Looking for a decent rangefinder

[Analogski]

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?

 

[John Wiegerink]

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?

My best advice for you on your budget is to take a really good look at Canon screw mount cameras. I've had Zorki's, both screw mount and M mount Leicas plus many others. Canon is the biggest bang for the buck out there. The nice thing is the amount of lenses and accessories for these cameras. I would gladly take a later model Canon P or 7 series over any Leica M39 screw mount camera. Yes, even over a IIIG Leica. If you go to the big auction site there are hundreds of Japanese sellers selling used Canon rangefinder cameras for very, very good prices.

 

[ntenny]

Note that your existing lenses from the Zorki, other than wide-angles, probably won’t focus quite right on a non-Soviet camera. The Soviet cameras’ rangefinders are apparently calibrated very slightly differently; Dante Stella’s “Ivan the Incompatible” article gives a fairly convincing rundown.

There’s a lot to be said for the Bessas (Bessae?) as cameras that have basic conveniences like a good meter. I have an R2C that’s a workhorse and previously got quite a bit of use out of an R. No one seems to get passionately excited over them as camera-fetish objects, but they get out of the way and do their job. They reportedly won’t mount a Jupiter-12.

-NT

 

[retina_restoration]

The Retina IIIC delivers superb images, without the Leica premium price tag. It has a large, bright viewfinder that’s easy to use, and you can easily use it as a “zone focus” camera for fast street photography. A IIIC in good condition and a working meter might be just what you’re looking for.

 

[xkaes]

Here are the top three -- with your budget, you can get one of each!

https://www.subclub.org/minman/leanmean.pdf

 

[bernard_L]

I would like to buy a camera for some fast shooting in street photography and family shots (I have a toddler....).

Point-and-shoot. AF, AE. Does not have to be a Contax T2. Plenty of choices. Effective. Admittedly not a rangefinder...
Pride-of-ownership is another story.

 

[xkaes]

Uh, he asked for a rangefinder camera!

 

[Paul Howell]

Do you want interchangeable or will fixed lens do? Second question what is your budget? The Leica CL and it;s Minolta clone are very good, some write that the Minolta is better made than the Leica version. Downside the electronics are getting old. Voitlanders are newer, good specs, in several mounts but do not have the build quality of a Leica. I have a Kodak Retina IIIB, got it in 1966. The 50mm lens are very good, the 80 and 35mm lens are not bad but do not couple to the rangefinder. My meter is dodgy that fact that is still active after 60 years is remarkable. The viewfinder on the III Big, is really good. If manual exposuere is not a priority a Konica S3 has one of the sharpest semi wide lens that Modern Photography tested.

 

[mmerig]

The Canonet QL17 GIII is a good choice (see post #5), others in that article are too.

 

[Analogski]

Point-and-shoot. AF, AE. Does not have to be a Contax T2. Plenty of choices. Effective. Admittedly not a rangefinder...
Pride-of-ownership is another story.

Yeah... I already have a Pentax PC35AF-M for the fast snapshots. It gives really nice results, but I'm looking for something bit more. And a nice rangefinder is on my list now

 

[Analogski]

Do you want interchangeable or will fixed lens do? Second question what is your budget? The Leica CL and it;s Minolta clone are very good, some write that the Minolta is better made than the Leica version. Downside the electronics are getting old. Voitlanders are newer, good specs, in several mounts but do not have the build quality of a Leica. I have a Kodak Retina IIIB, got it in 1966. The 50mm lens are very good, the 80 and 35mm lens are not bad but do not couple to the rangefinder. My meter is dodgy that fact that is still active after 60 years is remarkable. The viewfinder on the III Big, is really good. If manual exposuere is not a priority a Konica S3 has one of the sharpest semi wide lens that Modern Photography tested.

The Konica S3! Thanks, I never heard of this one. Gonna read up on it.

 

[xkaes]

I'm looking for something bit more. And a nice rangefinder is on my list now

See post #5.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The Canonet QL17 GIII is a good choice (see post #5), others in that article are too.

