how do your other rangefinders compare to your M

[greg_mason]

How do other rangefinders you have used compare to your M? we usually get some comments on voigtlander, and an occasional comment on contax g1 and g2, but what about the others? I personally shoot with a contax IIIa which I picked up for $250 with a 50 f1.5 lens. the camera is a solid well built camera with excellent chrome work. it is difficult to focus in low light, but the lens is quite sharp. i prefer it to the leica screw mounts that i have used but it is definately out classed by my M3. I also shoot with a fuji gw690 in medium format. the camera body is plastic and tacky, but the lens is sharp and the price is right. the 6x9 negative allows plenty of options for cropping and enlarging. the body includes a level and a running exposure counter. the exposure counter is a nice inexpensive addition that i wish professional cameras would add. it helps to let you know when it is time for your camera to be serviced

[charles barcellona www.bl]

my much worn BessaR ...

 

<p>

 

http://64.192.168.77/bessa/index.html

 

<p>

 

... unlike my M's, it will focus accurately at minimium distance with

the lenses wide open. Those pics are from about 4 months ago, the

finish is even worse now, literally rubbing off with the pressure of

my thumb on whats left of it (paint just rubbing off, joining the

Ether, etc etc).

[marc_williams]

X-Pan ain't all bad. Slow lenses compared to my Leica outfit.

But the panoramic format is a lot of fun to compose with. Very

nice color. When set on the standard 35mm format it falls down

compared to the Leica glass. No TTL, but I don't miss it. I just

use any old flash with the auto feature.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Charles; re <i>"unlike my M's, it will focus accurately at minimium

distance with the lenses wide open"</i><BR><BR>Your Leica M 's roller

cam's arms are not adjusted correctly..ie either they are too short

or long........ When adjusted the leica will focus corectly at all

distances.<BR><BR>Kelly

[dlegaspi]

i would love to have an xpan!! it makes me drool just thinking about

it...

[jay_.]

Currently my only 2 non-Leica rangefinders are the Konica Hexar RF

which I used to call "my Leica M7" but now I call it "my Leica M8",

and a mint Ukrainian Fed 5C I got for $15 with ERC and 50/2.8

Industar lens. Judging by the rangefinder alignment and shutter

accuracy, when the Soviet Bloc fell, it must have landed full-force

on that camera. But it looks cool in the display case.

 

<p>

 

I owned a Fuji GW670-III for a short time, it was nice but film

flatness was less than perfect. I also had a Horseman VH-R, a 2x3

technical-field camera with a coupled rangefinder, which I liked a

great deal but sold for some Hassy gear. Back in college I had a

Konica Auto S-1.6 (with AE) which got sold toward the M4 (without

even a meter) which I still own. And in high school I found a

Baldina at a junk store, which I used while I was the yearbook

photographer (didn't want to bring my LTM's to school)and

subsequently, when the flash sync gave out, sold to a kid in junior

high who was getting into photography. I think he's CEO of some

megacorporation today.

[chris_chen6]

I also regularly shoot w/many other RFs (mostly Zeiss Ikon

Contax II & IIa, Canon P, & Kyocera Contax G2) & my M2 & M3

(especially the M3) definitely have the best VFs. The Canon P

has a very nice, life-sized 1x magnification VF, but the (reflected,

not projected) framelines & round RF spot can be hard to see (I'll

have to try the yellow gel on the RF window trick). In fact, the VF &

the availability of fast lenses are the main reasons I got into

Leica (I like to do a lot of low-light & stage/performance

shooting). In all other respects, such as build quality, shutter

reliability & accuracy, film-loading, etc., my other "classic" RF

cameras have been comparable or superior to the Leicas

(makes me wish Leica had more competition today).

[andrew_schank]

The Contax IIIa color dial I have is a nice solid camera, but lacks

the refinement of a Leicas M by a large margin. Shutter release is

not as smooth, finder is small and pretty dark,plus no other finder

lines, parralax compensation, etc. Easy to load though, and the built

in meter works surprisingly well. They sure were some great Zeiss

lenses that were made for those old Contax cameras.

 

<p>

 

I also have a Voigtlander (a real Voigtlander!) Vitessa "barn

door"folder with a f2.0 Color Ultron-a very nice lens. That camera

is actually a lot of fun to use and if it had a bit brighter finder

would really be a superb camera. I love the plunger rapid wind and

the thumbwheel focus, as well as flash sync at every speed and the

compact though weighty size. The leaf shutter release linkage is not

as smooth or direct as a leica M, and that limits low speed hand

holdability some. I have gotten some images with that camera that

look very much like those taken with a Leica M and a 1950's vintage

Summicron-nice tones and not too contrasty. If you can find a really

nice example of this camera, it really is a good shooter. Mine even

has a working, accurate built in meter.

[eliot]

My only non-Leica RF is a Canon-7SZ, the ultimate evolution of the

Canon RF series. It is a nicely made Leica SM camera with a built-in

but non-TTL cadmium sulfide lightmeter powered by the now outlawed

mercury cells (with two sensitivity ranges). It has multiple

parallax corrected VF frames (35,50,85,100,135 mm)which are not

actuated by mounting the lens: you select the frame by rotating a

wheel. The VF mag is 0.8X. The RF patch is weaker and less

contrasty than that of a Leica M. There is a hinged back for film

loading. It's not a bad camera, but relatively few cameras were

made, so they are not easy to find. The 7S has similar features and

is a bit more common.

[david_killick]

1) Old Olympus 35RC. Faint rangefinder patch. Nice and compact.

Shutter priority AE very efficient. Light seal wears out. Lens good

but no chnace to try interchangeable Leitz lenses.

2) My father's old Ricoh 35SP. Match needle exposure, selenium cells,

lens not bad at all: like many Japanese ones, seems contrasty but

without the same resolution as the German ones - of that era, 1960ish,

anyway.

[stefan www.randlkofer.co]

olympus xa. the perfect cheap, but high quality backup. great design,

manual focus, adjustable f-stops, excellent 2.8/35mm lens, unhearable

shutter as small as 35mm gets.

[ben_hughes]

The Canon GIII QL17! Amazing little rangefinder that can be used

manually without batteries. Light, quiet, cheap, amazing glass.

Did I mention cheap? I have two, both purchased for under

$40.00

[patricks]

Contax G2 with the 45/2 and 90/2.8, all black. Excellent

travel/family combo. More automated shooting, but the results are

stunning.

[edshutter]

Olympus 35 RC, nice and compact RF with AE and manual override. It

still uses that PX625 mercury battery.

[james_elwing]

A number of these cameras are leaf shutter cameras with fixed lenses;

not fair; they make no noise.

The M camera seems about the quietest of the focal plane shutters,

and what distinguishes it. I have a late Canon with a metal shutter

which works great but attracts attention. Early Leicas with top

speeds of 1/500th seem quiet. I have a pre war Contax II which is

accurate & relatively quiet but I don't use it for obvious reasons.

Just want a quiet life

[art_karr]

I assume you mean the ones that I have now: Personally, I prefer

RF for the things it will do.

 

<p>

 

My 45 y old M3 still has the most contrasty focusing area of any

RF that I have. It also has the best view finder. The M6 was also

easy to use, but the finder was cluttered. The Bronica is close

enough to the M's to not warrent discussion. The Mamiya 6 x7 is

more difficult to focus [the focusing area is less contrasty in

mine] but easier than a 6 x 7 SLR. As you go to even larger

formats, the focusing contrast decreases IMHO. I don't think I am

supposed to discuss Linhof here. ;<)

 

<p>

 

Art