Good starter rangefinder?

[christopher_junker1]

<p>I was given a "no name" Kiev version of the Contax with 1.4 Nikon 50 and a 2.0 Carl Zeiss Sonnar 50 lenses. While the viewfinder is a it squinty, the rangefinder is fast to operate and accurate. It's all manual and you'll need a hand held meter, but it takes great pictures, especially if you like B/W images. For a more modern choice, the Minolta CLE with the 40 f2.0 lens is a great travel camera. See Ken Rockwell's internet review for comprehensive notes on the camera and it's features. I have the simpler Leica CL and use it a lot. The Minolta CLE has features that should make it a nice entry to the rangefinder film experience.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I both are excellent. Really personal preference. I prefer the 1:1 viewfinder magnification of the P because I can shoot with both eyes open. </p>

[glen_h]

<p>The camera that took my baby pictures, new when I as one year old, is a Canon VI with 50/2.8.</p>

<p>The Canon P is almost the same, I believe the big difference is the viewfinder. The VI has a selectable 35mm or 50mm viewfinder, where the P has lines for 35mm and 50mm.</p>

<p>I now have a P with 50/1.4.</p>

<p>I believe that the P is much more affordable, and more likely to be working even without any work done to it, than the Leica III models. Leica and Canon lenses are interchangeable, find one that you like. </p>

<p>The Russian Zenit are nice, though mine needs rangefinder calibration, which I haven't tried doing. It sort of defeats the purpose of a rangefinder if it is wrong.</p>

<p>The Canon models should keep, or increase, their value. But it depends on your budget.</p>

[jean_taeza]

<p>Thank you all for the thorough and informative responses; I appreciate it. I've looked at the Bessa R's and Contax systems prior to posting this and was on track to purchasing one of them, but with all the new insight I'm getting I'll definitely look into all of your suggestions. I forget to mention that I own an Olympus XA and have shot with it for quite a while now, so I'm looking to move onto "bigger" fish so to speak (I guess bigger would mean not a fixed lens). In response to budget I would say I would want to spend under $1200 total body + lens; I'd rather shoot with something for a while before moving onto a bigger and "better" body/lens.</p>

 

[Brian1664876441]

The XA is a fine camera, really helps to make suggestions.

 

For $1200, you could pick up a used Leica M3, M2, M5, or Voigtlander Bessa with a collapsible Summicron- with some patience. Easily with a Nikkor 5cm F2 in Leica mount, or other third party lens. The nice thing about Leica: LOTS of choices from manufacturers from the past 80 years.

 

Looking at Contax, I assume you mean the classic Contax IIIa, IIa, II, or III. They are beautifully made cameras- but have lots of quirks, a "squinty viewfinder", and lens choice is more limited. They do allow use of the Russian Kiev/Contax mount lenses- which are cheap. The Contax III and II allow use of the Jupiter-12 3.5cm F2.8. Nikon RF (S-Mount) offers a much better viewfinder, the mount looks the same- but the RF calibration is different. Having all three (Leica, Contax, Nikon) systems myself, I would push you towards the Leica.

[rajmohan.]

<p>Jean - in your original post, when you mentioned "budget", I (and many others here based on the suggestions) were thinking a few hundred dollars at most. At $1200, you have options for high quality RF cameras, as Brian has detailed. For 35mm, I agree with Brian's suggestion of an early Leica M.<br>

If you're more adventurous, you can even think about medium-format rangefinders - various Fujis (645 6x7 and 6x9) and Bronica RF645, all of which have the advantage of bigger negatives (compared to 35mm). Any of these with one lens can be had for <$1200; all fantastic cameras, and the one I have, the Bronica, is excellent - big bright viewfinder and rangefinder patch, and not terribly large, at least for me - I happily use it as a walkaround camera.</p>

[knut_schwinzer]

<p>Rajmohan, now you put the icing on the cake, confusing the OP even more and suppress the MF Mamiya 6&7 and Plaubel's Makina:) Brian, you might need to buy into the Canon RF system, too;) But I would also recommend a dainty Leica M2, if there are bucks to found the Summs...</p><div></div>

[rajmohan.]

<p>Knut, I know it was a reach to talk about the MF rangefinders, but the ones I mentioned can all be had within Jean's stated budget, so I thought I'd put them out there. Unfortunately the Mamiya 6/7 and Plaubel Makina will surpass the $1200 limit, I fear (although I know of one chap who recently got a working Plaubel for $200 from a not-very-knowledgeable seller!).</p>

[Brian1664876441]

" Brian, you might need to buy into the Canon RF system, too;)"<p>

 

 

I consider the Canon, Nicca, Leotax, Tanack, and Yashica YF to be part of the Leica system. There are others, but I have these... I also calibrated a Zorki 3M to the Leica standard.<p>

 

<img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7577/15629693639_46370c2e27_c.jpg" width="800" height="347" alt="canonp_sonnars"><p>

 

 

<img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3921/14827829949_15f9396696_c.jpg" width="800" height="600" alt="Canon III and Mini-Me"><p>

 

<img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1457/25803705560_31b8376994_c.jpg" width="600" height="800" alt="RIMG0737"><p>

 

<img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1526/26230156291_f0107ff2e3_c.jpg" width="800" height="600" alt="Compacts"><p>

 

 

