1st rangefinder recommendations?

[bobwysiwyg]

Now that's a pocketable camera! How big have you gone in terms of enlarged prints?

 

[Robbedoes]

18x24cm in a Nova slotprocessor. Using documentfilm one can produce much larger but I’v never tried it (yet

 

[Lee L]

I bought both some years back and send the to Dave Goldberg of Dag Camera repair for CLA.

Small correction: Don A. Goldberg of DAG Camera

Lee

 

[John Koehrer]

Why would you use the lesser camera and keep the better, more useful one as a backup?

Har, Har, Har!

 

[dougjgreen]

Har, Har, Har!

well let's see: Any M-mount R-family Bessa, compared to any Leica under $1000 has:

- an infinitely better light metering system (since no < $1000 Leica other than the CL has one at all)

- a VASTLY better design for loading film into the camera

- a brighter viewfinder, and more tailored options as to framelines available

- an inexpensive winder available

- more efficient film advance and rewind mechanisms

The Leicas have better build quality and snob appeal, but that's about it.

The lenses, of course, can be the same for each.

Frankly, other than the M7, which is a $2500 camera, the M-mount R family Bessas are better. So is the Minolta CLE, and so is the Konica Hexar RF.

And the Konica Hexar RF even has superior build quality to most Leicas.

 

[jglass]

Why "R family"? I'm not familiar enough with the Bessa's to know exactly why you recommend R family. I am currently trying to decide between an older Leica M or a Bessa.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The Bessa cameras with integral focusing rangefinder windows are the "Bessa-R" series (Bessa R, R2a/R2m, R3a/R3m, R4a/R4m). They also made a Bessa-L and a Bessa-T, which had no range/viewfinder windows at all or just a rangefinder without a matching viewfinder (composing was done with lens-matched shoe-mount viewfinders). It is not a reference to Leica R-system cameras, which are SLRs.

 

[Chaplain Jeff]

well let's see: Any M-mount R-family Bessa, compared to any Leica under $1000 has:

- an infinitely better light metering system (since no < $1000 Leica other than the CL has one at all)

And the Konica Hexar RF even has superior build quality to most Leicas.

I bought my M5 for $800 from KEH. Awesome camera with a phenomenal light spot metering system (and unless you own one and are a long time user, don't tell me how they're not "real" M's, or on the same playing field, or any other such nonsense - it's a great camera and definately a Leica). I have no issue with the diversity of lenses the M5 is designed to be used with - my four favorites: 28mm, 50mm, 90mm and 135mm are all included (3 lug later variety).


Not so sure about your other "better" (subjective) comments either, but don't feel like going into them at this point.

 

[dougjgreen]

I bought my M5 for $800 from KEH. Awesome camera with a phenomenal light spot metering system (and unless you own one and are a long time user, don't tell me how they're not "real" M's, or on the same playing field, or any other such nonsense - it's a great camera and definately a Leica). I have no issue with the diversity of lenses the M5 is designed to be used with - my four favorites: 28mm, 50mm, 90mm and 135mm are all included (3 lug later variety).


Not so sure about your other "better" (subjective) comments either, but don't feel like going into them at this point.

My only comment about the M5 is that you must have gotten it a while ago when they were out of fashion, because nowadays, you can't come close to an M5 in good shape for under $1000. There's nothing wrong with an M5, and if you could still get a nice one for $800, I wouldn't have any problem recommending one. But nowadays, they cost well over twice what a brand new Bessa R3 or R4 goes for.

And I still would guarantee that you can't unload a roll of film and load a new one in your M5 anywhere near as fast as any novice could with any Bessa.

 

[lns]

My only comment about the M5 is that you must have gotten it a while ago when they were out of fashion, because nowadays, you can't come close to an M5 in good shape for under $1000. There's nothing wrong with an M5, and if you could still get a nice one for $800, I wouldn't have any problem recommending one. But nowadays, they cost well over twice what a brand new Bessa R3 or R4 goes for.

