Looking for direction regarding medium format rangefinders

[snay1345]

I currently have a voightlander perkeo 2 that I inherited from a great uncle when he passed away a few years ago. I have enjoyed it alot but I was wanting to step up to a med format rangefinder that has a built in rangefinder and meter. The perkeo has neither of these and it makes it difficult to shoot photos of things that are not very still. I have a 35mm rangefinder that has a built in rangefinder and I find it much easier to focus and get good photos.

So I was wondering where should I start looking for a pocket folding mf rangefinder that has a built in rangefinder and meter? I am not sure they even exist to be honest. When I say look I mean what brands and models should I be looking for. I prefer the square size of 6x6 but any of the wider formats will work as well. Thank you for any help.

 

[Chazzy]

You could look at the Mamiya 6 and the Mamiya 7, or at the new Bessa III. But they are expensive cameras.

 

[2F/2F]

What is your budget? The Mamiya 6 is an obvious choice for a 6x6 RF, but they are relatively expensive. The next ones that come to mind would be Fuji fixed-lens RFs. They made them in 6x4.5, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, and perhaps other sizes that I don't know about, such as 6x6.

 

[MikeSeb]

Mamiya 7 or the Bessa III. Prepare to spend some cash, but I can vouch for the Mamiya 7 by personal experience. Fabulous image-making machine.

 

[BobD]

Accessory clip-on rangefinders exist that can be attached to any camera with
a standard shoe. They don't cost much. Here is a Rondo RF on my Zenobia:

 

[keithwms]

Mamiya 6 or 6MF. After several years, still my favourite camera all 'round... and the only camera body that I have three of! Well worth the expense, especially when you put it up against the fixed lens new bessa. In my opinion, the 6 is rivalled/exceeded only by the considerably bulkier Mamiya 7/7ii. I like the 6 for travel, so... that was my choice.

The 7-series has the advantage of the 43mm lens, if you need it, and the 7-series 80mm is better than the 6-series 75, but the 50 and the 150 are stupendous.... and affordable.

Note: the 7-series does not fold/collapse. The 6-series does, and it gets small enough for a jacket pocket.

 

[photoncatcher]

I'm a huge fan of the Koni-Omega rapid series. Big bright view/range finder, and really great lenses. Nothing at all against the Mamiyas, if I could have afforded one I would have the Mamiya 7 to be sure. The Koni does not have any metering, but can be had for much less than the others mentioned. For quiick shooting I always use the "sunny 16 " rule, or when I have the time, my trusty Gossen luna pro.

 

[fotch]

My favorite for a pocketable walk around camera is my Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta BX. Built in range finder, meter (although the meter doesn't work), 6x6 format, very sharp negatives. Heavy, not a plastic machine.

 

[RobertV]

Mamiya 6 or 7 II or the Cosina Voigtländer Bessa III 667 where the last one you can choose between 6x6 or 6x7 but has fixed optic 3,5/80mm and is a compact folder of exactly 1000 grams.

All expensive cameras. You could also look for a Plaubel Makina with El Nikkor optic but also these cameras are expensive even available second hand only.

The Mamiya 7II and Bessa III 667 are still in production but the 7 II is much heavier and less compact then the Bessa III folder.
In optics I do not think you will see much differences. All mentioned cameras have more then excellent optics.

Bessa III and Rollei Super Pan 200 E.I. 160 in AM74/RHS.
A nice film speed for this camera.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Another vote for the Mamiya 6. Amazing optics!

 

[craigclu]

I used a Fuji folder 645 for many years and was always happy with it. It finally developed a small crack in the bellows that was quickly and inexpensively repaired at Camera Wiz with a new one. Top notch optics, too. Their new 6X7 folder requires some extra cash to obtain but is supposed to be a great performer, too. I use the Bronica RF645 and Mamiya 7 systems these days and would certainly endorse both. The Bronica is a bit handier for people shots (vertical format for candids, quick duty) but they both deliver first-class results. I sometimes miss the folder as it was so easy to slide into a jacket pocket and actually have along when things would pop up.

 

[brian steinberger]

Another vote for the Mamiya 6. I only shoot MF rangefinders, also have a Bronica RF645 that I love and a Fuji 6x8 rangefinder. If you don't absolutely need a folder definitely check out the Mamiya 6.

 

[Andrew K]

I'd vote for the Fuji rangefinders - they have amazingly sharp optics...I've used Koni Omega's - the lenses are fantastic, but they are...how do I put it? An aquired taste.....the Mamiya press cameras are wonderful to use, but not the most compact of cameras....

