New rangefider user..advice for first camera please?

[steven_moseley1]

Hi all,

 

I have used SLR's for 25 years, but finally want to try a rangefinder for the

first time and advice is needed. I almost always shoot slides, so need an

accurate meter, preferably in the camera, but more importantly require the

camera to frame shots very accurately.

 

1. I am thinking of Leica M6, Minolta CLE, Konica Hexar RF, Voigtlander R2,

Zeiss Ikon or Contax G2.

 

Are there any of the above (or others) which have particularly accurate

framing of shots? Do the Leica M cameras vary in this respect? In other

words..are all viewfinder framelines equal?

 

I know the Contax G2 is an entirely different beast, can anyone sum up it's

advantages and disadvantages in respect to my requirements?

 

How slow/fast/easy to load are the Leica M's..I worry about this.

 

I generally use 24/28/35/80 lenses on my SLR..would any of the above cameras

suit this lens range better than others?

 

thanks for any help to illuminate me..

 

cheers Steve.M. (UK)

[charles_hess2]

Being a Contax G user since 1996, yes, it is a different beast than other rangefinders, simply because it is auto-focus, and the manual focus is not through the viewfinder, so you rely on the camera and it's ability to focus(it is extremely accurate). The viewfinder is small and dim compared to the Leica M, but after years of using the camera, the small viewfinder issue never enters my mind. The selling point for this camera are the Zeiss lenses...superb and on par with

the Leica lenses of similar specs.

 

I also use an M6TTL...loading film is different, but with some practice, it becomes second nature and not a problem at all. Focusing is quick and easy through the large, bright viewfinder, and though not as fast focusing as the top film and digital SLRs, it is accurate.

I've never used the others you've mentioned, and since I use the G2 and M6 about equally, it's hard for me to recommend one over the other. If cost is an issue, then the G2 would be the way to go, as they are going very cheaply at this point. Good luck with your decision.

[charles_hess2]

There is another thread on this forum: Contax G vs Leica M that you will find very helpful.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Rent an M6 with a 35mm for a week and try it out. I don't think you'll like it. The framing is

not as accurate as an SLR. The loading is a bit hinky. Metering is good but not as good as,

say, Nikon matrix meteriing. Focusing takes some getting use to. Renting one for a week will

answer more questions as far as how it fits YOU than all the answers on this forum. Good

luck.

[stu weinstein]

It sounds like a rangefinder may not be for you. A rangefinder is more for snap shooting, catching the moment, and is better at that than an slr. If your concern is accurate framing and metering than I think the slr is a better choice. Stu

[SCL]

You sound pretty "iffy" on rangefinders...why not stick with what you know? If you want to try a rangefinder, rent or borrow one and shoot a couple of rolls and check the results. I've used, and still use, M series for almost 40 years, but also owned a lot of SLRs during that period. I wouldn't "worry" about loading a camera...it isn't worth the effort...you learn the tricks over time. Viewfinder coverage for the range you cited mat require accessory finders depending on the model you try. Precise framing isn't hard once you know your equipment well...but if it must always be right on the button, you're better off with a SLR. As far as metering goes I'm convinced that it is hard to beat incident metering with a separate meter in most circumstances, although the M6 meter has never failed me. I, too, find the Nikon matrix metering does an excellent job 90% of the time in routine situations. Good luck in your choice...but really do try out a rangefinder if for no other reason than to satisfy your curiosity. You could also get an older inexpensive one, use the sunny 16 rule, and save some cash in your trial.

[peter_evans4]

<p><a href="http://wiki.silvergrain.org/wiki/index.php/Konica_Auto_S2">Konica Auto S2</a>. The meter will probably be useless, but the framing will be about as good as it gets as you'll get not only automatic parallax correction (and no, you can't even take that for granted with rangefinder cameras) but also automatic field correction (which is missing from all the cameras you've mentioned except perhaps the G2, which I don't know). Ergonomically this fixed-lens camera is not as good as some of its more famous rivals (I dislike the spongy shutter release), but as long as it's in good nick the lens is fine. And it will cost peanuts. If you enjoy using it to some extent, you may consider an exchangable-lens replacement (or you might even want to keep using it); if you hate it, you're unlikely to enjoy any of the cameras you've mentioned.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

Accurate framing is the province of SLR cameras or a Leica with a visoflex (add-on reflex housing) for tele and close work.

 

The frame line can not compensate for the smaller field of view as you focus closer, so they are set for close work giving extra image at distance settings beyond what the frame shows. Older M cameras were most accurate, M 2/3/4.

[Jochen_S]

There's a new Voigtlander with SWA framelines. Leica loading is slower than top notch auto winding SLR loading. Maybe you should get more than one RF or keep the SLR for the 80mm. M2&3 have wider framelines than M4-P, 6, 7. IMHO the 28mm frameline sucks in the M6/4-P. The others didn't turn me on, if I know them at all.

