Thoughts on a rangefinder...

[ecarter]

Right now, I'm in the market for a nice rangefinder, but cannot

afford the Leica prices. I do like having some lens selection and

have had a brief experience with an Argus C3 camera (which died

completely and totally shortly after I got it).

 

Where this post is going is that I'd like some input on where I

should go from here... I am looking at picking up something along

the lines of an old Argus C-44 system or going with a russian FED

rangefinder camera (I have actually had good luck with my Kiev for

MF, but I'm well aware of quality control issues). I'd be glad to

hear of any other options or opinions people have as well, as

rangefinders are a bit of a new world for me...

 

Thanks in advance...

[mike_elek]

A lot depends on your budget. You can go three ways. Buy into the less-costly systems, such as the Soviet gear. Find a mid-range system, such as the Retina IIIS, the Ambi Sillete or the Voigtlander Prominent. Finally, there is upper-tier equipment, such as Contax or Leica or the Nikon and Canon stuff. Nearly all probably will require service, and you should factor in money for a routine cleaning and adjustment. It's money well spent.

 

One of the most important things is touch and feel. You might love the Leica or hate it. Same goes with a Contax II/IIa or a Cosina Voigtlander Bessa.

 

The Retina IIIS is a nicely balanced camera, though on the heavy side but some people dislike the bottom-mounted film advance. The Voigtlander Prominent is much heavier than almost any other rangefinder, but it has great lenses. Some people don't like the Contax because of the infinity lock.

 

And almost all people who wear glasses complain about most classic cameras because the eyepiece is too small and/or scratches their glasses.

 

I have almost no experience with Soviet cameras, so I can't offer any comments on that.

[Andrew in Austin]

The FSU 35mm range finders offer quite a bit of old world bang for the buck. To me the quality issue center around the lack of proper service.

 

On the Fed and Zorki range finders, I've had to usually give them a good cleaning, paying attention to both the film advance and shutter gear trains, before lubing each gear train with a tiny bit of Tri-flow. Once done, the quality issues seem to be minor, such as a fickle release on the self-timer.

 

A Fed 2 with a collapsible Industrar 22 offers a svelte package, if your into a minimalist mode. If it's a sunny day, don't even bring a light meter.

 

I've just acquired an early Zorki 4 with 1957 serial number. Compared to the Fed 2, the Z-4 bulkier and uglier, but offers a full range of shutter speeds, plus a superb viewfinder. With regards to the Z-4 mine definitely needed to be serviced when I got it, as it obviously wasn't used for quite a while. It was described as "mint". Since servicing it, my opinion is fairly positive. The Z-4 is fairly well made, lots of cast metal. It's a bit quirky - "Thou shall not change the shutter speed before advancing the film," but on the whole good value with regards to an LTM mount RF.

[kevin_lee5]

Just add a couple points to Mike?s on the Russian route.

 

For example, both Kiev (Contax) Kiev 4/4A/4AM and FED-2/3/4/5 can take different lenses, such as Jupiter-12 (35mm), Helio/Jupiter/Industa 50mm, Jupiter-9 (85mm), and Jupiter-11 (135mm). Maybe there are other lenses that I don?t know. And, both cameras are quite reasonable priced at eBay. Of course, you need an universal viewfinder for these different lenses.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Kevin

[richard_oleson]

A Zorki 4 is a better investment than an Argus C44; more and better lenses, and the camera might need service sometime but it's unlikely to break in any irreversible sense. The C4 / C44 series shutter has a little link in it that can (and often does) break if the blades get too sticky or jammed, and there is no way to fix it other than cannibalization (and still a fair amount of work).

 

In my experience zorki quality is better than fed, and they're a bit easier to work on. my Z4 is the best of my russian cameras as a user, despite the kiev 4's nicer finish.

 

:)=

[alan_gage]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007Ol6

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007cXc

 

Since that post I've sold the 35 RC because an Olympus XA dropped into my lap and I decided I'd just keep it along with the Canonette. But now that I've gotten more into MF I find I rarely pick up any of my 35mm cameras. I recently bought an Iskra (about $100) and absolutely love it so far!

 

Alan

[lex_jenkins]

I once owned, simultaneously, a Canonet GIII QL17, Canonet 28, Olympus 35RC, Minolta HiMatic G (technically a zone focuser, not rangefinder), and Olympus XA2 and XA3 (ditto - zone focusers). When I was a brat just getting into photography almost 40 years ago my stepdad let me borrow his Yashica Electrosomthing, a real rangefinder with limited exposure control.

 

Here's what I learned...

 

I'm not really a rangefinder kinda guy. That kind of focusing doesn't come naturally. And I'm left eye dominant so I can't take advantage of composing/focusing with my right eye, maintaining peripheral vision of the surroundings with my left eye - the classic Leica shooting style. When I look at the edges of the screen I expect it to appear in or out of focus, as with an SLR. Despite years of trying to adjust with various consumer grade, fixed lens rangefinders, my comfort zone hasn't really improved.

 

I'm still considering buying a good used Leica M series and *one* lens anyway, just to replace my Canonet GIII QL17, which is not one of the sharpest samples from this line.

 

Unless you use slow film - 100 or slower - a rangefinder isn't absolutely necessary. It's surprisingly how accurate zone focusing can be with fast film because DOF compensates for slight focusing errors. That's how I use my Agfa "Jsolette".

 

Even if you get a true rangefinder you'll probably zone focus more often than you think you will right now. Especially if the rangefinder patch isn't as clear, bright and contrasty as a Leica's.

 

Focusing throw: short or long? I still don't know. Lenses with short focus throws are often seen with tabs or levers that are supposed to assist quick use but which, at least in my fingers, don't feel quite right. They can aid with quick focusing but not so much with precise focusing. Long focus throws - requiring more rotation of the focus ring - can aid in very precise focus but take longer to align the rangefinder patch.

 

With the Canonet GIII QL17 you're stuck with a short focus throw and the focus assist lever that is precisely located to get in my way. At least with a Leica you can choose a different lens. I suppose the same applies to some of the new Cosina/Voigtlander line.

 

If the FED and a quality lens can actually be combined to make a usable, reliable kit, that's the way I'd go on a budget.

[Andrew in Austin]

As a further qualifier with regards to the Zorki 4, those built from 1956 thru 1962 seem to offer the best workmanship that the Soviets had to offer. Later they ramped up production and the build quality varied.

 

Mike's recommendations as usual include a couple that were true gems.

 

He had to mention the ProminenT. My screen saver is bigger than real life image of a Vito III.

 

By the way, the Retina III S has a baby brother with the same excellent viewfinder. It is the II S, which offers a 2.8, 50mmm which is a bit more compact. I'd get one but I own a Retina IIIc that is a gem as well.

[ole_tjugen]

I've been very happy with my FED-2. The very long rangefinder baseline makes focusing very precise, which is good since I prefer (very) slow films. The FED 50/3.5 collapsible lens (no, it's not an Industar) is also surprisingly good. I've done a few shots with a modern lens as well, the C/V 21/4 Color-Skopar. Nice! At the moment I've got a ca. 1950 Leitz Hektor 135/4.5 mounted to it - I need to finish the film to unmount it (the rangefinder coupling hangs up, so I need to help it from the inside).

[luis triguez]

If you can get a Zorki 3 or even a Zorki 3M you'll never repent.

Interchangeable lenses facility and ease to charge the film cartrige than any leica fake.

 

The lenses cuality is more than good.

 

http://www.jay.fedka.com/index.htm

[luis triguez]

I'm inlove with mine<div></div>

[John Smullen]

An Agfa Karat 36 or Kodak Retina IIa are both fine 35mm folding or bellows type cameras that can be had for reasonable prices with 2.0 lenses. The Agfa more so than the Kodak.

 

An Agfa Super Silette with an Ultron 2.0 lens is a high grade non-folding rf camera that is often overlooked by collectors. They sell on Ebay for under $100.00

 

These cameras use reliable compur shutters which are usually ballpark accurate as found.

