RF vs SLR vs...?

[nongfuspring]

About 5 years ago I got my Ricoh GX 100, which I really love as a camera and still use it constantly. Its got more than a few shortfalls now, esp considering how old it is and how my requirements for what I want out of a camera has broadened a bit. Its colour tends to be sterile and bokeh is basically negligible. Not long ago I bought one of those DIY TLR kits and started messing with film for the first time since high school, the results were amazingly warm and rich and I've been looking at picking up a film camera since. Ideally I'm looking for something compact, convenient, flexible and capable of producing professional quality images without the inconvenience of medium format - strictly speaking I'm not a photographer, but I am an artist and illustrator so having good quality pics is a big deal to me even if they never get shown in exhibitions or used in jobs.

I was keen on picking up something like a Revue 400 se or similar 70s ragefinder, but while they seem to be good value and great cameras, they're all kind of limited by way of manual control and features. There seem to be some amazing cameras for more money - Hexar, Contax T3, Ricoh GR-1, Leica CL, etc etc etc, but I feel like those prices would nearly put me in decent DSLR territory (or even that super interesting GXR with M mount). Then there's the reasonably priced classic film SLRs; Olympus OM-1, Canon A-1, Nikon F-somethings...

Basically I'm totally overloaded and I feel more like I'm surfing e-bay for gear porn than looking for real solutions.

I realize this is probably a set of questions that have been asked many times by others, but any opinions/advice would be hugely appreciated!

 

[Keith]

In terms of value for money I believe an SLR is the logical choice whether it be Olympus OM or Nikon F. There's plenty of reasonably inexpensive lenses out there for these cameras and the alternative 'fixed lens rangefinder' in that price bracket has limitations if you want to be creative IMO.

 

[kshapero]

These are all good choices. All depends on what you want to do. The tenor of your comments sounds like you think a DSLR is the Holy Grail, if so then you came to the wrong place. Here, the Holy Grail is a Leica M3, the real man's camera. No meter, no battery. Just you and the elements. Step up to the bar (you are of legal drinking age, I hope?) and pour yourself a stiff one. There, now that you are loose, load that sucker with Tri-X and show those tech wizzies with their DSLR's who is boss.

 

[nongfuspring]

These are all good choices. All depends on what you want to do. The tenor of your comments sounds like you think a DSLR is the Holy Grail, if so then you came to the wrong place. Here, the Holy Grail is a Leica M3, the real man's camera. No meter, no battery. Just you and the elements. Step up to the bar (you are of legal drinking age, I hope?) and pour yourself a stiff one. There, now that you are loose, load that sucker with Tri-X and show those tech wizzies with their DSLR's who is boss.

I don't quite think of the DSLR as a holy grail of any kind, but they are up there by way of flexibility, image quality and convenience. What I don't like about them is the shooting experience and bulk. I came to this forum because the other day I found some old 70s RFs in a market and had a go with them. I really enjoyed the way they felt and operated.

I totally respect the more "hardcore" approach to photography, and an M3 would be amazing, but while it appeals to me a lot what I need is whattever helps puts the best quality picture on paper relative to cost. I definitely understand the workflow of a camera effects the way one takes a picture too, so I guess this all has to be balanced at some point...

 

[cosmonaut]

As far as the OMs go I have had several over the last five years and I think three wound up failing, shutter went bad. I think a lot of them are reaching the end of their life span. Even though I am looking fr a OM4t. The 4t has an amazing metering system. It was ahead of its times.
Is funny to me Olympus is always inventing cool ideas but the big guns Cannon and Nikon take the ball in so to speak. The OM4t it truely a great SLR.

 

[it'sawhat?]

Pentax. I think the k1000 is overpriced but the film km, kx, and spotmatics bodies are a good value and for a quality for dollar pentax lens are a great value. And should you decide digital suits you better their lenses are easily adapted to many digital bodies. Check keh for prices I myself would buy from them before i trusted the bay.

 

[Jack Conrad]

Stay away from cool old rf camera's. They cause gas.

 

[Spicy]

what is your budget (body, lenses, etc) and what do you think is important?

a quick and by-no-means-definitive list:
reliability
lightweight/small
tactile pleasure
ease of use
system availability
gadgets and gizmos and electronic bits
full manual only, no batteries required
aesthetic/historic value
etc

if you could provide some thoughts, i'm sure the smart guys on here could help you narrow down your search and throw out some lesser-known suggestions

 

[laidlow]

Stay away from cool old rf camera's. They cause gas.

I can attest to this. Bought a Yashica GSN for $25 in February and it lead to me selling my D700 kit to fund a Bessa R3a and Fuji X100.

Very happy with the change but if you had of asked me whether I'd own this equipment 6 months ago I would've said no way 😛

 

[thegman]

I'd go with a film SLR, Nikon FM2, Pentax ME or MX, Olympus OM-1 etc.

Range finders are really nice, the Leica M3 is indeed the holy grail, but the value for money is terrible compared to SLRs. If a range finder is what you want, then by all means get one, but if you're not bothered, SLR makes a lot more sense if you're on a budget.

 

[zb3]

I recently bought a fixed lens rangefinder for the road. (I am an avid motorcyclist) The Canonet is a great size for that. I had missed the days and joy of manipulating a manual camera. My digital is slowly taking a back seat to film. The digital for learning photography has been a great tool because of the instant feedback but I capture better pictures when I am slowed down and "think" about what I am doing. Since film SLRs are cheap I have slowly been picking up the castoffs. The Spotmatic with Takumar lens are wonderful tools for those that are SLR inclined as well as any of the vintage offerings from Nikon or Canon or........ I like the size of rangefinders best and I am saving for the next one. Good luck on your quest

 

[shadowfox]

I don't quite think of the DSLR as a holy grail of any kind, but they are up there by way of flexibility, image quality and convenience. What I don't like about them is the shooting experience and bulk. I came to this forum because the other day I found some old 70s RFs in a market and had a go with them. I really enjoyed the way they felt and operated.

Going by what you stated above, I would investigate RF some more.
Given your constraints, I can recommend getting a Canon P and to start with, a Jupiter 8 lens.

These two should not cost your more than $300 (if you are patient a bit and do not succumb to GAS). Allocate $100 for servicing, and you get yourself a *very* competent RF kit.

Use if for a while and by that time you'll know where to go.

SLRs are a dime a dozen these days, look over at the SLR sub-forum here on RFF. Lots of good discussions from the perspective of RF users also.

 

[redisburning]

the OM system is a fine one, and there are some really nice (and petite) lenses to go with bodies which I think are simply a lot nicer than most of their contemporaries.

but, I think you ought to strongly consider a Hexar AF. Also at that price is a Yashica body and a nice C/Y Planar; both the f1.7 and f1.4 versions are plenty good enough to qualify for "professional quality" in 35mm.

 

[elmer3.5]

RF vs...

RF vs...

Hi, i can say this....even before i knew the existence of RF´s i loved them...i had a slr and hated it everyday of having it😀....then went on a trip to france and a relative had this black gorgeous m6...by then it was a new camera...

After 15 years i was able to buy myself an m6 and a summicron...

There´s no way i could ever see any advantage on a slr v/s rf...can´t even like them :bang:

 

[kshapero]

New thought: go with a Nikon FE. Can be had for pennies. The ergonomics are awesome. See Ken Rockwell for more info. I have two of them. Fast, light, cheap, cheap.

 

[mdarnton]

I was looking for something simple and cheap with a good system behind it, and settled on the Nikon FG. It has the essentials, and they're dirt cheap. I find them easier to handle than OM cameras and they have the advantage of having a current system behind them, with good DSLRs that will use the FG's lenses, if you decide to expand. (I also have a D300)

I've shed most of my RF stuff and prefer SLRs now, so there are definitely multiple viewpoints.

 

[rover]

With the responses so far, and in your original post, I think we can all agree that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Have you tried a simple film SLR or RF? Even a DSLR, what is your experience? I am betting, and what you are reading a lot here is that we have all dabbled a little here and there with different systems and have settled one place or another, but only after trying some things.

Maybe the best thing for you to do is to not think that you are taking the final step right now and just give a system a try. Jump in with an OM 1 or Bessa, or Elan 7ne and see if you like it. If not, after a little time, sell it and give something else a try. Keep within your means (the good thing is that there are so many good inexpensive choices) and explore what is best for YOU.

 

[paulfish4570]

an slr would be more flexible in that you can focus much closer than with an RF, and good lenses can cost much less. if you go the slr route, you may find you really, really like macro or near-macro work. if not, and polite distance is your vision's best friend, then RFs galore await you. if possible, go to a camera swap meet to try as many different kits as possible. your hands might tell you what you need ...

 

[robbeiflex]

What rover said. Based on your means, set a budget to go out and buy a cheapie to test out and get a feel for shooting film. Maybe that is a fixed lens RF, maybe an FSU or old Canon RF, maybe an OM or Canon AE1 if you like SLRs. As long as you buy working equipment in good condition you will be able to sell it if you don't like it. Don't just buy what catches your fancy on the internet, there is a lot to be said for handling and testing before deciding what to buy, and even more to be said for buying in person if possible. If you can only find what you want on the internet then try to stay with the reputable dealers before buying in an auction. Buy in an auction from an unknown seller only when you are willing to gamble on the equipment not working.

Cheers,
Rob

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Professional film cameras, even used, will easily set you back 1k or more. The purpose of the SLR is the interchangeability of lenses, especially, wide and long & zoom. The rangefinder series cameras are light weight and the best focal lengths that I have found for them are from 35m to 90mm. You need to determine what you want to photograph before embarking on the purchasing expensive cameras. If you want a small film rangefinder for under $200 look into the Canonet QL III or the Yashica GSN (a little larger). A good Canonet, if you are displeased with it, is easily sold. I think KEH has one or two on the auction site. Note that some of the older film cameras use Mercury batteries that are no longer available and you will need to upgrade. The OM-2 & the Nikon F3HP do not. As far as rangefinders are concerned look in the Leica M6. If you are not used to using a camera without a meter the M6 is you best introduction. Again, this is a costlier model and the lenses are expensive. Disclaimer: This is my opinion.