Why does it seem like there are no cheap & decent quality interchangeable lens rangefinders?

[summicron1]

By "cheap and decent" I presume he means "really cheap, like...less than $200, but with Leica quality."

Ain't gonna happen. Quality means high tolerances, interchangeable lenses means high tolerances, and high tolerances mean a lot of money. Leicas, in the 1930s, sold for the equivalent of $3,000 in todays money.

As many others here have said -- go buy one of those, or something of similar vintage. The nice thing about quality cameras is that they age well.

 

[TheRook]

The Argus C-44 is an interchangeable lens rangefinder, offering the option of four different lenses. C-44 cameras are fairly cheap on today's market. I suppose it ultimately comes down to how one defines "decent" in reference to cameras.

 

[guangong]

By "cheap and decent" I presume he means "really cheap, like...less than $200, but with Leica quality."

Ain't gonna happen. Quality means high tolerances, interchangeable lenses means high tolerances, and high tolerances mean a lot of money. Leicas, in the 1930s, sold for the equivalent of $3,000 in todays money.

As many others here have said -- go buy one of those, or something of similar vintage. The nice thing about quality cameras is that they age well.

Yep!

 

[ic-racer]

Were there not ever decent quality Japanese-made ones like the bazillion SLRs out there?

Yes:

 

[removed account4]

there are some leica ii, iii ... or m2's out there for less than 200clams
russian lenses are cheap .. you just have to keep your eyes open

 

[Chan Tran]

Chan, I have a different interpretation. The Japanese optical companies did compete very successfully with the German companies in the interchangeable rangefinder market. The Nikon S4 and SP and the Canon 7 were every bit as precise as a Leica. But where the Japanese companies showed their brilliance was in developing reflex cameras that were easy to manufacture, had superb lenses, and could attract customers in the USA (the largest market in the 1950s and 1960s). German companies such as Exacta had been selling reflex cameras for years, but just could not compete in refinement and convenience for the user (such as the instant-return mirror). Zeiss' uber-complicated Contarex essentially bankrupted the company. The SLR camera swept the amateur market in the 1960s, and the Japanese companies discontinued their rangefinder models to concentrate of SLRs.

Back to the original question: where are there inexpensive rangefinder cameras? In my observation, they are either beat-up and cheap or in good working condition and expensive. You will see plenty of recommendations to buy one of the screw-mount Leicas. Be aware of repair/overhaul costs. My IIIC cost $300 for service, and it had lived a reasonably good life in climate-controlled homes. Here is mine:
https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2017/12/good-things-in-small-packages-leica-iiic.html

If you want something new enough to be (hopefully) trouble-free, try a Voigtlander Bessa rangefinder (made in Japan): https://www.cameraquest.com/voigtrwhich.htm

The Nikon and Canon RF were very good but they couldn't out sell Leica although they were selling for less. Although they were good customers back then didn't think they were and that what I meant by not successful. The fact that they couldn't sell well result in today high price on Nikon and Canon RF cameras.

 

[btaylor]

The Japanese rangefinders didn’t sell well? I don’t know if that’s true, you would have to compare sales figures to Leica’s at the time to tell. But without a doubt the Japanese slr exploded the market for high quality 35mm cameras for amateurs. They worked better for most things and were much less expensive to make and buy. Back in the sixties a used Leica M was still much more than I could afford, I was looking at the Canon 7 and Nikon SP, they were a little less than the Leica but still unaffordable to me. Curiously a Nikon SP today sells for $800 to $1200, while I bought a Canon 7 and 7s for $125 (body only) each on the ‘bay. Either one of them was a worthy competitor to Leica in their day.

 

[Paul Howell]

I had both q Canon 7s and Leica IIIG, the 7s may not have quite the build quality of the IIIG, but much easer to load, a built in meter, built in frame finder, and Canon lens were very good, I could not tell the difference at 11X14 between the Canon 50mm and Leica 50mm. Some contend that the Nikon rangefinders lens mount were better than Canon, David Douglas Duncan shot with a S and later SP but with Leica adapted to Contax. None of these fit OP budget, a fixed lens 70s vintage rangefinder can be had for a lot less, maybe a Konica S2, Minolta 7, Petri 7, or scale focus Petri Color. I've seen Canon IIIG QL and Konica S3 go for close to a $100 maybe not in OP budget either. .

 

[mshchem]

Looks like they have a decent baseline for the rangefinder also (looking at Retina II series for instance).

That's what I just got, a IIc has a 50mm f2.8 Retina-Xenar C I'm guessing circa 1959-63?. These are great little cameras if you can find one that isn't beat up. I'm going to try to use on trips instead of my D**m phone camera. 36 exposures can tell quite a tale of a week on the road. No need to come back with digital snaps, that will never be seen. I can shoot a roll of Portra and my friend who has a minilab will print it up on high end Kodak professional paper. That's fun!

 

[albada]

A warning to those shooting Retina IIIC/IIIc/IIc/Ia: The cocking rack in the top will probably strip eventually. Keep a back-up camera handy.
And a minor correction to a posting above: The IIc has a Xenon, not a Xenar. The Xenar is good, and the Xenon is great.
Mark Overton

 

[factus10]

It seems that interchangeable lens rangefinders just never had an amateur market the way that SLRs did. The amateurs were satisfied with fixed lens I guess - maybe I should be too haha.

There are so many factors here. 35mm rangefinders were considered "miniature" cameras and viewed with a little suspicion in comparison to "reflex" (TLR) and larger cameras, which shot on considerably larger film. The problem wasn't with the cameras, it was largely the film. As film quality (and speed) improved, 35mm cameras became more viable.
That said, Leica and Contax were popular with serious amateurs. But you had to be a pretty serious amateur.... check out the prices of all kinds of cameras in this 1950 issue of Popular Photography. A Contax IIA was $385, Leica IIIC $$280. Take a look at the entire issue. It's eye opening.
It took a looong time for 35mm SLRs to take over. The first models were available before WWII, more available after (see the issue) but it wasn't until the late 60s/early 70s they they really exploded in popularity.

If you want a "modernish" RF, look for a Canon P or 7. The P is a little smaller, the 7 has nicer features. Lenses aren't particularly cheap, anymore. Between the Leica bokeh crowd and the mirrorless people, all rangefinder lenses (regardless of quality) are considered "amazing, must have". By way of comparison, I picked up a Jupiter 9 in m39 (Leica) mount 15 years ago for nothing. They were insane for a little while but seem to be coming down to less insane ($150).

 

[Sirius Glass]

When slrs became popular, the camera manufacturers and lens manufactures concentrated on designing, building and selling interchangeable systems for slrs. One exception in MF was the Mamiya Cxxx series.




.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

By way of comparison, I picked up a Jupiter 9 in m39 (Leica) mount 15 years ago for nothing. They were insane for a little while but seem to be coming down to less insane ($150).

Very soft, if not crappy corners and big, heavy lens. 15 years ago it was not so many mirrorless cameras.
For same amount of money here is Elmar 90 f4.