an old film range finder to shoot 28mm and 35mm, for an intermediate on a budget moving from digital?

<p>Hello all,<br /> I'm looking to get a film range finder mainly to shoot cityscapes and photo-journalistic things. I like manual focus, and my favorite focal lengths (i'm planning to shoot with this camera are mainly 28mm or sometimes 35mm). But I'm on a budget(I'm a student and has fuji x-t 1). I'd highly prefer to start shooting with an old one with a very low price and first give it a try if i really like the idea before spending too much money.<br>

<br /> I need following qualities: aperture priority, less electronics and more intuitive, a good study feeling is also important, in built light meter would be nice too, and I'm not so sure yet about buying a separate range finder or better to get a coupled range finder. Also since i mainly look to shoot 28mm and 35mm, i will need frame lines for those.<br>

<br /> I have researched quite a bit seen the suitable beginner level film range finders are:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Zorki-4,6; FEDs,</li>

<li>Yashica 35 electro (can't consider since it's fixed lens with 35mm, i want 28 mainly and need interchangeable)</li>

<li>Minolta cle (too expensive)/ Minolta hi-matic (is it really a range finder?)</li>

<li>Bessa R4M/Bessa R2 (R4M seems best, since it has frame lines for 28mm and 35mm)</li>

<li>Contax g1 (i like the 28mm biogon lens, but too many electronics.)</li>

</ul>

<p>It seems to me, Contax g1 seem to fit my bill (i can get lens and body around 380$ on ebay). But i prefer if it can be even cheaper than that below 200$ would be ideal with a 28mm lens.<br>

<br /> I'd like your suggestions or experiences if you have owned these cameras?, specially for a beginner like me.<br /> Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>The Contax is a rangefinder in a technical sense but works in a very different way to the others on your list, and is better thought of as a high quality AF camera (with excellent lenses). I wouldn't consider an uncoupled rangefinder. I'll leave it to others to suggest what 28mm lens options for the Soviet cameras (you might also consider Leica screwmount bodies). Any 28mm M mount lens is probably going to exceed your budget, but the M-mount Bessas can take screwmount lenses with adapters.</p>

<p>Have you ruled out SLRs? if you want a decent camera body with an interchangeable 28mm lens on a $200 budget, I think you'll find it easier to buy, say, an 80s manual focus SLR. Some of these (e.g. several Olympus and Pentax models) are about the same size as an M Leica, and will probably be nicer to use than (say) a Zorki 4.</p>

Given your budget, I would also recommend a 1980's vintage SLR (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta),

whereby you should be able to find a lens plus a body in good shape that falls within your budget and also uses

currently available batteries. While the cost of MF lenses has increased, as people have adapted such lenses

to mirrorless cameras, moderate aperture (f2.8) 28mm and 35mm lenses should still be available for low prices

as would be a 50mm f1.8. Fast 24,85, and 100 mm lenses are not going to be cheap.

<p>What you seem to be looking for is a little beyond the golden age of rangefinder cameras....most of which didn't have built in meters and were fully manual in operation, not aperture priority. The FSU cameras, according to their many users, are kind of a crapshoot...sometimes in great shape, but more often needing a good CLA (think extra costs). A good inexpensive rangefinder for a serious beginner might be something like a Canon P, which can often be had for around $100. It has 35,50 & 100mm frame lines, so you would need an auxiliary 28mm finder, or the ability to move your eye slightly beyond the 35mm frame lines. It takes Leica screwmount lenses, so there is quite a variety out there ranging from modest to expensive. Wider angle RF lenses seem to command a higher relative price than standard 50mm ones. FWIW, you could even add a Canon P converter B and use many uncoupled SLR lenses (Steve Gandy discusses this in some detail at Cameraquest.com); I've successfully used a Tamron 17mm, Nikon F 20mm and Canon FD 28mm on mine...basically using hyperfocal focusing technique. Bessa bodies can be a good user as well, although not as smooth as most Leicas, but much less expensive. I'd encourage you to consider alternatives to rangefinders unless you really know what you are doing and what you want...and then go for the best you can afford. It is the lenses which really deliver the results, not so much the camera body, and they are often the most expensive part of the equation. The other issue with many rangefinders is that the ones with the best viewfinder/rangefinders may require periodic adjustments, and if you wear eyeglasses, most don't have diopter adjustments, although you can sometimes buy acessory slip on diopters. I've owned over 15 rangefinders over the years...and finally pared it down to 4 with interchangeable lenses and 2 with fixed lenses. My SLRs & DSLRs get much more use these days though.</p>

<p>Thank you very much all for the replies. I feel what you're saying is quite right. Truthfully speaking, I've never used or had a rangefinder camera in my life. I have used point and shoot film camera when i was kid. But for most parts of my life I've been using dslrs and mirrorless. <br>

I was initially focusing only on getting a film SLR, i already had narrowed down to Minolta SRT101, 202 or X-700 which fits well in my budget. I was planning to get a few rokkor lenses as well. But then, I always was interested in rangefinders and thought if i could find a film range finder to try out range finders, thus looking one for a very low budget. But as Stephen pointed out, my knowledge on the systems of rangefinders is extremely low. May be it's a good idea, i focus on SRT film camera(leaving the heart aside for a while), and may be later someday when i have a good budget I should think back about a rangefinder. (besides i have spent quite a bit on my Fuji x-t1 system as well while not being a professional with no way to cover the expenses.). </p>

<p>Stick with what you've already got.</p>

<p>I'd consider the g1 a manual focus camera. Yes, it has AF, but my eye and thumb coordination would be faster than the slow G1 in anything but great lighting...even then, it'd be a close contest:)</p>

<p>...and thanks to hipster film shooters, (perhaps like yourself) old rangefinders pricing has gone way up, I've heard. Use a slr, it's just a tool... </p>

<p>my film rf of choice is the hexar af...tho fixed 35mm!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Well, my goal of shooting film is not for trend nor because I'm or i want to be a hipster; and I totally agree that it's a tool only. I think if someone is interested in something, there is nothing wrong with trying it, if it fits them. Otherwise, i'd not know if it fits more or even what it really is. I've shot film before when i was a kid. just, because leslie was not sure, I'm a Physicist. </p>

<p>I'm sure one of those Minolta SLRs would be a good choice. If you're happy to get the wider shots with an SLR, you might also (for the price of a media card) want to get hold of a fixed lens RF camera from the 70s. This will typically have a lens somewhere in the 35-45mm range, and there are quite a few models from makers like Canon, Yashica, Olympus, Ricoh, and Minolta. Some (not all) of the Hi-Matic models are rangefinders. As Kenneth says, batteries can sometimes be an issue. Some were designed for now discontinued mercury batteries. There are various workarounds - e.g. for the Electro 35 you mention: http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Batteries-Yashica-Electro-35-35mm-Rangefinder-cameras-/10000000000120009/g.html . Note that some cameras only meter accurately with the original mercury cell, or with something like the WeinCell: http://www.weincell.com . If your main interest is in shooting film rather than the type of camera, there are also many late model 35mm AF SLRs that work similarly to the dSLRs you've used previously, and can be had for very little money.</p>

<p>As above, only consider Pentax Spotmatic with functioning meter /Wein cell. Screw lenses are good and cheap, with extraordinary selection of brands. Without meter, virtually valueless.<br>

Otherwise, EOS film cameras with lenses are worth practically nothing at garage sales, and if battery hasn't been left in, probably work fine. Quite sophisticated</p>

<p>There used to be a Konica - Hexar? - with M-mount, aperture priority and AFAIK an integrated winder, but I guess it will be outside your budged. - I paid 300something Euro for a new old stock 35mm f2 Konica lens and am content with it (OK, it is a bit bulky).<br>

I really don't know what to suggest to you. - Yes I love range finders and shoot mine when possible, but: 28mm don't seem to be a well catered focal length in this realm. - Don't get me wrong; they surely work well enough on the Bessa R4M. They might be even enjoyable on a Leica with<em> less</em> VF magnification than 0.68 digital or 0.72 M4-P / M6 etc. default. With M4-P I have to scan the VF image by moving my eye around to see both the right and the left 28mm frame line (and yes, I am wearing contact lenses and have the VF inconveniently close to my eye). Auxiliary finders are an option, but they slow you down way too much. <br>

On a budged I'd recommend getting a basic SLR kit, if you like 28mm lenses. - I fear the Soviet made 28mms are too slow and too expensive to be great fun in everyday shooting situations. - Also none of the Soviet cameras I am aware of has VF framelines wider than 50mm. </p>

<p>I love a good rangefinder, but as a "mainstream" camera most of them are pretty old at this point. Most haven't stood the test of time very well (except for the Leicas and possibly the Canons and Nikons). You'll end up paying through the nose for a good one (Canons are probably the cheapest). A Leica M2 or M3 with some old lenses are great working cameras without spending a mint, but I suspect it will be more than you want to spend. A fixed lens camera like the old Konica I might give you an idea of what using a rangefinder camera might be like at a budget price but you won't be able to change lenses.</p>

<p>You have a much better selection of newer, high quality SLRs to pick from, including some really good ones at bargain basement prices. Minoltas (XD11, XE5), Pentax, Nikon, Canon, and the legendary Olympus OM1. Much as I'd love to recommend a Leica M2 with a few 50's lenses, it's a lot of money unless you REALLY like the rangefinders and are willing to live with their limitations (limited telephoto range, difficult macro work, slow focusing for fast work, etc.).</p>

<p>>>>I've shot film before when i was a kid. just, because leslie was not sure, I'm a Physicist.<<<<br>

<br>

What, physicist can't be hipsters? Are you discriminating physicists in the realm of hipsterism? I have mainly three hipster friends. Carpenter/dancer/cyclist, physicist turned philosopher, and musician/hardware guy. They are my friends, first and foremost, but I do consider them hipsters. They didn't care much about photography then. but now they talk of different films pushing and mixing coffee developers and such...<br>

<br>

Anyway, just do what you do...worry not about name calling. Usually, i'm just messing with newer shooters;) <br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>A physicist...OMG, I was a medical researcher, legal analyst, salesman, naval officer, financial manager and college teacher...among other lesser things. What one does to pay for the (non-working) joys of life is irrelevant when it comes to photography, IMHO. Some people like to analyze and tinker with their cameras and darkrooms while others like to explore beauty photographing the world around them...others just like to fondle their cameras. All are welcome here, and there are no stupid questions.</p>

<p>There are several 35mm film cameras of different brands with fixed lenses for small money with lenses ranging from 35, 38, 40mm focal length and f stops of 1.8, 1.9, 2.8 that might serve as a first time rangefinder camera. If you feel comfortable with the shooting style you can then upgrade to bodies with interchangeably lenses.</p>

<p>If the type of camera is not a concern, you could do worse than an old Oly Trip. Between £10 and £20 on the big auction site.<br /> 40mm lens, and yes, it's point and shoot (zone focussing), but the lens is fairly decent.<br>

<img src="http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx221/dogbloke/CNV00024copy_zps114d26e3.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="655" /><br>

Action shot - Oly Trip, XP2 - shop processed.<br>

Moving up a notch, the Yashica J is still around on the big auction site. Its fully manual with a good rangefinder, but the lens is fixed. The lens ok ok stopped down. Same sort of price.<br /> If I were you I'd buy one of the above, and save for a Leica - an old Barnack one. The lenses are not expensive if you choose carefully, and the results can be very good indeed.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you can buy a Contax G1 with a 28mm Biogon for US$380, grab it! The Biogon 28 is a corker of a lens, the afficionados are lining up to buy them - here in Australia I could easily resell it for more than the camera and lens price.</p>

<p>I like the G1 enough that I have stockpiled a small arsenal of them, intending to replace those that wear out or break down on me, one by one. The problem with this 'tactic' is, even 'tho I bought my first one in the late 90s and the other in 2003, G1s don't seem to wear out. The other three (I may even have four) I acquired from 2010, and they still work like new cameras. Maybe I was lucky. More likely, the G1 is just a good old work horse, and tends to go on and on forever and a day beyond. </p>

<p>True, the G1 is autofocus, but it has a manual focus wheel, somewhat fiddly and when set prone to changing the distance you set it on as if powered by its own motor during shoots. I get around this issue by sellotaping the wheel to the body, which sort of works. </p>

<p>The downside, I think, is the G1 was made in the mid '90s, for about two years, and was then replaced by the G2, which is (apparently) greatly improved and consequently fetches higher prices. So G1s are quite old, and if one goes bad on you, the repairs may be expensive or even nonexistent, and you will have a rather beaut looking ornament on your hands, but the Biogon 28 can be sold at a good price, and you will then recover most of if not all your original investment. </p>

<p>On the other hand, set at f/8, the Biogon can deal with almost anything you aim it at. It resolves color most beautifully, and my B&W images from it seem to have the light literally wrapping itself around the subjects, a visual effect I find particularly charming. Enlargements up to 8x10" are easily made in the darkroom without the least effort, something I have always found difficult to do with Nikkormats and other 35mm film cameras. </p>

<p>The combo of G1, Biogon and Tri-X or HP5 is, in my experience, unbeatable for street work. </p>

<p>Others have suggested SLRs, which are good cameras in their own right. But they are not rangefinders. </p>

<p>As for your own list, I would avoid Zorkis and Feds, as they tend to be clunkers. Yashicas are old and most may be unreliable, 'tho the lenses are superb. The CL and CLE were good in their day, but are now ancient, even older than the G1s. Bessas are remarkably good value, I have used them and I like them. Voigtlander lenses seem to cost the earth if bought new, but almost all are well worth their prices, especially the Color Skopars. So a Bessa and a 28 or 35 could be an ideal investment for you. </p>

<p>Decisions, decisions! You are lucky to have so much choice. Me I would happily part with $380 for a G1 with a Biogon 28, which suits my shooting style. Whatever you decide, be sure to enjoy the process. </p>

<p>JDW. </p>

 

<p>An old range-finder camera with a wide angle lens is a small combination, but the necessary auxiliary finder adds bulk and weight. Interchangeable lens RFDR cameras with built-in exposure meters are a relatively recent development. The Bessa R4a is the lowest priced RFDR with the VF frames you want and aperture priority auto exposure.</p>

<p>Insofar as Soviet cameras are concerned, I'd definitely prefer Kiev to Zorki. The Kiev is basically the pre-war Contax II. Some superb lenses for this camera are available for very low prices as well.<br>

Even after you move on to digital whiz-bangs, you will still find the Kiev a good user for film.</p>

<p>Thank you very much for the insight. Specially, last few replies which truly connects to my question. <br>

JayDann Walker: Thanks for the clear explanations and suggestions. I was really looking into this contax g1, because of the biogon 28mm lens as I'm mainly looking for 28mm to 35mm focal lengths. I had checked some images taken with biogon and i quite liked it. But then, again I was questioning, if it's more of autofocus and not mainly a range finder style, it'd not fulfill my requirements sadly. Also, I definitely don't plan to buy a Leica for sure.<br>

yes Mukul, I liked the Bessa R4M too, but i think I don't want to spend that much money for it at the moment. Infact I love Voigtlander lenses, specially 58mm classic, and the noktons for MFTs which i've used in past on my omd em1. They were all wonderful. <br>

But my goal in buying a ranger finder old camera was, to learn it (bit of serious learning) and possibly see what it is like and may be someday to be serious. I have never tried one, thus the cheap old ones in my list in a low budget. <br>

But, now with the ideas given related to old range finders in the last few replies, i might just get a Minolta SRT101 or 202, if not X-700 , which was my initial plan(buying a film SLR). I currently own a few minolta MF glasses for my fuji X-t1. So i can use them together. <br>

Thanks for the insights again :)</p>

 

<p>As I said, don't spend TOO much on a rangefinder until you try it out, BUT if you were to use too cheap a rangefinder you may decide you don't like it much. If it's still possible to find a camera store you might go in and handle a Leica just to get a data point on how they feel.</p>

<p>Buy a leica...if you somehow don't like it, you can sell it and get your money back, and maybe more...just wait for a decent priced one. At worst, you lose maybe 5-10%...think of it as renting a leica. Hell, I still have a M2 if you want for cheap...what's your budget again? </p>

<p>In the Leica thread mount rangefinders, 35mm lenses weren't unusual, but anything shorter was.</p>

<p>The flange to film distance allows for a normal 35mm lens, but you need a retrofocus lens, like the usual SLR wide angle lens, for anything shorter. </p>

<p>The Canon P isn't hard to find for a good price, and they often enough work.</p>

<p>The Canon FD mount SLRs and lenses are the most reasonably priced, as they don't work with Canon DSLRs. The FTb is easy to find, from before the automatic (AE-1) days. It has a match-needle meter. I use alkaline batteries, which seem close enough, at least for black and white work. The AV-1 is the aperture priority FD mount camera. I think 35mm and 28mm aren't so hard to find.</p>

<p>The newer Canon EF mount cameras aren't so hard to find. EF lenses work on newer DSLRs, but you might still find 28mm that is affordable.</p>

<p>The Nikon SLRs, are affordable, and manual focus lenses usually aren't so expensive. They also work on Nikon DSLRs if you buy one of those later.</p>

<p>But I would go for the Canon FTb. That overlapped the rangefinder days, and so should have similar feel to a rangefinder. (They wanted it to be easy for people to switch.)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There are a few Canon, Leica, thread mounts 28's that are not retrofocus, but they are a bit slow, or like the Canon 2.8, need to be stopped down to get sharp edges. </p>

<p>For a rangefinder that isn't too old but provides the flexibility you prefer, I'd recommend that you look at the LTM Canons. Take a look at the P. These days you can often find a P for a decent price. The P has a nice bright viewfinder, easy film loading, and a lever advance. It reminds me of the Leica M-series in a lot of ways.</p>

<p>For you, the biggest problem with these old LTM rangefinder cameras is going to be the price of the lenses. Wide angles go for a premium. Sometimes it's cheaper to buy the lens with a camera already attached. Recently I bought a Canon Serenar 35mm f/3.2 with a Canon IIIa rangefinder attached for less than what the lenses typically sell for. The seller was offering the camera with lens, but didn't provide much detail about the lens. I was able to determine what it was from the photos he showed. Anyway, there wasn't much interest in the camera, so I picked up the outfit for cheap. Now I have a spare Canon rangefinder body that I'll probably sell, and I might get close to its original selling price for the camera only. Which means I'll have gotten the 35mm lens for almost nothing.<br>

<br />Anyway, that's one approach. If you just buy a 35mm or 28mm outright, though, you'll probably be looking at $200 and up. You can probably find a P for less than $200, though. So if you go with a Canon LTM outfit, figure on a budget of about $400.</p>

<p>By the way, it's been my experience that these old rangefinder lenses are actually very good. I have a few Serenars and one Kyoei Optical and they all perform great.</p>