Rangefinder or other camera for b& white photography?

Hello,

After 30+ years of shooting only in color, either with 35mm or more

recently digital, I am finally getting the bug for black and white

photography. I have seen some awesome b/w stuff in people's online

portfolios. At the moment I do not have any 35mm eqpt, I sold it all

to get a D70 and just recently sold the D70 as it was too much for me

and I was not having fun with it, at all.<p>I am looking for advice

from the many wonderful people here on photo.net on what would be a

good, simple camera for getting into black and white. I don't want to

spend a lot of money, I want to have fun. Of course I want some

versatility, maybe start with one camera-be it rangefinder or 35mm,

and one lens, and maybe expand from there.<p>Thanks very much! Ken

i know someone selling a bessa r outfit.

 

also a great place to start is with an older fixed lens rangefinder camera. maybe a olympus 35rc or minolta 7s or the very popular canonet 17, konica auto s2 or s3. there's lots to choose from.

<i>there's lots to choose from.</i>

 

<p>Boy, is that an understatement!

 

<p>My vote would be for a Nikon FM3a with the 45mm 2.8 lens. That thing feels great, is

simple to use and that 45mm lens is outstanding. It really is a fun camera, in my opinion.

It may be a little pricey new, but I see deals on used ones all the time.

Any camera, it doesn't really matter. I prefer manual cameras from before the plastic autofocus era, like the Nikon FM's, Pentax K's, Olympus OM and equivalents. I prefer either Nikon or Pentax simply because they haven't completely obsoleted their lens mounts. I don't see how one or the other between an SLR and a rangefinder makes any difference. There's also medium format, and you can do some fine B&W work with some very cheap MF cameras.

Pierre, I do understand what you are saying, and my initial thoughts were the same, to pick up a used FM, a used K-1000 or an OM-1 or OM-2. Any of those with maybe a 35mm lens (my favorite focal length) would be good. HOWEVER, the reason I asked is because I have known, over the years, b/w photographrs and most had very strong opinions as to the best cameras inc. rangefinders for strictly b/w photography. <p>Because there are so many good hobbyist photographers here, like me, I wanted to hear from people what they are using. <p>Ken

You can pick up a Konica Auto S2 for around $20 on ebay if you're patient (mine just arrived). It has a super-fast (1.8) lens, and an excellent reputation. A similar camera is the Yashica Electro GSN, which you can pick up for $25-$30, again with a little patience. These cameras have fixed lenses, which is the only downside I can find to them, unless you want autofocus, which they don't have. I am simply stunned by the quality of camera you can get for a tiny amount of money.

As far as SLRs go, the Nikon FM3A, or even F3HP is a great choice. However, for

substantially less you could get a used F2MA or other such SLR. If you really want a

rangefinder (and I certainly can't blame you) then a Bessa R2 or Leica M3 sounds like what

you're looking for. The Bessa is good, but it's no Leica, however for a good rangefinder

camera that accepts Leica lenses, you can't go wrong. Check out cameraquest.com

The Yashica rangefinders seem to have found a home at flea markets. It seems that I often see a couple of them every time I go.

 

Now, on to real photography.

 

I think a lot depends on your approach. Are you looking for automation (autofocus, autowind, autoexposure)? Have you much experience with rangefinders? Are you looking for lens interchangeability or compactness?

 

There is just a world of choices: everything from simple viewfinder cameras like a Rollei 35 or Minox 35 to a Leica to a folding camera to an SLR.

 

Personally, I wouldn't want to own fewer than a dozen different cameras. But I buy used cameras also exclusively, so for the cost of a DSLR, for example, I can get about four or five cameras.

 

The reason is that different circumstances call for different equipment. Street shooting is one. Casual shooting is another. Quick shots of the family another, etc., etc.

 

Sorry to hear that you sold off all of your equipment when you jumped to digital. I guess that's a lesson for the rest of us.

