Dizzying steps for my first rangefinder

[davidtan]

I’ve never used a rangefinder before. I’ve handled some; looked through the viewfinder of a few; however, I’ve never actually run a roll through any. I’m not even sure if the system suits me; I’m photographically raised on SLRs and I appreciate the ability to view TTL, use a variety of lenses without accessories, and not have to worry about issues unique to rangefinders like RF misalignment and lens incompatibility.

Still, I do want to try a rangefinder. I feel that I’m missing out by avoiding a particular type of camera. The fact that SLRs never outmoded rangefinders suggests to me that there’s something of value in using them.

So, I’ve decided I should buy my first rangefinder—a nice one that will leave me a good first impression of the camera-type. However, I found that my own pursuit for a “best-value” has made the choice overly complex:

• I first considered a FSU rangefinder; they’re cheap and, provided you found the right dealer, often usable. I gravitated toward the Kiev 4a at first. With a Jupiter-8 50/2, it could be bought for a tidy sum of $109 from fedka.

However:

• Why not get a LTM rangefinder? If I like the system enough, I could always adapt the lens to another LTM or M camera. I can just pay an extra fifty bucks for a Zorki 3, with the same Jupiter-8 as a LTM lens. The Zorki outfit seems like the better buy if I plan to dive deeper into the rangefinder world.

However:

• Why go for a FSU rangefinder at this point? Might as well try for a Japanese LTM camera—namely a Canon. I saw that I could get a Canon P body (with wrinkled curtains) for a very nice price: $159 on Keh. That’s the price of the Zorki 3 outfit! I could maybe purchase a FSU lens (though I hear that lenses of that origin often need shimming for proper LTM), or I could buy a cheap Canon 50/1.8 for $172 from Keh. $331 for this combo doesn’t sound bad.

However:

• I can get an M-mount body for less than a hundred dollars more. A Minolta CL with an inoperative meter runs for only $245 on Keh and I could use both M and LTM lenses on this. The previous options of lenses still apply: maybe an FSU lens; maybe a Canon; or maybe I’ll go for the much-praised Leica optics in LTM or M form.

However:

• Add about a hundred dollars more and I can get away with a Minolta CL with a working meter; cheaper than paying the $200 or so for a VCII, and faster than using Sunny-16.

However:

• The Minolta CL’s meter isn’t worry-free. At the price I’ll pay for a CL, I could possibly pay a bit more for a beater Leica M3/M2. Back to basics in a way, but they say that Leica precision can’t be beat.

However, however, however… ad infinitum.

At this point my common sense returned to me. I’m not going to drop major cash for a system I might not like. So it’s back to the beginning: choosing among some old, clunky FSU rangefinders and waiting to see if a new passion erupts in me. If you’d like to help me on my brainstorming, you’re welcome to give some tips on the FSU thread I started. For now, I remain in a bit of a daze; did any of you go through these motions when choosing your first rangefinder?

 

[Lauffray]

Yes, in the end I went with something cheap, something I wouldn't regret after if I didn't like it. I just bought a Bessa with the 50mm kit, I instantly loved the RF system, I would have kept it if it hadn't stopped working, it was then that I decided to move to something more expensive *cough* Leica *cough*

 

[thegman]

I like an SLR too, for it's TTL viewing mostly. However, I do find focusing range finders so much easier, especially in the dark. If I were you, I'd have a look at the Bessa range. A beater R2A might be within your budget.

 

[anjoca76]

In my opinion, having gone through all the same questions years ago, I would suggest that you buy the best rangefinder and lens you can afford from KEH, use it (carefully) for a week or so, run a roll through it, and see if you like the experience. I, unfortunately, did not do that. Like with everything I do in life, I did it the hard way, going the cheap route, until realizing that a good camera and good lenses makes for a much better photographic experience, and less costs in the long run.

Keep in mind that many of the older cameras will need periodic repairs to keep in optimum working order. The CL is a wonderful camera--it was my first and I still have it and use it--but very few people work on them, and therefore even simple repairs can be costly. A user Barnack with an Elmar 50/3.5 won't set you back much, relatively speaking, and can be serviced for much cheaper than a CL, CLE, or even an M5, but, although I use mine often, it is not a camera for quick shooting. A Bessa M-mount body is probably your best bet--KEH usually has them in stock.

Too many variables, too many ways to go about it, too many choices! In fact, by the time I finish writing this someone else will probably have chimed in with completely different suggestions than I just gave you. I don't envy you; it can be daunting. I still think taking a camera for a test run, with the ability to return it if it's not to your liking, is your smartest choice.

 

[River Dog]

Try the CL with a 40mm - nice compact, solid outfit with lovely IQ. Bright VF, great metering, slick shutter and little depreciation. My two cents.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

I chose the less expensive route to explore RF photography, the fixed lens cameras. The dicey part is getting one in good reliable operating condition. Our own Frontman and Mark Hama have been great. For Aperture-preferred auto I like the Yashicas. I use a Canonet QL17 III and Konica Auto S2 as full manual cameras. Only thing I miss is a wide-angle option.

Now, have you worked out how you will do your film processing?

 

[oftheherd]

I also prefer SLR. I have had a Super Press 23 for over 30 years. I had no problem with RF, and used it for the larger negatives when that was important, but did and do still prefer SLR.

When I decided to go the FSU route, I went for a Kiev 4am, with a bevy of lenses. I like it well enough, but don't use it that much. It has held up well until just recently when the shutter stopped staying together when being cocked. Not going to cost too much for repair and CLA.

As to Zorki or FED, you will have a larger choice of less expensive lenses, or be able to use most Leica lenses. Leica will cost more, but you may prefer to get that anyway. A lot of people do, and most say they like them better. I am inclined to think any you can afford are worth a try. If you change your mind, I expect you won't lose to much on resale, so if you start cheaper and want to move up, it shouldn't be too painful to sell current gear to move up.

Bear in mind, I don't own Leica or other FSU than the Kiev. You should probably listen most to those who do. Then ask any specific questions you may have.

 

[awbphotog]

Awaiting my second Bessa R to come in the mail. I love the damn camera so much I needed a second to be able to split up my chrome and black and white shooting more easily. The camera is solid, reliable, all mechanical, and takes all my lovely LTM glass. Just my 2c.

 

[PatrickCheung]

In all honesty, you gotta ask yourself what you want, then go for it. It seems like your budget is relatively flexible (increasing in increments of $50-$100). I started off with a Canon 7, sold it for a Leica iic, sold it towards a Leica M3, picked up a Hexar RF, Realized I want a digital rangefinder (school takes up both my money and time, neither could be dedicated to film), sold the M3 and my Nikon DSLR stuff to fund an M8, couldn't be happier. But with all the money I spent and lost buying and reselling, I really should have just went big and bought either the M3 or Hexar in the first place. The reason I didn't was because I had this notion in my head that I had to start small, even though what I really wanted (and wanted for a while) was an M. The way I see it, you can go big and buy what you really want, if you find out that you don't like it then you can sell it for a similar price as long as you took care of it.

 

[Brian Legge]

My progression looked a bit like:

Fixed lens rangefinders -> FSU cameras -> Leica IIIc -> Canon P -> Canon IID2 -> Leica M4.

All things considered, I would have passed on the FSU bodies if the image was my only interest. Decent LTM leicas and Canons are a similar price and have been much more reliable for me. I like dabbling in camera maintenance and repair so enjoy working with the FSU cameras but if you just want something that works reliably and consistently - here there be dragons. Or at least more dragons than others in similar conditions. The Kiev is nice as the glass is a bit cheaper and lenses focus more consistently but it could be a bit more of a dead end on the lens mount side. The LTM cameras seem slightly more reliable or easier to have serviced but aren't as consistent in mount to film plane so you could end up buying lenses which don't focus correctly on that body.

Beyond that warning, I like them all for different reasons. The IIIc/IID2 and P/M4 are somewhat redundant. A single barnack and camera with built in 35mm framelines would have been sufficient for the way I shoot.

If you shoot primarily 50mm, a Barnack (Leica, Canon, FSU) is a sweet setup. Tiny finders the the small size is great. If you primarily shoot longer lenses, I'd pass on these due to the lack of framelines. If you shoot wide and are fine scale focusing they'd also work. If you want a single body that will do everything for you and are fine with a slightly larger body , I'd look at the later Canons, M mount Leicas or Bessas.

If you want to stay cheap while determining if rangefinder focusing fits your style, a fixed lens rangefinder with a good finder will let you decide cheaply. And it will give you even more of an appreciation for what the finders in higher end cameras can do - as well as give you a $40-100 camera you can carry when you don't want to bring out something more expensive.

 

[Glass Addict]

Soon you will find yourself going back and forth between premium camera/lens setups and bare bones camera/lens setups. In the end, you will realize you will never be happy with one setup and will start having multiples. Soon after that, you will have to buy a cabinet to store all your goodies.

Please call this GAS. 🙂

Welcome to RFF where there is no cure but will only leave you more bloated than before.

 

[jippiejee]

My experience is like everyone else's here, and starting cheap only fueled gas. Started with a Zorki-4, which was a horrible experience, bought a Leica CL, which was a wonderful little camera, before buying an M4P and M8 later on for their better viewfinders and ergonomics and plain pleasant shooting experience. If you want to save some money, avoid the stepping stones and go straight to the great guys. M4P/M6 for film, and M8/M9 for digital. You won't regret it.

 

[davidtan]

I think I shouldn't have overlooked the fixed-lens option. I had thought that most of the fixed-lens rangefinders were of middling quality (and not very graceful-looking machines either); but then I laid eyes on the Konica IIIa. Maybe because I'm a Konica-enthusiast (love my Autoreflex T3 and Hexanon 50/1.4), I now want this camera. Samples from this thread on the similar IIIm makes me think that this is a good choice. Well, time to start searching.

Edit: On second thought, the Konica IIIa seems to be very collectible and not priced at a level I'd pay for a fixed-lens rangefinder. Oh well.

 

[marcr1230]

Go expensive early, you'll get there anyway, save the time and expense of stepping through less expensive to more

 

[FlyingLotus]

My first rangfinder camera was a Tower 51 and a Canon QL17 GIII. Two cheap cameras. At first it was different to use, coming from using an SLR. Aligning the two images to get the perfect focus took some while getting used to. I eventually made my way to a Leica. I have never looked back since then.

 

[Brian Legge]

There may be a lot of selection bias here. I'd wager the average RFF photographer who tried a rangefinder went further down the path relative to those on slr forum. 😉

I know others are saying go expensive early to avoid a lot of buying and selling. I don't think there is harm in at least one inexpensive rangefinder first. That could tell you immediately if the way of working is valuable to you.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

David, if you're in NYC, why don't you come to the next RFF meet-up? You'll get to fondle a lot of gear and if the weather is nice and we go out shooting a bit, you might be able to expose a roll. I know I'd have no problem walking around the village with an RFFer using one of my Leica M bodies and seeing if you're actually into that kind of shooting. Just bring a roll of Tri-X or whatever your favorite emulsion may be.

Phil Forrest

 

[segedi]

Phil,
He's having trouble deciding and you offer a Leica M to test out! Evil... you know once he has one of those in his hands he'll not want anything else 🙂 ... Until he discovers medium format rangefinders.

Seriously though a used Bessa R3 with a cv 50mm would be my minimum. I was an SLR guy for many years before discovering rangefinders almost 3 years ago. And two 35mm and 2 medium format rangefinders later, I'd say I'm hooked.

 

[redisburning]

I paid 20 bucks for my first rangefinder; a Konica Auto S2 that I got off ebay. the negatives I got off that little monster were smoking.

but yes, it did push me towards Nikon and then (very shortly due to circumstance) Leica. that little camera was my first experience getting 2/3rds of a roll that was worth a second look. I shot 1 36 exposure roll on a very cold Boston winter night and got only 2 or 3 shots misfocused. Some where motion blurred, but I don't care about that so much. I got almost all of my shots in focus. With a camera I had never used before. I was sold on rangefinders.

oh, and even though it was a klutzy camera that broke on me after a plane ride the lens was really, really good. Konica deserves it's reputation; no doubt about that to me.

 

[Charles S]

Would rent a M9 and a 35mm Cron for a weekend.