Dr Gaspar
Established
I'm about to start travelling, maybe for a few years, and I'm looking for good, reliable, not heavy camera to take with me.
I live in Argentina, not many options here, but I can go to the US in the next few weeks and I might get one there.
My budget is around 1,500$ to 2,000$. I currently own a Hexar Silver as my 35mm camera, but I'm looking for a rangefinder now, and might even sell the Hexar for extra cash to increase my budget.
I'm an amateur photographer right now, but that might change in the next few months/years, while on the road.
Any suggestions?
I've been suggested to get a Contax IIIa, but I think it's pretty heavy. Also a Contax G1, and a Leica M2 and M3. Probably a good Leica lens would make me go over budget, right?
Thank you in advance, and sorry for my not-so-good English.
I live in Argentina, not many options here, but I can go to the US in the next few weeks and I might get one there.
My budget is around 1,500$ to 2,000$. I currently own a Hexar Silver as my 35mm camera, but I'm looking for a rangefinder now, and might even sell the Hexar for extra cash to increase my budget.
I'm an amateur photographer right now, but that might change in the next few months/years, while on the road.
Any suggestions?
I've been suggested to get a Contax IIIa, but I think it's pretty heavy. Also a Contax G1, and a Leica M2 and M3. Probably a good Leica lens would make me go over budget, right?
Thank you in advance, and sorry for my not-so-good English.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Reliable? Forget the Contax IIIa. Quite apart from the squinty finder and limited choice of optics. The G1 is 'iffy', too, seeing it's from a manufacturer who has left the business, and I found the autofocus on the G2 poor: I understand that the G1 is worse. Personally I'd go for an M2 without hesitation. You don't necessarily need a Leica lens, either. Consider a 35/1.7 Ultron from Voigtländer, or indeed, a whole range of Voigtländer lenses.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Leica M6 w/ Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 or 50mm Zeiss Planar
kshapero
South Florida Man
I got a Leica M3 with a Leica Summarit 50/1.5 lens for $950. Could not be happier. Got from Dale Photo in Hollywood, FL. He usually has a good selection of used Leica's. Very reliable dealer.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
If you think a Contax IIIa is pretty heavy you won't find a Leica M2 to be much lighter if at all. Other than that what Roger said.
Bob
Bob
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
If you decided on a limited budget, forget Leica lenses. Those are excellent, but not essential for good photography at all.
But I think you would want a Leica M body. They are well built, best rangefinder/viewer, simple and reliable, I would not settle for less.
An M4-P + Voigtlander Ultron 35/1.7 (like Roger mentioned above) is my personal recommendation. I managed to get both for below $800, but I had the luxury of waiting and trading, something that I imagine you don't have at this time.
Also get a good digital handheld meter (Minolta III or Sekonic or Gossen models), and use the rest of the budget for film and safe lodgings.
Happy travels, post pictures here when possible.
But I think you would want a Leica M body. They are well built, best rangefinder/viewer, simple and reliable, I would not settle for less.
An M4-P + Voigtlander Ultron 35/1.7 (like Roger mentioned above) is my personal recommendation. I managed to get both for below $800, but I had the luxury of waiting and trading, something that I imagine you don't have at this time.
Also get a good digital handheld meter (Minolta III or Sekonic or Gossen models), and use the rest of the budget for film and safe lodgings.
Happy travels, post pictures here when possible.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
You should be able to get a Leica M6 and Konica Hexar 50mm lens within your budget. That's what I'd suggest if you want a rugged rangefinder film camera.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
That, or an M2 with a 35mm lens like the Voigtlander. There's also a nice Canon 35 LTM in the classifieds now, don't know who's selling it but he's in Oregon and might want to send the lens to the US address you will be staying?
Just some thoughts.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Keep your Hexar. It is a fantastic camera and does things that no other camera can.
The M2 would be your best bet for a rangefinder, probably but the expense is in the lenses.
Realistically, they aren't that much smaller than SLRs and certainly aren't lighter per-volume. Leicas are quite dense so with a lens they usually weigh close to the same amount as a small SLR with a lens.
But if you want a reliable camera for traveling and versatile use, you might want to think about an SLR. If you're wed to film then you won't find a more reliable camera than a Nikon F2 with an AS metered finder. It's not much bigger than an M body but has much greater capability with regard to the amount of lenses and focus-able distance you can get.
Nikkors are usually on-par with Leica lenses and some are better. Almost every single one of them are much less expensive than Leica lenses. Regardless, you will be able to shoot things with an SLR than you can't with a rangefinder (without using a lot more gear like a mirror reflex housing.)
Olympus OM1/OM2 + lens is the same size as a Barnack Leica + a lens, pretty much. Same with a Pentax MX or LX and Pentax lenses are fantastic.
If you're thinking of space in a bag, an F2 or F3 is smaller than a Leica M + handheld meter. The only way to get around that is with an M6 or M7 but then you'd be over-budget.
While I love rangefinders, if I were to be traveling for a year or more with just one small camera, I'd want as much versatility as I could get and would go with only a pro-level SLR like the Nikon F2 or F3, the Oly OM1 or the Pentax LX.
Just my opinion though.
Phil Forrest
The M2 would be your best bet for a rangefinder, probably but the expense is in the lenses.
Realistically, they aren't that much smaller than SLRs and certainly aren't lighter per-volume. Leicas are quite dense so with a lens they usually weigh close to the same amount as a small SLR with a lens.
But if you want a reliable camera for traveling and versatile use, you might want to think about an SLR. If you're wed to film then you won't find a more reliable camera than a Nikon F2 with an AS metered finder. It's not much bigger than an M body but has much greater capability with regard to the amount of lenses and focus-able distance you can get.
Nikkors are usually on-par with Leica lenses and some are better. Almost every single one of them are much less expensive than Leica lenses. Regardless, you will be able to shoot things with an SLR than you can't with a rangefinder (without using a lot more gear like a mirror reflex housing.)
Olympus OM1/OM2 + lens is the same size as a Barnack Leica + a lens, pretty much. Same with a Pentax MX or LX and Pentax lenses are fantastic.
If you're thinking of space in a bag, an F2 or F3 is smaller than a Leica M + handheld meter. The only way to get around that is with an M6 or M7 but then you'd be over-budget.
While I love rangefinders, if I were to be traveling for a year or more with just one small camera, I'd want as much versatility as I could get and would go with only a pro-level SLR like the Nikon F2 or F3, the Oly OM1 or the Pentax LX.
Just my opinion though.
Phil Forrest
ZeissFan
Veteran
My favorite kit as a Contax IIa (noticeably lighter in weight than the IIIa) with three lenses (35-50-135 or 35-50-85).
You'll need a handheld meter. The viewfinder is a bit small but not a problem if you don't wear glasses. However, you'll need an auxiliary viewfinder for anything other than the 50.
You have to really understand the camera's strengths and shortcomings before you set out with it for a lengthy trip. I would do it, of course.
You'll need a handheld meter. The viewfinder is a bit small but not a problem if you don't wear glasses. However, you'll need an auxiliary viewfinder for anything other than the 50.
You have to really understand the camera's strengths and shortcomings before you set out with it for a lengthy trip. I would do it, of course.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Nothing wrong with a G2's autofocus. If you're used to the Hexar AF, it's a very simple transition. The G2's viewfinder is what lets it down, and even that is 'okay' for a lot of people.
If it HAS to be a rangefinder, and you're an "amateur," i would forget about a camera without a meter, unless you want to be frustrated when you get home, having missed a lot of opportunities, either because you got lazy and didn't want to guess exposure or use a separate tool for metering, or you guessed wrong and your images are technical failures because of it.
I would think about a Zeiss Ikon ZI with something like the Zeiss 50 Planar, or Nokton 50/1.5. If you can deal with the way the M6 meters (it just has arrows in the viewfinder and you turn aperture and/or shutter speed dial until the arrows turn into a dot....), then maybe a Leica is a good option. Personally, i've had two Leica M7s and two Zeiss Ikons and preferred using the Ikons. Easier to load (by far), built quite nicely, and the viewfinders are actually better than the M6-M7-MP.
If it doesn't have to be a rangefinder, think about a Nikon FE2 or FM3a with a few very nice lenses. Same size. More versatile. Heck, you could get two FE2s - one for color and one for B&W and still have enough money for some great glass, including one of the new Zeiss ZF lenses, likely to be as sharp or sharper than anything you can afford with one of the rangefinder options.
If it HAS to be a rangefinder, and you're an "amateur," i would forget about a camera without a meter, unless you want to be frustrated when you get home, having missed a lot of opportunities, either because you got lazy and didn't want to guess exposure or use a separate tool for metering, or you guessed wrong and your images are technical failures because of it.
I would think about a Zeiss Ikon ZI with something like the Zeiss 50 Planar, or Nokton 50/1.5. If you can deal with the way the M6 meters (it just has arrows in the viewfinder and you turn aperture and/or shutter speed dial until the arrows turn into a dot....), then maybe a Leica is a good option. Personally, i've had two Leica M7s and two Zeiss Ikons and preferred using the Ikons. Easier to load (by far), built quite nicely, and the viewfinders are actually better than the M6-M7-MP.
