A black and white street photographer's first rangefinder?

Oh yeah, as Rami and Bill mentioned aperture priority AE is a blessing when shooting impromtu on the street, but mastering the difference in exposure between full sun and full shade will get you there as well.
 
Zorki 2C with 35mm Jupiter lens set at hyper focal distance for film speed. Just have to watch brim of a cap as it could rub against shutter speed dial on top of camera. Set shutter to film speed [use 400]. Functional approach but not overly appealing to the eye.
Johne
 
Frank Granovski said:
2 years of street photography with "an old Nikon SLR" could mean many things, including auto exposure and auto focusing. A 2-year old SLR or a 35 year old SLR?
Click to expand...

all manual, its an Fm 10 I bought used a few years ago.
 
bobofish said:
Matt,
I think the guys are waiting to pounce on your question like hungry lions....there are few things camera guys like more than talking cameras.

A couple things are needed, in terms of info...budget, needs, the reason you want an RF.

Pending that info, the best choice for a rangefinder is almost certainly a Leica M or an M mount camera, like the new Zeiss Ikon, Bessa R2a/R3a, etc.

There's a great deal to be said for the Hasselblad X-pan as a street camera...I've seen some great work done with it, and the word "panorama" scares some people off of street photography, where it should really invite them.

Give us some bones to chew, I'm sure you'll get plenty of info. It could be dangerous for your pocketbook to read though.
Click to expand...

Budget? the cheaper the better, but it needs to work

needs? durability, function, competant viewfinder, jupiter lens cause the seem like they are better

the reason I want an RF, because my major influence in my photography is Bresson and he used a rangefinder and my mentor uses an old leica so he thought now that I have gotten comfortable with the SLR, I should challenge myself further and start to work with a rangefinder too.
 
matt soul said:
Budget? the cheaper the better, but it needs to work

needs? durability, function, competant viewfinder, jupiter lens cause the seem like they are better

the reason I want an RF, because my major influence in my photography is Bresson and he used a rangefinder and my mentor uses an old leica so he thought now that I have gotten comfortable with the SLR, I should challenge myself further and start to work with a rangefinder too.
Click to expand...

I would not choose a rangefinder because HCB used one, or because my mentor uses one, but because it is a superior tool for YOU for the work YOU want to do. And if that turns out not to be true, then I'd go back to what works best for you. No one says, for example, that Photo A by HCB is superior to Photo B by HCB because it was taken with an RF instead of an SLR. The photo is what matters, yes? No one will care how you got it. It may destroy the dashing mental image of the photographer-as-action-hero, but it is better to be schlub and fade, fade, fade, into the woodwork. Nails that stand up get pounded down. Just my 2 cents.

Having said that, the rangefinder still offers some distinct advantages over an SLR for street photography. However, many of those advantages require a different way of using the camera.

If you're using a manual SLR, you currently lead with your focussing ring. Life exists in your viewfinder, on a matte screen, in and out of focus as you twist the lens. Peripheral vision does not exist in your world.

With a RF, everything is always in focus to your eye. No blackout when you trip the shutter, of course. And you can train yourself to keep both eyes open if you like. I prefer it when I remember to do it, and it is more like, oh, how do I explain?

Remember the stupid movies and TV shows where someone pretends to be a famous movie director by holding up their hands in front of themselves and making a 'box' shape with their thumbs and forefingers and framing people with that? Well, it's like that. You stop seeing with the camera and start seeing with your eyes. You just place the frame on things and take the shot.

With a manual-focus SLR, your first concern MUST be focus. Because without focus, you can't see to frame your scene. And you must pan around, zoom out, or lower the camera to see what ELSE there is to see in the scene, or use a wide lens and depend on massive cropping afterwards to 'create' your scene in the darkroom or at a computer screen. But you lose precious time focusing first, then you look through a narrow tube at a scene that changes even as you raise your camera to look at it.

With a RF, especially if you can keep both eyes open, your first concern is NOT focus, it is composition & framing. That means you must be (or must become) very comfortable with your camera and it's lens. You must balance f-stop with exposure and DOF to juggle your way into your scene. It becomes a dance - open the lens up as you move into shade, but be aware that your DOF is now 2 feet and not 10 feet on a subject 15 feet away from you, assuming you've prefocused and set your shutter speed. You can, in this situation, change your shutter speed, fiddle with your focus to get your rangefinder patch correct, or work with what you have and move in or out to keep your subject in your new narrower zone of focus. But you have seconds to choose. Best if you can make any necessary changes quickly - even without looking at your camera.

