What's your favorite $200+/- Rangefinder?

[Kirks518]

I have GAS. Like really bad. There isn't enough Rolaids on the planet to help me, so I must help myself.

What is your favorite rangefinder in the $200 price range, and why?

My problem is that I have too many already. Currently, I have 3 Rollei 35's (1 (German) Tessar, 1 S-K Xenar, 1 Sonnar), 2 Oly Trip 35's (1 black, 1 silver), countless Canon QL-17 GIII (probably close to 40 of these), 2 Voigtlander Prominents, 1 Minolta 7Sii, 1 Yashica IC 1.4, 2+ Yashica Electro 35 GSN's, 2 Oly XA's (one with shutter issues), and some others that I can't name off the top of my head ATM. I need to narrow this down to one or two RF's to just have and use. Not only to free up some cash, but to reduce overall 'inventory'.

I don't like the Prominents, although I love the build quality, the lenses, and the ability to change lenses, but the ergonomics just don't work for me.
I like the Rollei's, but can't decide which I should keep. I'm also not in love with the zone focusing, although I've had a good success rate. I do like the small size and the build on them.
I like the Minolta's size, and really there isn't anything I don't like about it, but I just think it isn't "the best" overall.
I have yet to run a roll through the working XA, as I'm not really fond of the plasticy feel, and the overall 'cheapness' of it.
The Yashicas are kind of clunky feeling to me, and the batteries are a nightmare.
The Canons I have yet to keep one for myself. I refurb them and resell them. I keep saying I should use (keep?) one for myself, but I just haven't gotten around to doing it.

I try to rotate usage (except for the Yashicas and the Canon) in hopes of finding one that really hits the spot, but non have done that yet.

Are any of these your absolute must-have, love-it camera? Or is there something else that you would say "If you like XYZ, you'll love ABC"? I'm open to trying something else (which essentially defeats the goal of reduction, but hey...).

 

[Kirks518]

Oh, and I've been eyeballing the Olympus 35RD and the 35SP as potential candidates as of late.

 

[Bill Burk]

The black QL-17 GIII ?

The Kodak Retina series makes me wonder why I always reached for the Rollei 35 when I wanted a small camera, because the Retina I is scarcely any bigger.

But tomorrow I'm bringing the Ikonta 6x9 because I'm leaving early and that's the film I have.

 

[Pioneer]

I love the Agfa Ambi-Silette, and it can usually be found for a pretty good price. The viewfinder is awesome and though not terribly fast the lenses are very good. A 35, 50 and 90 are available for it.

 

[Kirks518]

No, don't have any of the black QL's. Even not working they go for too much money.

 

[adelorenzo]

You're missing out if you sell all those Canonets without shooting one. I don't even like rangefinders and I'm in love with mine, I have a 28 and a QL17.

One camera I have not yet shot but really want to try is the Konica Auto S3.

 

[Fixcinater]

Fixed lens: QL17 or QL19.

If you're good at finding deals or can DIY repair: Canon 7 + Jupiter 8/Industar-61. Bulkier but the overall feel is great plus expands possibilities later if you make good on the internal promise to reduce inventory.

 

[Brian Legge]

Skip the 35RD unless you typically shoot auto-aperture. I have yet to meet someone who enjoyed changing the aperture on the camera as the ring is flush against the body. Keeping it from developing a shutter blade oil issues is also a problem; even after a CLA the oil may migrate back a few years later. Its really a shame as if those two issues were fixed it would be a great camera. If you like automatic aperture, go with the 35DC instead. Same ergonomics, no oily blade issue. Great lens and solid build.

The Canonets are probably the best over all compromise between build, lens quality, finder quality, small body, etc - particularly if you want a manual aperture. The 35SP is also great but is larger and many have sensor issues which may or may not matter to you.

I'll second the Canon 7 / Jupiter 8 pair if you can find a body in good shape and a lens both in good shape and with aligned focus. The body is severely undervalued at the moment (perhaps because of its larger size?) and with a good J8 is a killer pair with all sorts of options for experimenting. Again assuming you get good ones, you could easily do this under $200.

 

[MattKing]

A Retina IIIc or, if you are lucky, a Retina IIIC.

 

[Kirks518]

I've had and sold Retinas, and they were not something I really liked. I like the 50's era stuff from a nostalgic standpoint (before my time tho), but not so much from a user standpoint.

I'm liking the idea of the Canon 7. What are the advantages of the 7 over the QL17?

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

The fixed lens camera combos are a better deal that would fit your budget. Getting something like the canon 7 with nothing nice to put on it to keep it in budget is pointless. It will end up taking you on a road to ever increasing lens prices and eventually leicas. Just more gas for you in the future. I'd say skip 35mm and get a simple 6x6 folder such as a zeiss super ikonta or so with range finder coupling. It will be as small or lighter than some previous suggestions, and shooting medium format will yield better tonality and ease of enlargements from similar film stock compared to 35mm.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

An Leica IIIC with Elmar 5 cms been sold for 250 dollars here in APUG.