<img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1696/25945854125_0479cda24b_c.jpg" width="600" height="800" alt="Three_135s"><p>

 

I would suggest the M-Mount camera for a first rangefinder as it can use Leica Thread Mount lenses and M-Mount lenses.<p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Wow, nice collection, Brian! One question -- is that collapsible lens an Elmar?</p>

<p> </p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>There are two experiences you can have with rangefinder cameras. Good and bad. Duh. If you want a good experience, get an early Leica M as has been suggested. It is simply the best rangefinder. It will give you a good experience. All this other stuff people suggest is playing second best. Dim viewfinders, patchy rangefinders, twiddly controls, poor construction are some of the issues. Rangefinder cameras are difficult to use at first. Even the Leica. If you have a second-rate rangefinder that's "trying" to be Leica it will be a poor experience. I know I'm not making any friends with these comments but I started with Nikon rangefinders. In 1966 I got my first Leica (M2) and that was it. The Nikon S rangefinders and lenses were sold.<br>

Good luck with your photography.</p>

[knut_schwinzer]

<p>John, at the contrary, you just made a new friend! I absolutely agree. And - as far as recommendations went, please note that Jean's request is cost limited!</p>

[james_elwing]

<p>I agree with John. I admire old RF cameras: TM Leicas, Contax based cameras like Nikon, also Canons, and I love the Contax II and Leica II.<br>

If I want to take pictures, however, I would rather use M series Leicas. M3 & M2 in good working order are not particularly expensive, and you don't need a complete set of lenses to start.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>To me "not particularly expensive" is a quite relative term. For about 1/3 or less of the cost of an M3, I can buy a Canon P, which has just as big and bright of a viewfinder as the M3 does. And while even the Canon LTM lenses aren't particularly cheap, they are of excellent quality and typically sell for substantially less than their Leitz equivalents.</p>

<p>Sure, I'd love to own an M system -- an M4 would be nice, with a basic complement of lenses -- but until such time as I can afford the Leica Premium, I'll stick with my Canon LTM gear -- and have fun using it.</p>

 

[Brian1664876441]

Michael- the collapsible lens is a Canon Serenar 50/1.9. It is a good lens, about the equivalent of a Leica Summitar, The

Serenar has hard-coated optics, only downside is it uses 40mm filters. They can be found with patience.

[glen_h]

<p>I don't know about the Leica M cameras, but from what I have seen the older Canon rangefinders are more likely to work without CLA than older, such as III series, Leicas.</p>

<p>There are a lot of cameras available for less than the cost of a CLA.<br>

You might find someone to calibrate the rangefinder for much less than the cost of a full CLA, if the camera otherwise works fine.</p>

<p>A Canon P along with Leica LTM lenses, might be a good compromise. </p>

 

[james_elwing]

<p>I am sure I bought a somewhat worn M3 double wind in good working condition for $400 two years ago from a dealer. I appreciate Ebay doesn't have anything under $700 just now, and most are just under $1000.<br>

I think, however, that some sellers are dreaming they are sitting on a gold mine and just won't shift what they have.<br>

Am I dreaming and living in the past? dunno</p>

 

[mwmcbroom]

<p>James, from what I've been seeing on eBay in recent years, it appears that film camera prices bottomed out a few years ago, and are now slowly on the rise. This is especially true with cameras that many people have deemed as "classics."</p>

<p>One of the helpful things about researching prices on eBay is to check the box for "completed" or "sold" listings. Some of the prices items sell for can be real eye openers -- by that, I mean, quite cheap. I suspect, however, that these very underpriced items probably sell within just a few hours of being listed.</p>

<p>As for unrealistic "Buy It Now" prices, about all a person can do is just be patient and wait for the overpriced sellers to go away. But prices do fluctuate, based I suppose on market demand as well as other factors.</p>

<p>Glen, I have very little experience with the old Leica rangefinders, but I do own a couple of the earlier Canon rangefinders -- two IIIa's, which are basically the same as the IVSb without the proprietary flash rail. One of my IIIa's has accurate shutter speeds, while the other IIIa, a recent purchase, has slow speeds that are off. But I've found some information on the web that I can probably use to straighten out this problem. I do some camera repair work, so I'm not altogether new at this. On the whole, I've found the old Canons to be quite reliable and often if they do require some work, it's something I can do.</p>

<p>And yes, the P is probably one of the best LTM compromises there is. Relatively common, nice bright viewfinder, familiar modern control layout, easy film loading. </p>

 

[james_elwing]

<p>Thanks, Michael.<br>

Glen, I have bought a number of TM Leicas over the years, and they have usually worked fine, if occasionally a little tardy with some slow speeds.<br>

TM Leicas tailed off after 1954, while the more sophisticated Canons are all newer than that, so should be compared with M3 or M2, which are in that same age group.<br>

All of them could probably do with a CLA, but....<br>

Why not get an old black Leica II with nickel Elmar 50. No slow speeds, but you got to love them.</p>

[rwbowman]

<p>Not that the suggestions above haven't been helpful, but the RF Forum (rangefinderforum.com) is another friendly and helpful place to research what is out there. There is also a classifieds section.</p>

[kivis]

<p>DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE CHROME VERSION BUT THESE ARE GREAT STARTERS:</p>

<p><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8702/28940801485_3a82b907ff_z.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="640" /></p>