No Pentax rangefinder.

The Zuiko on the 35SP should be good, being a 7 element design, but unfortunately the shutter release on the camera operates so many linkages that it's quite stiff to operate. This means camera shake can be a real problem and that spoils the lens performance somehwat.

The XA I haven't tried.

The Yashica lenses are actually some of the best of this style. Pity about the battery they chose for the cameras as these are now rare and expensive.

There are always exceptions to any generalisation, I accept that.

I appologise for the tone but not the content of my earlier post. If you're going to post inflamatory remarks about a Pentax model on a Pentax forum you really do have to expect people to respond.

I have run 20+ films through my 110 since buying it ~5 years ago and can promise you it is capable of results far in advance of my megre photographic abilities. It gives all the advantages of an SLR system in a package the size of a 35mm film canister.

Some companys insisted on building some very silly little "rangefinder" cameras, but they were no match for the Pentax and Minolta small format SLRs.

Sure, I'm badmouthing something I've never used, but I know I wouldn't like them so it's ok right?

OK, we don't have to fight over this one.

The 110 Pentax was a brilliant bit of design and is quite beautiful, of that there is no doubt. It was the best of any of the 110 cameras.

The weakness of the system will always be the lack of a pressure plate in the 110 cartidge (just as in the 126 cartridge) because the film cannot be held accurately enough in the film gate.

Both points of view have merit so no need to come to (verbal) blows!

Only if it's one of the later Pentacords with the double exposure lock-out...

OK so you can get a 110 for around £25, that's more than I want to pay for a camera I can't use!

As for rangefinders, I'm currently after an Olympus XA, not the 1,2, or 3 models, just a simple XA.

The last one I bid on went for £70ish, and I'm tight with money!

If Pentax had tried a camera like the XA it would have been a worthwhile project. I have an XA2 and enjoy using it, but it's just a 'point and shoot' not an RF.

The new PEN from Olympus, now that's what a rangefinder should be, not the bloated Lieca offerings at twice the price.

I've never liked the Leica rangefinders. I was lent an M3 which I did try, but I thought it bulky, heavy and the viewfinder was dreadful. Not a patch on the Pentax ME Super. Did it take better pictures? Not really, no.

The screw thread leicas were at least smaller and quite nice in a way, but still very slow to use. IMHO the design belongs to a past age.

Gartmore:
The first two would make my eyes water and the third would play merry hell with my corns.
I was only saying that John usually does make valid points - Nothing else implied.

Mongoose:
Sure it's alright for you to say that. Just as long as you give a reason, as I did.
You don't always have to physically do something to know you won't like it.

John:
Don't worry. No verbal blows from me.... We Petax Masters are above such behaviour.

Even better, it is gold plated with red snakeskin covers and comes in a hand-made mahogany case with a gold-plated plaque with its limited edition number and my signature laser engraved.

Ken

Blasphemy! I had a IIIA which was small and convenient but the M3 was much better. I could still get it into a pocket but the viewfinder was better and it felt just as satisfying as the IIIA.

If I could get a usable and affordable digital rangefinder you wouldn't see me for dust. The one thing I would insist on was a viewfinder with 35/50/90 engravings. So fast to focus, so quiet. There are a couple of tempting digital RF cameras the recent Olympus and the Sigma but they both have silly rangefinders.

I'm not sure how you could say if the M3 took better pictures. the quality of the lens would be no limitation so it would be down to personal preference. When the M3 was stolen I switched to Olympus OM1 and that was nice and pretty small but I never felt it was quite 'right'.

Mike

Sorry, not wanting to start (or join) a fight but you can process 120 film in exactly the way as 35mm film, most spool reels will take both!

greynolds.

The Pentax 110 camera used a tiny drop in cartridge type film. It was not designed to be home processed. The negative area was about 16mm by 10mm. With these small dimensions and the fact, as John pointed out, that the film could not be held completely flat inside the cartridge, meant poor quality prints that could not stand enlargement above 6x4.inch.
Pentax built a complicated camera with high quality lenses for a film format that could not do it justice.
It was like having a Rolls Royce and running it on Paraffin!

Funny how we all differ. I bought my first brace of Leicas back in the 70s, for their speed of use compared to the Nikons, especially in low light where the beautiful Canon 35mm 2 came into its own.

You could whack straight in on focus in the most appalling light in situations where using flash was impossible - or if there were large and violent people around, inadvisable!

In those cases, too, the virtually silent shutter was a big bonus.

I wish I'd kept more of this stuff but it just seemed like tools when you earned your living with it

I did see a Pentax 110 SLR a couple of years back, with its own velvet lined box. I looked stunning. Never bought it though, wish I had, as even if 110 cartridges we no longer available, it would still be an item to behold and keep. As for Leica rangefinders, they are beautifully engineered and look great (and Leica knows this), but probably too slow to focus and shoot. However Cartier Bresson did use his to good effect (understatement)
But Pentax were right in mastering the SLR as it is better in many ways to use than a rangefinder.