mugget
Established
Hi All,
I was just pointed this way because I have a few questions about rangefinder cameras. To give you a bit of background I have been using a 1DMkII and 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L for the last few years at motorsport events, I've had some good fun and got some shots that I'm really happy with but the one thing I'm not happy with is that I seem to miss alot of the on-track action if I always have a viewfinder to my eye. So I'm hanging up all my DSLR gear, it's on eBay now and I'm looking for a change.
The thing that has me interested in an RF camera is the compact size & light weight, but even more the fact that the viewfinder doesn't black out when the shutter is released, and that the viewfinder is so large and bright, often showing more than just the frame. Most of the time I would be taking photos of people in low light, I've read that RF cameras are able to do fairly long exposures hand held (compared to SLR). And the fact they're so quiet in operation - all of that is right up my alley.
So the only thing left is to find what my best option is for an entry into the rangefinder world? I'm still reading and learning as much as I can but I figured some people here would have some useful advice.
At the moment it seems like the M mount lens system is where it's at, but I'm wondering if I should start on a film camera or save up for an M8. (Lower gear cost, with ongoing developing & scanning fees, Vs. higher gear cost with lower ongoing fees. I don't mind saving up and spending for quality either, but it still just depends which is the better option in the long run. I think I will try and get a chance this weekend to do the math on that...) As far as lens I have been looking into the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and it looks like I would be completely happy with that for starters.
Another option I've seen suggested is the Contax G2 - seems like you can pick up one of those near unused with the 28/45/90 kit for around $1,300 (AUD)! But obviously that precludes the use of an M mount lens... or are those lenses good quality anyway? I'm wondering if lens choice is a bit of a 'non-issue', like agonizing about which DSLR because one has an extra megapixel or two?
Any info or suggestions are much appreciated.
I was just pointed this way because I have a few questions about rangefinder cameras. To give you a bit of background I have been using a 1DMkII and 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L for the last few years at motorsport events, I've had some good fun and got some shots that I'm really happy with but the one thing I'm not happy with is that I seem to miss alot of the on-track action if I always have a viewfinder to my eye. So I'm hanging up all my DSLR gear, it's on eBay now and I'm looking for a change.
The thing that has me interested in an RF camera is the compact size & light weight, but even more the fact that the viewfinder doesn't black out when the shutter is released, and that the viewfinder is so large and bright, often showing more than just the frame. Most of the time I would be taking photos of people in low light, I've read that RF cameras are able to do fairly long exposures hand held (compared to SLR). And the fact they're so quiet in operation - all of that is right up my alley.
So the only thing left is to find what my best option is for an entry into the rangefinder world? I'm still reading and learning as much as I can but I figured some people here would have some useful advice.
At the moment it seems like the M mount lens system is where it's at, but I'm wondering if I should start on a film camera or save up for an M8. (Lower gear cost, with ongoing developing & scanning fees, Vs. higher gear cost with lower ongoing fees. I don't mind saving up and spending for quality either, but it still just depends which is the better option in the long run. I think I will try and get a chance this weekend to do the math on that...) As far as lens I have been looking into the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and it looks like I would be completely happy with that for starters.
Another option I've seen suggested is the Contax G2 - seems like you can pick up one of those near unused with the 28/45/90 kit for around $1,300 (AUD)! But obviously that precludes the use of an M mount lens... or are those lenses good quality anyway? I'm wondering if lens choice is a bit of a 'non-issue', like agonizing about which DSLR because one has an extra megapixel or two?
Any info or suggestions are much appreciated.
ricnak
Well-known
Welcome to RFF Mugget.
I made the change from SLR to RF last year. Have a chat to Andrew at Kayell. He might have an M8 on the second shelf for you to try.
Cheers.
Helen
I made the change from SLR to RF last year. Have a chat to Andrew at Kayell. He might have an M8 on the second shelf for you to try.
Cheers.
Helen
lilmsmaggie
Established
If you're into motor sports, not sure a RF will be to your liking. You might want to check with John Thawely http://www.johnthawley.com/ He shoots motor sports. Maybe he can give you his experience with RF's.
Not to say that a RF won't suit your style of shooting. It's just that I bought an M body from John because it didn't, YMMV.
Not to say that a RF won't suit your style of shooting. It's just that I bought an M body from John because it didn't, YMMV
.
Last edited:
lynnb
Veteran
Hi mugget,
Have a look at the exif data on your best shots and see what focal length you are using, taking into account the 1.3x crop factor. If you're mainly using the 100-400 lens that would mean your effective focal length would be between 130-520mm, i.e. well outside the useful range of a RF camera. Even if you did put a long lens on an RF body, the short RF baselength would make focusing more prone to error than the 1DII's 45 point phase detect system.
But for people photos using shorter focal lengths RFs have many advantages, including the ones you've mentioned. Also an experienced RF shooter can often focus more quickly than a DSLR user using zone focus or focus-recompose - with your DSLR selecting the right focus point or using focus-recompose can take as long or longer.
In very low light however the use of an IR focus beam (either using an ST-E2 or the one on a Speedlite with the flash disabled) on your 1DII is probably more reliable than trying to align RF patches in the dark.
The other consideration is burst shooting to catch peak action. No RF can compete with the 1DII's 8.5 frames per second.
Have a look at the exif data on your best shots and see what focal length you are using, taking into account the 1.3x crop factor. If you're mainly using the 100-400 lens that would mean your effective focal length would be between 130-520mm, i.e. well outside the useful range of a RF camera. Even if you did put a long lens on an RF body, the short RF baselength would make focusing more prone to error than the 1DII's 45 point phase detect system.
But for people photos using shorter focal lengths RFs have many advantages, including the ones you've mentioned. Also an experienced RF shooter can often focus more quickly than a DSLR user using zone focus or focus-recompose - with your DSLR selecting the right focus point or using focus-recompose can take as long or longer.
In very low light however the use of an IR focus beam (either using an ST-E2 or the one on a Speedlite with the flash disabled) on your 1DII is probably more reliable than trying to align RF patches in the dark.
The other consideration is burst shooting to catch peak action. No RF can compete with the 1DII's 8.5 frames per second.
bgb
Well-known
I see it's you first post mate welcome to rff
Maybe look at hiring a M9 to see if you like the whole digital rangefinder thing ... if you like it great if not at least you will know which direction to look in next.
Maybe look at hiring a M9 to see if you like the whole digital rangefinder thing ... if you like it great if not at least you will know which direction to look in next.
kshapero
South Florida Man
What is your budget? Has a tendency to dictate choice.
leica M2 fan
Veteran
Welcome to Rff
Welcome to Rff
Have fun here and enjoy the info you receive.
Welcome to Rff
Have fun here and enjoy the info you receive.
meso
Established
I am in the same situation, have been using 5D with 24 2.8, 50 1.4 and the 70-200 f4 IS for motorsports,
then I decided to sell the lot and buy a RF system, initially I was going for a Bessa R3M but the more I read up on it I was leaning more towards a new Zeiss Ikon or a used Leica,
I was very lucky as I found locally an M6 ttl .85 with a grip, like new, in the box for about $1600 it even had the plastic film still on the baseplate.
But as I haven't got any lenses for it yet I really can't comment on how it compares to the DSLR, but these are very different beasts thats for sure.
I'm waiting anxiously for the lenses to arrive, which will be this weekend,
I'm starting off with a CV Nokton 35 1.4 sc and a Zeiss Planar 50 f2.
But as someone previously stated long telephoto lenses are not ideal on a rangefinder and an SLR would probably be better,
I am thinking of getting an inexpensive SLR with one telephoto ~200mm or a telephoto zoom lens just for motorsports.
then I decided to sell the lot and buy a RF system, initially I was going for a Bessa R3M but the more I read up on it I was leaning more towards a new Zeiss Ikon or a used Leica,
I was very lucky as I found locally an M6 ttl .85 with a grip, like new, in the box for about $1600 it even had the plastic film still on the baseplate.
But as I haven't got any lenses for it yet I really can't comment on how it compares to the DSLR, but these are very different beasts thats for sure.
I'm waiting anxiously for the lenses to arrive, which will be this weekend,
I'm starting off with a CV Nokton 35 1.4 sc and a Zeiss Planar 50 f2.
But as someone previously stated long telephoto lenses are not ideal on a rangefinder and an SLR would probably be better,
I am thinking of getting an inexpensive SLR with one telephoto ~200mm or a telephoto zoom lens just for motorsports.
mugget
Established
Cheers all, thanks for the welcome!
Thanks for the tip Helen - I will have to stop by Kayell sometime.
Sorry if I confused some people into thinking I want to shoot motorsports with an RF. I know there is basically no such thing as a telephoto lens for RF cameras, that's fine - I'm kind of giving up the motorsports photography for a bit. I'd rather be riding myself, or paying attention & watch a race properly rather than looking at it all through a small hole in a box. So yeah, a big change there for me, I'm going to focus more on people, will probably end up wandering around the pits more. Definitely more of a new style for me, change is good, right?!
(Just on the subject of burst shooting I always found that I got better photos when I used single shot, but I always went for the pan shot with blurred backgrounds.)
Good idea to go and try one to see if I like it. As far as budget... immediately whatever the SDLR gear sells for. But let's say 3, 4... $5k... I don't need a camera right now, so budget is flexible.
The other thing I meant to ask about was film developing and scanning costs - does anyone who uses film wish they had spent more on a digital body to avoid those ongoing costs? Mind you, you can develop & scan alot of film for the price difference between a used film body and a used digital body...
Thanks for the tip Helen - I will have to stop by Kayell sometime.
Sorry if I confused some people into thinking I want to shoot motorsports with an RF. I know there is basically no such thing as a telephoto lens for RF cameras, that's fine - I'm kind of giving up the motorsports photography for a bit. I'd rather be riding myself, or paying attention & watch a race properly rather than looking at it all through a small hole in a box.
So yeah, a big change there for me, I'm going to focus more on people, will probably end up wandering around the pits more. Definitely more of a new style for me, change is good, right?!(Just on the subject of burst shooting I always found that I got better photos when I used single shot, but I always went for the pan shot with blurred backgrounds.)
Good idea to go and try one to see if I like it. As far as budget... immediately whatever the SDLR gear sells for.
But let's say 3, 4... $5k... I don't need a camera right now, so budget is flexible.The other thing I meant to ask about was film developing and scanning costs - does anyone who uses film wish they had spent more on a digital body to avoid those ongoing costs? Mind you, you can develop & scan alot of film for the price difference between a used film body and a used digital body...
lilmsmaggie
Established
Nah - I started years ago with film and SLR's, tried digital -- different not the same. Mind you I still have 3 digital cams but I spend 95% of my time shooting film, mostly B&W. I've got a untouched Canon 40D that just sits in one of my photo bags. It has yet to see first light. Thought about giving, er selling it but figured I may as well keep it.
In the past year, I've bought a 4x5 LF camera, a Mamiya 7ii and a Leica M5.
Film Just Rocks!
I can do my own processing but I don't have the equipment, the space or the time. Besides, I'd rather be out shooting.
Perfect Imposter
Member
Just a quick warning on the Voigtlander 35mm 1.4. It suffers from pretty severe focus shift. I have seen some people comment that they have copies that don't, but I had one that was only usable at f/2.4. I now have a Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 that barely shifts at all. Had I not tested for it because of my experience with the 35mm I likely wouldn't have noticed. If you can live with f/2, the Zeiss Biogon 35mm would be an excellent choice.
I was in your position only a few months ago. I decided to go with an M8. If I didn't like it I knew I could sell it without a loss. In fact I think I could probably get more than I paid since I got a really good deal.
I was in your position only a few months ago. I decided to go with an M8. If I didn't like it I knew I could sell it without a loss. In fact I think I could probably get more than I paid since I got a really good deal.
AndySig
Established
Hello Mugget,
I went down the road you are considering and bought my first rangefinder - a Zeiss ZI plus 18 mm f4 and 35 mm f2.8 lenses just before Christmas. I recently found a mint M6 ttl at a bargain price as a second body. I would recommend a ZI as a first rangefinder camera as IMO it is the perfect combination of modern technology and simple rf design and the ZI lenses are generally held to be as good as Leica lenses while being an awful lot cheaper. The only thing you need to do is get in the habit of taking off the lens cap before taking a picture!
Both cameras are great to use and it is the pleasure of using them that has got me taking loads more pictures than in the past. I can't explain why that is but it feels more like "real" photography (whatever that means) which sounds daft but it is true for me.
I went down the road you are considering and bought my first rangefinder - a Zeiss ZI plus 18 mm f4 and 35 mm f2.8 lenses just before Christmas. I recently found a mint M6 ttl at a bargain price as a second body. I would recommend a ZI as a first rangefinder camera as IMO it is the perfect combination of modern technology and simple rf design and the ZI lenses are generally held to be as good as Leica lenses while being an awful lot cheaper. The only thing you need to do is get in the habit of taking off the lens cap before taking a picture!
Both cameras are great to use and it is the pleasure of using them that has got me taking loads more pictures than in the past. I can't explain why that is but it feels more like "real" photography (whatever that means) which sounds daft but it is true for me.
Damaso
Photojournalist
I would suggest going with an M mount camera for sure. The question is do you want to mostly work in digital or film. I love film, I use it a lot but you have been in the digital world for a while now and film requires a bit more post production so be prepared for that. Either way I am sure you will enjoy the transition!
What about a 24-70 zoom lens for your Canon?
Honestly.
Yes the full frame body is a big nut to carry around, but a) you are used to it and b) it in no way would be intrusive in the environment in which you shoot, your subjects are used to it too.
After some use you will know what focal lengths work for you and if you really need to go down the road of a RF. Making the switch has the financial implications that you already mentioned, film or digital, along with the basic change in style from SLR to RF.
Just an honest opinion. There is more than one way to skin a cat. An SLR can do the same thing a RF can, more or less, just a little differently.
That said, pick up a Bessa R2a and 35mm lens of your choice and give it a go if you really want to see how a rangefinder may work for you. Keep it simple and you may be surprised.
Honestly.
Yes the full frame body is a big nut to carry around, but a) you are used to it and b) it in no way would be intrusive in the environment in which you shoot, your subjects are used to it too.
After some use you will know what focal lengths work for you and if you really need to go down the road of a RF. Making the switch has the financial implications that you already mentioned, film or digital, along with the basic change in style from SLR to RF.
Just an honest opinion. There is more than one way to skin a cat. An SLR can do the same thing a RF can, more or less, just a little differently.
That said, pick up a Bessa R2a and 35mm lens of your choice and give it a go if you really want to see how a rangefinder may work for you. Keep it simple and you may be surprised.
Haigh
Gary Haigh
Have fun with whatever you get. I have an old M4-P but just bought a Bessa R4A and 25mm colour Skopar. Not over the top in price.
chrismoret
RF-addict
Welcome!
Another one makes the transition There is no cure for this virus, you've been warned.!
Made the switch last year by getting a M4-p(1986) and a new 35mm Biogon. A reasonable priced starters combo, with now my D300 is collecting only dust.
Another one makes the transition
There is no cure for this virus, you've been warned.!Made the switch last year by getting a M4-p(1986) and a new 35mm Biogon. A reasonable priced starters combo, with now my D300 is collecting only dust.
Last edited:
mugget
Established
Thanks for all the info - I'm just looking into the Zeiss ZI and Bessa right now...
Digital Vs. film... yeah I have always been a digital person. Maybe I would get impatient and curse the extra post processing with film. I'll have to think about that...
The Canon I have now isn't full frame (it's only the 1D, not the 1DS), I just can't take that around in a social setting, stands out a million miles away and everyone things I'm a pro or something.
It's true I'm very familiar and used to using it, but I'm eager to give it up for a larger and brighter viewfinder, on top of that I never knew a type of camera existed where the viewfinder wouldn't black out - once I learnt about that I was sold!
Anyway thanks again for all the suggestions and gear tips, got some reading to do and thinking about the film/digital workflow.
Digital Vs. film... yeah I have always been a digital person. Maybe I would get impatient and curse the extra post processing with film. I'll have to think about that...
The Canon I have now isn't full frame (it's only the 1D, not the 1DS), I just can't take that around in a social setting, stands out a million miles away and everyone things I'm a pro or something.
It's true I'm very familiar and used to using it, but I'm eager to give it up for a larger and brighter viewfinder, on top of that I never knew a type of camera existed where the viewfinder wouldn't black out - once I learnt about that I was sold!
Anyway thanks again for all the suggestions and gear tips, got some reading to do and thinking about the film/digital workflow.
semrich
Well-known
Welcome to the forum, it's a great place to learn about rangefinders.
I decided first what I wanted to photograph, and that was events around me and my surroundings on a daily basis and the same when traveling. I went at first with a digital M mount and bought good lenses. Realized I like B&W and wanted to back up the digital for travel with a film M and discovered I liked shooting film more and seemed to get better shots. Started developing and scanning my own film and now shoot film (both 135 and 120) 98% of the time.
Recently access to a darkroom became available and I've just started doing B&W fiber based prints. I love the total process of shooting, developing, scanning, and now printing in the darkroom. As I look through my scanned images I have the opportunity to go back through the negatives and make a print in the darkroom. I was considering buying an Epson 3880 for prints and have put that on the back burner for now.
If you don't do it for a living you might experience film and never look back at digital.
I decided first what I wanted to photograph, and that was events around me and my surroundings on a daily basis and the same when traveling. I went at first with a digital M mount and bought good lenses. Realized I like B&W and wanted to back up the digital for travel with a film M and discovered I liked shooting film more and seemed to get better shots. Started developing and scanning my own film and now shoot film (both 135 and 120) 98% of the time.
Recently access to a darkroom became available and I've just started doing B&W fiber based prints. I love the total process of shooting, developing, scanning, and now printing in the darkroom. As I look through my scanned images I have the opportunity to go back through the negatives and make a print in the darkroom. I was considering buying an Epson 3880 for prints and have put that on the back burner for now.
If you don't do it for a living you might experience film and never look back at digital.
HoodedOne
Well-known
Welcome to the RFF
If you decide to go with a film RF. how accessible are the development options. Since you stated that you've been a digital only guy. I don't think you are gonna develop your own film. So what is the nearest place you can get your films developed.
If the local photo store (15 minute walk) didn't have the possibility to develop C41 film. I probably would never made the step from digital to film.
If you decide to go with a film RF. how accessible are the development options. Since you stated that you've been a digital only guy. I don't think you are gonna develop your own film. So what is the nearest place you can get your films developed.
If the local photo store (15 minute walk) didn't have the possibility to develop C41 film. I probably would never made the step from digital to film.
mugget
Established
Well I think that's it decided - I'll go for a used M8. Seems like the best option is just to keep working in digital which is what I'm used to.
All my SLR gear sold so I'm looking now... but just wondering what is the best option to buy used? Look around on eBay, or are there other camera/Leica specific auction/classifieds? I see KEH has a couple of M8's, prices look good... unfortunately I haven't seen anything listed on the local Brisbane site of Kayell. But I think at the moment it will be better to buy from the US with the way the currency is.
Cheers
All my SLR gear sold so I'm looking now... but just wondering what is the best option to buy used? Look around on eBay, or are there other camera/Leica specific auction/classifieds? I see KEH has a couple of M8's, prices look good... unfortunately I haven't seen anything listed on the local Brisbane site of Kayell. But I think at the moment it will be better to buy from the US with the way the currency is.
Cheers