If it doesn't have to be a rangefinder, think about a Nikon FE2 or FM3a with a few very nice lenses. Same size. More versatile. Heck, you could get two FE2s - one for color and one for B&W and still have enough money for some great glass, including one of the new Zeiss ZF lenses, likely to be as sharp or sharper than anything you can afford with one of the rangefinder options.
gb hill
Veteran
Leica M2's M3's are nice, but somewhat heavy. Plus you will need to lug around a light meter. If you want a good lightweight camera with ttl metering & a brighter than leica viewfinder get a Bessa R2M 250th anniversary with a 50/2 collapsable heliar. It's only $1200 dollars & Steven Gandy is great to deal with.
If you like wider get an R4A orM.
http://cameraquest.com/voigt_250.htm
If you like wider get an R4A orM.
http://cameraquest.com/voigt_250.htm
Last edited:
Dr Gaspar
Established
Thanks everybody, for taking time to reply and for the great advices.
I will consider this, especially getting a camera with a metter and something lighter.
I will see what's on my area first, and will let you know. As soon as I start travelling, I shall post pictures.
Thank you again,
Gaspar.
I will consider this, especially getting a camera with a metter and something lighter.
I will see what's on my area first, and will let you know. As soon as I start travelling, I shall post pictures.
Thank you again,
Gaspar.
BearCatCow
Established
How about a Leica CL? They are light, and aside from hearing about light meter issues they are quite reliable. You can probably get a CL and the accompanying 40mm summicron or rokkor, and maybe a long lens too for <$1000.
And that'll still leave you some cash for a light meter if you don't trust the CL one.
And that'll still leave you some cash for a light meter if you don't trust the CL one.
bucks11
Established
A Bessa R2 has served me well and you can get your hands on one for 3 or so bills. As for the reliability of it, I've had mine for about 2 years without a single issue, so I'm pleased. I'm in the process of moving to a newer M, so an m-mount camera would be a good middle man so you won't lose the compatibility of lenses when you upgrade.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
(BTW, shadowfox - Wow, that is not just a great deal for the kit, but a steal of a deal
Thomas,
I guess a couple years ago M4-P was even less regarded than they are now.
True story, I was checking out a Bessa-R(something, I forgot) locally and decided to pass, the young man who was selling it noticed that I had the M4-P in my bag, he asked if he can take a look, so I let him use it a while.
A couple weeks later he wrote me and said that he got himself an M4-P also.
kievman
Kievman
Consider a CLA'ed Canon P rangefinder Camera a Voighlander 35 F2.5 a Voighlander 50 F2.5 and a Canon 100 F3.5. plus a small selenium cell light meter for easily 1500.00- no problem - Kievman
banzai
oh hai!
Leica CL + 28mm f/2 Ultron. If you need a light meter that is compact, a Sekonic L-208 TwinMate would work.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Gaspar,
My original post was based only on the cameras you mentioned, but here are some further thoughts:
First, the only old cameras I'd consider are M-series Leicas. Most of the rest -- Canons, CLs and the like -- were cheap alternatives and have seldom improved with keeping, so if you're going to buy a cheap alternative, buy a modern cheap alternative (Voigtländer Bessa) because it will be decades newer and easier to repair.
Second, if you're serious about it, you need two bodies, which again points in the direction of Bessas, given your budget. I've had an R2 since it came out (the olive drab one) and it's been totally reliable. You will be well set with couple of good, used R2s from a dealer, and a couple of lenses: 35+75 or 35+90 would be my choice, but focal lengths are in intensely personal choice -- I wouldn't touch a 28mm, for example.
You're not talking about happy snaps a few miles from home, after all, where if an elderly camera fails, it's not a disaster.
Cheers,
R.
My original post was based only on the cameras you mentioned, but here are some further thoughts:
First, the only old cameras I'd consider are M-series Leicas. Most of the rest -- Canons, CLs and the like -- were cheap alternatives and have seldom improved with keeping, so if you're going to buy a cheap alternative, buy a modern cheap alternative (Voigtländer Bessa) because it will be decades newer and easier to repair.
Second, if you're serious about it, you need two bodies, which again points in the direction of Bessas, given your budget. I've had an R2 since it came out (the olive drab one) and it's been totally reliable. You will be well set with couple of good, used R2s from a dealer, and a couple of lenses: 35+75 or 35+90 would be my choice, but focal lengths are in intensely personal choice -- I wouldn't touch a 28mm, for example.
You're not talking about happy snaps a few miles from home, after all, where if an elderly camera fails, it's not a disaster.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
huntjump
Well-known
Personally, i'm in love with the M2 and M4-P. Either one, hotshoe meter, and a solid CV lens..
But in all honesty, if i was traveling the world I'd probably want digital with lots of memory cards. easier to backup with any computer and internet, and without the hassle of film.
But in all honesty, if i was traveling the world I'd probably want digital with lots of memory cards. easier to backup with any computer and internet, and without the hassle of film.
Last edited: