RF or SLR in tight budget

[Ruvy]

I have been experimenting with RF 2-3 month and found it very appealing. I loved the way it is held in my hands, its size and weight and the roominess in the view finder and stability while shooting.
The M6 that has been lent to me has to go back to its owner. There is good lens choice and a tactile thing about Leicas, Hexar Bessa, Zeiss that is very appealing. I have a hard time allowing myself to spend $800-$1500 when I know the DSLR will keep on being very important in my work. Therefore, I have allocated only $400. It has been a mistake but now, this is my budget - way too small for my apetite.

I need a camera and two lenses (M is not a "must have" lens but excellent viewer is). Since I already have a dSLR, RF makes much more sense but if not possible, perhaps buying either a small digtal (dp1 dlux 3 or gr2) or an older slr. As much as I dislike carying two slrs maybe a Nikon FM2 or FE2 with 24mm, 50mm lenses are more practical. I have never owned a Nikon let alone manual one, so the question is how much less convenient these SLR cameras will be compared to modern RF in terms of size, weight, battery dependency, and repairs.

thank you for reading this
Ruvy

 

[Keith]

For $400 you could get a couple of OM bodies ... an OM-1 and maybe an OM-2 as the 2 gives the option of AE but is identical in every other way to the 1. Staying within the $400 budget would probably allow you to get a couple of decent lenses as well. My favourite OM, my OM-2, cost me $60.00 with a 50mm f1.8 lens which in spite of it's 'lens cap' nick name is quite decent. Some of the other available Zuiko lenses are simply superb.

I love my rangefinders but these OM's are the perfect complement ... as small and light as any RF and with the glass to match, mine get a lot of use. The viewfinders are big and bright and I find the camera very good to shoot with ergonomically.

Best of all they're ridiculously cheap for what you're getting!

 

[wlewisiii]

$400 could find you a nice Canon IVSb barnack style LTM body & a Canon 50/1.8 lens & a Jupiter-12 35/2.8 lens. The Canon's are excellent cameras and would be a good way for you to move forward with RF cameras. Both lenses would still be usable if and when you moved up to a Leica M body.

If you want a to get a inexpensive SLR, any of the Canon body's & lenses will deliver excellent results while being consistantly less expensive than the comparable Nikon kit.

Hope this helps,

William

 

[Al Patterson]

In the RF you can get a Canon P plus a lens or two for $400, or a Canon QL17 and a Yashica GSN for somewhat less.

In the SLR world, I'd suggest an old FD mount Canon, like the A-1 or AE-1, plus either the 35-105 zoom or a few primes.

 

[BillBingham2]

I can think of two classic cameras that would serve you very well. The Canon P and the Nikon S2. The P is an LTM body with a finder that is made for 35 and 50 mm lenses. It's a fine camera with a good track record here and elsewhere. The Nikon S2 is a professional rangefinder from years back. Based upon the Contax rangefinders (similar lens mount and focusing wheel) and built like a tank. One S2 saved the life of a photojournalist in Vietnam by catching it. With the Canon you have a wide range of lenses in LTM to choose, Nikon not so much, but once you pick up a 50 the only other lens you need (IMHO) you can still get new, a CV 25/4 CS (works on Contax but made for Nikon).

You are right, there is something about RFs. The only SLR that comes close is the OM series, Keith is right. I had several OMs and loved them, the size was as good as my Ms and the lens quality (if chosen well) was great.

Nikon shutters are unlike most other that they take sitting and not being used better than any others. Not sure if it's the lube, design, or what, but often you can pick up a Nikon after years of it not being used and she will be within a 1/3 a stop. There are several great places here in the states to get them CLAed and once it done you should never have to do it again.

Nikon cut their teeth on the early RFs (M & S) and the S2 was a cut above. The SP is basically the camera the Nikon F is based upon. You would not go wrong with a Bessa RX (X is any or no number), they are not built as strong as the S2.

Hope this confuses you even more 😱

B2 (;->

 

[benlees]

You can get a decent Pentax MX for less than a $100. Very small and lots of cheap- but good- glass to go with it. Hard to beat, really.

 

[mooge]

for a classic SLR...

the Canon FTb. I got mine for $50 with a 50mm 1.8 lens, it had an engraving so that's why it was a bit cheap. lenses are usually under $100, so with $400 you can build a solid kit. a very underrated but highly capable camera...
it's got DoF preview, mirror lock-up. speeds B+1-1/1000.

works without batteries, they power the meter alone. it is a bit chunky though.

 

[Ruvy]

Thank you all !!!!!

Thank you all !!!!!

I can think of two classic cameras that would serve you very well. The Canon P and the Nikon S2. The P is an LTM body with a finder that is made for 35 and 50 mm lenses. It's a fine camera with a good track record here and elsewhere.]

I know most RF users rarely use lenses longer than 50 however my work and personal interest are no wider than 28 , lots of 50 and frequent need of a lens of 100mm+/-. Unless there is another practical solution that rules out the Canon P

[ The Nikon S2 is a professional rangefinder from years back. Based upon the Contax rangefinders (similar lens mount and focusing wheel) and built like a tank. One S2 saved the life of a photojournalist in Vietnam by catching it. With the Canon you have a wide range of lenses in LTM to choose, Nikon not so much, but once you pick up a 50 the only other lens you need (IMHO) you can still get new, a CV 25/4 CS (works on Contax but made for Nikon).]

Are you saying I can use all Cotax RF lenses on a NIkon or the other way around? if so, it does open a door for all the possibilities I need but a what price?

[Hope this confuses you even more 😱]

Its a good confusion and great help and so are all post by other in this thread.
[B2 (;->[/quote]
Thank you all very much

 

[Ronald_H]

My own cheap HQ set-up:

Canonet QL17 GIII for RF (but have the finder cleaned, mine is borderline in low light).

Nikon FM SLR as a cheap SLR (mine was 60 euros and besides being one of the best and most rugged small SLR designs, it looks dead cool in brassed black)

 

[ruby.monkey]

Why do you need another camera on top of your dSLR, if finances are tight?

 

[aizan]

contax g2
konica hexar af
voigtlander bessa r2
minolta cle
leitz minolta cl

these are my picks, in that order. might need to save up a little more, but they're worth it.

 

[BillBingham2]

More confusion....

More confusion....

I know most RF users rarely use lenses longer than 50 however my work and personal interest are no wider than 28 , lots of 50 and frequent need of a lens of 100mm+/-. Unless there is another practical solution that rules out the Canon P

Take a look here

http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm

and here

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?NikonS2.html~mainFrame

and here

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?NikonS2.html~mainFrame

If you like the 100+/- range you will LOVE the 105/2.5 Nikkor. They are not hard to find and not too expensive to save up for. Many SLR photographers started out with a three lens set of Nikkors 24, 50, 105 and did some great stuff. Until I used the CV 25/4 I never LOVED that wide a lens for people shots. I found it to distort as about the same or less than most 28mm on SLRs.

The P is a fine camera but if you use a 50mm most of the time, go with an S2. Oddly there are two new 50mm lenses, priced very high but both have trumped Leica glass for the best 50s in the world. Ziess came out with a 50/1.5 for the Nikkor mount recently, great lens but very high priced. Nikon brought out a reworked 50/1.4 combined with the reissue of the S3 in 2000. It is IMHO the best 50 in the world. Bigger than the older 50s but worth the size.

The older Nikkors (50/2 and 50/1.4) are not bad lenses, in fact they are great, but the new one is just the best. If you look around here in the Nikon Rangefinder Forum you can find some great real world tests.

Are you saying I can use all Cotax RF lenses on a NIkon or the other way around? if so, it does open a door for all the possibilities I need but a what price?

For what ever reason (I've heard several stories from folks, one who visited the factory during the Korean War) they are not quite exactly the same:bang: While they will mount find, focusing is not the same. Thanks to our friend Depth Of Field, you can interchange just about any wide angle lens on either camera without problems. You can not use 50s or longer.
That said, some Former Soviet Union Kiev lenses will scratch the front of you camera as you mount them. Not a critical problem but it shows when you remove the lens or use a 50mm. I think (read I'm not sure) a bit of sand paper on the rear of the flange will fix this, but I'm really not sure.

Its a good confusion and great help and so are all post by other in this thread.

http://www.cameraquest.com/inventor.htm

I made the decision to sell off all my other rangefinders but one over the past year. I sold five Bessas and two Leica Ms and have kept the Nikon S3-2000. If it were not for the reissue of the S3 I would have stay with my S2 and a three lens system (25, 50, 105). Now I have added a 35. All my wides are CV, but my 50 and 105 are Nikkors.

Poke around Karens site (photoethnography) she has some good info. The Canon P is not a bad camera by any measure, I just think the Nikon S2/SP/S3 are world class.

B2 (;->

 

[ChrisPlatt]

With regard to the stated $400 budget for a working body and two lenses,
some of the recommendations here seem rather "optimistic".

Surely there are bargains to be had, but they seldom come along
when you're trying to assemble a system.

Chris

 

[Kent]

Generally, I would say...

...if you have ab generous budget, go for a DRF.
...if you have a "normal" budget, go for a DSLR or a RF.
...if you are on a tight budget, go fo an SLR.
...if you are on a really tight budget, go for a fixed lens RF.

😉

 

[besk]

The rangefinder systems (meaning 2 or more lenses + body) are more compact.

On a tight budget my bets are on a mechanical SLR and lenses as the most bang for the buck and also the most adaptable to a variaty of situations.

 

[oftheherd]

For SLRs, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the old Pentax screw mount cameras and lenses. Granted they aren't as small as you might wish, but they were work horse bodies, and the lenses have always gotten good reviews.

If you are looking for small, look for the Fujica ST 801 or 901 bodies. The Fujinon lenses are more expensive, but the 801 will work with Pentax lenses with only a little loss of time to use stop down metering. Actually, so will the 901, but why give up the open aperture metering. If you are only looking for 50mm, they are worth looking at.

It all depends on what you want. If saving money is most important, look at the Pentax line. It may not be as sexy, but the price is right. And you won't be disappointed.

In RF, I really can't help. The only 35mm interchangable lens RF I have is the Kiev. I often read about the problems with Kiev. I have been fortunate. I find it easy to use, and the FSU lenses are acceptable.

 

[RF-Addict]

From your original post I cannot figure out why you need a 2nd camera and especially why you need a 2nd SLR? I assume this is just GAS or is there a real need?

 

[ray*j*gun]

Nikkormat's are selling for a song and they use all the Nikon SLR lenses. They are also tough as nails...... although a bit heavy.

Ray

 

[Kin Lau]

I know most RF users rarely use lenses longer than 50 however my work and personal interest are no wider than 28 , lots of 50 and frequent need of a lens of 100mm+/-. Unless there is another practical solution that rules out the Canon P

That just about rules everything out. Any RF that has built-in 28mm VF is going to be lousy for a 100mm lens.

I would suggest a Minolta X series SLR, very light and bright VF. The 28, 50 and 100 are cheap. Battery dependent, but a button cell lasts for a very long time.

If you don't mind a separate VF for 28mm, then the Bessa R is probably your best bet for an RF.

 

[Roger Vadim]

Nikon FM SLR as a cheap SLR (mine was 60 euros and besides being one of the best and most rugged small SLR designs, it looks dead cool in brassed black)

I agree! A really reliable camera (not so sure about the Canon species from that time, but thats a religious thing, I suppose).
Get a 1.4/50 (100$), the faboulous 2.8/28 (around 130$), a lovely FM (or FM2n) in black, and put the great 2.5/105 on top. You are set under 400$, and have the best optics Nikon made!

(and I've got 5 Nikon Bodys now, the cheapest, a EL, like new cost me 20 Euro on evilbay...)