wakarimasen
Well-known
Hello Folks
I am new to the world of rangefinders and have so far bought a Fed 2E and a Yashica Electro 35 - both from Ebay. Having put a film through the former I am pleased with the results. The Yashica was sent to Russ in the US (as it was 'very ill') and it will be back with me in two weeks time for my first film!
The point of this post is: I'm hooked! Film seems to me to be in some ways easier than using my DSLR, which has so many settings that the process of taking a photograph becomes overly complicated - certainly compared to the FED! So obviously I have begun to lust after a 'proper' rangefinder with detachable lenses. Step forward Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss Ikon etc.......
However a thought occurs to me: the cameras I prefer are predominantly 'manual' in nature - i.e. with the only electronics being a meter at the most. Consequently I started thinking whether or not the camera body is in fact that important, and whether or not I should concentrate on the lens instead.
So to the question: is it worth buying good LTM lenses and using them with a FED or other such copies? Would the more expensive body make such a tangible difference over and above the shutter speeds available or the built in framelines?
Best regards (and apologies for the long post)
RoyM
I am new to the world of rangefinders and have so far bought a Fed 2E and a Yashica Electro 35 - both from Ebay. Having put a film through the former I am pleased with the results. The Yashica was sent to Russ in the US (as it was 'very ill') and it will be back with me in two weeks time for my first film!
The point of this post is: I'm hooked! Film seems to me to be in some ways easier than using my DSLR, which has so many settings that the process of taking a photograph becomes overly complicated - certainly compared to the FED! So obviously I have begun to lust after a 'proper' rangefinder with detachable lenses. Step forward Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss Ikon etc.......
However a thought occurs to me: the cameras I prefer are predominantly 'manual' in nature - i.e. with the only electronics being a meter at the most. Consequently I started thinking whether or not the camera body is in fact that important, and whether or not I should concentrate on the lens instead.
So to the question: is it worth buying good LTM lenses and using them with a FED or other such copies? Would the more expensive body make such a tangible difference over and above the shutter speeds available or the built in framelines?
Best regards (and apologies for the long post)
RoyM
Last edited:
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
Good question, I still have trouble answering that for myself sometimes. I too have a Fed2, an Electro and some other rangefinder/slr cameras.
A few months back I bought a Canon P with a 35mm. Its by far my most sophisticated and well built rangefinder camera, but when I go out shooting I always find myself reaching for the Fed. I bring both bodies along for different focal lengths but I tend to use the Fed more.
To answer your question, between the Fed and Canon, yes there is a noticeable and tangible difference between the bodies. But the limitations of a cruder camera over the benefits of a more refined camera hasn't had a significant impact on how I like to shoot. I shoot at a slower pace with the Fed, but I still have just as many pictures I like as when I have the ability to shoot faster with the Canon.
What kind of lens are you using on your Fed? Soviet LTM lenses are good and cheap, and they occasionally pop up on the classifieds.
A few months back I bought a Canon P with a 35mm. Its by far my most sophisticated and well built rangefinder camera, but when I go out shooting I always find myself reaching for the Fed. I bring both bodies along for different focal lengths but I tend to use the Fed more.
To answer your question, between the Fed and Canon, yes there is a noticeable and tangible difference between the bodies. But the limitations of a cruder camera over the benefits of a more refined camera hasn't had a significant impact on how I like to shoot. I shoot at a slower pace with the Fed, but I still have just as many pictures I like as when I have the ability to shoot faster with the Canon.
What kind of lens are you using on your Fed? Soviet LTM lenses are good and cheap, and they occasionally pop up on the classifieds.
ChrisN
Striving
The Leica lenses offer superb mechanical and optical quality, and image characteristics that many people favour. If your eyes can discern these differences in the images, and that is the look you want in your images, get the lenses that will give you that look, as a priority. Many excellent non-Leica lenses are considerably less expensive.
A Leica body offers superb mechanical quality, reliability, and a great viewfinder. It is a sound investment for many years of excellent camera performance . If you expect to use this style of camera for many years, it may be worth investing in a Leica body to match the lens or lenses you have chosen.
A Leica body offers superb mechanical quality, reliability, and a great viewfinder. It is a sound investment for many years of excellent camera performance . If you expect to use this style of camera for many years, it may be worth investing in a Leica body to match the lens or lenses you have chosen.
wakarimasen
Well-known
I have an Industar 26M which probably needs a little attention!
Bassism
Well-known
My advice in this situation would be to consider whether it is the means or the end that is most important to you.
If you care primarily about the image on the negative, then the camera makes little or no difference. If the Leica lens is what will give you the results you are looking for then go for it.
However, if you find enjoyment in the process of photography as well, the body will make a difference. I find that my M2 with its much better viewfinder, higher top speed, and general niceness is by far preferable to my Fed 3. Being more excited by and comfortable with the camera, I have it with me more often and take more photos, which leads to more keepers.
If I had to choose between my Summicron 50 or my M2, the lens would go and I would stick with Industar.
If you care primarily about the image on the negative, then the camera makes little or no difference. If the Leica lens is what will give you the results you are looking for then go for it.
