon are).
Ricoh 500G
Kodak Bw400 CN
Ricoh 500G
Kodak Bw400 CN
yanchep_mike
Always Trying
I have the 500ME the lens is fantastic.
The 500G: Great camera- "BUT" make sure the light seals are good. I replaced them on one, and is "intense" compared with most cameras. I ended up hand-cutting a lot of foam, but was successful. Just to be aware when buying one.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Replacing the foam on the Ricoh 500G is pretty straightforward.
Several web pages describe the procedure for this camera.
This one also includes a Youtube video:
Ricoh 500G film door light seal foam replacement
Chris
Several web pages describe the procedure for this camera.
This one also includes a Youtube video:
Ricoh 500G film door light seal foam replacement
Chris
Unlike most 35mm fixed-lens RF's, you need to cut the foam around the viewfinder and make sure that it is a good seal.
Vintage Ricoh 500G 35mm Rangefinder Film Camera F2.8 40MM!! Nice !! | eBay
<p>Vintage Ricoh 500G 35mm Rangefinder Film Camera F2.8 40MM!! Nice !! Has some smudges/scratches , See Pictures!!</p><p>- Tested, Fully Functional & Operational!!</p>
www.ebay.com
Random Ebay auction showing the issue.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
IIRC I just copied the original equipment film door light seal, i.e.
a single large piece of foam with a section for the viewfinder removed.
This left no seams and so presumably less likelihood of light leaks.
Chris
I had one given to me, a couple boxes of cameras in return for some repair work. Original foam had disintegrated.
I took a flat sheet of foam, closed the back on it to leave an impression, then but around it. Not hard, but unlike most cameras which require just a few strips.
I sold the camera at a reasonable price- $35, and the buyer posted results on the camera forum, a condition of the sale. No light leaks.
seany65
Well-known
I'd suggest a Ricoh 500GX rather than the 500G as it's got a shutter lock button, which when you first get it may cause you to miss a shot or two BUT has the big advantage of stopping any accidental exposures when picking it up etc. It also has little orange/green indicators for "correctly loaded film" (useful as an " Oh, there IS a film loaded" reminder if you've left it on the shelf for a few weeks) and "film wound on", it also has the multi-exposure switches should you be so inclined. Both cameras can work with sr44 batteries even though they're supposed to take mallory px675 batteries. However, You do have to check for a sticky viewfinder needle as cameras do occasionally turn up with this problem, or it can even occur in previously trouble-free cameras. This may have happened to mine or it could be a problem with the meter, though I think mine has the sticky needle. I'm hoping to be able to find out soon as I've found a repair company that claims to be able to fix any camera. I'll bet testing them with my Alitssa Altix III first.
seany65
Well-known
I forgo to add that neither the 500G and 500GX have official "off switches" for the light meter and so the battery is being drained even when not in use, unless you turn the shutter speed to "B".
Nitroplait
Well-known
CdS cells does not draw significant power in the dark, so a lens cap is sufficient.
agentlossing
Well-known
I believe I had that camera from you, Brian, and it functioned perfectly with no leaks. I since outgrew it and passed it along, but I really enjoyed my time with it. It is very small and easy to take everywhere, and the lens is very good. If anything I wish it had a small focusing knob on the focus ring like the Konica C35 models do, since it's often hard to find the narrow focus ring while looking through the finder. But a small niggle for a great little camera.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
At first, I thought we were discussing the larger (older?) Ricoh 500 with the bottom trigger-wind. I recently sold one of those, and I kind of miss it. The lens was as good as any other decent RF from that time (generally excellent) and it was my only bottom wind camera. The dual tab focusing around the lens was kind of fun and different too. But, that's not the camera of this thread...
The 500G is clearly a Konica C35-esque camera, as mentioned in posts above. This is one camera that somehow escaped my collecting days -- seems miraculous I never acquired one. But there were so many in similar size/format/lens/etc. from that time. I can say that the C-35 was definitely a bit small for my hands. It's probably best that I never got a 500G. My understanding is the Ricoh 500G was not a plastic wonder, but a properly built camera. Not surprising.
Now, if you ever get a chance to obtain the Ricoh 500 in good condition, you will probably like it. I sure did. Great fun to use, great lens, bottom wind attracts girls. But, the prices people ask these days!... not just for Ricoh 500, but for old film cameras in general. Wow.
I feel bad that I recently sold my Ricoh 500 for $15; my last Konica C35 for only $10. My intent was/is to sell off or give away the bulk of my multi-decade camera collection to people who will genuinely appreciate the cameras (and film) and actually use them. Put simply, I'm not using them and they are all getting stiff and seized up from non-use. Even if I'm giving those cameras away for free, it's generally a good thing. I wish I had some Ricoh's left to give to the OP. I have cameras that I used just 5 years ago that are today completely seized up with aging lubricant. It's all young and excited people (I can call them "kids" at my age) who are snapping up my offerings. Many of these young people who buy my cameras are well aware that the camera is not "broken" per se, but seized up and needs to be un-seized. A lot of them people are willing (and seem capable) to do the "CLA", either themselves or by sending off to a technician. That makes me feel good.
