first rangefinder

[jim10219]

You might consider a Yashica Lynx 14E. They come with a built in light meter and it has a 45mm f:1.4 lens. Viewfinder is kind of hard to read and the light meter is button activated, which can be annoying. But it's a nice camera for the price. It'll be hard to find a faster lens for the money, let alone one attached to a camera body. Also it's large and heavy. But it has a Copal leaf shutter, so it's pretty quiet and won't vibrate the camera when you take a shot.

Personally, I go with one of the Russian rangefinders. They're all really cheap, well built, and have interchangeable lenses, which is nice. Some come with selenium light meters, which may or may not work by now, and if they do work, will almost certain require some compensation. Others don't come with any light meter. I have a Zorki 4 I use with an old Sekonic LC2 hot shoe meter. I have to set my ISO a stop below what the film is to use the light meter, but it works pretty well with that compensation factored in. There are a lot of really nice lenses you can buy for one of those, and most of them aren't ridiculously expensive.

 

[JamieB]

The Canon Canonet QL17 G-III 35mm rangefinder with fixed 40mm f/1.7 lens is a very good option (camera on left).

Another very good option is the Minolta Hi-Matic 9 35mm rangefinder with fixed 45mm f/1.7 lens (camera on right).

I do not put batteries in either rangefinder because I do not use the built-in light meter. Instead, I use a handheld meter. Thank goodness, neither rangefinder needs batteries for taking pictures.



Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr

Hey, this is an aside but I am curious why you blacked out the Canon logo

 

[Sewin]

Personally, I go with one of the Russian rangefinders. They're all really cheap, well built, and have interchangeable lenses, which is nice.

I'm with Jim on this, I've had Zorki 4's,Fed's and Kiev's and to be fair they all worked. The Zorki 4K was my favourite which I sold a couple of years ago.
Zorki 6 is also worth looking at, no meter though.

 

[narsuitus]

Hey, this is an aside but I am curious why you blacked out the Canon logo

I primarily shoot people with my Canon and Minolta rangefinders. The Canon and Minolta logos on the front of the bodies tend to draw too much attention from my subjects so I covered them with black tape. I do not have the same problem with the Fuji rangefinder because I primarily shoot landscapes with it.

 

[cooltouch]

I own a couple of QL17s and I'm quite fond of them. They take excellent photos. Regarding battery power, I use 675 hearing aid batteries, which are very cheap. I buy a big card of -- I dunno, like 40 of 'em or something at Costco for less than $10.

Another camera I'm quite fond of, which is not strictly a rangefinder, since it is more of a range-focus camera is the Oly Trip 35. Excellent photos. The built-in selenium meter doesn't require batteries. Another Oly classic is the XA, a true rangefinder, which is also a great picture taker. Nice and compact as well.

 

[narsuitus]

I do not have the same problem with the Fuji rangefinder because I primarily shoot landscapes with it.

Last Saturday, I was taking a group photo with the Fuji medium format rangefinder and camera did not draw the attention of the subjects until I started winding the film.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It doesn't really matter which first rangefinder it is going to be. Most if not all of affordable ones are old now. The only thing which really matters now due to this, is to get your rangefinder as fully working one and ideally after recent CLA, tested with film.

Was it the question why something blacked out on the rangefinder camera? It is in the rangefinder culture. HCB blackened his M3. Don't know what is M3 and who HCB is? I told you, rangefinders are the cult and culture.

Here is the Rangefinder sub forum on APUG, BTW, if you are into rangefinders.