Rangefinder Choices on the Used market

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I've seen so many posts on "I'm thinking of buying a rangefinder, but don't know which one, and I don't want to spend much money" that I thought it might be worth summarizing my thoughts on the various rangefinders I have had. Note tha the 35GT is an honorable mention because a rangefinder by definition allows you to set the focus through some sort of double image system that you bring together. Anyway, maybe this will be useful to somebody.</p>

 

<p >Konica I - All metal, somewhat awkward with its separate shutter cock and release and film advance, exceptionally good non-interchangeable lens. Lens collapses for lower volume and then pulls out and locks for photography. Very nice job on the chrome. Unbelievably quiet shutter -- nearly silent. Tends to be cheap on the open market.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Minox 35GT – Not truly a rangefinder, focus is scale, but very small, made of plastic so very light, and excellent lens. You can put it in your pocket and forget you have it. Tends to be cheap on the market, but they break easily.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Fed (Masquerading as Leica) – Usually have … umm… issues when you buy them that have to be fixed. Once fixed they tend to be a bit rough and ready with ersatz finishes that can be very entertaining, but they actually take reasonably good pictures. Hard to load though (similar to a Leica II). Lenses are Zeiss clones and depending on condition can do very well. Condition varies wildly, but the price is right.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Fed (as itself) – Same as above, but at least the chrome finish is still there. Assuming you can either work on your own cameras or know someone who can get them into working condition, you can have some satisfying experiences with them. Just don’t expect them to be Leicas. The price is right.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > Kiev 4AM - Russian version of the Contax II. Better made than the Leica clones, but still tend to have issues and they're a lot harder to have repaired than the Feds. If you get a good one though you can get awfully good performance out of a relatively cheap camera.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Contax IIA - Great well made camera with superb lenses (for the time anyway). Mount is bayonet but tough to use well. Very difficult to repair, especially if the rangefinder is out of whack. Hard to find parts. I find them a bit harder to use than the Leicas as well, but if you can find one in good order, you can do great work at a decent price.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Leica CL – The best small, light rangefinder I’ve had – my choice for a pocketable camera with good manual control and interchangeable lenses, and it has a good light meter, though the mercury battery is a problem. Wein cells can be used, or I’m trying out the CRIS adapter for using silver oxide batteries. Don’t listen to the Leicafiles, this is a great camera and so is it’s “brother” the Minolta CLE. Expensive, but usually less than M2's or M3's given like condition. Likely to be harder to get fixed than an M if it breaks.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Leica IIIf BD – Extremely high physical quality, lasts forever and is a beauty to behold. Takes good pictures too, but no light meter and the rangefinder and viewfinder are small and more difficult to use than later rangefinders (and they are not combined, the rangefinder window is a separate window than the viewfinder). And you have to use separate clip on viewfinder for anything but a 50mm lens. And to clip on a light meter, you need a double shoe adapter such as Voigtlander sells or you need a separate handheld light meter (which is what I use). It’s a rewarding experience, but I’d rather use a Leica M. Tends to be cheaper than an M, but still can be expensive depending on condition.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Leica M2 – The Leica M is really the best rangefinder there is, and the M2 is a relatively affordable example. It’s 50+ years old though so it’s fortunate that Leicas last just about forever. Viewfinder/rangefinder is a joy to use, the user interface is classic and very effective, and they can use the latest lenses. No light meter though and if you get outside the 35-90 range you will need external clip on viewfinders. No Leica is cheap, but the M2s and M3s are a lot more affordable than later models. The M2 gives you 35/50/90 framelines while the M3 gives you 50/90/135.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Leica M8 – The digital version of the M but not full frame. Still, the IR sensitivity gives you a camera you can use for a normal camera or an IR camera at the change of a filter and image quality is excellent in both cases. Just about everything I’ve said about the M2 goes for the M8 with the added advantage of digital. Great camera. I’d like an M9 too, but I don’t have the $7000 and the M8’s are selling used for $2000 to $2500.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Canon 7 – Canon’s last rangefinder before they went to SLRs. Wonderful user, but big and clunky. Relatively cheap on the used market, especially the Selenium light meter version. Often found with wrinkled shutter curtains, but that usually doesn’t matter. Often found with non-working light meters. The 7 has no accessory shoe (except for a clip on one that works great but is hard to find). Uses Leica Thread Mount (also called screw mount) lenses, the same as the IIIf BD above. The later 7s with the newer light meter is very expensive because of collectability. Best viewfinder/rangefinder outside of a Leica M with dialed in framelines (you have to dial them, they’re not automatic as in the M). Call it the poor man’s Leica M.</p>

<p>In the end, I settled on two M2s and a CL for a carry around camera. And now I have an M8. I sold the 7 because the M's are really better cameras to use (IMHO). I sold the Feds and the Minox for the same reason.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>While I might not agree with every single choice, this is a very useful summary. Thanks.</p>

<p>I have two Kievs and they work flawlessly. One of them is dressed as a Contax II in all black. I can't imagine that any real Contax could work better than that one.</p>

<p>At the worst, these old Contaxes badged as Kievs can be repaired by a huge number of technicians in the old USSR.<br>

Shipping charges and quality of shipping has been better than from many western European countries in my experience, by the way.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>There were more Zorki RF's made than your entire list of cameras combined. Before 9/11 the going price on Ebay of a Zorki 4 plus 5cm F2 Jupiter-8 and case was about 9 to 13 bucks. One could buy one and have it mailed to the USA for less than 20 The bulk of my Zorki stuff i from that era.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>After being repaired, my two Feds worked reliably for light use. My Kiev 4AM worked well until it developed a light leak. Real Leicas have more of an advantage over Feds and Zorkis than real Contaxes have over Kievs. In both cases the engineering is more rough and ready in the Russian machines, but they're generally good cameras if serviced. The Kievs though, modelled as they are on the Contax II has a more awkward placement of the rangefinder window relative to the focusing wheel. You have to learn the trick of arching your finger around the window. In return you get a larger rangefinder base.</p>

<p>There are a lot of cameras I simply never bought which have good reputations, like Voiglander Bessas and Nikon rangefinders. I don't mean to slight them, only talk about the ones I have had. I actually got the chance to use an original Voigtlander Prominant one time and though the interface was weird and the supplemental lenses were not rangefinder coupled, the 50 was just razor sharp.</p>

<p>I've never had a camera serviced in Russia or any of the old USSRs, but I have had my Poljot watch serviced twice. Both times it was relatively cheap and pretty fast. However, clearly it was a watch that profited from being serviced about once a year or two. Whereas Leicas tend to keep going and going and going ... like the energizer bunny.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I don't care for zone focusing cameras, but that's personal taste. I would also put another tier in there with the fixed lens RFs of the 70's, like the Canonet's, Minolta's, Konica's, Petri's, Olympus', etc. Frankly, I can easily live with just my Canon QL17 GIII.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Any camera which is decades old (potentially even Leica), especially cameras not built with the intention of lasting decades (such as the fixed lens rangefinders you name) should be purchased with the expectation of a service. Sometimes you don't need it, but oftentimes you do. I've bought Minolta fixed lens cameras, a 7s and a 7sII, and the 7s worked great and operated perfectly while the 7sII just couldn't take a sharp picture. I expect it just had a problem that a good tech could have fixed. An expensive Leica (or a Canon 7) is likely to have been taken care of better than a Minolta 7s because the 7s probably was functioning as a point and shoot. On the other hand, the shutter of the Leica may have had a lot more wear than the 7s.</p>

<p>Vintage rangefinders can be a gamble, but that's part of what makes them fun. If you don't want to gamble, buy a Leica M6 or M7 or M8 or M9. Or if that's too expensive, buy a brand new Voigtlander Bessa. I sometimes think one of the things that works against Leica is that every M ever built is full capable of operating perfectly forever with even sketchy maintenance. I suspect that 50 years from now, my 100 year old M2 will still be working fine, assuming you can still buy 35mm film. They really are spectacularly well built.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>David; here most all of my Zorkis from 10 to 12 years never required any service; I even resold many on Ebay long ago too.<br>

<br /> One zorki 3C from about 12 years ago is my beater rig with 50mm F1.2; it has been used with many hundreds of Fuji 800 with no issues at all. Its cost was about the same as a 4 pack of film; ie trivial in the schemes of things; it was built in 1956. If it breaks; the cost per roll would be about a nickle.<br /> <br /> A Canonet F1.7 III here with a dead meter cost 19 dollars 20 years ago; and still works well. Several 5 to 20 buck Retina I's; Signet 35's here are old and work without any issues.<br /> <br /> Anything that starts to be collected alot rises in prices; there are thousands and thousands of old RF cameras in dresser drawers</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>You've had better luck with the cameras from the former Soviet Union than I have or perhaps you have greater skill in choosing them. Once you get past the QC issues, they do work pretty well, and there is no doubt they're cheap. I'm not knocking the idea of using them as a cheap introduction to rangefinders -- I'm just saying that you typically need a more patient attitude.</p>

<p>Also you just have to use a Fed or a Zorki and a real Leica to see what the difference is. Unless you are REALLY on a tight budget, or unless you enjoy buying the most possible camera for the least possible price, if you're going to go with a Leica clone, a good IIIc or IIIf might be a better long term choice. And if you have a little more money, a Leica M of any variety makes a much better screwmount camera than any earlier Leica, Fed, or Zorki. At least I think so.</p>

<p>That said, the Feds and Zorkis, especially with German Eagles and woodgrain bodies, etc. makes for great entertainment and a decent picture taker too. I definitely recommend trying them out, just remember what you're buying and what you're paying.</p>

[celasun]

<p>David,<br>

How about adding a comment or two on Voigtlander "Bessa" rangefinders to your original post?<br>

I ask because I happen to have bought a used one (R3A) myself :).</p>

 

[Alex_Es]

<p>M6s are a great value. Also the M4P. </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here I got a Bessa R when they first came out.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Interesting that this post should pop up now. After many years of waiting for the right circumstances and finances to come together I finally pushed the button on that auction site and wound up with a M2. The camera just arrived today and it seems that a CLA will be in needed someday but at least I can use the camera now. That is, when I get a lens. My darling bride ('you mean for $500 it doesn't even come with a lens!?') will choke when I tell her that the optics I want will set me back another $800. My plan is to show her the used prices on Leica lenses and then the new price on Voigtlander lenses.</p>

<p>She'll be home in a couple of hours. If this doesn't work I'll be stuck for a while with a Russian 50mm Elmar clone with a Chinese adapter. All together less than $50 but better than a piece if tinfoil taped to the lens mount with a pinhole.....I think.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Bulent, go ahead. I just commented on the ones I've had, but if you have a Bessa, why not add a comment about it. I was hoping people would do just that. I've never had a Bessa, or a Zeiss ZM or a Hassleblad XPan or Nikon rangefinder either. Feel free to add comments on the ones you all have owned.</p>

[christopher_a._junker1]

<p>This is a good summary. My IIIc now needs new shutter curtains and a CLA, but it sure was handy as a pocket camera. If you can find a user Leica IIIg it is the best of the LTM cameras for build quality and has a good viewfinder. My very early beater IIIg was CLA'd and a light leak fixed by Sherry some years back. I knew the first owner and know that it had over 2000 rolls put through it. Once cleaned up and adjusted just a great camera. My Kiev is a lump, but the rangefinder is very accurate and I can recommend the camera especially if you can find a 50 Nikon f1.4. My fix for the finger blocking the rangefinder window is to use one of Tom A's soft touch shutter releases, it puts the finger out of the way. My CL is the replacement for the IIIc, the comments are accurate. Good camera, quality build, but the two piece body is a bit of a pain. Zone focus? I still use a Rollei from time to time. Great lens but a really quirky camera. But I keep coming back to the IIIg.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Well, I am the odd man out - if I were to look for a Leica rangefinder, I would look no farther than the M5.</p>

[jean_moxhet]

<p>I have and use 2 rangefinders with changeable lenses, both need external viewfinder, both have tiny rangefinder.<br>

On 1 side a IIIf BD, a beauty, so well made, will last for ever (after last CLA, I received with that message "see you in 20 years"), small, so great to have in hand... but what a trouble to load.<br>

On the other hand, the VC Bessa T feel light, cheap, ... but with "inboard" lighmeter and a pleasure to load.</p>

<p>Conclusion: easiness is usualy the winner and it's the "T" that come out with me most of the time.<br>

But my favorite rangefinder ever is my Voigtlander Vitessa "Barn Doors", build as a tank, great ergonomy, the best regarding loading, fabulous lens,...</p>

 

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Has anyone used the more expensive Bessas? What are they like relative to the Ms? How about the Zeiss ZM rangefinder? How about the old Nikon rangefinders, or maybe the anniversary one Nikon made a few years ago?</p>

[matt_blomqvist]

<p>No one mentioned Canon P, the most popular of all Canon's classic rangefinders. It's basically similar to Leica M2 but it has one big plus compared to it. Hinged back door. You can load a new film into your Canon P while walking. Try that with any Leica and you know what I mean. Canon P's viewfinder is rather rare 1:1 and it has 35/50/100 framelines. It is very well made and reliable camera about the size of a M-series Leica. It is still quite popular daily shooter amongst rangefinder enthusiasts.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I will second the Minox 35GT or GTE as a great little camera with a fine lens (but highly compromised diaphragm for f stops - only two blades that really skew and vary the f stop over the lens element widths - may not be too important when stopped down). Agree also it is fragile (using a tripod can lead to trouble) but highly pocketable. Another good choice is the Rollei 35TE (I prefer the Tessar rather than the more expensive Sonar (35SE) as it gives better B&W results). Like the Minox, very expensive to repair and light meter is not too rugged.</p>

<p>In my opinion, of all cameras listed, the M6 is probably the best buy. It is well made and functional, certainly for amateur use ove a long time period. The light meter makes the camera faster acting than an M2, M3, M4, M4-2 or M4-P, although the M4-2 and M4-P are great buys, more recent cameras than the M2 or M3 and i think preferable for the long term. You cannot beat the feel of the shutter release on the older Leicas where that may be important in anticipating and squeezing off street shots at the right moment. A IIIf with separate viewer is great for wide angle use, and virtually indestructible. For digital, the expensive M9 has it all over the huge DSLRs for small size and very high quality image, as long as you don't need very high ISO (above 640 or so) where Nikon is king and Canon queen. Some day we may have a competernt RF digital in medium format. That would be a cause to celebrate.</p>

<p>Where fast lenses are less important, I much prefer a medium forma RF camera. specially the very discrete (quiet shutter, small) and ergonomically proportioned Mamiya 6. I like to print as high quality as possible and this camera (amongst some other MF RF camera) allows it.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The Nikon S2 is a camera you come to love (presumably the S3, S4 and SP as well), but the period lens availability is not great, focussing (Contax type wheel) is clunky and not as rapid as a Leica with a lens knob, and the rangefinder patch not as clear as an M Leica. It seemed to me to be solidly built, and V-C brought out modern lenses for it based on their other LTM and M designs. The reintroduced short run S3 and SP are no doubt great, but meterless of course, and expensive. If I didn't have an M4-P I could be happy using a black S3.</p>

[jeff_guthrie]

<p>I've had quite a few rangefinders over the years, and I still love them. I still have quite a few sitting around, and I try to put film through them from time to time. Sitting on my table by my PC is a black Konica C35, a Yachica CC, a black Yashica GX, a Leica IIIa, and my Leica M4. Oh, and an Olympus XA (so small I almost didn't see it). <br>

I most often use the M4 with a Summaron 35/2.8 or DR Summicron. The next, most-used camera is the Yashica CC. It is simply an excellent camera which takes pleasing pictures.<br>

It's true that the FED/Zorki cameras can be a pain. I've had 4 of them now, and not one was usable upon delivery. Fortunately, these cameras are simple devices, and are not difficult to repair. With new shutter curtains, decent grease and oil, and a little adjustment, you can end up with a gem of a camera.</p>

<p> </p>