Inexpensive, sturdy, mechanical rangefinder?

[Darthfeeble]

There was an ad for a Bessa R2 that is still up if you dig for it, it's the deal of the century if you ask me.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

A leica iii costs a lot from what i see. A serviced one since we are talking about an 80 years old camera costs with a lens almost as much as a leica m2 which accepts m mount lenses and much more than a leica cl which is also a compromise( to me if someone goes to leica all in he should get one of the modern ones say after the m6 or if one doenst want lightmeter m4-p) but also accepts m lenses. For a very decent price say 200 body 150 lens id try a pretty old camera with everything fiddly on it. Dont take it negative i also really like the rollei 35 for example but the lack of rangefinder and the strange focal lenght are not things i can just swallow, especialy since film costs a lot at the time.

By the way i often visit amsterdam for some street photography so here is a photo with a pentax mx 28mm lens

Agree entirely. Many here are quick to post, "get a classic ltm!" without really thinking through the logistics of trying to deal with a camera that could well be almost 90 years old with all the attendant malfunctions of such an old piece of gear.

As I wrote in my post #45, a mid-1950s big with the 50/3.5 Elmar and a few Leitz bits and pieces came my way from a deceased estate, at a price I initially thought attractive. Cosmetically, the camera looks almost unused. This was because it had been kept in its leather prison for too many decades.

I did pay a hefty sum from my already dwindling bank savings to get it fully functional. Ditto the Elmar 50/3.5, also a Summitar 50/2.0 a neighbor kindly gave me as a gift. (My note, in other posts I wrote that the 'gifted' lens is a Summicron. My mistake. It's a Summitar.)

I have since added a 90/4.0 Elmar and recently, a 135/4.5. So my kit is almost complete. I now want to add a 35/3.5 Summaron to this kit, when I find one that won't cost me half as much as I've paid for the entire not of my Leitz playtoys.

When all is said and done, I've paid through the nose for my kit. But I love it, and it works well, and the pleasure I get from using it now and then (entirely too little but then the cost of film, well, you know) makes it worth while.

All this said, I do NOT delude myself with the thought that in the end I got a bargain. Far from it. A 'niche' purchase, yes. A bargain, no.

 

[philosli]

Even Canon EOS 300 is more effective for little use of film, than any film M. IMO. We have it at home since 1998, it needs no service and just works.

You must be very lucky in that your EOS 300's film back door doesn't need any new foam replacement.

 

[Erik van Straten]

M2's are also indestructible, they are simple and repairers can almost always get them up and running again. A Heliar 50mm f2 is a low priced "black paint" lens, very Leica like. You should not waste your money buying 90mm and 135mm lenses, they are unusable. Use only 50mm and 35mm lenses; then you can use longer speeds like 1/30 and 1/60. Longer focal lenses need a tripod, very un Leica like.

gelatin silver print (heliar 50mm f2 collapsible black) leica m2

Amsterdam, Oosterpark, 2024

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (heliar 50mm f2) leica mp

Amsterdam, Museumplein, 2022

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (color-skopar 50mm f2.5) leica m2

Amsterdam, 2009

 

[MarkWalberg]

Granted it is a fixed lens camera, but I'm surprised that we are into the sixth page about "

Inexpensive, sturdy, mechanical rangefinder"​

and no one has yet mentioned the Konica IIIa or its relatives. Any of these Konica rangefinders would fit the bill very well, and would cost a LOT less (less than $200 all together) than most of the (otherwise very good) recommendations here.

 

[Brian Legge]

Kodak Medallist I/II could also fit the bill. Or at least it feels similarly tank-like. Granted the cost of the film might undermine the lower cost part.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

Kodak Medallist I/II could also fit the bill. Or at least it feels similarly tank-like. Granted the cost of the film might undermine the lower cost part.

I've used two in my photographic past. Each and every time, I swore, never again. I sold both. They are now shelf queens in the collections of friends. Which is where they rightfully belong.

They are okay enough if ancient cameras with quite good lenses, but an obsolete design. I found focusing them was annoying and, with one of them at least (it probably needed a good servicing), slow. On the other hand a Medalist was built like a Sherman tank. One bid downside is that any repair one will need, and they will surely need something done to them at some time, a big repair bill is a given. Spare parts, none. As I discovered when one of mine sprung a spring in the shutter assembly, unless the repair shop has a 'deceased' Medalist lying around, any part needed will have to be hand made.

You will also get good and sick of respoolling 120 film to 620. I certainly did. Someone suggested cutting and sanding down 120 spools to fit. Good luck with that.

Maybe a late model folder is the best way to go, that is IF you can find one in working order at a good price. A bit like looking for diamond rings on Bondi Beach in Sydney.

In my collection at home are two 1950s folders still in top working condition, a circa 1950 Zeiss Nettar (the last postwar model with the Albada finder) and a Voigtlander Perkeo I. Yes, I know, they are not rangefinders, rather scale focus cameras. I have an accessory rangefinder (from Voigtlander) which clips on the top of either camera, and is surprisingly reliable in its distance settings, given its equally venerable age (likely mid to late '50s).

Both folders are fine cameras and still reasonably reliable, and I use them now and then. But I expect them to break down at some point, at which time they will likely join the two Medalists as museum pieces.

To sum all this up, the quest for an inexpensive, sturdy, mechanical rangefinder could easily become somewhat of a life quest. With luck you will find one that still functions well, but it likely won't do everything you would expect it to. Maybe move up a bit and get one of the new Bessa 6x7s, which will really do in your budget and bank balance but at least it's modern and it will probably do what you want it to.

Whatever happens and what you decide, please keep us up to date. This is an interesting topic and we all wish you the very best.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

You must be very lucky in that your EOS 300's film back door doesn't need any new foam replacement.

Not sure if it got any. It is plastic.

 

[vitaly66]

Kodak Medallist I/II could also fit the bill. Or at least it feels similarly tank-like. Granted the cost of the film might undermine the lower cost part.

Tank-like, inexpensive, medium format rangefinder? Hah, Koni Rapid Omega 100 ;>

 

[Deleted member 65559]

There was an ad for a Bessa R2 that is still up if you dig for it, it's the deal of the century if you ask me.

We've come a long way from the OP's cheap sturdy camera opening post....to $900 for a body....

 

[Deleted member 65559]

None that are cheap. The only ones that I know of with 28 mm frame lines are from Leica M4, the Nikon SP or certain Voigtlander Bessa models that looked at as collectables these days/

I did used to have a Leica CL that you can get semi-inexpensively, especially with an inoperable meter (say $400), that I would use the whole finder window for my Canon 28/3.5. It came very close to fully coverage.

I agree.... none are cheap. I have that set-up a CL (working meter) with a Canon 28 and it's a tiny gem. But we've come a long way from the OP's "i got an F2 for $75....& not I want a cheap sturdy rangefinder." ......to a $1000 set-up. Honestly i don't think you'll find a cheap rangefinder with a 28mm.....

 

[Darthfeeble]

You pay once, use many times.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

You pay once, use many times.

Been there done that. Is the OP asking for the impossible? I think so......