Quest for beginner RF: Not rich.

[Jehovazilla]

I know from extensive Googling that this has been asked ad nauseum (but apparently not nauseously enough for my brain) , so please pardon me being annoying. If this is too annoying, let me know, and I'll gladly shut my trap.

So, yet again, here is someone looking into getting a rangefinder, who has no experience with one, and can't afford a mint Leica (and probably couldn't justify it, if I could). I have done some fair amount of research, though, and am just looking for some closing information to actually pull the trigger.

Some background: I've never shot film, at least in a serious way. I had an old, crappy, point and shoot that had light leaks, made horrible sounds when handling film, and generally turned me off of the whole experience. I shot one shot on my mom's old Spotmatic when I was six or seven (of my feet, with the lens cap on)... Consider me an expert. I always wanted a good camera, but could never justify it, until 5 years ago when I got a Pentax DSLR (a Kx). Later upgraded to a K5, with more glass than I can ever use. Later still came the Oly PEN EP-3. In short, I've got my digital covered. I still feel like I'm missing something though, since I take 7000 (not really, but enough to make PP a pain) shots in a location, and then select the top 60 or so, then the top 30, and then the top 3. This seems silly. I figure film would teach me some economy and patience, waiting for the proper shot, and not just trying every angle of anything that mildly catches me interest. I'm not replacing my workhorse Pentax, nor my array of nice glass.

So... I want a film camera. I don't want an SLR, since I got one, and my girlfriend has a nice Nikon F2, and my mom has that Spotmatic, and an old fully-manual Minolta. I want something different than I'm used to. Further, I'm interested in the history of photography, and want to "experience" a bit of those roots. Plus, RFs have some mystique to them...

So, lots of noise there... Sorry... I've done some research, and came up with a list... Criteria: Interchangeable lenses, to cross with my EP3. Not horribly expensive ($300ish tops, unless I can sell my Kx, then maybe $500-600). Good quality, since I don't want to throw my money away. Decent lenses, that don't cost $6000 apiece, used. I don't want it to be basically a modern D/SLR, allowing me to be lazy with my technique. And, finally, something that isn't going to require a couple hundred in servicing a year from now.

So... The short list...

1. Canon P. I worry about maintenance, and the fact I have glasses (no diapters). I don't know if this is a big issue or not.

2. Canon 7. Again, maintenance, and it might be a bit too beefy/plasticy.

3. Various Bessa's, mainly the R2, or the R2M. I worry since I can find any reviews of them, or experiences, from people who owned them over a month, so how do they fare with age? Are they disguised crap? The R2M approaches the high end of my budget, especially with glass.

4. Leica M3... Probably can't afford one of good providence, from a reputable dealer.

5. Leica CL... Read mixed things. Kind of worry about it not being a good fit. Not sure, I'm just not as excited about it as the above ones, could be ignorance. Probably is ignorance.

6. Various FSU RFs... I'm worried about the quality. I don't want to throw money away, even if it is less than $100. I already wasted $60 on a broken Werra III (film spool doesn't engage, trying to fix it myself), so I don't really want to get burned again.

7. Contax G1 or G2... I'm not sure... They seem to much like my dads fully automatic point and shoot from the 90's. Maybe to automatic. Don't like their looks that much.. And Contax doesn't carry the weight that it could (for the lens prices) since it isn't really Zeiss anymore. But then again my experience is only in the vintage M42 world, so... who knows, I could be dumb. The price is right, at least, I just don't if I'd get the RF experience from them. Also, less lenses than LTM or M cameras.

Sorry that was so long winded. This topic has been bugging me for awhile now, and I haven't been able to muster confidence enough in any of these to actually DO something, and I feel I should since the whole idea is getting a bit annoying now. My girlfriend agrees, she is sick of my ranting about rangefinders, and the history of them...

Thanks.

 

[furbs]

Save up for a film M; M2's and M4-P's aren't as much, comparatively. It sounds like you already have enough cameras to take pictures with, so if you want a rangefinder, you might as well be patient and save up. I waited years to get an M4, but then sold most of my other cameras after I grew to love the Leica. M's also hold resale value well, so if you don't like it, just sell it for the price you paid.

