Please advise - first 35mm rangefinder camera sought.

[eli griggs]

For relatively low cost and very high quality, a Leica IIIf with either a collapsible 50mm f/3.5 Elmar (very small when collapsed) or collapsible 50mm f/2 Summicron (not quite a small but still very low profile). I know that's a little longer than you want but these cameras are just marvelous travelers and street shooters. I had YYE rebuild both the body and the Summicron.

At higher cost and somewhat larger size, but considerably easier to use and with a more comfortable viewfinder/focus arrangement - a Leica M2 with a 35mm Summicron-M. This is a classic combination. Even used, it's relatively expensive, but oh dear heavens what a shooter that combo is. I speak as someone who shoots a lot of 120 and 4x5. But that M2/35mm is increasingly becoming my goto.

Just realize that these cameras and lenses are old and may need overhauling. So watch for a decent deal and then pay YYE or DAG to do the overhaul and you'll have a shooter for a every long time.

Source: Own both of the above. When I am in the mood, both do marvelous things on film. I am usually a Nikon 35mm shooter (and remain so), but one day with the M2/35mm combo turned me into a rabid Leica fanboi

Here is an example (scan of silver print):

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20240125-1-12-Treeceding.jpg

Nice work.

This photo was taken with a Canon Canonet QL17. HP5. Cheers!

Love that boken.

 

[eli griggs]

I used a Canonet QL17 until it stopped working. It's a very capable camera but I only used it in manual mode. I never trusted the meter.

One of the nice things about that Canonet 17 GIII is the SR44 1.5v can be used without putting in a diode or adapter for 1.3 volts.

By-the-way, because this OP asked for first rangefinders, I omitted the Leica CL film camera, simply because of its cost.

I use FSU LTM lenses, not LTM 39 or Leica M's, and the FSU Turret Viewfinder, which will also serve on other Leica analogs, like the M3.

 

[Hassasin]

For fixed lens RF I will throw in Fujica V2. Not the smallest but insanely quiet, thumb focus which is super quick, rangefinder great, great lens.

 

[brbo]

I don't think people actually read, they just say get the camera they have. Internet I guess.

I am not aware of any 35mm viewfinders that are 100%.

So, you are one of them that don't like to read before responding? There have been rangefinders with 100% viewfinders mentioned in this very thread.


Anyway, Canonets get mentioned a lot. I've had a number of them. If you get one in absolutely pristine condition, its viewfinder and rangefinder are kinda okay. If you are picking a rangefinder primarily with the best (great) viewfinder in mind, forget about the Canonets.

 

[reddesert]

As nice a camera as they may be, I've always found the Canonets remarkably bulky; similar to the Konica S2 etc. A small SLR is barely smaller, modern ones may weigh as little or even less, and in my experience are just as easy to hold still. I used to have a QL25 for a while, but I got rid of it because of the issues mentioned; its bulk and lack of any other appeal condemned it to a closet in my ownership anyway.

Generally in these threads, eventually every possible camera is named.

I have to stick up for the Canonet. There are two distinct sizes of Canonet. The first generation has a larger body and is about the size of a Konica auto S2, or a quite small SLR (like an Olympus OM-1). I believe your QL25 was of that first generation. The later generations ("New Canonet," although not labeled "new," and "G-III"), are notably smaller. The easy way to tell is that the older ones have a flat top plate and a 45mm lens. The newer smaller ones have a step in the top plate near the wind and shutter controls, and usually a 40mm lens (although the Canon camera museum claims the new f/1.9 was still a 45/1.9, I see these less often than the 40/1.7). The smaller ones are noticeably smaller than an SLR - a lot of this comes from being shorter, due to the 40mm non-retrofocus lens and lack of a mirror box and prism.

The best Canonets are always the ones with f/1.7 or 1.9 lenses (usually little difference between f/1.7 and 1.9 apart from the lens, and maybe a battery check light). The ones with f/2.5 or 2.8 are usually limited in some way, like fewer shutter speeds or even lack of manual control.

Even the smallest Canonets would only fit into a largish jacket pocket. For a smaller pocket you need an Olympus 35 RC or XA.

Anyway, I find the viewfinders of the Canonets okay, but not as luxurious as the Konica S2, which has moving parallax corrected framelines. IME, people get hung up on particular issues such as 1.0x mag finders. It's important to note that coming from an SLR, one is going to have to get used to the different behavior of a viewfinder. In an SLR, the view always adjusts to the focal length, but of course if you put a wide-angle lens like a 35mm on, the SLF finder becomes less than life-size magnification automatically. In a rangefinder, there are various choices for how the finder can adjust for different focal lengths - changing magnification; same mag but changing framelines; etc.

Magnification isn't the only thing that makes a finder nice, eye relief matters as well. If you have to cram your eye into the glass to see the edges of the frame, that's also sometimes a discomfort.

 

[koraks]

I believe your QL25 was of that first generation.

Yes, I now realize that a newer generation might have been smaller; I never had one of those and erroneously assumed they were all the same size. My mid-1960s QL25 was indeed similarly sized to my Konica S2 Auto; both were roughly the same bulk as one of the smaller Canon EOS SLR's.

 

[RAY WILSON]

Konica Auto S2, FP4.

 

[albireo]

Thanks everyone for the suggestions so far.

One theme that's emerging I think, is that the my initial combined requirement of a 35mm or 40mm as a do-it-all AND a huge viewfinder (ideally .8-1X) will restrict my choices a fair bit.

So then I'd say I'll relax the focal lens requirement to include 50mm lenses, too.

What I see emerging so far is

top tier
--------
Leica M2 + Summaron
Earlier Leica with collapsible lens

Pros (as I see them): mechanical and optical quality, can be resold without loss if unsuitable
Cons (as i see them): price, will likely need a thorough CLA. Bling factor: might attract unwanted attention.

Mid tier
---------
Canon P + 50mm f/1.4

Pros (as I seem them): good viewfinder, good IQ
Cons (as I seem them): the samples I'm eyeing on ebay japan look pretty worn. I see some rust in many units, some lens haze. humidity damage in some cases. A few have pretty big dings on the body. I wonder about the durability of these cameras. CLA will be needed probably.

Budget tier
---------
Fixed lens options - Canonet, Fujica V2, Konica IIIa, etc

Pros: low price, well matched viewfinder/rangefinder/lens. Opportunity of a working meter. Some will feature high quality lenses
Cons: variable viewfinder magnification. Unclear amounts of operational noise. Are these going to be less quiet than a Leica or a Canon?

Outsiders
------------
Minolta CLE?
Olympus XA?
Konica Hexar RF
Bessa R?
...

Regarding the requirement for a large projected viewfinder image: I really don't enjoy composing through a keyhole. For those of you owning a DSLR, you will know what I mean: if you have ever owned a crop-sensor low-tier Nikon DSLR (eg Nikon D3xxx, D5xxx) you will know it's like looking through a tunnel. I realised that's not what I wanted when I purchased my OM2-N. It's a pretty big factor for me. Being able to focus well (eg clear, usable rangefinder patch) would also be extremely important.

 

[Cholentpot]

... and for good reason.

Hey now! I have three of them and they all work. And they'll keep working after all these fancy gizmos are long gone.

 

[Hassasin]

Budget tier
---------
Fixed lens options - Canonet, Fujica V2, etc

Pros: low price, well matched viewfinder/rangefinder/lens. Opportunity of a working meter. Some will feature high quality lenses
Cons: variable viewfinder magnification. Unclear amounts of operational noise. Are these going to be less quiet than a Leica or a Canon?

Fujica V2 is about half the noise of any Leica, it's basically a whisper level experience. Thumb focus, if you never used one, is ingenious, fast and easy.

 

[albireo]

Fujica V2 is about half the noise of any Leica, it's basically a whisper level experience. Thumb focus, if you never used one, is ingenious, fast and easy.

excellent, thanks

 

[brbo]

Magnification isn't the only thing that makes a finder nice...

That being especially true when considering rangefinder cameras. I'd say there are many other things being much more important than magnification. Like the shape of the frame lines, how accurate they are (at what distance), rangefinder patch contrast, how much peripheral view do you want (ok, that is dependant on magnification)...

 

[John Wiegerink]

That being especially true when considering rangefinder cameras. I'd say there are many other things being much more important than magnification. Like the shape of the frame lines, how accurate they are (at what distance), rangefinder patch contrast, how much peripheral view do you want (ok, that is dependant on magnification)...

Thanks everyone for the suggestions so far.

One theme that's emerging I think, is that the my initial combined requirement of a 35mm or 40mm as a do-it-all AND a huge viewfinder (ideally .8-1X) will restrict my choices a fair bit.

So then I'd say I'll relax the focal lens requirement to include 50mm lenses, too.

What I see emerging so far is

top tier
--------
Leica M2 + Summaron
Earlier Leica with collapsible lens

Pros (as I see them): mechanical and optical quality, can be resold without loss if unsuitable
Cons (as i see them): price, will likely need a thorough CLA. Bling factor: might attract unwanted attention.

Mid tier
---------
Canon P + 50mm f/1.4

Pros (as I seem them): good viewfinder, good IQ
Cons (as I seem them): the samples I'm eyeing on ebay japan look pretty worn. I see some rust in many units, some lens haze. humidity damage in some cases. A few have pretty big dings on the body. I wonder about the durability of these cameras. CLA will be needed probably.

Budget tier
---------
Fixed lens options - Canonet, Fujica V2, Konica IIIa, etc

Pros: low price, well matched viewfinder/rangefinder/lens. Opportunity of a working meter. Some will feature high quality lenses
Cons: variable viewfinder magnification. Unclear amounts of operational noise. Are these going to be less quiet than a Leica or a Canon?

Outsiders
------------
Minolta CLE?
Olympus XA?
Konica Hexar RF
Bessa R?
...

Regarding the requirement for a large projected viewfinder image: I really don't enjoy composing through a keyhole. For those of you owning a DSLR, you will know what I mean: if you have ever owned a crop-sensor low-tier Nikon DSLR (eg Nikon D3xxx, D5xxx) you will know it's like looking through a tunnel. I realised that's not what I wanted when I purchased my OM2-N. It's a pretty big factor for me. Being able to focus well (eg clear, usable rangefinder patch) would also be extremely important.

From your outsiders list there is only one camera there that is silent and near perfect and that's the Konica Hexar. I owned one for about two years after they first came out. It was black model and I really enjoyed using it except for one little flaw. My example had a slight misaligned rangefinder (+). I could not figure out why I would have a few out-of-focus shots on a roll. One day I tested the rangefinder (+) mark to where it was actually focusing and it was slightly off center. I sent it to Konica USA twice to correct the problem and it came back each time with the same misalignment. I sold it with the intention of buying another, but never did. If mine didn't have this flaw I would still have it. Yes, it's certainly a classic worth having and can be totally silent. OH, and the 35mm f2 lens is as good as any Leica lens I have used. I don't think it was as good as my 45mm f2 Zeiss Planar for the G1, but darn close.

 

[brbo]

@John Wiegerink, you must be talking about Hexar AF which has nothing in common with Hexar RF on @albireo's list.

 

[albireo]

That being especially true when considering rangefinder cameras. I'd say there are many other things being much more important than magnification. Like the shape of the frame lines, how accurate they are (at what distance), rangefinder patch contrast, how much peripheral view do you want (ok, that is dependant on magnification)...

ok good to know, thanks. Ideally I'd like to handle a few of these cameras.

 

[albireo]

From your outsiders list there is only one camera there that is silent and near perfect and that's the Konica Hexar. I owned one for about two years after they first came out. It was black model and I really enjoyed using it except for one little flaw. My example had a slight misaligned rangefinder (+). I could not figure out why I would have a few out-of-focus shots on a roll. One day I tested the rangefinder (+) mark to where it was actually focusing and it was slightly off center.

Excellent user insight, thank you John

 

[xkaes]

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

You can see test results for the Canon 1.7, Minolta 1.7 and Olympus 1.7 -- and much more -- in the above link. They all have FAST lenses, large, bright viewfinders, manual & auto exposure control. They are LEAN and MEAN.

 

[markjwyatt]

I have a IIIC big, along the 2 lens, for the money, get a IIIS, true interchangeable lens.

True. A Retina IIIS with a Schneider-Kreuznach 35mm f2.8 Curtagon would be right on the money for the OP.

 

[chuckroast]

Thanks everyone for the suggestions so far.

One theme that's emerging I think, is that the my initial combined requirement of a 35mm or 40mm as a do-it-all AND a huge viewfinder (ideally .8-1X) will restrict my choices a fair bit.

So then I'd say I'll relax the focal lens requirement to include 50mm lenses, too.

What I see emerging so far is

top tier
--------
Leica M2 + Summaron
Earlier Leica with collapsible lens

Pros (as I see them): mechanical and optical quality, can be resold without loss if unsuitable
Cons (as i see them): price, will likely need a thorough CLA. Bling factor: might attract unwanted attention.

That pretty much captures the Leica situation, though I would not use a Summaron. If you gonna spend the money for an M body, get a Summicron IMHO.

You don't necessarily have to do a CLA right away, just be prepared for that expense sooner or later.
I used my IIIf for years before getting it CLAed. DAG charges $500-ish for an M body, YYE charges around $280 for a Barnack body and around $300 for an M body (including expediting fees) and $130 for a lens. YYE does not work on M5s, however.

I'd point out that any of these older cameras under consideration will require service at some point, it's not a Leica-specific thing. It's just that the Leicas are such good cameras they're worth the CLA. An old Fuji or Canonet is unlikely to be worth the fees to CLA them and you'd be more inclined just to find a replacement camera (again, IMO).

Also, consider how important- or not, interchangeable lenses are to you.

Finally, as to the "bling" factor. I've had people walk up to ask about my view camera, I've had people move their children out of the way to give me access to a shooting position in a castle when I was using a Hasselblad. I've even had a teenager walk up to me to tell my my Nikkormat was "cool". But I've never had anyone pay attention to a Leica, go figure. Then again, I just got my Ms so we'll see. But I've shot my IIIf for years w/o anyone noticing.

 

[Paul Howell]

"Budget is not a concern if it has the features I'm after. It will be my one and only rangefinder for the foreseeable future."

I overlooked OP's mention that that budget is not a concern. My earlier posts were out of habit for folks with a limited budget. In this case I recommend a Leica M7, new or used with warranty. As OP lives in the EU, well at least Europe, service and repair should be too troublesome. I know that the purist hate the M7, electronic shutter, may or may not have the same build quality as earlier models. Although I have not held a M7, if I win the lottery it would be at the top of my list for a day to day shooter. Great lens, easy to use controls, takes all M mount lens, options for Konica, Zeiss, others as well. Viewfinder is not 100%, but reviewers say it is bright.

 

[xkaes]

"Budget" (whatever that means) may not be a big concern for the OP, but there are lots of people that will read this thread who do take that into consideration.

 

[ant!]

Without interchangeable lenses, compact and big viewfinder (no idea about the coverage and magnification though), the Agfa Optima Sensor 1535 comes in mind (or without rangefinder, otherwise pretty similar: 1035). Lens is a 40/2.8.
On the German market they pop up quite often, so easiest buying from there.

 

[albireo]

"Budget" (whatever that means)

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, definition 4C

Definition of BUDGET

a usually leather pouch, wallet, or pack; also : its contents; stock, supply; a quantity (as of energy or water) involved in, available for, or assignable to a particular situation; also : an account of gains and losses of such a quantity… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Richard Jepsen]

The OP mentioned budget is not a driving factor. Therefore I would recommend a M4 because a photographer will always want the experience of using a Leica. Pair with a great lens the Minolta CLE 40/2 and use the 35mm frame. The M4/5 finders are more crisp than earlier models. Look to the M4-2 If you want a black body.

The M5 is also a great camera but the meters may have failed. Not having a in camera meter is not an issue. A hand held incident meter is best for general photography and your exposures will be consistent.

 

[John Wiegerink]

@John Wiegerink, you must be talking about Hexar AF which has nothing in common with Hexar RF on @albireo's list.

Yes, I'm speaking of the Konica Hexar AF, sorry,