Quick! Which way does your aperture ring turn to open it up? Which way to slow the shutter speed down? What's your DOF at 10 feet and f/8?

I feel that a RF camera allows you be more a part of your environment when street shooting. With an SLR, you are an extention of your lens. With an RF, your camera is an extension of your eye.

I'm not saying that you can't do effective street photography with an SLR - lots of better photographers than I will ever be have done so and done well. I am suggesting that the way in which an RF is naturally used lends itself more towards street shooting than an SLR does.

Whatever tool you choose, master it and your photographs will improve. Fumbling around costs time, and time is not a luxury of the street photographer.

Now, on a counterpoint - I don't much care that Winogrand used a pair of M-4's and shot from the hip or that HCB used Leica cameras as well. What I would care about is why they chose the tools they did, and then decide if their selection criteria was right for me as well. In some cases, they may have chosen their tools because that was the tools their peers used - or that it was what was available then and there are better tools now - or that they just picked up whatever they could find - or they got a recommendation from someone else yet again - etc, etc. Is a Leica a great choice? Sure, no doubt. Is it the right choice for you? Depends on you. If you point a Leica at a pile of dog poop, you get a photo of a pile of dog poop. No "Leica Glow" will change that.

If you use the wrong shutter speed or aperture, or forget to load the film, nothing Leica can do will fix that. Once you obtain a camera that is reliable and takes sharp photos, MOST of what you do with a camera depends on YOU and not the camera. Given the biggest criteria, however, some cameras stand out as obvious choices - bright viewfinder, rapid focus, great lenses, very dependable, can be fixed or replaced in any major city - Leica M cameras have all that going for them. Some others do as well, to a greater or lesser extent. As offshoots of the Leica III's by way of Soviet copy, the Zorkis may have some or all of the capabilities you're looking for, as may the Kievs with their Contax successors. The Kievs would offer faster lens changing and perhaps a quieter shutter. The Zorkis would offer a wider world of lenses and perhaps a tad more reliability. To my way of thinking, both have relatively dim viewfinders compared to more modern RF's, and that can be a problem when street shooting. And I'm fond of neither for speed or ease of film loading, but that can be overcome with practice and dedication.

I hope you find any of this of interest.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Pherdinand said:
rami, your portfolio is worthy of a visit. You have some excellent street shots there. And some really funny ones too🙂
Click to expand...

man, rami, your street shots are awesome. Great juxtapositions (sp?). Feels new/original/contemporary and classic, all at the same. Much thanks.
 
By the way, I use a rangefinder because it's more fun for me than using an SLR, especially in low light. With street photos since I'm used to using a range findercamera, I'm comfortable using one. I use a 1:1 external finder to compose.

That said, I'm seeing some fantastic work done by people who are as comfortable using their dSLR's as I am with a rangefinder. So, an additional point to what Bill was saying is that a rangefinder will not in itself make one a better photographer.
 
Sorry I was so vague with my initial explanation, I figured you guys didn't want to hear my life story, but some of the things that Bill said kind of applied. I don't want to start using a rangefinder because I think it will make me a better photographer by virtue of me using it, that would be silly. I make get better at by relearning with a new camera, but I don't want a rangefinder just because someone told me to get one, and just because Bresson had one, I want one because I think I could do the kind of shooting that I do, better with one. I could be wrong though and that's why I don't want to dish out the money, even for a Bessa.

Also with my SLR, peripheral vision does exist in my world because I shoot alot with both eyes open.

Also the whole foucs thing for me isn't as big of a deal because I do alot of pre-focusing and off the cuff shooting. They are aren't crunches though.

Basically all I am looking for is a reliable economcal rangefinder with a bright viewfinder and a 35mm lense.
 
Last edited:
With that, I would sway you to look at a compact fixed-lens RF. A Canonet QL17 G3 with a 40mm F1.7 lens, or other of that generation are fine cameras. Getting a recently serviced Russian camera is also a good choice. I have had very bad luck playing "Russian Roulette" with cameras from EBay. I have bought mint Kiev's and Fed's that last two rolls of film. Then the shutter goes out. With lenses, I'm getting good at changing shims and filing various parts down.
 
