The best 'Non Leica' M-mount camera is ..... ???

[Keith]

All great cameras but I'm giving the nod to the Zeiss Ikon for its ease of loading and incredible viewfinder.

For anyone nominating the Voigtlander Bessa ... maybe state your individual choice in the comments.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Hmmm, I'm wondering if the film Leica CL would qualify, since it wasn't built by Leica in their facilities?
"t was developed in collaboration with Minolta who manufactured it. It first appeared in April 1973 and was released in the Japanese market in November 1973 as the Leitz Minolta CL. Both the Leica CL and Leitz Minolta CL were manufactured in a new Minolta factory in Osaka."...

(....40mm Summicron & Elmar C were built in Wetzlar )

 

[Keith]

Hmmm, I'm wondering if the film Leica CL would qualify, since it wasn't built by Leica in their facilities?
"t was developed in collaboration with Minolta who manufactured it. It first appeared in April 1973 and was released in the Japanese market in November 1973 as the Leitz Minolta CL. Both the Leica CL and Leitz Minolta CL were manufactured in a new Minolta factory in Osaka."...

I was thinking that as well but the camera was also sold as a Leica ... which the CLE wasn't.

 

[jsrockit]

I own a Bessa R2 (not listed) but it isn't the best...not even the best Bessa. It's gotta be the Zeiss for film cameras.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I was thinking that as well but the camera was also sold as a Leica ... which the CLE wasn't.

Yes, though even the Leica badged ones are labelled "Mnfd in Japan for Leitz Wetzlar". ( i just checked mine)
Not built in a Leica facility in Wetzlar, Portugal or Canada....

 

[Freakscene]

I didn’t vote. I struggle between the Hexar RF and the Zeiss Ikon enough to be unable to decide. They are both improved Leicas, and if you put the Ikon range/viewfinder in the Hexar you’d have one camera to rule them all, especially if you could make the rangefinder less susceptible to knocks. As it is, the Ikon is too much like a Leica, and the Hexar needs a better view/rangefinder and they both have rangefinders that get disrupted by physical disruption way too easily. I still have both but hardly ever use them.

 

[gavinlg]

I have some strange experiences with the hexar's RF getting out of alignment and being impossible to get back due to its mechanical fragility. In terms of user experience the hexar is absolutely top for me. The Ikon, being an improved bessa is probably the best for me.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Best camera is new camera 🙂 Here is only one in this list...

 

[telenous]

I don't know about best, but I can relate what works for me, for candid photography. What marred my experience with both ZI & Bessa R3a was the copal shutter. While tried and true, it is too recognizable as a camera sound. I prefer cloth shutters. That makes me think of the CLE, which I have not used, as the best film substitute for an M.

 

[Kai-san]

Easy choice, the Zeiss Ikon is just a joy to use.

 

[pvdhaar]

No Bessa-T?

 

[Keith]

No Bessa-T?

Good point ... if there is a mod passing through who sees this maybe they can add the T to the rest of the Bessas in the poll options? 🙂

 

[Gid]

I owned several RD-1s and a couple of Hexars. Both are potential paperweights but both were great cameras to use. I wouldn't buy either today beacause of the risk of failure. I voted for the Hexar but if I were forced to buy one of those listed it would probably be the Zeiss or one of the later Voigtlanders.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

Everyone loves the Bessa-T , that is until they’ve used it for a while and then the novelty wears off and then one realizes that it’s not the camera that they thought it would be. Back to basics is cool but not cool forever.

I had two Bessa-T cameras; both anniversary models. Built like tanks! Really solid. I thought that they were going to be my new way of life. A fast film in one, a slow film in the other… travel the world… be famous… people would call me Mister “T”. Hot damn!

The novelty wore off pretty quickly. Eventually I sold them, used the money to buy my Fujifilm GFX-50R gear. Funny thing is, I did save my collection of external viewfinders; including my Voigtländer 40mm metal viewfinder. I’m not sure why, just some inner voice told me to keep them.

Anyway, that’s my Bessa-T story. Another great camera that I used to own.

All the best,
Mike

 

[Out to Lunch]

Digital - Epson
Analog - Zeiss-Ikon

 

[MarkWalberg]

Not what you want to hear, I'm sure. But, for me, it is the Nikon Z6 with a $10 adapter. I'm having a lot of fun with rangefinder lenses of all sorts on that camera.

 

[steveyork]

The ZM is hard to beat, but waiting for the best non-M mount rangefinder poll.

 

[splitimageview]

Good point ... if there is a mod passing through who sees this maybe they can add the T to the rest of the Bessas in the poll options? 🙂

Added!

(Note: Use the report link to summon a mod.)

 

[splitimageview]

Hard to determine 'best.' They all have pros and cons. (I won't include potential electronic failures or repairability as a con.)

I have owned a ZM, multiple CLE, and multiple Hexar RF film cameras over the years. Never have used Bessa/Rollei so no comments on those.

Quick comparison:

CLE:
--Pros: size, weight, exc. 28mm view, quiet shutter, small cheap ubiquitous batteries.
--Pro or con depending on what focal lengths you prefer: 0.58x magnification.
--Cons: no 50mm frame, no manual metering, shorter baselength (but who is going to attach a Noct on a CLE anyway?)

Hexar RF:
--Pros: 1/4000, built-in wind, 1/125 flash sync.
--Pro or con depending on what focal lengths you prefer: 0.60x magnification.
--Cons: CR2 batteries.

ZM:
--Pros: 1/2000, viewfinder (solo 35 and 50 frames), exc 28mm view, focal length indicated on the frameline, light weight, small cheap ubiquitous batteries, long RF baselength, 1/125 flash sync.
--Cons: RF patch doesn't move with parallax correction, weird AE lock location/operation

I'm quite happy with any of these cameras, they all get my vote. 😎 Although it appears the CLE has the pricing advantage, followed by the Hexar RF, and the ZM is getting 'up there' in price.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Hard to determine 'best.' They all have pros and cons. (I won't include potential electronic failures or repairability as a con.)

I have owned a ZM, multiple CLE, and multiple Hexar RF film cameras over the years. Never have used Bessa/Rollei so no comments on those.

Quick comparison:

CLE:
--Pros: size, weight, exc. 28mm view, quiet shutter, small cheap ubiquitous batteries.
--Pro or con depending on what focal lengths you prefer: 0.58x magnification.
--Cons: no 50mm frame, no manual metering, shorter baselength (but who is going to attach a Noct on a CLE anyway?)

Hexar RF:
--Pros: 1/4000, built-in wind, 1/125 flash sync.
--Pro or con depending on what focal lengths you prefer: 0.60x magnification.
--Cons: CR2 batteries.

ZM:
--Pros: 1/2000, viewfinder (solo 35 and 50 frames), exc 28mm view, focal length indicated on the frameline, light weight, small cheap ubiquitous batteries, long RF baselength, 1/125 flash sync.
--Cons: RF patch doesn't move with parallax correction, weird AE lock location/operation

I'm quite happy with any of these cameras, they all get my vote. 😎 Although it appears the CLE has the pricing advantage, followed by the Hexar RF, and the ZM is getting 'up there' in price.

Split, How do you factor repairability into the equation? I'm not talking about continued use of a camera bought long ago. For example, I had a Minolta CLE when they were in production and got very good results with it, but i'd be reticent to buy one now at $800 USD. My observation goes for any camera for which parts (particularly electronic components) are no longer available.