[Andrew in Austin]

John,

 

If you are referring to the Agfa Soligon lens, it's a Planar design. Yes, it is often overlooked to due the Agfa name. It was fitted in to some Super Silettes and some later Karats.

 

The Schneider Xenons and Rodenstock Heligons available on most Kodak Retinas are in the same class as the Voigtlander Ultron and Agfa Soligon, all of which yield pretty good performance when used at wide open apertures.

[ecarter]

Thanks for all the replies!

 

I think I still have some research to do (not to mention seeing if I can get my hands on some of the cameras to see what fits the hand best) but now I have some good ideas of what I should be looking for. At the moment, I think I'm leaning towards checking out the Fed and Zorki cameras. I think I can afford more going that way, especially on a camera that probably won't be a "primary" camera - I'll still do most of my stuff with my SLR's, but I'm finding a need for something a bit less conspicuous and lighter for a lot of my b/w film work and you all have given me plenty of food for thought.

[red_buckner]

Eric, for bang for the buck, get a Voigtlander Vitomatic or a Vito with a rangefinder. The lens is excellent, the body is compact, the shutter is quiet, and the viewfinder is brighter than a Leica's. These are beautifully designed and manufactured cameras.

[andrew_hall1]

I wonder why no one mentions the Leica-compatible Voigtlander series whose adherents are mostly Leica users? The R2 would be a great starting point.

 

http://cameraquest.com/voigtsys.htm

[luis triguez]

$$$$$$$$$$$

[gib]

cameraquest was selling the CV Bessa R with a 35mm classic f2.5 lens for a reasonable price recently.

 

you get a modern version of a classic rangefinder, easy loading, reliable shutter, built in meter.

 

I have tried Fed 2, Zorki 4, and four different Kievs and none of them have reliable shutters.

 

I have in the past used a yashica Electro G35, got good shots.

 

I would also suggest you look for a Konica Auto S2 (non-interchangeable lens, but it is a really good 45mm lens) I use mine with a handheld meter.

 

The point made above that rangefinders are not for everyone is bang on. But an additional point is that if you try them, really give it some time, and a fair number of rolls of film, before giving it up.

[andrew_hall1]

Luis, don't go to the Leica or Medium Format forum unless you want to break your keyboard. ;-)

[luis triguez]

Andrew,

 

I have a Leica IIIf and 2 Bronica with Old Nikkor lenses but I prefer this forum not the Leica or Medium format one.

This is my "favorito"

[bacsa]

Eric - If you really want interchangeable-lens rangefinder (although for a start a cheap seventies japanese fixed-lens rf would do, like, yashicas, olympuses, canonets) i can suggest you: the FSU systems (with some luck or buy items with return policy), OR the Kodak Retina iiic (a bit more expensive, say 150$ for a body and 3 lenses, 35, 50, 80mm - i know a guy selling a kit like this, tell me if you're interested) OR a contax or canon rf system from the fifties/sixties. They are more expensive but still far below the leica prices, especially the lenses.

 

I personally begun my RF experience with a yashica GSN. Great little big camera. Found its limitation: only aperture priority, without indication of shutter speed, + build quality corresponding to its price (30$). Advantage: shutter speeds accurate up to 30 seconds and very very good fast 45mm optics. I have two of them now, and a yashica CC too (35mm fast lens). They are great picturetakers and i don't worry too much about abusing them. The three together cost me below 100$.

 

I also bought a Contax iiia recently, with an 50/1.5 lens. Needed some repair (did it myself). It feels much better a camera, small but very heavy, everything works smooth on it - still waiting for the first results but i like to shoot with it. The kit cost me $236,37 + shipping.

 

Whatever you buy, keep in mind that 20+ year old cameras (or, 50+ in the case of the contax) will probably need some service - at least a good cleaning, new light seals and/or relubricating here and there - unless you are lucky to find one that was recently overhauled. But then it will be more expensive.

 

So, good luck!