Trying to find the right film camera for ME

[froyd]

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.

contax g2?

Yep. It's way smaller and lighter than an EOS 3 and comparable 28,45 (50), and 90 lenses. For AF in an RF body with interchangeable lenses, it's the only game in town. Note however that the AF is single point as opposed to the EOS, which my bother you. I really dislike multi-point AF systems, and I always switch them to single point; if that's you too, then you might be OK with the Contax.

G lenses are the best you will ever buy under $500 and you could get your feet wet with a G1 body for the price of a Leica lens hood.

Regarding the R3M, I think you definitely made the wrong choice given your assortment of lenses. Get something with built-in 28mm framelines (ZI, R4, Hexar, recent vintage Ms) and practice zone focusing and being ready for teh shot, as opposed to taking the time to focus while he moment evaporates.

Also, note that some lenses are faster to focus than others. It's a very personal choice, but I like tabbed lenses because I can anticipate the focus position more easily.

 

[user237428934]

Switch to Nikon and get the F6 - hands down the best AF film SLR.

The TO wanted something smaller than the EOS 3, not something bigger 🙂 If you have a handful of EF-lenses than getting a Nikon is the most stupid thing you can do. Even if the F6 is 1% better than the EOS 3.

 

[Spicy]

The TO wanted something smaller than the EOS 3, not something bigger 🙂 If you have a handful of EF-lenses than getting a Nikon is the most stupid thing you can do. Even if the F6 is 1% better than the EOS 3.

Obviously they were joking, but the best EF-mount Canon lens are Nikon lenses with an adaptor.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Obviously they were joking, but the best EF-mount Canon lens are Nikon lenses with an adaptor.

on my 5D, I mostly use Tamron AD2 lenses, each with a Nikon mount fitted, via a cheap Nikon-Canon adapter.

It's odd but it works for me!

😀

 

[Aristophanes]

Hexar AF

Hexar AF

Hexar AF sounds like the ticket if you want an RF and a fixed lens.

But any old SLR with AF should also do the ticket. I get fantastic results with my Pentax MZ-6.

 

[YYV_146]

Contax is the way to go if 135 film, AF and interchangeable lenses are all requirements. If you want 28mm framelines, there is the R4A but using longer lenses will be a pain.

 

[robbeiflex]

Why not go for an EOS 5? Mine is a horrible ugly hunk of plastic but it works. It would be a great way to use your current lenses, in a body that has similar ergonomics to your 3, is smaller, lighter, and cheaper. I pair it with a 7D to get B&W film and a back-up without taking a whole second kit. Cost me 50€.

Cheers,
Rob

 

[ferider]

Hexar AF sounds like the ticket if you want an RF and a fixed lens.

Strong second vote for the Hexar. You loose interchangeable lenses, but get a compact body with an outstanding 35/2, fast and accurate AF, and the RF experience.

Roland.

 

[splitimageview]

Personally I find SLRs much harder to focus than range finders

I find the opposite, most RFs don't provide enough contrast for my eyesight.

Really loving my Contax 139 Quartz, tiny with a big bright viewfinder. And of course, Zeiss glass.

I 'see' better with an SLR, too. Still love RFs but overall I get more keepers with SLRs.

 

[user237428934]

Strong second vote for the Hexar. You loose interchangeable lenses, but get a compact body with an outstanding 35/2, fast and accurate AF, and the RF experience.

Roland.

The Hexar produces great results, the lens is super sharp but the viewfinder is not so good. Almost no viewfinder information and it's a bit darker than a Leica M viewfinder. Not to forget 1/250 is the fastest time. This camera is great if you can live with some shortcomings and see it as superb P/S. Had it with me in Prague, and put four films through it. Great results, but I think it's not for everyone.

 

[Photog9000]

contax g2?

Totally agree with ya, sanmich! With one caveat, the AF system takes getting used to. It is a contrast detect AF system vs.phase detect AF system that is in SLRs. Takes some getting used to coming from the SLR world BUT the Zeiss lenses for it are exquisite!

 

[bwcolor]

A Contax G2 with three lenses can be found in excellent condition and without a major drain to the bank account.

First, the G2 is simply a beautiful camera.

Second, it is small and has autofocus that works for more stationary, or slow moving subjects. In bright light I can shoot my kids running around, so continuous autofocus works outdoors.

Last, the Zeiss lenses are amazing.

I also have an Bessa R4a. I usually keep a Zeiss 21mm f/4.5c affixed. Great little camera for wide angle lenses.

I've a number of Contax bodies and you should know that the focus confirmation isn't really remotely related to autofocus. The Contax bodies generally have really bright viewfinders. I've not used their autofocus cameras. The Aria is very small and once again you have the ability to pair with Zeiss lenses. My favorite is the RTSIII, but now you are back to a brick. Both the Aria and RTS III are manual focus cameras.

The Contax G2 would be the camera for someone shooting film and likes the idea of a rangefinder style camera, but demands autofocus.
For me, I prefer manual focus film cameras. They are more demanding, but that is part of the fun.

The Contax T series would be a good way to go for a high end point and shoot. My T2 has been a reliable camera for many years.

 

[henri klein]

I would just concentrate on photography. Remember, there have been, and supposedly still are photographers that use a single camera throughout their lifetime.

 

[Spanik]

Try to find the smallest EOS. The 5 is a good suggestion.

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.

I have just the opposite experience. When you have astigmatism and need glasses any slr is easier than a rangefinder. Certainly when you have a split prism.

And auxilary finders are a carbuncle on the posterior of humanity.

 

[Addy101]

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.

Well, that would be the Canon EOS 3.