Personally, I prefer to preset my exposure using a small meter, and vary the settings as the light changes. I find my results more consistent than with AE. It is also quicker as my shutter speed and aperture are set when I see the subject. Also less obtrusive than figuring out if I need to dial in some compensation or looking for something gray to meter. Somehow, the less time the camera is up to eyelevel, the better.

Same thing with focus. The 35mm is easiest for me, just zone focusing or hyperfocal distance. That way, all I do is bring the camera up, compose, and shoot. Still possible with the 50, but guesstimating distance takes more practice, and may require fine-tuning the focus before firing the shutter.

Matt- I agree you should try your hand with an inexpensive RF before spending too much. If you prefer 35mm, the Olympus 35RC is worth a close look.

For FSU, you will need an auxiliarry 35mm finder, because unlike the Leica your mentor has (I am assuming an M mount) , ithey do not have 35mm framelines. The Jupiter (J-12) you mentioned is a great lens. I would avoid Kiev mounts if focuing by touch is something you are planning to practice. The J12 has no tab or infinity lock, but you can improvise. The Kiev focusing is probably more accurate and is less likely to be misaligned compared to an LTM, but you may find it a little bit slower to focus as you need to use the wheel.

I have no experience with FED's. I have had one Zorki, a 4k. As someone pointed out, quick loading may be important, unless you plan to carry more than one body. The 4k has a modern (yeah, comparatively) takeup spool that will be faster to use than the older ones'.

In short, of the FSU's as you mentioned, the Zorki 4k with J12. Also look at the Oly 35RC. Either can be had for relatively little money.
 
Bill - nicely put.

Hi Matt - Bobofish was certainly right about people waiting to pounce!

Another question: would you quickly become impatient with a camera that is a bit difficult, has quirky aspects, is less than 100% reliable? Several posters above have alluded to the fact that FSU cameras can be less than 100% reliable, and even after overhaul they can be somewhat difficult to use - that is part of their charm for many of us. However, if you're mainly interested in the image, and you want to use a camera that simply disappears in your hands and you don't have to think about how you use it, you might be better with something other than an FSU camera.

I started with Yashica and Olympus fixed-lens rangefinders from the 60's, and added a Mir (Zorki 4), before graduating to Canon RFs (interchangeable LTM lenses) and have now added a Leica body recently serviced. It's been a fun journey! What drove me through this process was a desire for a more reliable camera that I didn't need to fuss over or fiddle with to ensure it was working properly, cameras that didn't become an obstacle between me and the image I'm trying to capture, while preserving quality and allowing me control.

If any of that rings a bell, think about the best ways to achieve that for your budget; maybe a recently-serviced Canon or Leica RF body, maybe a Bessa body, maybe a fixed-lens RF in top condition.
 
Another vote for a compact Japanese rangefinder with a fixed lens. You may out grow the bugger, as many of us have, but by then you'll have a better idea of what the next step will be.

One suggestion, take your time and keep up with the FS threads on this web site. The reason I mention this is that most of the for sale gear on this web site has been used recently and by an enthusiast.

I love my old Soviet rangefinders, but when someone is starting out they want a camera that works right out of the box.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
With that, I would sway you to look at a compact fixed-lens RF. A Canonet QL17 G3 with a 40mm F1.7 lens, or other of that generation are fine cameras. Getting a recently serviced Russian camera is also a good choice. .
Click to expand...

In my opinion a Japanese RF from the seveties, like a Canonet, and a FSU old rangefinder, bearing the best technology of WW2, are two worlds apart.

In the narrow terms of convenience a Japanese RF from the seventies wins hands down. Lighter, faster, smaller, reliable, less attention attractive and less cumbersome. Perhaps too boring.

Soviet rangefinders are a pleasure to fiddle with, and much more expensive at the end of the day than Japanese RFs.

After the challenge at the buying stage, Soviet RFs are also a serious challenge to
operate when using them to photograph people, who even if they are your own family, seem to expect from the photographer nowadays faster camera manipulation than they used to by WW2 - the technological level of Kievs, Zorkis and Feds.

Therefore if challenge is what you are looking for, Soviet RFs will not dissapoint you, with the extra benefit of real fun and a touch of enjoyable nostalgy.

