bmattock
Veteran
I keep forgetting how fragile you humans are. Sorry!
Going Film, Leaving Digital
- Thread starter Derek_Teixeira
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 74
- Views 6K
I keep forgetting how fragile you humans are. Sorry!
djonesii
Well-known
get a bessa -r
get a bessa -r
When I started, I had just moved back to the states, and money was tight ....
I had a D-50, and wanted to try the RF experience.
I got a Bessa R, and an FSU lens, I think it was a Jupiter-8. The whole kit was around $400. That would leave you about $100.
Around here, it's a bit odd, but I would suggest that you start with B&W C41 film. You can get it developed and scanned at just about any place that does film.
You need about $100 to get into you own scanning, and then about $50-75 depending to get started devleoping.
Take it one step at a time, C41 film w/ picassa, and you can get some stunning Black and white work done.
Dave
get a bessa -r
When I started, I had just moved back to the states, and money was tight ....
I had a D-50, and wanted to try the RF experience.
I got a Bessa R, and an FSU lens, I think it was a Jupiter-8. The whole kit was around $400. That would leave you about $100.
Around here, it's a bit odd, but I would suggest that you start with B&W C41 film. You can get it developed and scanned at just about any place that does film.
You need about $100 to get into you own scanning, and then about $50-75 depending to get started devleoping.
Take it one step at a time, C41 film w/ picassa, and you can get some stunning Black and white work done.
Dave
MCTuomey
Veteran
a used bessa R2A and a CV 35/2.5 skopar, as others have suggested, would be an excellent place to start. if you find you like the RF style and want to move to leica or zeiss, or if RFs aren't for you, either way you can sell the bessa and cosina lens at little loss.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Derek,
We all do. It's just that some of us are more aware of it than others.
I take your enthusiasm at face value. Why do otherwise? I've been taking photography seriously (own darkoom) for 43 years and I've been using Leicas for 40 years: I still have the IIIa I bought in 1969.
No one can tell you what will work for you, but there are quite a lot of people here with quite a lot of experience who will try to share what they have learned. There are others whose principal interest lies in trying to show off about how clever and knowledgeable they are, without sharing very much.
Take a look at my site. It's all free. I think you'll see someone who knows quite a lot about photography (especially with rangefinders) and is still trying to learn as well as sharing what he has learned in more than 4 decades.
Cheers,
R.
Derek_Teixeira
Established
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Oh super-human one, yes, I am so fragile! For a fraction of a second I was thinking that civility, kindness, openness and even (gasp!) compassion might be good, helpful values for human social interaction, perhaps even leading to a reduction in misinderstanding and strife. Thank you for showing me how stupid it would be to expend such effort.
cnphoto
Well-known
I've shot film and digital side by side for a long while, eventually selling my DLSR and gear to finance a Hasselblad (a camera I have always wanted, when I was 16 and started working part time in a camera store I fell in love with Leica's and Hasselblad's, mostly for aesthetics and them being marque brands that i looked up to like Ferarri and Porsche with cars. but never purchased either, instead buying cheap film SLRs due to $$$).
For my first foray into rangefinder shooting, I picked up a Ricoh 500RF for $25-30 on a whim in a secondhand camera store, shot a few rolls through that and it just felt *right* i prefer focusing through an RF and prefer the smaller size. After I was certain of this, I decided to purchase a Leica. I eventually bought a IIIc for a cheap price (glutton for punishment perhaps) and am now purchasing an M body, though did consider getting a Bessa R4M for quiet sometime but managed to pick up an M4-P for virtually the same cost.
I would suggest going the very RF route first, just to try it out. And of course, you can always keep it a throw-away camera to use when in environments you would not like to take your Leica or Bessa (torrential down pour / beach on a windy day etc).
For my first foray into rangefinder shooting, I picked up a Ricoh 500RF for $25-30 on a whim in a secondhand camera store, shot a few rolls through that and it just felt *right* i prefer focusing through an RF and prefer the smaller size. After I was certain of this, I decided to purchase a Leica. I eventually bought a IIIc for a cheap price (glutton for punishment perhaps) and am now purchasing an M body, though did consider getting a Bessa R4M for quiet sometime but managed to pick up an M4-P for virtually the same cost.
