kvanderlaag
my autofocus is broken.
I suppose one could say that, in the past year, I've suffered a string of events in my life that led to a critical buildup of stress and tension, and a shaking in the faith of my choices in life -- a midlife crisis would be an adequate description if I were perhaps twenty or thirty years older! I thought I'd coped just fine with the added stress and the readjustment of my life, and I'd pretty well settled back into photography with a few SLRs and a handful of rangefinders, and honestly, I've been fairly comfortable as it was.
However, I realized something lately. The nicest RF I own at the moment is really a toss-up between my Kiev and my Fujica 35-SE. While the Kiev is a nice camera, and a copy of a brilliant design, and the Fujica is nice and bright, they're both a little awkward to hold, and are sort of lacking in the department of function as far as being solid, reliable, diverse users goes.
So lately, I've been entertaining the thought of an M mount camera. While I'm in the wrong life to be able to afford an MP or M7 a la carte (or even just one of the stock cameras, but hey, if I'm going to dream obviously, I may as well do it big!) I've been eyeing a CV Bessa R2/R3, but then the idea hit me that was a real killer.
The M3, M2, or M4 really don't go for all that much on certain auction sites, or in the few used inventories I've seen, by most standards. I've heard wonderful things about the M3 viewfinder being the gold standard for brightness and contrast, and about M lenses being superb in optical quality, and easy to focus.
The CL struck me as a very viable choice, and actually my dream camera of choice, simply due to its compact figure and M mount, but it worries me for two reasons. Firstly, and most obviously, is the short RF base, making telephoto lenses an almost definite no-no. Secondly is that I've heard of incompatibilities between lenses for the larger M mount cameras and the CL body, in which the body is actually damaged by mounting the lens. I don't know how much of an issue this really is, and maybe someone with more knowledge of the CL than I could shed some light on it?
I think what really strikes me about the M mount cameras is the sheer versatility evident in the number of lenses available in M mount, and it's at least doubled by the use of an M-LTM adapter. The idea of RF coupled focusing on a body with a brilliantly bright viewfinder, and compatibility with my nice, cheap Soviet lenses, as well as more expensive German glass, is very, very comforting.
I guess it really boils down to this, then: The CL (KEH has a bargain body for about $300), the Bessa R2/R3, or the Leica M2? I've got very little personal experience with these cameras, and the local shops here don't much carry rangefinders -- I think there's one that carries an original R or two, which doesn't much help me in chosing an M body.
If anyone has a bias, an opinion, or some experience with these cameras, I'm interested to hear by all means, because I'm having a hard time deciding between them.
(Ideally, I'd love an Epson R-D1, but the problem remains my inability to put together $4000 for a digital camera -- the closest I'm going to get is shooting B&W and developing myself, and then scanning the negs.)
However, I realized something lately. The nicest RF I own at the moment is really a toss-up between my Kiev and my Fujica 35-SE. While the Kiev is a nice camera, and a copy of a brilliant design, and the Fujica is nice and bright, they're both a little awkward to hold, and are sort of lacking in the department of function as far as being solid, reliable, diverse users goes.
So lately, I've been entertaining the thought of an M mount camera. While I'm in the wrong life to be able to afford an MP or M7 a la carte (or even just one of the stock cameras, but hey, if I'm going to dream obviously, I may as well do it big!) I've been eyeing a CV Bessa R2/R3, but then the idea hit me that was a real killer.
The M3, M2, or M4 really don't go for all that much on certain auction sites, or in the few used inventories I've seen, by most standards. I've heard wonderful things about the M3 viewfinder being the gold standard for brightness and contrast, and about M lenses being superb in optical quality, and easy to focus.
The CL struck me as a very viable choice, and actually my dream camera of choice, simply due to its compact figure and M mount, but it worries me for two reasons. Firstly, and most obviously, is the short RF base, making telephoto lenses an almost definite no-no. Secondly is that I've heard of incompatibilities between lenses for the larger M mount cameras and the CL body, in which the body is actually damaged by mounting the lens. I don't know how much of an issue this really is, and maybe someone with more knowledge of the CL than I could shed some light on it?
I think what really strikes me about the M mount cameras is the sheer versatility evident in the number of lenses available in M mount, and it's at least doubled by the use of an M-LTM adapter. The idea of RF coupled focusing on a body with a brilliantly bright viewfinder, and compatibility with my nice, cheap Soviet lenses, as well as more expensive German glass, is very, very comforting.
I guess it really boils down to this, then: The CL (KEH has a bargain body for about $300), the Bessa R2/R3, or the Leica M2? I've got very little personal experience with these cameras, and the local shops here don't much carry rangefinders -- I think there's one that carries an original R or two, which doesn't much help me in chosing an M body.
If anyone has a bias, an opinion, or some experience with these cameras, I'm interested to hear by all means, because I'm having a hard time deciding between them.
(Ideally, I'd love an Epson R-D1, but the problem remains my inability to put together $4000 for a digital camera -- the closest I'm going to get is shooting B&W and developing myself, and then scanning the negs.)