But do not mix it, nor let your mentor to foolish you, with professional street photography learning. Otherwise, amidst the confussion you may loose the fun as well.

Cheers,

Ruben
 
I have a couple of the cameras you mentioned

I have a couple of the cameras you mentioned

I have a FED 2, Zorki 6, and a QL17 from canon. I love the FED 2 but it is not fun to use at night or low light situations because of the small viewfinder. The Zorki 6 is much easier to use and has a slightly better viewfinder. The QL 17 is fun to use, has a much brighter viewfinder and produces wonderfully sharp images. That being said, I almost always reach for the FED 2. I shoot with all three, but the FED is with me more often than not.

If you want to spend a bit more and upgrade in quality, look for a Canon using the Leica screw mount such as the Canon 7. I have a Tower Type III camera that is a pretty good copy of the Leica III with a Nikkor lens on it that is a very good camera that you could pick up for around $150 from E-bay. I just sent this camera off to get new shutter curtains and a CLA or I would post pics of the camera for you.

I sent my Zorki 6 in to Oleg at okvintagecamera.com to repair a lagging shutter curtain and can vouch for his work. If I were to recommend one FSU camera to begin with it would be the Zorki 6 for its ease of use. The FED 2 is fun to use, but mine required quite a bit of repair and lots of zone and guess focusing as the viewfinder is not that great. All of them are fun, why not just buy a couple and try them out? That way you can learn a little camera repair along the way.
 
For many years I was using a Kiev 4 for street photography, but I got to admit this isn´t the fastest handling camera I ever had, in fact is one of the slower (together with a Contax II of which the Kievs are a copy).
The solution to this was to keep the camera prefocused using DOF scale, chosen a acceptable speed, and everything worked well. It sometimes forced me to be like a future teller as to get everything properly adjusted for the shoot. Sometimes it works , and sometimes it doesn´t.

IMO, there are two choices to make prior to choose a camera, it is if you want or not some kind of automation, and if yes, which kind.
Street photography means for me fast action, and as HCB said, the decisive moment to be caught in a shot. This forces me to admit that some kind of automation will help.

No automation is available in any FSU RF, then you must look to either old japanese cameras or CV Bessa R3A.
Canonets (old type, the "new" and the GIII) are excellent performers and prices are quite low, but any of those cameras range between 20 or 40 y.o. Fixed lenses range from 40 to 45 mm and 1.7 which is acceptable for me. Not too wide, not too "normal". All have Shutter priority auto mode, and can be used in manual at the expense of having no meter at all.

The Yashica Electro 35 has a superb 45mm f 1.7 and Aperture priority AE mode, but has no manual mode (only flash 1/30, and B, of course not metered) and without batteries the camera´s shutter goes to default speed of 1/500. Not so much to choose from.

Another good choice (if size and weight are not an issue) would be the Yashica Lynx 14 / 14E which has an excellent f 1.4 45mm lens, or in case you can locate one that´s in good condition the Mamiya Super Deluxe (48mm f 1.5) and IMO with a better VF than the Lynx. Both cameras are only manual.

If changing lenses isn´t a must, both cameras will be an excellent and cheap choice, not exceeding USD 100 in any case. Otherwise the next possible choice are the Bessa R2a or R3a but at a higher expense.

Good Luck!!
Ernesto





.
 
ray_g said:
The Kiev focusing is probably more accurate and is less likely to be misaligned compared to an LTM, but you may find it a little bit slower to focus as you need to use the wheel.
Click to expand...
You are free to do without the wheel, focussing by the lens barrel; it's there, but you ain't obliged to use it 🙂 In fact, you can't use the wheel with 85 and 135 mm lenses.

Kiev bayonet also makes it far easier to change lenses in cold weather than anything screwmount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jaredangle
Calibrating the Voigtlander Bessa R-series rangefinder mechanism
Replies
2
Views
677
monopix
monopix
renguney
A Fed 1 repaint - CLA'd by okvintagecamera
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Valkir1987
Valkir1987
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
L
Looking for a good vintage RF
2 3
Replies
45
Views
4K
santino
santino
J
  • Article Article
What exactly is a point & shoot camera? Glad you asked!The Kodak of 1888 may have been the first, and even Leica got into the act!
Replies
17
Views
1K
Mos6502
Mos6502
Back
Top Bottom