And I still would guarantee that you can't unload a roll of film and load a new one in your M5 anywhere near as fast as any novice could with any Bessa.

There's one on RFF now for $725.

I think prices for used Ms are lower than you think.

The film loading thing is a bit of a red herring. It is the M2 and M3 that have the removable film take-up spools. Yes, that is more cumbersome. But we are talking a difference of seconds. And in return, the M3/M2 loading is a lot more secure and eliminates any chance of misloading the film, which is also a problem novices tend to have. Speaking from experience.

-Laura

 

[dougjgreen]

The film loading thing is a bit of a red herring. It is the M2 and M3 that have the removable film take-up spools. Yes, that is more cumbersome. But we are talking a difference of seconds. And in return, the M3/M2 loading is a lot more secure and eliminates any chance of misloading the film, which is also a problem novices tend to have.

-Laura

Seconds count - especially when one is talking about quite a few of them. The simple fact is, Leicas have the slowest, most time consuming film loading system of any modern 35mm cameras. EVERY other 35mm camera designed in the last 40 years is FAR superior.

It's not a red herring when the decisive moment of the best photo opportunity passes before you while you are loading the film.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

The simple fact is, Leicas have the slowest, most time consuming film loading system of any modern 35mm cameras. EVERY other 35mm camera designed in the last 40 years is FAR superior.

I have several 35mm cameras (younger than 40 years) which are slower to load than my M6.

In fact, when I load my M6, is is really "securely" loaded: No chance of film leader slipping off or something...

While not ideal, the loading of M-series is certainly not a major problem.

Maybe those who can't handle it should practice their skills.. ;-)

 

[dougjgreen]

I have several 35mm cameras (younger than 40 years) which are slower to load than my M6.

In fact, when I load my M6, is is really "securely" loaded: No chance of film leader slipping off or something...

While not ideal, the loading of M-series is certainly not a major problem.

Maybe those who can't handle it should practice their skills.. ;-)

No need. Unlike most Leica users, I'm perfectly capable of loading Non-Leicas in a manner that is every bit as secure as Leica users can load their Leicas. And I can do it MUCH faster than any Leica user can. And I can also mount the exact same lenses Leica users can, only on a camera with reliable solid-state TTL metering that cost me only a few hundred dollars.

Apparently, Leica users are unable to securely load the film on any normal camera. Which strikes me as a bit puzzling. Perhaps it is they that need to work on their skills - lest the "decisive moment" pass them by as they are fiddling to get the take-up spool back into the camera where it never ought to have left in the first place. It's laughable to hear people trying to rationalize a glaring and archaic design flaw in their > $1000 cameras that no $100 35mm film camera built within the last 40 years suffers from. Perhaps it might be easier if one hand wasn't occupied holding parts of the camera which ought not ever need to be removed from the body itself during the loading process.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

The "archaic design flaw" you are ranting about dates from 1954, perhaps your preferred auto-everything Presciouss did better then?

Also, those archaic cameras used an outdated thing called film...
But if it doesn't autofocus with 12,000 eye-selectable points, auto-compose, auto-expose, shoot 12 frames per second and make coffee, you don't consider it a proper camera, do you?

 

[dougjgreen]

The cameras I am referring to that are superior to Leicas are all FILM cameras. And some of them are Rangefinders.

 

[Q.G.]

The "archaic design flaw" you are ranting about dates from 1954, perhaps your preferred auto-everything Presciouss did better then?

The archaic design flaw hails from much earlier than 1954 too.
And yes, just about every other 35 mm camera did and does it better.

 

[lns]

This is much ado about nothing. Just to insert some reality, I did a quick experiment with 3 manual film cameras. In each case I started with a closed camera and a roll of film. I timed how long it took me to open the camera back or bottom plate, load a roll of film properly (with the sprockets engaged) and close the back or bottom plate. I did not practice beforehand. Here is how long it took me to load the film with each camera:

Leica M2: 23.47 seconds.
Zeiss Ikon: 18.44 seconds.
Nikon FM2n: 14.00 seconds.

