Purchasing a Poor-Man's Leica Soon

[filmamigo]

I totally understand the interest in a poor man's Leica. I've been wanting a sturdy rangefinder to carry in my bag every day. I looked long and hard at Leica. An M4-2 would be perfect, or maybe a Leica CL. But by the time you add just one lens (35mm or 40mm would be my preference) it's a lot of money. My main system is Pentax 67, and I have a full Pentax K slr kit, so any Leica would be additional. Hence a desire to not spend so much.

I recently saw results from a humble Ricoh 500 posted online. I was struck by the images, and investigated the camera. It was exactly what I was looking for! I ended up buying a Ricoh 500 (4th version, with the Ricoh logo in block letters - siblings with the Ricoh Jet.)

It's a VERY Leica-like body, with a 45mm f/2.8 lens. It has a leaf shutter with a maximum 1/500 -- which I appreciate for high-speed fill flash. The film advance is reminiscent of a Leicavit. I'm surprised it's not often mentioned in these lists of poor-man-Leicas, because it evokes the Leica M design.

While I can't report long-term durability yet, it is definitely sturdier than my Canonet 28, which was flimsy and essentially disintegrated more and more with every use.

 

[wahiba]

The "real poor man`s Leica" is a Zorki or a FED from Russia!

I second that. Have a FEd and they produce a pretty good picture. never tried a Zorki though.

 

[mynewcolour]

A CLE seems like a good camera, great if you want TTL flash. I found a good one in a good shop earlier this month and was very tempted. In the UK you can find them for £350 ($440) body only or £550 ($690) with the nice Rokkor 40mm.

Personally I would avoid the CL.

 

[MattKing]

I'm just wondering how you advertise to find the Poor-Man.

 

[flavio81]

I'm just wondering how you advertise to find the Poor-Man.

Yes, i wonder the same.

Because it must be a poor man that owns a Leica and is willing to sell it.

Not something easy to find!

 

[kwm]

I second that. Have a FEd and they produce a pretty good picture. never tried a Zorki though.

There is not much difference between the "Number One" models. The Zorki 1 was some kind of spin off from the F.E.D in that time. Later on both companies went different ways.

 

[Visually Conscious]

A CLE seems like a good camera, great if you want TTL flash. I found a good one in a good shop earlier this month and was very tempted. In the UK you can find them for £350 ($440) body only or £550 ($690) with the nice Rokkor 40mm.

Personally I would avoid the CL.

really? how come?

 

[mynewcolour]

really? how come?

Things about the CL that I don't like (none apply to the Minolta CLE);

The film loading
Brittle plastic used on the take-up spool is vulnerable
The metering diode is prone to failure
The metering arm breaks easily (it also interfers with some colapsable lenses and miss-reads with some wideangles lenses)
No framelines for 28mm in the standard finder
Being 'Leicas' they tend to cost more (than a Minolta CLE)

On the plus side they are a fully mechanical camera once the meter fails.

 

[mr rusty]

my poor mans leica is this https://www.cameraquest.com/ret3s.htm serviced a couple of years ago by Chris Sherlock in NZ. I have the 28, 50 and 135. The 28 + 50 are crackingly good lenses. The 135 is good but not so much fun to use. Looks impressive though!

 

[dmr]

One I might suggest is kind of a sleeper, the Mamiya Sekor Super Deluxe. Tack-sharp and very easy to operate.

 

[spark]

Here's a shout out for the Olympus 35RD. The lens is fantastic, it's small enough to carry everyplace, and the operation is easy to understand. The main issue is the stick shutter/iris which not everyone can fix

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Here are mine: from the largest to the smallest fixed rangefinder with full manual and mechanical functions.

They are all great!

 

[perkeleellinen]

Some of these fixed lens '70s cameras make really good low-light shooters with their 1.8 lenses. The quiet shutters and low cost also make them desirable in situations where a four figure camera system would make you more worried for your gear than your photo.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The only line of cameras that really deserves the title "poor man's Leica" is the Yashica Electro 35 series. In fact I believe that this series was the inspiration for the term. This is due to their sound construction and excellent optics. They would also easily fit within the required budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yashica_Electro_35
http://www.yashica-guy.com/document/chrono.html

 

[R.Gould]

The first quote of Poor mans Leica was given to The Agfa Ambi Sillette, High build quality, quality range of lenses, and probably the best viewfinder and rangefinder, in fact, and I speak as a Leica owner and user, a better and easier to use rangefinder than leica, the patch is so easy to use, and as for lens changeing, you can literly do it blindfolded, no need to line up red dots, just insert lens, turn until it goes into place, them a 1/4 turn to lock it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The only line of cameras that really deserves the title "poor man's Leica" is the Yashica Electro 35 series. In fact I believe that this series was the inspiration for the term. This is due to their sound construction and excellent optics. They would also easily fit within the required budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yashica_Electro_35
http://www.yashica-guy.com/document/chrono.html

I agree Gerald and you are 100% right about the lens quality of the Electro cameras. For many years I poo-poo'd these cameras because they had no manual override for exposure. Then I tried one and found the auto-exposure to be very accurate, low-light capability excellent and long auto-exposures to be very beneficial. I also found that using ISO 100 film I could play the ASA dial to easily compensate exposure. Truth is, I almost never had to touch that dial. As to the lens? I have a Contax G outfit, which includes the 45mm f2 Planar. The 45mm f2 Planar is suppose to be one of the sharpest, if not the sharpest lenses made. I compared results between these two lenses at f2 and f8 and was happy to note that they were actually neck-n-neck. The Planar did have better contrast at f2 and was a little sharper, but at f8 they were crossing the finish line, like I say, neck-n-neck. I now have two Yashica GSN's and use them when I don't want to chance injuring or losing my Contax. I will say that there are so many great cameras out the that fall into this category, but the Yashica GSN just seems to fill the bill for me.

