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

[John Wiegerink]

They don’t work the same was as manual focus rangefinders. Manually focusing them is not fun for sure.

Yes, manual focusing is a slight pain, but can be done if needed. I don't see myself ever really needed it in normal shooting, but it's there. Also, no matter how you look at the G1 & G2 they are both considered rangefinder cameras. You might not like that, but that's the way it is.

 

[Huss]

They don’t work the same was as manual focus rangefinders. Manually focusing them is not fun for sure.

Because it is not a rangefinder camera. It is an AF camera with interchangeable lenses.
the flip side of that argument is it has AF!
They are considered RF cameras because of the form factor. Just like my Fuji Xpro3 - because it looks like a Leica M. But there is no RF in it, it is all evf with an optical VF that uses the evf system for focus. Again the clue is when you focus it manually.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Late suggestion: Zeiss Ikon Tenax II with a 40/2 Sonnar lens. But only if you like to shoot squares.

 

[warden]

But there is no RF in it, it is all evf with an optical VF that uses the evf system for focus. Again the clue is when you focus it manually.

I thought the two windows on the front of the camera were used for rangefinder focusing. Is this not true? I'm no camera engineer but if the two windows are triangulating distance that sounds like a rangefinder. Maybe that's not what is happening though.

It's not a big deal to me either way but it would be fun to look at a repair manual for one of these things to see what's happening in there.

 

[Huss]

I thought the two windows on the front of the camera were used for rangefinder focusing. Is this not true? I'm no camera engineer but if the two windows are triangulating distance that sounds like a rangefinder. Maybe that's not what is happening though.

It's not a big deal to me either way but it would be fun to look at a repair manual for one of these things to see what's happening in there.

That's similar to lots of P&S cameras. The G series is that with interchangeable lenses. The rangefinder description is from how the camera looks.
Technically it is an electronic rangefinder, because it does find range, but then every P&S camera could also be called a rangefinder camera if that is the qualification!

The issue I have with this type of focus system is you never actually know if the end result is in focus. You just have to trust it as there is no visual confirmation.
The AF in the G2 is pretty good though. With a "real" rangefinder, you can tell by looking at the RF patch in the viewfinder. And with an SLR, you can tell by the overall scene in the VF (especially with 50mm or longer lenses), or looking at the center focus aid (split image, microprism etc).

And that actually is why AF slrs are so practical - they AF, and you have visual confirmation if your target is in focus before you take the pic. But this thread is about rangefinder cameras!

 

[manfrominternet]

Whoa! LOTS of terrific and well-said information here by everyone. I lucked out - you guys really know your rangefinders.

I wish I chimed in back in earlier. Anyway, to rejoin, Rulnacco mentioned that "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 feel this way exactly. As I mentioned, I have a Fuji GW690III 6x9 and it has the sharpest and probably the most amazing lens I've ever used, however, making long exposures with it is beyond annoying as there's no bulb mode nor a real T mode, as I'm sure you guys all already know. With the T mode, you either have to advance the film or move the aperture ring to close the shutter, which is absurd for longer exposures, particularly in the 2 second to 15 second range. (My method is to throw the lens cap on quickly, a precarious method for sure.) Anyway, I'm just not that into the camera, even if I do enjoy the rangefinder experience and love all the images it produces. That said, my GW690III is in immaculate shape, without a scratch. Considering that it looks brand new and that I have the original box and all the paperwork, I think I can get a decent amount for it, which would fund my little quest for getting a smaller, more discreet rangefinder that has a good internal meter. By the way, I really wish I had the ability of some of you uber-pros, where you don't even need to rely on any light meter. That's a skill I'm dying to aquire.

I did some playing around with my Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7 and realized that I'm actually not a predominantly wide angle shooter now like I once was, so I can nix the Voigtlander Bessa R4A. I recently acquired a Minolta 28mm F2 AF lens and saw that that's as wide as I'd ever want to shoot. It seems like 35mm-40mm is my sweet spot. That said, my ideal trio of lenses would be 28mm, 35mm/40mm, and 50mm.

To not confuse you guys as this is a rangefinder forum, but I have to say that I really like my Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 7. It's a truly amazing camera, equally as advanced as the Nikon F6 in my opinion. The absolute #1 underdog in the film SLR world for what it can do. It even has the best shutter clap sound I've ever heard. But it's highly computerized and will eventually break down. The rubber coating will eventually come off and so I use ArmorAll to prevent that. The large LCD screen in the back will start to go out. The camera would be hefty with a 35mm F1.4. Even though I like the sound, the shutter is definitely too loud. The auto focus feels like it's ever so slightly off so I always find myself focusing manually (which I prefer), but it's really hard to manually focus without a rangefinder screen. (Minolta never made a rangefinder screen for this camera.) That all said, while I'll still use my Minolta Maxxum 7 for certain things, I want to move into rangefinders as it's a simpler way of shooting that I'm already used to with, say, my large format cameras. I wouldn't be using a rangefinder for night photography primarily, but if I did, my exposures would nonetheless be in the 4 minute to 9 minute territory - a stabilized Canon/Nikon SLR body/lens wouldn't help me here.

Anyway, as we can pretty much agree that the Minolta CLE is the top dog with 40mm lenses, which non-Leica rangefinder body (with an internal lightmeter) works best with a 35mm lens? I assume it's the Zeiss Ikon ZM or the Hexar RF, but I wanted to ask you guys first. Perhaps I should look at a different rangefinder altogether?

 

[film_man]

Which rangefinder works vest with a 35? All of them. Dude you're over thinking it. You know the choices, find one in the best condition for your money and get it.

Also, you talk about how your Minolta is electronic and will die, well those plastic AF mass produced SLRs will work trouble free for a lot longer than most rangefinders.

 

[Huss]

.

Anyway, as we can pretty much agree that the Minolta CLE is the top dog with 40mm lenses, which non-Leica rangefinder body (with an internal lightmeter) works best with a 35mm lens? I assume it's the Zeiss Ikon ZM or the Hexar RF, but I wanted to ask you guys first. Perhaps I should look at a different rangefinder altogether?

I've owned/used all the interchangeable lens 35mm RF cameras with built in meter apart from the Konica. I think that the Konica has a fantastic feature set but... I've seen so many with that error code message that basically means the camera is bricked. Of course there are many out there that work ok, but this really seems like the clock is ticking on them. Upside is you can get them for under $1000 in working condition because of that.
That makes the Zeiss Ikon ZM the pick. It is excellent with 35mm lenses. Also... Zeiss Germany still repairs them! If you go to the Zeiss website and go through the service request, under 'other' (I think) it shows the camera. The Zeiss is about $1500 now?

 

[250swb]

That said, what 35mm non-Leica/Contax G2 rangefinder camera systems do you think are the best to get into?

The Nikon SP would be a genuine contender. And before anybody says it, obviously one that has a clear viewfinder (we know they can go dark, but also that they can be cleaned) and no other issues. But the advantages are no batteries, smooth as butter to use, not a CLA magnet like a Leica or Canon, six (yes six) framelines, and access to a wide range of excellent lenses including anything 50mm or wider from Contax, Jupiter, etc. (yes they can be used).

 

[Tel]

Recently I decided to try my hand at making shutter curtains. And Roberts had a couple of Minolta 35 Model II cameras for sale very cheaply, so I loaded up (3 as it happened). The project was initially frustrating, but like most things got easier with practice. But what I didn't expect was that I'd love shooting these things. The Rokkor lenses are very sharp, the build quality is good and they are, to my mind, laid out logically and easy to adapt to. I especially like the back-door loading. And the guts are easy to access and service; when you remove the film gate/mechanism cover piece, it's all right there to see and to work with. The advance and timing gears are all there in the daylight, the curtain rollers can be worked on without further dismantling and three screws release the slow-speed escapement cover. The top plate comes off fairly simply once you find the very tiny grub screws holding the VF window in place and even rangefinder adjustment is fairly simple. I've since picked up a IIb (the later version with lever advance) and my poor old F2s are feeling neglected.

 

[Huss]

The Nikon SP would be a genuine contender. And before anybody says it, obviously one that has a clear viewfinder (we know they can go dark, but also that they can be cleaned) and no other issues. But the advantages are no batteries, smooth as butter to use, not a CLA magnet like a Leica or Canon, six (yes six) framelines, and access to a wide range of excellent lenses including anything 50mm or wider from Contax, Jupiter, etc. (yes they can be used).

He wants a camera with a built in light meter.

 

[conyon]

I've owned Zorki, FED and Kiev.

And with that I can honestly say if you can afford a Canon P, 7 etc or a Nikon S2, S3, or a Voigtlander/Zeiss/Contax/Leica etc do whatever you can to get one of those.

What were the main issues with the Kiev? Isn't a 4a essentially a Contax?

 

[bjorke]

• Rollei 35S (okay, no RF)
• Bronica RF645 (love mine )

 

[Guth]

Recently I decided to try my hand at making shutter curtains. And Roberts had a couple of Minolta 35 Model II cameras for sale very cheaply, so I loaded up (3 as it happened). The project was initially frustrating, but like most things got easier with practice.

That is very cool. Not only do I admire your willingness to take on a project like this, but also your ability to find a reasonable way to go about it. When I was a kid, may dad and so many of the other adults in my world were seemingly always digging into something in order to repair a problem. As an adult, it has felt like most people view me as a freak for working on my own vehicles or any number of other things, or for attempting to teach my son how to do the same. While so many new products have planned obsolescence designed into them, it is a shame to see people automatically treating older products in the same way. Your post shined a little light on my day.

 

[Tel]

That is very cool. Not only do I admire your willingness to take on a project like this, but also your ability to find a reasonable way to go about it. When I was a kid, may dad and so many of the other adults in my world were seemingly always digging into something in order to repair a problem. As an adult, it has felt like most people view me as a freak for working on my own vehicles or any number of other things, or for attempting to teach my son how to do the same. While so many new products have planned obsolescence designed into them, it is a shame to see people automatically treating older products in the same way. Your post shined a little light on my day.

Glad to help. We freaks have to stick together. My favorite part of the learning process is the point where the thing that seemed like an insurmountable obstacle suddenly isn't.

 

[jtk]

Really? I mean really? Better vf than an M3 or M2? Really? I used to own a Canon P.

But the Canon P is the best, by far, bang for the buck in LTM cameras if you are going to use a 50mm lens. I like it much more than Leica LTMs

Huss, the P you say you owned presumably needed viewfinder cleanup. I owned three of them, having selected carefully and having personally cleaned the viewfinder and prism. None were as bright as Leica, but all served at my pleasure for several focal lengths, unlike Leica M3 and M2.

 

[250swb]

He wants a camera with a built in light meter.

But you can add a light meter to the accessory shoe, say a Sekonic L208 ,Keks, Reveni, Voigtlander, etc. Given the inherent additional workload and adjustment to any rangefinder camera over an SLR you either adapt or die, meter or not.

 

[Huss]

But you can add a light meter to the accessory shoe, say a Sekonic L208 ,Keks, Reveni, Voigtlander, etc. Given the inherent additional workload and adjustment to any rangefinder camera over an SLR you either adapt or die, meter or not.

I know you can, but that is not the same as a built in which is the OP's request. I use the Voigtlander VCIIs, and find them excellent. I had a Reveni and found that...lacking.

 

[manfrominternet]

That is very cool. Not only do I admire your willingness to take on a project like this, but also your ability to find a reasonable way to go about it. When I was a kid, may dad and so many of the other adults in my world were seemingly always digging into something in order to repair a problem. As an adult, it has felt like most people view me as a freak for working on my own vehicles or any number of other things, or for attempting to teach my son how to do the same. While so many new products have planned obsolescence designed into them, it is a shame to see people automatically treating older products in the same way. Your post shined a little light on my day.

Trust me, no one worth knowing would ever see you or anyone as a freak for working on or repairing anything. My dad's like pretty much the Hank Hill of the neighborhood and, like you, works on and repairs basically anything, and passed this appreciation down to me. Now I can fix far more things than the average bear, even those pesky German cars that seemingly conscript you into taking a car like that to an expert. Between me and my dad, I sometimes wonder how much money we saved. One thing is for sure though - there's no way in hell I'd be able to afford nice things like good cameras if I didn't have the appreciation and skills I've picked up working on, fixing, or even tinkering with all the mechanical and electronic things I've worked on. I sometimes fail, but at least I learn from it and pick up a new skill.

 

[madNbad]

Do you still want a CLE or are there too many other options? The main advantage to the CLE is the are more of them available than most of the other choices. I still say, get one if that’s what you want.

 

[George Mann]

Hank Hill.

Yep. I tell you what.

 

[manfrominternet]

But you can add a light meter to the accessory shoe, say a Sekonic L208 ,Keks, Reveni, Voigtlander, etc. Given the inherent additional workload and adjustment to any rangefinder camera over an SLR you either adapt or die, meter or not.

You mean this thing on my GW690III?

The major issue I have with these external light meters are their lack of AEL. Whenever I move my eyes away from the viewfinder and look at the hot shoe light meter, I see that the light meter reading keeps changing so fast that I'm never really sure what the right exposure is. :/

Hence my wish for an internal light meter. I'm just not sure which of the non-Leica rangefinder light meters works best/is the most accurate. If anyone could let me know, that'd be great.

That said, while I really, really do like the Minolta CLE (and am still absolutely leaning towards it), I do worry about it turning into a brick as it's literally over 40 years old. Perhaps someone can just put my mind to rest on this one. I've even already picked out the two lenses for it!: Voigtlander Nokton 40mm f/1.2 Aspherical and the Voigtlander 28mm f/2.0 Ultron Vintage Aspherical. How do you think these lenses fare as compared to the original Minolta lenses specifically made for the CLE?

I've also heard that the Hexar RF can have rangefinder alignment issues and can turn into a brick too, but considering that it's not that old (respectively), it seems like a contender. People seem to love it or hate it. I do, admittedly, still like the Voigtlander Bessa R4A/R4M (even if other people think it's ugly) particularly since it's newer, being made in 2006. For either the Hexar RF or the Voigtlander Bessa R4A/R4M (or even the Zeiss Ikon ZM, if I can spring for it), I'd get the Voigtlander 28mm f/2.0 Ultron Vintage Aspherical, the Voigtlander APO-LANTHAR 35mm f/2.0, and the Voigtlander APO-LANTHAR 50mm f/2.0.

So, that all said, I'm about to pull the gun on one of these - either the Minolta CLE or the Voigtlander Bessa R4A/R4M. If anyone thinks I'm crazy to put any of my money into these, I'll get the Hexar RF as it's not insanely expensive.

 

[oxcanary]

The Voigtlander and those lenses are wonderful - I never looked back

 

[Guth]

That said, while I really, really do like the Minolta CLE (and am still absolutely leaning towards it), I do worry about it turning into a brick as it's literally over 40 years old. Perhaps someone can just put my mind to rest on this one. I've even already picked out the two lenses for it!: Voigtlander Nokton 40mm f/1.2 Aspherical and the Voigtlander 28mm f/2.0 Ultron Vintage Aspherical. How do you think these lenses fare as compared to the original Minolta lenses specifically made for the CLE?

I've also heard that the Hexar RF can have rangefinder alignment issues and can turn into a brick too, but considering that it's not that old (respectively), it seems like a contender. People seem to love it or hate it. I do, admittedly, still like the Voigtlander Bessa R4A/R4M (even if other people think it's ugly) particularly since it's newer, being made in 2006. For either the Hexar RF or the Voigtlander Bessa R4A/R4M (or even the Zeiss Ikon ZM, if I can spring for it), I'd get the Voigtlander 28mm f/2.0 Ultron Vintage Aspherical, the Voigtlander APO-LANTHAR 35mm f/2.0, and the Voigtlander APO-LANTHAR 50mm f/2.0.

So, that all said, I'm about to pull the gun on one of these - either the Minolta CLE or the Voigtlander Bessa R4A/R4M. If anyone thinks I'm crazy to put any of my money into these, I'll get the Hexar RF as it's not insanely expensive.

It's late/early and I can't sleep, so here's much more than you surely bargained for...

Bear in mind that photography forums are full of doom and gloom when it comes to pretty much every camera made. There are a lot of people online simply parroting that which they have read elsewhere and you have to be able to read between the lines in many cases. That aside, none of these cameras are getting any younger. I put quite a bit of thought into the possibility of the CLE turning into a brick before I bought mine. In the end I decided that I just had to accept the fact that the camera is going to fail at some point in time and there was simply no way of knowing when this might happen. I feel like I would be doing you a disservice to try to convince you otherwise. (I figure that the same could be said of me.)

As previously mentioned, I use the CLE in conjunction with my M6. Though I do the one camera + one lens thing around town, I typically pack both cameras and two lenses each in a single small messenger bag. With this arrangement, should either camera fail I have a backup. No doubt this tends to impact my take on things as I don't have to rely on the CLE as my only camera. To get a better feel for the reliability of the CLE, my suggestion would be to contact Scott Nielsen in Oakdale, CA to get his feedback (http://scottnielsenphoto.com). Scott is the Minolta technician that I mentioned earlier who recently came highly recommended by another fellow CLE owner. For all I know, he might tell you to avoid this camera based on his experiences.

As far as the Voigtlander cameras that you mentioned go, the R4M with its mechanical shutter would seem like the more logical choice if you are concerned about cameras turning into bricks. While the CLE is a well regarded camera, I was primarily drawn to it as I'm a bit of aMinolta fan (the XD11 was my dream camera in my youth and I shot with mine for more than two decades). I have no regrets about purchasing the CLE and given my experience with this camera thus far I would do so again. Shooting in automatic mode I have found the metering system to work wonderfully. But with all that said, it is hard for to me to argue against an all-mechanical camera given the sort of concerns that you have.

I don't have any experience with the Voigtlander lenses you've asked about, but I would guess that that there are others here who do. Again, I bought the M-Rokkor lenses because as a Minolta fan I liked the historical tie-in and they are still generally well regarded. However, I would expect the newer Voigtlander lenses to outperform the Minolta lenses. Regardless of the lens specifics, I can say that I enjoy the simplicity of the 28mm and 40mm combination offered by the CLE. Still, if you don't mind carrying three lenses it seems hard to go wrong with the 28mm, 35mm, 50mm combination you are considering when it comes to the R4M.

As far as my results with the CLE go, I would refer you to this thread on another forum. I feel like shooting in aperture-priority mode with the CLE tends to result in good exposures the majority of the time. But if you prefer to be able to set both your aperture and shutter speed on your own while referencing the built-in light meter, then I would actually have a hard time recommending the CLE as this would require you to switch back and forth between aperture-priority mode and manual mode in order to make use of the light meter. As I mentioned before, for whatever reason this was common practice among rangefinder cameras back in the 70's when the CLE was developed.

Sadly, I'm just not as competent as many other photographers. While I do sometimes work on using the Sunny 16 rule, I remain pretty reliant on using the built-in metering of my cameras. I do feel that my images have benefited somewhat from the CLE given how good its metering system works in aperture-priority mode. But in all honesty I do wish that the meter worked in manual mode as well.

Sorry, I don't mean to make your choice harder, but so often people only tend to encourage others to buy the gear they themselves own. While I really like my CLE, I obviously had my own reasons for buying this camera that likely wouldn't apply to most people. On the surface the R4M looks like a good choice provided the general opinion is that this is a well built, reliable camera. It doesn't benefit me at all if you were to end up buying the same camera that I own. Knowing that there is no such thing as the perfect camera, I simply hope you find the right camera for you given your needs and preferences. Again, good luck to you.

 

[BradS]

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