Jump to content

Rangefinder or SLR?


Recommended Posts

I have been into photography for about 1.5 years now, and for the

past year i have been using a Canon FTB-N - which I love. I have a

F2.8 28mm and F1.8 50mm lenses. I love the setup but want something

new. So, I am looking into either,

a: a new lens for my FTB (possible a 17mm)

b: a new SLR (possibly Nikon? FM2a?) with a nice lens

c: a rangefinder

 

Now, the rangefinder tickles my fancy because it is smaller and

lighter than slr and, as far as Ive heard and read, it is quiter

(good for street photography). Id like to get one, but my budget is

around 150.

For $150, what would you get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, I have also been into photography for about 1.5 years now.

 

I sold my Nikon F4s and 35-70 2.8 and I bought some cheaper stuff.

 

I got a mamiya NC 1000s 35mm slr with 28mm and 50mm lenses, for $40.

 

Then I got a Mamiya DTL1000 with a 50mm and a 400mm lens, for $80.

 

Then I bought a mint Rolleicord 4 with extras, and a free book on medium format, for $180.

 

I also use a Fuji g690bl rangefinder, now I want the other lenses.

 

 

You can probably get a decent Mamiya c3 which has interchangable lenses for $150. A TLR is bigger than a rangefiner but it will give a negative 4 times the size.

 

If it were me, I would find a good Yashica Lynx, lens is very fast.

As far as $150 35mm rangefinders go, here is a link to get started.

 

http://www.cameraquest.com/rfbuy.htm

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that the 17mm will give you more pleasure over the long term. The FTb is a very nice piece of equipment and, having used both the FM2n and the FTb, I don't think you'd find a great deal of difference.

 

Most rangefinder cameras will seem like a step back after the FTb. If you really want to go the rangefinder route, consider sticking with Canon models, their finders seem to me to be much better than those on the rest of the leaf-shuttered rangefinder cameras.<div>00CaDx-24199284.jpg.fc5a353492506ee8aebc22e9bd3c4ca2.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have both the 28mm & the 50mm that is a nice combination. The 17mm may be to extreme.

Of course this depends on your subject matter.

 

I would not get a Nikon body, why? the one you have is nice.

 

If you love the slr, I would stick with that for now since you are starting out, the rangefinder definitely has a learning curve.

 

For that budget I might recommend a second Canon body or a nice Canon portrait lens in the 105-120mm range.

 

Now you would be ready for any adventure, including having an extra body if one dies to using b&w with one and loading color with the other camera.

 

Good-luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say buy a Canonet for about $30 and see how you like rangefinders. It can be tough to find one that still meters properly; but you can put them in manual and just guess exposure or use a handheld meter (they're cheaper when you buy them that way).

 

It's a very good rangefinder with a good viewfinder...and they're cheap. This would be a good way to find out if you liked using rangefinders or not. If you liked it and decided you wanted something else then you can spend the bucks to upgrade.

 

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't said what you want to do with your new equipment. If you don't know, then: (i) Get a rangefinder because it only costs the equivalent of a few rolls of film. ("Canonet" is certainly not the only brand to consider. Numerous threads have discussed the alternatives; search for terms such as canonet, lynx, electro, hi-matic.) (ii) Don't get a Nikon because there's no point (just as there'd be no point getting a Canon if you already had a Nikon and two lenses for it). (iii) Don't get a 17mm lens because results from it are likely to become tiresome very quickly. (iv) Don't spend much time worrying about this kind of thing but instead use it on taking more pics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, I'm with Harvey.

 

All 35 mm cameras with 50 mm lenses take much the same pictures. The big gain for you from getting an old RF camera will be having a lens shorter than 50 mm and longer than 28. A little RF camera with a 40 mm lens may even be less expensive and lighter than a 35 for your FTB. FWIW, my walking-around camera with a 40 is a Canon AF35ML. It is out of this forum's scope, I don't enjoy using it, it is obnoxiously loud, but it is still a useful tool.

 

Getting a 17 will considerably extend the range of what you can do.

 

I haven't done "street photography" for a while now. When I did and wanted to avoid being in peoples' faces and wanted to fill the frame with a face or two, I used a 200 mm lens. So if that's what you want to accomplish, think about getting a longer lens instead of another shortish one.

 

Good luck, have fun,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You already have a great camera, why get into an incompatible system (Nikon). Buy another lens for your Canon! If you want to play around with a rangefinder, get something good and cheap that does not require batteries to operate. I suggest a Yashica Lynx 1000 or 5000, Olympus 35SP, Canon QL17 or QL19 or Konica S2.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex,

 

I'd love to see an ALPA for $150-.

 

Peter,

 

Have you checked out <a href=http://www.rangefinderforum.com>Rangefinder Forum</a>? The question has been asked numerous times over there, and the RFF essay contest was all about why use an RF. You can read the essays at <a href=http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=54>RFF Contest</a>.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very fond of my Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 and if I didn't have one, it would be on the top of my NAS list. That said, it's a lens for special situations and to be used sparingly. The results will become tiresome quickly if you over use it. 17mm can only be worse. I also like RF cameras because they're easy to carry. I like Retinas, but they're not everybodies cup of tea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I used to drink alot in a very old pub called 'The Flask', near my old home. I will go back there and photograph it just necause it is about 500 years old. Got any shots of that pub? Carl Marx was buried nearby.

 

Nice shot of Hampstead, some time ago?

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I bought a Fuji GW690ii with fixed lens for $80

 

The nice guy who sold it to me thought it wasn't working, he works in a camera store. I walked out into the sun and hey presto the shutter fired. Pity that store ran out of Tech-Pan. The Fuji works very well, the counter is low and I cleaned it up nicely. Compared to my brass beast Fuji g690bl it is light and ergonomic but partly plastic. I'd still get a Yashica Lynx given the chance though.

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fixed lens rangefinder is a good way to go, for 150 bucks you can get a Canonette

GIII QL17- 40mm /1.7 lens. This camera is worth more but you can pick one up for

around 30 -50 bucks depending on condition, buy some film with the rest and be

pleasantly suprised. Don't forget about the Yashica GSN which gives stunning results

with color film. You could also splurge and buy a Olympuc 35SP for about 100 bucks,

42mm lens and a spot meter, have fun!<div>00CahB-24208684.jpg.bb3b09f9f409de8082604a4c42c9783f.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...