Now, I can understand why older, functioning, film cameras are priced at surprising levels. But I was really surprised at the young woman who was thrilled to pick up a box of Polaroid cameras from me -- I had about 10-15 Polaroid cameras (and a couple Kodak "polaroids") of many different vintages and models that I placed in a big cardboard box and offered up on craigslist. There were a few complete boxed sets with nice cases, flash units, documentation, etc, and several "loose" cameras of various models from old metal roll-film models to the newer plastic wonders. Maybe half of the cameras could eat a film type still available today. Anyway, the nice young woman was beyond ecstatic to get all of them (for $15 or 20, can't remember). She even asked me to search my closets/cabinets/garage to see if I had any more, including expired and dried out film. I'm not sure what's going on here.... Is there something happening with Polaroid and polaroid-like cameras these days that I'm not aware of? What's more, after she came by, I got many more inquiries about the "polaroid box". For Polaroid???
Anyway, very off topic now (!) Sorry. Clearly, Ricoh cameras were/are nice little cameras. All of the Ricoh models I have owned were good performers. I don't have any Ricoh left in my dwindling collection -- just an older metal A36 lens cap that says "Riken" that got left behind. Probably a nice little collectible lens cap for some early model (available to RFFers). Enjoy your Ricoh's.
The 500G is clearly a Konica C35-esque camera, as mentioned in posts above. This is one camera that somehow escaped my collecting days -- seems miraculous I never acquired one. But there were so many in similar size/format/lens/etc. from that time. I can say that the C-35 was definitely a bit small for my hands. It's probably best that I never got a 500G. My understanding is the Ricoh 500G was not a plastic wonder, but a properly built camera. Not surprising.
Now, if you ever get a chance to obtain the Ricoh 500 in good condition, you will probably like it. I sure did. Great fun to use, great lens, bottom wind attracts girls. But, the prices people ask these days!... not just for Ricoh 500, but for old film cameras in general. Wow.
I feel bad that I recently sold my Ricoh 500 for $15; my last Konica C35 for only $10. My intent was/is to sell off or give away the bulk of my multi-decade camera collection to people who will genuinely appreciate the cameras (and film) and actually use them. Put simply, I'm not using them and they are all getting stiff and seized up from non-use. Even if I'm giving those cameras away for free, it's generally a good thing. I wish I had some Ricoh's left to give to the OP. I have cameras that I used just 5 years ago that are today completely seized up with aging lubricant. It's all young and excited people (I can call them "kids" at my age) who are snapping up my offerings. Many of these young people who buy my cameras are well aware that the camera is not "broken" per se, but seized up and needs to be un-seized. A lot of them people are willing (and seem capable) to do the "CLA", either themselves or by sending off to a technician. That makes me feel good.
Now, I can understand why older, functioning, film cameras are priced at surprising levels. But I was really surprised at the young woman who was thrilled to pick up a box of Polaroid cameras from me -- I had about 10-15 Polaroid cameras (and a couple Kodak "polaroids") of many different vintages and models that I placed in a big cardboard box and offered up on craigslist. There were a few complete boxed sets with nice cases, flash units, documentation, etc, and several "loose" cameras of various models from old metal roll-film models to the newer plastic wonders. Maybe half of the cameras could eat a film type still available today. Anyway, the nice young woman was beyond ecstatic to get all of them (for $15 or 20, can't remember). She even asked me to search my closets/cabinets/garage to see if I had any more, including expired and dried out film. I'm not sure what's going on here.... Is there something happening with Polaroid and polaroid-like cameras these days that I'm not aware of? What's more, after she came by, I got many more inquiries about the "polaroid box". For Polaroid???
Anyway, very off topic now (!) Sorry. Clearly, Ricoh cameras were/are nice little cameras. All of the Ricoh models I have owned were good performers. I don't have any Ricoh left in my dwindling collection -- just an older metal A36 lens cap that says "Riken" that got left behind. Probably a nice little collectible lens cap for some early model (available to RFFers). Enjoy your Ricoh's.
Polaroid cameras are in. I gave away one to a girl in my Daughter's youth group, graduated High School- on to college. Saw her during Christmas and she told me it was the hit of the dorm. Students bought film, used her camera, had a wall of photos of everyone that came into the room. Too funny. Gave away a second one to her friend- also ecstatic. New Polaroid cameras run $200. Getting a used one off Ebay, in working condition- a task for experiences people like us. Look on a teen-agers face when using it for the first time, priceless. I've also given away some SLR's and P&S to the same group, they do quite well.