David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
He only listed 35, 40 and 50mm lenses in the opening post. The M2, 4's, 5, 6, 7 and 9 take 35 and 50mm lenses, the CL takes the 40 and the 50mm.
My M2 has meter on it but not AE...
Regards, David
"In philosophy the question, 'What do we use this word ... for?' repeatedly leads to valuable insights" (6.211) Wittgenstein
grandallj
Grainy
You might find a good used ZM Planar 50 for ~$600 and then careful careful shopping might get you an M7 for ~$1500 -- or you could go with the Zeiss Ikon. And I submit you would be EXTREMELY happy with either combination.
Creagerj
Incidental Artist
As Godfrey pointed out, you want a Leica, so get a Leica. Patience is really the key. I bought an very good condition M2 & 50mm Elmar for $550 on eBay in 2010. I had a CLA for another $120. total was $670. All it took was some patience.
BillBingham2
Registered User
And now for something almost completely different.....
As AE seems to have your eye, what about purchasing several Minolta CLEs? Say three or four working ones and send two along to a good CLE-person. Pick up other DOAs as time goes on for parts.
There are TONS of great glass options (e.g. CV, Minolta, Cannon, Leica) to choose from.
Wonderful little camera with a reasonable amount of Leica-blood in her.
B2
As AE seems to have your eye, what about purchasing several Minolta CLEs? Say three or four working ones and send two along to a good CLE-person. Pick up other DOAs as time goes on for parts.
There are TONS of great glass options (e.g. CV, Minolta, Cannon, Leica) to choose from.
Wonderful little camera with a reasonable amount of Leica-blood in her.
B2
judsonzhao
Well-known
Try to get a used M6 TTL, or just go ZI!
froyd
Veteran
Not sure why you list an R3a/m as an option instead of an r2a/m, which is more on par with the ZI and the Hexar in terms of VF magnification.
I agree that you can get a nice Leica + lens for well under your max budget, but since you want AE, then I'd recommend the R2A or the ZI. I owned both and did not see much difference between either despite me wanting to like the ZI more. Both are not as nice to use as Leicas, but they are very good starting points and could very well be all you ever need.
My path however, was to "upgrade" from those two to a meter-less body, better suited for the action family shots I take.
I agree that you can get a nice Leica + lens for well under your max budget, but since you want AE, then I'd recommend the R2A or the ZI. I owned both and did not see much difference between either despite me wanting to like the ZI more. Both are not as nice to use as Leicas, but they are very good starting points and could very well be all you ever need.
My path however, was to "upgrade" from those two to a meter-less body, better suited for the action family shots I take.
traveler_101
American abroad
Point 1: This is true; there is a strong emphasis on automatic features . . . but he also says that he had originally wished to joint the "Leica club" and that complicates the situation because as we all know an unrequited desire sticks in one's craw.
This is what I was thinking.
W
wfr
Guest
[My first post, after a loong time reading only...]
The cameras you listed have different framelines!
I suggest you answer the following question first, for yourself:
"Which are your favorite focal lenghts?"
At the moment you want to buy only one lens. That may change if you like
your camera. And then you need the other frame lines.
Within the cameras you mentioned, you get 40mm lines only on the
Bessa R3. You get 28/35/50/85 frame lines on the Zeiss ZI, but no 75mm
lines. With Leica, frame lines depend on the model and, with more recent
models, on the finder magnification.
90mm lenses bring up the 85mm frame lines on the ZI. When I used
a 90mm lens on it, framing was ok for me.
The cameras you listed have different framelines!
I suggest you answer the following question first, for yourself:
"Which are your favorite focal lenghts?"
At the moment you want to buy only one lens. That may change if you like
your camera. And then you need the other frame lines.
Within the cameras you mentioned, you get 40mm lines only on the
Bessa R3. You get 28/35/50/85 frame lines on the Zeiss ZI, but no 75mm
lines. With Leica, frame lines depend on the model and, with more recent
models, on the finder magnification.
90mm lenses bring up the 85mm frame lines on the ZI. When I used
a 90mm lens on it, framing was ok for me.
chathaway
Established
First RF...I'd start w/ a ZI and in a while decide to keep it or move to something else. It should hold its value well and you will likely enjoy the experience of shooting it over the Bessa. Also, as mentioned before, you can use that time to decide if manual-only interests you.
JChrome
Street Worker
I bought a Bessa R4M and it's value held as well as a skydiver. I think I sold it for half new and that was in fantastic condition.
The Zeiss mm 2.8 I had on it of course held it's value better. I think a used M6 is a good idea for holding it's value.
The Zeiss mm 2.8 I had on it of course held it's value better. I think a used M6 is a good idea for holding it's value.
Finglas
Established
The OP first line says it all really, he wishes he could have a Leica but suspects it's beyond him at this stage. The responses that said "hold on a little longer, keep saving etc" are in my own case relevant as I had wanted to get into RF from SLR.
I did all the research, read all the reviews, got to handle or hold the cameras so I knew what I wanted and then waited and waited - then one day the Leica came along it was like a dream - it was so unreal, it was the colour and the body covering I wanted and the viewfinder magnification too - and I got it ahead of all the others who were clamouring for it. Now 8 years later, I still have it and don't need any other RF camera at all. For change or alternative I still use my FM3a when I need to.