 

[nsurit]

Why not come play with the big boys and get yourself a Voigtlander Bessa RF from the 30's/40's. Should be able to find one in the $200+/- range. Bill Barber

 

[one90guy]

I am pleased with my Argus C-3 with 35mm lens and a Yashica Lynx 5000e with broken light meter. But then this are the only 2 to have at the moment:munch:

 

[Fixcinater]

The 7 vs QL17: different shooting experience, the interchangeable lens cameras tend to feel a bit more "serious" to me. Not that someone can't do great work with the QL17 but I get a lower keeper ratio with the QL17. I probably could do most of my work with one and be better for it but I tend to keep one around for snapshot sorts of images. The QL is definitely a handy feature in the field.

Edit: The 7 would likely lead to wanting to try M-mount Leicas and that's a slippery slope. I like the QL17 idea, gives you room for a nice example and potential CLA to get it in really good running shape.

 

[Kirks518]

The 7 vs QL17: different shooting experience, the interchangeable lens cameras tend to feel a bit more "serious" to me. Not that someone can't do great work with the QL17 but I get a lower keeper ratio with the QL17. I probably could do most of my work with one and be better for it but I tend to keep one around for snapshot sorts of images. The QL is definitely a handy feature in the field.

Edit: The 7 would likely lead to wanting to try M-mount Leicas and that's a slippery slope. I like the QL17 idea, gives you room for a nice example and potential CLA to get it in really good running shape.

For my "serious" shooting in film, I use either a Nikon F4s or Canon A-1 (or EF), and then there is my insanely well-equipped canon D-word system (3 different bodies and an over-abundance of lenses).

The rangefinder is for just carrying around for no particular reason, and while I'm not bursting with love for a fixed lens system, it's probably the best choice for my needs.

I think I'll do up a QL17 for myself this weekend. But knowing me, I'll get myself an Oly 35SP to at least try out. I do have an Argus C-3, but I haven't done anything with it yet.

 

[BetterSense]

My QL17 GIII has gradually become my most-used camera, probably because it is so handy and inexpensive yet gives results that don't seem like a compromise.

 

[Peltigera]

I have no idea what $200+/- means in English money, but my favourite rangefinder is my Voigtlander Vitomatic. It cost me £10.00 (about $15.00). I can see no point in getting more expensive.

 

[GRHazelton]

How about a Voigtlander Vitessa L with the f2 Ultron? With luck you should be able to find a clean example within your budget. The lens is very good and the handling is excellent. The viewfinder is pretty good, and parallax corrected. Plus the camera folds. The general fit and finish are exemplary, comparable to Zeiss and Leica.

My example has a working but cranky built in meter, but I'd rather use a hand held meter, or the sunny f16 rule. A few caveats: I understand that work on the rangefinder is really expensive, and genuine filters, etc, are made of Unobtainium. The filters attach with a sort of interrupted thread, and the lens hood, very handsome, is a friction fit. Plus the lens mount has no "usual" threads, just the interrupted thread as mentioned above. So the old fashioned series filters, plus a push-on adapter, likely to scar the lens mount, would be the alternative. I scored the genuine items after a long search.

 

[02Pilot]

As a primarily rangefinder shooter, my standard kit is a Canon interchangeable lens body - either a P or an L1 - and whatever lens I'm in the mood for. It would be hard to find a better combination at the price-point. A decent P or 7 plus a Jupiter-8 or other Soviet lens should be doable at $200 with some searching. But it's a starting point, not an end in and of itself. If the body works for you, then you start deciding on lenses, which will take a long time.

That said, I have and really enjoy an Olympus 35SP as well. If I had to pick a single fixed-lens RF, that would be it hands-down. The lens is astonishing.

 

[ciniframe]

Not tried many of the mentioned cameras. Do have an Olympus 35RC and apart from a few warts it seem like a good design. Oh yeah, the 'warts'. For me the main one was the stupid 43.5mm filter thread size. Who makes 43.5 mm filters?!?! Fortunately I was able to order a 43.5mm to 43mm step down ring from one of those Hong Kong dealers. Less than $5 shipped and it works perfectly. Lives on the lens all the time and now my collection of 43mm filters for my Pen F lenses fit the RC too. The other 'wart' is the long travel of the shutter release, a natural consequence of trapped needle metering. However I work around that by taking up the slack, then releasing the shutter at the right moment.

 

[DBP]

A Bessa R and decent Jupiter 8 should be close to $250. Hard to beat the Bessas without buying a Leica M.

 

[Bill Burk]

I get a lower keeper ratio with the QL17.

I got very high keeper ratio with it. My kids were at "that perfect age" - so maybe everything was just falling together.

Or maybe it's just because the one I had was black? I was lucky people on eBay that day must have been sleeping (I passed along the savings).

I shot a lot of C-41 with it for snapshots. I think that is what it should be used for. I found that camera was easy to get film through. The QL feature helped in that respect. It winds like butter, as a Leica does. The short-throw focus lever was always easy to focus, and you get parallax correction. So a QL-17 GIII has all these features in common with a Leica M. Plus you have easier loading. Of course it's not the same class because it has lower lens quality, and no interchangeable lenses.

The only criticism I have is that I "noticed" a slight softness in my prints that I "think" might be a limitation of the lens. I think for snapshots it's adequate quality, and for the ability to draw up to your eye, focus and shoot quickly... It's a very, very good camera.

 

[Regular Rod]

Mamiya-6 folding preferably with Zuiko lens. Saves you from messing around with small negatives.

eBay item number: 251660044401

eBay item number: 131325637262

RR

 

[analoguey]

No one's mentioned half-frame shooters here? No good ones?

Sent from Tap-a-talk