Going Film, Leaving Digital

[mfogiel]

Your best starting point would be to buy a dedicated film scanner.

 

[mark-b]

Way under $400, and still can be part of your repertoire later on would be the Canonet QL17 GIII and its many variants, or the Yashica Electro 35 and its variants. I shoot the M6 and M8, and still can find situations for the Canonet and Yashica.

 

[kitaanat]

Welcome to RFF.
My first RF camera is Kodak Retina IIIC (aprox. 200-500)
I think Yashica 14E and Ricoh 500GX also interesting.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Derek,

Metered Leicas (M5-6-7, MP) are out of your price range, and older, easily-affordable metered cameras from other manufacturers (such as Yashica and Minolta) don't have interchangeable lenses. Many old fixed-lens RFs don't have meters either!

Of course it's personal choice, but I really would advise against both fixed-lens cameras and non-metered cameras in your situation, the former because I've always found them too limiting and ergonomically inferior to the Bessa (and I was using them long before the Bessa came out), and the latter because I certainly wouldn't care to take on a learning curve that steep unless I had to (which I did when I started 40+ years ago).

In fact, for the same reason -- easing the transition -- I'd go for one of the A-series Bessas (auto exposure option, hence A-for-automatic-option, as distinct from M-for-manual-only), even at the price of battery dependency.

For me (and I cheerfully accept that others may feel differently), the hassle of using an ageing camera with a fixed lens, even if it has got a built-in (but non through-lens) meter might well persuade me that RF photography was not for me. This is the main reason why they are barely even considered in the following introduction to RF cameras: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps rf.html. Ignore any references to payment as this refers to a earlier version of the site: it's all free now.

Cheers,

R.

 

[robinsonphotography]

I'd vote go for the gold from the get go---I went from never shooting a rangefinder straight to a Leica M2, and having now tried others (Yashica GSN, Rollie 35somethingorother, etc) I'm very glad I started where I did or else I might've given up on rangefinders. I picked up my M2, which was a little rough on the cosmetics but in absolutely perfect mechanical condition, for just $440....find yourself a used voigtlander lens (I picked the 35/2.5 color skopar PII myself for its compact size) and you'll end up a little over $500 for the whole combo, but not much, and you won't be losing money if you ever decide to sell the thing assuming you are smart and find a good deal. It's cheaper then buying lesser things and reselling them until you finally get the right stuff, so that's why I'd vote to go all the way to begin with.

Start with the sunny 16 rule, works nicely I find, but if you get the extra funds I'd recommend the VCII, much more useful in my mind than a big pocket meter because of its tiny size.

 

[Turtle]

A Bessa R2 or R3 would be a good move, or, if you are able to stretch to one with a little saving, a M6 classic.

You can do a lot worse than the CV 35 2.5 classic or pancake for a general purpose lens.

 

[Haigh]

I use an M4, a Panasonic LX3 and a Nikon d80. They each do a different job well. I am obliged to do my own processing film and prints however with the Leica to show off the Leica lens's very special quality. Just thought I'd add that: you might be doing your own processing for all I know. All the posts in this thread have good advice. Enjoy your RF photography. I sure do.

 

[Bobonli]

Hey guys.


I am planning on giving my girlfriend my Nikon D60 and picking up a film camera, preferably a rangefinder.

Have you shot with a RF, or just think it would be a nice alternative? I ask this because if you've never shot with one, my best advice would be to borrow or rent one before purchasing.

I would make the same suggestion for any new type of gear; try it before you buy. In NYC, Lens and Repro and I think Photovillage rent M-type rangefinders for $200 a week which is about $40 a day. Rent it, run around the streets of NYC and see whether you like the method of focusing and metering. Or borrow one from a friend.

I did this several years ago and decided the technology of the RF wasn't worth the considerable cost. This was, mind you, when I was in a "must buy it new" mode of consumerism. Now that I feel comfortable buying used, I'll be renting a RF again for a test drive.

You might even PM someone here and see if they'd be willing to meet up and let you run a roll through their camera during a photo walk. {Would forum members be willing to do that??}

 

[bmattock]

I have reached the point where I have discovered my style of photography and what it is I am looking for in a camera, and it is certainly not digital anymore.

Oh man. What a bunch of hoo-hah. I congratulate you on roping in a bunch of normally intelligent RFF folks.

Let me get this straight. You know what your style is, but you know next to nothing about rangefinder cameras. You don't even know what an external light meter is. You're unclear on just about every aspect of rangefinder photography, but you're ready to go.

Since no one has asked, what is your new-found style, exactly?

Rangefinder cameras are great and all, but they don't suit every style of photography, and I frankly am not sure that there is any niche that rangefinders are best at that cannot also be addressed with digital equivalents.

Presuming you are not simply jerking everyone's chain (and what a fine job you've done of it if you are), then I would add to the comments of the wiser heads in this thread who have suggested you might want to buy a less-expensive fixed-lens rangefinder camera and explore what it is you want to do with it to see if it really does suit your needs. At the moment, though, you haven't really said what your needs - or your 'style' happen to be.

Funny thread, though.

 

[Derek_Teixeira]

Oh man. What a bunch of hoo-hah. I congratulate you on roping in a bunch of normally intelligent RFF folks.

Let me get this straight. You know what your style is, but you know next to nothing about rangefinder cameras. You don't even know what an external light meter is. You're unclear on just about every aspect of rangefinder photography, but you're ready to go.

Since no one has asked, what is your new-found style, exactly?

Rangefinder cameras are great and all, but they don't suit every style of photography, and I frankly am not sure that there is any niche that rangefinders are best at that cannot also be addressed with digital equivalents.

Presuming you are not simply jerking everyone's chain (and what a fine job you've done of it if you are), then I would add to the comments of the wiser heads in this thread who have suggested you might want to buy a less-expensive fixed-lens rangefinder camera and explore what it is you want to do with it to see if it really does suit your needs. At the moment, though, you haven't really said what your needs - or your 'style' happen to be.

Funny thread, though.

Well aren't you the helpful, friendly board member ...

 

[bmattock]

Well aren't you the helpful, friendly board member ...

I'm trying to be!

You asked questions and the answers you got assumed you said things you had not said. I'm just asking the questions everyone else neglected to ask. Can't give good advice unless I know what it is you're actually after.

Usually the typical response to any 'what kind of camera should I buy' question on RFF is nothing more than a rote recitation of whatever camera each person likes the most. It's more of a popularity contest than an attempt to fit your actual needs. Since you haven't stated your needs, recommendations are a bit on the absurd side.

I'm actually the most helpful respondent so far. You're welcome!

 

[ZeissFan]

Welcome and best of luck. Start inexpensively and try different cameras. Figure out what you want in a camera and what you don't want. That will help you find out what you want or don't want in a camera.

Well, I just got to read what I typed while I was dozing off, which this morning seems borderline idiotic as I read it now.

Anyway, the intent was to simply suggest that you start inexpensively and see if the rangefinder experience is for you.

That way, you don't have a huge investment of cash if you figure out that the SLR is the best camera for you -- even if it's a film SLR.

As much as I enjoy using rangefinders, I also get a lot of fun using SLRs.

 

[thomasw_]

Hi,

What do you like to shoot? Is a 50mm FL to your liking?

If you are comfortable with an external meter and a 50 mm, I'd recommend a barnack and an old elmar 50/3,5. It will fall in your budget range and if you decide RF shooting is lame for you, you can sell it back for little loss.

 

[Derek_Teixeira]

I'm trying to be!

You asked questions and the answers you got assumed you said things you had not said. I'm just asking the questions everyone else neglected to ask. Can't give good advice unless I know what it is you're actually after.

Usually the typical response to any 'what kind of camera should I buy' question on RFF is nothing more than a rote recitation of whatever camera each person likes the most. It's more of a popularity contest than an attempt to fit your actual needs. Since you haven't stated your needs, recommendations are a bit on the absurd side.

I'm actually the most helpful respondent so far. You're welcome!

Alright, let me clear a few things up.

1. I have a crapload to learn. In the past year, I have learned a lot about composition, lighting, lenses, and other manual shooting aspects like Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO. I learned to read an internal meter, and I understand aspects of white balancing, etc. I don't know everything, not by a long shot though. I have a lot to learn about external metering, technical wordings, and many of the things that come with experience, and time.
2. I guess I didn't word things correctly when I mentioned about not wanting digital. Here is what I really meant: I have shot with both digital and film over the past few years, and each do have their ups and downs. With film, it is of course cheaper, and less of a worry because you can take as many shots as you want, and not have to really worry as much about missing the shot. But I have fallen in love with film the more I use it: working hard for that shot, because you know its now or never, holding processed negatives in your hands and having some tangible, rather than on a SD card. Even the colors, tones, etc, have a world of their own. Many may disagree, but its something I enjoy.
3. My style: Okay, once again, maybe the wrong wording. Over the past year, I experimented with various types of photography, from portraits, to landscape, macro, etc, but I found my love in shooting street photography. Finding role models in Bresson, Robert Frank, etc. With shooting in this style, I have found my DSLR to be large, bulky and loud when shooting. While researching, I found that Rangefinders seemed to be a popular medium in shooting this type of photography, and they are quiet as well.
4. I do agree that I should go check out a rangefinder before I purchase one, but I wanted to get the advice of the people on this forum because they seem both knowledgeable and friendly, and wanted to get some advice for someone looking to get into it. But, what got me upset about your particular post was the fact that you took my post as an attempt to "get something over" on board memebers and that it was humorous when in fact I was not trying to do either!

 

[gb hill]

Derek, looking at your photos on flickr I can see why your wanting to shoot film with a rf. I see most of your photos are b&w & are of everyday life on the street. Very nice to look at them. I think that for the money you wish to spend a Bessa would be your best buy, has ttl metering & very lightweight. Welcome to the forum & good luck with your choice.

 

[Derek_Teixeira]

Derek, looking at your photos on flickr I can see why your wanting to shoot film with a rf. I see most of your photos are b&w & are of everyday life on the street. Very nice to look at them. I think that for the money you wish to spend a Bessa would be your best buy, has ttl metering & very lightweight. Welcome to the forum & good luck with your choice.

Thank you very much for this feedback. I am pretty sure that I am going to go for one of these Bessas. They seem like a wonderful starter camera, without a huge price tag!

 

[Trius]

Derek,

Don't mind Bill's in-your-face approach. He's an extremely intelligent guy, and if you read between the lines, truly is trying to help.

That's not to say he couldn't improve in the manners deparment or doesn't misinterpret what others are saying.

Here are my thoughts for what they're worth.

The only fixed lens RF that I've used that is near a Leica in terms of the experince is the Olympus 35SP. It handles quite similarly, but it's not a Leica. There are others I've not tried that might be equal, such as a Konica S2, Minolta HiMatic 7S II, Olympus RD, etc.

But none of these are the same as a Leica, ZI or Bessa with interchangeable lens capability. The real issue, in my experience, is that with a fixed lens RF, I was always wondering about another fixed lens RF, buying them, not being totally thrilled, etc. By now I could have saved up for an M.

So if you can stick with one fixed lens RF until you decide if an RF is for you, it's a good route. On the other hand, going with an M mount body and lens is not a bad way, because you can get back most or all of your investment if you don't care for RF photography. Even if you lose $100-$200 on resale, that's a reasonable investment for a year or so of shooting and learning. The key is to be focused on your path, not just gear. The latter is a real danger here on RFF.

 

[emraphoto]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...wproduct.php/product/18064/cat/1/limit/recent

do it, just DO IT

 

[vidgamer]

I've gotten a couple of good rangefinders for about $10 plus shipping. At that price, I could easily justify having something to play with.

As for the more expensive cameras mentioned, it is true that I don't have experience with those, and if I did, perhaps I'd also recommend starting with those, but at the moment, I don't see it. Many of these inexpensive fixed-lens RFs have sharp lenses and are probably all I would need, although, I think I would like to upgrade to one of the more expensive ones mentioned (Oly SP, Minolta 7sII, etc.), but they are harder to come by.

Myself, I'm not going to abandon digital, so I'll have to work out a compromise. ;-)

 

[Derek_Teixeira]

Derek,

Don't mind Bill's in-your-face approach. He's an extremely intelligent guy, and if you read between the lines, truly is trying to help.

That's not to say he couldn't improve in the manners deparment or doesn't misinterpret what others are saying.

Here are my thoughts for what they're worth.

The only fixed lens RF that I've used that is near a Leica in terms of the experince is the Olympus 35SP. It handles quite similarly, but it's not a Leica. There are others I've not tried that might be equal, such as a Konica S2, Minolta HiMatic 7S II, Olympus RD, etc.

But none of these are the same as a Leica, ZI or Bessa with interchangeable lens capability. The real issue, in my experience, is that with a fixed lens RF, I was always wondering about another fixed lens RF, buying them, not being totally thrilled, etc. By now I could have saved up for an M.

So if you can stick with one fixed lens RF until you decide if an RF is for you, it's a good route. On the other hand, going with an M mount body and lens is not a bad way, because you can get back most or all of your investment if you don't care for RF photography. Even if you lose $100-$200 on resale, that's a reasonable investment for a year or so of shooting and learning. The key is to be focused on your path, not just gear. The latter is a real danger here on RFF.

Wow, a really helpful reply with a good amount of information!

I've gotten a couple of good rangefinders for about $10 plus shipping. At that price, I could easily justify having something to play with.

As for the more expensive cameras mentioned, it is true that I don't have experience with those, and if I did, perhaps I'd also recommend starting with those, but at the moment, I don't see it. Many of these inexpensive fixed-lens RFs have sharp lenses and are probably all I would need, although, I think I would like to upgrade to one of the more expensive ones mentioned (Oly SP, Minolta 7sII, etc.), but they are harder to come by.

Myself, I'm not going to abandon digital, so I'll have to work out a compromise. ;-)

I am not going to completely abandon it either, just concentrate on film for a while!