 

[dbarnes]

Don't worry about Bessas being bad buys. They're rugged and good values. And if you want to keep things inexpensive as you try out the RF world, don't rule out the combination of a Bessa R body and a Color Skopar 35/2.5, a simply great entry level combo.

It's true that the R body has the Leica thread mount rather than the M bayonet mount, and it's a slower process to change lenses on a thread mount body than on a bayonet mount body. But any thread mount lens can take an inexpensive M adapter, so the future value of your lenses is preserved if you decide you need a different body. And nice R bodies can had in the $200-250 range, so there's not a lot of room for the value of the body to fall.

 

[tunalegs]

There are also tons of good fixed lens RFs which can be had for practically nothing which would allow you to try the RF experience without having to invest heavily in something which you may not enjoy.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Bessa R with Jupiter 8. This is how I started in precise RF film photography in 2012. $250 for both.
Best RF camera, lens, kit for its money. Modern, advanced, reliable and very nice looking.

Hardcore true classic RF is Lieca IIF, you could find working user under $200, add Idustar-22 collapsible lens for $50 and it gives you most incredible RF kit.
I have this camera and couple of collapsible lens.

Zorki 6, after CLA around $100, very used but clean glass Summitar 50/2. I have my copy for $200.
Because it is not the camera, but lens taking the pictures.

 

[35mmdelux]

To OP: What is your budget? Do you want to take photographs or own certain gear? $400 will get you Konica with f2.0 great glass. It holds its own and won't break your bank.

 

[Orbiter]

Recently I was in a similar situation and opted for a Leica IIIf and some lenses (Summitar, 9cm Elmar, and other of the usual suspects). Love the camera--fun to use and it produces great pictures. On the other hand the viewfinder is squinty (but an Imarect finder solved that problem), the film changing is a pain at first (but gets easier), and you need trim the film leaders.

Next I bought a Kiev IIa from Fedka. Really like it too. Surprisingly good lenses, I think some may be better than my Leitz equivalents (the Summaron 3.5 and Hektor 135) and again it can make really nice photos. Not too crazy about film loading (unlike the rest of the world I think the IIIf is easier to load, maybe this will change over time), and after reading various posts here the build quality is a little scary but it hasn't let me down so far. Really like dealing with Yuri at Fedka--he deserves the great reputation he has on this forum.

Recently bought a Canon 7 on this forum and love it. The CameraQuest article called it right, this is one great shooter. Easier to travel with than my IIIf, no film trimming, no external viewfinder needed, and film changing is a snap. It plays well with Leitz lenses so I no longer need to get that M4 I was lusting after.

If you want a pretty cheap way of trying out rangefinders you might consider a Konica Auto S2. The lens is REALLY terrific and you can shoot on full manual or shutter priority. I think I paid $15 for mine along with a $100 or so for a CLA.

As mentioned already, probably the cheapest approach in the long run would be to save up for an M body. On the other hand, the intermediate steps can be a lot of fun, don't cost too much, and you may find something that suits you just fine.

Unfortunately this can become a little addictive....

 

[Katie]

😉

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...50mm2f-2f-cv-15mm-4-5boxes-2fcaps-2fetc/cat/3

 

[Chris101]

Really? Phoenix? How come I don't know who you? I thought everybody here shot film - we have more camera stores than sell film than just about anywhere. Go to Tempe Camera, and browse their used cameras. They've got rangefinders.

 

[hepcat]

Oh, wow. After reading your first post, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I have a few comments to share with you about points you made in your post though.

First, there is no mystique about a rangefinder camera. It's a box that holds a distance-finding device. It's no better or worse than an SLR, just different.

Second, shooting film will not, I repeat will NOT instill discipline in your shooting. You can use any medium to record tons of useless images. All film will do is make your expenses higher in doing it. Shooting film will NOT make you a better photographer. Many things can improve your work, choice of medium is irrelevant in that regard.

Third, any modern M mount body that functions will be adequate, and there are many current lenses that are amazing and won't break the bank. Sometimes the older lenses with all their imperfections are actual better at making images that folks like to look at.

Good luck in your hunt.

 

[Takkun]

Echoing the above, shoot film because you like film, and no other reason.