 

[mynewcolour]

A Yashica GX or CCN is a good option if you can find a good one at a good price. The CCN uses a more conventional battery.

 

[John Wiegerink]

A Yashica GX or CCN is a good option if you can find a good one at a good price. The CCN uses a more conventional battery.

True, but they are a bit harder to find and hence, more expensive than the slightly bigger GSN. Still, I would like a GX and if one comes my way cheap enough I'll snatch it.

 

[Tobes71]

Personally I love the Olympus XA. Pack of cigarettes tiny, pocket friendly design and a proper rangefinder. To be honest though I would just keep looking for any of the main suspects and buy on condition. There are lots of cameras that will do what you want them to do but many of them will have issues. I would rather have a nice example of almost any of the cameras on the list than a dodgy version of 'the best' one.

 

[cooltouch]

I'm gonna make a few recommendations and they are all based on cameras I own or have owned. In no particular order:

Olympus Trip 35. This is a range focus camera with more or less auto exposure using a built-in selenium sensor/meter. Despite not having a lot of adjustability, I've found that it takes excellent photos. They can usually be picked up in the <$50 price range.

Olympus XA. An excellent, compact true rangefinder, and very capable especially when partnered with the A11 flash.

Kodak IIc/IIIc. Beautifully made, German craftsmanship, top notch optics. I own a minty IIc that I bought a few years ago for about $70. If it were being manufactured today, the price would probably be well north of $1,000.

Minolta Hi-Matic 7s. This camera has even fewer adjustments than the Oly Trip 35. But it takes great, perfectly exposed pics, I've found. [Edit: turns out this camera was a Hi-Matic e, and not a 7.]

Canon IVSb. This is one of Canon's most common interchangeable-lens LTM rangefinder cameras. It has a squinty viewfinder, but a big plus is a lever that changes viewfinder magnification to correspond to 35mm, 50mm and (I think?) 100mm lenses. This was a high-quality camera and most examples around today still work well.

Canon IIIa. The IIIa is identical to the IVSb, the main difference being the IVSb has a proprietary Canon flash rail whereas the IIIa had no flash sync.

Canon P. The P looks like a "poor man's Leica." it has the big viewfinder window and just generally looks like an M-series, but it still takes LTM lenses. One unusual "feature" of the P is that, with almost every one you see, it has a wrinkled stainless steel shutter. But, unless the shutter is extremely wrinkled, it will work just fine. I'm lucky. My P has almost no wrinkle to its shutter -- very unusual.

Canon QL-17 GIII. I'm including the QL-17 in my list of recommendations simply because it is such a good camera. I have two and neither of mine have shown any evidence of being worn out. Even so, they're relatively cheap enough where replacement is a do-able option.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Minolta Hi-Matic 7s. This camera has even fewer adjustments than the Oly Trip 35. But it takes great, perfectly exposed pics, I've found.

You must have a different 7S than the one I have and you can see mine above.
The one I have has full manual controls as well as a nice Program mode. Granted the meter display in the viewfinder is by EV numbers. Not only the 7S is a rangefinder, and the Trip 35 isn't, but the rangefinder is even parallax corrected.
Yes, it has a nice meter and excellent lens.
The Olympus Trip 35 is a lot lighter, has a great lens and is simpler to use. And that's the whole point of it. It rightly deserves the cult following. I should know about it as I moderate a Flickr group dedicated solely to the Trip 35.

 

[cooltouch]

Sorry about the misinformation. I went back and checked my notes. Turns out the Minolta I had was Hi-Matic e. Not even a 7. It has a rangefinder and manual focusing, everything else is auto.

Glad to hear about your flickr group. I should go over there and post some photos. I like my Trip 35 a lot. Mine was literally tossed in with a OM collection I bought. And it's a black one, too!

 

[carlostaiwan]

Voigtlander bessa r and a l39 russian lens. Would be my choice

 

[Visually Conscious]

Things about the CL that I don't like (none apply to the Minolta CLE);

The film loading
Brittle plastic used on the take-up spool is vulnerable
The metering diode is prone to failure
The metering arm breaks easily (it also interfers with some colapsable lenses and miss-reads with some wideangles lenses)
No framelines for 28mm in the standard finder
Being 'Leicas' they tend to cost more (than a Minolta CLE)

On the plus side they are a fully mechanical camera once the meter fails.

After picking up a poor-man Leica, I end up picking up a Leica CL. Despite it's short comings, it's a greta mid-range rangefinder.

Also thank you everyone who commented!

 

[dugrant153]

I was in the market for a usable second Leica M but found that the ones I looked at were all tattered or would require expensive CLA's. As I had invested in M mount lenses, I wanted a compatible "poor man's leica" body.

I started thinking Canon P for screw mount lenses... but eventually found a Leica CL in pretty good condition. Horizontal RF was out of whack but fixed it pretty quickly (Hopefully). You're right in that it has it's short comings and it is not in the same calibre as a Leica M in many ways... but it is powerful in it's own right. The small size also makes me nearly invisible on the streets... combined with a semi-wide lens and I'm good to go.

Congrats on the Leica CL. Love mine thus far.