Minolta has some smaller AF bodies that are great. The Dynax/Maxxum 7 is the Minolta equivalent of the EOS 3 but smaller and the Dynax/Maxxum 5 is amazingly small. However, since you've got Canon, a Canon camera would make sense. Ever thought about the EOS 30/33 or 30v/33v? American name is Elan 7. Not my favorite body, but small and capable.

Many other good options already mentioned.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

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.

I've had the 5D2. Still have an EOS3. I've also tried just about everything else in 35mm (and MF...), probably looking for the same thing(s) you're looking for. My take:

You're not going to find ONE camera system that is perfect.

I, too, have Canon because i think their (prime) AF lens range is the best in 35mm. That's why i've stuck with Canon for digital, having come from the EOS1 and 3 for film. But, i also have long wanted a smaller SLR, and have never liked the consumer Canon bodies. Too much lightweight plastic. I have always liked Nikon film bodies, though, and appreciate that the old metal bodies use the same lenses as the current AF bodies.

So, i've bought a few different Nikon film cameras. F6, F100, F80, F4, and FE2. But, i never intended to duplicate my full Canon lens range. That's where it gets silly. I've never had more than one or two lenses for any of the Nikons. At present, i still have the FE2 and F100. The F6 was beautiful, but didn't do anything more than the F100, so i couldn't justify the $1000+ versus the F100's $150. I have the F100 for AF, but it's really not smaller than the EOS3. When i want small, i use the FE2. That's my suggestion: don't try to duplicate the whole lens range for those occasions when you want to go 'small.' I use the FE2 with a 'pancake' 50/1.8 Series E for those occasions. When i think i need more/varied focal lengths, i just use the Canon.

So, for a small AF camera, i'd suggest the F80/N80. Get your most used focal length prime on it, and be done. When you need all the options, just use the Canon. It's only in the last few years that everyone thinks they're entitled to make images with tiny cameras. We have to sacrifice a little, don't we? 100 years ago, people were driving wagon trains across the wilderness to shoot 8x10s.

 

[one90guy]

I can 2nd the N80, had one for years till I knocked it off a shelf, it hit back first on tile. No external damage but it killed the electronics. So all my film slr's are now mechanical.

David

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133308

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133308

The Canon 5d a magnificent machine, the EOS-3 really great.
Your RF kit very good.
You don't need another camera or system.:bang:
You need to practice with your equipment.
Understand the RF. Do a shoot using "Zone Focus".
Pick a small aperture f11/f16. Set focus on 10'/3m.
Blaze away. Adjust speed for sun or shade.
It's a shock the amount that is in focus..Use a 400ISO film.
If you are able to set the distance on your EF lenses do same.
Get cheap scans for test.Use the 28mm, no viewfinder, guess!
The 40mm will do equally well.
Size is meaningless unless it is the weight. My problem! rats!

OH! i am astigmatic. Using Leicas most my pro career it was only in my 40's doing Health Test to come to Canada,
discovered i needed glasses!

SLR or DSLR way more problematic.

 

[tempest68]

Thanks everyone. Lots of ideas to think about.

I do zone focus if I'm outside and using f8 - f16. My focusing problems are trying to use the focusing patch if I want or need to shoot at f1.4 - f2.8. Depending on environment/lighting I don't always see the double image to match up and focus correctly for shooting wide open.

The desire for something smaller than the EOS 3 is that most of my shooting is while out and about with the wife and kids. So something smaller/lighter means I won't leave the camera at home because I don't want to lug a big heavy camera with me.

I like the size and style of rangefinder bodies and lenses. But I think nine months into the R3M and still not getting the hang of it is why I'm questioning moving on. If I do decide to buy another small film camera, I may still keep the EOS 3 for times where I don't mind the size. I've have the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm SL II f2 in EF mount. It does make the SLRs smaller, but not always small enough.

Of all the suggestions so far, I'm going to consider the G2 some more. I had researched it in the past. But at the time I didn't have the funds to purchase.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Thanks everyone. Lots of ideas to think about.

I do zone focus if I'm outside and using f8 - f16. My focusing problems are trying to use the focusing patch if I want or need to shoot at f1.4 - f2.8. Depending on environment/lighting I don't always see the double image to match up and focus correctly for shooting wide open.

The desire for something smaller than the EOS 3 is that most of my shooting is while out and about with the wife and kids. So something smaller/lighter means I won't leave the camera at home because I don't want to lug a big heavy camera with me.

I like the size and style of rangefinder bodies and lenses. But I think nine months into the R3M and still not getting the hang of it is why I'm questioning moving on. If I do decide to buy another small film camera, I may still keep the EOS 3 for times where I don't mind the size. I've have the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm SL II f2 in EF mount. It does make the SLRs smaller, but not always small enough.

Of all the suggestions so far, I'm going to consider the G2 some more. I had researched it in the past. But at the time I didn't have the funds to purchase.

Your R3M experience isn't unique. I had an M7, a Mamiya 6, another M7, and finally a Zeiss Ikon, and never grew to like rangefinders. Some (most) people deal with SLRs more easily. Simple as that.

I would have suggested the Contax G2, as i've also dabbled with them on 3 or 4 occasions. But, again — if RFs aren't your thing, the G2 may also disappoint you. The lenses are great. But, composing in the tiny viewfinder may leave you craving the sweet relief of the EOS3. If you want to try one, i'd suggest KEH or another vendor that has a reasonable return policy. It would be great to shoot a roll or two to see if you like it before getting 'stuck' with it. That said, even after selling G2s so many times, i'm always tempted to go back. Until i remember that viewfinder....

How about this: if your concern is having a small camera for casual shooting while out with the family, what about a Contax T3? It will be MUCH easier to carry than any SLR or modern rangefinder, and the lens quality is fantastic. It's a much better solution for a restaurant or bar cam, and it won't get in the way nearly as much if you're out doing more active things.