As for equipment, I would say go with either an earlier fixed-lens model (favorites I've used: Canonet, Olympus 35 series, Yashica Electro), or the Bessa. You have reservations about all the other models, and trust me, there's always a sinking feeling in the back of your head when you bought a compromise and you know what you really want. (having worked at a camera dealer, I've seen this very frequently)
I can vouch for the original R and the R2a/R3a series. They're light, small and solid, and the viewfinders are superlative. The winding on the R is a lot smoother than I remember.

I'd skip on the FSU cameras; they can be 'project bodies' and those are great as a third or fourth buy when you've got the patience to deal with them.

The Contax is a great camera, from what I understand, but no. It's ot a rangefinder, its a very good AF camera. Think the film equivalent of the Fuji X100.

Lastly, hold out until you can buy the Leica of your dreams. I can tell you as a recent owner, there's nothing like an original, but there's also nothing like the price of having them repaired and overhauled.
So in short, it sounds almost like you've subconsciously made up your mind about it, looking at your list!

 

[Bingley]

If you've never shot with a rangefinder before, I'd recommend getting one of the great fixed lens RFs from the 1970s, eg Canonet, Olympus RC, Konica Auto S2, various Yashicas. These cameras have terrific lenses, with good meters, and will cost a fraction of the other options you're considering. If you find you like RF shooting, then you can upgrade. The Bessa R and CV Skopar 35/2.5 recommended above is a fine combo.

 

[btgc]

Buying terrific RF like KAS2 or similar for $15 will leave you frustrated as all the time you'll think "this is not Leica" and finally you will arrive to idea of buying REAL camera and lenses. It depends on you what happens there - either discovery "hm, pictures are just same" or "yes, now I'm there". At this point your bet is either lowball (not so low as it seems, if CLA is needed) or go straight va bank AND not return to purchases within a year. Otherwise you risk to become one of those in infinite search of perfect camera.

 

[Classique]

I've been there and done that.

I started film with Fed 2 and Industar 61 and was kinda disappointed (even though it looked gorgeous). Thought maybe I wasn't meant for film, focused on digital but eventually got tired of countless hours spent behind the computer (due to spray and pray). I have since sold my professional DSLR kit and use nex 5n, sigma dp2m and numerous film cameras.

After some hiatus from film, I decided to give Canon rangefinders a try. First Canon 7 and then Canon P. Those are lovely cameras and if it is in working condition, most likely will not be a problem for many years. I bought both on ebay and didn't need any repairs. Price is "cheap" for what you get - multiple framelines, amazing build quality, availability of good but not too pricey lenses (FSU, canon and older screwmount lenses)

But then the Leica bug bit me. So I got a M4-2 from another member here some time ago and I still use it. The feel of Leica is really something else. Canon RFs feel more mechanical and Leica more "organic" if you get my gist.

Fast forward to present and now I own Leica M4-2, Leica IIIF, and recently got Leica/minolta CL. In my opinion, any of the three will be a good "cheaper" alternatives into a great rangefinder experience. Surprisingly, I like the shutter sound/feel of CL the best followed by IIIF then M4-2. CL has a low pitch and reassuring click while IIIF is higher pitched but light. M4-2 shutter feels/sounds more robust.

Last but not least (and not to ruin your dreams) ... my advice is FOCUS on the LENSES (pun intended 🙂) No matter how great the body is, lenses actually make the image. Any summicrons are awesome and 40mm summicron/m-rokkor is the best value for the money. Voigtlander lenses are a great deal for what you get and vintage nikkors/canons have character (diff than summicrons).

Good luck on your search!

Oh almost forgot. I used Bessa R and had Bessa L for some time. You get a lot of camera for the money but feels a bit cheap and shutter is not very refined (at least to me). If your focus is a rangefinder as a tool, I wouldn't hesitate to get a Bessa. For me, camera is more than a tool so I chose to stick with the classics with feels I can appreciate.

 

[bonatto]

Second, shooting film will not, I repeat will NOT instill discipline in your shooting. You can use any medium to record tons of useless images. All film will do is make your expenses higher in doing it. Shooting film will NOT make you a better photographer. Many things can improve your work, choice of medium is irrelevant in that regard

Though this may reflect your experience, it is certainly far from being the absolute statement you make it out to be.

You can indeed use any medium to record tons of useless images.

