A beginner on a budget - What camera to get?

[Roger Hicks]

Why do you think that RF is "magic"? Have you tried an RF yet? . . .

From http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps rf.html

Rangefinder photographers tend to be somewhat evangelical about the cameras they use, though only the most enthusiastic would suggest that a rangefinder camera can do everything.

and

... Rangefinder cameras are different: there is no doubt about it. For some kinds of photography, especially reportage and travel, many people find them vastly superior to reflexes. For other kinds of photography, such as landscapes, RF or SLR is a matter of choice. And for yet other kinds, especially with long lenses or for close-ups, the SLR is simply better

Cheers,

R.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

... Does the Canonet have full manual controls? I read it has shutter priority. Personally I prefer shooting with manual, or at the least aperture priority...

My Canonet QL17 G-III has full manual controls. It's a very nice, compact package. Focusing is very nice; changing exposure feels just a bit clumsy.

 

[irreality]

I just wanted to drop by and quickly thank everyone for helping a novice out! All your comments have been read and now I have listed a few camera models that I am going to research further.

I'd also like to thank 'zuiko85' for the comment. Yes, I think I should try to find a used camera store here in Helsinki where I could actually try both a rangefinder and an SLR to see how they feel on me.

The main reason I wanted to go with a rangefinder is simply the different shooting experience. I currently shoot with an Olympus OM-D, so physically it is already close enough the size of a film SLR. I'm still vary about getting an OM2 since I suspect the shooting experience might not be that much different from the OM-D.

 

[funkydog]

... experience the "magic" of using a rangefinder

IMO, a tyro rf user starting with anything other than a Bessa or Leica M may well find a less than magical experience. Stretch your budget for a Cosina made Voigtlander Bessa R2 or R3 (A or M). They are worth the expense. Really good viewfinders and focusing. You want something new so the camera doesn't spend more time in the repair shop than in your hands. You can easily sell and get your money back if you later decide that the rf schtick isn't working for you.

Kinda like learning to drive. One wants an easy to drive and predictable car. Gotta love them Datsun 120Y's.

 

[redisburning]

+1 for Canon P + 50/1.8

or if you need to really cheap out, a Konica Auto S2. not a well made camera, but a nice viewfinder and a great little lens.

 

[defconfunk]

The main reason I wanted to go with a rangefinder is simply the different shooting experience. I currently shoot with an Olympus OM-D, so physically it is already close enough the size of a film SLR. I'm still vary about getting an OM2 since I suspect the shooting experience might not be that much different from the OM-D.

Personally, I found there to be a huge difference in "feel" between a film SLR and DSLR.

My primary camera is an E-510. I'm used to the slight tactile feedback of the mirror flipping. Moving to my film SLR, a Canon AE-1, the sensation of taking a photo is positively industrial (I can hear FSU camera owners laughing). The mirror slap is (comparatively) very strong and loud. One of my main reasons for wanting to try a range finder (aside from the different focusing style) was to have a quieter camera.

The Yashica Minister I have is so quiet, and the tactile feedback so slight, that I'm not always confident the shutter has fired. I've tested it without film, and I know it does. But the feedback is similar to pressing a keyboard (read: very minimal). I don't fully trust it yet. It is so quiet that if people are talking, they don't hear the camera fire. I used it on Sunday for a friend's baby shower, and it was a breath of fresh air to have a quiet non intrusive camera. The DSLRs in use (not by photographically inclinded people for the most part) were very intrusive both with noise (not a big deal really) and light (lots of flashes going off everywhere). I'm definitely starting to feel the appeal of the RF.

While louder, I really enjoy my SLR. I like the focusing aid, it works very well (I wish my DSLR had something similar). I enjoy the huge bright VF. It is worlds apart from my E-510, or any entry level DSLR I've played with. I don't know how well it would compare to the OM-D.

Personally, I was able to afford two film cameras (my local classifieds have a half dozen film SLRs for less than $100 every day), and as I said, I got my RF for $50 on ebay). Despite similar lenses (50mm F1.8 and 45mm F1.7) I've set them up to do different things (Green-yellow filter on the RF for street photography; green and orange filters for the SLR to do portraits and high contrast outdoor/landscape stuff). This means when I rush out the door I only have to chose film vs digital; which film is already decided.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, I may be drinking the RF kool-aid, but I also love my film SLR, and they feel sufficiently different from each other, and from my digital kit, to make owning each worth while.

 

[Chrisrw]

I concur with the Canonet. It was my first RF and takes great shots. There's also some used Bessas for sale in the $3-400 range. Check Keh Cameras.
Have fun. The XA would also be great too.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

Unlike many other suggest, I would not recommend getting a fixed lens rangefinder from the '70 as a first try. First of all I think that rangefinder photography, like anything, is more enjoiable if practiced with a reliable tool. Then I think that two possible outcome are likely from your test: you either like the experience and in that case you are hooked and will soon want a better camera with interchangeable lenses, or you don't like it and you will try to sell what you have because you don't use.

For all the above reasons, if you can afford it, I would hunt to get any of the not so popular Leica, Konica or Minolta models.

The Leica CL with the 40mm f2.0 can be found for a fewhundred bucks and if you don't like the whole experience you can sell it with no loss, the Minolta CLE is a now a tad more expensive but not much, the M5 is another great camera which is not too expensive (for what it is at least), and, finally, the Konica Hexar rangefinder is another underestimate camera which is actually probably almost as good as Leicas.

If all these are too expensive I would have a look at a Contax G1 with Zeiss 45mm. I know that it has a autorangefinder which is not what purists like, but has great build and lesnes and is now selling very cheap (I think you can find the body for less than 200US$ and the lens for maybe 300US$, possibly even less with patience).

Have fun hunting and even more fun taking photographs!

GLF

 

[farlymac]

Since you already have some Oly equipment, for a rangefinder I would suggest their 35 RC. The lens is right in the middle of what you are comfortable with (42mm 2.8) though you might want to get a 43-46mm filter step-up ring. It's very compact, and easy to just throw in the pocket when heading out. It has a shutter priority Auto mode, but unlike the Canonet QL 17 GIII, it has a metered Manual mode. The shutter speed control is a dial on top, like the SLRs, so the lens barrel isn't crowded. Takes nice, crisp photos, and shouldn't cost a lot of money. But I don't know what the camera market in Helsinki is like. Just make sure to test out any camera you buy for ease of use, and finder viewing.

PF

 

[rfaspen]

Whew! Lots of advice. I'll weigh in though. I too recommend something with interchangeable lenses.

I own most all of the cameras listed above, and many many more, including the Canonet QL17 and 19, Olympus 35, Hi-Matic7,9,E, Electro35, Voigtlanders, Retinas, Olympus XA, but I simply don't find myself using these fixed lens beauties! Just a huge shelf display!

What I do use are my interchangeable lens cameras -- Canon P, IIF, IVSB, and 7, Zorki C and 1C, Fed 2 and 3, Leica IIIa and IIIc, M2 and Bessa. Why? The lenses and versatility that comes with them; very much like the SLR world. A nice side benefit of this is I can use these lenses on my Olympus EP2, EPL1 digital bodies too.

Bottom line: get a Bessa or Leica if you find a good deal. I'd suggest Bessa because you need something new or lightly used. If you want to go cheap, the Russian stuff has some real gems among them, but you have to search and accept some risk when acquiring these.

Last consideration is light meter. I personally don't need one. I typically slip a separate meter in my bag out of habit, but familiarity with my preferred films makes it unnecessary in most situations. You might really want one. Again, go with a Bessa.

 

[Roger Hicks]

IMO, a tyro rf user starting with anything other than a Bessa or Leica M may well find a less than magical experience. Stretch your budget for a Cosina made Voigtlander Bessa R2 or R3 (A or M). They are worth the expense. Really good viewfinders and focusing. You want something new so the camera doesn't spend more time in the repair shop than in your hands. You can easily sell and get your money back if you later decide that the rf schtick isn't working for you.

Kinda like learning to drive. One wants an easy to drive and predictable car. Gotta love them Datsun 120Y's.

I utterly and totally agree. Trying to 'see if you like RFs' (or any other kind of camera) with clapped-out cameras that weren't always all that much good to begin with is inviting disillusion.

Cheers,

R.

 

[healyzh]

I went with a Canon Canonet QL17 GIII when I wanted to know if I would like a Rangefinder. I liked it so much I bought a Leica M6 TTL, which in turn I liked so much I bought a Leica M9. Plus I've bought more lenses than I care to think about in the past couple years.

Or to put it another way, if cost is a concern, buy a Nikon FM2 35mm SLR.

 

[Murchu]

If its just a random itch to scratch, or something random to try out, then perhaps one of the myriad fixed lens rangefinders from the 70's.

If something you have a more firm idea of what you want, and want to get from the whole experience, or to round out your shooting needs, then perhaps a second hand Leica, if you have the cash to spend. A second hand Leica will hold its value very well, and if you do not like it, then you should be able to sell it for what you bought it for. The used values of the voigtlander bodies is not so resilient, so unless you find a very good deal, just think the used Leica option is a better one. Plus you will never wonder, what if, when it comes to Leica, as you will have tried one.

 

[funkydog]

So why did you recommend a Zorki in post #12?

He was giving a range of options and followed up the Zorki recommendation with "Or you could cut out a pointless step and go straight in with a Bessa.".

 

[Godfrey]

Hello all,

I have been shooting with Nikon and Olympus dSLR cameras since 2004 and know my way around them well enough. However, during the last year or so I have become more and more fascinated by the prospect of shooting film. I got into photography at a time when 35mm film was already in decline and sort of missed that whole thing.

At first I was thinking of getting something like the Olympus OM2 or OM4, but then realized that a rangefinder camera would be more interesting - I would not only get familiar with shooting film, but also experience the "magic" of using a rangefinder 🙂

So my question to you is, which rangefinder camera would you recommend to someone who wants to get started? This would understandably be a second camera to me so I am not inclined to spend a lot of money on it. Which camera would currently have superb quality for the price?

Something with a good and affordable 35 or 50mm lens would be preferred as those are the focal lengths that I enjoy shooting with.


Thank you! 🙂

Without wanting to dis the enthusiasm of so many film lovers, the film vs digital thing is just silliness. There's no magic in film, it's the boring same-old stuff I recorded photographs with exclusively for 35 years. What counts with either is learning how to use the recording medium to best advantage.

If you want to see what shooting film is like compared to your DSLR, buy a 35mm SLR that uses compatible lenses and go shooting. There are tons available. The Olympus OM2 or OM4 are great, as are the Nikon FM2, FE2, F, F2, F3 etc. Pick one and shoot.

(I have an Olympus E-1 and a Nikon F ... I share the lenses I use on the Nikon with the E-1. Works great. I don't use either to any great degree these days, but I'd say I use the E-1 about 10:1 over the F simply because the workflow is a better match to my available time.)

The magic of a rangefinder is that it is a totally different shooting experience: you cannot see through the taking lens when focusing and framing so you have to learn how to see with your mind more clearly. Any viewfinder camera will do to get this feeling, no need to spend a lot of money, although if you fall in love with the concept you'll likely want a Leica M eventually ... nearly everyone does.

(I have both M9 and M4-2, two lovely rangefinder cameras that are as alike as a similar design in film and digital alternates can be. They both make lovely photos. But if push comes to shove and I just want a film camera to carry about for a casual day's walk, I usually grab my Rollei 35S, which fits in my pocket...)

 

[bjornkeizers]

I'm definitely recommending the Canon GIII QL17 as well. It's a great beginner camera if you're going to try film again.

It's easy to load, it has both manual features as well as metering, it has a solid performing lens. It's generally considered reliable, has a lovely feel, it's not too small or too big, so you'll be able to keep it with you... and best of all, it's cheap and readily available (though you should spend a little more to get one with good light seals at the very least.)

If you're set on going SLR, I'd actually suggest a Minolta. Something like an X500/570, X-1, X-GM... that sort of thing. The bodies are cheap, lenses are *dirt* cheap. I recently picked up a Minolta 28-70mm for just 4 gbp. Primes are a little more - paid 12 gbp for a 50mm and found out that's actually somewhat expensive 😀

 

[Spanik]

If you're coming from an SLR, go to an SLR. There is no point in changing two variables at the same time. Suppose you get a RF and don't like the results. Is that due to it being film or you not being used to a RF? Stick with a similar tool you have, it will make you feel more confident. Once you're confident about film, explore RF's.

Moving to my film SLR, a Canon AE-1, the sensation of taking a photo is positively industrial (I can hear FSU camera owners laughing).

Indeed, nothing beats a Kiev 60 for tactile feedback. But I get your point, the silence of a G690BL is eery.

 

[Roger Hicks]

So why did you recommend a Zorki in post #12?

They weren't all that bad to begin with.

Cheers,

R.

 

[roboflick]

I would go to Fedka .com and check out this kiev and helios lens
http://fedka.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=32&products_id=394

It will be serviced and for 125 dollars i don't think that you can go wrong. IMHO, the cheapest and most reliable entry to 35 mm rangefinder photography. And it will work and you will have 10 day return privilege either way
disadvantage is limited to 50mm fl with built in rangefinder window, you would need external viewfinders for other focal lengths and lenses which are also available at the site, Yuri is a great guy to deal with



Nik

 

[leicapixie]

This is rff forum.It is about rangefinders..i use SLR and Rf. They are totally different in concept. Film is not romantic but it is certainly not same as digital. I love SLR and I love film. i use them each as tools. The OP asked about different cameras. SLR for film go for peanuts these days.i purchased a Canon AV-1 with 50mm f1.8 lens ,1A filter,carry holster,new battery for $45. Hardly used if at all! So getting something like this really easy.Recommend getting a Nikon F,F2,F3 or FE model. You have a digital in Olympus and possibly easy to adapt OM lenses to your system. That's going with SLR.
I think you may be ready for a Leica M. Some are quite reasonable, not cheap. The CL and CLE I would not recommend though some here are happy.
The Leica is in a class of it's own. You either have a Leica or you don't. Similar, like, almost don't cut the cake. It is the one or nothing. Sure it may need a service in time.
A few months to a year,with a Leica, will have images flying at you all the time! Your eyes, your brain will all work to capture those images. The feel, the sighting all so special and different. Are Leica perect? No! There are difficult problems, maintenance can be high! Yet in end you will have saved money by not going from system to system..
Good luck!