In your opinion, what are the best non-Leica rangefinders ever built?

[Pioneer]

I love the Fuji GF670. Awesome camera on paper. In real life mine ended up in the shop 3 different times so I finally sold it. For all I know it is still working fine for the guy who bought it but it sure didn't like me.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

Holy crap, that baselength...

108mm base length plus 1.6 times magnification gives an effective base length of 172mm. It was designed for accurate focusing with a proposed but not built 254mm telephoto lens.

 

[manfrominternet]

I love the Fuji GF670. Awesome camera on paper. In real life mine ended up in the shop 3 different times so I finally sold it. For all I know it is still working fine for the guy who bought it but it sure didn't like me.

I will admit that the Fuji GF670 is fragile indeed, particularly when the lens is unfolded. Accidentally damaging it in any way has been a worry for me, but the lens on it is so utterly fantastic, even giving a decent lens on a 4x5 a run for its money, that I still think the camera is totally worth it.

I will admit, however, that I’m trying to block out the siren call of the Mamiya 7!

To those of you who have and use the Mamiya 7, is it really that great of a camera with its 6 lenses? I only ask because I’m considering selling my entire Bronica GS-1 set with its fantastic leaf-shutter lenses to get the Mamiya 7 (or even Mamiya 6).

 

[GregY]

I will admit that the Fuji GF670 is fragile indeed, particularly when the lens is unfolded. Accidentally damaging it in any way has been a worry for me, but the lens on it is so utterly fantastic, even giving a decent lens on a 4x5 a run for its money, that I still think the camera is totally worth it.

I will admit, however, that I’m trying to block out the siren call of the Mamiya 7!

To those of you who have and use the Mamiya 7, is it really that great of a camera with its 6 lenses? I only ask because I’m considering selling my entire Bronica GS-1 set with its fantastic leaf-shutter lenses to get the Mamiya 7 (or even Mamiya 6).

I've had both the Mamiya 6 & 7. I have to admit, I preferred the 6....the collapsible lens mount made it a joy to carry. When I got the Mamiya 7 it seemed like a larger, & different animal. I got by just fine with the 3 lens system of the 6, although the 43mm for 7 was cool, I wouldn't have ended up with the entire set-up of six lenses. The 150 & 210 have just a tiny frame in the viewfinder....small enough to be unusable for me. Add to that the almost 6' minimum focus distance and the 150mm is very limited for portraits.

 

[Pioneer]

I will admit that the Fuji GF670 is fragile indeed, particularly when the lens is unfolded. Accidentally damaging it in any way has been a worry for me, but the lens on it is so utterly fantastic, even giving a decent lens on a 4x5 a run for its money, that I still think the camera is totally worth it.

I will admit, however, that I’m trying to block out the siren call of the Mamiya 7!

To those of you who have and use the Mamiya 7, is it really that great of a camera with its 6 lenses? I only ask because I’m considering selling my entire Bronica GS-1 set with its fantastic leaf-shutter lenses to get the Mamiya 7 (or even Mamiya 6).

Good luck.

I'll stay with the older folders. When I read complaints about the build quality of some of those older folders I just laugh. They are built like friggin tanks compared to that Fuji.

I will agree with one thing though, that lens is almost worth it...almost!

One of these days I'll find that lens and figure out a way to attach it to my Speed.

 

[warden]

108mm base length plus 1.6 times magnification gives an effective base length of 172mm. It was designed for accurate focusing with a proposed but not built 254mm telephoto lens.

Great trivia there. Nice camera too!

 

[Tony-S]

Bronica RF645, ftw!

 

[Yashica]

Meh, just get a Leica M6 or MP and get on with making photos.

Seriously, that's some kind of a-typical behaviour. The M6 is nowadays especially "for posers", or better
being said hipsters and defluencers these days, because because of YT, especially since 2000...when
uninformed people do think about Leica, it's always the M6. In fact, because of that, Leica re-released
this 86 introduced M6 rangefinder into 2022 with the modest updates, ever. And 5500 EUR in 2023 for
a very minor updated M6 is really insane, it's even not the TTL version, for whatever reason(s)...if i'd have
that money to spent, it would be for sure a M-P, but no boring M6, ever. And the back dial on the film
door is plastic, not metal.

The "Leica" CL and Leitz Minolta CL, Minolta CLE all had TTL metering right from the start, 1973-76,
and then 1980 onwards...something, Leica only introduced into the 2002 released M7 series. No hard feelings.

If i'd get a Leica, it'll never be a M6, neither M240, and neither M8/8.2, also not a M3, since i am a 35mm
guy, not 50mm. And there's also the Konica Hexar RF, Bessa M Mount series, Zeiss Ikon ZM, and others.
It's (always) being better, to look over the plate, just than rather always using the same, boring dish again,
and again, and again...to each their own, thankfully, everyone is being different.

 

[Pioneer]

I really think that if a quiet shutter had been the only criteria I would still be shooting my Kodak Retina IIIC. That shutter was absolutely amazing after Chris did his magic with it.

 

[chuckroast]

If i'd get a Leica, it'll never be a M6, neither M240, and neither M8/8.2, also not a M3, since i am a 35mm
guy, not 50mm.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with an M6, M-A, or M-P other than their nosebleed prices. Leica has very reasonably decided to morph into a lifestyle brand, much like Apple or BMW, but that doesn't change the fact that they make very fine products.

Personally, I chose the M2 and the M5. The first is a "pure" M body (and I too us a 35mm lens a lot) and the M5 was something I always wanted since it first came out in 1971. If someone gave me an M6, though, I wouldn't turn it down

BTW, just because poseurs are known for the hipster instinct to buy M6s, shouldn't influence the rest of us one way or the other. I don't let Hollyweird, pop musicians, or politicians to define my life ...

 

[camera_allure]

If we're talking mid-century cameras then Konica III series is just wonderful, particularly the Konica IIIA

 

[Yashica]

If we're talking mid-century cameras then Konica III series is just wonderful, particularly the Konica IIIA

Yes it is. But limited by it's 50/1.8 lens, indeed. Well, as a 35mm shooter, not matching for my taste. Everyone is being different.
Otherwise great, if you like the focal length.

 

[Radost]

Yes it is. But limited by it's 50/1.8 lens, indeed. Well, as a 35mm shooter, not matching for my taste. Everyone is being different.
Otherwise great, if you like the focal length.

Limitations are good for you. I was limited to 40mm for a long time and the limitation made me improve my composition and the way I look at things. Now I am doing the same with 50mm.

 

[George Mann]

Limitations are good for you. I was limited to 40mm for a long time and the limitation made me improve my composition and the way I look at things. Now I am doing the same with 50mm.

I have prefered using a 50mm lens almost exclusively in my 35mm film shooting for over 50 years.

On the otherhand, I find that using my 28mm on my Nikon APS-C digital camera's @ an equivelent of 42mm to be the perfect overall focal length.

 

[shom]

I know I'm quite late to the party but I don't think I saw anyone mention the Bessa R2. I went for that because I wanted a M-mount fully-manual range finder from this century (cost vs reliability trade-off) that wouldn't cause immediate bankruptcy with the minimal amount of electronics (it has a built-in light meter, which works well but isn't necessary).

equivelent of 42mm to be the perfect overall focal length.

I'd tend to agree, I started with a Canon QL GIII with a 40 f/1.8 lens and it's a great focal length. 50 feels too tight and 35 too wide (the two focal lengths I'm currently shooting that I have frame-lines for).

 

[Yashica]

Limitations are good for you. I was limited to 40mm for a long time and the limitation made me improve my composition and the way I look at things. Now I am doing the same with 50mm.

FYI, 40mm is my #2 top focal length after 35mm. (Hexanon AR 40/1.8 anyone? I do shoot 35mm since the late 80s. 40mm is also great. 50mm is too limiting for my needs, not a tele, not wide enough...a mishmash, and close to natural eyesight. Just the case, it was being the most sold focal length within 35mm SLRs during the 70-80's, doesn't mean it's the best focal length. Your milage may vary, as always.

 

[George Mann]

50mm is too limiting for my needs, not a tele, not wide enough...a mishmash, and close to natural eyesight. Just the case, it was being the most sold focal length within 35mm SLRs during the 70-80's, doesn't mean it's the best focal length. Your milage may vary, as always.

Yet I find it perfect for over 90% of what I shoot.

 

[Radost]

FYI, 40mm is my #2 top focal length after 35mm. (Hexanon AR 40/1.8 anyone? I do shoot 35mm since the late 80s. 40mm is also great. 50mm is too limiting for my needs, not a tele, not wide enough...a mishmash, and close to natural eyesight. Just the case, it was being the most sold focal length within 35mm SLRs during the 70-80's, doesn't mean it's the best focal length. Your milage may vary, as always.

Inhale to feel the same about 50 but after I looked through a M3 viewfinder and open both eyes it was magical.

 

[Pioneer]

I have been using a 40 a lot over the past six months and have actually been enjoying it. I have always preferred the 50 and the 40mm must be close enough that my eye can adjust. I have tried a number of 35mm lenses over the years and never bonded with any of them. I think the new Voigtlander 40mm Heliar is a very interesting lens.

 

[Yashica]

I have been using a 40 a lot over the past six months and have actually been enjoying it. I have always preferred the 50 and the 40mm must be close enough that my eye can adjust. I have tried a number of 35mm lenses over the years and never bonded with any of them. I think the new Voigtlander 40mm Heliar is a very interesting lens.

Yes, i like the new Heliar 40/2.8 a lot, even it's "only" F2.8, but very nice rendering. Well, i am settled at least this year with my Nokton 40/1.4, for everything else, there's the G Planar 35/2, my Nikkor AF-D 35/2, and my Fujinon 23/1.4 R, and 35/2 USM IS for various setups here.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with an M6, M-A, or M-P other than their nosebleed prices. Leica has very reasonably decided to morph into a lifestyle brand, much like Apple or BMW, but that doesn't change the fact that they make very fine products.

Personally, I chose the M2 and the M5. The first is a "pure" M body (and I too us a 35mm lens a lot) and the M5 was something I always wanted since it first came out in 1971. If someone gave me an M6, though, I wouldn't turn it down

BTW, just because poseurs are known for the hipster instinct to buy M6s, shouldn't influence the rest of us one way or the other. I don't let Hollyweird, pop musicians, or politicians to define my life ...

YEP!! What ChuckRoast said. I personally found what Yashica said to be slightly offensive.

 

[camera_allure]

Yes it is. But limited by it's 50/1.8 lens, indeed. Well, as a 35mm shooter, not matching for my taste. Everyone is being different.
Otherwise great, if you like the focal length.

I have the 48mm f/2 version, but I would like to own both. I echo what others have touched on: limitations not only have the potential to be good, but they can be liberating ironically enough. Some days I will create artificial limitations in my shooting, for instance I'll pick up a half frame camera (or something else which I don't regularly use) just to get my mind working in a different direction creatively. It has been effective. I sympathize with you, though, 35mm can be wonderful to work with.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have the 48mm f/2 version, but I would like to own both. I echo what others have touched on: limitations not only have the potential to be good, but they can be liberating ironically enough. Some days I will create artificial limitations in my shooting, for instance I'll pick up a half frame camera (or something else which I don't regularly use) just to get my mind working in a different direction creatively. It has been effective. I sympathize with you, though, 35mm can be wonderful to work with.

I had the model III with the 48mm f2 lens also and thought it was just a sweet little lens. I also loved how the Konica III operated , which made it a very, very fast street shooting camera. The only drawback for me was the fricking weight of the camera itself. You hear folks say, "that camera was built like a tank". Well, the Konica III was certainly built like a tank and its weight was equal. Actually it probably made for a little steadier hold, but it was heavy. I remember the ad I saw for the Konica III and it boosted about the lens buy saying "The lens alone is worth the price"! They weren't kidding either.

 

[camera_allure]

I had the model III with the 48mm f2 lens also and thought it was just a sweet little lens. I also loved how the Konica III operated , which made it a very, very fast street shooting camera. The only drawback for me was the fricking weight of the camera itself. You hear folks say, "that camera was built like a tank". Well, the Konica III was certainly built like a tank and its weight was equal. Actually it probably made for a little steadier hold, but it was heavy. I remember the ad I saw for the Konica III and it boosted about the lens buy saying "The lens alone is worth the price"! They weren't kidding either.

Agreed, all of the cameras in that line are built like tanks. I really enjoy the weight personally, it feels great to me. Not a terribly difficult camera to repair either, at least when it concerns the shutter, adjusting the rangefinder, or cocking arm of the film advance mechanism. I have a III and IIIA, I'd really like to get a IIIM to round out my collection. I'm told that the 50mm f/1.8 lens is even sharper than the 48mm f/2.

 

[albireo]

May I ask the experts, what are the things to watch out for when on the market for a Konica IIIa?

I'm eyeing one in good nick on eBay but from the pictures I can see there's a lot of crud in the viewfinder. How easy it is to clean.

Also how's the 48mm in terms of sharpness at f/4 and above? I'd rarely shoot it wide open and would like a lighter package (Vs the 50mm, which appears to be bulkier). But I'll go for the 50mm if it's really much sharper than the 48mm

Ultimately I'd imagine I'll have to send it out for a CLA anyway, right? @Alex Varas do you CLA these?