John A. Lind wrote:
>
> Hope you didn't mean the sub-mini Rollei 35 RF's have a reliability issue
> in general.
I've had a 35 and a 35T. Nice cameras, but mine suffered the same
drawbacks: first, a top plate that you can dent with your bare hands.
I treated them well and they both aquired impressions in normal use.
Second, even though I didn't use the slow speeds much, I did use the
cameras regularly, and the slow speeds still bogged down. My Canonets
go years without use and still run at 1/4 sec.
> Also on the "forgotten" list:
> (a) Canonnette GIII and/or QL-17. They are _very_ good.
They sure are. They also do double-duty as a spot-flash meter. The QL
models ("Quick-Load") not only have automatic film threading, but let
you advance the film leader several cranks to the first unexposed frame
without pushing the shutter. Very fast. Compare that to taking apart
the Rollei. If I'm gonna disassemble a camera to load it, it might as
well be a Leica.
This thread originally drew mention of the Olympus XA, and there were
some early autofocus knock-offs off this camera; a Ricoh I think, and
the rarely seen Canon MC and Minolta AF-C. Like the XA, both had
clamshell covers, 35/2.8's and detachable sidecar flash units. I keep
an AF-C in my glovebox, and it's well-suited for this purpose. It's got
a really good lens, accurate infared focusing, and unlike the XA, fully
dedicated "flashmatic" flash over the full range of film speeds,
including daylight fill. The only reason I mention this P&S is that you
can manually set any film speed from 25 to 400. For me this feature is
a "must have". It's too bad the camera (80's Minolta styling....)is so
ugly compared to the XA.
Morgan Sparks
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|