Taking the Plunge? Which RF to start with

M

mgpsmith

Newbie
Local time
2:20 PM
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Messages
4
I'm a technically-minded amateur, almost entirely shoot 35mm, mostly B/W. My process focuses on the viewfinder and film development. I've stuck to Kentmere or Fomapan 100 for the past +/- 500 feet of film and so am starting to get a sense of these films. Most "printing" is done via scanning. I don't manipulate the scanned image.

I have a range of old Nikon SLRs and a couple of "inexpensive" non-SLRs (Kodak Signet 35, Voigtlander VitoII). Each has its own charms. I have found that my feelings about what I "see" depends on the instrument; creative vision juices seem to come from different boxes. I've found myself most comfortable with a plain pentaprism F using an old LunaPro to guide exposure choice. A 50 or 35mm f/2 lenses are my prime lenses; I sometimes use a 20 or 24mm, rarely mount a telephoto, and almost never use zoom (although a 35-105 on F3 body is a good travel kit).

The VitoII came to me recently, it has been a pleasure to use but has some limitations. It's a good pocket camera. More important it has me now thinking of a nice RF. If I go this route, I want a premium instrument but one in "good user" condition. Preferably budget $1k (or less) but would stretch to $2-2500 for exactly "the right thing," body/lens/(accessories) complete. Leica and Nikon RFs hold the most conceptual interest for me - Don't need a collection of lenses, just one nice prime (35 or 50).

IF I make this move, I'd like comments from users about handling, pro/con of "obvious choices," etc... At this point I think I want to hear ownership/user comparative evaluation of the Nikon RFs and as they compare to an M3/4/5.

thanks
 
Welcome mgpsmith.

It seems a good question to me, and you have dealt with the key issues.

I would suggest avoiding the M3 simply because it doesn't really do wides so well. M2 or one of the various M4 variants seems to me to make most sense however you will be hard pressed to get a Leica lens and camera in your otherwise generous budget.

Good luck, and welcome aboard.
 
You'll get a bunch of suggestions in this thread. Your options for a premium rangefinder in the $1-2k are plenty. Most camera suggestions will probably be Leica M2 & M4. People here have a soft spot for Voigtländer lenses as a cheaper option to Leica.

It all depends on what you need. I would suggest looking at the differences between the Leica M bodies. Some have hot shoes, built in lightmeters, quick loading etc. – other don't.
You can't go wrong with any camera/lens combo really.

I shoot a Leica M4-P with a 35mm Summicon V4 90% of the time and I have no plans getting rid of either.
 
Just don't get anything other than Leica. Not that the others aren't of good, but you'd have to use a Leica first to truly understand its pros and cons and appreciate all the other options out there. Otherwise you'd be constantly under the temptation to "upgrade" to a Leica - people will keep lecturing you how unique and superior a Leica and the Leica experience is until you succumb - although in reality it might not always fit your need best.
 
Buck the trend: Get anything other than a Leica. You're already familiar with Nikons; a Leica will focus the wrong way and drive you batty. Besides, its you that makes the picture, not the camera.
 
I suggest M6 or M7 with a lens 35 or 50 , both Voigtlander or Leica are good options.

If you can do without light meter one of the M4 is a valid option, there are versions but I'm not familiar with these cameras other members can better suggest.

robert
PS: a second hand Leica can be sold in case you do not like the RF experience without losing too much money, just in case :)
 
thanks so far for the suggestions.

Light meter isn't so much a necessity or even desirable for this adventure - I once thought it was but my experiences in the past several months with the F have revealed a certain freedom by not having a built-in meter - albeit at the cost of more "wasted frames."

I am doing my best to be open-minded about this as I evaluate my choices. My history with Nikon equipment of course has me interested in the S2/3/4/SP, but following the responses I've seen so far I can see that I will have to find and handle an M4 (at the minimum) before making any decisions.

And, I'm not limited to considering those two brands -

Retained value/resale is of secondary importance, and mostly to defend my purchase vs. spousal critique....

I'll continue to monitor responses as they happen.
 
mgpsmith said:
thanks so far for the suggestions.
[...]
And, I'm not limited to considering those two brands -

Retained value/resale is of secondary importance, and mostly to defend my purchase vs. spousal critique....

I'll continue to monitor responses as they happen.
Click to expand...

I've already added a third one —— my suggestion Voigtländer Prominent II + lenses is actually serious! —— She's Vito's big sister, so to say.

And since there are only a couple of lenses available, your spouse won't be too furious, I hope :)
 
Minolta CLE with 40mm M-Rokkor is a nice option for around $1000 give or take for a good copy, lens included. It has metering and A mode too, which I find useful. You can always sell it too, possibly at a profit, since values have been appreciating.
 
olifaunt said:
Minolta CLE with 40mm M-Rokkor is a nice option for around $1000 give or take for a good copy, lens included. It has metering and A mode too, which I find useful. You can always sell it too, possibly at a profit, since values have been appreciating.
Click to expand...

...also the Leica CL, all manual.
 
lynnb said:
There's a Zeiss Ikon currently in the RFF Classifieds. No relation to seller. The Zeiss has an excellent viewfinder.
Click to expand...
<<< Thanks for the plug Lynn, that Ikon is mine. Back here after few years of lurking and inactivity.

My take on this (without much Zeiss endorsement :D ) There are few options this day and age and without going too niche these are the common RF's (that I've also have had pleasure of owning).

Bessa: pretty great budget RFs, decently made at the price. Especially loved ergonomics of mine due to sweet trigger winder I had attached to it. Cons (to me): doesn't feel like Leica.

Zeiss: made in the same factory as Bessa, but a very tangible step up from it. One of the best viewfinders indeed, roomy. If Not worrying and shooting AE is your thing than this camera is great. Pros: loved using mine, does the shooting job fantastically. Cons: still not a Leica feeling.

Konica RF: the most digital analogue rangefinder. Does crazy stuff like auto-winds the film! Pros: electronics to make your photo life more convenient. Cons:electronics, more things to break down and with manufacturer out of business where am I sending it for service to someone somewhere, ain't nobody got times for that.

Nikon S: pretty, fiddly to use. Pros: greta classic RF, character, "signature". Cons: limited lens choice compared to M mount, bit too old-school.

Leica: to me as a NON-(very)-DISCERNING shooter there's not much practical difference apart from framelines. M3 classic but limited frames for me. I have M4 and M6 and I'd keep the M4 as my last RF. It does everything and 'd choose it over M6 for its class and lack of dumb 20th century "metering" that's uselessly blinking there, harshing my mellow.
 
Mgpsmith,

You can do a search here for threads concerning various rangefinder makes and models, and learn a great deal about rangefinders.
This page at Stephen Gandy’s Cameraquest is possibly the most comprehensive source of information you can readily access:
https://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm

However, one thing to keep in mind when researching is that this is a forum populated by people, many of whom are fanatical lovers about rangefinders in general and sometimes their personal idiosyncratic choices in particular. People have a very real tendency to over egg the pudding when they are describing the merits of their personal choices, even though they may have had very limited experience with other choices out there. A viewfinder which might be 5-7% brighter than that on another model will often be described as “vastly better”, or “ten times as good”. A competitor’s (small) body which might be 12% taller or 6% heavier than their favorite will be described as “so big and heavy I couldn’t get on with it”. And so on.

My personal opinion, which seems very much a minority opinion here (that’s okay) is that if you stick with well maintained bodies from any of the usual suspects, Canon, Leica, Contax, Voigtländer, Nikon, etc, you can get great results and enjoy the process equally well regardless. There is no photograph I have ever taken with any of those which I could not have captured just as easily with any of the others. For getting the photo you want to get, the differences between camera makes are scant, in my experience. The differences, in terms of results, between the best and the worst rangefinders mentioned here isn’t enough to worry about, though most here would tend to disagree, I imagine. Nikon SP, Nikon S2, Leica Barnacks, Leica M, Contax II and III, etc are all great, fully capable devices, yet you will find people here labeling many choices as “almost unusable.”

Bottom line, it’s the lenses, not the body, if you are looking for a specific quality of result.
If, on the other hand, a body’s fondle quotient is highly valued, there are probably some clear winners.

I am unconvinced there is a “best” rangefinder, though there may be a best rangefinder for you. It’s a journey, try ‘em all!
 
Think about repair when you choose. The Leica M cameras that fit your budget (M2, M3, M4, M5) are old (40-65 years), but can all be repaired easily (though not inexpensively), at least for the near future. So can Nikon S (also old) and Voigtlander Bessas and, I presume, Zeiss Ikon (more recent, Cosina built). Beyond that, you’re in a very rarified community or completely out of luck where repairs are concerned. Keep that in mind if you are considering Leica CL, Contax, Hexar, or other modern offerings. I think the Hexar RF is the neatest system I’ve ever held, but if the electronics fail, it’s a pretty doorstop. I chose an M4 partly because it was recently CLA’d and can be again if needed—I can use it for the rest of my life. Voigtlander/Cosina, Zeiss, and Leica lenses are mostly superb, and can usually be repaired or restored easily. You’ll get lots of good advice here — just don’t forget to factor serviceability into your decision.
 
Dpingr1 said:
Think about repair when you choose. The Leica M cameras that fit your budget (M2, M3, M4, M5) are old (40-65 years), but can all be repaired easily (though not inexpensively), at least for the near future. So can Nikon S (also old) and Voigtlander Bessas and, I presume, Zeiss Ikon (more recent, Cosina built). Beyond that, you’re in a very rarified community or completely out of luck where repairs are concerned. Keep that in mind if you are considering Leica CL, Contax, Hexar, or other modern offerings. I think the Hexar RF is the neatest system I’ve ever held, but if the electronics fail, it’s a pretty doorstop. I chose an M4 partly because it was recently CLA’d and can be again if needed—I can use it for the rest of my life. Voigtlander/Cosina, Zeiss, and Leica lenses are mostly superb, and can usually be repaired or restored easily. You’ll get lots of good advice here — just don’t forget to factor serviceability into your decision.
Click to expand...

<<< Exactly this! I've owned several pristine cameras image quality of which were bringing nothing but joy: Hexar, Contax G, etc. But electronics man, scary. Leica are by far most serviceable RFs and thus to me most reliable and dependable, followed by Zeiss and Bessa. If your Hexar or Contax breaks down good luck sending it other end of the world and then bitching on forums about wait times( if serviceable at all). Again, there are excellent cameras, it pains me that the wonderful image quality of 45mm and the functionality of Contax is packed into all the failable electronics.
 
I really love my m2. I have a 50mm Elmar 3.5 on it today because portability is the priority today. There’s so many options for lenses that it will make your head spin. My favorite classic lens is the Collapsible 50 Cron but they are tough to find in good shape. I’m really liking the Elmar 50 3.5 for portability, but it hasn’t unseated the Cron as my favorite just yet. Summaron 35 2.8 is my favorite 35mm lens. Keep in mind that my lens selection tends to prioritize portability and use with black and white film. These may not be the best choices color.
 
Leica M4-P.

If you don't buy a Leica now, you will eventually so just cut to the chase. It will save you time and money buying and selling other cameras so is a cost saver in the end.

My M4-P as the last film camera I bought or likely will every buy. Does exactly what I want, nothing more or less. Has less idiosyncrasies than other old cameras (some people find these charming, I find them annoying).

No foam seals to deteriorate or light meters to break or need an obscure battery that is no longer made. Lots of good older glass available.

Haven't shot mine much since I picked up an M9 and stopped doing black and white but it's there waiting if I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom