What camera to choose.

fmajor said:

Nope - pass on this because you're already finding fault with it ("a little bit big and bulky") - you will *always* second-guess/regret that purchase. Always...

Click to expand...

That is a really great advice. I have always wanted a Leica, and the M6 has build-in light meter. But since I'm not in a hurry of buying a camera, I'm going to take my time. I think it's going to be worth it.

Thank you.

Check out KEH for prices and as mention before a good tripod is nice to have.

Jeff

Just get a nice 6x9 folder and some film and a tripod and be out there. If you dislike the folder you will easily get your money back on eBay and the tripod and any left over film will be there for you to use with a different camera design.

RR

PaulDK said:

That is a really great advice. I have always wanted a Leica, and the M6 has build-in light meter. But since I'm not in a hurry of buying a camera, I'm going to take my time. I think it's going to be worth it.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

My first Leica was M6. Before I have used many other range finder cameras, but anyhow it took me some time to get used to a Leica. When you buy a Leica - give some time to grow on you .

darkosaric said:

My first Leica was M6. Before I have used many other range finder cameras, but anyhow it took me some time to get used to a Leica. When you buy a Leica - give some time to grow on you .

Click to expand...

A good old Rolleiflex will cost you 1/3rd of your budget. Esp., there is one for sale right now here in For Sale section. Rest of your money can go for film, light meter, bag, tripod and monopod.

If Rolleiflex, then accessories like Rolleifix, Rolleinar and some filters will give you complete shooting experience.

baachitraka said:

A good old Rolleiflex will cost you 1/3rd of your budget. Esp., there is one for sale right now here in For Sale section. Rest of your money can go for film, light meter, bag, tripod and monopod.

If Rolleiflex, then accessories like Rolleifix, Rolleinar and some filters will give you complete shooting experience.

Click to expand...

And any Rollei will give image quality that will put any Leica to shame - by a very large margin. Important if you wish to make large prints.

E. von Hoegh said:

any Rollei will give image quality that will put any Leica to shame - by a very large margin.

Click to expand...

(huh?) Can you please elaborate on this? I sincerely do not understand this assertion. (or is this meant to be a tongue-in-cheek comment?)

E. von Hoegh said:

Important if you wish to make large prints.

Click to expand...

....unless by "image" you mean "final print that uses the whole 6x6 negative"...and by "any Rollei" you mean "any medium format Rollei"

(ignore for a moment that Rollei also made/sold 35mm cameras and lenses...and IIRC, 16mm spy cameras too?.)


Surely, if you cut a 24x36 mm area from a medium format Rollei negative the resulting print would/could be favorably comparable to that from a 35mm Leica...no?

I use Nikon F100 (I have 3 of them) and quite satisfied with what it can do. Paired with good lenses, they give me excellent results.

I also have a large Medium format camera set (Mamiya RB) but F100 is my go-to camera unless I need the extra quality only RB can provide.

Since I do both film and digital, I quite like the fact my F100 and other bodies pretty much share the same control that I am so accustomed to. Perhaps that will be a factor for you. I am not sure if Canon film cameras can share the same lens as your other bodies.

My 2 cents:

SLR: Nikon F

Rangefinder: either Leica M2 or IIIc/f

Medium format: Rolleiflex or Hasselblad 500c

Any of those will fit well into your budget of $1000 with plenty to spare... I own every single one of those cameras and have probably only spent $1500 combined. They all have quirks - my recommendation would be to learn what the quirks are and see if you can live with them. If you can't, you'll wind up not wanting to use the camera as much and will have a very expensive paperweight...

BradS said:

(huh?) Can you please elaborate on this? I sincerely do not understand this assertion. (or is this meant to be a tongue-in-cheek comment?)




....unless by "image" you mean "final print that uses the whole 6x6 negative"...and by "any Rollei" you mean "any medium format Rollei"

(ignore for a moment that Rollei also made/sold 35mm cameras and lenses...and IIRC, 16mm spy cameras too?.)


Surely, if you cut a 24x36 mm area from a medium format Rollei negative the resulting print would/could be favorably comparable to that from a 35mm Leica...no?

Click to expand...

It's not an assertion but an iteration of a well-known principle, that is all other things being roughly equal the bigger the negative the better the print. For a given print size, let's say 16x20, the difference beween a print made with a 35mm negative and one made with a MF negative is huge. The OP mentioned he might want to make large prints, for this he will be better served by any Rollei over any 35mm camera.

"....unless by "image" you mean "final print that uses the whole 6x6 negative"...and by "any Rollei" you mean "any medium format Rollei"

Did you notice the context of my post?

The Rolleiflex is a pretty nice camera, even an old one. I managed to find a Rolleiflex Automat K4B from about
1954 for $150.00.

I had Harry Fleenor give it a good CLA and install a Maxwell screen in it. I use the thing
often now, probably as much or more than my Hasselblad.

Might be worth investigating, there are lots around.

Well within your $1000.00.

Thanks Paul Goutiere. Nice to know that I can get decent gear within my budget.

Even if you "splurge" on a Rolleiflex3.5 or 2.8 (C,D, or E) you can find one for under $650, and factor in another $300 or so for CLA and Maxwell screen, and you're still under your budget. Finding one like that will take a little time and patience, shopping on Ebay for it, but it can be done. I've done it, twice in fact.

TheFlyingCamera said:

Even if you "splurge" on a Rolleiflex3.5 or 2.8 (C,D, or E) you can find one for under $650, and factor in another $300 or so for CLA and Maxwell screen, and you're still under your budget. Finding one like that will take a little time and patience, shopping on Ebay for it, but it can be done. I've done it, twice in fact.

Click to expand...

The Maxwell screen is a real good idea. The original screen is a little dark. A Leica could be the nicest bit of kit you could ever wish to own, but they are a tad
expensive and it is really nice to have a larger negative like the Rollei will give you.

For $1000, I'd say: buy one of each. One "manual p&s", like Smena 8M or whatever, one AF p&s, like Oly mju II, one AE rangefinder, like Minolta Hi-Matic or Oly XA, one leica-like, like Zorki S, One classic SLR like Nikon F3, one modern with AF, like EOS 300, one TLR like Rolleicord, one MF SLR like Pentacon Six, one folder like Bessa or Isolette, one of old box cameras, one Graflex if it still fits the budget, one half-frame camera, like Agat 18k or Oly Pen. Something old, something new, something decent, something crude, something borrowed, something blue. Just... Experience it. Why restrict yourself? Take care for these cameras, have fun, if you don't feel it - sell it afterwards, buy yourself a roll of film or fund yet another adventure. This is what I've done, it just took me some years, and it was worth it.

If you want to make gallery-sized prints, medium format might be the better choice.

A Leica is truly a great camera and I am sure you will enjoy it if you buy one. But if you are interested in producing big prints you should at least consider medium format. The 6x6 Rolleiflex is a great option and for the money will be very hard to beat. I would strongly suggest a good overhaul which will give you a camera that will work hard for you for a very long time.

I find the Rolleiflex a very fun camera to use, and I love the big negs. I also own a Leica IIIc from 1942. It fits in a shirt pocket and I have built up to four lenses for it (all vintage 1940s.) When I shoot film, I do it because I want a totally different look from digital. Thus, I only buy older cameras. If I were making prints bigger than 8x10, that's where the Rolleiflex begins to really shine!


Kent in SD

I would very carefully consider bypassing 35mm and go for medium format: bigger image (400% bigger, actually), superior image quality and more of an opportunity to learn grass-roots photographic skill by making the decisions of exposure yourself rather than have a camera do it for you. I used 35mm for 33 years and now hardly use it at all, such is the sock-it-to-'em allure of a MF transparency lit up on the lightbox as opposed to a postage-stamped sized negative. And MF can be quite cheap to get into now while most high-end 35mm cameras are a good earner for the shops, but not such a good choice for those uncertain what they are going to do.