Film expenses are entirely dependent on how much you shoot, and if you factor in re-sale value of film gear, cost of home developing, depreciation of digital gear, it may even work out to be cheaper. The OP indicated quite clearly that he intends on this being a new experience to him, and he is approaching it with the right mindset. It can be self correcting, you can burn through film if you need to, but if you finish a roll...well...no more roll.

In regards to choice of medium and personal improvement, I think that you will find many here have seen their work improve after picking up one specific camera or another. It's certainly not the camera that's making them better, but the mindset directly behind the viewfinder. It can and does change depending on what type of gear you are using. If you are chimping, you're not seeing, and a film camera easily takes care of that.

To the OP:

You've already done some good research and found some good system options. The Leica can be seen as a bit of a a holy grail, but it does come with holy grail prices. That being said, there are plenty of user M2's around that can be had for little money. Factor in +-160US for service if you are buying online and don't know if there is anything wrong with the camera. Lens wise you can go with any of the inexpensive voigtlander offerings for modern glass. The color skopar 35mm is a good starting point, compact, and can be had for around 300US.

Camera systems

If you are happy using a meterless body, you could also consider a Nikon rangefinder with a 50mm lens. They seem to go for under 500US sometimes and are great performers.

If you need a meter, then your only choices are either a Bessa (all great and have nice viewfinders. Look at cameraquest.com for more info.) or a Leica CL. The viewfinder on the former being much brighter and "modern" than the latter.

Fixed lens

There are a number of excellent fixed lens rangefinders with built in meters, including but not limited to the Olympus SP35. Buy a clean, even CLA'd copy and you'll have a toe in rangefinder experience with great glass to boot and under 150US.

 

[johannielscom]

<snip>... I take 7000 (not really, but enough to make PP a pain) shots in a location, and then select the top 60 or so, then the top 30, and then the top 3. This seems silly. I figure film would teach me some economy and patience, waiting for the proper shot, and not just trying every angle of anything that mildly catches me interest. ...<snip>

Welcome to the forum, first of all.

Regarding your remarks which I highlighted above: why not restrict the size of your SD card when you go out the door? I once spoke to a friendly gentleman with a Leica M8 who took limited card space with him when going out while on holidays, so that he would have to consider each shot like he did in the 'old days' when it was film. And, once you've cut down the magnitude of shots you bring home, you need Lightroom, or if you're a Linux or Mac man, Darktable! Way easier to sift through images and adjust them as needed.

Regarding the camera's: I'd take the Canon P. Fits your budget, screw mount lenses aren't that hard to come by or that expensive, and the Canon P has built-in framelines for 35mm, 50mm and 100mm so no hassle with exterior finders etc.

Happy shooting!

 

[mfogiel]

What you need, is a clear head, fresh from the ground approach to photography. The best idea, is to get a GOOD rf/lens combo, shoot with it for a year, and if you don't want to continue, sell it back. If you do it intelligently through the Classifieds here, you won't probably lose a Dollar on this.
So here is the advice: if you are a 50mm man, get an M3, if you are a 35mm man, get an M2, and either a 50/2 or a 35/2 lens. Get a light meter. Do not get a metered body. The lenses do not need to be Leitz, you can get whatever else, most of them are more than good enough for an A3+ print.
Finally, read this:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html

 

[Jehovazilla]

Really? Phoenix? How come I don't know who you? I thought everybody here shot film - we have more camera stores than sell film than just about anywhere. Go to Tempe Camera, and browse their used cameras. They've got rangefinders.

Phoenix is odd, isn't it? We're also over-represented on the Pentax Forums, which really confuses me. I should hit up Tempe Camera, but thanks to work its hard to get there, and I live in the North Valley, so...

I didn't expect such an overwhelming reply, thanks for taking your time!

As for fixed lenses, I'd rather not. I got my EP3 for messing with old LTM lenses mostly, though that died on the bush when I got the Oly 45 1.8 which hasn't really left my camera. And there is so much really good looking glass out there, I'd get anxious the second this experiment worked. And yes, RF doesn't really, objectively, have a mystique, but it does intrigue me.

I've noticed that different cameras inspire different shots, the same with lenses. My Olympus makes me shoot more "incidental" shots, stupid things that grab me. My Pentax, for some reason, makes me want to reach for bellows. What would a RF drive me towards? What would film? Thats the question. There must be a draw, after reading through these forums there are people out there who feel it. Why don't all of you shoot with modern, feature filled, DSLRs? Easier, less work for results, etc... Perhaps I just want to try something different, since that always makes me better at what I do.


