Rangefinder Camera - Any recommendation ?

[mrtoml]

When I first started getting into rangefinders I got a Yashica Electro 35 for about £20/$40 on ebay. It has a stellar lens and is very capable of taking great photographs. A good start to see whether you like the rangefinder concept.

I then moved up to a Bessa. They are very good value and again very cheap lenses can be had. My first Bessa R with 50mm lens cost about £100.

I got hooked on RFs after that and now have a Leica, Fuji 645 and Mamiya 7ii. But that cheap Electro is still in my collection and still takes nice pictures.

 

[Ole]

My favorite at the moment is the Bessa-T. It's unusual in that it doesn't have a viewfinder, but it does have an extremely good rangefinder and a simple, reliable light meter. That rangefinder was good enough to give me sharp, in-focus pictures in a dark church, shooting with a Soviet 85mm f:2 wide open. The bride&groom were very happy with the pictures I got, and that I got them from sufficient distance to be unobtrusive, and that I didn't use flash during the ceremony.

 

[weasel]

Any of the 60's-70's vintage fixed lens rangefinder cameras from the major makers will give you good service.
I would not worry about maker as much as condition; after 30 -40 years that is going to make more of a difference than the fairly minor design differences.

 

[spark]

I have both a Canon QL19 (same as 17 but slower lens) and the Olympus 35RD. Canon is bigger, easier to load (that "QL" thing), easier to find a nice one but usually higher priced. Olympus has a bit brighter viewfinder and is easier to pack around, maybe a tad sharper but that could just be me. Old Olympuses tend to be cheap because of oil sticking the aperture blades but you'll want either camera CLA'd anyway. Between size and focus ring position (close to body on Canon, at end of lens on Olympus) the 35RD is slightly easier for me to use but only by a small margin. Go shoot!

 

[36cm2]

Or how about a medium format RF like the Mamiya 6 or 7. I am sure you can get them cheaply these days.

This made me chuckle. You can't touch a decent Mamiya 6 with either the 50mm or 75mm lens for less than $1500. I've been drooling over them for months.

I think most responses have focused on 35mm cameras, and I would agree that makes sense for someone new to film. I'm not suggesting that you look at medium format cameras, but if someone were interested in a MF rangefinder, a 1950s folder (like the Iskra, which is a less expensive version of the Agfa Super Isolette, for example) can be had for a couple of hundred dollars. Again, if you're just starting out, you're better off learning basic principles of exposure with a modern, easier to use 35 mm camera. But, for someone with a little more experience that can develop and print themselves, I think medium format provides a lot more flexibility. If I could do it again, I would have spent less time (and much less money) shooting 35mm and moved more quickly toward medium format. (Mental note: remember this post when I'm shooting 4x5 and saying the same thing about 120).

Best of luck with whatever you choose and remember that the light is more important than the box you catch it in.

 

[Frank R]

Have you considered a medium format folder? In your price range you can get a pretty decent set up. Plus the benefits of larger film area and a camera that folds flat so you can carry it easier. www.certo6.com

 

[Chaplain Jeff]

And Now... THE MINORITY REPORT

Hello,

In the fixed lens variety, check out the Minolta 7sII. GREAT camera. Cameraquest has an excellent article about it if you need some details. I own 3 and love them. This camera has the best non-Leica viewfinder / focusing screen I've used.

For an affordable LTM, consider the Minolta 35 Model II in any of its variations. You can get one used for around $100 w/ the standard 45mm ROkkor lens. For another $100 you can get it CLA'ed and have a camera that will last you a lifetime. My favorite LTM body.

A bit rarer is the Minolta Super A. This is my favorite of the non-Leica RF's. This is the camera Minolta eventually produced after scrapping the SKY prototype due to patent protests from Leica (it had an M mount, in 1957). Supposedly it is the SKY, but with a mount unique to the Super A - its major drawback. It's built to standards much like the M3, but as I said, it uses a unique mount found on no other camera, which limits your choice of lenses. Minolta did make a variety of lenses for it, including a few exotic ones though. It also sports an accessory lineup much like the M3: a few light meter variations and external viewfinders, etc. Great camera if you can find one - and odds are you'll have the only one on the block! ;-)

Let us know what you decide!

Jeff M

 

[2F/2F]

For what they cost, I would dive right in to one of those cameras you have listed, and have at it. I don't think there are any better bangs for the buck in used cameras than some of those! Remember that they have probably never in their life been truly "maintained". Don't pay more than $25 for any of them. I got my Yashica for $5. One of my QL17s was given to me by my repairman, and the other was given to me by a friend who got it in a thrift shop in the desert for $3. Both work fine and even look nice.

I would personally opt for the Canon, followed by the Yashica.

 

[Bender]

this is an interesting thread, although I haven't read every single post...

I recently got into rangefinders - I bought a Minolta Hi-Matic 7 and a Hi-Matic 9 on ebay, for $10 each, plus shipping.

I'm interested in the comments by a couple of members here regarding inexpensive Leicas... back on page one Rollei said that the older screw-mount Leicas could be had for $300, then someone else said that older Leicas start around $250 then go up.

where can you get them for those prices? also, what older Leica models are recommended for casual hobbyists? I like the M3 from what I've seen...

 

[Rolleiflexible]

B, shop for a IIIa -- they are plentiful
and inexpensive. KEH has a IIIa body
now for $200. I've twice bought a IIIa
with a clean lens from Adorama for $300
-- once for my wife, and again for myself.

 

[Bender]

thanks Rollie, I thought any old Leica was gonna set me back $800 or so...

I need to start learning about Leicas ! Is ebay a bad place for leica deals (since many buyers overbid for everything)?

I had never heard of KEH, but I just browsed their Leica selection... how are their "bargain" cameras? decent or real beat up? The "EX" Leicas are way more expensive.

seems like adorama has better prices on these!

edit: just bought a IIIa body from adorama in "E-" condition for $199. Can't wait!!
I guess I'll have to learn how to use a handheld exposure meter now, right???!! well, I've been meaning to anyway.

 

[Jersey Vic]

I only paid $200 for my Leica IIIa but then added a $200 Summitar. A very nice lens but a nice Russian elmar copy is almost free and a really nice Russian 50 f2 Jupiter lens (Zeiss-like) or even a 1.5 can be had for $50-$75 or less. The Leica camera is a beautiful and elegant piece of machinery. That being said, a Leica clone FED or Zorki rf body w/lens can be had for around $50 and it's had to get more analog than those guys and they produce wonderfully sharp images. Perfect for B&W. If you upgrade to a Leica, the lens is still usable.

Great info on alot of russian camera here: http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/

 

[nemo999]

thanks Rollie, I thought any old Leica was gonna set me back $800 or so...

I need to start learning about Leicas ! Is ebay a bad place for leica deals (since many buyers overbid for everything)?

I had never heard of KEH, but I just browsed their Leica selection... how are their "bargain" cameras? decent or real beat up? The "EX" Leicas are way more expensive.

seems like adorama has better prices on these!

edit: just bought a IIIa body from adorama in "E-" condition for $199. Can't wait!!
I guess I'll have to learn how to use a handheld exposure meter now, right???!! well, I've been meaning to anyway.

There have been several threads on Leicas here - opinions vary, but as a life-long Leica user and current owner of 12 examples, I would say this:

Second-hand Leicas are different from any other marque - they were very well built and a very high proportion have spent their lives in the hands of amateurs being very lightly used. This means there are lots of good examples around with lots of life left in them, you can buy a cosmetically good Leica with a high level of confidence that it will not be totally worn out (except for a handful of examples which have been renovated with new top plates, etc.) but it is more or less a given that a second-hand Leica will need a CLA (because it will have worked fine for the previous owner for 50+ years without one).

The internal design of Leicas was changed radically with the IIIc model - this has a shutter assembly in the form of a crate, earlier models are much harder and costlier to service. Furthermore, some IIIc models built towards the end of World War II were made from inferior materials and may well be complete basket cases. Good choices are post-war IIIc and IIIf (same as IIIc but with flash sync). There were odd variants (like IIc and IIf) which have no slow speeds and were cheaper new, they're not cheaper now because they have rarity value. Reasonable e-bay prices would be £200 to £250, CLA £100 or so, more if rangefinder prisms are dim and need re-silvering. M models (M2, M3) are available for £100 or so more, the screw-thread models give the classic Leica experience and, with a collapsible lens, fit easily into the pocket. One interesting model is the If - this looks and handles like the original Leica of 1925 but is much easier to keep in good shape. The IIIa is not a bad starter, it sold new in large quantities so was spurned by Leica collectors for many years and was cheaper. There's isn't the price differential now and, as I said, CLA costs are higher, and your repairman may tell you that the age of the camera means that speeds cannot be adjusted to very high accuracy.

 

[Bender]

thanks for all the info. this IIIa was a spur of the moment decision... ha ha, I do that way too much. For $199 USD I guess it's an OK buy. I have bought from adorama before and they seem to be a reputable company. They had it listed as "E-" which hopefully means pretty nice condition.

should I look for an old canon leica screw mount lens? I read that old Leica lenses may be hazy or have scratches. Or maybe a modern screw mount lens?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Bender, my experience with KEH and Adorama is
that KEH's rating system is very conservative, while
Adorama's is not, so that an "Excellent" camera from
Adorama will likely be comparable to KEH's "Bargain"
model.

As for lenses, there is a wealth of choices out there.
There are many threads here, on rangefinderforum.com
and on cameraquest.com that discuss your options.
A good place to start is a 5cm f/3.5 Elmar -- it is
sharp and tiny and inexpensive.

 

[nemo999]

thanks for all the info. this IIIa was a spur of the moment decision... ha ha, I do that way too much. For $199 USD I guess it's an OK buy. I have bought from adorama before and they seem to be a reputable company. They had it listed as "E-" which hopefully means pretty nice condition.

should I look for an old canon leica screw mount lens? I read that old Leica lenses may be hazy or have scratches. Or maybe a modern screw mount lens?

As others have said. the "value for money" choice has to be a former Soviet Union (FSU) lens, most examples of which will be coated and behave more like modern lenses. An Elmar is probalby the cheapest genuine Leitz choice, a good uncoated one will cost £60 to 80 or so. Yes, Leica lenses suffer like others from age and poor handling and storage - haze is fixable by cleaning, scratches and advanced mold aren't, or at least not at an acceptable price. Canon lenses can be good, but I don't think you'll find good ones cheaper than Leitz. I personally like to use a Summicron whenever possible - one of these in good condition will probably cost £200 - but I also use an Elmar and a Summar for a different look. Summar has a physically soft front element, most examples are badly scratched. The Summitar has its fans (go for a post-war coated example), but I don't think you'll find a good one for less than a Summicron and a Summitar has more tendency to flare under backlight conditions.

PS: When using your IIIa, take extra care to put the camera in at least body shade when changing lenses, and don't allow the sun to shine through the lens when you're carrying the camera around (put on a lens cap), otherwise you might get fogged film.

PPS: Careful with 50 mm f2.8 Elmar - this lens is notorious for allowing the oil from the diaphragm blades to vaporize and deposit on the inside of the front element.

 

[Bender]

thanks again Rollei & nemo for all the info. That's good to know about KEH, they had many "BGN" cameras at good prices.

How about the modern (1990s) leica screw mount lenses (from various companies)? do they work & fit properly on the old Leica III?

this will be my oldest camera (well except for my Brownie from the 1930s). I assume I have to do everything myself (metering, etc)?

I'll need to check around for an owner's manual also, or maybe download one.

 

[Bender]

I ended up cancelling the adorama order for the Leica IIIa, before the order was processed.

I decided to try for a Leica IIIc instead, and probably from KEH rather than adorama.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Bender, most LTM lenses will mount
and focus properly on your III. I
say "most" because the Russian lens
mounts have different focusing cams,
and I have read that they sometimes
have focusing problems as a result.
But I have no first-hand knowledge;
perhaps another reader can pipe up.

If you want a Summitar, I have a late
pristine model, perfect glass and coating,
that I would sell. The Summitar combines
some of the atmosphere of the Summar
with the more modern rendering of the
Summicron -- a nice compromise design.
PM me if interested.

 

[nemo999]

Prices for good to very good user Leicas have gotten much more sensible in recent years but even so there's still the odd seller like this:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....s=algo=SI&its=I%2BIA&itu=IA%2BUCI&otn=4&ps=42
A negative example to learn from! This camera is not mint, it has slight rubbing marks, more importantly the shutter needs a CLA and the lens has cleaning marks - the camera and lens are worth max. 50% of the asking price.

 

[Bender]

ha ha, yeah. that's why I originally posted that I couldn't believe that old Leicas could be had for 200-300. I had been browsing ebay and finding very high prices, or low starting prices but bidders were driving up outrageously high...

 

[nemo999]

Perils of Leica shopping #2. I love this guy:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/LEICA-IIIc-Ra...39:1|66:2|65:12|240:1318&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14
He craftily lights the camera from all directions, thus masking minor imperfections in the chrome and ...
... the lead picture and first large picture are of a camera with lens. Only way down the listing is it made "clear" that the listing is for a body only.

Re my previous posting: Understand that the camera here is a Leica IIIg, for many years the Holy Grail of Leica collectors who had lusted after one in their youth but couldn't afford one. They're still £150 - 200 more expensive than a IIIf (only real difference: IIIg has bigger viewfinder with frames for 50 and 90 lens) but they too are much cheaper than they were a few years ago.

 

[Bender]

I'm a total noob regarding Leicas, or rangefinders in general from before 1960. I emailed KEH yesterday afternoon with a couple questions regarding one of their "Bargain" Leicas. I asked how the "slow" shutter speeds were, I asked if there were any markings or engravings "non-leica" such as owner's names etc., I asked if the rangefinder was weak or looked good.

Were those OK questions, or were they dumb? I hope KEH responds soon, I hate companies that don't respond to email.

 

[nemo999]

I'm a total noob regarding Leicas, or rangefinders in general from before 1960. I emailed KEH yesterday afternoon with a couple questions regarding one of their "Bargain" Leicas. I asked how the "slow" shutter speeds were, I asked if there were any markings or engravings "non-leica" such as owner's names etc., I asked if the rangefinder was weak or looked good.

Were those OK questions, or were they dumb? I hope KEH responds soon, I hate companies that don't respond to email.

Questions sound good to me, 1) and 3) will cost quite a lot to fix if not good, question 2) affects value of camera. I have bought some Leica from KEH, sometimes they miss a first mail but reply when I send again, they are generally friendly but seem harassed and sometimes don't read the mails very carefully!

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I'm a total noob regarding Leicas, or rangefinders in general from before 1960. I emailed KEH yesterday afternoon with a couple questions regarding one of their "Bargain" Leicas. I asked how the "slow" shutter speeds were, I asked if there were any markings or engravings "non-leica" such as owner's names etc., I asked if the rangefinder was weak or looked good.

Were those OK questions, or were they dumb? I hope KEH responds soon, I hate companies that don't respond to email.

KEH generally is not in a position to respond to
questions about individual cameras for sale, at
least if you call them with questions. The cameras
are stored in a place not accessible by the sales
staff. On the other hand, their descriptions of
their cameras have been reliable in my experience.

Sanders