Rangefinder Converts

[Sonnar Brian]

Keep the M6, save the money on the 0.85x finder, buy a user M3. 0.92x magnification.

I switched to Nikon RF's and Kodak Retina's from Nikon SLR's about 7 years ago. My AF cameras did miserably when focussing on the new Baby in low-light. I do not like using flash. The RF is easier to hold steady during slow speeds as the viewfinder provides "feedback for Active Tracking". ABout 3 years ago I picked up an M3. Then Canon's. The M3 viewfinder is superb. I shoot mostly with a 50mm or 85mm lens, and the M3 high-mag finder is perfect for them.

 

[peter_n]

{snip}
I'm wondering if I'll need more than a .72 magnification though..Does anyone know roughly how much it would cost to upgrade to a .85?

Your need for a different magnification will depend on what kind of lens you use most. 0.72 mag is a good all-round magnification, 0.58 is good if you heavily favor the wide-angle like a 28 or 35mm, 0.85 if you're really into 75-135mm.

Most people favor 0.72 mag M bodies I think.

 

[peter_n]

Leslie you have an email that tells you how to get your PMs through Firefox. 🙂

 

[Doug]

Lonius, I would go the other way, to .58x. 🙂 After many years with Pentaxes and an occasional use Leica M2, it was buying a new Minolta CLE that really brought me into RF as my main camera type. And for me anyway, it's that wider view, getting in closer, that is greatest about the RF and where it's far easier to focus than slow wideangles on an SLR! So I can barely see the 35mm frame edges in my M2, while the .6x CLE finder is easy even with a 28. A .58x M7 would suit me just fine!

I still like my manual Pentaxes, and honestly it's no more difficult to carry an MX or ME Super than the Leica. The big 6x7 is something else again, but I've moved into medium format RFs as well. My Fuji and Bronica 645's are surprisingly easy to carry around daily. While the RF's excell with shorter lenses, the SLRs handle the long ones and close-focusing better. Back in the 60's I used to carry both the M2+35 and a Spotmatic+85 for street shooting, and I still think that was a good combination.

As to the lens quality issue, I sure wouldn't want my photo efforts to be limited by mediocre optics in any stage of the process, so I get the best lenses I can. I always stuck to Takumar lenses on my Pentaxes after dissatisfaction with early lenses from Vivitar, Steinheil, and Spiratone. (The Steinheil 135 wasn't really bad, just stiff to focus, and the controls turned the "wrong" direction). These days there probably aren't any poor lenses offered except in Holgas and such.

 

[Terence T]

"What do you mean?"

Obviously, the clarity of an image is due in large part to many factors - shutter speed, movement in the image, film, developer, enlarging lens, lighting, etc.

I was merely expressing an opinion that a good lens will contribute greatly to the final result, assuming proper exposure technique was adopted. I suppose I need to spell everything out to folks like yourself. It's too bad you took a dim view to my innocent remark, judging by your initial reply and email to me. Perhaps you need to chill out a little as it was never my intention to make a "fallacious statement" as you indicated.

I've been engaged in photography for more than 20 years, I know what goes into an image. All factors contribute to the final result and if any one bit goes wrong, we all know that it could have an adverse effect. All I'm saying is that a good lens plays an important contribution to achieving a desirable result, it's by no means the ONLY factor which makes a good picture. That clear enough for you?

 

[GeneW]

I haven't so much been converted to RF's as having come back to them in my dotage 🙂

My first good 35mm was a Minolta Hi-Matic 7 when they were NEW (yikes!). I thought, back then, that I only wanted to own a single camera so when I purchased a Pentax H1a I sold the Minolta to a friend. I progressed through some SLR's (some of which I still have), a TLR (which I still have), then added some RF's. I've bought and sold several RF's since joining here, just to have the chance to try out different models and see which one(s) would stick. The two that have stuck are a Zorki 3M and a Bessa R. Not that I'd have any objection to owning a nice Leica ...

Gene

 

[Allen Gilman]

"That clear enough for you?"

Sure. In my e-mail to you, I also thought I said sorry if I misunderstood what your post was about. Clear enough for you? Perhaps you also need to bone up on your reading.

 

[Terence T]

"That clear enough for you?"

Sure. In my e-mail to you, I also thought I said sorry if I misunderstood what your post was about. Clear enough for you? Perhaps you also need to bone up on your reading.

It was the second line in your email and your initial post which ticked me off. You need to check your attitude cos it kinda reeks. You said sorry after you belittled me, what kind of apology is that?

Now would be a great time to stop assuming that everyone is a level beneath you. Feel free to have the last say, I'm done with you and this thread.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

One nice feature of the Leica M-Mount is that it can use Leica Thread Mount lenses with a relatively inexpensive adapter. The camera will properly RF couple with any lens that couples with a Leica-compatible screw mount camera. That opens up a lot of options for building up lenses of different focal length, speed, and "flavor" without blowing too much money. You can add a Canon 50mm F1.4 and Nikkor 8.5cm F2 with adapters for ~$500. A Leica M-Mount 5cm F1.5 Summarit with a CLA will run ~$250. That lens gets a "Bum Rap" as it is prone to internal haze that must be cleaned out every 15~20 years. Most people do not clean it, and get foggy pictures with it. If you buy newer glass later, you can resell these older optics for about what you paid for them.

 

[dmr]

i started with rangefinders, went to slr's and then back to rf's.

That's more or less my story too, although I haven't gone back exclusively to rangefinders. I use the SLR or even a point-and-shoot for quite a few things, preferring the rangefinder(s) for low-light work.

ALthough this may not be the most popular view here, I don't consider the rangefinder to be the universal hammer for anything that looks like a nail. 🙂

 

[TPPhotog]

ALthough this may not be the most popular view here, I don't consider the rangefinder to be the universal hammer for anything that looks like a nail. 🙂

Nothing beats nailing the shot 😀

 

[wyk_penguin]

The RF is easier to hold steady during slow speeds as the viewfinder provides "feedback for Active Tracking".

Wouldn't agree more. Esp. when there is no mirror to rock the boat, low light photography is more simple (my record is 1/4 seconds unsupported, though it was just luck; 1/15 is quite a reasonable limit).

Also when panning in sports, the RF clearly beats the SLR. 😀

 

[peter_n]

Leslie, after warning you about stuff to look out for, here's something to love: you always know when you've got a good shot, always. Why? The VF doesn't black out! Beautiful!! 🙂