Can you point me to the right direction?

[mob81]

Hello everyone,
I’m a DSLR shooter “amateur photographer” I grew up using digital camera and still love it. However, I like to try out a rangefinder and would like to try a film one too. My eyes are on the Zeiss’s Ikon. I’m a bit afraid to try the change but I’m willing, and I love manual focus lenses “make me work better and control the picture as I wish!” and manual focus on a DSLR a bit hard at the beginning “I hope” but I’m getting the hang of it. But I still want to try out a film camera “been in my head about a year now”.

Why I want to try a film? Well, because digital camera has been around for years now, and film shooters are still a large number “even some pros who use digital cameras are still using films” and that’s something --- I figured it gotta be something special about films that makes them still using films. So, I read and was impressed but lost at the same time!

So please can anyone point me at the right or the best way to know more about modern film cameras “how to use them, film types...etc” any site or a book or videos...etc.

Is the learning curve hard or easier than I thought? “and I’m thinking real hard”

Thanks in advance.

 

[Sparrow]

Tetley's bitter ... sorry, that's silly 🙂

 

[Pickett Wilson]

RF's are very different beasts. Why not get a good film SLR and start there? A lot less expensive and more what you are familiar with. If you must have an RF, the Ikon is definitely a fine choice.

 

[mob81]

RF's are very different beasts. Why not get a good film SLR and start there? A lot less expensive and more what you are familiar with. If you must have an RF, the Ikon is definitely a fine choice.

one thing I hate about SLR is the size, and digital Rangefinder is way to expensive "leica's M8, M8.2 and M9" regardless if it's worth it or not.
plus rangefinder seems to be good after i read about it "my main concern is (FILM) and how to use it"

 

[Papercut]

Before you sink a bunch of money into a Zeiss or Leica RF with expensive M-mount glass, why not try a Canonet QL17 or Yashica GSN. They have good lenses; they won't cost you more than $100 USD or so and you can see if you like film and RF working methods. Obviously, the focus method is quite different from an SLR, but so is composing. Composing with an SLR is an additive process -- everything is blurry except the point of focus. It's the exact opposite with rangefinders: it's subtractive, since everything is sharp in the viewfinder, you have to mentally "subtract" for depth of field changes with aperture. It's very different. If you decide you don't like RFs or film, then you haven't invested much money. If you do like it, then you can upgrade easily enough.

Pickett Wilson's suggestion is a valid one: there are some quite diminutive film SLRs out there, like Olympus' OM system which is not really any larger than a RF. Definitely worth looking into if you just want to try out film.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You might find some of the modules on my site useful, especially

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps film welcome.html (Welcome to Film. I've contacted the webmaster about the missing heading and first picture, but there should still be enough there to be useful).

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps rf.html (Rangefinder Cameras)

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps how load 35mm.html (Basics on loading & using 35mm)

Oh: and I'll disagree with both Pickett Wilson and Kevin. Yes, RFs and SLRs are very different, and if you want an RF, an SLR ain't ging to cut it. And although I've had fixed-lens RFs (still have one or two), they're horrible things next to proper system SLR. 'See if you like them' just doesn't work for me: if I formed my opinions of RF cameras on the basis of fixed-lens cameras, I'd still be using SLRs.

I won't say I'm right and they're wrong, but that's my experience.
Cheers,

Roger

 

[italy74]

Ciao Mob

of course I can agree with your lust for Zeiss Ikon (maybe with a ZM 21/4.5 and a ZM 35/2), indeed is mine too. I can agree less with the size thing, although SLRs are usually bigger than RF. Yet, look at this image: Zeiss Ikon vs Nikon FM3a (picture not mine, another forumist, Marek Fogiel, posted it once)

As you see, size is quite similar and the weight - believe me, I have the FM3A is more or less the same, around half a kilo. What really changes are lenses (there is shown one of the best ever done for Nikon, a ZF 35/2 and its correspective for RF mount): as you see the RF version is half the size of a SLR due to the different optical approach (RF lenses can go deeper into the camera due to the missing mirror).
Rather, I'd consider other things:
1) are you likely thinking to shoot in the wide angle range or in the tele one? In the first case, RF can exploit the most from the best lenses on the market for 35mm. Whatever is within the 21 to 50 range is definitely a superb lens and usually better than its equivalent for SLR which has to follow some compromise. In the case you like shooting close portraits well, probably a FM3A would fit better your need to shoot manual due to the better framing for long focal lenghts.

2) Are you aware of the differences in composing and focusing typical of SLRs vs RFs?
In the former, you have a 100% view and usually a split image system (a straight line is usually broken and then straight again when it's focused correctly), in the second you have more than 100% of what the lens records (and this can be an advantage or a cons depending on how you work) and the images are usually "doubled" (as you see when you're drunk) and then recomposed once in focus. Besides, viewfinder are way clearer but might suffer of nasty misalignments that might lead to a failed shot. The good thing is that - not having a mirror - RF can usually shoot at much slower times than SLRs and are less obtrusive than SLRs themselves due to the overall reduced size.

Given the remarkable amount of money involved, I'd suggest you to check with someone who has one in your area before taking the plunge.

 

[RayPA]

Tetley's bitter ... sorry, that's silly 🙂

Ha! I was going to suggest Lagunitas Pale Ale.


/

OP, if you have your heart set on shooting with an RF, I would avoid an SLR. You have that shooting experience. Papercut's suggestion of starting with a fixed lens RF is a good one, but I found my experience with those cameras to be unsatisfying, but that's just me (YMMV).

Take care. Once you look through the VF of that ZI, you'll be hooked on RFs. 🙂

/

 

[scottwallick]

Good advice

Good advice

Before you sink a bunch of money into a Zeiss or Leica RF with expensive M-mount glass, why not try a Canonet QL17 or Yashica GSN.

+1

Once upon a time I appeared here on RFF, asked a similar question, and received similar advice (re: Papercut above). This is still good advice.

I got a Canonet QL17 GIII and it was a great buy. Had a nice, bright rangefinder, worked great, and was a joy to use and carry around. Loved it. Fast forward to today, I know a few things more, and I'm hooked on rangefinders.

 

[GoneSavage]

As per your questions on focusing:

I find that when using a digital SLR that has a cropped sensor, manual focusing is a HUGE pain. The viewfinders on most cropped sensor SLRs (7D aside) just aren't big enough to be able to see when your image is in focus. When combined with the fact that their viewfinders lack the focusing aids necessary for precise manual focusing (split prisms, etc.) it becomes clear that these finders are designed for use with auto focus lenses.

Thankfully, with the Zeiss ikon, these difficulties are non existent. Its rangefinder patch is so bright and crisp that one can tell immediately whether or not their image is in focus, as it is specifically designed for the task of manual focusing. The benefits of rangefinders become especially clear when focusing in low light when it is difficult to see contrast.

I never found learning film to be that difficult, and I too came from the digital world. Black and white/colour negative film will generally give you a lot more room for exposure error than you would get with a digital sensor, which makes me feel as though it is even easier to use than digital technology. I never have to worry about clipping the highlights of an image when shooting film, whereas it is a constant worry when using digital cameras. The extra time put into each exposure usually helps me compose better with film as well.

 

[Papercut]

Ray, yeah ... I didn't stay with my GSN long either. It took just a few rolls for me to decide that I really liked the RF way of working and that I wanted to upgrade to better kit. I guess I recommended the fixed lens cameras primarily because the OP seemed more interested in trying out film (something many of us are already comfortable with) than RFs per se. Even if he turns out to enjoy the unique qualities of rangefinders, he may find he doesn't like all the extra hassle/expense of film: he has two chances to realize he regrets spending big bucks for a ZI, rather than one. Going with a fixed lens minimizes the risk and hassle should he find that either film or the RF aspect isn't doing it for him. (Sure, one can always sell quality RF gear for minimal loss, but it's a hassle and the loss will still be larger than the cost of a QL17 or GSN.)

. Papercut's suggestion of starting with a fixed lens RF is a good one, but I found my experience with those cameras to be unsatisfying, but that's just me (YMMV).

Scott: Yeah, I went the same route, but with a GSN. It's a fine way to get into RFs and those fixed lens cameras make great backups or "keep it in the glove box of the car" cameras too 😀

I got a Canonet QL17 GIII and it was a great buy. Had a nice, bright rangefinder, worked great, and was a joy to use and carry around. Loved it. Fast forward to today, I know a few things more, and I'm hooked on rangefinders.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Gone, You are comparing a manual focus RF with a digital, crop sensor, autofocus SLR. Wouldn't it be better to compare it, for the sake of the OP's interests, to a Nikon F3, for example which has a big, bright finder with split-image focusing aid and a whole range of manual focus lenses available? I love rangefinders, too. But most folks in the world don't. So I always suggest a film SLR if the background of the user is a dSLR.

If the OP can afford a Zeiss Ikon and a bunch of lenses to support it, then he can buy it and sell it later if it doesn't work out. Probably won't lose a whole bunch of money.

 

[Sparrow]

Ha! I was going to suggest Lagunitas Pale Ale.


/

Then you are wrong Sir, quite wrong

 

[mob81]

Thanks guys for the great info and opinions.
I'm interested in film and RF too, but my main thing is film.
Cheaper RF "or fixed lens" might be a better idea "with cheap film scanner"!
as many have mentioned it maybe RF is not for me but i'll give it a shot, even with a fixed lens.

 

[fleetwoodjazz]

I shoot available light and SLR is a pain, just a pain.
Tried the Zeiss ZF lines in the past and could hardly hit the focus. In the end, I decided to use Zeiss Ikon as my main gear and never regret it.

Thing is, I was never happy with digital either. Colors look dull unless you post processing it, crop factor is another pain, grew tired of having got to deal with it.

I suggest you tried the Zeiss Ikon with one lens to start. If you don't like it, sell it as there are plenty of us who want to buy you equipments.

 

[GoneSavage]

Excellent point Pickett; film SLRs are fantastic tools. I only wished to assure the OP that manual focusing on a rangefinder is much less difficult than it is on the type of gear he has experience with... though it is true that most people will have even less difficulty with film SLRs.

 

[mfogiel]

You should understand in the first place, that nowadays the main reason to shoot film is B&W. Are you a B&W guy? If not, forget film. If yes, then as suggested above, give it a try with a Canonet or Yashica, shoot Ilford XP2 exposed at EI 200 and have it developed and scanned by a decent lab. If you really get into it, then the first thing you should buy is a good scanner like Nikon CS5000 or 9000. As to the ZI, it is a great camera, works best with a 35mm lens, so you might try it with the 35/2 Biogon or 35/1.2 Nokton first - both are top class lenses very well suited for this camera.
Finally, as to the difference in shooting with the rangefinders, read this quote:

"There's a profound difference between the simple non-reflex, direct-viewing camera (such as a range-finder Leica) and a SLR. With a reflex you tend to make the picture in the camera; with the other, you see the picture and then put a frame around it. The RF camera is also faster, quicker to focus, less noisy, and smaller, but these advantages are much less important than the fundamental difference." - Elliott Erwitt

 

[mob81]

You should understand in the first place, that nowadays the main reason to shoot film is B&W. Are you a B&W guy? If not, forget film. If yes, then as suggested above, give it a try with a Canonet or Yashica, shoot Ilford XP2 exposed at EI 200 and have it developed and scanned by a decent lab. If you really get into it, then the first thing you should buy is a good scanner like Nikon CS5000 or 9000. As to the ZI, it is a great camera, works best with a 35mm lens, so you might try it with the 35/2 Biogon or 35/1.2 Nokton first - both are top class lenses very well suited for this camera.
Finally, as to the difference in shooting with the rangefinders, read this quote:

"There's a profound difference between the simple non-reflex, direct-viewing camera (such as a range-finder Leica) and a SLR. With a reflex you tend to make the picture in the camera; with the other, you see the picture and then put a frame around it. The RF camera is also faster, quicker to focus, less noisy, and smaller, but these advantages are much less important than the fundamental difference." - Elliott Erwitt

I'm into B&W but color is my main shoot "ratio maybe around 30% B&W or a little less"
but from what i saw and read Film can produce a vibrant colors "for landscape and great skin tone with one of Kodak film type.

 

[GoneSavage]

Fantastic post mfogiel! ...but I have always felt there are certain atmospheres that I can only capture with colour film, and wouldn't want to discourage someone from choosing film for colour images.

 

[Jaans]

RF's are very different beasts. Why not get a good film SLR and start there? A lot less expensive and more what you are familiar with. If you must have an RF, the Ikon is definitely a fine choice.

Or alternatively a good condition Leica M2, M3 SS or M4 purchased from a respected site like right here at rangefinder from the classified section.

Actually, I would be hesitant to get an Ikon with fewer places doing service. Also after using Leica bodies and shooting a few rolls of the Ikon it in no way felt as solid as the Leicas.

As an older pasased on some advice to me - I would recommend to get a non metered mechanical Leica and buy a Sekonic or VCII on the side. Leica still has a lot of people who can CLA there equipment.

I started with a Leica IIIc and had a Leica M2, M3 DS, CLE and now have a TTL. Although I wasn't strict in following the evolution of Leica, I particularly enjoyed using and experiencing different models in their lineup.

The advice to get a cheaper rangefinder like a Canonet is good to see if rangefinders are your thing.