However, if you find enjoyment in the process of photography as well, the body will make a difference. I find that my M2 with its much better viewfinder, higher top speed, and general niceness is by far preferable to my Fed 3. Being more excited by and comfortable with the camera, I have it with me more often and take more photos, which leads to more keepers.
If I had to choose between my Summicron 50 or my M2, the lens would go and I would stick with Industar.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
Well the good news is you won't find a shortage of manual cameras in the rangefinder world.
Part of it depends on your budget, but I believe in moderation. I don't see the use in putting a $1000 lens on a $30 body, no more than putting a $30 lens on a $1000 body. The older Canon and newer Voigtlander products are good value for the dollar. Although there is a small premium, some of the older Leica lenses are in the under $300 range.
For a body, you could use get a used Bessa R, or a Canon P/L1/L2 for around $225 these days. I think you'd be wowed by the viewfinder and convient meter in the Bessa R. The meterless Canon has a duller vf than the Bessa, but better built quality.
For lenses, Canon 50/1.4 or a collapsable Summicron 50/2 are under $300 lenses even at keh.com. Voigtlander products are very good too. I love my 50/1.5 Nokton.
Cameraquest has a new Bessa R for $299 as well as new Color Skopar 35/2.5 for $229. Another RF member has this pricing site which is very useful.
P.S. No apologies required for the long post.
Part of it depends on your budget, but I believe in moderation. I don't see the use in putting a $1000 lens on a $30 body, no more than putting a $30 lens on a $1000 body. The older Canon and newer Voigtlander products are good value for the dollar. Although there is a small premium, some of the older Leica lenses are in the under $300 range.
For a body, you could use get a used Bessa R, or a Canon P/L1/L2 for around $225 these days. I think you'd be wowed by the viewfinder and convient meter in the Bessa R. The meterless Canon has a duller vf than the Bessa, but better built quality.
For lenses, Canon 50/1.4 or a collapsable Summicron 50/2 are under $300 lenses even at keh.com. Voigtlander products are very good too. I love my 50/1.5 Nokton.
Cameraquest has a new Bessa R for $299 as well as new Color Skopar 35/2.5 for $229. Another RF member has this pricing site which is very useful.
P.S. No apologies required for the long post.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
I had a very decent I26-M and I can tell you the results were fantastic. Very sharp and contrasty. I sold it with a Canon P to get enough $$ to pay for my Leica M2. I miss the I26-M more than the Canon P. It was in excellent shape.
brachal
Refrigerated User
There's nothing wrong with putting Leica or Voigtlander lense on a Fed. I like the Fed-2 ... pleasant ergonomics and crazy-long rangefinder. There's also nothing wrong with putting a Jupiter or Industar on a Leica or Bessa -- those lenses can deliver outstanding results.
aad
Not so new now.
It may not make better photos, but a decent Leica LTM body is reliable and repairable, plus it feels good.
Oddly, I notice that if I am taking photos, of people or places, everyone seems friendly when I use the old IIIf.
Oddly, I notice that if I am taking photos, of people or places, everyone seems friendly when I use the old IIIf.
You have to be a bit careful when putting a Leica lens on a Russian body- the RF cam on the Leica lenses are much thinner than their Russian counterparts. The RF follower arm of my Two Zorki 3m's will slip under them and give bad readings. This is true of the Summarit and Summar. Put a Nikkor 5cm f2 on the Zorki 3M's, no problem- the cam is thicker. Put a J-8 or J-3 on them, no problem.
SO, as with any mix and match setup, you have to pay attention to the particular mix, or be prepared to do some adjusting.
I have a beautiful 1959 J-3 on my Leica CL. Great match-up.
SO, as with any mix and match setup, you have to pay attention to the particular mix, or be prepared to do some adjusting.
I have a beautiful 1959 J-3 on my Leica CL. Great match-up.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
In the Great Pitxu Closet Unload thread, I gave my Industar 61 to RFF'er Dave Lackey. He shot it on his M3 and supplied a Nikon D2x shot with some modern Nikon lens from the same bird house.
The Industar 61 won that shoot out. Detail was incredible.
So, another vote for the Industar lenses, and for an M-body. I own an M3 and an M5 and they are built with such minimal tolerances in parts, they have a very 'tight' feel about them I have not found in other mechanical cameras. Nothing wobbly, no play unless intended, etc.
Like others said, it makes you pick up the camera more and you get more keepers simply from shooting more.
Any camera is good for a hobby, it takes a Leica for a passion
pesphoto
Veteran
uh...i agree with most of what you say, but you lose me here......
One needs a Leica to be passionate about photography? Couldnt disagree more......
FrankS
Registered User
as Martain said, if you are all about the results, then the lens is the most important component, although Leica does not have the good lenses market cornered.
If the enjoyment of the process is also important to you, then which camera body you are using becomes more important. IMO, Leica does have an advantage here over other manufacturers.
For me, I derive pleasure from both the process and the final result. If I had to choose to use only one: a Leica body or a Leica lens, I would choose the body because there are many really good and interesting lenses available new and used other than Leica's. I have yet however, owned a camera body that feels as natural, transparent, and as solid, as a Leica M body. (I'm talking M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, and MP.)
This has been my experience with the RF gear I have owned (bodies and lenses from Leica, Canon, Nikon, Contax, CV Bessa) but I accept that the experiences of others may be different and lead them to different conclusions.
If the enjoyment of the process is also important to you, then which camera body you are using becomes more important. IMO, Leica does have an advantage here over other manufacturers.
For me, I derive pleasure from both the process and the final result. If I had to choose to use only one: a Leica body or a Leica lens, I would choose the body because there are many really good and interesting lenses available new and used other than Leica's. I have yet however, owned a camera body that feels as natural, transparent, and as solid, as a Leica M body. (I'm talking M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, and MP.)
This has been my experience with the RF gear I have owned (bodies and lenses from Leica, Canon, Nikon, Contax, CV Bessa) but I accept that the experiences of others may be different and lead them to different conclusions.
Last edited:
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
I have a similar experience mounting a FSU lens on my Canon P. I tried attaching my Fed 50mm but the cam would not fully couple with the body. My J-8 on the other hand mounts just fine, only problem is the focus is off.
> only problem is the focus is off.
Russian lenses often have to be collimated (shim adjusted) to focus accurately on a Leica-standard (Leica, Canon, Leotax, etc) body. Your generally okay at F2.8, and can get lucky with some J-8's or J-3's. Most often, the optics needs to be moved slightly out from the focus mount to focus "exactly". This is not hard to correct, most people can do it. Instructions are on Kim Coxon's site.
Russian lenses often have to be collimated (shim adjusted) to focus accurately on a Leica-standard (Leica, Canon, Leotax, etc) body. Your generally okay at F2.8, and can get lucky with some J-8's or J-3's. Most often, the optics needs to be moved slightly out from the focus mount to focus "exactly". This is not hard to correct, most people can do it. Instructions are on Kim Coxon's site.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Hm. It sounded good when writing, but I can see what you mean.
Maybe it would be better like this:
Any camera is good for a hobby, but Leicas easily create a passion.
Meaning that other cameras also can create a passion, but with a Leica that's almost effortless.
But, I guess this goes for other types of cameras as well, a friend of mine loves his Nikon D2x a lot, while I cannot get excited about it. (Eventually, I'll win him over, my small bag is intriguing to him
)
FrankS
Registered User
That doesn't sound quite right either!
How about, I like Leica's, Canon's, Nikon's, Zorki's, Fed's, Contax's, Voigtlander's, and most other cameras...
But I especially like making my own lenses for them.
Passion- well, that's reserved for something different altogether...
But I especially like making my own lenses for them.
Passion- well, that's reserved for something different altogether...
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
It's possible to find reasons for any combination but for value and versatility I'g go for the Bessa R3A (or R4A if you're into WA). The price is right, the lenses are of excellent quality and you can elect to use the AE feature or turn it off and go manual. Anything else will restrict you at some stage.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Welcome to the slippery slope that is RF. It's a wonderful addiction that yields a wonderful journey with so many stops along the way. You've already started and the next step might be a more reliable LTM or M camera than your Fed. I loved my Fed2 when I had her, but was very frustrated with getting it working well. Sunk lots of money into her and ended up moving else where.
An older Leica is fun and after a CLA solid like a rock. Ye up in the Boston area does a great job at a very reasonable price, Don (DAG) and Sherry (Golden Touch) are world class, but cost more and are very busy. There are great Canons and others out there each with their own personality. Take a read over here for some very well written information:
http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm
One of the best parts about LTM lenses is the wide variety of them available (e.g. Nikkor, Komura, Steinhill Munchien) that all have their own look and feel (signature). Some are razor sharp, other yield a feel you can get nowhere else. There are new ones from CV and others. Where to go first depends upon you. I've had Leica, Nikon, CV, Komura, and several others, each was fun.
I've moved over to Nikon range finders and a combination of Nikkors and CV glass. There is no single path that is right for all. I would recommend you pick up a great body and move to glass from there. Way too many different options in glass. I think you need reliability in a camera to start, then build your glass from there.
B2 (;->
B2 (;->
An older Leica is fun and after a CLA solid like a rock. Ye up in the Boston area does a great job at a very reasonable price, Don (DAG) and Sherry (Golden Touch) are world class, but cost more and are very busy. There are great Canons and others out there each with their own personality. Take a read over here for some very well written information:
http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm
One of the best parts about LTM lenses is the wide variety of them available (e.g. Nikkor, Komura, Steinhill Munchien) that all have their own look and feel (signature). Some are razor sharp, other yield a feel you can get nowhere else. There are new ones from CV and others. Where to go first depends upon you. I've had Leica, Nikon, CV, Komura, and several others, each was fun.
I've moved over to Nikon range finders and a combination of Nikkors and CV glass. There is no single path that is right for all. I would recommend you pick up a great body and move to glass from there. Way too many different options in glass. I think you need reliability in a camera to start, then build your glass from there.
B2 (;->
B2 (;->