My new camera: Bessa, Ikon or CLE?

My new camera: Bessa, Ikon or CLE?

  • Bessa R3

    Votes: 11 22.9%

  • Zeiss Ikon

    Votes: 18 37.5%

  • Minolta CLE

    Votes: 11 22.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 9 18.8%
  • Total voters
    48
emraphoto said:
I have used the sunny 16 many times but my humble advice would be to invest in a meter. Sekonic L-358 is my go to meter and I use it even with cameras renowned for excellent metering. When you want to do what you are discussing above, and sort the averages, something like the 358 is indispensable. It has an averaging function built into it. Even with today’s techno marvels I have one in my work bag and use it almost daily.

Yes, this sort of stuff can be sorted without a meter, with experience. Something like the 358 makes it much easier to get exactly what you want.

As for the cameras, the Zeiss Ikon viewfinder is spectacular but the used prices where I live are up there with the M6, which I would purchase before the Ikon. I have used both extensively however not for portraits specifically. I also have used a CLE and still have the original one I purchased many moons ago. Works like a champ and has never skipped a beat.

If I could offer up advice... If it has to be a rangefinder, and portraits are your thing, I would consider an M3. I see them in pretty reasonable price ranges compared to the cameras mentioned so far and they are both serviceable and tough as nails. The viewfinder is unmatched for the 50mm and longer. Pair it with a L-358 and don’t worry about electronics or serviceability. If I could go further with the advice, this question really points in another direction for answers. Something like an Nikon F3 with the 85 or 105 would be my direction. The viewfinder of the F3 is outstanding and offers 100% coverage. If framing accuracy is important in your portrait approach the F3 seems far more useful. I stopped using rangefinders as the finder accuracy became and issue. For me, I want control over elements in the frame, down to the most minuscule.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the wonderful advice.

How do you keep your workflow "spontaneous" with an external meter? With an internal meter, I tell the model to move so and so, I look into into the finder, adjust the time and shoot. Would there be a way to do something similar with an external meter?
 
css9450 said:
Do you think switching to a rangefinder will cure those issues?
Click to expand...
emraphoto said:
If I could go further with the advice, this question really points in another direction for answers. Something like an Nikon F3 with the 85 or 105 would be my direction. The viewfinder of the F3 is outstanding and offers 100% coverage. If framing accuracy is important in your portrait approach the F3 seems far more useful. I stopped using rangefinders as the finder accuracy became and issue. For me, I want control over elements in the frame, down to the most minuscule.
Click to expand...

My problem is that I have worked for years with SLRs, and I simply don't prefer the rendition of SLR lenses.

Examples:
These are two EXCELLENT portraits, made with different SLR lenses.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/49148665571/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/39832007682/

I do acknowledge that they are very good and sharp, but the rendition is simply not what I am looking for.

These guys, from different RF lenses:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/15332229839/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/49994009073/

have the rendition that I want.

So if I have to learn a new system, be it.
 
keytarjunkie said:
Most B&W negative films are very forgiving, particularly with overexposure. When you're in a situation like that, try bracketing. Shoot one exposure where you think it should be, and then shoot another where the meter tells you. Develop the roll soon enough that it's still fresh in your memory. Then you learn from your mistakes and successes!

It's really easy to use a handheld meter or a free app on your phone to get a good precise light reading of a scene. At first it can feel very slow to work this way, but it also makes you more attentive to changes in the light, and the heightened awareness of working this way helps make you a better photographer, in my opinion. There's a lot of youtube videos these days about working with film, since it is becoming popular with younger people. You could start somewhere like this or this.
Click to expand...


Thanks, spot on (pun intended)!
 
As a previous poster mentioned, a good way to proceed at first may be with an inexpensive rangefinder. There are several good reasons for this:

Some well-known and well-regarded older rangefinders produce excellent results, offer you full manual control as well as some automation, have decent rangefinder patches, have meters, and are still popular enough that finding repair or servicing is not difficult. Also, they are relatively inexpensive and should you decide the camera is not for you, you probably wouldn’t lose much -if any- money.

Usually they’ll have a lens around 40mm - which can give you a nice portrait at wider aperture settings (an aperture wide enough to get the background pleasingly out of focus, but still keep your subject sharp - like the M2 photo you referenced).

The cameras I’m thinking about are the Canon QL17 GIII, Minolta Hi-Matic 7 series, Olympus 35 RC and such. If you prefer a larger camera, there’s the Yashica Lynx series. The Cameraquest web site provides a wealth of information about these and other rangefinders.

“Sunny 16”, to me, is just a rough guide most useful for general outdoor photography. The subtleties involved with good exposure for portraits will come to you with experience. As a previous poster mentioned, it will help to bracket your exposures and have a good quality handheld meter (learn about incident and reflected meter readings).
 
Pál_K said:
As a previous poster mentioned, a good way to proceed at first may be with an inexpensive rangefinder. There are several good reasons for this:

Some well-known and well-regarded older rangefinders produce excellent results, offer you full manual control as well as some automation, have decent rangefinder patches, have meters, and are still popular enough that finding repair or servicing is not difficult. Also, they are relatively inexpensive and should you decide the camera is not for you, you probably wouldn’t lose much -if any- money.

Usually they’ll have a lens around 40mm - which can give you a nice portrait at wider aperture settings.

The cameras I’m thinking about are the Canon QL17 GIII, Minolta Hi-Matic 7 series, Olympus 35 RC and such. If you prefer a larger camera, there’s the Yashica Lynx series. The Cameraquest web site provides a wealth of information about these and other rangefinders.

“Sunny 16”, to me, is just a rough guide most useful for general outdoor photography. The subtleties involved with good exposure for portraits will come to you with experience. As a previous poster mentioned, it will help to bracket your exposures and have a good quality handheld meter (learn about incident and reflected meter readings).
Click to expand...

Thanks Pal.
 
Go cheap and get a bargain rangefinder to practice with. If you like working with a rangefinder I'd go with an M3 (for serviceability and longevity) or an Ikon (for a much better viewfinder and slightly better focus). Buy the cheapie kit carefully and you'll get most of your money back.
 
piero2020 said:
My problem is that I have worked for years with SLRs, and I simply don't prefer the rendition of SLR lenses.

Examples:
These are two EXCELLENT portraits, made with different SLR lenses.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/49148665571/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/39832007682/

I do acknowledge that they are very good and sharp, but the rendition is simply not what I am looking for.

These guys, from different RF lenses:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/15332229839/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/49994009073/

have the rendition that I want.

So if I have to learn a new system, be it.
Click to expand...

I don't think those are differences between SLR and rangefinder as much as just differences between depth of field and then on the second of the the rangefinder a lens that is less corrected for some distortions.

The two lenses used on the SLR above really aren't considered typical portrait lenses, they are macro lenses. On the Nikon look for the 105 2.5 or 85 1.4D shots for portrait examples. Or if you want the bit older rendering look for an earlier 50mm 1.4 S or K series.

Not saying you can't do great portraits with a rangefinder, I do it too. But for narrow depth of field shooting with a variety of lenses you hit rate is likely going to be higher on the SLR than on the rangefinder. And you have more flexibility with longer focal lengths for portraits.

Shawn (Duckng and covering)
 
piero2020 said:
Sorry, I am very new to rangefinders - what is the importance of the baselength?
Click to expand...

The baselength is the distance between the viewfinder and the patch, essentially. The longer the baselength, the more accurate your focusing is.

I have a Zeiss, have used a Bessa, have a Hexar, and own a CL, and I would go with the the Zeiss all day. It is a great camera. Everything about it is wonderful.

Here is a write up of rangefinder baselength.
 
Would it be more accurate to say that you want to use Sonnar type lenses?

If so, I would recommend this:

- Nikon F with 105mm f2.5 pre-ai, chrome nose
- Nikon S-anything with 50/1.4
 
aizan said:
Would it be more accurate to say that you want to use Sonnar type lenses?

If so, I would recommend this:

- Nikon F with 105mm f2.5 pre-ai, chrome nose
- Nikon S-anything with 50/1.4
Click to expand...

Thanks Aizar, what does Sonnar type mean? Fast? Sharp?
 
jawarden said:
Agree. I have an M3 and an Ikon, and the M3 sits unused for the most part.
Click to expand...

My first M mount was a Leica M3, it felt like that was "the camera" to get, if you went by what other people said. I was so underwhelmed, I sold it pretty quickly. I've bought Nikon S3 twice now for the same reason. The only M mount camera that I really enjoy using is the Zeiss ZM. I'd say that I love the Hexar but it doesn't have part of the viewfinder so I haven't really been able to use it yet. My CL, not sure I have a place for it, but I still keep it. I might give it away one day, who knows.

The Zeiss is a camera I always lusted after and now that I have some money set aside, I decided to pick one up locally, black, at what I thought was a good price. I've been so pleased with it, just a great camera.
 
piero2020 said:
Thanks Aizar, what does Sonnar type mean? Fast? Sharp?
Click to expand...

Sonnar is a type of lens design.

37610789180_3622523c34.jpg
[/url]

29147403032_0974b53d01.jpg


Nikon 105mm f2.5 (Sonnar)

Shawn
 
shawn said:
Sonnar is a type of lens design.

Nikon 105mm f2.5 (Sonnar)

Shawn
Click to expand...

Ok I checked it out. This seems to be an outstanding lens making outstanding photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/igel_rupert/36772466756

But I am looking for something that I can only describe as "bite": you can see a grittiness, somehow the silver grains come out. I wish I had better words for it.

I think that SLR lens images are actually better and more modern looking, but I need the retro grainy look:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/50380311516
https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/50250626658
 
piero2020 said:
My problem is that I have worked for years with SLRs, and I simply don't prefer the rendition of SLR lenses.

Examples:

These are two EXCELLENT portraits, made with different SLR lenses.

I do acknowledge that they are very good and sharp, but the rendition is simply not what I am looking for.

These guys, from different RF lenses:

have the rendition that I want.

So if I have to learn a new system, be it.
Click to expand...

Can you pinpoint what it is about the two you like, and the two you don't, and why the camera system made a difference? If you found out later he had mixed up the captions, would it change how you feel about those photos? What if the two RF shots were actually taken with FE2 and F5?
 
piero2020 said:
But I am looking for something that I can only describe as "bite": you can see a grittiness, somehow the silver grains come out. I wish I had better words for it.

I think that SLR lens images are actually better and more modern looking, but I need the retro grainy look:
Click to expand...

A lens or system isn't going to give you a grainy look. That will just be down to differences in film choices, development choices, scanning choices and any additional post processing.

After that lenses will give either an older look (mostly older designs with more distortions in them) or a more modern corrected look.

The second image you linked above is from oversharpening in post.

Shawn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom