rangefinder envy

I recently dug out an old Canonet GIII QL17 with a 40/1.7 lens,

unused for 15 years. I had it checked out & it works fine. I used it

for family snapshots in the old days. After many years shooting with

SLR since then, I now know a lot more about photography. I apprecite

better what I had/have in that little camera & am intriqued about

rangefinder photography.

 

My question for anyone familiar with the Canonet, is there any

reason why I should purchase an interchangeable lens RF for the best

picture quality?

i think the canonet qualifies as a cult camera. Use it and be happy.

 

Interchangeable rangefinders. You will read several comments. Basically it will come down to a few choices. Bessa r, konica, leica and russian. I don't want to waste time discussing the merits of each system.

 

I think the most important thing would be what you take pictures of and not what you take pictures with. The 4 i mentioned and your canonet are all solid camera/ lens options. Like orwell said some are more equal than others.

 

But all things being equal i'd just play with the canonet.

<p><em>is there any reason why I should purchase an interchangeable

lens RF for the best picture quality?</em></p><p>Eh? Well, money (etc.)

permitting, an interchangeable lens RF may give you better picture

quality. (It may also be more robust. And <em>may</em> because

another camera may be better, etc. etc.) Is that a reason why you

should buy it? You'll have to decide that for yourself. And there are

plenty of reasons <em>not</em> to buy it: increased weight, increased

size,

increased noise, the other things you could do with the

money.</p><p>Or do I misunderstand?</p>

"...is there any reason why I should purchase an interchangeable lens RF for the best

picture quality?"

 

The two questions you need to answer for yourself are:

Am I really a rangefinder kind of guy?

 

and

 

Do I want to go wider and/or longer than 40mm?

 

If the answers to both are yes, than the big answer is yes.

 

If you're asking if a 40mm (35mm) Voigtlander, Leica, or something else will demonstrate

better performance than the Canon lens on the types of images you're taking- I don't

know. I do know that along with interchangable lenses you will find bodies that have more

"horsepower" than your Canonet and that may influence you as well.

And of course the Contax G2 system for a good price/performance mix, with the performance portion extremely high, top of the 35 mm range.

 

But so much depends on your shooting style and objectives. Perhaps it's better if you would describe exactly what it is about that little camera of yours that you appreciate better and why it has made you become intrigued about rangefinder photography. The lens? The portability? The simplicity? Was it in fact simply that it was a fixed lens that forced a different approach?

 

What is it about rangefinders that attracts you? Only then can you move on to whether an interchangable lens system is what you're after, and from then to what system you'd wish to buy into.

Focal length is a big key. If you really tend to like 80mm and beyond, your appreciate the SLR more. 40mm 1/7 is a great lens length and speed and probably all you need in a RF system.

<i>... And there are plenty of reasons not to buy it: increased weight, increased size, increased noise ...</i><p>

 

These are exactly the reasons <u><b>NOT</b></u> to buy an SLR, which is the exact opposite of rangefinder cameras, which are lighter, quieter, smaller.<p>

 

And if you move further back in time, a rangefinder such as a Retina IIIS or Contax IIa is extremely quiet -- quiet enough to use unobtrusively during a church service. No mirror or motor drive or <i>zzz-zzz</i> as the camera seeks focus.<P>

 

These days, I'm shooting almost exclusively with a rangefinder camera. Don't really miss the SLR too much.

Use the Canonet for a few months. It is an excellent camera with an excellent lens. Using it for a while will determine what direction you go in the future. Focusing a rangefinder is different, and if it doesn't sit well with you then you'll know it after some time spent with the Canonet. 40mm is a great all purpose focal length. Using it exclusively for several rolls will help you decide what else you need. The quality of the lens on the Canonet is excellent. For most people it is all they would ever want, and more. Look at your prints for a few months and determine if you need better. If after all this you decide you like the focus, need a shorter/longer/additional focal length, or you need more sharpness/contrast..., then go ahead and splurge for the nice system. Having the discipline to use the Canonet and wait, however, is really worth it.

I think Del is right on target, and so are most of the other comments. I'll just add that the interchangeable-lens rangefinders have a better range/viewfinder than most any fixed-lens RF. The Canonet is a fine little camera from what I've heard, and rather similar to my Olympus rangefinder. This class of camera have a focus spot with fuzzy edges, whereas the Leica etc focus spot is a crisp rectangle whose sharp-edged sides are useful for split-image focusing. They all feature coincident-image-matching focus, but even here the Leica class have a brighter contrastier range/viewfinder that's a joy to use.

 

This distinction is carried into medium format at least to some degree, as the fixed-lens Fuji GS645 and GS645S have fuzzy low-contrast focus spots, while the interchangeable-lens Bronica RF645's RF is comparable to the Leica's.

Don't forget the humble Olympus XA. It's the smallest rangefinder camera that I know of.

Very unassuming, too - people think it's a cheap P&S.

IMHO the biggest advantage of rangefinders is that they accommodate ultrawide lenses impossible with an SLR (lack of mirror allows lens to be closer to film plane). Like the Voigtlander 12mm. If you like to go way wide, that would be a good reason to buy.

 

I also believe firmly that your results will benefit from using a camera you really appreciate.

 

CXC

Christopher,

 

You are forgetting that 13mm f/5.6 Nikkors once walked the earth. Super wide angles are not impossible for SLR just difficult and expensive. The 15mm f/5.6 Nikkor was used in the making of the original Star Wars movie.

 

Regards,

 

Dave.

Thanks for all of the comments, guys. I think I'll follow Del's suggestion to just go out & shoot with it . . . get reacquainted with the old gal. The shutter is nice & quiet.

 

I've always preferred to shoot with available light, disdaining flash whenever I could. I shoot people & nature primarily. From what I've been reading, it sounds like I should have been using rangefinders for this type of work.

 

Recently, I've gotten tired of bulk & sold off 180 & 400 lenses. My FM3a with 45/2.8 pancake lens is actually a nice compact set-up. On the other hand, I just kind of like the look & feel of rangefinders that I've looked at over the counter. While my lenses in the 28 - 85 range aren't especially bulky, the rangefinde lenses are really compact. Kind of silly I guess to start a whole new system. I really could do better things with the thousands $$$ that this would inevitably lead to spending.

 

Cheers!

The canonet QL17 is a great camera with a great lens. But the lens show some vignetting at f/1.7.