I strongly agree with the 2 fellow RFF guys that suggested - hold out for one then use it for a year or so if it doesn't agree with you it is easier to trade on again and the "lust" for a leica will have abated once and for all... or you'll still have it and won't let go of it. Patience is the key - especially given your proposed budget.
I did all the research, read all the reviews, got to handle or hold the cameras so I knew what I wanted and then waited and waited - then one day the Leica came along it was like a dream - it was so unreal, it was the colour and the body covering I wanted and the viewfinder magnification too - and I got it ahead of all the others who were clamouring for it. Now 8 years later, I still have it and don't need any other RF camera at all. For change or alternative I still use my FM3a when I need to.
I strongly agree with the 2 fellow RFF guys that suggested - hold out for one then use it for a year or so if it doesn't agree with you it is easier to trade on again and the "lust" for a leica will have abated once and for all... or you'll still have it and won't let go of it. Patience is the key - especially given your proposed budget.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Another vote for "cut out the middleman -- buy a Leica".
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Takkun
Ian M.
Amending my response to agree with the above. I didn't want a Leica until I did, and I was perfectly content with a Bessa. At that point, it was my "fun" camera while I shot a Nikon for my day job. Once I got bit by the bug, it was all I could think of.
If you're lusting over one now and don't even own a Bessa, don't bother. There really isn't anything like a real Leica body.
And if you read things questioning why anyone would buy a Leica and put inferior glass on it, that argument is a load. Zeiss and Voigtlander and Canon have made some phenomenal lenses (Nikon too, but collectors value makes them less than affordable), and while it's true that the body makes no difference to the output, it sure makes the experience enjoyable. That's why one buys a Leica.
If you're lusting over one now and don't even own a Bessa, don't bother. There really isn't anything like a real Leica body.
And if you read things questioning why anyone would buy a Leica and put inferior glass on it, that argument is a load. Zeiss and Voigtlander and Canon have made some phenomenal lenses (Nikon too, but collectors value makes them less than affordable), and while it's true that the body makes no difference to the output, it sure makes the experience enjoyable. That's why one buys a Leica.
Scrambler
Well-known
The observant will have seen that I put forward a Leica suggestion within the OP's upper limit of $2000.
I think there are a number of unstated but nonetheless clearly visible in the original post and one is a desire to have the lens and body from the same brand.
Another is a desire to buy new if possible.
The AE is a guess.
The 28mm comment comes from the OP's signature. I had missed it originally. It is on an Epson R-D1.
Only the OP can say what his priorities are but I would think an M6 + Summicron or the ZI + 50 Planar depending on priorities.
I think there are a number of unstated but nonetheless clearly visible in the original post and one is a desire to have the lens and body from the same brand.
Another is a desire to buy new if possible.
The AE is a guess.
The 28mm comment comes from the OP's signature. I had missed it originally. It is on an Epson R-D1.
Only the OP can say what his priorities are but I would think an M6 + Summicron or the ZI + 50 Planar depending on priorities.
Timestep
Established
I would certainly recommend a Nikon S-2, with either 50mm. F/2, or 50mm. F/1.4— in order of my preference.
I still use one after over fifty years.
I still use one after over fifty years.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Then again, unless you've used one for over 50 years, you may find that you can't get on with it at all. I wanted one for many years. Then, when I could afford one, I realized that M-series Leicas were vastly better cameras, and I already had one.
Cheers,
R.
EpicRavenLord
Member
Wow thanks everyone for the input. I do have an Epson Rd-1x and Ultron 28f/2 and have had amazing success with the rangefinder focusing. I find that having no AF option makes me think about the shot before I press the shutter therefore making my keeper rate skyrocket. Thats why I'm considering a film rangefinder. To achieve amazing results with film is a very rewarding feeling… a feeling lost in the mainstream digital and cell phone photography world we live in. I think ultimately I will just choose the best deal I can find… one that I just can't pass up. I will just have to accept the risks of buying an old camera, and pray nothing is faulty.
Thanks again!
Thanks again!
froyd
Veteran
Low risk if you don't go the ebay route and shop from a sponsor of RFF, reputable RFF members, KEH, Adorama, or B and H.
Also, if you truly want a RF to gain a different, more considered approach to photography, maybe you are looking at the wrong format. MF or LF might be the ticket. 35mm RFs, in my book, are for fast, spontaneous shooting: pre-focused; pre-metered; and pre-cocked... breathe on the trigger and grab the shot.
Addy101
Well-known
Rico
Well-known
OP has posted twice and mentioned nothing about metering. If the purchase order is one film RF camera and one lens, with Leica dust sprinkled on top, then a Barnack should be considered. A user IIIf or post-war IIIc with matching Elmar 50 is $500 or so, and it will work right off. By some measures, this is a more genuine Leica experience. 
Not trying to be divisive: I have Barnack and M both.
Leica screwmount has plenty to offer at great prices, and third-party has even more.
Not trying to be divisive: I have Barnack and M both.Leica screwmount has plenty to offer at great prices, and third-party has even more.