Trying to find the right film camera for ME

T

tempest68

Established
Local time
4:01 AM
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
84
View My Gallery
I currently have a Canon 5D II and a Canon EOS 3 in the SLR world and picked up a Voigtlander R3M, CV 50mm Heliar f/2, CV Nokton 40mm f/1.4, and Zeiss ZM 28mm f/2.8.

I got the EOS 3 because I could use the same lenses as on the 5D II. What I love about the 3 is fast, accurate AF. What I dislike about both SLRs is the size and weight.

As I read up on rangefinder cameras, I decided to give the R3M a try. Things I like about it are small size, lighter than the SLRs, accurate metering, and the overall feel of working the camera. But the things I find a problem with are trouble focusing correctly, needing an external finder when using the 28mm, and sometimes wishing for AF.

I've read from a few different people where they've went through trying several different style bodies until they found one that "just feels right" to them. Right now I don't feel like any of these three bodies are the right ones for me. On the digital side I'd like to try out the Olympus OM-D to see if its small enough while still having arguably the fastest AF in the MILC world. I may rent first before committing to dumping the 5D II for it.

But I'm trying to find a 35mm film body that is smaller than the EOS 3 but has fast, accurate AF like it. I prefer something with interchangable lenses with good prime lenses and maybe a zoom too. And preferably something that has a good reputation for build quality and not prone to some kind of popular flaw like the meter dying or some error code that's common.

I would appreciate any ideas on what to consider for a film body given my wish list and my annoyances with my current bodies. As further background, I've been using the R3M since Sept 2012, and the EOS 3 for over a year.
 
tempest68 said:
I currently have a Canon 5D II and a Canon EOS 3 in the SLR world and picked up a Voigtlander R3M, CV 50mm Heliar f/2, CV Nokton 40mm f/1.4, and Zeiss ZM 28mm f/2.8.

I got the EOS 3 because I could use the same lenses as on the 5D II. What I love about the 3 is fast, accurate AF. What I dislike about both SLRs is the size and weight.

As I read up on rangefinder cameras, I decided to give the R3M a try. Things I like about it are small size, lighter than the SLRs, accurate metering, and the overall feel of working the camera. But the things I find a problem with are trouble focusing correctly, needing an external finder when using the 28mm, and sometimes wishing for AF.

I've read from a few different people where they've went through trying several different style bodies until they found one that "just feels right" to them. Right now I don't feel like any of these three bodies are the right ones for me. On the digital side I'd like to try out the Olympus OM-D to see if its small enough while still having arguably the fastest AF in the MILC world. I may rent first before committing to dumping the 5D II for it.

But I'm trying to find a 35mm film body that is smaller than the EOS 3 but has fast, accurate AF like it. I prefer something with interchangable lenses with good prime lenses and maybe a zoom too. And preferably something that has a good reputation for build quality and not prone to some kind of popular flaw like the meter dying or some error code that's common.

I would appreciate any ideas on what to consider for a film body given my wish list and my annoyances with my current bodies. As further background, I've been using the R3M since Sept 2012, and the EOS 3 for over a year.
Click to expand...


Hello. I would reconsider your requirement for AF. For some kinds of spontaneous photography, a RF camera with manual focus (and time and practice in zone focusing, and focusing with the rangefinder) will be faster and better than ANY autofocus.

If you use the 28mm lens a lot, then how about considering a RF body with built-in 28mm framelines (Minolta CLE, Bessa 4A/4M, some Leica bodies)?

Otherwise, I would give your current setup some time and practice. All new gear has a learning curve.
 
sounds like you need a Canon equivilent of the Nikon F100 or N90. Unless you want to switch camps and invest in good glass, but I don't know Canon at all. The only issue I ever had with my F100 was waiting too long to get one! Fantastic cameras.


-Xander
 
My advice would be the Canon Rebel Ti... The AF is fast, you won't have to buy new lenses, and it's the lightest full frame camera in the EOS system. Plus you can get one for under $20. So I bought three of them in case one breaks.

I often use the Rebel with either the 40mm ƒ/2.8, 50mm ƒ/1.8 or 28mm ƒ/2.8—all small and light lenses.

I also love my rangefinders, but based on how your question is worded, I really think you should buy a small Rebel (Ti or T2) and give it a shot. It's definitely the cheapest option.
 
You seem to like the OM-D

You seem to like the OM-D

In the film slr world that would translate into a manual focus Olympus OM2, OM3, or OM4. The body on the OM series camera's is only 1/4 inch longer than the OM-D. In addition, if you like a bit more in the hand, the motor drive for those camera's is relatively compact, in fact also similar in size to the vertical grip on the OM-D which is a two piece affair.

The OM film camera's are noted for compact size, being only a bit larger than RF cameras of the era, plus a sleek smallish hump for the prism. At the same time the Olympus OM film camera's are lauded for their bright viewfinder and fast focus with split image focus screen (changeable)

Another plus is the OM has the shutter speed ring around the base of the lens, which makes changing shutter speed on the fly with the lens focus hand, much improved over a top mounted shutter speed dial.

If you don't include an Olympus OM in your research, you are missing a bet. I stayed with the OM2 to OM4 to avoid the battery type issues with the OM1. Actually the OM1 is a better camera than the latter 3 in some peoples opinions. Primarily because it is only battery dependent for the meter. Otherwise, it's a full manual camera, perfect for no battery and handheld metering.

The OM series Olympus were popular in their day, and they pretty much bypassed Auto Focus except the OM77 and OM88 models. but not very many AF lenses made for that system. Olympus did not become masters at AF until they offered up the digital lines.

The last good point about the Olympus OM system. Many excellent lenses rivaling most of the glass produced by other manufacturers. In fact some spectacular lens choices.
 
Last edited:
If you're looking for an auto-focus similar to the EOS 3, but in a smaller package, I would rule out auto-focus altogether, unless you switched to Nikon for film needs, or just deal with the size. I would take the recommend an R4(A/M) to compliment your R3M for wide angle lenses and to serve as a second body. Otherwise, switch to an SLR system like OM that's small and enables you to see the perspective of different lenses. I also do think you need more time to get over the rangefinder (or I guess manual focus, zone focusing, whatever hurdle) learning curve.
 
All good suggestions. Keep them coming if anyone can think of something that wasn't mentioned. I've looked at the Nikon F100 and Olympus OM cameras before (online - don't know if I'll find them locally). And an R4M would solve the external finder problem, but wonder if I'd find a MF SLR easier or harder than focusing the R3M?
 
Can you talk more about your focusing troubles with the Bessa? What problems did you have?

You might want to consider 2 cameras - a fixed lens auto focus camera and a manual interchangeable lens kit. It'll be difficult to find everything you want in a single package. That all depends on when you want manual vs autofocus though.

Personally, I feel more likely to focus on what i want when using manual focus. With auto, I spend a bunch of time getting it to focus where I want, locking it and then composing... which messes up the focus. Or the focus ends up seeking back and forth between different distances.

There are certainly times when it is useful but I've found I tend to know which situations are which before going out to shoot.
 
tempest68 said:
All good suggestions. Keep them coming if anyone can think of something that wasn't mentioned. I've looked at the Nikon F100 and Olympus OM cameras before (online - don't know if I'll find them locally). And an R4M would solve the external finder problem, but wonder if I'd find a MF SLR easier or harder than focusing the R3M?
Click to expand...

Personally I find SLRs much harder to focus than range finders, in theory you should be able see when an SLR is in focus, but in reality you probably can't see well enough to ensure accurate focus. Then you have the split screens, which can be pretty good, but still I've never used an SLR half as easy to focus as my worst RF.

Really it depends why you're struggling to focus your Bessa, poor eyesight, or something else?

I used to have an R4A, great camera and ideal for a 28mm or even 21mm lens. I'd consider the longest lens you use with it to be a 35mm though, the 50mm frame lines are really very small.

As for autofocus, by the time most manufacturers moved to making autofocus cameras, they already decided that 'big plastic lump' was the design ethos they were going for. A couple did not though, and I believe Contax made some pretty lovely autofocus SLRs, as well as the G1 and G2 of course.
 
You might want to consider 2 cameras - a fixed lens auto focus camera and a manual interchangeable lens kit.
Click to expand...

That seems a good suggestion to me. If you stick with a fixed lens auto-focus camera, you could look at the Konica Hexar AF (great lens, silent) or a the Contax T2/T3 or similar. I also really like the Fuji Klasse/Rollei AFM. I could probably do 80-90% of all the 35mm photography I do just with the Hexar or AFM with no loss of function or quality.

For manual focus, either a rangefinder system like you already have, or a more compact film SLR. That could mean a Contax system, or Pentax, or Olympus, or Nikon or Canon if you choose the right body. Although with Canon, I think, the more compact bodies tend to be the more consumer orientated ones, whereas the other manufacturers made compact 'pro' or pro-like bodies.

Like some others, there are times when I find manual focusing or zone focusing to be faster than auto-focusing, or at least more predictable. But a fixed lens autofocus camera is great thing to have if it has a good lens.

Matt
 
On the SLR front, if you already have decent EF mount lenses, it might well make sense to get a smaller 'consumer' Canon body rather than buy into a whole other lens mount. However, if you did want to do that, some of the Contax bodies have (in my experience) excellent ergonomics, good viewfinders, and small size.
 
I don't know. The Contax G bodies with lenses aren't really that small or that light compared to the smaller EF-mount bodies. Great lenses, but they are fairly chunky and slow for autofocus bodies by modern standards.
 
AF and the rangefinder experience to me are separate things. Those lenses you picked up are wonderful and will make stunning images, but you need to focus them yourself. Personally, I shoot film in rangefinders because I want full control over the entire process. If I wanted AF, I'd shoot digital. Just my 2 cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The lives of others
Metered or unmetered?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Pioneer
Pioneer
A
What is the MOST gear you've ever carried on a trip?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Ray Vonn 2023
Ray Vonn 2023
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jason Schneider
J
WoodallP
Bangkok camera browsing suggestions requested
Replies
3
Views
137
WoodallP
WoodallP
P
Leica M mount to others
Replies
1
Views
420
Cascadilla
C
Back
Top Bottom