Cheap entry into rangefinders?

[Ole]

I've ended up with a FED-II (big heavy clunker, but cheap), a (Cosina) Voigtländer Bessa-L (no rangefinder, no viewfinder) and a Bessa-T (good rangefinder, no viewfinder).

All have their different strengths and weaknesses, and all three are cheap. The Bessa-T with a Russian turret viewfinder is great when I need an accurate rangefinder, i.e. if I'm using the Jupiter-9 (85mm f:2) wide open. The Bessa-L is made for wide angle lenses which often come with their own viewfinders anyway, like the CV 12, 15 and 21mm lenses (I have the 15 and the 21mm). anything longer than that and you need either a rangefinder or lots of practice at guess focussing.

The FED, as I said, is a heavy klunker. But still nice with things like FSU 50mm's - FED 50mm f:3.5 - or old Leitz Elmar 90mm or Hektor 135mm lenses. They sort of look more "right" on the FED than on the Bessa-T...

 

[Ole]

Chris, you posted while I was typing!

I sometimes carry a light meter, quite often a Leningrad one (no batteries). But most of the time I just wing it.

 

[mtnbkr]

Ole, how do you like that Bessa T? I've been considering it as a cheap way to get into M mount lenses, but I'd rather have an R3M. The Bessa T and Nokton 40mm isn't much more than the R3M body alone and I can "upgrade" to the R3M down the road...

Chris

 

[tim_walls]

For you folks that shoot with meterless Leicas and FSU rangefinders, do you always carry an external light meter, just wing it, or use some other method to calculate exposure?

Just wing it - start at sunny 16 and then use (my usually poor) judgement. Then again, I don't bother putting slide film or anything too finicky in the Zorki, in that camera I normally shoot HP5+ so it's not nearly so critical.

I do have an Exposure-Mat card (http://expomat.tripod.com/) which I made up, which ought to be an excellent help. Unfortunately, I always forget it; if you're more disciplined you might want to try printing one of those off!

 

[dslater]

BTW, while we're on the subject...

For you folks that shoot with meterless Leicas and FSU rangefinders, do you always carry an external light meter, just wing it, or use some other method to calculate exposure?

Chris

I picked up a Leica MR-4 meter for my M5 ( the built-in meter is non-functional ). The MR-4 mounts on the accessory shoe.

 

[Ole]

Ole, how do you like that Bessa T? I've been considering it as a cheap way to get into M mount lenses, but I'd rather have an R3M. The Bessa T and Nokton 40mm isn't much more than the R3M body alone and I can "upgrade" to the R3M down the road...

Chris

I really like the Bessa-T! It's small, cheap(ish) and accurate; with a M-to-thread adapter and the 85mm f:2 focus was exact on every single shot. Having the rangefinder separate from the viewfinder might take some getting used to, but after using Linhof Technikas and Speed Graphics I didn't even notice that until someone asked me if I found it difficult.

 

[Lee L]

I'm not Ole, and I don't even play him on TV, but I really like the Bessa T. I've shot regularly with both the T and an R3A for a couple of years. The biggest working difference you'll find is the separate viewfinder/rangefinder on the T, and the meter indicator on the body instead of in the finder. The LEDs are easy to see when using the auxilary finders right at your eye, they're angled up at 45 degrees just to the left of the hot shoe. It's also sometimes nice to set the exposure with the camera away from your eye when street shooting, easy with the LEDs on the T body.

With most stock auxiliary finders at 50mm and longer focal lengths you'll get 1:1 magnification with the T, as with the R3A/M. The CV 40mm auxiliary finder is lower magnification. I haven't used a turret finder, although I keep an eye out for a used one. The magnified rangefinder on the T gives more precision when focusing than the R3A/M, so if you're using fast lenses wide open, that's a plus.

Metering on the T is accurate and the body is sturdy, especially considering the price. The T with a CV 28/35 mini-finder is a small package, and not too far off the 40mm mark if you don't mind that. I haven't used the CV 40mm, as I already had two other 40mms M lenses.

The T makes a great second body for film options and/or quick access to a second focal length if you go with a built in finder body later. But there's some chance that you'll find that it does all you need.

In my book, the T is a great bargain, and a very user friendly camera.

BTW, I don't often use mirror lock up when street shooting, but I'm a bit quirky.

Lee

 

[mtnbkr]

I may have to give it more consideration. I really like the blue one on the Cameraquest page, but I'll probably have to "settle" for a silver model.

Chris

 

[srs5694]

For you folks that shoot with meterless Leicas and FSU rangefinders, do you always carry an external light meter, just wing it, or use some other method to calculate exposure?

I don't shoot with a meterless camera all that often, but when I do I generally bring an external meter. I used to use an old GE PR-2, which seemed to produce good results, but I accidentally dropped it and it no longer works. I've also got a Leningrad 4 and a GE Mascot II, but I tend to get more variable results when I'm using them. I keep meaning to check eBay to find another GE PR-2....

 

[Lee Shively]

I'll second (or third, or whatever) an FSU rangefinder. I'm partial to Kievs. I have three with a fourth on order. The lenses can be excellent--when you can find one that's not severely scratched or that has not been taken apart by a camera technician wannabe. I also use a few LTM Russian lenses (with adapters) on my Leica M bodies.

If you can swing paying more, the more recent Voigtlander bodies have good reputations. I consider my CV lenses to be gems when the prices are considered.

You asked about metering when using non-metered bodies. I generally carry a little Sekonic Twinmate L-208 meter. Sometimes, I just wing it. I shoot black and white and I'm pretty confident in my guestimates of exposure.

 

[srs5694]

I'll second (or third, or whatever) an FSU rangefinder. I'm partial to Kievs. I have three with a fourth on order. The lenses can be excellent--when you can find one that's not severely scratched or that has not been taken apart by a camera technician wannabe. I also use a few LTM Russian lenses (with adapters) on my Leica M bodies.

This may have already been mentioned, but among FSU rangefinders, FEDs and Zorkis are Leica clones and use LTM39 lenses, while Kievs are Contax clones and use Contax-mount lenses. These two mounts are incompatible, so lenses for the two classes aren't interchangeable, although I believe some designs are available in both mounts. If you just want a camera to test the rangefinder waters, this difference probably isn't important, although of course you might prefer one type of camera to another. If you plan to build a complete lens collection or buy multiple bodies, the lens mount might be important.

Several other manufacturers made LTM39 cameras, and I believe there are also some that use the Contax mount, although I'm not positive of that. There are lots of options in both mount types. The FSU models are usually the least expensive, but also often the most quirky.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

I'd recommend the Yashica GSN. It has a fine lens and is excellent in B&W. It is also the probably obtainable at the lowest price. The Canonet QL 17 is getting pricey. It is smaller with good glass. I have used them both and have found them very acceptable. As for the Lynx 14 with the wider aperture...I found the camera to be a bit on the heavy side with a difficult patch to work with. (The patch is the focusing area.) The Olympus SP & Minolta 7SII are smaller than the above but I have seen them go for $200+ on ebay. There is also the Konica S2 & S3. I have not used them but they are supposed to have fine lenes. The S3 being hard to find. I have never used the Russian cameras though people claim the J-12 lens is terrific. As for the Olympus XA it is a whole 'nother matter. It is more of a pocket camera for those odd moments. It has a super lens but I feel it falls off at the widest aperture. Look for something small and easy to focus. Obtain at the very least an f/2.0. Most of the above come with f/1.7. There are a number of older and lower priced modes with f/2.8. I would avoid them. They are too slow for low light/street work which is what you would be using the rangefinder for.

 

[Steve Smith]

You could do nicely with an Olympus RC.

Hmmm.

This thread has made me go and put a bid on an Olympus RC. what do I want another camera for?!!



Steve.

 

[Andy K]

Yup. Everytime I think I want a rangefinder for compactness, I realize my OM-1 isn't much larger, certainly not larger than the modern rangefinders and only barely larger than the likes of the Canonet (why I sold mine).

The main reason I'm still interested in a rangefinder is slightly better performance at slow shutter speeds and more interesting lenses (Voigtlander 40mm f1.4 Nokton, yum).

Chris

Just for clarification on the size issue. Here's my OM-1n back to back with my R3M. The OM-1 has a Zuiko 50mm fitted and the R3M has the Nokton 40/1.4 fitted.

 

[leeturner]

Hmmm.

This thread has made me go and put a bid on an Olympus RC. what do I want another camera for?!!



Steve.

It's not a case of want it's a case of need. I've got a couple of RC's and after replacing the foam they are great little cameras. Picked them up for around £20 each so for the price of a box of FP4 sheets I've got a great glovebox camera. For the battery I use a rubber grommet which then lets me use hearing aid zinc air batteries. They're much cheaper than Wein and produce a more accurate and consistent voltage than the silver oxide versions. The Zuiko glass is very underestimated and even on my old Trip I can get sharp results.

Then again, as the pictures show, the OM series is small enough to be carried anywhere.

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Hey, I use a GE PR-2 also.

Are Argus C-3's that bad that no one else suggested them? I had a Yashica Electro 35 given to me, used it & gave to to someone else just before getting GAS.

I like the C-3 and C-3 Matchmatic. As much as some people hate the RF on them, it's easier/faster than my Kodak Medalist. (The Medalist has a magnified RF window, so it really does focus sharply, but the 15 degree eye drop from the viewfinder window is eaily overshot, then the magnification is disorienting, for me anyway, and I have to hunt for something to focus on).

I have 3 Arguses (whatever plural is for Argus). They are all easy to focus, and the only cameras with one other exception I've acquired that have healthy shutters.

 

[Andy K]

The Argus C3 was the camera Tony Vaccaro used for his WW2 frontline photography.

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

I think jazz bassist/photographer Milt Hinton did a lot of work, at least his earlier 'insider' work with one too, according to an interview excerpt I heard before a book was published.

Even with an interest in MF/LF I like the C3 variants

 

[Lee Shively]

I agree that the Oly OM cameras are small and the Zuiko lenses are good. One thing you will notice in the side-by-side with the Bessa is that the OM lens is quite a bit larger than the CV lens. SLR lenses have to be larger than RF lenses to accomodate the automatic aperture mechanism as well as the optical designs required. Some of the 50mm RF lenses I have are as small or smaller than the 50mm enlarging lenses in my darkroom.

 

[andrewc]

Cheap entry into rangefinders...

You could do nicely with an Olympus RC RD DC -with some of those costing upwards of $20. SP will set you back much more. FED/Zorki/etc "leica-like" cost you a bit more -$30-50. Not extremely reliable, either.
Petri's are cheap.

I'd go Olympus RD/RC ..whichever had the 40mm 1.8 lens.
Nearly fully automatic however.

I strongly agree with the 35RC recommendation. It gives you complete manual control if you want it, but autoexposure if you don't. One of the best features is its 'off' switch, which few rangefinders had, and which helps preserve battery life immensely. The 35RC has a 2.8 lens; the RD has a 1.7 40mm, but is a lot harder to find and costs significantly more. A 35DC is the full-auto version of the 35RD, and has the same fast 1.7 lens. It's an awesome camera and doesn't usually cost too much. The 35RC really is an amazing little camera that has an amazingly sharp lens and is very compact. You'll quickly become addicted--trust me.

Andy

 

[Bandicoot]

I use a few of the various fixed lens RFs that have been mentioned, so here's a short comparison between the ones I use and know most well:

Olympus SP - quite light but larger than many of the 'CRF' cameras other than the Yashica Electros (see exceptions below.) The 42mm f1.7 lens is one of the best you will find on any 35mm camera, and the spot meter is very nice to have. Exposure is either programme or metered manual - I wish there was an aperture priority auto option as well but that isn't a major complaint. Mercury battery and 'always on' meter, so keep it in the case when not in use or you'll drain the battery. The 35RC and RD are both smaller and will cost less, but they are less flexible and their lenses are good but not as good as the SP's.

Konica Auto S3 - small and feather light, with a superb 38mm f1.8 Hexanon lens. Shutter priority only however. The system for balancing fill-flash is very clever, if you need that.

Yashica Electro 35CC - this and the 35GX are both smaller than the other Electro 35s but they are surprisingly heavy: lots of brass. The CC has a rather nice lens 35mm f1.8 lens, so its angle of view is a little wider than most of the other CRFs. Aperture priority only. The GX is another very nice camera, but without that slightly wide lens (though may be preferred to the CC by anyone who wants to use flash with it, and it adds a parallax correcting viewfinder.) Top film speed setting is only ISO 500. The CC is hard to find, and both it and the GX are nice but I feel are over-priced when compared to something like the Konica S2 or S3.

Ricoh 500 RF - this is the outsider in this group with a 40mm f2.8 lens that is not as good as the others listed. But it's not at all bad, and the camera is small and light with a really nice and intuitive control layout. Shutter priority or metered manual. These are a bargain. I believe the 500 ME is the same but adds multiple exposure capability. Both take a rather cute clockwork winder which is fun rather than being especially useful.

Rollei XF 35 / Voigtlander VF135 - these two cameras are identical as far as I can tell. Very lightweight, excellent 40mm f2.3 lens, but programme only exposure. The Rolleis can be pricey, but the Voigtlander versions can be a bargain and these are so light that they make very nice back-up cameras.

To the suggestions of an Olympus OM1 as an alternative tool for street photography, I would add the Pentax MX as a similarly sized SLR that works well in this role. With the 40mm f2.8 'pancake' lens it is very pocketable indeed, and you still have the choice of other lenses: for street work the excellent Pentax 50s and some nice 35s are well worth a look.

Probably for daylight street photography the Olympus 35SP is my favourite from this list, followed by the Yashica Electro 35CC. In lower light I like the Konica better. All are nice and they all have their own 'character'. Actually, character is one of the reasons that these rangefinders can get so addictive..


Peter

 

[Anscojohn]

For a cheap entry into a bit more than point and shoot types, I echo the comments about the Kiev IV. It is a lot of bang for the buck. At different times, I owned both an original Contax II and the Soviet Kiev IV clone and sold both. I regretted selling the Kiev more than the original.

For an amateur camera, the Canonet GIII with the 40 mm 1.7 lens cut a very sharp image, as has been mentioned also. The mercury battery for the meter/exposure control system is no longer a problem.

John, Mount Vernon, VA USA

 

[Anscojohn]

Oh, I forgot. If you do not mind the rather largish size, the Konica Auto S2 also cut a very sharp image.

 

[polaski]

Going very. very basic

I use Retina II and IIa rangefinders, and have recently been delighted with a Voigtlander Vito B (which is not a rangefinder, but more about that below).

Using a meterless camera is more challenging, but using an analog light meter (like my Gossen Luna Pro) is very educational. Light meters teach you about light. With proficiency, I can take a couple of readings on the street, and then adjust the camera as I move from sun to shade and back. The lightmeter allows me to slow down and use precision when the shot calls for it.

I don't rely on the rangefinder function much. I use depth of field and decent estimates of distance. It's especially easy with the Vito B.

My suggestion would be to read about rangefinders (tons of postings and books/magazine articles) and dip your foot in slowly. While I do use fairly high end digital SLR equipment, a film fixed-lens camera in my coat pocket is a good feeling. Especially when I come to the end of the roll.