Is the title Rangefinder Forum code for Leica Forum?

[Mick Fagan]

You sort of have a point, just!

I just checked the RF forum first page. Out of 17 threads, 10 are for Leica stuff.

However, as I walk around the traps in various parts or Australia and Germany, I do see the odd person or two using Leica rangefinder cameras, rarely do I see other RF cameras being used.

I see plenty of Mamiya TLR cameras which I find interesting, must get one one day.

I have an Olympus XA.

Nikon L35AF which I bought new in 1985.

Minoltina-P, beautiful little thing, sharp as a tack.

An underwater 35mm plastic thingy, brand new from Aldi for about $9.95 complete with it's own little underwater housing, works too!

Then there is my Razzle, which is a 4x5 sheet film rangefinder, made from a converted Polaroid camera.

Mick.

 

[Galah]

My rangefinders

My current rangefinders (who knows, maybe a Leica someday?) are: Minolta Hi-matic 7s, Ricoh 300, and a Yashica Electro 35G (inherited from my father-in-law), Voigtlander Vitomatic IIa, and a Voigtlander Vitessa L. I almost bought a FED in good working order (including meter), but didn't know enough about them at the time and got "cold feet". I wish now that I had taken it.

The Minolta, the Vitomatic IIa, and the Yashica all have built in metering, the Ricoh and the Vitessa both require a hand-held meter. For hand-held metering I have a Minolta F Spotmeter and a Soligor Spotmeter. (I also have several other light-meters including a Weston-Master II and a Weston-Master V)

I tend to take only one reading (most important highlight or shadow), adjust the exposure to place the tonality vis a vis "middle gray" and shoot, letting the other tonalities fall as they may: it seems to work almost every time, for me. I have read a fair bit "on exposure"; currently, in a 1980 Kodak publication for the amateur photographer, and it is amazing how even "the experts" screw up on exposure (like advising people to take an incident meter reading and then to adjust the exposure up or down to allow for background!! Or, again, to meter TTL and then to adjust for the filter factor!?)

The battery for the Yashica is available though hard to find. The Vitomatic IIa has a Selenium cell (which is spot-on) and needs no battery. The meter on the Vitomatic will also read in incidental metering mode.

They all work well and are in very good aesthetic condition.

The Vitomatic IIa (which is rather quirky and endearing) is close to being my most favourite camera of all (I have probably more than a dozen in all in 35mm film, various kinds and ages) and I love the rendition of its "Color Skopar" lens.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I had a Vitessa-L with the 50/2 Ultron for a while. Fantastic lens.

 

[archphoto]

Just got a Leica III, a Rollei S35, Olympus XA2 and a german Regula and even an Edixa 16 MB that uses 16mm film.
For the Leica I need a better lens, but the rest is in working order.

Peter

 

[elekm]

Like others, I have a number of rangefinders but only one Leica (IIIf). I used to have an M6, but it wasn't for me, so I sold it to a fellow who I'm sure put it to good use.

Most of my 35mm rangefinder gear is in Zeiss Ikon Contax followed by other Zeiss Ikon cameras (Contessa, Tenax II, Nettax, etc.), several Voigtlanders, a French Foca II Sport, a number of Retinas, a couple of Baldas, a Rollei XF35, an Olympus 35 RC and XA and others that don't come to mind.

If you think Leica gets discussed a lot here, try browsing rangefinderforum.com, where there is a steady diet of Leica discussions, often about useless topics.

 

[firecracker]

I like Mamiya Press Universal for its rangefinder viewing and lens-shutter mechanism. Although it's a monster-sized camera, because of these characteristics, it is capable of handheld shooting, which is pretty nice sometimes...

 

[Leigh Youdale]

I started buying a Russian "fake" Leica II based on a FED 1. Handled nicely but all it did was convince me I had to have a Leica. Couldn't come at M series prices so bought two IIIf's thinking I'd get one good one out of them. Had them CLA'd and now have TWO good ones!
Also have three Voigtlander RF's - R3A, R4A and Vitessa L f2/50. And then there are the four Voigtlander MF folders without rangefinders!. Time to start selling a few, I think.

 

[Galah]

Vito II

And then there are the four Voigtlander MF folders without rangefinders!. Time to start selling a few, I think.

I too have a Voigtlander "zone focus" folder: the Vito II.

I found this in its leather case (boy, were the cases made to last!) in a "junk" shop for Aus$18-00. Neither the proprietor nor I knew how to open the film-back and the shutter appeared to be stuck.

However, the camera was in excellent physical/aesthetic shape and, after messing with it for a while, I decided to risk it and bought it.

When I got home, I tidied it up (including the leather work) and started to play around with it and, after finding a user's manual for it on the net, managing to open the back.

In common with some other Voigtlander cameras of the period (e.g. the Vitomatic), the shutter has to be "primed" by the film passing over a sprocket for the length of a frame (otherwise it can't be operated). This can be simulated by opening the back and turning the sprocket by hand until it "clicks", then the shutter moves into active mode (even though -on the Vito II- it still needs to be "cocked", separately, by hand at the lens (we are in the "Steam Age" here!) before the shutter (which has to be set manually to the required speed) will operate: of course, the focus also has to be set first, at least within a "zone".

Even so, the shutter still appeared to be stuck, and I looked like needing professional assistance with it.

But, after playing around with it at different settings, I thought I could feel some slight signs of life.

Finally, after putting the shutter through some one or two hundred cycles, it loosened up an appeared to work "normally" at all speeds.

I have since put a couple of 200 ISO films through the camera with pleasing results. It is surprisingly sharp (considering zone focus and all) and the colour rendition (Color Skopar lens) is excellent to my eye. Then, there is the "touch" of a "days gone bye" in the overall look and feel.

Of course, one has to use a separate meter, as there is none in the camera itself.

Even so, it is great fun to use and a great test of one's progress towards dementia, as leaving out a step (focusing, setting aperture and shutter speed, advancing the film, and cocking the shutter) results in a "disaster".

One can really appreciate the advantages of current automation in camera operation!

Nevertheless, it is great fun and I'm looking forward to my next outing with this little gadget.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Vito II

I too have a Voigtlander "zone focus" folder: the Vito II.
....
Nevertheless, it is great fun and I'm looking forward to my next outing with this little gadget.

I have one too, but I'm stumped. I can't find it! I have found a bunch of other old rf cameras, but this one eludes me and of all of them it is the ONE. I remember it surfaced some time during the past year. My studio is now split between two storage arrangements, a building which I've already sold and am trying to get moved out of, and my current actual studio, an outbuilding behind my house. It is very confusing, but things are looking up.

But on my desk, I have a print made from it: a 6x9 (inch) image of a graphitus on a window, with reflections, printed on genuine Portriga Rapid 111 with subtly split selenium toning, one of my favorite prints of all of them that are looking at me these days.

If you want a fun, cute little camera with an astounding lens, which demands that you take responsibility for how you use it (ideal, in my book) find yourself a Vito II. It's spectacular.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you want a fun, cute little camera with an astounding lens, which demands that you take responsibility for how you use it (ideal, in my book) find yourself a Vito II. It's spectacular.

I had one too. Great for street photography. It was too expensive for me to repair at the time. I would still like to have it again.

Steve

 

[P C Headland]

Leica - what's that? I thought the miniature format section was for them

I've got quite a few rangefinders, from a miniature format Braun Super Paxette, many 6x6 folders with rangefinders, some 6x9 folders with rangefinders, right up to my MPP - a 4x5" rangefinder.

If it weren't for the fact that I really like using older cameras, I'd probably be using a Mamiya 6.

 

[Joe Grodis]

Hmmm I think it's safe to say that 99.99% of Range Finders are NOT Leica. To date I own 13 Range Finders, My Zorki's are pretty cool but a newly acquired Fujica 35-EE is rather sweet.

 

[narsuitus]

I own and use rangefinders. I would love to own a Leica MP or M6. However, I have never owned a Leica rangefinder. I once owned a Leica M1 but it was not a rangefinder.

I do own and use the following rangefinders:
Fuji 6x7cm
Fuji 6x9cm
Canon QL17
Minolta Hi-Matic 9

 

[Q.G.]

Any an all are fair game, even medium format rangefinders.

Love the "even" bit.

 

[Michael Finder]

Here is a nostalgic list of my dumb selling decisions (in hindsight) that funded my entry into digital:

Minolta CLE with three lenses
Canon GIII 17
Rollei 35SE
Leica M3 with 50mm Summicron
Minolta 7S
Minolta Himatic 7SII
Konica Hexar AF
Olympus SP

Anyway, no use crying over spilt milk. I am undertaking a recovery process and am back into the film experience. I have acquired a Canon GIII 17 and a 4x5 field camera and 8x10 is also on the agenda. I am feeling much, much better!

Cheers Michael

 

[lens_hacker]

This forum is not dominated by Leica users- I've never seen evidence of that. Some others- yes, but never this one.

I have nine Leica's. And about thirty Leica lenses. They are very nice cameras. I end up grabbing the Canon P more than the Leica's. Shoot more Zeiss glass than anything else as of late.

 

[Tom Duffy]

No rangefinder forum is not a code for the Leica forum. We'll talk about any brass, black enameled, ostrich leather covered camera you happen to own!

 

[k_jupiter]

No Likas in my house.

A Kodak Retina IIA
2 Zorki 4s
A Zorki 1 (what a sweet little Leica knockoff)
3 Kalart Press Cameras
2 4x5 Speed graphics, 1 3x4 Speed, 1 2x3 Speed, 1 2x3 Crown.

And still lusting after a Fuji GS645 folder.

tim in san jose

 

[thuggins]

A second vote for "99.99% of rangefinders are not Leica's". Off the top my head the following are in my closet, on my desk, table, dresser, etc:

Graflex Graphic 35
Stereo Realist
Olympus:
35S
35S II
Ace
Auto Eye II
35LC
35SP
35RC
35DC
35RD
XA
Chrome Six IV (Uncoupled rangefinder, 120 film)
plus two ECRs that don't work
(those are just the rangefinders)

Oddly enough, I feel no overpowering need to get a Leica.

 

[accozzaglia]

I'm just grateful to have any rangefinder camera at all. In this lifetime, chances are meagre that I would ever be able to afford (or is that invest?) in a Leica or anything else held in roughly the same esteem by, uhm, those "in teh know". No one has ever put a Leica in my hand to say "try this", and I'm certain it would be quite lovely, if not a delight. But while I use a truly cheap rangefinder like the student I am, a Konica Auto S2, and the lens works quite well, then this is wonderful. I'd rather spend money on the film I'm using to shoot pictures and enjoy doing that.

If someday people actually wanted to pay a penny or more for anything I've ever shot (hahahahaaa), and that helps bring in enough money to afford a Leica, then I don't know. Perhaps. Perhaps not. After being unable to own a camera for a few years, I'm just terribly grateful to be back doing this cathartic thing of composing and shooting. Hearing all the Leica talk sounds like walking into a room with a bunch of guys talking about how great their carbon-fibre road bike is, when I do just fine with a simple, stripped-down used mixte frame from three decades ago with exceptional reliability and a pleasure have the latitude to ride. Maybe this makes me a plebeian simpleton airhead who "just don't know best for herself". They probably say a lot of other things too, but I don't let those stop me.

So does this make me a fauxtographer? Probably, but at least I like to use emulsion, not pixels.

[edited to add: Has anyone considered partitioning this forum into a Leica-only stream and an "everything else rangefinder" one?]

 

[nemo999]

I'm just grateful to have any rangefinder camera at all. In this lifetime, chances are meagre that I would ever be able to afford (or is that invest?) in a Leica or anything else held in roughly the same esteem by, uhm, those "in teh know". No one has ever put a Leica in my hand to say "try this", and I'm certain it would be quite lovely, if not a delight. But while I use a truly cheap rangefinder like the student I am, a Konica Auto S2, and the lens works quite well, then this is wonderful. I'd rather spend money on the film I'm using to shoot pictures and enjoy doing that.

If someday people actually wanted to pay a penny or more for anything I've ever shot (hahahahaaa), and that helps bring in enough money to afford a Leica, then I don't know. Perhaps. Perhaps not. After being unable to own a camera for a few years, I'm just terribly grateful to be back doing this cathartic thing of composing and shooting. Hearing all the Leica talk sounds like walking into a room with a bunch of guys talking about how great their carbon-fibre road bike is, when I do just fine with a simple, stripped-down used mixte frame from three decades ago with exceptional reliability and a pleasure have the latitude to ride. Maybe this makes me a plebeian simpleton airhead who "just don't know best for herself". They probably say a lot of other things too, but I don't let those stop me.

So does this make me a fauxtographer? Probably, but at least I like to use emulsion, not pixels.

[edited to add: Has anyone considered partitioning this forum into a Leica-only stream and an "everything else rangefinder" one?]

If funds are limited, it of course makes sense to shoot with a cheaper camera rather than not shoot at all, and there are many cameras which, while arguably not as durable or versatile as Leicas or other professional-quality gear, still have good lenses and are capable of making a few thousand exposures unitil you can afford something better. There have been many threads on APUG about the virtues of cheap cameras, and some, like your Konica, Voigtländer Vito, Kodak Retina/Retinette, Afga Silette, etc. work well and will produce great results (but they will break if used a lot). Oddly enough, I bought my first Leica when I was a student in 1969 - it was a IIIa with a Summar lens and cost £24!

 

[MattKing]

I've never owned or used a Leica, but I sold them for a while (which meant I got to play with them a bit).

They remind me of the experience you get when you use very good tools. Or, really good chef's knives.

You can tell that they are special, and definitely worth more (in financial terms).

If my finances were such that their prices weren't an absolute barrier, I'd consider them.

Matt

 

[Larry Bullis]

I'm just grateful to have any rangefinder camera at all. ...

... After being unable to own a camera for a few years, I'm just terribly grateful to be back doing this cathartic thing of composing and shooting. Hearing all the Leica talk sounds like walking into a room with a bunch of guys talking about how great their carbon-fibre road bike is, when I do just fine with a simple, stripped-down used mixte frame from three decades ago with exceptional reliability and a pleasure have the latitude to ride. Maybe this makes me a plebeian simpleton airhead who "just don't know best for herself". They probably say a lot of other things too, but I don't let those stop me.

So does this make me a fauxtographer? Probably, but at least I like to use emulsion, not pixels.

It ain't the camera. It's what's behind it. What's behind it is YOU.

A client of mine, back when I had clients, told me that the reason he had to pay me was that he couldn't afford the camera that could do what I can do.

That was odd. He was an architect for whom I had just won a big award on a fairly pedestrian remodel. The jury had commented on the quality of the photographs.

He had seen me working with my beat up Calumet monorail, the bellows all taped up. He could have got a camera like that for about $50 - $100, and at that time an old Goerz Dagor (what I very well might have had on it at that moment) would cost about the same. He seemed to have no particular problem making the payments on his sailboat.

I knew a photographer of a previous generation who was known to frequently stop at the camera store and buy an Exa on the way to a job. That was the cheap stripped down little brother of the Exacta, an East German 35mm slr which was popular in the 1950's. Nobody talks about these anymore, probably because they are all dead by now. Anyway, this guy Bob would expense the camera to the job; always working with a brand new one. Actually, part of this legend is that he'd buy these by the case.

 

[Ralph Javins]

I'm just grateful to have any rangefinder camera at all. But while I use a truly cheap rangefinder like the student I am, a Konica Auto S2, and the lens works quite well, then this is wonderful. I'd rather spend money on the film I'm using to shoot pictures and enjoy doing that.

So does this make me a fauxtographer? Probably, but at least I like to use emulsion, not pixels.

[edited to add: Has anyone considered partitioning this forum into a Leica-only stream and an "everything else rangefinder" one?]

Good morning;

Your comment about being a student hit a responsive chord: Back in the late 1950's, I also could not really afford a camera, but somehow I did. I bought a Yashica Lynx with a 45 mm f 1.7 lens. I wanted the Lynx 14 with the f 1.4 lens, but could not really stretch the meager finances that far. Funny thing is that I never really shot many things with the lens wide open with the f 1.7, so I am not sure now why I wanted the f 1.4.

The Yashica Lynx provided me with many tangible images to reinforce some nice memories. Other people also seemed to like the photographs. No one checked first to confirm that I had taken the photographs with a Leica or at least a Nikon SP. Would they have accepted a Canon 7 with the f 0.95 "Dream" lens? I do not know, and they did not seem to be worried about the prints they were viewing.

I finally did buy the Lynx 14 a couple of years ago. It is back there with the Minolta Hi-Matic 9, the Weathermatic Dual 35, and a couple of others. There is even a Zorki 4K with a 2/50 Jupiter-8 lens, a derivative of a "copy" of a Leica. Is that why they let me play in this forum also?

 

[lens_hacker]

> It is back there with the Minolta Hi-Matic 9

One of the sharpest lenses that you will find.