Can Someone Help Me Decide Between Getting a 35mm SLR or Rangefinder Film Camera?

[manfrominternet]

Hi all,

Before I begin, I apologize if this has been asked before. I've been working my way a$$-backwards from large format (Linhof Technikardan 45S) to medium format (Pentax 67II & Fuji GW690III), and now would like to make the jump to 35mm film photography. However, I don't know whether to pick an SLR or a Rangefinder. I know, I know - the Pentax 67II is just a hulking SLR and the Fuji GW690III is just a massive rangefinder, but I don't know how that translates down to the 35mm format, if at all.

So, if you're asking yourself, "why the hell does this guy want a 35mm film camera when he already has cameras that are probably technically more capable than what any 35mm film camera can do?" Well, the answer is simply that I can't run and gun and just whip out the Pentax 67II or the Linhof 4x5, or even the Fuji GW690III (since it has a fixed lens), take a photograph, and wrap it all up in under a minute. I tend to photograph around areas where there are some security guards (oil refineries, warehouses, etc.), and I can't tell you how many times I almost got the photograph I wanted only to have it all be ruined at the very last second before I hit the shutter by an approaching security guard, who always kick me out or threaten to call the police. I occasionally gently remind them that I'm on photographing from public property, where I photograph from 95% of the time (as well as the fact that I'm just a photography student in university), but I learned the hard way that that just pisses them off even more. Nonetheless, I'm not looking to make any trouble for anyone.

So, that said, I'm looking for something small (hence 35mm film), relatively light, with a good internal exposure meter, that doesn't require a tripod. Here are the cameras I have in mind. If any of you can chime in and help me narrow this list down (or even recommend some cameras not on this list) that would be much, much appreciated:

Rangefinders:
Contax G2 (or even G1)
Voigtlander Bessa R2A (w/35, 50, 75, 90 frame lines)
Voigtlander Bessa R4A (w/21, 25, 28, 35, and 50 frame lines) I suppose I tend to shoot more wide angle, but maybe the R2A would be better just because of the additional options of 75mm and 90mm frame lines)
Konica Hexar RF

SLRs:
Minolta Dynax 7 (also known as the Maxxum 7 or a-7)
Contax N1
Pentax MZ-S
Nikon F6

Anyway, many thanks again!

 

[Duceman]

Taking a quick look at your list, the one thing that pops out at me is the range in prices for the cameras you've listed. For example, what you will be dishing out for a Contax G2 is nowhere near what you'll be spending on the Maxxum 7. In that regard, do you have a particular budget in mind? If so, that might be a driving factor in recommending which camera to get.

Otherwise, my advice would be: Try to get all of 'em!

 

[BrianShaw]

35mm camera is an important part of any photographer’s arsenal. Pick one, any one; they all will make photographs.

I use both types and find SLR to be most useful.

 

[drmoss_ca]

My experience is that one works better with one or the other. After 126 Instamatics and a Trip 35, my real cameras were SLRs. But there came a time when I bought into the story about rangefinders. The speed of focusing, the ability to see outside the framelines, the small size, lightness, quietness, the whole mythos of rangefinder magic. All perfectly valid and relevant points. But after some years of using 35mm film and digital rangefinders from Germany and medium format ones from Japan, I eventually realised I was still an SLR person. Probably there are those with very flexible brains who can work equally well with either.
So the only sensible advice I can give is to borrow or buy as cheaply as possible an example of each and try them out. If you're a photography student you probably can arrange a brief loan and figure out what works best for you.
A secondary consideration is that there are just a few things that SLRs can do that rangefinders don't do well. Macro photography and the like. None of that may bother you. Just enjoying the camera in your hands is what makes the photos come out the best!

 

[wiltw]

If you want to use a FL longer than about 135mm, you will need to use SLR because the framing outlines are not provided for longer than about 135mm on most rangefinder 135 cameras. Similarly, WA wider than about 28mm entails the need for supplemental finder rather than the built in rangefinder.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A short list. Others may copy and add entries.

Range Finder Pros:
Usually quieter shutters
Parallax offset
Cannot see the actual focus at the subject

Range Finder Cons:
Cannot see the depth of field, only the range scale
Using polarizors inconvenient and can be inaccurate
Smaller view finders
Only manual focus

SLR Pros:
Actually see the focus at the subject
No Parallel offset
Set iris down and see the depth of field, most lenses can also see the range scale
Using polarizors - what you see is what you get
Larger view finders
Some cameras have interchangeable view finders
Choice of manual focus only or auto focus which can also be used as manual focus

SLR Cons:


I have a 4"x5" Graflex Model D and Pacemaker Speed Graphic, Hasselblad 503 CX and Hasselblad 903 SWC. I have several types of 35mm cameras but I prefer the Nikon N75, N80 and F100 which are all AF.

 

[reddesert]

There's a huge variation even among the cameras you listed. For example, do you want auto focus, or auto focus with a good manual focus option, or manual focus? What focal lengths do you like? Do you require advanced light metering, or just a simple centerweighted light meter, or are you ok with using a handheld meter and supplementing it with intuition? How small is "small"? Like, any 35mm is small compared to a Pentax 67, but few people would call a Nikon F6 small.

The thing with 35mm is that even with recent upticks in film camera prices, there are a ton of used 35mm cameras out there that cost a small fraction of their original prices. One could get a Olympus OM and lens (MF SLR) or a Nikon N90s and a lens (AF/MF SLR), and a fixed lens rangefinder (Canonet or Konica or Minolta), and try them both out for under $200 probably, then make informed decisions on more expensive options. Similar options exist under many brand names, not just the ones I mentioned.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a Minolta 7, does not have the build quality or top end shutter speed of the Minolta 9, it will work with all lens including full frame Sony A lens, so all A mount lens 5 and 8 pin will work. The 7 was released after the 9 which had to be factory modified to work with motor driven lens. And there are some very good lens for not much money. Pentax MZ S is another good choice as is the PZ 1, the MZ S was the last pro level Pentax body, I have a PZ1, very good camera, but I like the Minotla 7 a bit better. Not on your list, Minolta 800si, was top of the line, will only work with gear driven lens, great features, a battery grip is a nice addition as it allows you to shoot with AA batteries.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

If you are buying for the purpose of making pictures then the first question is: what sort of photographs do you enjoy making?

* * *​

If you buy gear for the pleasure of having gear (GAS), well this is the forum for sufferers of this affliction. In this case if you buy an RF you will promptly pine for an SLR and vice versa. Buy one of each and get it over with.

 

[Craig75]

Contax g series aren't rangefinders.

Honestly for the price of some of the cameras you've listed you could get an could just as well get a nikon f90 and see how you like an slr. If not Yr out $50. If you do.like it then get an f6.

Similarly you could get a Canon rangefinder and try that out. If you like it get a leica m3 and then use Yr Canon lens on it. If you don't like it Yr out $200 and just sell it.

 

[gone]

Or, just but something, anything in the 35mm format, and it just might work out. If you want small, light and all that, either one works. I shoot portraits often, and a RF is not so good for this, you need to see through the lens to know exactly what you have in the frame. Some cameras have a DOF button, but I never needed that. After a roll or two you know what you'll get. My Nikon SLR w/ a heavy Leicaflex 90 lens is not far from MF size and weight, which is why I bought a tiny and light Pentax MV. I don't have to tote the big gun all the time now, that's a real relief.

 

[Huss]

Contax g series aren't rangefinders.

Yep, they are basically interchangeable lens P&S cameras. No rangefinder. But you do get a tiny squinty viewfinder and the knowledge that when they break, no-one fixes them anymore.

 

[film_man]

Rangefinders:
Contax G2 (or even G1)
Voigtlander Bessa R2A (w/35, 50, 75, 90 frame lines)
Voigtlander Bessa R4A (w/21, 25, 28, 35, and 50 frame lines) I suppose I tend to shoot more wide angle, but maybe the R2A would be better just because of the additional options of 75mm and 90mm frame lines)
Konica Hexar RF

SLRs:
Minolta Dynax 7 (also known as the Maxxum 7 or a-7)
Contax N1
Pentax MZ-S
Nikon F6

So you want something with a meter that is fast to use that doesn't need a tripod.

Some thoughts:
Contax G1/2: fine camera, probably crap for low light autofocus and good luck with manual focus. Personally I had one for a week it arrived broken and was not repairable. That's they way they're all going.
R2/3/4 (A or M): I had the R3A. Great cameras. If you want a rangefinder and don't want to fork out for a Leica then they are a great choice. Beware that R prices have inflated to the point where sometimes you *can* actually get a Leica instead.
Hexar: never used one, read good things about it.

SLRs:
None of you SLR choices make sense. Unless you have the need for some specific lenses with the dead systems (Minolta, Pentax, Contax) I just don't see why?

On to the F6: ok if you have the money great. To me the glaring omission here is Canon. For the price of an F6 you can get yourself a Canon EOS 3/1V and a 35/2 IS. You can shoot at 1/8 and laugh about it, whereas your 6x7 bottoms out at 1/60 before you need a tripod. The thing with the Canons is that you get access to all the latest lenses from Canon. You can get stabilised lenses, you can have fast autofocus, latest optics, etc etc etc. In Nikon land the F6 is great, if the price is an issue the F100/5/80 will do just fine with *most* of Nikon's lenses (but not the latest E ones). Canon also has better choice when it comes to AF lenses, you get 24/28/35 with stabilisation for low prices. You could get a £5 Canon EOS 300 and put a 35/2 IS on it. Put some TMax 3200 on it and you can shoot in the middle of the night without a tripod.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I would just go with Leica R7 for SLR and be done with it. Or even better - R 6.2 for complete mechanical shutter.

 

[Nitroplait]

For someone with large and medium format experience, that is a strange and somewhat arbitrary list.
As much as people in this forum will love to spend your money, your own suggestions are as good as any.
Why don't you just buy something and move along?
Seriously, you can just sell it and use the experience to buy the next candidate. No chance that you will be satisfied with your first choice anyway, but you will be better equipped to make the next.

 

[Les Sarile]

If you're going to go from large to small format then why not go all the way to the smallest fully mechanical SLR but with the largest viewfinder magnification, the Pentax MX?

Smallest 3 by Les DMess, on Flickr

With the 40mm f2.8 pancake lens, it is jacket pocketable.

MX 40mm f2.8 by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[flavio81]

The size difference between rangefinders and SLRs isn't as marked in 35mm as it is on medium format.

I find no reason to use a 35mm rangefinder since owning a Pentax MX and an ME Super (see below). The MX for example has almost no mirror shock. A pentax KX has practically no mirror shock. I can handold those cameas at very low shutter speeds. I own the very same combination shown below by LesDMess (Les Sarile).

I don't find machines like the Nikon F4 or F5 attractive at all, since they weight the same as other medium format cameras. I'd bring my Bronica ETRSi instead of such a monstruous thing.

Many other cameras are very light and easy to use, for example the Canon A-series, the Nikon FM, FE and others.

I own some rangefinders but SLRs allow me to have a perfect check on perspective and composition, and this advantage is big. Also, you can see the image with any lens, there is no need for auxiliary viewfinders. Also, you can easily use (and focus) long lenses, i.e. 135mm and up.

If you're going to go from large to small format then why not go all the way to the smallest fully mechanical SLR but with the largest viewfinder magnification, the Pentax MX?

With the 40mm f2.8 pancake lens, it is jacket pocketable.

MX 40mm f2.8 by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[George Mann]

Your slr list shows us that you prefer autofocus models, is that correct?

 

[Les Sarile]

Your slr list shows us that you prefer autofocus models, is that correct?

Except for the Voigtlanders and Konica Hexar RF

 

[Wallendo]

for what you would pay for an F6, you could buy a quality rangefinder and SLR.
For rangefinder, a Canon 7 would work well. A Leica IIIc of similar would also work, but has fewer features.

for SLR, the Minolta 7 would be a good choice as there are a lot of affordable Minolta and Sony lenses available, usually cheaper than their Nikon and Canon equivalents. Personally, if starting out, I would pick one of the many 35mm AF cameras sold by Minolta, Nikon, or Canon aimed at consumers. You could always upgrade later.

 

[eli griggs]

Since you have Nikon AF cameras, try a Nikon FG, and an adapter that will allow you to use medium format lenses you already have.

For a true rangefinder a later Canon QL17, Japan make, which has a super quite central lens shutter.

For a point and shoot, there are so many good ones out there, but the Olympus MJU (1st) is truly small and carry friendly, but does no allow for filter and meter uses like the Canon QL17 does.

Good luck.

A short list. Others may copy and add entries.

Range Finder Pros:
Usually quieter shutters
Parallax offset
Cannot see the actual focus at the subject

Range Finder Cons:
Cannot see the depth of field, only the range scale
Using polarizors inconvenient and can be inaccurate
Smaller view finders
Only manual focus

SLR Pros:
Actually see the focus at the subject
No Parallel offset
Set iris down and see the depth of field, most lenses can also see the range scale
Using polarizors - what you see is what you get
Larger view finders
Some cameras have interchangeable view finders
Choice of manual focus only or auto focus which can also be used as manual focus

SLR Cons:


I have a 4"x5" Graflex Model D and Pacemaker Speed Graphic, Hasselblad 503 CX and Hasselblad 903 SWC. I have several types of 35mm cameras but I prefer the Nikon N75, N80 and F100 which are all AF.