Actually, I kind of take that back... Cameras have a mystique. I love my main camera. If my house was on fire, it would be (after my pets and girlfriend) be the first thing I took out. Its odd, but that silly chunk of magnesium, glass, and plastic is almost a part of me. Sappy? Yep.

Ranting aside...

I've read that most Ms need some work, I'm not sure if that is true, but reading around thats the impression that I get. And if I get an M, and pony up for it, I want to make sure that it is in good condition, and from a reputable source, which raises the price a bit. Is the M4-P worth it? Its really cheap compare to pretty much every other Leica that isn't a III. This raises a flag. I haven't found much about it, to be honest, so that might be an option. Again, I don't know enough really. I just know the people who like Leica, like Leica. A lot. The IIIs probably aren't for me though, the learning curve seems a bit brutal, at least to a film novice.



Bessa seems pretty good. With some math, comparing glass to body, it is pretty doable. Honestly, I'm probably down to Canon P (cheap, decent sounding, more money for glass). Leica (save. save. save.). Or a Bessa R2 or R2M.

Takkun, you have a really good point, actually. I've been trying to talk myself into a Bessa, it seems. Committing is hard, especially when you have no idea what you're getting yourself into. It took me four months of research before I bought my first camera. I haven't regretted it. I have pre-buyers remorse. If it is functional (gr.... Werra), I'll probably love it. I suppose I just want the best for my money.

Thanks again for your replies... I think it helped, a bit.

 

[Jehovazilla]

Last but not least (and not to ruin your dreams) ... my advice is FOCUS on the LENSES (pun intended 🙂) No matter how great the body is, lenses actually make the image. Any summicrons are awesome and 40mm summicron/m-rokkor is the best value for the money. Voigtlander lenses are a great deal for what you get and vintage nikkors/canons have character (diff than summicrons).

I agree 100% with the lenses comment. All of my cheaper starter lenses are pretty much unused now (except one, that was cheap, old, and yet somehow magical). I saw a website that was using a Voiglander 40mm on a M43 body, and I immediately needed to have it. I haven't felt that way since the Pentax 15mm Ltd (well worth the money).

The Leica thing does have a (perhaps irrational) draw. There is almost a universal appeal to them. But due to the aura around them, it makes me distrust them every time I see one in my price range. Its like finding a Maserati the same price as a Ford Focus, something has to be wrong. Again, I know nothing about this.

Using digital to mimic film requires more discipline than I have. I'm always going to have "perhaps 3 feet to the left or maybe a slightly smaller DOF" floating in my head. Definitely use Lightroom though, I don't know how I lived without it (I shot .jpg... sadly).

I'm guessing, doing some quick math, converting crop to full/film that I'd be more 50mm (my standard lens is 40mm, on ASP-C), or around 35 (second standard is 24mm on ASP-C). Why would an M3 or M2 be better at these? My ignorance shines through here... Wouldn't they all be equally good, as long as they have the frame lines?

What is the average CLA on a Leica M3/M2/CL/M4-P? And how do you find a good place to have that done? I'm guessing with Bessas I don't need to worry about that...

 

[sevo]

I don't know about the availability of Canons (or other Japanese RF) in the US - but even if they weren't sold locally, the number of GIs stationed in Japan should make them more widespread (and perhaps affordable). In Europe they would not be any good for a beginner - a very exotic and expensive speciality collectors hobby, on a scale with breeding platypus...

The Contax G1/G2 are not rangefinders except in a very technical sense that would file most AF point-and-shoots there as well - that is, they are better considered glorified exchangeable lens point-and-shoots with Leica-class lenses. And while the bodies still are cheap, the lenses have appreciated dramatically in the wake of EVIL adapters...

FSU RFs - there are sellers that offer overhauled ones with warranty, but their price is not that far off Bessas or a genuine thread-mount Leica or Contax II/III.

The Leica CL/Minolta CLE have a narrow base rangefinder that does not really cover that much ground. And they have their own set of fans, so that they are not significantly cheaper than a M4-P in similar condition. Unless your list of priorities has a built-in meter several steps above a good rangefinder, I'd go for the latter.