Which M for me?

[acrystalball]

Hello,
This is my first post to rangefinder forum, though I have been lurking around for a few weeks. I'm sure my question has been asked ad nauseum, so please forgive my ignorance, as I eagerly await the arrival of my first rangefinder camera, a Yashica GSN. Lately I have felt the need for a more discreet camera system than my big Fuji S5 digital SLR and F-mount Zeiss glass in certain situations.

I am very happy with the IQ coming from my DSLR, but not happy with the attention it garners when I am out shooting among people. Since my desire for a rangefinder is pure conjecture until I actually shoot with one (which I never have), I chose the Yashica because: 1. It was cheap; 2. It is reputedly a good image maker; 3. It uses film. For $60 US I figured it was the best entry into this new world.

Now, knowing myself and my obsessive nature about image quality, the desire to use a Leica will not abate, even if I am happy with the Yashica. I pretty much use the new Zeiss F-mount glass exclusively with my DSLR. And that's the kind of IQ I want in any image I produce, rangefinder included.

So my question to this forum is, which M series camera would you suggest for me? I don't need AUTO anything -- auto focus, or any shutter or aperture priority exposure modes, as I do everything manually. Since I have a photography business, I can't justify a huge investment into the system until I have "earned" my way up to it. So my budget is small to begin.

Thanks for any advice you can offer,
Crystal

http://www.crystalkeesey.com

 

[maddoc]

Welcome to the forum Crystal !

This question has been asked many times and the answers depend on personal preferences usually. My advice would be - since you are used to Zeiss glass - starting with a Zeiss Planar 50mm f/2 or Biogon 35mm f/2.0. Albeit I don't have Zeiss lenses (except for my Hasselblad), they are highly recommended by many here. A Zeiss Ikon (ZI), which has AE and and bright VF, would make a good camera. This set up wouldn't cost to much, especially compared with the Leica counterparts. If a full manual camera does the job and Leica is OK budget-wise, my "personal" choice would be a used M6 (with on-board meter but all-manual) or a M4-P (meter-less, all manual) and one of the Zeiss lenses mentioned above. These cameras are not so interesting for collectors but do a pretty good job. If you figure out that RF cameras is not for you, you could easily sell any of these without loosing to much money.

Cheers,

maddoc

 

[payasam]

If using a 35 mm lens, then not the M3 but the M2 or an M4 variant. If exposure meter wanted, then M5 or M6.

 

[varjag]

What payasam says. The difference between M bodies (aside from M5) is insubstantial otherwise: get the one in best condition at best price you can find.

 

[Bully]

Hello Crystal,

welcome to the rangefinderforum!

In my opinion there are two ways to go:

first (my preference) the M6 (classic body) with build-in meter
or second the M4-P without anything.
And third the low-budged-advice, the M4-2.

Good luck!

Bully

 

[mfogiel]

acrystalball

If you like Zeiss F lenses, you are lost to the rest of humanity, haha... Here's my take:
- forget manual exposure, AE will save you these 2 seconds that you will need to grab the photo while the Decisive Moment happens. 2 seconds are more than enough to focus, frame and shoot once you get smart with a rf
- I feel the real choice nowadays is between a Leica M7, a Zeiss Ikon and a Bessa R4A.
The Zeiss Ikon is the best overall camera, with an incredible vf vision and great control simplicity, etc, and it only costs a bit more than Bessa and 1/3rd of the M7, but the shutter is slightly audible, so this is more of a street camera, and a camera for shooting in environments with a bit of a background noise.

Leica has a lousy VF, weighs a ton, is a PITA to load, and has a cloth shutter with only 1/1000th max speed (easy to burn a hole in if you point your lens towards the sun), BUT it is a mechanical jewel, and is DEAD SILENT (especially the M7), so it is a dream camera for a stealth use in interiors ( I got myself an M7 with the 0.85 VF for a fast 50mm lens, and it does the job pretty well). For me therefore, the Leica is THE specialist camera for interiors shooting.

The Bessa R4A is the smallest, lightest, least reliable to focus and least solid of the three, BUT it has a good VF and is the ONLY rf camera with frames from 21-50 mm, with the 21,25,28 and 35mm frames perfectly usable, so again, if your game is wide angle shooting, this is the tool to consider.

The lenses:
I am partial to Zeiss lens drawing:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49212
but you will find lots of great lenses in the rf world - depending on your needs try to explore older threads on this site, if you want to stick with Zeiss glass, I warn you the ZM line is better than ZF, you will get sucked into it if you try. Look through the photo examples of various M lenses on this site:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-mount/

BTW, welcome to the rf world, I am confident, you will like it a lot. 🙂

 

[varjag]

mfogiel, that's a lot of opinion expressed as absolute statements 🙂

Let me contradict:
- Decisive moment is not what you think it is (read about the anticipation part in HCB text)
- ZI viewfinder is nice, but prone to mechanical problems
- it also makes annoying click when you go through about 3m focus
- its shutter release button is in the wrong place (and even Zenit-E got it right)
- it feels too lightweight
- you can't mount deeply protruding lenses on it
- it is easier to get a Leica serviced, and will likely be so in the future
- ZI is 100% battery-dependent

 

[mfogiel]

varjag
I do not pretend to be HCB or even a pro photographer, but from my experience, the anticipation sometimes can be a planned process like here, where I framed, set the focus and waited:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1788455260/
or
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1715181058/
or
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1640654192/

it can be something half way, where you frame and "induce" something to happen, like here ( I made a quick sound to attract the dog's gaze):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1558660052/

or here, where I wanted the lady to take the cup away from me:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1544162482/

or it can be a split second spontaneous reaction to what happens in front of your eyes like here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1651845547/
or here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1657467496/
or here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1794219221/
or here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1809721501/

I've been using a ZI for some months now, and I am not aware of any mechanical problems with the VF, nor does it click when I focus past 3 meters. As far as the shutter release, it feels better than that of the M7 which is slightly too "deep". Finally, after a day long of "wearing" a couple of rf's around your neck, you learn to appreciate lighter cameras.

BTW, I was curious to see some of your photos, because I like to learn from other people's art, but the link below your signature does not work.

 

[varjag]

mfogiel,

There are excellent street photographers who use and who don't use AE, AF, motor wind and so on. Indeed HCB, the man who coined term "Decisive Moment", hardly used any automatic mode. Not that you have to as well, but I would say that automation is mostly irrelevant to good photography.

The examples you posted, good as they are, could just as well be taken with meterless camera. You just need to adjust to light as you move from setting to setting, something that tends to happen semi-unconsciously when you really get used to all-manual cameras.

The couple you caught kissing in subway was doing that in exact same light that was there 10 seconds before.

As about anyone photographing in 21st century I've used cameras with aperture priority. They get me lazy, they take my understanding of light away, and they mess exposure in tricky situations.

About ZI, I'm happy it works for you. I've played with a black version my friend got from Tony Rose. Its framelines get sticky from time to time, and sending it back for minor service from where he is is not economical. He got it with idea that a new ZI is better than a used Leica, not sure about his opinion now.

Quite a few people on this very forum experienced some troubles too. Let's just say that ZI viewfinder problems are not unheard of.

The click I believe is a property of viewfinder construction. Bring your ear to camera and focus throughout the range.

Try this link for my photoblog. The server I host at is in transition, so DNS records of my domain have not been updated yet.

 

[mfogiel]

Eugene
thanks for the link, seems ok now. You have some nice shots there, and, BTW I think it is better not to argue with you, because you are armed with automatic weapons !!! haha...

 

[splitimageview]

Don't discount what an M3 can do. No, it doesn't have 35mm framelines, but it's got the highest magnification finder of any M, and the least cluttered view. If you want to use a 28 or 35mm lens, pick up one of these tiny 28/35mm viewfinders:

http://cameraquest.com/voigtpma2004.htm

The M3 takes a bit longer to load unless you get one of the quickload take up spools.

These discussions can go on forever...the best thing is to try out an M. They hold their value, so if you decide you want more (or less) framelines, or a meter or some other feature, you can always sell and get another model. I've owned every film M at one time or another except for the M1 and the MP (and the models without a viewfinder like the MD)...my favorites are the M3 and M4, although IMHO one can't go wrong with any of them.

If you don't want or desire auto-anything, then you can eliminate the M7, and the Zeiss Ikon and Hexar RF (although all are excellent in their own ways.)

 

[cmogi10]

Hello Crystal,

welcome to the rangefinderforum!

In my opinion there are two ways to go:

first (my preference) the M6 (classic body) with build-in meter
or second the M4-P without anything.
And third the low-budged-advice, the M4-2.

Good luck!

Bully

I'm with him!
My M6 is a workhorse, see's a couple rolls a day. This summer I might pick up a Beater M4-P to use in conjunction, we'll see. This past week I popped the batteries out of my M6 and have been doing my best to read the light and the results are a lot better then I expected. I do like having the meter though just in case.

 

[Photon42]

Hi Crystal,

you've got some nice pics. Everything already said here ... or well ...

Budget is small? Bessa + 35/2.0 Zeiss. Or even a CV 35 (which I don't have experience with).

Used M6 or new ZI doesn't really matter much re: price. However, both are more expensive than the Bessas.

Looking at your pictures again, I tend to think a 50 might suit you better, though. What's about a Planar 50/2.0 and a used M6 / new ZI?

Regards
Ivo

 

[ferider]

Now, knowing myself and my obsessive nature about image quality, the desire to use a Leica will not abate, even if I am happy with the Yashica. I pretty much use the new Zeiss F-mount glass exclusively with my DSLR. And that's the kind of IQ I want in any image I produce, rangefinder included.

Welcome !

Absolutely the best bang for the buck currently is a used M2 with either CV 35/2.5,
M-Rokkor 40/2 or M-Hexanon 50/2, depending which focal length you prefer.
Will set you back around US 900 total, if you shop carefully.

Both lenses have nice bokeh, high contrast and are very "sharp".

Roland.

 

[acrystalball]

Thanks y'all for your thoughtful responses. I'm now more confused than ever, lol. Having just spent mucho dinero upgrading my SLR system, I am going to have to keep my rangefinder curiousity in the no frills category.

I'm not such a "sharpness" nut, as I am a "rendering" nut. After looking at many images on pbase and flickr, I am pretty sure the look I 'm after is the Leica lens look, not a Zeiss M look. IT seems like a Bessa body + Leica lens might be the entry-level way to get there.

How is KEH's grading for Leica bodies? Are the bargain grade cams useable, or do they need CLA attention? Are used lenses a crap shoot? I know they are with Nikon SLR lenses.

Again, thank you for your insight. Shot my first roll of film in a rangefinder this afternoon. What a delight to be so unencumbered!

Kind regards,
Crystal

 

[aizan]

consider taking advantage of the dip in price for an m6 classic (thanks to the m8). i wouldn't discount the rendering of zeiss lenses, though. have you compared the photos in these flickr groups?

http://flickr.com/groups/zeissikon35mm/
http://flickr.com/groups/summicron35mm/

it's worth a second thought, especially since the pre-asph summicron has gone up in price while some very experienced photographers consider the new biogon optically and aesthetically superior to the asph. you can get one in mint used condition on ebay for $700!

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_26_en/$File/CLN26_English.pdf

 

[hammerman]

can i just say something? i came into this forum a few months back and sort of overdid my profile because i thought i was in comfortable company. and i feel i am. but, it seems, unlike most who so far admit it, i have shot RF for over forty years and used it for hard work where i wasn't supposed to have a camera at all. in the interim years i have shot SLR film and digital Kodak Nikons, Fuji Nikons and now Leica Digital SLR, MF, and new Bessa RFs all over again, mostly for soft work in the mainstream, of sorts.

the one camera i had and foolishly sold out of mere casual attitude that i could find another one of i wanted, was my trusty M3 which i had in Germany in the 1970s. under my avatar it says pretty much the truth...i spent a lot more time as a non-east german photographing things in east germany for people in the west. a simple job that took a young foolhearty person to do. my M3 got me more information than not because of its "stealth" (as some of you call it) capabilities. and when i was approached by curious persons with some degree of uniformed authority it did not cause any more attention than one would expect from a classic but workhorse camera. it wasn't shiny at all, let me say.

we don't really have those kinds of conditions these days, in so many ways. things are different in the information game. but that camera was nigh on to silent in comparison to the russian look-alikes and the japanese imported SLRs into the East. yes, they had them, too, the Nikons and Canons.

so, my two cents is this, if you want a silent and unobtrusive camera to do covert street photography, get a workhorse. if you want to look flash and get captured by the soviets or mothers or fathers or pimps or angry-young-teenagers then get a noise maker. but as a pro camera to use on shoots where speed is critical then probably an SLR is the go, depends on your skill. for the shy shooter in the park or on the boardwalk get an RF and get one that fits into your hand and jacket pocket.

fact is, most people around the world even today, when they see a camera aimed at them, have no inkling that the camera is actually pointed at them. unless they have a pointer of their own in the pocket.

some things never change. choose your tool carefully and don't let it go. and use it hard.

dj, taking it easy doing as little as possible these days except, i got the GAS!

 

[leif e]

Mostly said, I guess. Just wanted to share the fact that I just bought a very ragged-looking and worn - but recently CLA´d - M4 (black). That camera feels so good and intuitive in my hands, I might look for another. Was hard on the economy, thoug!

 

[Photon42]

I'm not such a "sharpness" nut, as I am a "rendering" nut. After looking at many images on pbase and flickr, I am pretty sure the look I 'm after is the Leica lens look, not a Zeiss M look. IT seems like a Bessa body + Leica lens might be the entry-level way to get there.

These things need to be judged by yourself, of course. It's good you check images on the web for rendering.

<Zeiss>
I kinda like the sonnar 50 images quite a lot from what I've seen so far. But it's of course Zeiss and the 50 sonnar was a lot "in the press" for focus shift. Now it seems sharpness has been optimized for wide open on the new lens batches. Probably not an everybody's lens. A used 50 planar is up at B&H for US$ 550, IIRC, but that's again a Zeiss ...
</Zeiss>


Rangefinders are - as the sames suggests - limited by their finder design which to some extend influences the choice of lenses. It's basically revolving around the rangefinder base and the finder magnification. There is no built-in do-it-all for 21 up to 135. By choosing your camera, you set your lens priorities to some extend.

One thing with the Bessas to take into account is their smaller rangefinder base which translates into a litte lesser focus accuracy (as opposed to ZI and M leicas). Same thing btw with a CL. So if you're into longer telephoto lenses with large apertures, the Bessas aren't optimal.


BTW, I didn't had bad experiences with any of my Nikkor lenses bought used (the most I have).

Rgds
Ivo

 

[maddoc]

Mostly said, I guess. Just wanted to share the fact that I just bought a very ragged-looking and worn - but recently CLA´d - M4 (black). That camera feels so good and intuitive in my hands, I might look for another. Was hard on the economy, thoug!

Sounds good ! A black M4 is something special 🙂