I second the choice. The Canonets seem to be pretty bullet proof.

The Olympus 35SP is nice if you can find a working one that stays working.

Unless I need an F1.7 lens I carry a Yashica T4. I have three that I bought when they were still in production and cost $80 new. The T4's focus is reliable and the lens is excellent. Yeah, there is a slight shutter lag, but the lag is less than the time it takes to manually focus.

 

[bernard_L]

Unless I need an F1.7 lens I carry a Yashica T4. I have three that I bought when they were still in production and cost $80 new. The T4's focus is reliable and the lens is excellent. Yeah, there is a slight shutter lag, but the lag is less than the time it takes to manually focus.

I second that. I have two. But they are not Rangefinders (see my post above).

 

[bernard_L]

@Analogski : Stay way from the Oly 35RC. Although it looks real nice, I know from hearsay and personal experience that the helicoid grease tends to migrate to the shutter blades, with some... undesired effects.

 

[Paul Howell]

The Konica S3! Thanks, I never heard of this one. Gonna read up on it.

I have a S3 and S2, the S3 has the better lens but the S2 allows for manual override, with the S3 you have to fool the meter by adjusting the ASA (ISO) to over expose or underexpose. I also have a Canon QL 1.7, a good camera, easy to use with manual override, but once in manual mode the meter is inoperative. The Konica S2 and S3 I think have better lens but all three will resolve Tmax 100. The Canon uses 48mm filters which can a tab bit on the hard side to find. Konica made a version the S3 for Vivitar, not sure if they used the same lens. At a bargin price is the Konica C35, lens is not as good or fast at 2.8 but for the money a workhorse.

Here is a link to the manual for the Konica S3

Konica Auto S3 instruction manual, PDF user manual, free manuals

Konica Auto S3 instructions

butkus.org

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Since you're shooting children, wouldn't a camera that allows you to aim down while keeping the camera low be a better choice? That way the pictures aren't all looking down but on the kid's same level. You need a camera with an articulating back screen for that or a waist-level viewfinder camera.

 

[reddesert]

Note that your existing lenses from the Zorki, other than wide-angles, probably won’t focus quite right on a non-Soviet camera. The Soviet cameras’ rangefinders are apparently calibrated very slightly differently; Dante Stella’s “Ivan the Incompatible” article gives a fairly convincing rundown.

This effect, assuming that the people who tried to measure/discuss it are correct about the cause, is strongly dependent on lens focal length. It shouldn't really matter for wide-angles (as you note); and for 50mm lenses, ought to be noticeable for fast lenses used close-up, but beyond that or stopped down it ought to be hard to tell. It should matter for telephotos (85, 100, 135).

I've tried checking this briefly and it's really pretty hard to tell without some fairly careful on-film tests, which I didn't have time for.

 

[Bill Burk]

I wore out a Canonet QL17 G-III in my youngest children’s formative years.

It gave me lots of keepers on every roll.

 

[aconbere]

@Analogski : Stay way from the Oly 35RC. Although it looks real nice, I know from hearsay and personal experience that the helicoid grease tends to migrate to the shutter blades, with some... undesired effects.

I’ve got one and have used a few others and they were all great. Like pretty much all cameras of their vintage one has to be mildly careful about the condition.

The 35RC is one of my go to tiny travel cameras. Not much bigger than an XA with much better controls and a large bright viewfinder.

 

[Y2kTLCrepair]

"important to have a built in light meter that is reliable" Analogski

That's the trick. A working light meter.
If not for that requirement, the absolute bargains that are stellar cameras; the Canon P (Popular) and the Nikon SP.

