Looking for a decent rangefinder

Analogski said:

My budget is around 1000 to 1600 euro (incl. Lens). I'm thinking about a Voigtlander Bessa R(2). Is this a good camera for the job(s)?

Click to expand...

I have the Contax mount version of the R2, and I’ve used it for a lot of family photographs and environmental portraiture. Before that I was using a Bessa-R in the same way. They’re good; you have to like the rangefinder gestalt; the meters work; they do not, of course, have the details and haptics of a Leica. But they keep the dark in and do the things you expect a camera to do, while opening the door to some really superb glass.

The point about parallax is well taken whenever you talk about rangefinders for portraits. Sometimes you get an unexpected result in the composition because of it, for better or worse. I think ultimately it comes down to the individual shooter and what tradeoffs they’re comfortable with; I don’t mind the parallax issue too much, but some people are really bothered by it.

It might be an idea to experiment with an inexpensive fixed-lens RF for your use cases before committing bigger money to a system camera. It won’t be the same, obviously, but it might help you answer “Do I want a rangefinder for this job?”.

-NT

I had a Fujica rangefinder I bought at Goodwill for 25 bucks, sent it to a fellow who fixed the stuck Seiko shutter, did a couple other things gor the meter going. Worked great even had shutter priority auto. Sold it to a friend for 100 bucks. He's a journalist, still uses it. Terrific camera.

Analogski said:

It's been a while...
I've had some time to look around and reflect on myself what I want and why I want it.

Recently I looked/I'm looking for a Pentax 67 (I know, a whole other ballgame). I love medium format. But it has shortcomings. Not only it's big, bulky and loud, but it's also not very good for fast photography such as family photography, or street photography.

I thought.... Why? What is my motivation to buy another camera? What do I want to shoot?

After thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that I mostly shoot family photography, family portraits and street photography. Also from time to time I love to shoot architecture photography.

But most of all family photo's and portraits are most important to me right now.

As I look at the work of Matt Osborne (Mr. Leica), I realized that a rangefinder in 35mm is capable also for portraits.

So again, my enthousiasm for a rangefinder has woken.

My budget is around 1000 to 1600 euro (incl. Lens). I'm thinking about a Voigtlander Bessa R(2). Is this a good camera for the job(s)?

Thanks for the ad
vice in advance!

Click to expand...

I agree with @ntenny - don’t overthink the camera. Your budget is healthy and with it you can enjoy a Bessa with one no-excuses very good lens.

Analogski said:

Hi,

I'm looking for a new rangefinder camera. I have a Zorki 6. I like the camera, but the viewfinder is bit dank and sometimes difficult to focus.

I would like to buy a camera for some fast shooting in street photography and family shots (I have a toddler....).
I also find it important do have a built in lightmeter that is reliable.
So fast focusing a good lens and lightmeter are important for me.
Unfortunately I don't have a Laila budget, so I don't want to spend more than a 1000 or max 1500 euro on the set.

I started to read up on the Minolta CLE and Voigtländer Bessa. According to chatgpt the Minolta has better spects. But I rather have some good advice from the community.

So, anyone advice?

Click to expand...

A thought experiment.

What if you consolidate your equipment, work extra hours, save - and buy a M6, and just enjoy it?

RezaLoghme said:

A thought experiment.

What if you consolidate your equipment, work extra hours, save - and buy a M6, and just enjoy it?

Click to expand...

Does it take better pictures?

bernard_L said:

Does it take better pictures?

Click to expand...

The M6 does not take "better" pictures. Neither are they "sharper" nor have better "bokeh" or "Micro-contrast" or any of that other doo-doo that you read about. But many photographers eventually move to a M if they are rangefinder users. The system is vast, spare parts and accessories are available, and the lenses are excellent.

Update: Pictures from a Leica are also not "organic," "cinematic" or have "3D Pop."

Kodachromeguy said:

The M6 does not take "better" pictures. Neither are they "sharper" nor have better "bokeh" or "Micro-contrast" or any of that other doo-doo that you read about. But many photographers eventually move to a M if they are rangefinder users. The system is vast, spare parts and accessories are available, and the lenses are excellent.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

And I'd add that its probably one of the most contemporary RFs available, has a good resale value and some good aftermarket service network.

RezaLoghme said:

Thanks.

And I'd add that its probably one of the most contemporary RFs available, has a good resale value and some good aftermarket service network.

Click to expand...

All true. I wouldn’t get one on the OP‘s suggested budget but if it was 2X that budget I’d consider it.

warden said:

All true. I wouldn’t get one on the OP‘s suggested budget but if it was 2X that budget I’d consider it.

Click to expand...

And my out-of-the-box suggestion was to re-think budget if possible. After all, the hardware part of analog photography is only one component- the variable costs add up to that.

Leica Classic Stuttgart has a CLE kit (with 28mm and 40mm lens), 1500 EUR and 12 month warranty, look at their website. Probably it doesnt get cheaper than this.

Have you ever handled one, and compared it to a M2, M4, M6? 1500 EUR is some decent money. Would you be able to drum up some more, for a M6?
I found the CL and CLE always underwhelming. Like a souped up XF35 Rolei.

bernard_L said:

Does it take better pictures?

Click to expand...

No. You don't buy a camera system for the body, but for the optics. But the reason to get a Leica M is because of the availability of accessories, parts and service.

Everyone's mileage varies and pretty much anything suggested here - including your original interest in a Bessa - will work. The question is at what price and can it be kept running.

I am less of a fan of any of the M6s because I think you can get 99% of the utility from a legacy M (M2, M3, M4, M5) which - IMHO - are better built. The only thing you give up is some framelines, and other than the M5, a meter. In my case, the meter is a non issue since I use handheld metering 99% of the time.

In round numbers, these legacy Ms sell for about 1/2 of the used M6 price. I got my just-CLAed M2 (with a few dings and signs of wear, to be sure) for $1200 a couple years ago.
I still consider these to be the best all around, cost effective, Leica M mount film bodies around.

This is not to say the M4-P, M4-2, M6, M7, M-A, MP film cameras are bad. They're not - well the M7 has had some historic electronics issues reported, as were the very early M6s with unfixable meters. Assuming they are well maintained, they're all just fine. But they simply are not as cost effective as the M2s are, which can still be had for reasonable money. Even if you have to pay for a general M2 CLA, you're still well below the cost of used M6s, if eBay is to be believed.

For a variety of reasons (curiosity, mostly, knowning I can unload them and largely get my money out the bodies), I own an IIIf, M2, M4, and M5. All of them were either bought just CLAed, or had a CLA since purchase and are in tip top shooting shape. The M2 is far and away my favorite. It just feels right, has the right frameline set for how I shoot, and has an absolutely silky film transport system. Again this is my experience, not a law of nature.

Now if I could only find a clean single stroke M3 for $500 US ...

OP asked for RF with built-in meter. M6 and its variants are the most recent examples, unless one is looking for vintage for the sake of vintage.

chuckroast said:

No. You don't buy a camera system for the body, but for the optics.

Click to expand...

I agree with your optics observation, but some of us buy a camera system for the body too. My Rolleiflex 3.5F III is vastly better built than my Minolta Autocord. I don't own a Leica rangefinder, but from what I'm told by people who own one, operating one gives a sense of excellent build quality and operation, just like the Rollei.

Does the fact that my Rolleiflex is so much better built and that it is more pleasant to use and smoother in operation lead to better pictures?

Not at all, but I'm more likely to pick it up and to want to use it and take it with me, and sometimes the pictures I'll take will be better than no pictures.

"Cost effective". Care to compare a 1500 EUR M2 (not an ebay bargain) and a 2500 EUR M6, plus the purchase of a 50mm lens, 2 35mm films bought and dveloped and enlarged/month, plus minimal 3rd party CLA, over 10 years?

I did, and here is the result:

Total Costs Over 10 Years​

Item	M2 (€)	M6 (€)
Subtotal (Body + Lens + Maint.)	3,250	4,250
Film + Dev + Scan	3,600	3,600
Total	6,850	7,850

I would go for the M6, you can still choose not to use the meter.

albireo said:

I agree with your optics observation, but some of us buy a camera system for the body too. My Rolleiflex 3.5F III is vastly better built than my Minolta Autocord. I don't own a Leica rangefinder, but from what I'm told by people who own one, operating one gives a sense of excellent build quality and operation, just like the Rollei.

Does the fact that my Rolleiflex is so much better built and that it is more pleasant to use and smoother in operation lead to better pictures?

Not at all, but I'm more likely to pick it up and to want to use it and take it with me, and sometimes the pictures I'll take will be better than no pictures.

Click to expand...

Sure, there is a tactile, user interface dimension when selecting any kind of machine.

I guess what I meant is that your start first with the optics and then look at the body tradeoffs, their feel, the weight, and so forth. For me, the conclusion was the M2 ... which rapidly became a gateway drug for other M bodies ...

chuckroast said:

Sure, there is a tactile, user interface dimension when selecting any kind of machine.

I guess what I meant is that your start first with the optics and then look at the body tradeoffs, their feel, the weight, and so forth. For me, the conclusion was the M2 ... which rapidly became a gateway drug for other M bodies ...

Click to expand...

I can see that. I've never owned a 35mm rangefinder and one day I'll give in to an M*. One lens, a 35mm, and frame lines to see its FOV at 100% magnification. Does it exist?

albireo said:

I can see that. I've never owned a 35mm rangefinder and one day I'll give in to an M*. One one lens, a 35mm, and frame lines to see its FOV at 100% magnification. Does it exist?

Click to expand...

M2

Just for fun I loaded a cart at keh thinking about this budget. I went with a Bessa R2 (EX) and a Zeiss 35mm F/2.8 ZM C Biogon (EX+) and came in at $1648 with a 6 month guarantee. I used to have that compact lens and it was sweet.

it‘s fun spending other people’s money.

warden said:

Just for fun I loaded a cart at keh thinking about this budget. I went with a Bessa R2 (EX) and a Zeiss 35mm F/2.8 ZM C Biogon (EX+) and came in at $1648 with a 6 month guarantee. I used to have that compact lens and it was sweet.

it‘s fun spending other people’s money.

Click to expand...

That lens is fantastic!!!

warden said:

it‘s fun spending other people’s money.

Click to expand...

You should run for office

mshchem said:

That lens is fantastic!!!

Click to expand...

Yep, Even wide open.

IME, there's nothing inherently speedy about rangefinder camera focusing, and it can be all but impossible under low-contrast situations. The magic is in the photographer's technique: Using the focus and DoF markings on the lens provides a pretty good indication of what will be in focus, and within that zone, you can simply compose and shoot without fiddling with the camera's settings. This works especially well with 50 mm and shorter focal lengths and moderate apertures, say f/5.6-11. Learning to anticipate the subject's movement is also most helpful.

I am using both RFs and SLRs from Leica, so I can compare them quite well. The M6, with a 35mm lens which a tiger claw focussing tab, "feels" fast when it comes to focussing. The Leicaflex SL or R6 lead to me turning the focus ring back and forth and to spend more time composing the image, caring about DoF and all.

I just read the Macfilos review of the Bessa T, they call it an "oddity", I agree. So much money for an "oddity". A Japan-made, badge-engineered camera. Maybe if you want to own that contrarian option. I am too lazy for that.

If I had to decide between a 1500 EUR M2 and a new 1500 EUR iPhone, I knew what to do.

But frugality, saving, working hard towards a goal are all unpopular ideas nowadays.

mshchem said:

Fujica V2 - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Is that the one that was made for a year only? How is that recommendation going to help the OP?