Suggestions for new rangefinder

rbarker · Jan 18, 2005

A used M6TTL in good shape can usually be found for around $1200-1600, and that's about what I paid for a used 75mm 'Lux, as well. Before investing that sort of money, it's a good idea to be sure that the rangefinder style of shooting works for you. Not everyone adapts to the difference in style. The new Bessa offers a good intro at a fairly reasonable price.

The ideal situation would be to find a Leica user in your area, and see if they'd let you try it out.

There are people like Neal describes, who keep their Leica gear unused in-box, but they are collectors, not photographers. My Leica gear works for a living.

Claire Senft · Jan 18, 2005

No they are not as flexible

I would view the regard the rangefinder as unparralled for candid or journalistic photography that can be accomplished with very wide thru short telephoto. If however you start needing lenses longer than 90mm, certainly longer than 135mm range finder cameras take a definite backward step. A 135mm lens on a range finder camera is very hard to do sophisticated composition with since it ordinarily involve a very small portion of the viewfinder and is more difficult to achieve focus with. With a rangefinder you have the advantage of seeing elements outside your photo area but you do not have the ability to do depth of field preview. It is possible to attach ground glass viewing to rangefinder cameras that take the Leica M mount thru the use of the visoflex III which is no longer made but available used. Many of the Leitz lenses from 65mm and longer were usable. Diaphram operation was manual. I do not have a clue if the current Leica lenses offer this feature. This, the Visoflex, was capable of first class resilts for nature, scenic and still life work or anything else where a 35mm format was usable and the subject would stay put. It is today pretty much very outdated.

For myself, I find that if I have more than one camera system one of the two becomes an orphan hidden in the closet and the other gets regular excercise.
Since so little of my photography involves people, my granddaughter excepted, and because I like using 35mm cameras I am working exclusively with a 35mm SLR and my 4 lenses and Mamiya RZ67 body is resting.

So then the rangefinder is nice but specialized equipment that is unbeatable for a narrow field of work and somewhat or very much comprised for all of the rest.

mikeg · Jan 18, 2005

Claire Senft said:
I would view the regard the rangefinder as unparralled for candid or journalistic photography that can be accomplished with very wide thru short telephoto.
...
So then the rangefinder is nice but specialized equipment that is unbeatable for a narrow field of work and somewhat or very much comprised for all of the rest.

I totally agree. My SLRs are my main workhorse cameras. However, a couple of years ago my photography was in a bit of rut, I needed something different, so I brought a Bessa R2. OK, it's not perfect and it's not as flexible as my SLRs but I do enjoy using it. It's ideal for wide angle to 75mm or 90mm but as Claire says anything longer then you have to use an SLR. The quality of many of the M & L mount lenses is excellent. For my SLRs I'd have to buy Canon L series to reach the quality of my reasonably cheap Voigtlander lenses.

The main thing though is that it's put the fun back into my photography!

Mike

Nicole · Jan 18, 2005

Gee, I hope I haven't hijacked this thread or at least adding interest to it...

I'm about to inherit a 1970's Konica C EF rangefinder which will be a good little introduction I guess.

So, please correct me if I am wrong, are the quality of lenses often better/sharper/faster for rangefinders than many SLR lenses (I shoot with a Nikon F90X and have the Nikon 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 lenses that I use most the time)?
I hope this question doesn't sound like I'm an absolute 'dill' - I do my best not to be

Helen B · Jan 18, 2005

Claire wrote, on the subject of the mighty Visoflex:
'Many of the Leitz lenses from 65mm and longer were usable. Diaphram operation was manual. I do not have a clue if the current Leica lenses offer this feature.'

None of the current Leica lenses can be dismantled for use with the Visoflex at infinity focus, to the best of my knowledge (not that that means anything). For the sake of APUG I have tried this with all my Leica lenses, and can confirm that, even after taking them apart, they do not focus on infinity on the Visoflex.

Best,
Helen

PS Does anyone know how to tell which way round the bits of glass are supposed to go? I'm having a bit of difficulty getting my lenses back together. I found a dead mouse in my Noctilux. That's typical for those trashy Canadian-made lenses though.

kaiyen · Jan 18, 2005

Nicole,
I think with _all_ lenses for _all_ systems, there are good and bad ones. At the very least, the very best lenses from brand X on system Y are about as good/as good as/maybe a bit better than the very best lenses from brand A on system B. I would not, therefore, say that "all" RF lenses are better/sharper/faster than lenses for, say, your Nikon system.

The RF lenses of the same aperture "speed" will effectivley be faster than on an SLR becuase you can use slower shutter speeds on an RF than on an SLR, but I have not noticed a consistent aperture speed increase with RF lenses as compared to the same focal length brethren for SLR's. At most, you're talking about less than a stop difference (I'm not familiar with _that_ many RF lenses myself, but that's what I've noticed from what I have run across).

Anyway. Basically, there are sharp lenses for RF systems out there. If you get one with interchangeable lenses, then there is plentiful information here and on other sites about which lenses are better than others. If you're getting one with a fixed lens, there is also quite a bit of info out there about whether that lens is sharp or not. I have generally found that the majority of these types of fixed lens RF's do have sharp lenses, though.

allan

MattCarey · Jan 18, 2005

rbarker said:
The ideal situation would be to find a Leica user in your area, and see if they'd let you try it out. QUOTE]

Hey, I live in San Jose, too!

I really like my rangefinder, but I think that using a Leica would make me too worried about the cost of the camera to enjoy the shooting. The Canonet is nice in that regard.

However, if I am to get anything better, I will have to spend significantly more than for the Canonet.

Last summer I managed to drop my wife's brand new Nikon D70 into the stream at the base of Yosemite falls. I felt like I was going to throw up. I did manage to get some snapshots of the day with my Mockba, though...

Matt

Nicole · Jan 18, 2005

Thanks very much Allen and everyone, this has been a very informative thread.
Kind regards,
Nicole

Helen B · Jan 18, 2005

'Last summer I managed to drop my wife's brand new Nikon D70 into the stream at the base of Yosemite falls.'

A Leica would survive that easily! Leica would probably do a free CLA for you. They did when I dropped an M6 into the Strait of Malacca.

Best,
Helen

kaiyen · Jan 18, 2005

MattCarey said:
Hey, I live in San Jose, too!

Matt,
I'm up in Redwood City. Not that I have a Leica, but I have a couple of the older, built-in RF systems (Canonet, Yashica Electro GSN, Konica S2). I'm having fun with the Canonet a lot lately.

Not sure if it would hep at all, but just letting you know I'm in the area, too.

allan

kaiyen · Jan 18, 2005

MattCarey said:
I really like my rangefinder,

Oh, wait. You already have an RF. I think I got myself turned around in this thread. Sorry I"m a moron.

allan

rbarker · Jan 18, 2005

I agree, Claire, 35mm rangefinders have a clear set of limitations, and for many applications an SLR is really the better, or at least more flexible, choice. In the past, Leica produced a number of interesting innovations, such as the Visoflex, in an effort to overcome the inherent limitations of rangefinder design. But, some of those innovations now seem a bit Rube Goldberg-ish. I use Dead Link Removed on my Ms that has a (permanently-attached) set of "eyes" to magnify the view with the 135mm framelines. Unfortunately, this lens is rather large and heavy (at least by Leica standards), and is no longer manufactured. But, it's an excellent lens and the shallow DOF at 2.8 (at which it is still very sharp) is great to work with. Dead Link Removed.

At the other end of the spectrum, macro, rangefinders are again limited. The older solution from Leica was Dead Link Removed that shifts to a closer focusing range with the addition of the "eyes". But, the DR only focuses to 17" or 19", depending on the model. Absent the eyes, though, the DR Summicron is still one of the sharpest 50mm lenses available, and has a wonderful signature. Dead Link Removed in normal range, taken on a foggy morning at the old graveyard in Natchez, and Dead Link Removed. Here's Dead Link Removed that shows its sharpness at more conventional distance. Although I'm not particularly good at Dead Link Removed, that and candids are where rangefinders are probably at their best due to size, quiet operation and general stealth.

At least with Leica, and probably Zeiss rangefinder lenses, too, another distinction is that they perform very well wide open, whereas many 35mm SLR lenses really need to be stopped down at least a couple of stops before they perform well. Plus, the light weight of a rangefinder tends to allow hand-held shots at considerably lower shutter speeds. Dead Link Removed, for example, was done at 1/15 at f/2.8 on FP4+ inside an old battleship.

Each person, I believe, needs to make their own decision based on their personal style, what they shoot, and what they are looking for. I like the Leica for its small size, light weight and stealth - but mostly for the distinctive signature of Leica lenses. But, I still use my Nikon SLRs when I want auto-focus, flash sync at higher speeds (the M only syncs at 1/50 or below), real macro, or Dead Link Removed. The Leica M also tags along when I'm out with the 4x5 or 8x10, as its light weight and small size allows me to document other elements of the LF shoot or locale conveniently.

MattCarey · Jan 18, 2005

Helen B said:
'Last summer I managed to drop my wife's brand new Nikon D70 into the stream at the base of Yosemite falls.'

A Leica would survive that easily! Leica would probably do a free CLA for you. They did when I dropped an M6 into the Strait of Malacca.

Best,
Helen

The camera wasn't soaked. There was definitely some water in the electonics, as the shutter was misfiring.

Nikon told me they would repair camera and lens for $350. After much waiting, they sent back the camera with a note that it was unrepairable. The camera was definitely in worse shape after being returned. The electronics were totally dead.

The lens had some fog, but wasn't soaked. As a Nikonos shooter I was been taught that the lens shouldn't dry--it is easier to clean before the gunk dries onto the lens. I sent it carefully packaged. Nikon returned it dry as a bone, with a nice coating of crud now stuck on the lens. I wish I had sent it to Subaquatic right away...

This was only the second time I have really dropped a camera. The first time was about 25 years ago, when I dropped my OM1 in the cafeteria at Isomata (music camp). Small dent, no problems. The D70 fell out of the case literally the first time I got near water.

lessons
1) don't borrow my wife's camera!
2) don't use camera cases.

Matt

bjorke · Jan 18, 2005

I dropped a Nikon F down a mountainside at 4:30AM. 200 feet of bonk bonk bonk. 200 feet of me climbing down $%^#%VC!@^%^%!!!!! the whole way.

Picked up Nikon. Filter shattered off the front lens element. Metal lens hood bent. Cap (tupperware) nowhere to be seen. Pushed shutter button.

*KRIK*

Film wound okay, so I used the camera for another two weeks before coming back in out of the wilderness. All a-okay when I got back to the shop.

Now I use my Contax for all photo tasks that I think are the least bit rough -- the DSLR has already seen its share of the inside of the service department!

Helen B · Jan 18, 2005

Matt,

Sorry to hear about the D70. That old 'camera falling out of the case' accident is a bummer. I once had one of those 'slow-motion' moments when I saw an Arriflex movie camera tumble out of a case onto concrete as someone picked the case up, the case being unlocked. I bet the assistant who failed to close the latches will never make that mistake again.

I became hooked on rangefinders very early - I got a Zorki 4 in the late 60's, a few years before I got an SLR. It really is just personal preference. I find that there is a distinct difference in the way I compose on a ground glass screen and through a direct viewfinder. That is actually the most important difference for me.

One is a sort of detached, studied, abstracted view and the other is an immersed, involved connection. I hope that doesn't sound too artsy. Pretentious, moi?

The technical capability-based choice between an SLR and a rangefinder is straightforward. As Ralph mentioned, if you only need a limited macro capability on rare occasions there is the 50 mm DR, and now there's also the rather nice 90 mm f/4 collapsible macro.

The Visoflex, Focuslide and especially the Reprovit all have their uses, and they all use a rangefinder body to hold the film. It's just that those uses are limited, specialised.

Best,
Helen

Woolliscroft · Jan 18, 2005

On the rangefinder v SLR topic, here is a really dumb thing for the new rangefinder user to keep an eye on. I have been using SLRs for almost 30 years and got a rangefinder last year after a very long gap. For the first few films I forgot to take the lens cap off on half the shots. At one point I even thought it had stopped working because I couldn't get a light reading. I am so used to looking through the taking lens I just assumed that if I could see through the finder then the cap must be off. I finally wrote "LC" in white paint beside the vewfinder, which seems to be working. Ho hum, and I have a Ph.D

David.

jd callow · Jan 18, 2005

Woolliscroft said:
On the rangefinder v SLR topic, here is a really dumb thing for the new rangefinder user to keep an eye on. I have been using SLRs for almost 30 years and got a rangefinder last year after a very long gap. For the first few films I forgot to take the lens cap off on half the shots. At one point I even thought it had stopped working because I couldn't get a light reading. I am so used to looking through the taking lens I just assumed that if I could see through the finder then the cap must be off. I finally wrote "LC" in white paint beside the vewfinder, which seems to be working. Ho hum, and I have a Ph.D

David.

I'm not as well educated, but have been using RF's for a long time and sitll leave the cap on.

rbarker · Jan 18, 2005

FWIW, the M6TTL (and subsequent models, I believe) have LEDs in the viewfinder that blink madly when the lens cap is left on. Naturally, that info is from reading the manual and not from having seen the blinking light myself.

Flotsam · Jan 18, 2005

For me, the single most important advantage of using a manual focus SLR is that it allows you to compose and focus simultaneousy. With a rangefinder, you have to first center your subject in the frame in order to focus and then compose in a separate operation. You can zone focus and shoot away but unless you are practiced at it you can lose some of the sharpness that the lenses are capable of. An SLR with a matte screen lets you compose your shot and focus on your subject no matter where in the frame it is placed. This is a powerful benefit, especially in handheld shooting of fleeting moments.

I regularly switch between RF and SLR and I am constantly amazed that I never forget to remove the lenscap. It is completely out of character for me. Normally, bonehead moves are my style.

John McCallum · Jan 18, 2005

rbarker said:
FWIW, the M6TTL (and subsequent models, I believe) have LEDs in the viewfinder that blink madly when the lens cap is left on. Naturally, that info is from reading the manual and not from having seen the blinking light myself.

The M7 LED display does blink to say the 'subject' (being the back of the lens cap) would be underexposed as judged by the meter. As it would normally if app/shutter settings would not give a good exposure.

Another advantage of the rangefinder cameras is, with a good lens they will give a sharper picture than a 35mm SLR generally.

Another advantage I really like also is the ability to see action through the viewfinder before it comes into frame. So it isn't necessary to swing the camera at the person you are really wanting to photograph before they reach the optimum position .

And of course, they are less intrusive.

mikeg · Jan 18, 2005

Woolliscroft said:
On the rangefinder v SLR topic, here is a really dumb thing for the new rangefinder user to keep an eye on. I have been using SLRs for almost 30 years and got a rangefinder last year after a very long gap. For the first few films I forgot to take the lens cap off on half the shots. At one point I even thought it had stopped working because I couldn't get a light reading. I am so used to looking through the taking lens I just assumed that if I could see through the finder then the cap must be off. I finally wrote "LC" in white paint beside the vewfinder, which seems to be working. Ho hum, and I have a Ph.D

David.

Don't worry, I still do the same! In fact, the first time I got my Bessa R2 the under exposure light stayed on whatever aperture or shutter speed I selected. I took the camera to the window, I pointed it at a light, I upped the ISO to 3200. I thought I was going to have to send it back until I noticed the lens cap was still on! And I've got a PhD as well

Mike

Helen B · Jan 18, 2005

I thought that the black thing at the front of the lens was just typical bad Leica quality control, but it looked kinda Goth, so I didn't try to get it off. I had two PhDs, but I lost one and broke the other.

Best,
Helen

Flotsam · Jan 18, 2005

Didn't Uri Geller used to do an act where he would take "psychic" pictures with the lens cap taped onto his camera?
Wooooooooooo!

mfobrien · Jan 19, 2005

I too, have been guilty with leaving the lenscap on my Contax G1, and on my Canon Canonet QL-17. To make matters worse, it was my daughter, herself a very good photographer, that caught me. Nothing worse than being put in your place by a teenager....

Now, if anyone is looking for a used Contax G1....I have one.

rbarker · Jan 19, 2005

Helen B said:
I thought that the black thing at the front of the lens was just typical bad Leica quality control, but it looked kinda Goth, so I didn't try to get it off.

Psssst. Don't tell anyone, Helen, but that black thing is actually a filter, intended to be used with the special infrablack film that has to be ordered directly from Solms. Unfortunately, you end up with a Leica logo watermark in the middle of all your infrablack shots, but that shows how discerning you are.

Suggestions for new rangefinder

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency