Good beginner rf

[agentsim]

Hi all,

I'm looking at getting into RF photography. I mostly like street stuff, and urban landscapes. I would like to find a decent beginner RF on the cheap. Interchangeable lenses would be good, as I would like to slowly "grow" into the setup as I get better - I guess Leica mount would be perfect. I want to save money over a DSLR + kit lens, as that setup is my current alternative... so I guess my top price is about $300 + lens.

I have a few film related questions too. I currently have no intention of doing my own processing, and I don't want to spend a small fortune on film + development. It seems to be fairly cheap to buy film in bulk and only get negatives developed instead of 4x6 prints... so:

1) If I use film, and underexpose by a stop or two and it is developped "normally" and I scan the negative, can I still push it up to a correct expsoure?

2) Can I get nice B+W pictures by scanning colour film and converting in computer? I am not yet sure if I want to go colour or B+W, so I am trying to get the best of both worlds 🙂

3) Can you suggest some decent cheap colour film?

 

[Ash]

Go for a russian camera like a Zorki or something, you can use LTM lenses, from many manufacturers, then later use them on a Leica if you buy one. EDIT: Look into a BESSA R - that'll be in your price range.

1) Why bother underexpose????

2) Duh 🙂

3) anything from your local walmart.

 

[KoNickon]

If you're looking for interchangeable lenses for a cheap rangefinder camera, I think a great way to start would be with a camera that takes the Leica screwmount (aka M39). This would include the FED and Zorki models from the Soviet Union, or the Canon rangefinders, or the recent Voigtlander Bessa R made by Cosina. The Jupiter line of lenses from the USSR, or Canon or the Cosina/Voigtlander lenses, are all worth looking at. (Leica screwmount lenses are also plentiful, as are the Leica M39 cameras like the Leica III models.)

If "on the cheap" (like well under $300) is a major criterion, and an unmetered camera isn't an issue, look for the Zorki 4K and the Jupiter 8 (50mm f2). You could also get the Jupiter 12 (35mm f2.8) and perhaps the Jupiter 9 (85mm f2). Add to that the Soviet-made turret-style multifinder (an excellent piece of equipment) and I think you're still within budget.

With the Soviet-made gear, assembly quality can be variable. The lenses are often in serious need of re-lubing, for instance. But their optical quality is quite good, if you get a good one -- a lot of folks here swear by them. Rather than rolling the dice with eBay, check out a guy like fedka.com -- his stuff is more expensive but it's been checked out and serviced if need be.

 

[pesphoto]

Best basic rangefinder for the money-Bessa R

 

[ibcrewin]

Agentsim.. I'd been shopping around for a RF for a while. Then I came across the Bessa R. It's got pretty good reviews on RFF and it falls in your price range.

 

[Solinar]

A Bessa R with a V/C 35/2.5 Color Skopar lens can be found in the $300 range. The Voigtlander/Cosina glass is good by LTM standards. Plus, the Bessa R has a built-in through-the-lens meter that works quite well.

A Soviet RF is the least expensive path in the short term. Either the Voigtlander Bessa R or a Canon screw mount is the next step price wise.

 

[pesphoto]

The Bessa R has all you will need to get started. The Russian cameras are fun to collect and use once in a while, but if you want something reliable......

 

[agentsim]

Go for a russian camera like a Zorki or something, you can use LTM lenses, from many manufacturers, then later use them on a Leica if you buy one. EDIT: Look into a BESSA R - that'll be in your price range.

1) Why bother underexpose????

Well sometimes if you have ISO100 film, and your shooting in low light you have no choice.

 

[agentsim]

Thanks for all the replies... seems like a Bessa-R is the way to go 🙂
What should I be looking to pay for a used one (new is $250 at cameraquest)? I'm thinking about 150-200 depending on condition...

 

[Ash]

Uhhh Sim, you got it all wrong.

If you have ISO-100 film, and you want a proper photo in low light you need a FASTER film speed, for example EI-400
... so that means you either use the whole film as EI-400 and push process it, or you just use slow shutter speeds at EI-100.

You don't want to underexpose. That would be PULLING the film. Underexposure makes an image darker, effectively exposing for highlights. When a room is dark you want to expose for the shadows, since everything is dark.

 

[pesphoto]

sounds about right. I would go new if you can swing it though, or place a WTB ad here on RFF. If you cant afford the CV lens with the body a nice russian Jupiter 8 is a good choice to go with it for about $30.

 

[agentsim]

Uhhh Sim, you got it all wrong.

If you have ISO-100 film, and you want a proper photo in low light you need a FASTER film speed, for example EI-400
... so that means you either use the whole film as EI-400 and push process it, or you just use slow shutter speeds at EI-100.

You don't want to underexpose. You'd want to underexpose if you had 400 or 800 ISO film in the sahara desert and you wanted to use it like 100 film. That would be PULLING the film. Underexposure makes an image darker, effectively exposing for highlights. When a room is dark you want to expose for the shadows, since everything is dark.

I think I have badly expressed myself. I understand the basics of exposure (I think!). What I mean is, say I'm walking down the street, and see a person I want to take a picture of. If it is dark, and my film happens to be low speed, even with the lens wide open, I might not be able to "freeze" the action to any degree, so it might make sense to underexpose by a bit hoping to rescue the picture in the darkroom... right?

 

[agentsim]

sounds about right. I would go new if you can swing it though, or place a WTB ad here on RFF. If you cant afford the CV lens with the body a nice russian Jupiter 8 is a good choice to go with it for about $30.

I'm going for as cheap as possible as I'm not sure RF style photography is right for me. Once I'm more sure of myself I'll be willing to jump in feet first 🙂

Thanks for the lens recommendation.

 

[Ash]

I think I have badly expressed myself. I understand the basics of exposure (I think!). What I mean is, say I'm walking down the street, and see a person I want to take a picture of. If it is dark, and my film happens to be low speed, even with the lens wide open, I might not be able to "freeze" the action to any degree, so it might make sense to underexpose by a bit hoping to rescue the picture in the darkroom... right?

Well yea, but to be honest if you get the right camera, then you'll have a range of shutter speeds that allow for most situations.

If you're street shooting you really want 400 speed film anyway. If you live somewhere bright then go for 100, but if you'll be out and about in the evening, then there's no point using a medium or slow film.

A Bessa has slow speeds. You could use ISO100 in twilight if you have a relaxed stance.


You'll find that colour film can't easily be salvaged. Well, depending how many stops you've underexposed, neither can some black and white film. Most modern films have huge latitude that means you can over or underexpose without too much damage... but in the way you're thinking, you're hoping that an image can look like it's black, and still pull a nice shot from it. It's a bit difficult. You'll lose a huge amount of tone (or colour) range trying to get the image out.

 

[pesphoto]

i dont think ive used 100 speed film in ten years, Always 400 when shooting street stuff and I usually rate it at about 1000, except in really bright conditions.

 

[Ash]

last time I used 100 in 35mm format was last august when I took the photo's of Amy B. It was my last roll of Ilford-100.

I like to use Pan F 50 - in bright sunny conditions it's great on the street, but only because it's so bright. Otherwise I only use it especially for portraits.

My standard film is always 400. It's an easy film speed when the weather is overcast.

 

[agentsim]

i dont think ive used 100 speed film in ten years, Always 400 when shooting street stuff and I usually rate it at about 1000, except in really bright conditions.

Rating it at 1000 means underexposing by 1.5 stops right?

 

[Ash]

No. Although rating it at 1000 is one and a half stops faster (400, 800,
(1000) 1200) ... you don't underexpose really, you rate it at 1000 and expose it as such, then develop it as 1000. It's push processing. You don't want to call it underexposing.

If you rated the film at 1000, then developed at 400, then it would be underexposed.

 

[pesphoto]

right, what ash said.

 

[agentsim]

No. Although rating it at 1000 is one and a half stops faster (400, 800,
(1000) 1200) ... you don't underexpose really, you rate it at 1000 and expose it as such, then develop it as 1000. It's push processing. You don't want to call it underexposing.

If you rated the film at 1000, then developed at 400, then it would be underexposed.

I hadn't realised that... cool, now I see why my question was so silly!