A suggestion for my first rangefinder

All good advice above.

I must say I like the Minolta Hi-Matic E. Seriously, its easy to use and usually inexpensive. The lens is sharp, sharp, sharp. Just make sure its in good working order.

Many people like the Electro 35 cameras too. Also an incredibly sharp lens, but substantially larger and heavier than the Hi-Matic E.

Actually, there are so darn many other possibilities out there that could be very satisfying (so many come to mind: Canon QL17, Ricoh 500, Olympus RCs, Hi-Matics, Konica S2, and so many others). One thing that quickly differentiates your choices: fixed lens or interchangeable. A decent interchangeable lens camera (rangefinder at least) tends to increase your overall expense above $100. I suppose not always, but usually it does if really sharp images are important to you. Also, you need to be educated enough to know when a potential purchase is "sound" or a "lemon" due to condition. I saw Karen Nakamura's site mentioned above. It's nice. I think there's a site by Matt Dent that has fun info too. Search the web and soon you'll find lots of people with helpful information. Overwhelming yes, but makes for a lot of enjoyable reading (often with nice pics of beautiful cameras).

Good Luck!
 
Lots of good suggestions here, mine was a Yashica Electro 35 GSN. Nice camera! A word of warning, if you discover that rangefinders are you're thing, it can be a very slippery slope....... Plenty of people on here that can attest to that :D
 
I've only skimmed this thread.

How about a Voigtländer Vito/Vitoret? (IIRC only the ones with "R" in the model name have rangefinders —*the rest are only viewfinders).

No comments on the lens, but the viewfinder is wonderful. Easy to use and at a glance on eBay you could get one for under 100USD. Very light too. The shutter release takes a bit of getting used to.

Here's a photo from my Vitoret DR (Osaka 2012, with Tri-X). This was probably wide open at 2.8.

000007760029-M.jpg
 
Everyone loves a "what should I buy?" thread!

It's true some old lenses are very good, and some old 35mm cameras can "beat" some serious DSLRs for resolution, but you will have to buy slow film (ISO 25 - 100), very good lenses, and also have a very good (expensive) scanner or print the photos on photographic paper. Once you start to shoot faster, more convenient films at ISO 400 and above, your DSLR will probably start to beat the film camera for resolution, even if you spend a lot of money on a camera and scanner. In other words if your only priorities are resolution and colour then you may be disappointed by a 35mm rangefinder and you would be better off buying a better lens for your DSLR.

I think the main reason why I (and probably most other people on this forum) use 35mm rangefinders is because of the different process and the different looks you can get with film photographs. Personally, if I want very sharp, very good quality images I will use my digital camera or a medium format film camera - 35mm is for convenient photos with more personality.

Why do you want a rangefinder specifically? Have you tried a rangefinder and prefer the focussing style to an 35mm SLR? Or an inexpensive medium format camera like the Zenza Bronica?
 
Olympus 35 RC. Very good lens, a decent rangefinder (if the optics are in good condition and clean), small and quiet.

Welcome to RFF!
 
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144290

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144290

First welcome to the forum.
I see 2 problems..
One using film and 2, going for an old camera.
Using film means either getting a darkroom for prints,
or adding a scanner, or getting someone to do it!
More cash outlay.
Developing film is easy.
A tank, a reel, a few chemicals,thermometer,measuring tools.
Making digital images can be solved using your DSLR.
My results with scanning are plain lousy.
In terms of what i used to do in a "wet" darkroom.

An old Rngfdr camera adds more problems..
Age, the killer of youth!
Unless in good working condition, will be a sad entry.
Rangefinders are NOT for everyone.

I suggest getting a Film SLR that matches your DSLR.
In most places they are inexpensive, you already have a lens.
A normal 50mm lens could be used on both.
Get the feel of film first..

I use SLR and Rangefinder for Film.
I ONLY use small point and shoot digital cameras.
Their quality surpasses my film results easily.

There is no magic in film, equipment or some secret process.
It's hard work, study and lots of practice*.
Seeing, seeking and finally pressing the button.
Practice which costs dearly..
Good luck.
 
leicapixie said:
My results with scanning are plain lousy.
In terms of what i was used to do in a "wet" darkroom.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. In the a "wet" darkroom scenario the print is the scan. Collimated light rays pass through a negative and are then projected through a lens onto photographic paper.

We often forget that the "end point" in film photography was usually a print on photographic paper and that "end point" costs money.
 
Solinar said:
That makes sense. In the a "wet" darkroom scenario the print is the scan. Collimated light rays pass through a negative and are then projected through a lens onto photographic paper.

We often forget that the "end point" in film photography was usually a print on photographic paper and that "end point" costs money.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I don't see how a modern, good quality inkjet printer, ink and photo paper are free. Photography has recurring costs, different ones for sure, whether digital or film
 
Thanks very much for your suggestion!

Some one know if exist a very good rangefinder that is "portable" when I move with bike? :)

I like to shot during my "bike travel"
 
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144290

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144290

The most important part of choosing a camera,
is how it "feels" and handles.
That's why i suggested a 35mm SLR that matches your DSLR..
You gonna have enough, with going to film.
I have used my RFDR in all conditions..
walking, riding my bike, thru winter snows and jungle heat..
Cameras are tough beasts..
 
Last edited:
AlchimistaDigitale said:
Thanks very much for your suggestion!

Some one know if exist a very good rangefinder that is "portable" when I move with bike? :)

I like to shot during my "bike travel"
Click to expand...

If you want a rangefinder camera that will satisfy aesthetically and produce good images scanned--with qualities of their own not readily available in digital cameras--buy a Leica IIIf along with a 5cm F/3.5 collapsible "Elmar" lens. Dont bother with anything else; unless you want to spend even more money for a Leica M. But the IIIf is perfectly good, solid feeling, nicely made and better for you than a Leica M because it is smaller and very portable. The lens collapses--excellent for hanging around your neck while riding your bike!

But this is NOT a cheap option. (1) You need to be able to repair the camera, possibly replace parts and to clean the lens properly, or, you need someone to work on it or you will have to pay quite a bit more to get a camera in operating condition--remember these camera are now well over 50 years old. (2) you will have to spend money on film periodically and on chemicals; (3) you have to buy equipment to develop your film and a scanner.

So yes it is possible; yes, it is worth it, but it is a commitment of time and money.

Digital will be much cheaper . . .
 
Unless you go for the Yashica GSN you will need to up your budget to $200 as most small fixed lens rangefinders in good working condition are trending towards $200. A Russian camera with a Jupiter-12 should be considered. Though I have not used either the Jupiter-12 is highly rated and should you not want to continue with rangefinders or decide to switch it would be easy to sell.
 
older lenses will be softer given the coating improvements over the years. given a certain min level of body operation, the kind of images you want will require a more modern lens with good coatings. for your budget a fixed lens camera will be your only choice IMO eg a Yashica GSN....
 
Smena has many generation. Cult camera among some guys. It has very simple triplet lens, but pictures are interesting.
Quality control was the issue with latest models.
First Smena my younger photo buddy has needs two spools for film.
You have guess exposure and focus and manipulate it to get it ready for the picture.
Yes, where is small, yet good RF, for bike trips. Olympus XA. Fast and very easy to use.
 
AlchimistaDigitale said:
A last question... what do you think about Lomo Smena?
Click to expand...

Even though I am falling apart at the seems, I've been riding a bicycle to and from work for 40 years. For under $100, although I prefer my Olympus 35RC - I'd much rather be carrying an Olympus XA than a Lomo for 35mm photography.

Another budget starter for 35mm RF photography would be a Canonet QL17 GIII. In fact - it would be a best buy in this price range in my book and definitely more compact than the above mentioned Yashica Electro 35.

If you can - buy from someone that allows for the right of return of the camera - should it arrive in a non-working condition. Unfortunately, that rules out most of what's available for under $100.
 
I just want to ask: if you are really limited to $100 for a camera and lens, will you have money for film and chemicals? for developing equipment?

Perhaps you already have the equipment necessary? In the few years I've been doing this i have seen film prices rise; it's still reasonable assuming you have the money! I'm asking because your budget for acquiring a camera is so small; getting the camera and lens is only a part of the cost.
 
Dear Alchimist,
Rangefinder photography is first of all about seeing the image through a viewfinder, as opposed to looking through a mirror, prism or EVF. It is about seeing around the frame and about immediacy.
Before you spend on a film camera, think, what are you going to do with the film? Can you afford it in the first place? Can you afford high quality development, scanning and printing?
Given that you want to shoot colour - which personally I find highly distasteful - I suggest you stick to digital and save up for some "rangefinder" like camera from the latest Japanese offerings, by E.G. Fuji. Shooting film makes only good sense if you want to focus on B&W photography.
Last point: a "quality" lens for colour street photography will likely cost you 500USD to begin with.
 
color and digital

color and digital

mfogiel said:
Dear Alchimist,
Rangefinder photography is first of all about seeing the image through a viewfinder, as opposed to looking through a mirror, prism or EVF. It is about seeing around the frame and about immediacy.
Before you spend on a film camera, think, what are you going to do with the film? Can you afford it in the first place? Can you afford high quality development, scanning and printing?
Given that you want to shoot colour - which personally I find highly distasteful - I suggest you stick to digital and save up for some "rangefinder" like camera from the latest Japanese offerings, by E.G. Fuji. Shooting film makes only good sense if you want to focus on B&W photography.
Last point: a "quality" lens for colour street photography will likely cost you 500USD to begin with.
Click to expand...

The point about shooting color is well taken; unless you were talking about a full frame camera, I don't see why you would want to bother with color film in a 35mm format. I shoot almost all b&w with film; color on digital.

I think the suggestion about a rangefinder-design digital camera is "spot on." But I would say, no need to save up money; you get get this cool-looking digital camera with 30mm equivalent lens that takes decent looking exposures for around $100. (By the way, I have this camera, though I have better lenses; still this might make a good kit for you to experiment with).

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-PEN...298785?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item1e90db20e1

Yes it is a micro 4/3rds camera: the E-P1 and the 15mm "body cap lens"; with m43 crop factor that makes the lens equivalent to a 30mm lens on a 35mm film camera. And here is a nice review of the lens by a very amusing Englishman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omt-HKc3pag
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom