inexpensive 35mm RF system

[abruzzi]

I've almost killed GAS, but the one thing I'd like, but never owned is a rangefinder. I'm not keen on spending a lot--but I would like interchangeable lenses since I frequently jump between a standard, a medium wide, and a short tele. Most of the interchangeable lens rangefinders seem to sell at a higher cost than I want to go ($200-300 for body and a 50mm).

I know about the old soviet cameras, Fed and Zorki, but the Fed I handled once didn't inspire confidence. Solid build quality is a must. About the only other camera I've found that can come in at that price is the Canon P. Its drawback seems to be no meter, which I'd ideally like, but can live without if no other options present themselves. The Canon 7 and 7s can be had close to my budget, though half the time the meter seems broken, which makes it not much different than a P.

Any other cameras I should be looking at?

 

[removedacct1]

Personally, I am very fond of the Kodak Retina IIIc/IIIC cameras. You can get one of those for a very reasonable sum.

 

[Lee Rust]

The Kodak Retina RF cameras are fairly easy to find, but the lenses aren't as plentiful as the bodies are. Budget some money for an overhaul & use a handheld meter.

 

[abruzzi]

The older the camera becomes, the more I worry that an inexpensive cost will become inflated by necessary maintenance or repairs. I know that's a worry with any camera, but it becomes more acute the older it is.

I googled the Retina IIIC and the pictures made it look big, but its not, is it? I'd love the see a photo of one in the palm of someone's hand for scale. Part of my interest in an RF is small, pocketable. My 35mm SLR is a Pentax SuperProgram which is already fairly small, so in my head something like a Leica M was the upper range of size I was looking for. It was kind of wierd--I was looking at photos of some fixed lens rangefinders like the Canonet QL17, and was surprised at how large it was. (ok, not huge, but taller than a Leica.)

I'll look a little closer at the Kodak, whats the difference between the IIIc and the IIIC?

 

[R.Gould]

If you don't mind older cameras then I can name 3 all that I have and use and did not cost a small fortune, 1 werra, with 35mm and 100mm lenses, should be available for gbp £ 100 to 150
Voightlander vitessa T with 35,100 and 135 lenses about the same, and Ambi sillette with 90 and 35mm lenses, again about the same, but with the ambi if you can find one ( it took me around 5 years) there is a 130 mm but the 130 lens is a bit more expensive,, and all of these have a leaf shutter, which on x setting give you flash sync at all speeds, handy for a bit of fill flash, there are others but these ae the only ones I have used and can reccomend with interchangeable lenses, I can list many fixed lens cameras, also the Kodak Retina folders, such as the IIIc or IIIC which have interchangeable lenses, but they only have the front elements which can change, wheras the other 3 have complete lenses to change, if you want a smaller camera then the Werra is the one for you, the smallest complete non folder around and one of the fastest leaf shutter's around with a 1/750 top speed,

 

[jim10219]

What was wrong with your Fed? I had the rangefinder bug once, and went out and bought a Zorki 4 with a Jupiter 8 lens. I showed it to a Leica enthusiast who kept trying to find faults with it, but in the end, wound up buying one himself (for the price, it was hard to pass up). I've never had any issues with it, and it's seen some abuse over it's many years on this Earth. Yet even after all of these years, the speeds are still accurate, the viewfinder is still focusing properly, and the lens is still as wonderful as ever. In it's entire life, it's only been CLA'd once that I know of. And it's a lot easier to work on than most of the more modern and complex cameras. Maybe I just got a really good example, but have no complaints with it. In any event, I'd expect to have any 135 film camera serviced at this point. None are going to be that new, and most could benefit from a CLA if they haven't had one recently.

I'm not saying they're as good as a Leica. They're clearly not. But the difference in quality between them is no where near the difference in price. I wouldn't say they're all that small either. And neither are the Leicas. Everyone seems to say they are, and maybe they are a touch smaller than something like your Pentax Super Program (which is a highly underrated camera, by the way!), but to me the difference in size between most rangefinders (short of something like the Rollei 35) and most SLR's (short of something like a Nikon F5) is negligible in real world terms. Neither fit comfortably in any of my pockets (I don't wear cargo pants), and both seem to do okay hanging from my neck. Then again, I do own some tiny cell phone cameras and a few large format cameras, so that may effect my opinions on camera sizes when you have such a large range at your disposal.

Anyway, for the price of a Russian rangefinder, you could easily buy one great shape, get it CLA'd, and get a few extra lenses for it and still save money over something like a Cannonette QL17.

 

[jspillane]

I think the reality of CLA requirements and the age of most rangefinder systems make it hard to achieve this for an extremely low budget.

Probably the most reliable low cost option is to either get a fixed lens rangefinder (such as Canonet QL17) and live with it for what it is, or to go for one of the more modern Cosina made Voigtlander bodies. But nothing changes the fact that there just aren't the kind of super-deals on RF equipment that you see on SLRs.

I ended up scratching this itch with a QL17, and while I love the camera, I still find myself looking wistfully at Leica's... But I'd really rather put the money into a 8x10 system

 

[Lee Rust]

The III (Big C) viewfinder has framelines for 35, 50 & 80mm lenses and the older III (Small c) frames only the standard 50mm lens. There are differences with the exposure meter too, but a 60+ year old selenium cell meter is probably not worth much in either case. Aside from Leica compatible cameras, I would suggest that interchangeable lens rangefinders are more trouble than they are worth. The fixed-lens rangefinders like the Retina IIa, Canonets or Yashicas might be suggested as alternatives. Size-wise, the Retina IIa folds up into a very small package.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
Probably the most reliable low cost option is to either get a fixed lens rangefinder (such as Canonet QL17) and live with it for what it is, or to go for one of the more modern Cosina made Voigtlander bodies.
...

This is good advice. Also, there's the Canonet 28 which is even less expensive, but the QL17 GIII is a very good choice.

Both of these have fixed 40mm lenses - a good compromise.

 

[bdial]

Besides the Canons there are a number of Japanese Barnack Leica copies, probably the most common is the Nica, and the variant they made for Sears called a Tower (which was a Sears trade name). These tend to sell for a little less than the Canons, but share the Leica's squinty viewfinder style. The Canon 7 and P are a worthwhile upgrade from that. Additionally, if you want to get the real-deal, a functional Leica II or III is probably within your budget.
Probably the easiest way to resolve the meter issue is to get a modern meter from Gossen or Sekonic that mount to the camera's hot shoe

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Where is no decent RF if you are cheappo. Freebies are with SLRs. I just purchased 22-55 lens with eye focus control camera attached to it for 80 CAD. To have 20, 28, 35 and 50 lenses attached to RF it is 800 CAD.

I have Zorki and I have FED-2 they are build with metal, glass and same curtains as in Leica.
In fact they are more robust in build than Leica. I also have it.
It is matter of CLA to have for Zorki and FED. Totally DIY is well possible and well documented in English.

Canon P is still serviced and it will work fine for longer than simple Zorki period between CLA.
Not expensive 35 and 50 lenses are available. FSU will works on P as well.
I know several photogs who are upgraded from FSU to P and never wanted to overspend on Leica.
It makes total sense to me.

IMO.
Retina is retro apparatus. Pleasure to operate, but way too old in the way it does.
It is not a camera for fast and intuitive photography as P is.

Light meter is not something nessesary these days. Due to better films.
I do all three types of emulsion by S16, well four, ECN-2.

Go for P and take your time to get good 50 and 35 lens for it.

 

[Paul Howell]

Kodak made to very different Retina systems, the folders and Retia S. The last folder the IIIC came in 2 versions, the standard and Big C. The big C has the larger viewfinder with bright lines for a 35mm and 80mm. The IIIC are not a true interchangeable lens, the front elements can be changed for the 35mm and 80mm. The auxiliary 35mm and 80 lens do not couple with the rangefinder, you need to use the rangefinder to find the distance and them set the auxiliary lens to match. The S, is not a folder, it is rather big and heavy, it is capable of using true interchangeable lens from 28mm to 200mm, the 200 is not camed and will not work with the rangefinder. The camera changes the viewfinder for the 35, 50, and 135m need a separate finder for the 28 and 200, The lens for the Retina S will also mount on a Retinaflex, but not all lens made for the Retinaflex have the cams for the rangefinder. The metering system uses the EI system, the aperture and shutter are locked and the meter reads in EI values, rather than setting the shutter and aperture you set the EI number which sets the corresponding shutter and aperture in one movement. I have know a few folks who disconnected the linkage. Loading and unloading film is fussy, takes practice. The lens are good, the 50 is fast the others are a little on the slow side but very sharp for their day.

My first 35mm was a Retina IIIC big, was given to me as a combo birthday, Christmas and high school graduation present in 1966, I still have it. It came with both lens, but have not used them in decades, it's at is best with the 50 F2 Schneider, there were also Rodenstock lens. Finding someone to service a Retina will take some doing, the leaf shutters are complicated. Mine needs to be serviced, just have not yet started a search to find someone who is willing to work on it.

I agree with Ko Fe, a Canon P or if have the money a 7 is your best bet. You can use any LM screw mount lens, it's a reliable camera, I assume you can still get it serviced. In the 70s when working as a PJ I had both a Canon 7s and Leica IIIG, the Lecia was built like a tank, but the Canon was much easier to use. If you can find a Canon 7s with a working meter. Other option for not much more is a Leica IIIF.

 

[P.johnson14]

I’m a fan of the Retina IIIc, in fact, I was just shooting mine today.

I got mine as a bargain from KEH for $65. I should send it out to Chris in NZ for a CLA, but everything works well and the shutter sounds right and is giving proper exposures.

I prefer rangefinders to SLR cameras when I want to enjoy shooting. SLR for sports and weddings.

 

[abruzzi]

I have nothing against the soviet cameras its just that when I handled one a long time ago (a Fed of some kind, I believe) it felt flimsy, a lot of the knobs had play, and it focused through a separate viewfinder than the one you composed on which I really didn't like.

Looking into the Retina series, I think I'll pass on them. They're interesting, but honestly, I'd prefer something that gets as close as possible to a modern camera. I know outside Leica there aren't man modern rangefinders. I prefer a camera that mostly adheres to modern design standards. I look at the old Leicas with film advance knob (instead of lever) or odd film loading techniques, and I'd prefer to avoid that. I'm still leaning toward the Canon P if I can find one in good condition, for the right price.

Thanks for everyone's input.

 

[narsuitus]

I've almost killed GAS, but the one thing I'd like, but never owned is a rangefinder. I'm not keen on spending a lot--but I would like interchangeable lenses since I frequently jump between a standard, a medium wide, and a short tele. Most of the interchangeable lens rangefinders seem to sell at a higher cost than I want to go ($200-300 for body and a 50mm).

The Argus C3 is an interchangeable lens rangefinder that meets your budget.


My Oldest Big Three by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[abruzzi]

The Argus C3 is an interchangeable lens rangefinder that meets your budget.

Funny, I actually have an Argus C3 that belonged to my grandfather. I had no idea the lens was removable. The shutter doesn't close unless you wiggle the cocking lever, its relegated to a shelf, along with my other cool looking, sentimental, but not particularly useful (for me) objects like my Bell & Howell 8mm projector or my Bolex H16.

 

[guangong]

I use many of the cameras that have been discussed. As for Retinas, once considered the poor man’s Leica, the lens is very good but the secondary lenses really can not be switched when in the field. Argus Cs were cheap when new because cheaply made. Canon P is an excellent ltm camera but plan on a CLA and make sure metal curtain is not excessively wrinkled. Also, I notice good ltm lenses are creeping up in price. The earlier Canon ltm improved Leica copies are also a good choice. I bought a Contax IIa from KEH for $80 + CLA = slightly under $200. Soviet lenses, except 35mm, will fit. Or Soviet copy of Contax II, the Kiev, while nat as compact as IIa can be bought with lens for less than $200.
My own habit is to buy quality and postpone purchase to save up to buy.

 

[piffey]

I did a similar thing and ended up spending about double the amount of a Leica burning through cheap RF cameras that can't be repaired because no one has or makes the parts for them. Bought a Leica, have had one CLA in 5 years, not a single problem with it. Wish I'd saved the money and bought the serviceable Leica first. No one cares enough to keep parts around for anything else. This camera will outlive me with just a few more CLAs.

 

[abruzzi]

My own habit is to buy quality and postpone purchase to save up to buy.

My issue is I don't even know if I will get on with a rangefinder. I'm almost certain I won't get on with one with a small viewfinder or separate rangefinder. So spending $1500 on a Leica with lens to find out that rangefinders aren't for me isn't in the books. I know people will say that if I shop carefully, I can get most or all of my money back out of the transaction, but I don't sell things online, and I don't know any film shooters locally. (Its not a hoarder instinct, but just that the process of selling online is not a process I want to go through, as it has burned me in the past.)

 

[narsuitus]

So spending $1500 on a Leica with lens to find out that rangefinders aren't for me isn't in the books.

Before I spent $1500 on a Leica rangefinder, I tried the less expensive Argus C3, Contax G1, and Canon Canonet rangefinders.



35mm Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[abruzzi]

Maybe I should just try a cheap Canonet before I claim I need interchangeable lenses. That may be a better way to test out the rangefinder concept.

 

[MattKing]

Maybe I should just try a cheap Canonet before I claim I need interchangeable lenses. That may be a better way to test out the rangefinder concept.

This is a really good idea.
You may even decide that you like the rangefinder concept, and that the Canonet fulfills all your needs.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Maybe I should just try a cheap Canonet before I claim I need interchangeable lenses. That may be a better way to test out the rangefinder concept.

That's a good idea - but check it out before buying: you want a clear viewfinder and a usable rangefinder patch (actually that's true with any rangefinder).

 

[abruzzi]

There is no checking out where I live, because there aren’t many interesting cameras for sale locally. So instead I bought with a warranty. UsedPhotoPro/Roberts Camera had a couple QL17 GIII cameras. Their price wasn’t the cheapest, but it wasn’t that expensive either ($130 shipped after my repeat customer discount.) The light seals looked iffy, so $10 replacements on the way from Aki-Asahi. The camera has a 180 day warranty, and I figure it will be a fun little camera, and should give me an idea whether I can even get on with the rangefinder way of life. Thanks everyone for your input. The mention from several people of the Kodak Retina series was especially interesting as I had never heard of the cameras, and now I’m jonseing for a IIa, but I don’t think it’s a good camera to learn rangefinders on. But they’re so tiny and a beautiful bit of engineering.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... So instead I bought with a warranty. UsedPhotoPro/Roberts Camera had a couple QL17 GIII cameras. ... now I’m jonseing for a IIa, but I don’t think it’s a good camera to learn rangefinders on. But they’re so tiny and a beautiful bit of engineering.

A QL17GIII with a warranty for that price is a good deal; I think you'll enjoy it.

As for the Retina IIa, I have two of these critters but when using them my fingers have a hard time finding that focusing tab -- I always have to look. Also, even though some have lamented the cocking lever's fragility, I've never encountered any issues - just do what Steve Gandy says and fully cock it. The real issue with these cameras is the flat spring that advances the frame counter - they break. It doesn't impede camera operation, but it's annoying. It's a very expensive part (about 50€) -- someone needs to 3D print these things.