+1 on that. I have a 7 and a P -- the downside of the 7 is the lack of of accessory shoe and it's a bit large, but the viewfinder is the best of the Canon RFs. The P is also a good camera. Both take Leica screw mount lenses. The 7 has a selenium meter which is OK in a pinch.
In your opinion, what are the best non-Leica rangefinders ever built?
-
A
- Thread starter manfrominternet
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: One of a kind Canonet QL17 GIII, PANDA
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale 3.25x4.25 adox CHS 100 II
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Fuji fp3000b & Fp100c fridgestored
- Started by belichten
Forum statistics
+1 on that. I have a 7 and a P -- the downside of the 7 is the lack of of accessory shoe and it's a bit large, but the viewfinder is the best of the Canon RFs. The P is also a good camera. Both take Leica screw mount lenses. The 7 has a selenium meter which is OK in a pinch.
Not all Soviet era rangefinders are equal. The Kiev factory actually acquired Zeiss equipment and personel. The early cameras are very comlarable to a Contax ii and the lenses are zeiss designs. Early 1950s Kiev is super to use and doesnt get in the way. Fall off in quality with time.
Fed not in the same league in my experience.
There are images of them o the web just google the name, however here are two. I have only seen one other than the one I owned and that was a well worn example with damaged shutter (someone had pushed a finger through the curtains). I forgot to mention the lens it was a 50mm F1. and had a 39mm screw thread the same as a Leica. I did have 90mmF4 Elmar for it and it coupled up nicely to the rangefinder.
Attachments
Rare and very expensive. Dearer than an equivalent era leica.
A few years ago I was contemplating selling my Leica gear given the prices this gear was bringing in return. After doing a bit of research, I decided to pick up a Minolta CLE as a possible replacement for my M6. In the end I wound up keeping both cameras and can say that I really enjoy the CLE. As was common at the point in time that the CLE was developed, the light meter does not work in manual mode. While somewhat disappointing, I tend to use the CLE in automatic mode most of the time anyway. I also wound up acquiring the 40mm and 28mm M-Rokkor lenses. I like the viewfinder of CLE and find the 28mm frame lines to be easy to use, though I should note that I do not wear eyeglasses.
Upon arrival I discovered that the CLE I purchased had an issue with the "jumping LEDs" in the display. I found a useful website that showed me everything I needed to know to disassemble the camera enough so that I could get to the electrical contacts associated with the light meter located underneath the shutter speed dial. I cleaned them up and the problem hasn't returned since then. This was not hard to do. As far as CLE repairs in general go, word is that Scott Nielsen in Oakdale, CA (http://scottnielsenphoto.com) does a good job. Apparently Scott was trained at Minolta back in the day. Good luck with your decision.
Upon arrival I discovered that the CLE I purchased had an issue with the "jumping LEDs" in the display. I found a useful website that showed me everything I needed to know to disassemble the camera enough so that I could get to the electrical contacts associated with the light meter located underneath the shutter speed dial. I cleaned them up and the problem hasn't returned since then. This was not hard to do. As far as CLE repairs in general go, word is that Scott Nielsen in Oakdale, CA (http://scottnielsenphoto.com) does a good job. Apparently Scott was trained at Minolta back in the day. Good luck with your decision.
Ilford Witness gets my vote: https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Witness.html
Now you are talking really silly money, no, - make that stupid money. Two years ago Southerby's auction house in London sold one for well into a five figure sum. It is just rarity value, I don't see them as being any better than a late screw fitting Leica 111F or 111G
The camera was not a commercial success partly because of poor marketing, partly because of under-development e.g lack of lenses and accessories compared to Zeiss and Leitz cameras, and partly because insufficient people in the UK had the money to buy such a camera.
They only made 350, which is why they are expensive now.
@manfrominternet - while it seems that you've received much more input on cameras other than those you've inquired about, I do hope that you are successful in finding a rangefinder camera that you'll be happy with.
The way I look at things, when it comes to photography gear purchases (just as with so many other things), variables like price, quality/durability, availability and technical specifications all play a role. But generally speaking, one typically chooses a camera body for the user experience it provides while we go about capturing/creating images. Lenses on the other hand are often chosen for the way they tend to render those images. Of course lenses also contribute to the overall user experience, but not quite to the same extent that the camera does in my opinion.
With that in mind, here is the only other relevant information that I might be able to add: Back in 2000 when I was looking to make the switch to a rangefinder system, in addition to the Leica M, I also considered the Contax G system. In my case I just couldn't get comfortable with these cameras despite the wonderful reputation of the lenses. That is not at all to say that the G series with their Zeiss lenses aren't capable of producing amazing images. But when it came to the user experience involved in capturing those images, this system just didn't appeal to me. In my opinion, the Contax G1 is definitely a camera that you should try before you buy if at all possible. Short of that, my other suggestion would be to buy from a retailer with an excellent return policy if you can This might not be realistic when it comes to the availability of certain models, but it is something to keep in mind.
The way I look at things, when it comes to photography gear purchases (just as with so many other things), variables like price, quality/durability, availability and technical specifications all play a role. But generally speaking, one typically chooses a camera body for the user experience it provides while we go about capturing/creating images. Lenses on the other hand are often chosen for the way they tend to render those images. Of course lenses also contribute to the overall user experience, but not quite to the same extent that the camera does in my opinion.
With that in mind, here is the only other relevant information that I might be able to add: Back in 2000 when I was looking to make the switch to a rangefinder system, in addition to the Leica M, I also considered the Contax G system. In my case I just couldn't get comfortable with these cameras despite the wonderful reputation of the lenses. That is not at all to say that the G series with their Zeiss lenses aren't capable of producing amazing images. But when it came to the user experience involved in capturing those images, this system just didn't appeal to me. In my opinion, the Contax G1 is definitely a camera that you should try before you buy if at all possible. Short of that, my other suggestion would be to buy from a retailer with an excellent return policy if you can This might not be realistic when it comes to the availability of certain models, but it is something to keep in mind.
While I own and enjoy the Contax G1's I do agree with Guth about certain cameras just not suiting certain people. Some folks here will not buy a certain camera because there are no repairmen that will work on them. When I bought my G1 "green label" I paid $171.00 for the body in near mint condition and even less for the plain G1. Now the prices are a little higher. If my "green label" G1 pulled up lame, I don't think I could have got it repaired for that price ($171.00) even if there was a repairman willing to do the work. So, I guess that made it a "throw away, buy another" camera, which is why I bought the plain G1 as a backup. I also bought a non-working parts G1 and took the LCD panels out and tucked them away just in case. The part's camera cost very little at that time and was worth it to me for spare parts.
I wish it had a slightly larger viewfinder, but being AF it really isn't as important as it is in a manual focus rangefinder, so I can live with it the way it is. I just checked the big auction and G1's certainly aren't as cheap as they were a few years back, but clean bodies are just a tad over $300.00, which isn't too outrageous. For that price one could try the camera and maybe the 45mm f2 and if it's not your cup of tea you could get your money back by selling it. Worth a try? Of course, once you see your results, you might be stuck with the camera.
I wish it had a slightly larger viewfinder, but being AF it really isn't as important as it is in a manual focus rangefinder, so I can live with it the way it is. I just checked the big auction and G1's certainly aren't as cheap as they were a few years back, but clean bodies are just a tad over $300.00, which isn't too outrageous. For that price one could try the camera and maybe the 45mm f2 and if it's not your cup of tea you could get your money back by selling it. Worth a try? Of course, once you see your results, you might be stuck with the camera.
All good points, and it doesn’t take that long to get $171 of enjoyable use out of that camera body if you like using it. And what great cameras they are! I don’t think we do ourselves favors when we think of cameras as something to leave to our grandchildren, as opposed to buying them to use productively for a period of time.
I think I got 15 years or so out of my Contax G cameras before one of them started having problems and I moved on to a Zeiss Ikon system. The Ikon developed an electronic issue after about five years - so my idea of buying a simpler camera didn’t help much! - but the Ikon works fine now and I love the thing. I think I bought it in 2010 or so, and as far as I’m concerned that camera has already repaid me the purchase price and then some, so if it should have an unrepairable issue tomorrow I’ll get over it with no regrets and put the M lenses on something else. Probably another Ikon.
I'll leave this here: https://xkcd.com/309/
Stating the obvious, the Contax G1 and G2 are not rangefinder cameras. They are af cameras which happen to look like a rangefinder camera. You’ll notice this immediately if you try to focus them manually.
I mention this because of the thread title.
I mention this because of the thread title.
Canon P. Metal shutter, proper advance, better viewfinder than Leica until M4.
Hmmmm, loads of good info here, to which I can't take exception...errr, well, except for one thing: I can't at all recommend, if you can afford a decent camera, buying a Soviet camera. I've handled a few, and while it's possible to make good photos with one, doing so can be very, very challenging, depending on your camera/lens/both. That's partially because, unlike with Leica, Minolta, and several of the other better quality cameras mentioned here, Soviet cameras and lenses tend to have quite a lot of variation--in areas where, really, by design they weren't supposed to. The results vs. effort ratio with those things can be very low indeed.
The only Soviet camera I ever owned--I've still got it, in some box somewhere--is a Zorki 4K. I did my research before I bought it on eBay, and picked that model and specimen because of the large viewfinder with diopter adjustment, the fact it was a later-model camera and so theoretically more "advanced," had a decent reputation compared to other Soviet rangefinders, was in very good condition, and came with a Jupiter-8 lens.
The lens was not bad--I actually used it for a while with an LTM-M adapter when I finally acquired an M3--but again, not very nice ergonomically. The aperture ring has no click stops, so it's easy to move it accidentally during shooting, the F-stops aren't equally spaced on it, it *feels* cheap (aluminum barrel), etc. The camera? Yeesh.
It did look in very good condition on arrival. And I managed to make a few photos with it--I think, I never did get to see them. But then the mechanism inside seemed to just sort of fall apart, and the rewind didn't work when I tried to at least salvage the roll of film. Even if the camera *had* worked, it was not anything like a Leica, or other even ergonomically friendlier camera. To load film, it wasn't just the bottom that came off the camera--both the bottom and the back (as a single unit), come off. While it did have diopter adjustment, the adjustment lever moved far too easily so you'd have to continually readjust it. The shutter speed dial was finicky--if I recall correctly, you'd *better* not try to change the shutter speed before cocking it. And it felt egregiously heavy--not in the Leica way, where the cameras do tend to be heavy, but that's because they're full of finely engineered, high quality, (nearly) all-metal parts. The Zorki felt like it was heavy just because no one had bothered to refine the thing to the point that it made as efficient use as possible of the metal in it.
To me, a camera is like a musical instrument--you want to be able to pick it up and just play it, and you don't want anything to interfere with you getting your groove on with it. (I've heard guitarists describe certain instruments as sounding sweet, but being a b***h to play. Generally, they prefer to use a guitar that has both a sweet sound and is at least relatively easy to play.) You can get some sweet images, sometimes, from Soviet cameras--but many of them are not at all fun to play, and just the effort and discomfort involved with trying to get them to play properly is frustrating and counterproductive to making nice images.
Sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone. And, errr, yeah, they *are* cheap, so there is that. But let me be blunt: I have yet to see or handle a Soviet rangefinder that wasn't basically relative crap next to loads of various fixed-lens rangefinders. Let alone quality interchangeable lens cameras from most non-Soviet manufacturers mentioned here.
Personally, if I was to vote: get the Minolta CLE. They've got their oddities--no metering in manual mode probably being the chief one. But then, if you're shooting with a rangefinder, do you *need* metering anyway unless you're shooting transparency film, isn't everyone using Sunny 16 and capable of just looking at the lighting and getting within a half stop of correct exposure without a meter? Or do folks not do that nowadays? (Personally, while I carry a meter, I generally don't bother with it--I've gotten pretty good at metering with my eyes and brain.) But Minolta makes very nice gear, if you're using autoexposure and your meter works the CLE has an excellent metering system, apparently they are repairable at some places still (I've heard, but can't swear, that some of the electronic bits/PCBs were shared with Minolta's SLRs, and most electronic problems with them are actually dirty contacts/cracked solder joints that are easy repairs vs. circuit boards that do indeed fail entirely), and the 40mm M-Rokkor is a great lens--I once had one for my Leica Ms, and am still regretting that I traded it in on a 35 Summicron Version 2.
The only Soviet camera I ever owned--I've still got it, in some box somewhere--is a Zorki 4K. I did my research before I bought it on eBay, and picked that model and specimen because of the large viewfinder with diopter adjustment, the fact it was a later-model camera and so theoretically more "advanced," had a decent reputation compared to other Soviet rangefinders, was in very good condition, and came with a Jupiter-8 lens.
The lens was not bad--I actually used it for a while with an LTM-M adapter when I finally acquired an M3--but again, not very nice ergonomically. The aperture ring has no click stops, so it's easy to move it accidentally during shooting, the F-stops aren't equally spaced on it, it *feels* cheap (aluminum barrel), etc. The camera? Yeesh.
It did look in very good condition on arrival. And I managed to make a few photos with it--I think, I never did get to see them. But then the mechanism inside seemed to just sort of fall apart, and the rewind didn't work when I tried to at least salvage the roll of film. Even if the camera *had* worked, it was not anything like a Leica, or other even ergonomically friendlier camera. To load film, it wasn't just the bottom that came off the camera--both the bottom and the back (as a single unit), come off. While it did have diopter adjustment, the adjustment lever moved far too easily so you'd have to continually readjust it. The shutter speed dial was finicky--if I recall correctly, you'd *better* not try to change the shutter speed before cocking it. And it felt egregiously heavy--not in the Leica way, where the cameras do tend to be heavy, but that's because they're full of finely engineered, high quality, (nearly) all-metal parts. The Zorki felt like it was heavy just because no one had bothered to refine the thing to the point that it made as efficient use as possible of the metal in it.
To me, a camera is like a musical instrument--you want to be able to pick it up and just play it, and you don't want anything to interfere with you getting your groove on with it. (I've heard guitarists describe certain instruments as sounding sweet, but being a b***h to play. Generally, they prefer to use a guitar that has both a sweet sound and is at least relatively easy to play.) You can get some sweet images, sometimes, from Soviet cameras--but many of them are not at all fun to play, and just the effort and discomfort involved with trying to get them to play properly is frustrating and counterproductive to making nice images.
Sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone. And, errr, yeah, they *are* cheap, so there is that. But let me be blunt: I have yet to see or handle a Soviet rangefinder that wasn't basically relative crap next to loads of various fixed-lens rangefinders. Let alone quality interchangeable lens cameras from most non-Soviet manufacturers mentioned here.
Personally, if I was to vote: get the Minolta CLE. They've got their oddities--no metering in manual mode probably being the chief one. But then, if you're shooting with a rangefinder, do you *need* metering anyway unless you're shooting transparency film, isn't everyone using Sunny 16 and capable of just looking at the lighting and getting within a half stop of correct exposure without a meter? Or do folks not do that nowadays? (Personally, while I carry a meter, I generally don't bother with it--I've gotten pretty good at metering with my eyes and brain.) But Minolta makes very nice gear, if you're using autoexposure and your meter works the CLE has an excellent metering system, apparently they are repairable at some places still (I've heard, but can't swear, that some of the electronic bits/PCBs were shared with Minolta's SLRs, and most electronic problems with them are actually dirty contacts/cracked solder joints that are easy repairs vs. circuit boards that do indeed fail entirely), and the 40mm M-Rokkor is a great lens--I once had one for my Leica Ms, and am still regretting that I traded it in on a 35 Summicron Version 2.
Last edited:
Stating the obvious, the Contax G1 and G2 are not rangefinder cameras. They are af cameras which happen to look like a rangefinder camera. You’ll notice this immediately if you try to focus them manually.
I mention this because of the thread title.
They are rangefinder cameras, just auto focus.
Where is the rangefinder patch? Try and manually focus a G1 or G2.
Exactly what i said earlier, and I’ve owned a few!
Im going to be that Commie bastard here but I'd like to nominate the Zorki-5.1 and Leningrad for the honorable mention LTM crowd, with one caveat, hear me out for a second.
IF and that's a big IF you can find one that has been fully sorted and given a full actual CLA. I own both. The RF on the Z5.1 is HUGE and very bright, nice and contrasty. Better than my IIIc. The shutter is much quieter than most Soviet rangefinders and with a collapsible I-50 I can slip it in my pocket.
Leningrad, because they're cool and the split viewfinder with framelines for 35, 50, 85 and 135 is definitely cool. Love the winder. The loading is a bit tricky but with good lenses you can get good results if you look in my gallery there's a friend of mine who modeled in front of a MiG-15 we did that on a Leningrad and Jupiter-3 50/1.5
Are they as smooth and quiet as a Leica IIIc? Maybe the Z5.1, if I had to live with one the rest of my life it would probably be a sorted IIIc since it mounts my Russian lenses with more accuracy and consistency than the Russian cameras they were made for and all of my money is tied up in the lenses.
IF and that's a big IF you can find one that has been fully sorted and given a full actual CLA. I own both. The RF on the Z5.1 is HUGE and very bright, nice and contrasty. Better than my IIIc. The shutter is much quieter than most Soviet rangefinders and with a collapsible I-50 I can slip it in my pocket.
Leningrad, because they're cool and the split viewfinder with framelines for 35, 50, 85 and 135 is definitely cool. Love the winder. The loading is a bit tricky but with good lenses you can get good results if you look in my gallery there's a friend of mine who modeled in front of a MiG-15 we did that on a Leningrad and Jupiter-3 50/1.5
Are they as smooth and quiet as a Leica IIIc? Maybe the Z5.1, if I had to live with one the rest of my life it would probably be a sorted IIIc since it mounts my Russian lenses with more accuracy and consistency than the Russian cameras they were made for and all of my money is tied up in the lenses.
They don’t work the same was as manual focus rangefinders. Manually focusing them is not fun for sure.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |