Why Analog

Shooting analog film enforces discipline. Having a restricted number of photos makes each shot valuable, and I tend to think before taking the photo. I noticed that for me, this leads to higher quality compositions and more meaningful pictures most of the time. Not seeing the pictures until months have passed and the film is developed really makes me rediscover the moments and trips I've been on, which is a nice extra. It makes photography a skill again, which is a welcome challenge on vacations and trips for me.

Initial Selection

For me, I knew that my camera had to be somewhat compact and sturdy, as I want to take it on outdoor trips as well as just drop it in some bags without having to worry. This is why I settled for rangefinder cameras instead of SLRs. They offer the compactness I need while still providing enough settings and adjustments to differentiate them from simple automatic point-and-shoots. That way, I keep control of the picture and can also take more complex shots (long exposure, special light conditions, etc.).

Here is a list of initial candidates I considered after a bunch of research on YouTube and the web:

Good sites to get an overview of the different models are:

Half-Frame

I considered half-frame cameras like the Olympus Pen / Pen FT and Minolta Repo for quite a while. They yield 72 shots per roll, lowering the cost per photo. I would argue that I will most likely never develop my film in such a high resolution that 35mm is really needed, and also I do prefer and embrace the grainy film look and lower resolution. However, half-frame models lack the classic aesthetic of standard rangefinders, and there are just not enough models to choose from for me. I didn't find the half-frame camera with all the features I really wanted, which is why I decided against them. There are people modifying a 35mm camera like a Lomo LC-A for half-frame, which could be interesting for some of the other classic 35mm models.

My Criteria

To narrow the list, the camera had to meet specific operational targets:

  • Compact rangefinder with a silver finish (it just looks so cool).
  • Fully manual controls for shutter speed, aperture, and focus.
  • A light meter and fully automatic mode available for quick action shots.
  • A viewfinder indicating accurate focus and composition.
  • A light meter that functions in both auto and manual modes (for some models, the light meter only works in auto mode. But I want to see if a scene has the right exposure and adjust my settings based on that).
  • Fully operational without battery dependence.

Closer Selection

Before arriving at my final three, here are the cameras I rolled out and why:

  • Rollei 35: Too small, almost too hard to use, and the controls are weird. The build quality is very good, but it's a tradeoff between compactness and image quality, and I want higher quality. There is also no auto light meter, and focusing relies on zone focusing (guessing the distance). I want to be exact and precise with where I focus to.
  • Canonet QL17 GIII: I had this camera for a while and liked it a lot, but it is missing some manual controls. I want full control over all settings (shutter speed, aperture).
  • Konica Auto S: It has a shutter priority mode. This means the user sets the shutter speed, and the camera sets the aperture. I don't like this, as I care more about the aperture to control depth of field. For shutter speed, I usually just care that it's fast enough so the picture isn't blurry, meaning any value above that threshold is fine. That's why I have more constraints on the aperture than the shutter speed.
  • Fujica GA: Does not have the full manual mode.
  • Fujica 35 ML: This camera does not have an automatic mode.
  • Fujica Compact Deluxe: I don't like the design that much, especially the film advance lever and the viewfinder. It also doesn't seem as robust, and I just didn't vibe with it. Other models offer the same capabilities at a similar price point, and I liked them more.
  • Yashica Electro 35 GS: This camera cannot be used in full manual mode.

With those ruled out, three cameras met almost all of my criteria:

1. Konica C35 FD / Auto S3
Features a bulb mode and can be hacked for manual control. However, it relies entirely on a battery, even when shooting manually.
Reference: Konica Auto S3

2. Olympus 35 RC
Includes a bulb mode, and the light meter functions in manual. The downsides: shutter speed must always be set manually, and the aperture ring is positioned too close to the body, making it difficult to operate (especially in colder conditions when wearing gloves).
Reference: Olympus 35 RC

3. Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII
Features bulb mode, fully automatic operation, and fully manual capability. The only compromise is that the light meter turns off in full manual mode.
Reference: Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII

The Final Verdict: A Two-Camera Setup

After reviewing the options, the Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII is the best choice for me. It offers solid build quality, robust mechanics, and excellent optics. It provides the flexibility of fully automatic shooting or full manual control when there is time to compose a shot carefully.

However, after shooting with it for a while, I noticed that it is a bit heavy and still too large for my needs. Especially for ultralight outdoor trips, the Olympus XA was really appealing. It has a built-in cover, still provides all manual settings, a light meter, and good optics. I tested it for a while, but noticed that the picture quality is noticeably lower than with the Minolta. I still like it a lot, but most of my best pictures have been shot with the Minolta.

So, in the end, I landed on a dual setup. Most of the time, I pick the Minolta, but for some special occasions, the sturdiness and size of the Olympus are a big advantage. Having both options means I never have to compromise between image quality and true pocketability. Whether I am packing light for a rigorous hike or taking my time on a dedicated photo walk, this combination ensures I always have the right tool for the job.