Film Rangefinder vs Film SLR. $$$ Question!!!

[william_koone]

<p>Hello I'm not new to the forums, just to posting... I've been a long time lurker :). I need some opinions. I know there is no "right" answer but I've come across a gear crossroad that I need help with. I currently have a Bessa T that I recently purchased in order to get out of my medium format kick and to build a nice 35mm film setup that is more portable. I'm beginning to wonder though if my purchase was too soon.<br>

I know the differences between a rangefinder and an slr but my question to all of you is that is the extra weight and size (however small of a difference) really worth investing the higher dollar (used market) per lens price the comes with rangefinders? <br>

The obvious plus I see to my current purchase is that I do enjoy wide angle lenses and that they are less distorted. But then I also like low light photography (fast glass) which then gets me into the $ question where SLRs have the edge.<br>

Ignoring that I already have an m-mount rangefinder and I said to you I only have $1000 to spend on a full setup (full to me only being: camera/wide angle/standard) without adding a cent to it as it is just sort of a passion/hobby to me, would it make more sense to go the slightly cheaper yet bulkier SLR (probably old nikon, which really isn't that much bigger) or to stick with my current Bessa and start buying lenses?</p>

[geoff_r1]

<p>There are fast Voigtlander lenses for not a lot of money, Leica will be over your budget though, if you want something faster than F2.<br>

Rangefinders are great in low light, due to the lack of a mirror, you can hand hold at around two stops slower shutter speed than you could an SLR. The viewfinders are generally brighter too. </p>

[ilkka]

<p>In this day and age, nobody 'needs' a rangefinder. SLRs will do just as well, often better, for all types of photography. So it is more a question on what you want. Distortion is not in any significant way better with rangefinder lenses than good, modern fixed focal length SLR lenses. It certainly does not matter in normal photography. Leica is expensive, whether rangefinder or SLR. For limited money, it is better to consider Voigtlander lenses, or at most possibly a second hand Zeiss. SLR lenses are normally a tiny bit bigger than comparable rangefinder lenses, but weight difference can be less as even the Voigtlander lenses use a lot of metal. So again it is less a question of size or portability, even less so with a body and just a couple of lenses, but a question on what do you prefer to use. And finally, cameras and lenses are tools, not investments. You will probably not lose much money in buying a second hand Leica lens if you decide to sell it a few years later, but only in rare cases do lenses appreciate in value which would be a necessity to consider them investments. Since you are asking this on rangefinder forum, I suppose you need some encouragement to go ahead and do what you want to do, buy couple of lenses for your rangefinder. So go ahead and do it. It is certainly more portable than medium format and can make just as good pictures as that Nikon SLR would, so nothing is lost, and you get to use equipment you like.</p>

[william_koone]

<p>I guess I should've said (as it is extremely obvious with my price range) that I was only looking at voigtlander lenses and I agree with you that cameras are more tools and I might have used the term investment incorrectly. I meant to say that I am not interested in making the money back, I am more interested in: is it "well spent".</p>

<p>I asked in this forum because I already have the Bessa T, which now that I think of it kind of raises the price difference between the two because i'll need viewfinders for each lenst.</p>

<p>Thanks for the opinions :) I'll continue to think about it.</p>

[nee_sung]

<p>I think your price range can buy some pretty good second hand Leica lenses, especially with the LTM lenses, which can be used with an adapter.</p>

[charlie_chan2]

<p>William,</p>

<p>It would help if we knew what you have already and what you desire. The Bessa body has been mentioned. What else do you have and what's on your wish list with a budget. If you shoot wides and normal lenses, RF focussing is much easier than manual focussing SLRs. Used Voigtlander and older Leica lenses are generally reasonably affordable. It just depends on what you want. My personal carry around system is just a M body and a 35/1.4 and a pocketful of film.</p>

<p>Charlie Chan<br>

Cheltenham, UK</p>

[andresainderichin]

<p>Nikon F3: nothing human can break it, they're real cheap (300 bucks, maybe), the non AF lenses they take are real cheap too, and the wide-angle ones are fantastic! Focusing only becomes a challenge in such low light that you couldn't take a picture anyway. And I'm a Leica fan!</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>For better-than-Leica economy, grab a Nikon F3 with a 20mm 1:3.5 ais wide angle -- all for under $500. Incredible deal IMHO.</p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>Or Nikon F100 with a 28mm/2.8 AIS. Under $500.</p>

[david_manning1]

<p>Deleted...I didn't RTFQ!</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>When I started my career shooting model portfolios, I was using Leica gear exclusively. However, my first experience with 35mm SLR. was an epiphany. I switched to the Nikon F system and never looked back.</p>

<p>Composition was and faster and easier and I had a lot more keeper shots per roll of film. As you have discovered SLR equipment is cheaper and lens focal length availability is much more diverse.</p>

<p>My romance with Leica rangefinder today has more to do with nostalgia and a great appreciation of vintage Leica build quality. I just love handling my old Leica equipment. If I were to shoot professionally again, I would use modern Nikon digital equipment for small format shooting. Now that I am a hobbyist once more, I can indulge my equipment whims.</p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>Leica & Zeiss glass is the best, IMHO. Whether you use a Leica or Nikon (Zeiss makes lenses for Nikon). There are some wonderful Nikon lenses also but they, too, are not inexpensive. 1k takes Leica out of the picture. An M6 is $1200+. You could go with the Carl Zeiss ZM 50mm f1.5 (M mount). It is fast with a Sonnar design and could be had used for arund $700. Nikon F3HP is the oldest I'd go. It takes Ai & Ais lenses. I prefer the AIS lenses. An F3HP, 24mm f2.8 Ais, 50mm f1.4 Ais all should be under 1k total. This is even cheaper if you are looking at Bargain condition and you down care about cosmetics. You should have enough left over for the legendary 105mm f2.5 ais.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>First of all, you have to ask yourself if you are comfortable with shooting an RF? Focusing an RF versus and SLR is very different.</p>

<p>Secondly, are you comfortable with shooting the Bessa T? The T does NOT have a viewfinder, and requires an external VF. Therefore, you have to first focus through the RF window on the body then look through the external viewfinder to compose. It is a slower shooting process. However, the nice thing about the T is the 1.5x magnification, which allows you to accurately focus long lenses wide open. So, if you stick with the T, factor in external viewfinders to any lens purchase.</p>

<p>If you primarily shoot a WA lens, then the above shouldn't matter too much, since you can just stop down a WA lens to give you sufficient DOF. In that case, you have a nice point & shoot. Of course, this applies to both RF and SLR.</p>

<p>For manual focus and when shooting film, I myself prefer an RF (I currently have a ZI), but you have to make sure it fits your style of shooting. What I would advise, at least for now, is to get a CV 35mm lens and CV 35mm external finder and see how you like it.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>-Keith</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>Rangefinder has two HUGE advantages over SLR:</p>

<p>1) Availability of near zero distortion wideangle lenses. </p>

<p>2) Much smaller and more discrete physical presence.</p>

<p>SLR's excel in head and shoulders portraiture, and sports photography.</p>

[rick_keir]

<p>I use a rangefinder partly because it forces me to do a different kind of photography. Your Bessa T will work great with various wide angles on it.<br>

You could also shoot a 90mm on it and get used to a separate range and viewfinder. My very first film camera (an Argus C3, cost about $15 in 1973) worked that way and it's not that hard to work with, unless you are shooting something fast moving (kids, sports, dogs). </p>

[alwin_meyer2]

<p>@ William,<br>

Many of us went through equipment cravings, and a lot is probably learnt on the way. It all adds to our experience. The Bessa T seems to me not a "general" piece of equipment. I would say it has its use with wide angle lenses and it looks cool and that is it.<br>

The main question, besides desire, is what you will use it for. Rangefinder low light. SLR versatile.<br>

In my street shooting I like RF's because I keep full view of the scene with my left eye. Focusing and framing is nice but slr's also frame and focus and with AF probably better than an RF with my bad eyesight. Try what you feel like, within reason, get the experience, it is personal.</p>

<p>

<p>Street shot with M4P and 35/2. Would it look the same when done with a nikon? probably yes. BUT COULD I HAVE HELD A HEAVY NIKON SO HIGH OVER THE HEADS OF THE CROWD AND POINT IT AT THE ACTION, HMMMMM PROBABLY NOT :-) THERE IS ALWAYS A GOOD REASON TO BUY THE CAMERA YOU DESIRE</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>It comes down to preference and what you are comfortable using in your style of photography, as well as carrying around. I use both and just depends. And even though rangefinders are smaller, a typical manual rangefinder system camera (whatever the make) may be better compared to a simple, manual SLR like a Nikon FM, not an F100 or F4. For usage with wide lenses, an SLR can also be guess-focussed.<br>

Question though: do you use digital or have any desire to? If you want to be able to use the same lenses for both digital and film, an SLR may make more sense (okay, Leica also makes a digital, but in a completely different league cost-wise).<br>

(And I love the Jesus in Jerusalem shot, but a smallish SLR could certainly be handheld above a crowd).</p>

[william_koone]

<p>Thank you all for giving me good suggestions and opinions, I was fearing this might turn into another stupid internet battle but it seems that many of you use both types of cameras and appreciate them equally. </p>

<p>Some information I didn't want to give too early in the discussion is that I do infact have a digital SLR, a Nikon D40 (w/18-135mm and 50/1.8).</p>

<p>and to answer Greg, I do use digital both from a DSLR and I have a Epson V700 scanner so I scan most of my negatives as well.</p>

[alwin_meyer2]

<p>@ Greg @ William<br>

I think you are absolutely right, the shot could have been taken with a Nikon FM or comparable. I also have an old F, that one or the biggerr AF ones may be a little bit more difficult to hold high over a crowd. I just tried a D70, which is bigger than William's D40 and it works fine.</p>

<p>So that is why I jokingly made the point, THERE IS ALWAYS A GOOD REASON TO BUY THE CAMERA YOU DESIRE, but be reasonable, if it is totally not suited for the kind of photography you want it for, think about it</p>

<p>But I am also serious. I think we do contemplate and rationalize and read lens charts while in our hearts we simply just want a rangefinder or we want to try how it feels. I think these are good reasons because people develop. The hobby "photography" has different areas for some of us are photographers, collectors, combination of the 2, lens testers, lovers of mechanics, etc.</p>

<p>I see myself for example as a photographer but also as a person who likes to use vintage gear. There are so many sides to the hobby that the reason to buy gear does not have to be rational in the technical or photographical sense, hence my reasoning: THERE IS ALWAYS A GOOD REASON TO BUY THE CAMERA YOU DESIRE, but be reasonable</p>

 

[sd_woods]

<p>I think it depends what you want to do. For the streets, rangefinders are the best. For other things, perhaps an SLR would be better.</p>

[mizore]

<p>Staying with film cameras that use your digital lenses can be useful -- if you've got G lenses without the aperture ring, this would mean getting the F100 (my choice as it is a good match for the D300 and a VR G macro lens that I had). If you want something completely different, the older screwmount Leicas are mechanical jewels (I had one and traded it for parts of a Hasselblad system). M3s are also highly regarded older Leicas and would be able to take a wider range of lenses.<br>

F3 Nikons are a whole different beast altogether. If you have any non-G Nikon lenses for the D40, they'll work with the F3. I'm not sure how well the manual lenses will work on the D40 (the D300 can be programmed to work very well with them). But a good F3 will cost now about what a good F100 will cost (my F100 was $275; I've seen F3s for anywhere from $200 to $300). F3s without the motor drive are small compared to the D300 or F100, though.</p>

[nzdavid]

<p>I agree you have to bond with your camera. Some folks can never get the hang of rangefinders. I'm not one of them. I started off with a compact rangefinder, then moved to SLRs and enjoyed them but then moved back to Leica rangefinders which I love. For low light and wide-angle, I find rangefinders are unequivocally better. You can use slower shutter speeds and focusing is more accurate. Of course, for wildlife, sports or macro an SLR is the only option. Yes, lenses cost a bundle but are actually a damn good investment because they will last for decades.<br>

For more, check out the RF v SLR guide at Karen Nakamura's excellent site, www.photoethnography.com. </p>