[calebcondit]

I would get something cheap first. I bought an antique kodak retina (later model with fixed 45mm lens) and a couple others of similar quality and never bought another. If you go that route, it might take a bit of searching to find good copies, but when you do it's worth it. I know many people who've gone the voigtlander route due to price (spend more on lenses than a stinking body) and love them. I wouldn't jump right into a leica until you know you like the "style" used to shoot a rangefinder. Then again, if you want to sell Leica gear if you don't like it, it won't depreciate much if at all.

[mtk]

Hi Steve! Just my 2 cents. I agree with all the other posters about rf choices. I shoot mainly digital where I used to use 35mm. I shoot MF film with an RB67. I have serveral "vintage" rangefinders but one I think you would like to try/own is the Yashica Electro GS/GSN series. VERY nice cameras. VERY sharp contrasty lenses. If you want full manual try a Yashica Lynx 14/14E. A little more $$$ but worth it. Google for info on these examples and I think you will be pleasantly surprised at the reviews!

Have Fun! Mark

[bill a.]

Completely agree with Caleb. I came from the SLR background, and still "see" and compose better in an SLR -- despite many rolls with an RF. What RF owners tout as advantages (e.g. seeing outside the frame lines), I find, personally, a distraction. No right or wrong, just different. You may try it and love it, or try it and hate it, or try it and learn to deal with it (like me -- I keep them for the quiet, the low profile (especially with a lot more people walking around with large DSLRs), and the optics). :-)

[tedms gallery]

some that you mention are in different categories. The hexar rf, cle and maybe bessas have AE (hexar rf has AEL as well), allowing you to potentially get more accurate exposures, especially if working with slides.

 

I have a Hexar RF for sale in the classifieds for $750.

[ffrancis_van_boxtel]

What you practice is what you'll master.

 

I shoot mainly slides with my MP and just love the metering and the in-perspective viewer.

 

Exposures are always right and the pre-visualised image that I have in mind appears in the

 

viewfinder as I want it.

 

On the automatic Nikon focusing wide-angles is hell to me, and worse in dim light.

 

Looking into this black tunnel with this small image at the end is a disaster to me.

 

Tele: little bit in the viewer, wide a lot.

 

No perspective, no nothing.

 

If you are as accustomed to your SLR as I am to my RF, don't jump in.

[skip_williams]

RF's are not to many people's liking, especially SLR users. Try before you dump a boatload of $$. I'd recommend getting something nice, but inexpensive and high quality first to try, then dive deeper if you like it.

 

I'd buy a Voigtlander R2, R2a, or R3a and a nice Voigtlander 35mm lens, which can be picked up used, both for $600 or so? They're M-mount, which is the most versatile. The R's are $200 cheaper, LTM only. The later cameras feel better, IMO. If you love them, spring for a Leica or something else.

 

Personally, I'd stay away from a vintage, non-Leica camera as your first RF, as the experience may be very underwhelming. The V's are modern, superb finder'd cameras with in-camera meters and high quality construction.

 

Framing accuracy? Worse close up, but the auto-parallax finder fixes much of the issue. The framelines are calibrated for a specific distance, so you have to compensate as your subject gets closer. This is not a Leica-specific issue.

 

Leica M's aren't hard to load, it's an acquired skill. It's not as fast as a drop-in, but I can probably load one in 10-15 sec.?

 

The Contax G produces fabulous photos with those Zeiss lenses, but to me, it's just an AF, interchangeable lens P&S, even though it has a RF focusing mechanism. I didn't like the finder. YMMV

 

Skip

[gus_gus1]

I go along with S.Weinstein in the above answer. I use a Leica R-E and a M6. I use my R-E most always. The M6 just sits in its bag for months at a time. Still on the fence about selling it. Gus.

[jtk]

IIIF.

[ben_smukler]

Hello, I was in exactly the same position three or four years ago, having used various Nikon F series cameras and top quality fixed focal length and zoom lenses. I mainly wanted to try the Leica M because of its reputation for excellent optics as well as build quality. There was nowhere near my location to try out a Leica, so I talked with the folks at Leica Camera in New Jersey and got some good tips.

 

I started with an M7 (new model that year), and added an MP. I began with a 35 'Lux and 50 'Lux and added a 28 and a 90 later.

 

In my case, I found the full-field view easy to use (though admittedly different), and I loved the quick, precise focus. I can easily focus better in low light than I could with any of the Nikons, including my F5. While it is true that the multiple exposure metering choices available on the Nikons are great, I find that you learn to use what you practice with. That is, my old F3 HP meters a scene very differently from the F5 (set to center-weighted). There is also a difference in "feel" (or, more precisely, "character") between the MP and the M7.

 

After lots of experimenting, and attending some workshops, I ended up with the four lenses I mentioned and two MPs. I can usually judge how the internal meter will read a scene. Also, from my workshop experience, I developed the habit of estimating exposure values first (no meter), and then checking it with a good handheld meter.

 

It certainly is a different type of photographic experience. It isn't "better" or "worse" than using quality SLR equipment. I do find that I get into a different frame of mind, walking around with Leica equipment, than when hauling around my Nikon stuff. Another point: you can easily carry a "full" Leica kit all day--something that is hard to do with heavy Nikon autofocus bodies and assorted lenses.

 

I say, forget the renting or borrowing idea, and just select one of the M-series bodies to start with, along with a good 35mm or 50mm Leica lens. I promise you won't be disappointed.

[nzdavid]

Hmm, I agree with others you should try a rangefinder first to see if it's for you. No

rangefinder viewfinder is quite as accurate for framing as an SLR. But there's no mirror

blackout, viewfinder is generally brighter, especially in low light, it's more compact and

you can keep it steady at slow shutter speeds.

 

The Leica M6 is good value. If you don't mind a separate meter go for an M3 or M4. An M7

with its electronic shutter will be most accurate.

 

People have reported AF on the Contax is sometimes a bit slow.

 

RF focussing is fast and accurate once you get the hang of it. M cameras are slower to load

-- say, one minute versus 30 seconds. Again, easy, once you get used to it.

 

For wideangle lenses (24) you need a separate viewfinder. There are a few viewfinder

variations (basically M3 finder: 50/90/135; later models have wider angle finders and

more variations).

[bill_marshall1]

To answer some of your questions:

 

1. The advantages fo the Contax G is that it is the only interchangeable lens rangefinder camera that offers autofocus. Its system offers great lenses. While some dismiss it as a point & shoot, the fact that it uses a rangefinder to focus means that it has the freedom in lens design that all RF cameras do, i.e. no restrictions to work around the SLR mirror, which means retrofocus lens design in wide angle & standard lenses for SLRs. As good as the lenses are, they are not designed to match Leica lenses at wide apertures greater than f/4. The system comes with flash & is designed to be used with it. If you do available light photography, this is probably not the system for you anyway because its fastest lenses are f/2. Compared to M-mount cameras, you are restricted to lenses within the Contax system. Motorized film advance makes it less quiet than manual film advance cameras. The contax G has a unique telescoping viewfinder instead of frame lines, which varies the magnification for each lens focal length. You would have to look at a camera or read on a dedicated Contax site to learn more about this.

 

2. The Minolta CLE & the R2 do not offer the selection of frame lines that meet your interests.

 

3. The Konica Hexar RF is a low magnification camera (0.6) & is therefore probably not the best instrument for focusing at the longer end (80+) that you expressed an interest in.

 

4. With regard to the question of frame lines, the answer is no, all frame lines are not equal. Roger Hicks & Frances Schultz published a review of the Zeiss Ikon in Shutterbug last April in which they compared viewfinders. They used the MP for a comparison with a Leica in current production. They found the MP frame lines to be wider at the 28 (3%) and 35 (6%) focal lengths but to be not as wide at 50 (-5%). surprisingly the only focal length which was identical was 85/90 - surprising since the 90 MP frame lines should not be as wide as the 85 ZI frame lines. They also provided comnparisons with theM2, Rw, & R3A which showed similar variability except for the M2 at 50 mm, which was identical in size to the ZI. All RF viewfinders are designed to show only about 85-87% of what your image will be. However, since you can see outside the framelins on all but the widest focal lengths, you can develop increasing skill with this. Obviously you also have to allow for your slide borders. Suffice it to say that accuracy in framing is not a feature of rangefinder cameras.

 

5. The Zeiss Ikon & the M6 with .72 magnification are probably best suited to meet the range of lenses that you indicated. EVen these will require the use of an auxiliary viewfinder for the 24/25 focal length, meaning that you will focus with the camera's viewfinder but compose through a second finder.

[35mmdelux]

I'd start w/ one of the better cameras you mentioned, which are the M6 and the Contax G2. (The Hexar is overblown IMHO - whimpy controls. The others not up to industrial standards)

 

I've owned four/five M6's and two M4-P's - they are super cameras. Lately I've been shooting w/ the M7 and its given me a new lease on life. Love the AE. Point, focus, shoot.

 

For lenses I've got a full set pretty much: 28/35/50/90mm. Generally only the 35mm/50mm luxes hit the road w/ me. The 28mm & 90mm I consider my special lenses and use them only for particular jobs where I expect to use them.

 

Good Luck - Paul