As for pockatable, rangefinder and meter - if you ever come across a Makina 6x7 rangefinder at a good price then you could do much worse - Nikon lens, coupled rangefinder, built in meter.....nice cameras. Fuji 645 is my second choice if you can find one - but make sure (as mentioned before) that the bellows are OK - it's getting hard to get replacement bellows...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I wish someone would make a decent 6x9 rangefinder.

 

[canonman]

...and another for New Mamiya 6! Great shooter and affordable!

 

[sandermarijn]

I wish someone would make a decent 6x9 rangefinder.

What about the Fuji's? I had a GSW690iii for about two years and quite liked it. The optics are a bit harsh (high contrast) for -my- b&w, so I eventually sold it. Another thing to consider with these is that they're bulky, like an oversized Leica M.

I also tried the Mamiya 7(I) w/ 80mm. Again I found the optics too harsh for b&w. Plenty sharp though and great for colour.

The OP doens't mention if he does mostly colour or b&w. To me personally this does matter A LOT. I find the Fuji and Mamiya rangefinders that I've tried great for colour but too high-contrast for b&w. The older German lenses (Rolleiflex, Hasselblad) work much better for my b&w.

I've never been able to figure out what underlies this. The type of glass perhaps or maybe the coatings- possibly both

It may also be just my imagination, this contrast-thing, but then I've seen too much of it to believe that. In 35mm I see the same difference between the Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 and the Zeiss for Contax G lenses. Both sharp but totally different rendering of overall contrast (micro contrast/resolution is more than fine with the Contax G lenses).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

What about the Fuji's? I had a GSW690iii for about two years and quite liked it...

Yes, like that but with a limited set of exchangeable lenses (like the Mamiya 6), or if it ha to be a fixed lens, then a nice zoom.

 

[Chazzy]

What about the Fuji's? I had a GSW690iii for about two years and quite liked it. The optics are a bit harsh (high contrast) for -my- b&w, so I eventually sold it. Another thing to consider with these is that they're bulky, like an oversized Leica M.

I also tried the Mamiya 7(I) w/ 80mm. Again I found the optics too harsh for b&w. Plenty sharp though and great for colour.

The OP doens't mention if he does mostly colour or b&w. To me personally this does matter A LOT. I find the Fuji and Mamiya rangefinders that I've tried great for colour but too high-contrast for b&w. The older German lenses (Rolleiflex, Hasselblad) work much better for my b&w.

I've never been able to figure out what underlies this. The type of glass perhaps or maybe the coatings- possibly both

It may also be just my imagination, this contrast-thing, but then I've seen too much of it to believe that. In 35mm I see the same difference between the Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 and the Zeiss for Contax G lenses. Both sharp but totally different rendering of overall contrast (micro contrast/resolution is more than fine with the Contax G lenses).

I've heard it said that the Germans optimized their lenses for resolution, and that the Japanese optimized their lenses for contrast. It's a very broad generalization, but maybe there is a little truth in it.

 

[sandermarijn]

I've heard it said that the Germans optimized their lenses for resolution, and that the Japanese optimized their lenses for contrast. It's a very broad generalization, but maybe there is a little truth in it.

I think so, yes. Or maybe it's just a delusion of some (including me).

This German vs Japanese contrast issue is a bit off topic of course. It might make a nice thread on its own; if not a couple of those exist already.

Contrast vs resolution- food for hours, days, weeks, ....

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've heard it said that the Germans optimized their lenses for resolution, and that the Japanese optimized their lenses for contrast. It's a very broad generalization, but maybe there is a little truth in it.

See which you prefer:

http://www.biox.kth.se/kjellinternet/Pinhole.pdf

 

[frank]

Wouldn't film development play a greater role in contrast, or at least a compensating role? If one lens gives inherently greater contrast than another, simply alter the development factors to compensate for this so that the final result is to your liking.

 

[sandermarijn]

See which you prefer:

http://www.biox.kth.se/kjellinternet/Pinhole.pdf

One thing is for sure: both the Japanese and the Germans are able-minded engineers

Interesting stuff!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Wouldn't film development play a greater role in contrast, or at least a compensating role? If one lens gives inherently greater contrast than another, simply alter the development factors to compensate for this so that the final result is to your liking.

With lenses, we are talking micro contrast. With development compensation, we are talking overall image contrast. Two different things. The former controls sharpness, the latter controls negative contrast range.

You do, however, have a point in so far that the subject contrast has a significant impact on lens and film resolution.