One surely distinguishes fine art by fine grain. This is old school pre-digital MF/LF approach and I can't see why not to go LF, cause it's cheaper, more capable and just so better in quality, than, let's say, a TLR like Rolleicord. Certainly LF will learn you more, Paul. And we're in post-digital world already, with, for example, lomography showing middle finger (or MF, for short) to this kind of evaluation of image quality.

The negative format and aesthetic consequences of it, like graininess of a final image, are same creative factors as any other. The fact is people sometimes want it, sometimes not. There are many more factors. Composition, point of view, subject, light, tonal values, sharpness/softness, use or absence of color... Similarities between one photo and some other photo made earlier (or a painting, movie, book). Quotes, or the lack of it. Following certain guidelines of a genre or a reason behind ignoring it. Big, big world of aesthetics.

To make expressing things easier it's good to know and to try to overcome creative limitations, but by no means it's print format. You order it - you have it as you've ordered. Look at 100x160 cm McCurry's prints from 35mm slides - is it less of an art? is the grain disgusting? 35mm film makes hard for anyone to understand something? People turn away from his exhibitions? Sure, the image is not perfect, but it's not always about perfect, detailed, clear, well-defined image. Not for all of us.

One needs to know various tools - cameras and lenses play a minor role here TBH, but it's one of the very few things one can buy, hence the hype made by people possessing big wallets, being possessed by little minds - nothing personal to anyone posting before me, just a general conclusion - folks have forgotten what photography is. I have nothing against collectors, I think it's a great, wise hobby, just... the subject was not "what camera to start collecting with"

The only way I see through the mess most of guys are making is to experience some things for real. 1000 USD is not a limiting factor here, but more of an opportunity. It's money, that teach people anything though. To learn one needs to collect data. As it grows, the collection becomes information, knowledge and finally wisdom.

If you can sell cameras, not only purchase, I'd say just have fun. Take a year, each week shoot a roll with a different type or model. I bet the memories of cameras will fade, and you'll be left with the weather, with who you've met, where you've been, with the adventure you've got and with some great photos taken and some not so great. That's life, that's what I like doing. If you ask yourself how to make more great photos, for one person the answer will be "keep diciplined", for another "know life better", for someone else "more hemp" or "more naked girls" (or hell, boys), if that's allowed to write here.

Cheers!

The F5 is a great camera, and the Nikon system allows a huge range of lens choices. You might consider an F100 too, it is essentially a lighter version of the F5.

Of the general choices that you put forward the biggest reason that I would choose the Nikon system is for autofocus (my eyes are getting old). Both cameras have a lot of great automation built in, whether you use those features or not is up to you for any given shot but it sure handy to have there when you need it.

PaulDK said:

By the way. I just got a Zeiss Ikon Nettar 518/16 medium format camera from the local flea market. I paid $18 and it looks almost brand new.

Click to expand...

Congrats - a medium format for a song!

Just a few things: 1. Check the bellows for cracking. They dry out over time. There are several patch solutions available if it is cracked. 2. If possible, have a camera repair tech go through it - at least have the shutter speed checked. 3. Use a tripod whenever possible. It's a fairly slow camera.

I have an Ansco Speedex (Agfa) which is very similar to your new Nettar. Focusing is a guess - so infinity is best. Perfect for landscapes. Run a test roll and make notes.

Have fun!

AstroZon said:

Congrats - a medium format for a song!

Just a few things: 1. Check the bellows for cracking. They dry out over time. There are several patch solutions available if it is cracked. 2. If possible, have a camera repair tech go through it - at least have the shutter speed checked. 3. Use a tripod whenever possible. It's a fairly slow camera.

I have an Ansco Speedex (Agfa) which is very similar to your new Nettar. Focusing is a guess - so infinity is best. Perfect for landscapes. Run a test roll and make notes.

Have fun!

Click to expand...

Thanks. Though I have a problem with a stuck shutter cocking lever as I've mentioned on the medium format page. But if I can't get it fixed, no harm done. A great display item on my shelf