Looking for a film Rangfinder, very confused what to haunt for; help!

A lot of good suggestions, a lot of more sggestions; now I'm confused even more xD

 

None of my friends are really into film cameras, and so I can not really test the RF in person and see how it feels, and like someone suggested, I could probably end up reselling it if I didn't like it.

 

I live in Germany, german brands are more common here, so for example the Agfa is more common to find. Maybe you guys also have suggestions for German cameras?

 

Honestly it's just confusing, I used to do only digital with an SLR, but got bored of having to lag around bunch of lenses and such, so I started shooting with my phone instead since it's always with me but I miss shooting with a camera and I do feel like I'd really enjoy an RF from all the other film cameras, but then again, I could also end up being happy with a fully automatic thing (point and shoot thing). The appeal of film is knowing I won't know what kind of photo I took until I develope it, and then I can also make a collection while with digital it's more tempting to take a lot and then end up forgetting about them in the cloud instead of on my wall.

 

 

Adding some phone shots, maybe helps to get an idea of what I do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand your dilemma. There are times when I research cameras on the computer all day long and cannot make up my mind. You will find a positive and negative comment on every single camera ever made! Sometimes I just have to step away from the computer and take a leap of faith based on instinct. (I recently ran into this same issue when trying to do a self-repair of a chip in my windshield. I finally decided that I read too much and just went to the auto parts store and settled on one that I thought I could figure out. In the end, this was the best decision.)

 

So you should just pick one--any one--and START there. If you're like most of us, you will find yourself wanting to buy another camera within a couple of months. It happens. The good news is that you can get a few cameras and still be under your proposed budget. But I would start with just one and see if it scratches the itch.

I feel the same thing sometimes, too. No one camera is perfect for every situation, and there is always some trade-off. If you want a truly pocketable camera, it will be hard to find one with a lens much faster that f/2.8, for example. Rangefinder cameras by design have their limitations. I wouldn't get too hung up on the model or brand of camera, either. Any of the different cameras mentioned here have their pros and cons, but all are capable of taking fine pictures.

I like your images very much, Noorozeki! In view of your comment:

 

I live in Germany, german brands are more common here, so for example the Agfa is more common to find. Maybe you guys also have suggestions for German cameras?

 

I really think I'd look hard at the delightful Agfa Optima Sensors, in particular the 1535 model with the coupled rangefinder. There's an informative article here: ACP - Optima 1535

 

Here's a CMC thread on the breed: AGFA Optima 535 Sensor - pocket snap shooter

Edited October 18, 2018 by rick_drawbridge

Good luck getting that kind of control over colour from film!

 

Not without carrying a bunch of filters around with you, or manipulating the images after scanning. But then if you're just going to end up working on a digital file.....

Hello neighbor.

20 years ago the world was full of camera stores with used departments. - Now my hometown seems empty besides electronics malls selling new digital stuff. - Maybe it makes sense to travel to a flea market like "Fotobörse" (camera show in English)? Or look around ordinary flea markets? - That is where I scooped up my Soviet made RFs, a while ago. You could also study ebay Kleinanzeigen and check local offers hands on.

 

Read reviews and stuff online and figure out how the specimen on sale feels in your hand and in front of your eye, if the RF patch seems vertically and horizontally aligned, when you point it at a distant antenna or tree hitting the lens' infinity hard stop and if a mechanical shutter and self timer seem working or not. Love it or leave, that's all.

Given the season such posts do haunt us here. Plenty to choose from, whichever spooks you most. You mentioned looking for models that might be plentiful in Germany and though this isn't shutter priority a nice little automatic when it works is the Zeiss Ikon Contessa 310/312. The RF model is the S312, both sport the 2.8 Tessar. The sister model to this is the Voigtländer VF 101; same camera, different dress. Upon reading the OP my thoughts went to the Caononet models already mentioned

 

I own the Contessa 310 this is the cheaper model without RF but otherwise the same. The RF models definitely go for more but well within your budeget.

 

Here's one on ebay

 

alter Fotoapperat " Zeiss IKON S 312 " mit Tasche | eBay

Edited October 19, 2018 by chuck_foreman|1

I happen to love the Canon GIII QL17, and have had outstanding results with it. If I were to pick just one RF, it would be my first choice, based on my previous experience with the ones I've owned in the past. The Olympus 35RD is a beautiful camera but it's not uncommon to find that oil has leaked onto the blades over time. Unfortunately that can be costly to repair unless you know how to yourself. The Oly 35DC is basically an auto-version of the RD with the same wonderful lens. You mentioned the Vivitar 35ES; it's a camera that is basically the same camera as the Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII and the German brand Revue 400SE. Cosina had a major part in the construction of all 3. If you can find one in working order, they're pretty cool cameras. Being in Germany, you may be able to find the Revue 400SE fairly easily. Mike G's suggestion of the Konica Auto S2 is an excellent one. If you can allow yourself to go a little bigger in size, this camera is really impressive and has an amazingly sharp lens. I'm always amazed that it doesn't sell for much more than it does compared to some cameras that are a lot more expensive but don't perform any better or as well. The Olympus XA was also mentioned earlier, and it is a superb choice as well. Its lens is very sharp and has very nice color rendition but aside from that, it's just impressively engineered. Lots for you to think about!

Noorozeki: I second Rodeo_Joe/1's comment above. You seems to have a penchant for shots in difficult light and colour conditions, and are able to obtain very good results. But you would be severely challenged to get comparable results from any vintage film camera (RF or otherwise), unless you are really expert at selecting the aperture setting on your own (no partial or complete automatic functions would do). Furthermore, even if the shots are exposed correctly, it is nowadays virtually impossible or anyway atrociously expensive to find a lab that would custom-process your film by hand according to your requirements, and the automatic machines they use would turn your carefully studied light effects into an incomprehensible blur. You will have to set up your own dark room to develop and print film yourself (and become skilled at this), or work exclusively with slides (this is what I do).

 

Sorry if this sounds discouraging - it was not meant to be. BTW, in which part of Germany do you live? If in the Cologne/Bonn area, I could show you a couple dozen RF cameras, just to get the feeling.

I would definitely 2nd all those who have mentioned the Olympus 35 RC & the Olympus XA, (both very small and pocket-able with great lenses). The Konica S3 Auto is slightly larger but with a fantastic lens. The Konica C35 rangefinder is also worth mentioning, if you learn to recognise them from slightly different (C35 Auto etc.) models, you might get a bargain on eBay, it's small with a very nice lens - but be careful, there are many different versions of the Konica C35.

I would definitely 2nd all those who have mentioned the Olympus 35 RC & the Olympus XA, (both very small and pocket-able with great lenses). The Konica S3 Auto is slightly larger but with a fantastic lens. The Konica C35 rangefinder is also worth mentioning, if you learn to recognise them from slightly different (C35 Auto etc.) models, you might get a bargain on eBay, it's small with a very nice lens - but be careful, there are many different versions of the Konica C35.

Konica C35

This subject invariably results in a host of very capable rangefinders being suggested. Of those mentioned, I can concur with the Oly XA, the Minolta 7Sii, and especially the Canon QL17 GIII, my favorite of the three. But there's another camera that I feel should be mentioned. It doesn't have the flexibility of the others (range focusing only and a limited sort of aperture-priority mode, but usually it's program only), but it is a great picture-taker and is very easy to use. Plus, it doesn't need batteries! I'm talking about the Oly Trip 35, which can often be obtained for a very cheap price. I own one (along with an XA and a QL17 and a few others), and I'm really quite fond of mine.

 

Olympus Trip 35 with some very expired Plus-X Pan

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/olytrip35_bigdog1.jpg

 

http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/olytrip35_carlot1.jpg

Edited November 1, 2018 by mwmcbroom

digital with an SLR, but got bored of having to lag around bunch of lenses and such

 

In all honesty, a rangefinder isn't necessarily the solution to that. Some of them can have multiple lenses too, and shooting B&W film, you probably end up carring a couple of colour filters too. So, while I can understand that a DSLR stays home because of weight/size, it is a bit an unfair comparison (your DSLR will have multiple focal lenghts, the fixed-lens RF will not), and hence not said that a film rangefinder is the solution. A small DSLR or mirrorless, with a small prime lens, can be as small as some of the rangefinders.

Another thing is that rangefinder focussing really is quite different. Not better or worse, but different. Whether you like it or not - no way to know until you do it. Personally, coming originally from a DSLR..... let's say I am glad I have a bunch of SLRs and DSLRs alongside the rangefinders I have. Because they could never be my only camera. Main thing: I don't like them in low light, the patch becomes less visible and it kind of leaves me clueless. With SLRs I don't have that problem, and I happen to like low light shooting.

As said above, low light and film aren't the ideal match. I don't mind very visible grain from heavily pushed B&W films, but it is an aesthetic choice that works for some scenes, but certainly not all. Digital offers more choice in that respect. But for those times where I shoot low light with film, I use a SLR, or a really simple zone-focussing (guessing distance) camera, not a rangefinder. Maybe it's me, but it just doesn't work for me.

 

Last but not least: some old all-manual SLRs are pretty light and small too. You do not necessarily need to go to a RF to go small and light. My most used film cameras are Leica R6's, which aren't much larger than a Leica M, nor heavier. So if RF focussing isn't your thing, there are still plenty options.

But given your (very nice) example photos: I'd look at a m4/3rd or APS-C mirrorless, with a pancake prime.

Small and light?

Pentax ME Super and a 40 mm pancake is smaller and lighter than my Nikon S3.

Definitely more cost effective with comparable results.

If you are looking for more of a mechanical operation, slide back to earlier ME or MX.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Moving On

If you buy an older fixed lens rangefinder, you should probably budget in a service to get the camera into good shape. I’ve had some bad experiences with some of these cameras which were never intended to last forever (unlike say Leicas which will be around when the sun burns out). Or buy it from a reputable dealer who has checked it out.

 

To some extent, maybe this is a little like tripod buying. You can either buy a bunch of them only to find out they are all wanting, or you can buy a good one and it will last you forever. In the old days, for my OWN pocketable rangefinder I eventually settled on a Leica CL with a 40/2 lens. More expensive than I wanted to pay but it really performed well. Now the meter’s out and it’s in for repair (the CL is really a Minolta camera so not quite as ruggedly built as my Leica M2s). AND it uses old batteries that are no longer available. Lots of old cameras use that PX625 mercury battery, there are substitutes but not always satisfactory ones. Watch that when you buy.

You might find this interesting....

Pentax MX (1976) pro quality 35mm film SLR

To clarify, the ME had limited manual function.....

The thing that many of these "really small" cameras seemed to lack in the old days was EITHER the rangefinder OR a meter. If it doesn't have a rangefinder, then despite the appearance, it's not a rangefinder, right? If it doesn't have a meter, there are workarounds (such as the Voigtlander clip on meter) but that is expensive and works against fitting in a pocket. I was never successful at guessing exposure reliably OR in guessing range. Yes I can scale focus, especially with a really wideangle lens, but I'm usually not satisfied with the sharpness.

The thing about those small Pentax cameras is that they had a meter.

The MX with all mechanical works.

The battery only powered the meter.

The little Gossen Pilot 2 I have works well so far with the S3 and neither need batteries.

But I’ve not shot E6 through it yet.....

Edited November 1, 2018 by Moving On

You might find this interesting....

Pentax MX (1976) pro quality 35mm film SLR

I used 4 of these very heavily for commercial work of almost 15 years with only 1 repair needed. When I finally wore them out I moved on to Pentax LX bodies, 2 of which I still have. The LED meter readout can get a bit erratic on these, but otherwise I found them to be almost bullet proof with great viewfinders that put most DSLRs to shame.

To clarify, the ME had limited manual function.....

 

I'll say. Like no manual mode at all. Had to get the ME Super if you wanted that.

I was never successful at guessing exposure reliably OR in guessing range. Yes I can scale focus, especially with a really wideangle lens, but I'm usually not satisfied with the sharpness.

When I was still a neophyte at photography, I bought a Canon IVSb rangefinder and realized that I needed a meter, not feeling confident with my skills at estimating exposure. So I bought a tiny little Sekonic that got the job done. There are other very small meters that are quite good, like the cool old Zeiss Ikophot. What I'm getting at is they take up essentially no room, thus are easy to transport. Now, as for range focusing, I've always had good luck with it because I pay attention to a lens's hyperfocal scale, and I use it. When outdoors, if my subject is distant enough, I'll typically set the lens to f/8 and set the far 8 at infinity, then just ensure that the near 8 is closer than the subject. This has always worked well for me.

I'll say. Like no manual mode at all. Had to get the ME Super if you wanted that.

It did have a fixed 100 shutter speed or you could do time exposures with the bulb setting.....

Ah, but was the meter engaged at either of those settings? I don't remember anymore. I had an ME for a while many years ago and just didn't care for it since I couldn't set shutter speeds.

The MX with the Pentax 40mm f 2.8 pancake lens is one of the most pocketable (at least jacket pocket) SLR's around. ME and ME Super as well. Not quite as compact, but lighter is the Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 fitted with Carl Zeiss 45mm f 2.8

I don't have a photo on this computer of my MX and 40mm but here's a couple of contenders:

Yashica with match diode metering

Another possibility

Konica TCX with Hexanon 40mm f 1.8

These two cameras the the Pentax MX accept easily available batteries. The Konica offers shutter priority plus manual.