I would suggest going the very RF route first, just to try it out. And of course, you can always keep it a throw-away camera to use when in environments you would not like to take your Leica or Bessa (torrential down pour / beach on a windy day etc).
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
Derek, I picked up a new Bessa R4M a couple of years ago, so I'm still very much a newbie. So, I just want to second some things I've seen in this thread.
Nothing beats holding a camera and, ideally, using it before you buy. Better to pay a few hundred dollars for a camera you enjoy handling than a few thousand for a camera that is uncomfortable.
Old cameras are neat, but there's a reasonably good chance you'll end up paying someone to service it sooner than you would with a new camera. And, sometimes, they can't be serviced because parts are not available. That seems especially true for the first generation or two of cameras with electronics. If an integrated circuit goes bad, it needs to be replaced with a working duplicate. Artisans aren't hand crafting new IC's in their forest cottages.
This forum is one of the most civilized and most qualified I've come across, anywhere. The resources and information that have accumulated here is stunning. Sure, folks here have personalities. Pretty much everyone is passionate about photography and pretty much everyone has an opinion. Every once in a while, passions come to the surface and bubble over. Not too worry. No one is keeping score.
As others have noted, this site is operated by Stephen Gandy, the proprietor of Cameraquest (see the logo over on the left). He sells all things Bessa, and often seems to have a few used ones listed. His site is also full of good reading about cameras. it's not just an online store.
Do check out Roger's site. It's been quite useful for me. And check out his page on gurus. It's the most important thing on the site.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Derek_Teixeira
Established
Another wonderfully insightful reply. I am certainly going to check out both Stephen and Roger's website tomorrow. I have so much to learn, but am given so many suggestions of where to learn it. I'm thankful.
Derek_Teixeira
Established
Really cool story about how you came to own your RF's. I am not sure what my first may be, but I am just deep down, super excited.
i can relate to you about things just "feeling right". My DSLR, just doesn't feel right. I've used my friend's N60 side by side with my D60, and the film camera just had a feel of its own. Its something I can't explain. Its just not so superficial I imagine would be a good start to the explaination, but having that feeling in something as small, and quiet as a RF, with its rich history, is right up my alley!
Turtle
Veteran
Derek,
Don't worry about bmattock. I think he is just someone who got teased at school, but later realised he could strike back at the bullies using his intellect... only he never realised that treating everyone since with arrogant contempt is as reprehensible as the teasing that left him with this chip on his shoulder. I am not sure why the constant references to his intelligence are considered relevant when it comes to matters of civility. Plenty of people are incredibly smart, polite, helpful and not brimming with an immense sense of their own intellectual superiority. It's interesting that his initial assumption was that you had no idea what you were dong and why.... It was not in the form of questions (as he stated) to see what you were about, but more of a declaration of your ignorance. There is a huge difference...
It sounds to me like you have very good reasons for choosing a RF. Don't worry about not knowing much about external meters because apart from using a spot meter for LF landscape work, I don't use one for anything else. You could go for a manual unmetered body and a meter, but I would honestly suggest not doing so as I for one can get much more accurate exposures by interpreting my in camera maters than I can using an incident or area meter (particularly when I am standing in very different light to the subject). Spot meters are an exception, but larger, expensive and not needed for street work.
I am glad that you have figured out what you want to shoot and are now honing in on how you want to do it. It took me a long time and I ended up (mostly) down the film RF route too after shooting everything under the sun pretty well. The nice thing about shooting 35mm film (full frame) RF is that it is so much easier to pick up high performance wide and super angle lenses for reasonable money due to the absence of a crop factor (unless you can afford a M9). Maybe like me, you prefer the look of film. Personal, sure, but I feel it is important enough to process my own film in Kabul than shoot digital - each to their own!
Good luck and do not be put off by your initial interrogation 😀
Don't worry about bmattock. I think he is just someone who got teased at school, but later realised he could strike back at the bullies using his intellect... only he never realised that treating everyone since with arrogant contempt is as reprehensible as the teasing that left him with this chip on his shoulder. I am not sure why the constant references to his intelligence are considered relevant when it comes to matters of civility. Plenty of people are incredibly smart, polite, helpful and not brimming with an immense sense of their own intellectual superiority. It's interesting that his initial assumption was that you had no idea what you were dong and why.... It was not in the form of questions (as he stated) to see what you were about, but more of a declaration of your ignorance. There is a huge difference...
It sounds to me like you have very good reasons for choosing a RF. Don't worry about not knowing much about external meters because apart from using a spot meter for LF landscape work, I don't use one for anything else. You could go for a manual unmetered body and a meter, but I would honestly suggest not doing so as I for one can get much more accurate exposures by interpreting my in camera maters than I can using an incident or area meter (particularly when I am standing in very different light to the subject). Spot meters are an exception, but larger, expensive and not needed for street work.
I am glad that you have figured out what you want to shoot and are now honing in on how you want to do it. It took me a long time and I ended up (mostly) down the film RF route too after shooting everything under the sun pretty well. The nice thing about shooting 35mm film (full frame) RF is that it is so much easier to pick up high performance wide and super angle lenses for reasonable money due to the absence of a crop factor (unless you can afford a M9). Maybe like me, you prefer the look of film. Personal, sure, but I feel it is important enough to process my own film in Kabul than shoot digital - each to their own!
Good luck and do not be put off by your initial interrogation 😀
emraphoto
Veteran
"Maybe like me, you prefer the look of film. Personal, sure, but I feel it is important enough to process my own film in Kabul than shoot digital."
and i salute you!
and i salute you!
Mephiloco
Well-known
A few general suggestions. A m2 can be had pretty cheap, I bought mine in the past year for $415 with some holes in the shutter curtain (fixed with acrylic paint) and picked up some semi cheap lenses. My total investment is about $1400, including the m2, a 35/2.5, 50/1.5, 135/3.5, and a 100/3.5 as well as a repair to a lens and the body (mishap while on set).
I sometimes think I'd be a little happier with a Bessa, simply because it has a meter, would've been about as much as the m2, and would've been brand new. That aside, the m2 takes great pictures, and the lenses I got, while nowhere near 'the best', perform pretty well.
I have family from Clifton, they've moved since then, but I believe my great uncle, or someone, was the mayor of Clifton for some crazy length of time. There's also a water tower with my family name on it in either Edison or Clifton, I'm not sure as I've never been to either.
Also, colonial or continental português?
I sometimes think I'd be a little happier with a Bessa, simply because it has a meter, would've been about as much as the m2, and would've been brand new. That aside, the m2 takes great pictures, and the lenses I got, while nowhere near 'the best', perform pretty well.
I have family from Clifton, they've moved since then, but I believe my great uncle, or someone, was the mayor of Clifton for some crazy length of time. There's also a water tower with my family name on it in either Edison or Clifton, I'm not sure as I've never been to either.
Also, colonial or continental português?
cnphoto
Well-known
You're welcome, the last passage should read as follows (typo):
I would suggest going the very cheap fixed lens RF route first, just to try it out. And of course, you can always keep it as a throw-away camera to use when in environments you would not like to take your Leica or Bessa (torrential down pour / beach on a windy day etc).
Turtle
Veteran
If you buy at good prices having done your homework, it won't cost you much if anything to sell and change direction if you find the purchase not right for you. There are bargains out there if you are patient and I would recommend this forum for starters. You have to pounce really quickly on the good bargains, so once you have a short list of what you are looking for and your budget, act quickly if something comes up at a good price.
My 2 cents would be a used R2A or R2M in perfect working order with a 35mm lens such as a 35 Color Skopar/Pancake 2, assuming you like 35mm. With any used RF just make sure the seller can tell you that the RF is in alignment and states that all operations are perfect. Then, if budgets are tight but you want to experiment a lot with your new RF, consider looking up freestyle photo and buy some rebranded film at bargain prices (in case you did not realise you can half your films costs):
Arista premium 400 (TriX) $2.19 for 36 exp
Arista Legacy 400 (Neopan 400) $2.79 36 exp
Arista Premium 100 (Plus X)
Maybe also consider the Harman films as they are quite cheap too, but I would bet subject to great QC.
My 2 cents would be a used R2A or R2M in perfect working order with a 35mm lens such as a 35 Color Skopar/Pancake 2, assuming you like 35mm. With any used RF just make sure the seller can tell you that the RF is in alignment and states that all operations are perfect. Then, if budgets are tight but you want to experiment a lot with your new RF, consider looking up freestyle photo and buy some rebranded film at bargain prices (in case you did not realise you can half your films costs):
Arista premium 400 (TriX) $2.19 for 36 exp
Arista Legacy 400 (Neopan 400) $2.79 36 exp
Arista Premium 100 (Plus X)
Maybe also consider the Harman films as they are quite cheap too, but I would bet subject to great QC.
Mephiloco
Well-known
Also, I think I might be in the same situation as you. When I first got involved in photography (outside of using a point&shoot) I used a couple film SLRs, a AE1 Program and a Eos Elan2e. I liked them, and they took good pictures, even the elan with it's floating aperture kit lens, but at the time I was convinced I needed a digital. I eventually got one, bought a couple lenses, and was happy for a while, thought I still found myself using the AE-1 Program as it was smaller, and worked better in low light (my dslr is iso1600 max), no crop factor, and much less valuable (I could beat the hell out of it). Even though my DSLR is pretty reliable (never had a problem actually), I still feel like I have to baby it.
Eventually I found a t90 on craigslist (my dream camera) and after that barely used my digital as the t90 was surprisingly lighter weight than my digital, takes a beating, and the lenses are so cheap they're almost throw away. My workhorse 35/2.8 has no filter ring anymore, and it's not a problem. It cost me maybe $18 from keh with perfect glass.
Anyways, the t90 and my digital both take great photos, but considering all my lenses are/were wide to normal (sold all my lenses in FD except for the 35/2.8 and all my EF lenses except for my 17-50/2.8 zoom) and in social situations where it could be uncomfortable carrying around a camera with a 'big' zoom, I wanted something smaller (i consider my 17-50 to be big).
A friend let me borrow her M5, and about a year later I ended up finally getting my own Leica. Since getting my M2 I've barely used my t90 and use my digital for simple things I would normally use a point and shoot for, or for more 'technical' things, which is a shame because the lens really is nice.
In short, I got a m2 because it suits the focal lengths I use, can take a beating, lenses can be had for fairly cheap (vintage glass, or CV), and I personally like processing my own B&W film. The camera also lends itself to the kind of photos I find myself taking. I don't often 'plan' what I'm going to shoot, I just throw a roll in my pocket, load the camera, and go about my day, or bring it to a concert, festival, etc. Surprisingly I've been allowed to bring it into venues (like House of Blues) that in the past refused to let me in with my Canonet or T90. When they ask if the lens comes off, I just feed them the 'it's my dad's old camera, I don't know, you tell me' and hand it to them, they just hand it back and let me in.
I also like to shoot infrared film which can be a pain in the ass with an slr, unless you shoot Efke (then you have a tripod) and taking the filter on and off isn't as much of an issue.
Another thing that made it easier for me to go back to film is that it's so unfeasible to have a fast normal/wide on a crop frame camera. A 50/1.8 becomes a 80 and a 35 becomes 56mm. Canon has the 28/1.8 but that's about $500 for 45mm lens. Wider than that becomes even more.
Eventually I found a t90 on craigslist (my dream camera) and after that barely used my digital as the t90 was surprisingly lighter weight than my digital, takes a beating, and the lenses are so cheap they're almost throw away. My workhorse 35/2.8 has no filter ring anymore, and it's not a problem. It cost me maybe $18 from keh with perfect glass.
Anyways, the t90 and my digital both take great photos, but considering all my lenses are/were wide to normal (sold all my lenses in FD except for the 35/2.8 and all my EF lenses except for my 17-50/2.8 zoom) and in social situations where it could be uncomfortable carrying around a camera with a 'big' zoom, I wanted something smaller (i consider my 17-50 to be big).
A friend let me borrow her M5, and about a year later I ended up finally getting my own Leica. Since getting my M2 I've barely used my t90 and use my digital for simple things I would normally use a point and shoot for, or for more 'technical' things, which is a shame because the lens really is nice.
In short, I got a m2 because it suits the focal lengths I use, can take a beating, lenses can be had for fairly cheap (vintage glass, or CV), and I personally like processing my own B&W film. The camera also lends itself to the kind of photos I find myself taking. I don't often 'plan' what I'm going to shoot, I just throw a roll in my pocket, load the camera, and go about my day, or bring it to a concert, festival, etc. Surprisingly I've been allowed to bring it into venues (like House of Blues) that in the past refused to let me in with my Canonet or T90. When they ask if the lens comes off, I just feed them the 'it's my dad's old camera, I don't know, you tell me' and hand it to them, they just hand it back and let me in.
I also like to shoot infrared film which can be a pain in the ass with an slr, unless you shoot Efke (then you have a tripod) and taking the filter on and off isn't as much of an issue.
Another thing that made it easier for me to go back to film is that it's so unfeasible to have a fast normal/wide on a crop frame camera. A 50/1.8 becomes a 80 and a 35 becomes 56mm. Canon has the 28/1.8 but that's about $500 for 45mm lens. Wider than that becomes even more.
Derek_Teixeira
Established
I love the way you put this, and I am really looking forward to learning how to develop my own film. Taking photos, and then looking at a 3 inch LCD screen has turned me off. You keep everything on a small SD card, and then you upload them. Nothing tangible, and you only do half the work (where as with processing your own, you feel hands on the entire time .. from loading your film, to processing it!
Do you still live in NJ? The only Mayor I've ever known here is Anzaldi, but then again, I'm only 23, so I don't know much history of the city 😉
I'm not sure what you mean by Colonial or Continental? If it answers the question, my dad was born there, but I was born here in the US...
Thanks for the advice on cheap film, I know this will come in handy at some point. What is meant by "rebranded film" though?
This is very similar to how I feel. I know its well made, but I am afraid to put it into a backpack, not wrapped up in a sweatshirt. I feel its too easy to scratch, and too many breakable parts.
Probably my biggest problem right now. Shooting street with an 18-55 MM lens, which came with my D60, is really difficult. People can see you coming a mile away, and its just so bulky and difficult to put places!!
iridium7777
Established
i'll suggest something else
i'll suggest something else
i had a nikon d50 when i came here and decided i had a leica urge.
it was a tiny dslr, and looking up pictures of d60, d60 looks like it might be even smaller.
this is what i'd suggest you do, so you can get a "feel" of street photography with rf might be like, and not spend money/time hunting down old rf equipment right away.
buy or rent for a week a nice nikkor 24mm/2.8 and go out shooting:
1) in complete manual mode, not S or A, but in M with spot meter
2) turn off the picture preview on the screen, don't look at pictures until you get home and d/l to your computer.
do this for a couple days in different light conditions. see how you live with one focal length. if you like, then consider that you don't have af in rf and you'll need to get quick with it for street photography, especially in low light. obviously forget about the ease of digital for post processing. if you're tight with money and like to shoot a lot, consider that a roll of color film + processing + scanning will cost ~8$ per walgreens, or whatever prices you expect to pay.
i'll suggest something else
i had a nikon d50 when i came here and decided i had a leica urge.
it was a tiny dslr, and looking up pictures of d60, d60 looks like it might be even smaller.
this is what i'd suggest you do, so you can get a "feel" of street photography with rf might be like, and not spend money/time hunting down old rf equipment right away.
buy or rent for a week a nice nikkor 24mm/2.8 and go out shooting:
1) in complete manual mode, not S or A, but in M with spot meter
2) turn off the picture preview on the screen, don't look at pictures until you get home and d/l to your computer.
do this for a couple days in different light conditions. see how you live with one focal length. if you like, then consider that you don't have af in rf and you'll need to get quick with it for street photography, especially in low light. obviously forget about the ease of digital for post processing. if you're tight with money and like to shoot a lot, consider that a roll of color film + processing + scanning will cost ~8$ per walgreens, or whatever prices you expect to pay.
Merkin
For the Weekend
Hey Derek, I am going to do my best to talk you out of it, just so you know what you are getting in to when you switch from digital to film. I personally went from shooting film in the pre digital days, to digital, back to film, and now back to digital, so I have been there.
People will argue with this, but when you consider the gestalt, digital is cheaper.
First, you have the cost of the film rangefinder camera. If you want an interchangeable lens rangefinder camera and one lens that isn't going to be a piece of junk, the absolute cheapest you will probably be able to get in for is 300 bucks. 500 to 1000 bucks and up is more common. This means staying away from russian copies, because the quality control was just too all over the place, no matter how alluring they are. Also, if the camera you get doesn't have a built in meter, you will need a handheld meter, which will cost 120 bucks and up.
Second, you have to keep in mind that film rangefinder cameras have more things that can go wrong or go out of adjustment than the average japanese film slr. When something goes out of adjustment, it requires boxing up the camera, shipping it off to a technician, and waiting weeks for your camera to be fixed. These repairs or adjustments aren't necessarily cheap- the people that do good work certainly don't do it for free.
Third, you have the cost of film. If you just shoot black and white, you can get arista premium from freestylephoto.biz for 2 bucks a roll, and it is rebadged kodak tri-x. it is pretty much the best deal in black and white film at the moment, but every time you click the shutter 36 times, it costs 2 bucks, just for the film. fuji velvia color slide film, on the other hand, costs 6.50 a roll.
Fourth, you have to process the film. Here, you have two options. You can either have the film processed by a lab, which, depending on the lab, costs three to ten bucks per roll. alternately, you can process it yourself, which requires a darkroom, or at least a film changing bag, a reel and tank, graduated cylinders, chemicals, a thermometer, a timer, jugs for chemicals, a clean dry reasonably dustless place to hang your negatives, printfile negative holders, scissors, practice, patience, careful control over the temperature of your water and your chemicals, and a few inevitable screwups. Also, if you live in a place where you cant simply pour these chemicals (some of which can make you quite ill, particularly fixer) down the drain, you have to figure out how to dispose of the spent chemicals, which may or may not cost money.
Fifth, you are going to want to be able to have prints. Here, you have two options. You can either buy a scanner, which can cost anywhere from 150 bucks for a flatbed scanner to 2 grand for a nikon dedicated film scanner, so you can scan your negs and then have printing done through whoever prints your digital files currently. 99 percent of the time, the cheap scans you can get for a couple extra bucks when you get a roll processed are useless for printing. Alternately, you can print in a darkroom, and for that, you do need some semblance of a proper darkroom, so you can figure a couple hundred bucks for used equipment, and that doesnt include any chemicals, paper, or light sealing the room.
All of these costs, large and small, add up, and some of them don't go away. As you keep shooting, it keeps costing more and more money. I did the math the other day, and considering the cost of film alone, a Nikon D700 pays for itself in about 11000 shots, and now that the megapixel wars are pretty well wrapping up, modern current gen dslrs will be used for many more shots than that.
There you have it, the big picture of film photography. It is worth it to many, and it isn't to many as well. Think long and hard if it is worth it for you. As you can see, the camera and lens is only a small part of the equation. Does film have a certain je ne sais quoi that digital does not? Absolutely. With digital, you are stuck with the sensor you have. With film, you have all sorts of variety. Would the smell of the darkroom send shivers down your spine? If a photographer's heart beats in your chest, that is guaranteed. Is there anything more rewarding than walking out of the darkroom with that perfect silver gelatin print? If there is, it is probably either illegal or puts you at risk of contracting a social disease. My basic point is that, in dealing with photography, just like dealing with beautiful women, the romance don't come cheap.
A couple of things I would strongly suggest, separate from the above: Before you take a plunge, teach yourself a lot more about exposure. One of the best things to do is to try to determine the exposure from the light conditions, and then see how close you were when you check with the camera meter. When you already have a digital, learning those things on film is the difficult and expensive way to do it. Also, don't rule out an evil slr. There are a number of very small slrs that are very much like rangefinders with pentaprisms, such as the Olympus OM1 and 2, the pentax ME, and the Nikon FG and FG20. With the exception of some Olympuses, any of these cameras can be had for 100 bucks, often with a lens, if you hunt around. Leicas, Bessas, Ikons, Hexars, and all of the other interchangeable lens rangefinder cameras are great cameras, but most are not designed with the budget oriented photographer in mind. With whatever you choose, good luck, and we all looking forward to seeing more photography from you!
People will argue with this, but when you consider the gestalt, digital is cheaper.
First, you have the cost of the film rangefinder camera. If you want an interchangeable lens rangefinder camera and one lens that isn't going to be a piece of junk, the absolute cheapest you will probably be able to get in for is 300 bucks. 500 to 1000 bucks and up is more common. This means staying away from russian copies, because the quality control was just too all over the place, no matter how alluring they are. Also, if the camera you get doesn't have a built in meter, you will need a handheld meter, which will cost 120 bucks and up.
Second, you have to keep in mind that film rangefinder cameras have more things that can go wrong or go out of adjustment than the average japanese film slr. When something goes out of adjustment, it requires boxing up the camera, shipping it off to a technician, and waiting weeks for your camera to be fixed. These repairs or adjustments aren't necessarily cheap- the people that do good work certainly don't do it for free.
Third, you have the cost of film. If you just shoot black and white, you can get arista premium from freestylephoto.biz for 2 bucks a roll, and it is rebadged kodak tri-x. it is pretty much the best deal in black and white film at the moment, but every time you click the shutter 36 times, it costs 2 bucks, just for the film. fuji velvia color slide film, on the other hand, costs 6.50 a roll.
Fourth, you have to process the film. Here, you have two options. You can either have the film processed by a lab, which, depending on the lab, costs three to ten bucks per roll. alternately, you can process it yourself, which requires a darkroom, or at least a film changing bag, a reel and tank, graduated cylinders, chemicals, a thermometer, a timer, jugs for chemicals, a clean dry reasonably dustless place to hang your negatives, printfile negative holders, scissors, practice, patience, careful control over the temperature of your water and your chemicals, and a few inevitable screwups. Also, if you live in a place where you cant simply pour these chemicals (some of which can make you quite ill, particularly fixer) down the drain, you have to figure out how to dispose of the spent chemicals, which may or may not cost money.
Fifth, you are going to want to be able to have prints. Here, you have two options. You can either buy a scanner, which can cost anywhere from 150 bucks for a flatbed scanner to 2 grand for a nikon dedicated film scanner, so you can scan your negs and then have printing done through whoever prints your digital files currently. 99 percent of the time, the cheap scans you can get for a couple extra bucks when you get a roll processed are useless for printing. Alternately, you can print in a darkroom, and for that, you do need some semblance of a proper darkroom, so you can figure a couple hundred bucks for used equipment, and that doesnt include any chemicals, paper, or light sealing the room.
All of these costs, large and small, add up, and some of them don't go away. As you keep shooting, it keeps costing more and more money. I did the math the other day, and considering the cost of film alone, a Nikon D700 pays for itself in about 11000 shots, and now that the megapixel wars are pretty well wrapping up, modern current gen dslrs will be used for many more shots than that.
There you have it, the big picture of film photography. It is worth it to many, and it isn't to many as well. Think long and hard if it is worth it for you. As you can see, the camera and lens is only a small part of the equation. Does film have a certain je ne sais quoi that digital does not? Absolutely. With digital, you are stuck with the sensor you have. With film, you have all sorts of variety. Would the smell of the darkroom send shivers down your spine? If a photographer's heart beats in your chest, that is guaranteed. Is there anything more rewarding than walking out of the darkroom with that perfect silver gelatin print? If there is, it is probably either illegal or puts you at risk of contracting a social disease. My basic point is that, in dealing with photography, just like dealing with beautiful women, the romance don't come cheap.
A couple of things I would strongly suggest, separate from the above: Before you take a plunge, teach yourself a lot more about exposure. One of the best things to do is to try to determine the exposure from the light conditions, and then see how close you were when you check with the camera meter. When you already have a digital, learning those things on film is the difficult and expensive way to do it. Also, don't rule out an evil slr. There are a number of very small slrs that are very much like rangefinders with pentaprisms, such as the Olympus OM1 and 2, the pentax ME, and the Nikon FG and FG20. With the exception of some Olympuses, any of these cameras can be had for 100 bucks, often with a lens, if you hunt around. Leicas, Bessas, Ikons, Hexars, and all of the other interchangeable lens rangefinder cameras are great cameras, but most are not designed with the budget oriented photographer in mind. With whatever you choose, good luck, and we all looking forward to seeing more photography from you!