A Contax IIa when serviced is a very reliable precision manual camera (The IIIa has a Selenium cell meter).
And even a fully serviced-in-Ukraine Zorki 4 would be a fine choice.
- Of all these, my favorite is the Canon P -

"built in light meter"
Now, a Konica Hexar RF is a budget Leica M mount camera that will also take the LTM lenses (with adapter). The quality Olympus 35RC, SP, RD or DC.
Plus, you might be surprised to find out that even a low-mileage Leica M5 can be had for below your "1,000 or max 1,500 euro on the set" requirement.
Getting a nice one for the current price of approximately $1,200 EU and you'll still have room for a nice 'Nifty Fifty' (Many brands to choose from).

Finally, the Auto shutter speed Minolta CLE is nice when properly serviced. A fun camera but know that they're considered 'Light Duty' cameras.
Better to go with a low-mileage fully manual Leica CL. Fortunately they're typically married to a wonderful 40mm f/2 Summicron lens...

 

[John Wiegerink]

"important to have a built in light meter that is reliable" Analogski

That's the trick. A working light meter.
If not for that requirement, the absolute bargains that are stellar cameras; the Canon P (Popular) and the Nikon SP.

A Contax IIa when serviced is a very reliable precision manual camera (The IIIa has a Selenium cell meter).
And even a fully serviced-in-Ukraine Zorki 4 would be a fine choice.
- Of all these, my favorite is the Canon P -

"built in light meter"
Now, a Konica Hexar RF is a budget Leica M mount camera that will also take the LTM lenses (with adapter). The quality Olympus 35RC, SP, RD or DC.
Plus, you might be surprised to find out that even a low-mileage Leica M5 can be had for below your "1,000 or max 1,500 euro on the set" requirement.
Getting a nice one for the current price of approximately $1,200 EU and you'll still have room for a nice 'Nifty Fifty' (Many brands to choose from).

Finally, the Auto shutter speed Minolta CLE is nice when properly serviced. A fun camera but know that they're considered 'Light Duty' cameras.
Better to go with a low-mileage fully manual Leica CL. Fortunately they're typically married to a wonderful 40mm f/2 Summicron lens...

Yes, I had a Canon P and loved that camera with its 50mm f1.8 lens. The Canon 7s I had was nice too and it had a built in meter, but I preferred the Canon P for being user friendly. Canon also had a add-on meter for these Canon cameras that worked reasonably well. Another nice camera with a really good lens is the Konica IIIa with its shoe meter. One I almost forgot about is the Retina IIIS interchangeable rangefinder camera. I had one with all the lenses except the 200mm. If I could find another at a good price and in fully working order I'd buy it even today. The one I owned I had to do a pretty serious repair on. There is a heavy cord string that sinks the meter to the shutter controls that had broken. No cost in parts, but pretty time consuming. Still, it was a great camera and the lenses had their own unique character to them.

 

[bernard_L]

@Analogski : Stay way from the Oly 35RC. Although it looks real nice, I know from hearsay and personal experience that the helicoid grease tends to migrate to the shutter blades, with some... undesired effects.

I’ve got one and have used a few others and they were all great. Like pretty much all cameras of their vintage one has to be mildly careful about the condition.

The 35RC is one of my go to tiny travel cameras. Not much bigger than an XA with much better controls and a large bright viewfinder.

Sorry I meant the 35RD.

 

[grain elevator]

Sorry I meant the 35RD.

The RD unfortunately also suffers from having an awkward in-between size, IMHO. Too large to cradle in the hand like the RC, too small to grip like a serious camera like the SP. Sounds stupid but that's why I hardly used mine, despite the very nice lens (and having personally disassembled and degreased the shutter blades) and eventually sold it.

 

[xkaes]

The RD unfortunately also suffers from having an awkward in-between size, IMHO. Too large to cradle in the hand like the RC, too small to grip like a serious camera like the SP. Sounds stupid but that's why I hardly used mine, despite the very nice lens (and having personally disassembled and degreased the shutter blades) and eventually sold it.

We must be talking about two different cameras. The RD and the RC have basically the same body, but the lens is larger on the RD, of course:

Here's what CameraQuest has to say:

https://cameraquest.com/olyrd.htm