opho.to
Newbie
Hi,
I've got an M9 on order (although am considering postponing my order for the incoming M9 upgrade in June, as that'll instantly wipe about $1000 off the second hand value of my new camera, which isn't great for resale).
This will be my main camera in the 24-90 range, with my Nikon gear covering 100mm+. (I may switch to Pentax, as I'd like to downsize, but I need to do some research on lenses.)
I would like a film RF for fun - I'm not planning to use it loads, but would like to shoot some different film types (slide, print, IR and B&W) to achieve some different looks. If I find it goes somewhere, I might get into it more (e.g. better scanner than the $40 one I have now).
My first thought was Bessa, as it could use the Leica lenses, but then I thought that they're actually quite pricey, as are the lenses.
Are there any alternative (and cheap) RFs with a good selection of lenses? I'd like a meter, and a good viewfinder would be great. The lenses don't have to be technically fantastic - if they render a nice image then I'm not too worried about sharpness, etc.
Thanks!
I've got an M9 on order (although am considering postponing my order for the incoming M9 upgrade in June, as that'll instantly wipe about $1000 off the second hand value of my new camera, which isn't great for resale).
This will be my main camera in the 24-90 range, with my Nikon gear covering 100mm+. (I may switch to Pentax, as I'd like to downsize, but I need to do some research on lenses.)
I would like a film RF for fun - I'm not planning to use it loads, but would like to shoot some different film types (slide, print, IR and B&W) to achieve some different looks. If I find it goes somewhere, I might get into it more (e.g. better scanner than the $40 one I have now).
My first thought was Bessa, as it could use the Leica lenses, but then I thought that they're actually quite pricey, as are the lenses.
Are there any alternative (and cheap) RFs with a good selection of lenses? I'd like a meter, and a good viewfinder would be great. The lenses don't have to be technically fantastic - if they render a nice image then I'm not too worried about sharpness, etc.
Thanks!
Chris101
summicronia
Welcome to RFF Opho!
Folks rarely sell Leicas, but in case you do, get used to the loss on reselling a new camera, it's inevitable. I can't advise about getting a cheap film RF. There doesn't seem to be any other system that is anywhere near as extensive, Nikon S comes to mind, but the mount is orphaned, so there are no new lenses. And they are as expensive as Leica M cameras ... at least!
For M/LTM lenses that won't break the bank, look at the CV lenses. While they are not cheap, their prices DO compare well with their Leica counterparts. And (gosh darn it) people like them.
Folks rarely sell Leicas, but in case you do, get used to the loss on reselling a new camera, it's inevitable. I can't advise about getting a cheap film RF. There doesn't seem to be any other system that is anywhere near as extensive, Nikon S comes to mind, but the mount is orphaned, so there are no new lenses. And they are as expensive as Leica M cameras ... at least!
For M/LTM lenses that won't break the bank, look at the CV lenses. While they are not cheap, their prices DO compare well with their Leica counterparts. And (gosh darn it) people like them.
panda88888
Newbie
Hi opho.to,
It would help if you can provide a budget. I do think that since you are getting an M9, it would make sense to buy a m-mount film RF so you can share lenses. If price is the main concern, I recommend buying second hand. A used Bessa is actually not that expensive (compared to Leica lenses, that is). Or if you prefer Leica, you can also go for second hand M3, M4, or M6 at reasonable prices.
Hope that helps!
It would help if you can provide a budget. I do think that since you are getting an M9, it would make sense to buy a m-mount film RF so you can share lenses. If price is the main concern, I recommend buying second hand. A used Bessa is actually not that expensive (compared to Leica lenses, that is). Or if you prefer Leica, you can also go for second hand M3, M4, or M6 at reasonable prices.
Hope that helps!
umcelinho
Marcelo
I think that if you want a rangefinder body with a meter a used Bessa would be as cheap as it goes. Maybe a Hexar RF could be a good option, since it will have the same shutter speed range you'll have on the M9, but still it would cost more or less the same as a Bessa ($500-ish).
if you have ltm lenses, you could go for a Bessa-R, which is the cheapest. It's a good camera, and it goes for around $200. There is one in the classifieds now with a 35mm elmar for less than $500 bucks, it's a pretty good combo. LTM lenses are usually cheaper than M lenses, and you can always go for the canon rf lenses which are pretty good. A chrome 50/1.8 goes for around $200 and it's a fantastic lens, the 35/2 is also great. I think this could be a very good option for a low cost rangefinder.
If you're considering fixed lens cameras, a Yashica Lynx or Electro with a fast lens could be a good option. I've heard nothing but good things about the Canonet QL17 also. You'd spend $150 tops on one of these. Also, they have an advantage over the leicas and the bessas: they are even more silent, and bring zero attention to themselves. the downside: metering might not be as accurate and the viewfinder will definitely not be in the same leica/bessa level.
if you have ltm lenses, you could go for a Bessa-R, which is the cheapest. It's a good camera, and it goes for around $200. There is one in the classifieds now with a 35mm elmar for less than $500 bucks, it's a pretty good combo. LTM lenses are usually cheaper than M lenses, and you can always go for the canon rf lenses which are pretty good. A chrome 50/1.8 goes for around $200 and it's a fantastic lens, the 35/2 is also great. I think this could be a very good option for a low cost rangefinder.
If you're considering fixed lens cameras, a Yashica Lynx or Electro with a fast lens could be a good option. I've heard nothing but good things about the Canonet QL17 also. You'd spend $150 tops on one of these. Also, they have an advantage over the leicas and the bessas: they are even more silent, and bring zero attention to themselves. the downside: metering might not be as accurate and the viewfinder will definitely not be in the same leica/bessa level.
Never Satisfied
Well-known
My $900 Zeiss Ikon (classifieds)
opho.to
Newbie
Thanks for the replies.
I appreciate the point about selling, but in the brave new world of digital, turnover is much faster, and the model number really affects value. (I appreciate I will make a loss - I'm just trying to take sensible measure to limit that loss. Especially if the M9 doesn't work out, and I sell quickly, I could end up selling just as the new model is released.)
In terms of film RF budget - I'd like to spend less than £350 (UK) for the camera and a lens or two. This seems to be able to get me a Bessa R4 (any good?), but I would like access to some cheap, fun lenses to experiment with. I'll be buying some nice lenses (be that Leica, Zeiss or CV) for the M9 (probably 28, 50 and 75/90 to start), but is there such thing as cheap lenses for the M-mount?
Most of the alternative RFs I have seen are the Canon ones and a load of fixed lens ones. What's a Holga or Fed? There's loads around for no money, but they look like they might be 'interesting' (not in a good way)!
Thanks!
I appreciate the point about selling, but in the brave new world of digital, turnover is much faster, and the model number really affects value. (I appreciate I will make a loss - I'm just trying to take sensible measure to limit that loss. Especially if the M9 doesn't work out, and I sell quickly, I could end up selling just as the new model is released.)
In terms of film RF budget - I'd like to spend less than £350 (UK) for the camera and a lens or two. This seems to be able to get me a Bessa R4 (any good?), but I would like access to some cheap, fun lenses to experiment with. I'll be buying some nice lenses (be that Leica, Zeiss or CV) for the M9 (probably 28, 50 and 75/90 to start), but is there such thing as cheap lenses for the M-mount?
Most of the alternative RFs I have seen are the Canon ones and a load of fixed lens ones. What's a Holga or Fed? There's loads around for no money, but they look like they might be 'interesting' (not in a good way)!
Thanks!
Last edited:
opho.to
Newbie
The ZI looks lovely - but I can't justify $900 at this stage.
opho.to
Newbie
Stupid question time. What is an ltm lens - is that the same as M42?
And what's the difference between a Bessa and a Bessa-R? (And does a Bessa R4 fall into the former or latter category?)
And what's the difference between a Bessa and a Bessa-R? (And does a Bessa R4 fall into the former or latter category?)
jarski
Veteran
opho.to
Newbie
M39- thanks! I new it was some M number. (So confusing when starting out.) Am I correct in thinking I can attach these to the M9 with an adaptor, retaining all the functionality? (But not the other ay around - i.e. M-mount lenses onto a M39 camera.)
ray*j*gun
Veteran
ltm = Leica Thread Mount.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Hold on. You're planning on spending five thousand quid on a camera you think might not work out; if it does work out, you appear to think you'll be chopping it in against an M9.2 or M10 quite soon because 'in the brave new world of digital, turnover is much faster'; you're going to buy 'some nice lenses' for the M9; you also want 'some cheap, fun lenses to experiment with' (what are you going to do with them that you can't do with your 'nice lenses?); and on top of all this, you're worried about saving a couple of hundred quid on a second-hand film body that will integrate seamlessly into the system.
Cheers,
R.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Roger, you beat me to it! I was still reading up on previous posts of the OP
Dear OP,
seems to me that for now you could make-do with the M9. If 'it doesn't work out', a film RF almost certainly will not cut it either since the process while shooting is 90% identical while the aftermath is a lot more labour intensive.
I'm also confused by your remark that 'lenses need to render a nice image' and sharpness is of less importance. Why buy an M9 in the first place if this is the case? I get the impression it's just for the looks of the thing!
I'd say, cancel the M9, get yourself an M8 (plenty of sharpness, mind you), buy a good lens (they do keep their value) and give the RF experience a try. If you like it enough, consider an M6 to complement or an earlier number if you like to go meterless.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Get a used Bessa-R2. That should do it.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
RF users seem to love the Olympus OM SLR series. They're cheap as heck and work great. I think you should either get a fixed-lens rangefinder like a Canonet or Yashica Electro or Olympus 35RC, or an SLR like a Olympus OM-1 with a couple of cheap lenses.
Last edited:
opho.to
Newbie
Wow, I seem to have rubbed some people up the wrong way!
The M9 is for serious photography - I document my travels, and sell prints and stock to fund new trips. It might not work out for a variety of reasons - e.g. reliability or cannot hold up in dusty environments as well as my Nikon gear. I know it will work out in terms of use and image quality (I've done a lot of research and tried out a couple before even considering spending this much), but my inability to predict the future means I have to take all possibilities into account.
I almost certainly will need to 'chop it in' for an M11 or something in the future, as even cameras that were producing images acceptable to many people (e.g. Nikon D2x) are now regarded poorly when compared to the D3. When we reach the D4 or D5, I expect many agencies will stop accepting D2x images altogether. The same will probably happen with any digital camera, since the body is the sensor. This obviously was not a problem with film, as an M3 could produce exactly the same images as an M7, and so hold its value much better, and reach obsolescence a lot more slowly. I truly cannot see myself using the M9 in 40 years time - sorry if that goes against the 'Leica is forever' mantra.
The film RF is for fun - I've enjoyed using film in the past. If I suddenly decide that, you know, a really wide angle would be fun, I don't want to have to spend $1000 or wait 6 months. (Something I am willing to do for the M9, because I need the best results I can get.) A very low contrast lens, for example, could be great fun for producing an interesting look, but that look would probably not be wanted by a stock agency, for example.
Does that all make sense?
The M9 is for serious photography - I document my travels, and sell prints and stock to fund new trips. It might not work out for a variety of reasons - e.g. reliability or cannot hold up in dusty environments as well as my Nikon gear. I know it will work out in terms of use and image quality (I've done a lot of research and tried out a couple before even considering spending this much), but my inability to predict the future means I have to take all possibilities into account.
I almost certainly will need to 'chop it in' for an M11 or something in the future, as even cameras that were producing images acceptable to many people (e.g. Nikon D2x) are now regarded poorly when compared to the D3. When we reach the D4 or D5, I expect many agencies will stop accepting D2x images altogether. The same will probably happen with any digital camera, since the body is the sensor. This obviously was not a problem with film, as an M3 could produce exactly the same images as an M7, and so hold its value much better, and reach obsolescence a lot more slowly. I truly cannot see myself using the M9 in 40 years time - sorry if that goes against the 'Leica is forever' mantra.
The film RF is for fun - I've enjoyed using film in the past. If I suddenly decide that, you know, a really wide angle would be fun, I don't want to have to spend $1000 or wait 6 months. (Something I am willing to do for the M9, because I need the best results I can get.) A very low contrast lens, for example, could be great fun for producing an interesting look, but that look would probably not be wanted by a stock agency, for example.
Does that all make sense?
Last edited:
opho.to
Newbie
Sorry if I've come across aggressively, I'm just feeling rather defensive, as this has gone a bit off topic.
Thanks keytarjunkie, but I definitely don't want an SLR. I'll look into the OM-1 and your other suggestions, though. And thanks ZeissFan - I'll research the R2.
Thanks keytarjunkie, but I definitely don't want an SLR. I'll look into the OM-1 and your other suggestions, though. And thanks ZeissFan - I'll research the R2.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
(Highlighted portion): No, not to me.
What's the difference between serious photography and fun, in a travel context? I've done lots of boring-but-profitable photography with a wide variety of cameras, but travel ain't normally in that category.
If you can put it through the business, a few hundred one way or the other on the film body shouldn't really matter that much, and with (say) an M7 you have two substantially identical cameras, one digi, one film. With other Leicas you've got the shutter speed dial going in different directions, but that's less trouble than I expected, at least for me.
How do you imagine that an 18MP image is going to become somehow unacceptable? If you can run the TIFF at A3 (= magazine double page spread), then image quality is well above the 'quality threshold' and all that matters is the photographer's skill. Who's going to know where the TIFF came from?
Sorry, I still can't see your logic. It's not that you're 'rubbing people up the wrong way'. It's simply that we're challenging both your premises and your reasoning. In my case, that challenge is coming from someone who uses his cameras as a significant portion of earning a living, and has done for decades.
Cheers,
R.
rogerzilla
Well-known
You should be able to find a beater M2 at a UK dealer (avoid eBay; it's a crapshoot *and* prices are higher than retail!) for £350, but no lens.
The Cosina Voigtlander lenses are very good with a few so-so exceptions. Read some independent reviews first. I can vouch for the 21mm f/4 being a good 'un. In very general terms CV = more elements, more modern optical design, more variable from sample to sample due to wider tolerances in assembly. Leica = fewer elements, some rather old optical designs (the Summicron 50/2 is ancient now), but should always be spot on as they leave the factory. Of course, a 50 year old Leica lens could be all over the place after a hard life and you don't get a full guarantee...
The Cosina Voigtlander lenses are very good with a few so-so exceptions. Read some independent reviews first. I can vouch for the 21mm f/4 being a good 'un. In very general terms CV = more elements, more modern optical design, more variable from sample to sample due to wider tolerances in assembly. Leica = fewer elements, some rather old optical designs (the Summicron 50/2 is ancient now), but should always be spot on as they leave the factory. Of course, a 50 year old Leica lens could be all over the place after a hard life and you don't get a full guarantee...
umcelinho
Marcelo
I'm curious, why move from the Nikon to the Leica?
in terms of versatility, a DSLR is better than a RF. and at least to me the only reason to spend that much on a digital rangefinder is to have a digital version of a kind of cameras you have found to be your favourite. Otherwise there are cameras that have much better bang for the buck... having 70cm min focus and only fixed lenses is something that can be a big change.
if you've never used rangefinders, get one and a good lens, shoot a lot with it and see if it pleases you. this way you will have a good way to see if you like this kind of system or not, before spending so much on a camera. also, i'd also devour all info i could find on rangefinders, such as lenses options, cameras, limitations, benefits, meaning of terms etc. this way you will know what you need, exactly. the info is out there. all i know about photography in on the interwebs
in terms of versatility, a DSLR is better than a RF. and at least to me the only reason to spend that much on a digital rangefinder is to have a digital version of a kind of cameras you have found to be your favourite. Otherwise there are cameras that have much better bang for the buck... having 70cm min focus and only fixed lenses is something that can be a big change.
if you've never used rangefinders, get one and a good lens, shoot a lot with it and see if it pleases you. this way you will have a good way to see if you like this kind of system or not, before spending so much on a camera. also, i'd also devour all info i could find on rangefinders, such as lenses options, cameras, limitations, benefits, meaning of terms etc. this way you will know what you need, exactly. the info is out there. all i know about photography in on the interwebs