Any other rangefinders worth buying beside Leica?

[harvey_edelstein1]

Mamiya M7, you could not get better lenses, and the 6x7 will let you blow them up as big as you want.

The camera is near silent, light weight and easy to hold.

[JDMvW]

>>The Leica "copies" sound interesting. Any reason to get one over the Bessa R3?<<

 

You would not want to get the Bessa unless you were a rational person. The smell of the old Soviet cameras alone is worth the admission. No one knows if it comes from the leatherette, the adhesives, or the pervasive presence of trans-Caucasian tobaccos.

 

And the auditory pleasures, of the grinding of gears, the gritty film advance, and so on, No Bessa could ever compete.

 

Seriously, though, the Soviet cameras sell for dirt cheap and mostly work pretty well. Many of us delight in them.

[mark.brennan]

Jed -

 

I have the Bessa R3M - very happy with it. Also have the VC Heliar 50 (f2) - M mount. Also very happy. Both very reasonable and probably

some great deals used or mint from Cameraquest or Photovillage. Suggest you take a look at Cameraquest's website for a wealth of info on

the specs on these and other VC bodies and lenses.

 

Feel free to email me offline for additional info, opinion, etc. I own a Leica MP and can provide you with some interesting pro/con

comparisons, though obviously very personal and subjective.

 

You can also search the archives here for opinions on these cameras, as well as Rangefinder Forum.

 

Regardless, you have a lot of choices and I suggest you don't torture yourself; decide on a cam you can live with and can afford w/out

breaking the bank and then buy a brick of TX and get out and shoot!

 

Good luck.

 

-Mark

[Uhooru]

I use that Mamiya M7. Its a fabulous camera.

[mark_brown14]

Differences to focus on between R2/3/4:

 

If you want a 35mm lens you'd be better off with the R2 or R4, as the R3 viewfinder only goes as wide as 50mm. Other considerations include different viewfinder magnification, framelines, etc, part of which is personal preference and part of which may have a bearing on how you see your system expanding in the future.

[photo_galleries]

Haveyou ever shot an RF? It's not for everyone.

 

If you do decide on getting RF gear, the CV's provide good value. I have an R3A, R3M and R4A, and lenses from Voigtlander, Leica and Zeiss, from 15mm to 90mm.

 

However, when I need to shoot something that requires some serious reach, I use my DSLR.

 

Keith

[dan_b.4]

You can't beat the Olympus OM system for ease-of-use, compactness, relatively low weight and general durability. I

have a slew of the bodies, including multiple OM-1Ns, OM-2Ns and one that's really grown on me more recently, the

OM-2S Program which has a great manual spot-metering system in addition to the much-maligned program mode. It

also offers traditional aperture-priority exposure. The prices on the OM stuff (except for the shift lenses and a few

other exotic items) have dropped dramatically with the slow economy.

 

If you're insisting on a rangefinder, look for a used Voigtlander Bessa with the Leica thread mount. I bought a Bessa

R2C recently, which instead of the Leica thread mount has a Contax mount, but otherwise is pretty much the same

as the Bessa that takes LTM lenses. I bought it because I have several Contax rangefinder-mount lenses (Carl Zeiss,

Nikkor and FSU) that are still great but my Contax body itself is just too old and unreliable -- and too expensive to

get repaired.

 

Beyond that, the Bessa R2C is, quite simply, the best rangefinder I've ever used. The viewfinder and focusing are the

sharpest and brightest I've ever seen and all the controls are where they should be. It has a mechanical shutter and

you only need a battery (easy to find) to operate the meter, so you can used your handheld meter(s) if you wish.

[huntrbll]

How about a refurbished folding MF rangefinder? Light, easy to carry, and a large neg to work with.

[jimsimmons]

Getting your feet wet with a Canonet, Minolta, or Konica rangefinder from the '60s or early '70s is good advice. If you like the experience, then RF is for you. Then consider a Leica CL, with 40mm Summicron and 25mm or 28mm Voigtlander lens. Should all fit in your budget and be a very carryable small kit. The CL will need to be in good operating condition, so either buy from a decent secondhand dealer or buy cheap on ebay and plan on a good CLA from someone like Sherry Krauter. This will get you into Leica lens quality and fast light quiet shooting.

[lilserenity]

The R3a actually goes as wide as 40mm which isn't that wide in an age of super-wide lenses being so in-vogue with crop DSLR users.

 

35mm was my preferred and still is my preferred aspect, so I had a dialemma, Bessa R2a or R3a. In the end I went for the R3a because I resolved that the situations where I used 35mm were landscapes and 40mm wasn't too far off but I could use an external finder which for landscapes would be fine (less paralax problems than close-ups.) It also means for 75-90mm lenses the R3a is better for accurate focussing at faster apertures due to the longer effective base-length; which is important the wider the aperture and/or longer the focal length (it essentially is the accuracy at which you can 'fine-tine' the brigh spot's position that you use to line up over the scene when focussing.)

 

So far I only have the R3a and a 40mm Nokton f/1.4 MC lens. Cost me about £600 over here but I am very very pleased. I have never held a Leica but it's the perfect addition to my EOS 3 and Mamiya C330. I now have all bases covered. It's sturdy enough and doesn't feel flimsy to me, and it's working fine.

 

The best bit is the 1:1 finder which is life sized basically so you can keep your other eye open to see what's entering the scene.

 

I can't recommend this camera enough. I think Leicas are great having only handled one and they are very nice cameras, but I also now have a very nice camera that when walking will save me toting around a 3lb EOS 3 with 35mm lens!

 

One final note, I do use manual focus lens on my EOS 3 (keenly the Super Multi-Coated Takumar 35mm f/2) - but focussing at wide apertures is a lot easier on a rangefinder.

 

I almost went with an OM2n but the small lenses and the fact that I did want a rangefinder swung it for me in the end. Plus, the Voigtlander M lenses (VM) are excellent in most respects and represent a significant saving on some Leica M lenses.

 

Whatever you choose, I hope you enjoy your choice and the photographs that come out of it :)

 

Vicky

[drjedsmith]

Wow, thank you all for the detailed posts. I have tried two RF cameras before, and although I didn't really know what I was doing with them (used to SLR), I'm sure I could get used it for the weight and noise savings. (I got some very nice shots out of a Fuji MF RF.)<BR><BR>

 

At this point I'm pretty much looking at the Bessa R2,3, or 4.<BR><BR>

 

Here is my dilemma: I really like 24mm for landscapes (nature). I probably shot over 60% of my slides at 24mm over the last 2 years - but I am a little burnt out on that style of photography for a while - tripod, cable release, etc. Now that I'm in the city, I'd like to try more urban style / street shooting. On an SLR, I always found about 35mm was best for this. Does that hold true on the RF style?<BR><BR>

 

The R4 is the only one with frame lines below 35mm - so that seems like a natural choice, given my love of the WA. However, perhaps in the city I wouldn't need to go so wide, and the R2 or (3) would be the better option - 35mm (40mm) and a 75mm for portraits. Ahhh...I am torn between the options. Maybe I will have to get two bodies? :-)<BR><BR>

 

Lastly, can anyone give me a direct comparison of the shutters between the A models and the M models? Somewhere on the Cameraquest site he talks about the M shutter being the quietest. AE mode would be nice for speed during certain instances, I think, but I'm wondering how loud the shutter is? Also, there is just something so neat about a totally manual camera - like the M model that doesn't need electronics to function...I guess I am torn there as well.<BR><BR>

 

Thank you, this is fun, encouraging, and making me feel like getting out and shooting again.<BR>

Sincerely,<BR>

Jed<BR>

[harvey_edelstein1]

The Konica Hexar AF fixed lens RF is about the quietest, the 6x7 Mamiya 7 is a leaf shutter camera that is very quiet too, the Konica Hexar RF is an M compatible removeable lens RF its also quiet.

 

If you are not into exact viewfinder framing for composition then the rf is great, if however, you need exact what you see is what you get on film than a 100% view SLR like any Nikon F3, F4 , F5, F6 or Canon EOS 1V will give you critical composition with any lens or bellows, Macro, and specialty finder attached.

[Ian Taylor]

Xpan

[photo_galleries]

<i>Here is my dilemma: I really like 24mm for landscapes (nature). I probably shot over 60% of my slides at 24mm over the last 2 years - but I am a little burnt out on that style of photography for a while - tripod, cable release, etc. Now that I'm in the city, I'd like to try more urban style / street shooting. On an SLR, I always found about 35mm was best for this. Does that hold true on the RF style?

<p><p>

The R4 is the only one with frame lines below 35mm - so that seems like a natural choice, given my love of the WA. However, perhaps in the city I wouldn't need to go so wide, and the R2 or (3) would be the better option - 35mm (40mm) and a 75mm for portraits. Ahhh...I am torn between the options. Maybe I will have to get two bodies? :-)</i>

<p><p>

Actually, you will eventually need two bodies. As I stated earlier, I actually have 3 -- R3A, R3M and R4A What I would suggest is .first get an R3A (or R3M) with a 35, 40 or 50mm for street. I'm a big fan of the 50, but there are just as many (actually more) who prefer the 35 as a one lens street shooter. The CV 40/1.4 MC is very well received, although, for me personally, the 40 FL just doesn't seem quite right for me. I prefer the 50, or if wider, reach for a 35.

The R3A/M framelines are close enough (for far distances) for a 35mm lens to be workable.

<p><p>

If/when you decide on a wider lens later, the R3A will still work for focusing, but obviously not for composition. In that case, you will need a seperate viewfinder to use with your R3A/M, or get the R4A. I myself decided to get the R4A since shooting with an external viewfinder is an inherently slower way to shoot.

<p><p>

Good luck!

[sfcole]

JS,

You asked about either an M3 or M2: Having used the M3, and now using an M2, I probably wouldn't go back. My M2 came

with a replaced M6 .72 viewfinder, which I think is much more useful, especially since I like 28mm. I think the M3

viewfinder is too limiting. While some say the M3 finder is more accurate for longer lenses, I had no problems focusing my

90 f2 very accurately wide open yesterday on a roll of portraits. M3s seem to be more expensive right now than M2s. Get

what you want--a film camera will last a lifetime.

Scott

[steve_mareno]

Only someone from Alaska would complain about the heat of the Bay Area. I thought I was going to freeze to death out there, but I'm from the South. Never could understand why people raved about 'frisco weather. They must have been from Minnesota originally.

 

Jed, there's a lot of good advice here. You could spend the least probably by buying a Bessa R and get yourself a Leica Elmar 50 3.5 lens. $350 to $400 should do it, and an Elmar 90 4 for another $100 would make it a nice kit. The Bessa's have a great meter and nice viewfinders. I am not fond of the clack of the shutter, but you get used to it. Great lenses for TRI-X B&W, although to tell you the truth I prefer my old Summar for that.

 

The Contax G1 or G2 are also excellent cameras, and you could put together a kit for about the same price as the Bessa R w/ Leica glass. Their forte is color, but I have some decent B&W shots from them too. Both of these systems have a lot of people shooting w/ them., so if one system doesn't suit you you should have no problem selling it to get your money back so you can try the other system.

[drjedsmith]

Just wanted to say thank you to everyone that contributed, there is a lot of stuff for me to chew over here. I am going to start with taking my current gear, stripping it down to 1 body and 1 lens this week, and see what happends when I walk around, as was suggested. I think I'll be able to judge which focal length(s) are essential for me, and also make sure that I can really do the RF thing. I am really excited now to try something new in my photography.

Thanks,

Jed

[mark_hahn]

for silent operation, a Canon Rebel G (etc.) is about as quiet as a Leica... so if that is a concern... think about one of these little black cameras ($25 mint + $70 for 50/1.8).

 

OM-1 is a great camera! Beautiful large VF.

 

Fixed length RF's a good start too... nice Oly and Retina's to choose from for ~$50.

 

While I am hooked on them, all my FSU RF's have been trouble.

[summitar]

You can't go wrong with a Konica auto S2.

[andy_piper2]

Jed: It seems you have a plan for now, - but if you ever want to try a cost-effective interchangeable-lens RANGEFINDER, I'd give

high marks to the Canon P from the early 60's. Essentially a Leica M4 in capability (and pretty nice build), but built 5-6 years

earlier and with a screw-mount.

 

I used one several times in the 70's and 80's - and if the Cosina/Voigtlander line of screwmount lenses (especially the

superwides) had been available back then, probably would never have used anything else. Lovely little camera, but very hard to

find wide lenses for back then (except pricey collectibles).

 

You could probably fit one out with 25/28, 35/50, and 90/100 focal lengths for your $1000 budget.

[marek_fogiel]

You don't need to drool over Leicas, because they are no longer the best RF cameras, the Zeiss Ikon is much better and

for less money, although the Leicas still have some advantages - the same holds true for the lenses, where I feel the Zeiss

(and CV) have many lenses producing a better overall balance of optical performance at 1/3rd of the price, however, all this

is secondary to the fact if you will find yourself comfortable with this kind of cameras. I would suggest you start reading

this forum: www.rangefinderforum.com where you will find all the relevant information.

[Uhooru]

A friend of mine uses a Contaxt G1 and she really likes that camera. The G2 focuses a little faster I've heard, but she gets great photos. Of course, she gets great photos if she uses a throwaway too. but she does swear by it. They make a sweet 35 and I think they make a 28. Lenses are top notch, everything Leica lenses are.

[drjedsmith]

Thanks for the last couple posts. I have eyed that G2 as well, and it looks like a great camera. The Canon RF is probably very good - I was under the impression that an M-mount would be better, but maybe the screw-mount is just as good? At any rate, I did one day with my camera and one lens - 35mm. I missed the 24mm a little, but never really wanted more than a 50mm on the tele end - just a little more reach than the 35 had and I probably would have been happy. I'm going to repeat the process with 24mm, 50mm, and 100mm lenses just to see the outcome.

 

Thanks for the rangefinder website link - I will go there in a minute and see what it's all about!

 

I appreciate all the hard-won advice from everyone's years in photography here.

Sincerely,

Dr. J.T.

[joe_quiogue]

if you have a budget below $1000, and are looking for a compact workhorse, look no more. i suggest the LEICA CL! you can get one for about $500, with a 40mm f2 summicron. plus in the future you can add a 90mm elmarit or other portrait lens... a perfect entry to the M system. you have a small camera, with all the manual functions, a ttl meter, and leica glass to back you up, and thats under $500.

[jeff_matsler1]

Hello,

 

If you have $1000 budgeted, you should be able to skip the Russian clones and move right into a Leica (if you prefer) or any small sized SLR system you fancy.

 

Someone said the Minolta XD11 was "less like" a Leica than the Olympus camera systems. I find that a confusing statement, as the Minolta XE and XD cameras were part of a joint venture with Leica that produced them and their counter-parts: the R3 / R4. This partnership also gave us the jointly designed CL / CLE rangefinder bodies. But perhaps the other writer knows of something about the Olympus cameras more Leica-like than a camera co-designed by the company in question.

 

The XD11, even today, is a state-of-the-art manual focus SLR. It is small, even with the winder. The Rokkor lenses are superb. Bokeh-wise I would put them put against Leica (heresy) and although they aren't Leicas, they are as close as any Japanese company has come to reproducing the glow you get from a Summicron. The XD11 is also affordable to have CLA'ed (and I would recommend this for any 30 year old camera you buy).

 

Another small camera that is pleasing to use (and impossible to destroy) is the Nikon FM. The Nikkor lenses will be (in my experience) the LEAST Leica-like in warmth and bokeh, however. Nikkors are scientifically sharp - the converse of the Leica glow.

 

If you go with a Minolta, for under $1000 you could buy a LN XD-11 and an arsenal of lenses and accessories. If you like flash photography, I'd suggest the X570 instead. It is a newer body - about the same size and has TTL flash compatibility and metering in manual and all modes (like the XD - unlike the "flagship" X700).

 

The Leica CL (as mentioned earlier) or the Minolta CLE would also be considerations, especially since this is an RF forum. If you don't use a flash (we are, after all talking RF), get the CL. If you want to play with an RF but don't want to give up TTL flash - and stay within your budget - a CLE is really the only option out there. There are published drawbacks to the CLE, but as someone who has carried one all over the globe in all sorts of environments, I can say mine has never encountered any "potential" issue people warn "might" happen to the camera. I think most of the warnings, quite frankly, are of the "it's not a Leica" thread if you get down to the bare bones of their argument. I know few CLE users that will speak negatively of it or its traits (consider Stephen Gandy's praise of it on his website).

 

In this price range you could also get a BGN M3 and one lens - like a Summcron DR 35mm or 50mm.

 

If you're wanting the most affordable small camera option that gives the warmth and feel of Leica glass, the setup I would go with, however, is this:

 

ANY Minolta body (XD-11 is a great one, of late I have been shooting with a green-leathered XGse w/ winder when shooting Minolta) and the Rokkor 58mm, f/1.2 lens. This is a cult status lens with warmth and bokeh like nothing else out of Japan. Minolta users swear by it and to this day pay a premium price for either verison of it. That would be my choice for an affordable "Leica-like" image producing camera system. Other "MC" Minolta lenses (the 85mm, f/1.7, etc.) also fall into this lens' category and for $1000 you could get quite a few different lenses.

 

Good luck and let us know what you decide.

 

Jeff M

 

 

ASIDE:

If you prefer to have a "unique" camera, consider the Minolta Super A. The camera is the end result of the Minolta SKY project, designed to compete head to head with the Leica M3 in the late '50s. The SKY had an M mount on it - and after objections from German litigants the mount was changed along with the name (prior to commercial release) to a Minolta-specific bayonet type mount. LIke all other Minolta endeavors that had a hint of greatness, this project failed miserably and is merely a footnote in the company's history. But the camera and the glass used in the lenses is of the same caliber and quality as the Leica M system (of course the lens selection is limited - about 7 lenses total: 3 of those being 50mm varieties). Pictures taken with this setup will rival pictures taken with 1st generation M lenses. And I guarantee you'll be the only shooter on the block using one. ;-)