Quest for beginner RF: Not rich.

A couple of thoughts for you to consider:
FSU cameras will scratch your glasses. There are certainly good usable cameras--I have a few and really enjoy using them--but they can be a bit fiddly and you will likely spend either(or both) time or money getting a good one. Fedka is a good choice if that's the path you want to take.

I really wanted to like the Canon P but with my eyesight and glasses, that camera was not a good fit for me. I liked everything about it except for the viewfinder.

It might be a good idea to reach out to the "RFFers" near you and organize a meet up? You could hopefully actually handle the various camera you're thinking about and then have a better feel for what will suit you. This, however, could be dangerous to your budget! :D

The Leica M2 and M3 viewfinders are set up a bit differently which is why the suggestion above about which one to choose depends of whether you are more a 35 or a 50 shooter. If you go through the articles at CameraQuest, you will get lots of informed opinion about the various M cameras.

Good hunting!
Rob
 
if you never shot film, I would recommend to take a more modern camera with built in lightmeter so you know where you are.....hopefully you can find yourself a beaten up Leica M6 since that would be the less expensive... or a Hexar RF
 
How important is a built in meter to you? If you don't really care then I would save up for a Leica M3. You will not regret it. Pair it up with a Jupiter 8 50mm lens (which costs about $50) and you should be set for a while. Theres nothing like a leica. Once you go down this road you will eventually end up with one so might as well get one now. A Bessa would be my second choice but stay away from the FSU rangefinders.
 
Hi! Welcome to the ward!

Advice on a first rangefinder usually seems to cover all of the following:

1) Buy a cheap fixed-lens RF
2) Buy a "system" camera which is affordable and functional
3) Wait, save, and buy a Leica

I think any of the answers can be right - for someone.

Which one is right for you?

You want interchangeable lenses you can use on your mirrorless digitals. So Leica thread (M39) or Leica M would be best.

If you want something that will have some "wow" factor in use, I think you can't go past either a Bessa or Leica. And as I've only got a threadmount Leica, I won't be one of those saying "wait and pay the earth for the best."

I have more lenses than I care to think about, but not one is a native M mount. I have 2 M mount cameras (not Leicas) and use adapters.

If your budget is under $200 for lens and camera, look at the FSU cameras and put up with the dodginess.

If your budget is around $500, I would recommend a Bessa (any one, R through R2M) and screw mount lenses (plus adapter if required)

If your budget is more like $1000, consider a Leica M, and Screw mount lenses OR Voigtlander lenses (still a squeeze)

And if the sky is the limit, get Leica everything and the Luigi 1/2 case to match.

Best of luck!

Trouble is, if you enjoy you might just keep buying ...
 
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.

What I was alluding to is that one shutter press (in single mode) equates to one exposure regardless of the recording medium, film or digital. Seeing, framing, and exposing requires discipline regardless of the medium, and changing media is NOT going to change the amount of discipline one brings to the camera. Merely that the medium allows one to machine-gun exposures doesn't mean that one must do that. You can (and should) bring the same discipline that photographers seem to think that film brings them to digital. There's no reason not to. That said, the more frequently you shoot, the better (hopefully) your images become. (Note that I suggest that the more frequently you shoot... and that does NOT equate to quantity of images... but rather quality.)

Film can have a different visual quality than digital, and as Takkun said, you should shoot film for the properties of film.

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.

Cameras don't "make" a photographer do anything. As I said before, a camera is a box for film (or a sensor) with a lens for focusing light. Despite what you might read in advertising hype, they are nothing more and nothing less.

What they do have, and what differentiates them from one another are their ergonomics, their feature sets, and the system behind them that allows them to be more versatile.

Over the past forty-something years, I've used just about every style and type of camera to shoot all kinds of subjects in all kinds of circumstances. I've been the "this camera system for this job, and that camera system for that job" route. I've shot view cameras, press cameras, rangefinders, SLRs, and digital of various kinds. In the digital world, the feature-laden DSLRs are now the "thing," although here many members tout the value of film and rangefinders. Because of our individual preference for design and "feel" of cameras, we gravitate to one brand over another.

What I HAVE discovered in my journey is that, just as in sports, knowing and performing the fundamentals every time is what gets the job done. It's nice that the camera can do thing for you, but if you know what you want it to do, all those features become an impediment to you controlling the camera to make the image you want instead of making the image that whoever programmed the camera told it to make.

And that comes back to self-discipline; knowing and understanding your craft thoroughly, and making those decisions for yourself rather than allowing your equipment to do it. I became more and more dissatisfied with the feature-laden modern cameras as it has become more and more difficult to override to get them to "manual." So I returned to Leica (both film and digital) as my ONLY system as it can do whatever I need for it to do in commercial service. It may not be as fast or convenient in some situations as a DSLR, but I can still do the job with them and do it quite handily.


Actually, I kind of take that back... Cameras have a mystique.

So, I'd suggest that "Mystique" doesn't really come from the cameras at all, but comes from photographers projecting that onto the box that contains the film. They'll all get the job done, it's just that some "feel" better, are "easier" to use, or have wider systems to support them.
 
No one seems to be mentioning the Nikon S2, always cheap, seldom needs repair, and a real workhorse.

I thought the S2 is a acquired taste, but I agree. My Nikon S2 cured me of lusting after leicas.
 
Nothing plasticy about a Canon 7..... based on the prices i have seen here its a bargin and a half..... I have one and its a great great camera esp for the money.
 
I'd personally go for a bessa R or R2 + jupiter 8, this must have been the starting point for so many ppl in this forum. You should be able to get both with a bit of luck for £200.

Wait, see if you like it, then save for a better body.

While you're at it, try and shoot a roll or two without the batteries, see how that feels. You might find that you love the experience, in which case you can obviously select a future body from a more expansive range of machines.

Inadvertently, you will want a Leica at some point.
In my humble opinion they are worth the money, they are that good and solid. The lenses... different story, just because of the insane cost for most of them.

For my first Leica, I'd probably select a user M4-2/P and a 40mm Summicron; that lens is a great performer with more than reasonable cost. Pretty much same performance with the 35mm summicron at far far less cost.
 
My advice is to save up for an M and get it out of your system. With patience they don't have to cost THAT much. I got my M3 for $600 and my M2 for $400, which I consider reasonable. I believe an M4P sold here for ~$500 not too long ago.

Glass-wise, get a 50mm, most are good.
 
Give the Bessa's a try. I think if you search in RFF you'll find plenty of long-time user feedback. I never had a problem with mine. The lore is that each subsequent generation got a little better R4 > R3x and R2x > R2 > R.

The Canon is another great choice on your list, but you'll be limited with LTMs, as would you be if you choose the Bessa R.

After the Bessa Ihad an ZI and an M4, but there was enough substance in that wonderful little camera to make me long for it even now and the only reason I don't have it now is that it was stolen. People make much ado about the ZI's VF, but the Bessa R2x looked just as good to me and with less disappearing RF patch issues.

I also have a Contax G, which is on your list. Your gut is right, it won't give you the traditional RF feel you seem to be after. It will be very hard to zone focus unless you carry charts with you or memorize key distances. Still, there's no way you would be able to put together a lens/camera package with greater IQ than the Contax G can deliver, when I did a side by side comparison of the ZM Planar and the G Planar, the G had an extra gear that the ZM lacked. That Contax G glass delivers the the best $300 value in the RF world. I like keeping it as a second/travel camera, but it's not for you.
 
My advice is to save up for an M and get it out of your system. With patience they don't have to cost THAT much. I got my M3 for $600 and my M2 for $400, which I consider reasonable. I believe an M4P sold here for ~$500 not too long ago.

Glass-wise, get a 50mm, most are good.

And recently we had an Me at under $500. Yep, these days of $720 Beessas (new, admittedly), the classic Leicas are not much more.
 
A possible cure is to try a Japanese 6x6 TLR, one of the several Yashica models for example. It would give you something entirely different from your current gear, a historically relevant camera design - and very high image quality that even Leica snobs can't look down on. Available for your initial $300 budget, unlike any of the really good interchangeable-lens RF kits, IMO.

Otherwise - a decent Leica M2 with Canon 50/1.8 and LTM-M adapter could be had for about $900, maybe less. The cheaper makes will always leave you thinking about Leica, I'm afraid (with the possible exception of the Nikon S series that seems to have hardcore fans of its own).
 
" 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."

Shame on you:D I have had my R3M since 2006 and I have worked the "CRAP" out of it. No disguise there. ;) The Bessa's are work horses and their prices have held up to prove it. Sometimes one shows up at a good price just don't expect Leica workmanship and you will be happy. :cool:
 
You could find a really nice Konica IIIA with your budget to cure the RF lust. Beautiful modern viewfinder and great sharp 50mm 1.8 with classic rendering. If you are willing to spend a bit more you could probably go for a Minolta CLE, which would be my personal choice.
 
From my own personal experience, I would say that you should avoid the FSU cameras. They may be inexpensive, but most are old and in need of more service than they are worth. Ditto for FSU lenses. The Zorki 1 that I first started with had a non-standard register, which meant that the Industar lens was only good for that particular camera. I've happily sold off all of my FSU gear.

Any of the Leica thread mount bodies, if CLA'd are very servicable. They are small, and built like jewels. You do have two separate windows though - one for the RF, and another one for the viewfinder. IIF and IIIF are not that expensive, and will last a lifetime. These offer flash synch. You do need to trim the leader prior to loading, which is no big hardship.

I also have a Canon 7s. There is no plastic on this thing that I can remember. It is a very solid, metal camera. The shutter is stainless steel, which means that it will be resistant to having a hole burned into it if you point your lens towards the sun. It also has a light meter (needs Wein cells). Most of all, it has a combined viewfinder/rangefinder with switchable framelines. Magnification of the finder is 0.8x, so you'll actually have a slighly larger view than what a typical 0.72x Leica M will show. The rangefinder spot doesn't allow split image rangefinding as the Leica M will allow.

Leica M - I have an M7 0.85x. It is superbly made, beautiful to look at, and to look through. Definitely the best viewfinder of the entire bunch. Also, very costly, and the lenses add even more to cost. A compact camera but a dense one, which means it's no lightweight. Alas, the pure expensiveness of the rig makes me nervous when I take it out. I've decided to sell my M mount gear, and revert back to the simper LTM gear. The photographs are just as good (or artistically as bad), at a lower price with the LTM gear.

If you want to try medium format a nice rangefinder folder such as the Agfa Super Isolette, or Zeiss Super Ikonta B will open your eyes to what the bigger surface area of film will give you. That's part of the reason for selling the Leica M7. Too much money spent on a tiny postage stamp of film format.
 
Again, sorry for the giant reply. This is one of the most helpful forums I've ever posted on, so many good replies... and unlike many times, they seem to be helping and not just opening the field further...

I'm pretty much down to two options now, from the sounds of it.. Bessa or Leica. I see some logic in that. Bessa's are new, and therefore probably good. Leicas are Leicas, and thus probably good.

I'm still a little out on this, but I seem to be getting a grasp...

As for the CL and CLE, I'm a bit worried since I have large hands. Thats one reason I ditched my old Kx, it was a bit too small. There is a balance, I suppose. I want small, since portable is always a plus (I almost bought a Pentax 6x7 not long ago, and realized that I'd never take it outside), but too small and you run into some issues as well. I suppose I don't mind the Olympus, but my fingers do end up messing with the touchscreen at times.

I'm on the fence about a meter. They are nice, but probably not essencial. Worst case I blow a roll of film or two with bad exposures, or use my phone to roughly meter for a bit, before getting the hang of it. It would be nice though, since obviously, it does save some effort.

If my budget was endless, I'd get them all, and resell the ones I don't like. Sadly... I wish I lived in a place like NYC, where I could just go to a giant camera store and poke at them.

Hepcat, you are, again correct. Mystique sounds better though. There is a lot of subjective stuff in photography, though. It pretty much guides our gear choice and tastes, and prices. Even in the market, you hear this. Reading up on Leica's some people almost sound religious about them, like they are magical beasts from a far-off land of Fantasy, and not just made in Germany (which as far as I've heard might be entirely lacking in unicorns) or Canada (which may indeed have unicorns, but they are all now frozen). Some of this might be because they are indeed good, and well engineered, but I have a feeling that in some cases this language arises from pure subjective "mystique". Probably a shade of confirmation bias as well, which exists with purchasers/fans of any product. Cameras, especially, seem to have mystique (or subjective whatnot), more so than most objects. They kind of transcendent being the mere tools that they actually are.

Ahem, sorry.

TLRs sound fun, but they are bit too far from my experience. I might try someday, but for now I'd rather stay a bit closer to home.

I've heard CLEs need more repair, and are costlier to fix. I'm not sure how true that is... But I'd rather not have to worry about my camera dying, and how to fix it... I've already got that with my poor Werra III ($200 to fix a $60 camera).

kshapero: Sorry... Most of the reviews I've read were from having it from a week to a month, nothing long term. For all I know the reviewed copy died six minutes after they hit "post". I suppose that is to be expected from a newer camera.... Can't get reviews 50 years later on a 5 year old camera.

I don't see an M7 in my future... Perhaps if I sell a kidney or two.... Cost does factor in to usefulness though.

I think I'm at the point where I'll just go by price... Both the Bessa and a "cheap" Leica M2/3/4p have, seemingly, the same amount of pros and cons. I'm going to regret whatever I do, until the box is at my doorstep, and film is in the beast. At that point, I'm probably going to like it, no matter what I choose.

There is something on this forums classified page that does have my eye now... Uh oh.
 
I think I'm at the point where I'll just go by price... Both the Bessa and a "cheap" Leica M2/3/4p have, seemingly, the same amount of pros and cons. I'm going to regret whatever I do, until the box is at my doorstep, and film is in the beast. At that point, I'm probably going to like it, no matter what I choose.

There is something on this forums classified page that does have my eye now... Uh oh.

All I can tell you at this point in the selection process is that is much easier to go from a Bessa to a Leica than the opposite. I actually did not like working with the M4 at first, coming from the Bessa and Contax that I knew by heart, but after a few months, I've been seduced.

Hepcat is right, all cameras are just light boxes, but how many of us just rely on our cellphones for photography? Interface and canera design play a very big part in the enjoyment of this hobby.
 
Back
Top Bottom