Don't judge me too harshly. That includes the time it took me to turn the timer on and off, of course. I'm sure if I practice I could shave a good three seconds off all of these times.

To further handicap the Leica system, I used an M2 for this test. Only the M2 and the M3 have the archaic removable film spool. Every subsequent Leica has a quick load system which I find works as quickly as my Zeiss Ikon.

-Laura

 

[flatulent1]

There's a camera that makes coffee? Just my luck it's designed so you have to turn OFF the 'add cream and sugar' option every time. :munch:

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I did a quick experiment with 3 manual film cameras. In each case I started with a closed camera and a roll of film. I timed how long it took me to open the camera back or bottom plate, load a roll of film properly (with the sprockets engaged) and close the back or bottom plate. I did not practice beforehand. Here is how long it took me to load the film with each camera:

Leica M2: 23.47 seconds.
Zeiss Ikon: 18.44 seconds.
Nikon FM2n: 14.00 seconds.

Cool test!

Of course I *had* to try...

Leica R4: 13 seconds
Nikon FM: 12 seconds
Nikon F: 13 seconds (no appreciable difference when holding back in hand or putting it down)
Exakta Varex IIa: 18 seconds
Leica M6: 16 seconds (seems like the M's "fast load" system does make a big difference - again no noticeable difference when holding bottom in hand or putting it down)
Rolleiflex 3003: 30 seconds* 14 seconds to change magazines (both these figures could undoubted be greatly improved on with a little practice).

So, it takes about 3-4 seconds longer to load a (later) M camera than typical classic SLR... Oh the Horror!!!!

Admittedly, the M is very bad when it come to swapping films mid-roll or removing a roll with the leader left out.



* The Rolleiflex 3003 is an interchangeable magazine camera (think Hasselblad), with a particularly weird film loading procedure.

 

[Robbedoes]

Cool test!
...Rolleiflex 3003: 30 seconds* 14 seconds to change magazines (both these figures could undoubted be greatly improved on with a little practice).
* The Rolleiflex 3003 is an interchangeable magazine camera (think Hasselblad), with a particularly weird film loading procedure.

Hey, a Rolleflex 3003!
Do you still use this camera?

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Hey, a Rolleflex 3003!
Do you still use this camera?

Yes, though not as often as I should...

 

[Robbedoes]

Years and years back I exchanged my Mamiya 64 for a Rolleiflex 3003 at a local shop.
It came with a manual listing a huge collection of accessories. Except for some remote controllers, backs and lenses I never found any of these in the real world...

 

[stradibarrius]

WOW, if changing the film is timed down to the second then you need to go to digital!
I originally asked this question trying to find out a logical inexpensive way to try the RF world out! Even though I don't know much about RF's it doesn't take much knowledge to figure out that if seconds are that critical then maybe the older Leica bodies may not be the best choice for that shooting situation????

Back to my original question, where does the Zeiss Ikon fit in?

 

[Tom Stanworth]

loading a modern leica takes only a little longer than any other 35mm manual camera. If it does the user is doing it wrong. The rigid back is a touch slower - a few seconds - but is no major issue. Its certainly secure, but thankfully I have never had to find out.

I do actually suggest a Leica if one can afford one without too much pain. They are lovely to use, very reliable and intuitive to use (IMO). I spent more on MPs because I felt it worthwhile and mine get used in the field. Just because it was worth it to me does not mean it will be to you of course.... I just felt I forgot about the camera better with a Leica than anythying else. I also get the distinct impression they suffer fewer RF alignment/drift issues than the ZI/Bessas - your mileage may vary of course.

As always, it all depends on what you do, where and how. And we all differ in these critical regards.

 

[dougjgreen]

Keep in mind, we were talking about < $1000 Leicas. To my mind, that precludes the modern ones (M6, M7). If the user's budget is such that they are looking at a $400-700 M-mount Leica, that basically means an M2, M3, or a well used M4.