Dilemma

[Greg Heath]

I go through this every couple of years. I think allot of us go through this acquisition of gear. WE all become collectors of STUFF. At a certain point we look in our closets full of STUFF and we find what we like. I have grown to love Rangefinders, even though I love my Hasselblad because of that amazing lens. It is soooo crisp. I shoot 99 percent B&W Film.

SLR's... Yes a couple digital's (gag), and some Nikon's, Pentax's and the lovely Spotmatic lines. Great cameras, but they are bulky and have loud shutters at most inappropriate times.

I really love shooting Medium Format with the Fuji GS645S rangefinder, but it too is huge. That lens is absolutely fantastic though. I will never sell it.

But, I really want a Rangefinder. Leica, or Voightlander, or a cheap knockoff, like a FED or Zorki....

Leica, well, I could sell my car, and buy one camera and one lens and it will keep it's value forever, or I could buy a Voightlander R4M and some kind of lens and get away with something cheaper, and it would still be good, but will keep 75% of it's value, maybe, or I could buy a cheap FED or Zorki and putz around and throw my money away. Yes, I do my own Camera maintenance like rebuilding shutters and stuff, so I'm not afraid and have the correct tools.

What are you using for a 35mm Rangefinder ? Thoughts? I want a nice shooter. Sure, I could sell a kidney in Mexico for cash for a Leica, but what are you using that gives you good reliability and a nice crisp lens. I prefer 35mm lens size..


Greg

 

[Fixcinater]

I'll do the normal "recommend what you own" routine here and say that my Canon 7 is 99% the camera my M3 is. Sure the M3 feels more solid and more polished but the 7 is a great camera and is actually better for shooting with due to the back opening up and lack of that protectiveness that I still feel over the M3.

I also have a V-T and had some of the earlier models of Canon's line up but my glasses do not agree with their smaller viewfinders as much.

The Kiev 4A I just sold here was better than the early Canons but not by much and not enough I could use it regularly. The 7 is usable, as is the M3. VT is a nice camera but I don't know if I can get along with it for the rest of my life. Maybe if I got LASIC, didn't need my specs anymore.

The Canon LTM lenses are rising in price now but still good values. Seems like they hold condition (except for the late black models which can suffer from oil haze around the aperture blades which damages the coatings) better than the Leica lenses of the same era.

 

[Jeff Bradford]

I have a Yashica Electro 35 GSN that I actually use regularly, and an Argus C3 that I pull out to get weird looks once in a while. My favorite is a Canonet QL 17, but it needs a repair before I can use it again.

 

[macfred]

What about a well made camera from the 1950's ?

Konica III - Hexanon 1:2 f=48mm - Konirapid MFX shutter

 

[gone]

There's nothing special about Leicas. A lot of it is mythology. They will not hold their value forever (especially as all things are impermanent you may have noticed, especially my hair line, and there is no forever), and this comes from me owning a lot of them over the years. Yeah, they're built very well. Big deal. There's obviously a lot of other cameras that are built well too. Now the lenses, yes, they CAN be special, but not to an earth shattering degree. My $30 Nikkor H 50 2 lens is as good as the old $500 50mm Summicron that I had. Beautiful bokeh, great IQ, sharp even wide open. But it don't take the photos, I do.

I suspect the trap you're currently in is the one many of us get into sometimes. When I was over at RFF years ago, that whole gestalt there will keep you desiring more and more w/ the ridiculous idea that a better camera somehow makes for a better photographer. A quick glance at their galleries will put a halt to that nonsense in a New York second. There's some good folks there of course, but the whole thing is just about gear swapping and gear acquisition. Addiction in other words. Sorry, all the money in the world and all the best gear in the world won't make anyone Ansel Adams. A nice little Konica C35 is a good rangefinder, but cheaply made. Costs a pittance though, so buy 10 or so! I have a 12x18 Tri-X print on the wall from one of those that is just stunning. One of the best photos I ever made. I also have probably 200 or so tack sharp photos made w/ Leicas that just sit in a stack because sharp though they are, they're not very good photos.

Seriously, I could make a lot of good camera recommendations, but that's really not the issue here is it? I suggest putting your gear into a closet for a few weeks and seriously thinking about what your priorities are. Then, get something that suits them. My personal photography improved by leaps and bounds when I sold all that expensive stuff and decided to make photos w/ cheap gear (Argoflex TLR, Nikkormat, 2 olde folders, and a couple of old Canon SLRs). Now the money goes into film, paper and chemicals, where it should go.

 

[02Pilot]

Aside from a "nice shooter," what characteristics are important to you? Interchangeable lenses? Leaf or focal plane shutter? Fully manual controls? Size and/or weight? Determining what you want from a camera should drive the selection process; even something as seemingly minor as the presence or absence of strap lugs can make a difference if that's something that affects how you use the camera.

I've got at least half a dozen rangefinders right now, and I've sold a few others. Each has its charms, but the ones that work intuitively for me are the ones that get used the most. You may need to try a few before you find what works best for you, but answering some basic questions first should get you in the ballpark.

 

[canuhead]

I love using my Leicas and they are wonderful cameras but as others have suggested, you could take the same photos with 'lesser' cameras and still be happy.

 

[film_man]

A couple of points:
1. If you want to try Leica do what I did, buy an R8 body and a 50 Summicron or whatever. If you choose right (eg 35-90mm range) you get the same glass the M bodies have (the non-ASPH lenses) for 1/3-1/2 of the price. I got an R8+50/2R for the less than the price of a 50/2M alone.
2. I wanted to try the rangefinder thing without spending the cash. So I got myself a R3A with a 40/1.4 for £400. I put a few rolls through and now I know whether I like it or not. I actually do like it so the next step was to get a 50/2 Zeiss for it. The reason? I could have a Leica 50/2 but I already have that for the R8 so might as well get something with a different look! I also used Zeiss glass in the past with my F2mN and it is different, yet still spectacular, look compared to the Summicron.

So...I'd say get yourself a Bessa R2A/M (since you like a 35mm lens), slap the cheapest 35mm lens you can find on it and try it out. If you like it then you can always sell what you have for nearly what you got it and get whatever it is your heart desires.

Saying all that, I did fondle with a Leica MP in the Leica shop and my God that is such a nice camera.

 

[darkosaric]

You can find Leica M2 or M5 for 250-300 $/€ and nice 50mm Leitz lens for 100-300 $/€. LTM Barnack are even cheaper.
When I see average income in USA --> Leica is not that expensive, one medium entry dSLR that people in USA are buying in hundreds of millions cost more.

What I want to say is: if you are thinking should I buy Leica - then buy it.

 

[Greg Heath]

Lol. Good advice. Before I bought the Hasselblad I was going to buy an M6.

I have repaired and shot different rangefinders. 35mm, Petri7s, Olympus 35RC, Konica Auto S2, Yashica 35gsn.
They were ok, but the build quality was a bit lacking.

Older types, CLA required on all of them, but not really worth spending the $ on because I could never really get the money back out of them. The 35RC lens is fantastic. I gave it away to a guy in the UK who had never shot a rangefinder and he enjoyed it.

I'm either looking at a Voughtlander R2M or R4M, something with a meter. Reliable. Something with nice glass with Zeiss quality. Maybe even a Zeiss Ikon Rangefinder and a 35mm.

 

[BrianShaw]

What a dilemma... want a rangefinder but don't want to waste money buying a cheap one and don't want to sell a kidney. Good luck, buddy.

But if you ever decide on selling body parts, I heard from my mailman that they sell for the most money in India, followed by Mexico. Don't sell in Indonesia; the market is glutted.

 

[Greg Heath]

Lol

 

[darkosaric]

Look here:

http://photohaus.de/
and here:
http://www.meister-camera.com/

Now when $ is strong in comparing with € it is right time to buy cheap Leica.

 

[BrianShaw]

p.s. Retina II or III. If you can find one for a decent price in working condition you'd be a very happy photographer (and still have kidneys and a car).

 

[Greg Heath]

I will have to look into the Retina. Yeah I need my kidneys as I love beer too.

 

[CropDusterMan]

Here's my take on the whole Leica vs cheaper version...I own a boatload of Canon gear, I was always a Canon guy.
Other than the L-Series lenses, the gear never really holds its value. Look at my EOS 1N RS...it was worth over
2 grand new I think, but now, in mint shape, never fetch more than a few hundred on Ebay. Try and find a Leica M4
or M6 or 35 F2 Summicron on the cheap...won't happen. Leica's hold their value, forever. If I pay $1200 for an M4-P,
I can sell it in 5 years for the same amount. One camera that also seems to hold its value is the Konica Hexar AF.
It is an incredible camera, and you are not doing yourself an injustice to buy one.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Greg,

Two thoughts.
1. Zorki and FED are cheap, but they aren't knockoff.
2. You are way too off about Leica costs.


I don't own Hasselblad or Rolleiflex, too expensive for me, but I do own Leica. And it will be easy to get one for you under one simple principle. Buy Leica to shot, not to keep is as collection item.
With this approach you could get "user" M leica in $500 range. Decent 35mm lens isn't expensive either. You could get Jupiter-12 to start, under $100.
LTM Color Skopar 35 2.5 between $200-300 or LTM 35 3.5 Summaron which is in the same price range.

I have M mount googled Summaron 35 3.5, which I paid under $300 this year, recently purchased collapsible Summicron under $400 and 90mm Elmar F4 for $80. None of those are for collectors, but in clean and working condition.

I do not recommend FSU RFs if you like 35mm lens. 99% FSU RFs are for 50mm lens and for 35mm you would have to deal with external VF, which is big and clumsy, or light and expensive, or light and primitive.

Voigtlander... unfortunately, it seems to be no parts, no service almost, except Japan, while Leica CLA and repair is something available locally.

Best regards,
Ko.

 

[Greg Heath]

Thanks for all the replies so far. Lots to think about. )

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...A quick glance at their galleries will put a halt to that nonsense in a New York second. There's some good folks there of course, but the whole thing is just about gear swapping and gear acquisition. Addiction in other words...

To be honest, the same is here, IMO.

 

[fotch]

The only way to get over the Leica thing is to just get one. Save up. It will be cheaper in the long run.

 

[Jim Jones]

The photographer who is experienced in SLRs and larger format gear shouldn't invest much in a rangefinder without really trying one first. Testing a cheap rangefinder is no way to determine the suitability of a Leica. Most great cameras, even Leicas, have idiosyncrasies. The removable bottom of Leicas like the removable back of a Nikon F was awkward when reloading on the run. The mirror lock-up on the Nikkormat was stiff, but better than that on a Nikon F. The shutter dial on the Nikkormat was logical for the engineer, but not for the photographer. The viewfinder on early Leicas was designed for compactness, not for performance. Some photographers never seem to warm up to rangefinders, others grow to love them. I often prefer the M4 bought new in 1970 over the Nikons, Nikkormats, Miranda, Pentax, and a few cheap SLRs also used. However, a decent SLR is obviously more practical for macro photography and long telephotos. If I could use only one 35mm camera for the rest of my life, it would be a Nikon F. However, I'd really miss the old faithful M4.

 

[snapguy]

Min

Minolta AL. Solid as a rock. Shutter to 1/1000 plus a 45mm f2 lens. Not expensive. Dream machine.

 

[frank]

You can buy a used Leica body M2,3,4,5 for the same price as a new Bessa. The used Leica will likely outlast the new Bessa. They don't build them the way they used to.

For lenses, it's silly IMO, to pay thousands of $ on a Leica lens, since its only 135 format. You can achieve higher technical results with a medium format camera and lens costing a few hundred. the difference in brands of lenses is small. I get fine results with FSU, canon, and CV lenses for just a few hundred. I do own some vintage leitz lenses, but their strength is in their optically "flawed" character, like the Summar 50f2.

 

[OptiKen]

I want a Leica.....and a Tesla car and a place on the beach and a......
Now that I have that out of my system, I can also say that I enjoy shooting with a rangefinder more than any other type of camera. It will sound nuts but the ease of an SLR or new digital is anti-climatic to me. For me, the journey through a rangefinder is far more satisfying than the quick 'click' and you're done.

I mainly shoot old Russian cameras because that is what I can afford....I love the Zorki 4A and the Fed 2. To me, they are a pleasure to use. I also like shooting my Zorki 1 due to it's compactness. I have a couple of Kiev 4A cameras that I often use as well but they don't feel quite as 'finished' as the Fed or Zorki.
I rarely experience a 'glitch' with the cameras. Once in a while after changing shutter speeds they may not quite catch up to the change and the shutter will sound like it is reacting slower than I expected. Once I had the top ribbon on a shutter come loose so that it left a large gap when the shutter fired. Most of my problems with the cameras however have been user error. Not trimming the film leader right when loading one of the old bottom loaders, etc. One of my Kievs had the bottom replaced with one that is for a different camera so that after the roll of film was done, I discovered that there was no re-wind button on the bottom. (darkroom to unload and then re-wind).

All in all, I think they are wonderful cameras with really great glass. Someday I'll get a Leica I'm sure. But I bought the Russian ones to see if I even liked rangefinders (or 35mm for that matter - I was used to medium format). Now that I am sure, I'll save up my nickles, dimes, and quarters until I find one I like and can afford. In the meantime, I am shooting and developing and loving it.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have and have had many rangefinders, including Leica, I used a M2 and M3 while in the Air Force and bought a IIIG but found that the Canon 7 or 7s while may not be as well made was overall more functional. True the screw mount lens are not as quick to change as a bayonet but not too slow as to be unusable and the Canon is easer to load. Canon lens are excellent, so either a Canon P or 7 is well worth considering if you find one in good repair.

I was given a Retina III C big in 1965 while still in high school, still have it. Retinas have a different DNA than other rangefinders, the rangefinder does not couple with the front lens elements for the 80 or 35mm, has the interlock shutter aperture combo, the light meter is not coupled to the lens, but the standard 50mm 2.0 is a great lens. The camera has a good feel, meters in EVs, change the shutter speed and the aperture is locked to the shutter and is adjusted automatically. I know of some who took the interlock off, the just hated it. Folds up nicely. The IIIS has true interchangeable lens but is not a folder has many of the same quirks of the III C, and lens are somewhat slow, one of the reasons to own a rangefinder is fast glass. If you are up to learning the oddities of Retina, you may want to look into a Retina II or III.

For fixed lens rangefinders there are many with excellent lens, Olympus RC, Konica S3, Canon QL 1.7 to name just a few.

I have not owned a Russian copy, Federal or Contex copy, the few that I have handled did not impress me, others seem to like theirs.

Bessa's seem to be well liked, both the screw mount and M mount versions. Good selection of lens, known for wides.

In terms of price and value I would start with a fixed lens rangefinder with a good quality fast lens like the Konica S3 or Canon QL 1.7, if you like using it then consider selling the kidney for a Leica.

And if you are selling body parts for your habit, then you might want to look at a Konica Hextar M, uses M mount glass, takes up to a 135, built in 2 FPS winder, 1/2000 shutter, and the Konica 50mm is an excellent lens, set you back more than a Leica.