Mike (and all)<p>

It was a major lesson to me. I had a beautiful and fairly new FM2n, F3HP and seven (7) Nikkor lenses (20, 24, 28, 35, 55 micro, 35-135, 85). Does the word "stupidity" mean anything. Especially because I already feel much happier without the D70 and much happier with my little Sony 4mp digicam.<p>

I am not looking, right at this moment in time, to start building yet another collection. I am looking for one body, and most likely one lens, It could be a prime, maybe 35, 45, or 55 (I always loved the 35mm lens, it saw the way I do) and/or maybe a zoom, 28-85, somewhere in there. But a fixed focal length rangefinder does hold some appeal, simply, you pack it to go out, and that's all you have!<p>

That's why I am asking opinions here.<p>

Ken

I'm sorry if my advice is kind of snobish but I would definitely look into MF - Minolta TLR, Fuji RF or Koni-Omega.

 

It's really different. Otherwise you can do well enough with taking D70 raw and making it grayscale.

 

Just my 2c.

K, I cannot follow your advice re: D70 at this time as I sold it. I posted it in Classifieds on Monday and it was sold (this is NO joke) two minutes later. <p>

The Fuji RF are larger formats, aren't they, 6x4.5/6x9, aren't they? I would be interested in that but aren't they really expensive? How would one trust someone if buying, let's say on ebay? <p>Ken

I wouldn't choose a specific camera or type of camera just to shoot B&W - it's more the subject that governs which camera makes sense, not the film choice - although of course the subject also has a part to play in choosing the film.

Personally, I make B&W images on 35mm rangefinders, manual and autofocus SLRs, MF TLRs and SLRs and an LF field camera. And I also use my digital SLR for B&W. For a given film, you get better tonality with a larger format (and less grain), and with digital, you get a very clean, grainless result - but overall, I prefer some grain with B&W, so my favourite B&W camera is a Rolleiflex. But that doesn't suit all subjects....

If you want to start really cheap, yet still have some flexibility, and also see if rangefinders are for you, try a FED 2. Cheap enough to be disposable, yet capable of decent enough results. If you like it, then a Bessa R/T/R2 will do very nicely. If not, try an SLR - and just about any will do nicely.

Your choice of film emulsion has nothing to do with the type of camera to choose. What is important is the type of photography you do.

 

There is no simple answer to your question. The 35mm rangefinder is a classic for 'street' and people photography. If you shoot natural subjects, or you just want an all-purpose camera, a lightweight SLR's a good choice, and there's dozens to choose from. If you shoot from a tripod and you want top quality, you don't want to be in 35mm at all.

 

Given your experience, this must be stating the obvious. A camera's just a tool. You have to decide what's the right tool for your work.

Why don't you go over to the Leica forum here on photo.net and poke around? It's not just Leica but other rangefinder cameras as well. You might find somebody selling something and the regulars there are honest people often selling for less than they might get on ebay. They're looking for a quick simple transaction compared to a week long ebay auction, and want somebody who will appreciate their camera to have and enjoy it. A Bessa might be a good place to start.

WOW. Thank you everybody!! Whew, that is a lot of information. I have been reading up on all the rangefinders recommended here for the past two hours and geting an education in an area of photography that has always been alien to me. Many, many thanks to you all!!!<p>Ken

The standard low cash outlay rangefinder camera is the Canonet. They can be had for relatively cheap, and will give you an idea of what RF photography is like and the lenses are supposed to be pretty good.

 

Other cameras to look into as a relatively low $$$, high quality fun with RF camera would the Konica Auto S2 or S3, and the Olympus SP. I had an Auto S2, and the lens was very sharp (but lowish contrast compared to modern stuff), and I also had a cute little Electro CC that I eventually sold for more than the cost of a used Bessa R, or a new Bessa T.

 

If you want something with an upgrade path, the Bessas are a good way to go.

 

If you don't mind a heavy camera with 50 year old ergonomics, the cheapest RF camera with top notch lenses and something of an upgrade path would probably a cleaned Kiev 4a or 4am with the Helios-103.

Why not just go back to what you had? You could either look for a FM3n and a 35mm or look into one of the low-end AF bodies (Nikon F55, Canon EOS 300/3000) and a 35/2 lens. The AF body and lens will probably be cheaper than the FM3n body alone. You'll get a slightly smaller and dimmer viewfinder compared to the FM3 but it is up to you to decide.

 

Or if you really want to go cheap, look for those old M42 mount Prakticas or Pentax cameras.

 

MF gear costs lots of money. Leicas probably more.

<i>"MF gear costs lots of money."</i>

 

<p>My pristine Rolleicord V set me back a whopping $40 for the camera, plus another $40 for a brighter perspex viewing screen.   A set of used filters and lens hood may or may not run you another $50, (depending on the source).   Of course, this is a vintage 1955 camera that is pre-electronic everything.</p>

 

<p>Fair warning: I did have to service the above camera myself, which included cleaning the shutter and installing the bright screen.</p>

 

<p>Vintage analog cameras and accessories are quite reasonable right now.   I refer to it as a side benefit of "the New Digital Order".   Which ever format you choose, you should have no problem putting together a kit less than a third of the D70 body alone.</p>

 

<p>A select group of vintage compact 35mm range finder cameras offered both a full manual mode and an auto mode.   Their main limitation is their fixed lens assembly.   With that said, the quality of their permanently attached optics can be quite good and more often than not surpass the quality of today's kit lenses.   Both <a href="http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~yue/misc/rangfndr.html" target="_blank" class="slink">my own Olympus rangefinder page</a> and Steve Gandy's aptly named <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm" target="_blank" class="slink">Cameraquest.com pages</a> have more info regarding these gems of yesteryear.</p>

 

<p>By the way, I took a 20 year break from B&W, with the usual excuse of lacking a darkroom or darkroom priveledges.   It was a compact fixed-lens range finder, (mainly the Olympus 35RC and 35SP), that pushed me back into the monochromatic realm.   The current prices for darkroom equipment is another side benefit of "The New Digital Order".</p>

Konica Hexar AF with fixed 35mm lens, used for about $400. Superb, reasonably fast lens, pictures have a "look" that can't be beat -- very Leica-esque. Only drawback is slow maximum shutter speed.

As others have suggested, pretty much any camera that works for color will work for B&W. That said, if you're going to change to B&W, it seems reasonable to assume you'll do your own processing, at least negatives for scanning if not the whole darkroom route; if that's the case, you should at least consider large format. You can get a working Speed, Crown, Century, etc. with coupled rangefinder for around $200, including one lens, shutter, and usually film holders; sometimes even a case is included. This will shoot a 4x5 negative that is suitable for contact printing in a viewable size, or can be enlarged with reasonably obtainable equipment to make very large prints, still with no more grain than you'd get with 35 mm printed to 4x6. There are a wide variety of B&W, C-41, and E-6 emulsions available in 4x5 sheets, as well as Polaroids, cost for film isn't excessive, and the cameras are both capable enough for basic studio or landscape work, and more or less capable of hand holding (if you're in good shape).

 

Of course, you should be warned that your first 4x5 negative may cause you to sell off your 35 mm and digital equipment...

I would suggest a Contax G1, 28/2.8 and 45/2. You can get the kit used for under $500. You can add a portrait lens for a few hundred more. The camera allows you to have fun, adjust things at need and throw it in your pocket. Oh, and it has some of the sharpest lenses in the world.

Once again, many, many, MANY thanks to you all for taking the time to answer my question. I am blown away by all this information and doing a lot of reading. So far the Bessa R/R2 has caught my attention, though I have been doing a lot of reading about all the different recommendations given. The standard 35mm's (Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, etc.) I know well, I am looking for something different to have some new fun. I would love a Mamiya 7/7II but don't want to spend anything close to that.

Again, many thanks to you all. <p>Ken

"I would love a Mamiya 7/7II but don't want to spend anything close to that."

 

Well, Ken, you might look at the Bronica RF645, somewhat like the Mamiya but in 6x4.5 format and less expensive.

Doug beat me to it....

 

The Bronica RF 645 is excellent. When it was introduced, it was always sold as a kit with a 65mm lens (maybe it's still only sold that way). Those kits (body and 65mm lens) are available used for well under $1000 -- KEH has one for about $900.

The Fuji rangefinder 6x7 camera is compact, and yields some of the finest b&w quality I've seen. These are no longer made, but show up on the used market at reasonable rates. Tod Papageorge used one of these exclusively for a time.