Am I Insane?

<p>I used to shoot professionally with Nikon FM2's and FE2's (IOW's SLR's). Now I just want to shoot B&W for myself. I've always wanted to upgrade to Leica and am tempted to go with an M rangefinder. I'm hoping this change will spark some creativity. How hard is it making the change from TTL to rangefinder? Am I asking for trouble? Which camera model should I start with?</p>

<p>Zorki 4; Jupiter-8 5cm; hand held meter. Or a Konica Auto S2 ; tasty waves; a cool Bud; some d76 and tri-x</p>

<p>Zorkis often have a little too much of the Leica glow. The Feds (2 or later) are a lot better. Also consider a nice Kiev 4 (nearly 100% pre-war Contax).<br /> Or you could just buy a Leica & lenses for a lot more money.</p>

<p>There are lots of great rangefinder cameras that will allow you to get into this to see if it is what you want.</p>

<p>Canon Canonet, Konica S2, many others. Check out the Classic Manual Forum here at P.net</p>

<p>and no, not really <em>insane</em></p>

Most everybody I know with a rangefinder also has an SLR. They each have their uses.

<p>Insanity can be good. My first RF experience was with a borrowed IIIg that had a mis-aligned rangefinder and gummy slow speeds. This was after several years using a Nikon F. No long lenses, wide open was f/3.5, and no light meter. Within a week the IIIg was my favorite camera. YMMV.</p>

<p>If I were to get a film rangefinder it would be an M6 or newer because I still like using a built-in light meter.</p>

<p>Kevin, Leicas are a major invetment, even used, so I would consider borrowing or renting one (some used camera stores will allow that) for a week or so to see how you like it before doing anything else. They won't do everything for you, but I think that what they do is great. You may well differ. </p>

<p>Even if you use film, borrowing and using an Epson RDS-1 or a Leica M8 digital will give you a quicker feedback on how you might like the RF advantage. In film, the M6 is a great camera, although the Voigtlander Bessas and Zeiss- Ikon RFs are very popular as well. </p>

<p>I shoot both. Easy as pie, Kevin. You'll get the hang of it in a roll or two. For an interchangeable lens camera, a clean Canon 7 is a nice one that won't break the bank. Takes most M39 lenses. If you really never tried a rangefinder before, I second the recommend for the Konica Auto S2. Easy to use, full manual or aperture priority exposure. A big bright finder, You can read the meter from the top deck or the viewfinder and a brilliant lens that has a built in hood. I paid $12 for mine and I love it. A good way to get your feet wet. <strong>Note:</strong> Since you don't view through the lens with a rangefinder camera, don't forget to take the cap off before shooting! Not that <em>I</em> ever made that mistake.</p>

<p>Insane? No -- but it may be the best idea you've ever had, or the worst. Leicas are expensive, but exude the feeling of precision and ruggedness that has made their reputation.<br>

I'd start with a Leica M6 (or an M3 if you don't need a built-in meter), and a 50mm Summicron. Plan to spend a minumum of $600 for an M3, $1200 for an M6, and another $600 for the lens. Be sure to get a 14 day return, and even better if you get one which has had CLA service within 5 years.<br>

Another thought about starting with a RF camera would be a high-quality fixed lens camera from 1950s or 60s West Germany, such as a Kodak Retina IIa or Zeiss Contessa. If it agrees with you, you can move up to Leica. </p>

<p>The biggest difference for me was that everything in the viewfinder of a rangefinder camera is "in focus" because you are not looking through the lens. For that reason, I prefer to use an SLR camera, but I do have a Leica MP, and sometimes that is the best tool for the job.</p>

<p>Michael J Hoffman</p>

<p> Because the viewfinder has everything in focus and the view extends beyond the frame lines of the lens focal length, you have full "feel" as to how your image should be framed. Compositional decisions become an emotional "dynamic process" rather than a step by step building excersise of an SLR. Yes, I own SLRs too, but use them for their strengths. Children, sports, heavy filters, long lenses, etc. I began my rangefinder conversion about a year ago and have not been sorry. An M2 with a 35mm Simmicron has been my recent companion and I find a shockingly high percentage of "keepers" from each roll of BW film.</p>

<p>Yes, you might be insane. See your local shrink for more info. If you are insane, however, it is not because you are shooting film.</p>

Not at all. Trying new things keeps you alive. It's great to have an opportunity to try a different style, and even buy a machine you've always wanted. Leicas are great for making photographs, and if you get a bit of guilty pleasure from the mechanical feel of a precision engineered instrument with 3,000+ parts, good for you!

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Am I Insane?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe just a little crazy. Insane is when you start buying more and more Leica gear and accessories and posting photos of your equipment on forums such as this :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How hard is it making the change from TTL to rangefinder?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never found it difficult to shift. I went from SLRs to 6x6s to rangefinders without any major difficulties. You'll adjust. I still own my FM2 and go back and forth between it and my M with no problem. The Leica M's user-interface is simple, graceful, and elegant. You might just get the bug.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Am I asking for trouble?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>See answer to <strong>Am I Insane?</strong> above :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Which camera model should I start with?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think Bill's answer above for a nice used M6 is very good. Either a 35mm or 50mm Summicron. A .72 VF M6 Classic and 35mm Summicron is a hard combo to beat. It's the one I started with 25 years ago and still own.</p>

<p>Good luck whatever you decide.</p>

<p>I don't know if you are insane. I am thinking the same thing at the moment get rid of my DSLRs and pickup an M with Nokton 1.5 or something like that. I would keep my FM2 to put my old 105 2.5 it is the very early version for the F mount. I just don't know if I want an all film workflow though. I have but putting some B&W film through my film SLRs and scanning them with my Epson V500 to see if I would be happy with the quality which seems to be OK for TriX. I am just trying to way up the pros and cons. I also have a couple of Canonets one is the GIII and one is the Canonet 28 and an old Zorki with too much glow. They are OK but I would say the lenses are not as sharp at my 50mm AF 1.8 Nikkor and the rangefinders are not great on them compared to the few Ms I have looked at. I also photograph my kids alot and I am not sure if I would really get the use from the M or would I reach for the FM2 and the 105 2.5.</p>

<p>Here are some of the photos I have been taking recently. There is a mixture of B&W film and B&W conversions from a D80 and D1h</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/photogsjm/</p>

<p>I love rangefinders! although lately ive been shooting a slr my rangefonder is a great. sometimes a new camera is perfect for inspiration. take a look at the voightlander bessa the're a good value for camera and lenses take a look at cameraquest.com. I also agree the m6 is a terrific vamera and would definnately be my choice if youve got the money.<br>

b</p>

<p>My advice is the same for anyone who asks about RF's. Once you start asking, it's inevitable. The mysterious lure of the Leica has you. Buy a Leica M6 and get it out of your system. You may hate it, but no number of words here will make any difference. And forget starting with an FSU or old Canon RF. It's the "Leica" that is calling to you. Just buy the Leica and get it over with. ;)</p>

Oh man, Leica has nothing on an old Canonet QL17.

<p>My old Canonet QL 17 just stopped working. Two days ago it was fine, I just when to finish off the roll and the shutter won't fire not even in manual mode.</p>

<p>Despite its rise to cult status a couple of years ago, the QL17 was the Sureshot of the 1970's, a budget camera for dad to shoot snaps of the kids. They take fine photos (as long as they work), but are in no way a Leica. :)</p>

<p>Consider this. Here I got a used Canonet QL 17 about 22 years ago at TRW ham radio swap meet for about 20 dollars, the meter did not work thus it went lower in price. It has a nice sharp lens that is equal to a Summicron at F2.8 on axis; and at the corners at F5.6 and bellow. Since I am not a collector it really doesnt matter if this kick around camera is not a Leica.</p>

<p>I own a M3 and Bessa R and a mess of Zorkis and Feds too; but the Canonet is still used. I am a manual exposure person so a dead meter was not an issue.<br>

My used Leica M3 is user camera; it has scratches dents; a SS number on the bottom. All these cosmetic defects are what I WANT as a user; since it drives down prices/costs.The majority of Leica folks are collectors; a tiny blem; nick has an extreme effect on collectors mind and ego; to them a shovel with as 0.5mm dent makes a shovel WORTHLESS for their display! :). Leica users have often a very deep "looks over function mindset"; minor cosmetic issues drop prices radically. To a Leica user a tiny defect is a disaster.i</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Images%20of%20cameras/testreportCanonLeica.gif?t=1269000015" alt="" width="326" height="613" /></p>

<p>You're not insane. The M Leicas are remarkable cameras and are simply a pleasure to use. Leicas are in a class by themselves and that is why they have the reputation. Look for an M in good condition that has not been abused. If you can live with a hand-held meter the M2 with any of the Leitz 50s would be a good place to start. If you find the need for a 35 or 90 you can add them later. I would stick with Leitz (or Leica) lenses, but that is only my opinion - based on 50 years experience with them. Good luck and enjoy your adventure.</p>

<p>it was a IIIa that initially got me hooked on rangefinders. these cameras can be had for about $400, with a 5cm summar to go with! in alot of ways, there things that i like with the older III models over the M series.</p>

<p>Good point, Ty. My IIIf is being more and more prefered to my M4-P or my film SLR (a humble but fun to use Yashica 2000) for its small size and easy use with wide angle lenses and attached VF. A "B" to load, perhaps (film prep) and no light meter, but pocketable and reliable. Another more "automated" RF experience can be had with an M6, Hexar RF or M7, amongst others.</p>

<p>The compactness of the RF is still a major point. In digital system cameras, there is no comparison between the lack of bulk of an M8 or M9 and the huge footprint of a Nikon D3 or a Canon. The latter may be much more versatile, but much clumsier in my opinion.</p>

<p>I suggest an M2 with any Summicron 50mm is a great place to start. You'll need some kind of meter (the Voigtlander clip on one is a good one). It is different to an SLR, but they do take great shots and a classic Leica M is much nicer than any Canonet, most of whose auto metering systems are no longer accurate enough for slides (if they ever were).</p>

<p>If it's B and W you want to do, consider a medium format rangefinder. You may, depending on your film and development, get better gradation from the significantly larger negative ( 6 x 4.5, 6 x6 or 6 x 7). Among the smallest of these is the Bronica RF 645, with an excellent viewfinder/rangefinder and it's a nice handling camera. The Mamiya 6 is nearly as small. If you want to go for 6 x 7, look at the Mamiya 7. All these have a 28 equivalent wideangle available, the Mamiya 7 offers even wider.<br>

If it's going to be only 35mm, I recommend the Leica Summicron 40mm. Use this little gem on a Leica CL, any other M body, or the Cosina-Voigtlander R3-A (that model because it has 40mm framelines). </p>