A few newbie questions

[curiouslyadrift]

I have a few rangefinder questions:

What are some reasonably affordable ($500 or less) and decent rangefinders? (older models are fine since they tend to be cheaper, but no huge cameras)

How do digital point-and-shoots compare to film rangefinders of similar cost?

I've heard SLRs are much better for nature photography, but are rangefinders decent for landscape-type shots?

Is there a technical reason that lenses aren't made with a longer focal point than approximately 135mm, or is it just practicality?


Thanks in advance.

[jon_flanders]

A good place to start with some of your questions is Matt Denton's site:

http://homepage.mac.com/mattdenton/p...gefinders.html

[Brian Sweeney]

I take the Old road.

You can get a good USER condition M2 or M3 body (only) for $500~$600. Lens Extra...

My Choice would be:

The Canon 7 with F1.4 or F1.2 lens is under $500;
Canon P with F1.4 or F1.2, under $500.
Nikon S2 with F1.4 lens, ~$500.

Also: not as convenient, but cheaper and lots of lenses available:
Kodak Retina IIIS with 50mm F1.9, 35mm F2.8, and 84mm F4 would be under $250.

[wlewisiii]

I'll be my usual self and remind you that a glorious Contax IIA with Sonnar 50 F1.5 would also be available in that price range.

For a very inexpensive route towards the Contax are the FSU Kiev cameras. In this case a Kiev 4 with a Jupiter 8 50mm F2 lens can be gotten from a reputable dealer for under $100.

William

[Nikon Bob]

Try this site also http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm .

Bob

[nwcanonman]

Is there a reason the Bessa R, at around $300-400 isn't recommended?
And no one mentioned the very inexpensive fixed-lens RF's! I would think a nice Canonet would be a great intro to what one can do with the quiet, unobtrusive RF.
And yes, the 35mm to 50mm perspective of most RF's can be used well for landscapes.

[nwcanonman]

This was taken with a Konica S2, near the Wenatchee river, Washington state.

[GeneW]

Agree with the recommendation of a Canonet QL17 GIII as a 'test' cam to see if you like RF's. Sharp 40mm 1.7 lens and a nice size.

In terms of brand new gear, I think you could scarcely do better than the Bessa R with 35mm/2.5 lens offered on CameraQuest for $399 for the kit.

http://www.cameraquest.com/inventor.htm

Gene

[curiouslyadrift]

Thanks for the recommendations! More are appreciated.

However, I'm still most interested on any input regarding digital point-and-shoot vs. film rangefinder. I know this is an odd place to bring it up, but I'm looking for multiple opinions on how they compare.

Digital is much more convenient as far as freedom in making mistakes, but if rangefinders produce equal or better images for less money, I'll start there. I own an older Sony Cybershot (which handles light rather poorly), and I'm looking to upgrade in order to better improve my technique.

Thanks.

[rover]

Welcome curious.

There have been a couple recent lengthy conversations regarding digital vs. film photography. Have a look at these links for some comments.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...&threadid=2535

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...&threadid=2589

Personally I don't think that digital P&S cameras can yet produce equal image quality or are as easy to use as a simple manual camera such as a RF, but that is just my opinion. The big turn-off for me of my Minolta F-100 is the user interface, way to complicated and time consuming to use properly. I have handled a Minolta A1 though which I felt was set up very closely to the Maxxum 7 which I thought was a strong point. That is a step up from a P&S though.

[Nick R.]

I assume that you want prints, or else how could you save money going to film. A good color print or slide can knock your socks off. A print from an original digital image can't compete unless you spend some serious cash.
Even some of the cheaper, used fixed lens rf's, can produce terrific pictures. If you don't mind carrying something clunky try a Konica S2 or Yashica Electro.
If you want something approaching the P&S's in lightness and size, try the Konica S3. The Canonet GIII is also small but too heavy imo to be truly pocketable.

[Biber]

Originally posted by curiouslyadrift
However, I'm still most interested on any input regarding digital point-and-shoot vs. film rangefinder. I know this is an odd place to bring it up, but I'm looking for multiple opinions on how they compare.

• Digital compacts don't have rangefinders, unless they use an EVF or you compose your shots on the LCD they won't tell you where the focus is.

• Digital compacts do not have interchangeable lenses. You are stuck with whatever is on the camera. Usually the lenses are quite slow and not very wide at the wide end of the zoom range.

• Digital compacts use small sensors which makes it hard to work with DOF under normal circumstances.

• The small sensors in compacts make them very noisy, especially at higher sensitivities. This makes them almost impossible to use for available light photography.

• Film has higher dynamic range than digital compacts.

• The shutter lag in digital compacts is usually quite long and makes it very easy to miss a moment.

• Digital compacts let you review the exposure after the shot is captured, but in reality this isn't of much use since most of the time the moment will be lost if you make a mistake. In reality you have to be able to make fast and accurate exposures with both film and digital.

• It doesn't cost anything to shoot with a digital compact. With my film cameras I pay ~$0.14 (film+development) for each b&w exposure.

• Digital compacts have zooms and autofocus. Rangefinders are manual focus only and there are no real zooms(?).

• Digital compacts are much better for macro photography because of the LCD and the longer DOF.

• Digital compacts are better for longer focal lengths.

• Digital compacts need batteries.


edit: I've probably forgotten lots of things, it's 4am here.

[Biber]

Originally posted by rover
Personally I don't think that digital P&S cameras can yet produce equal image quality or are as easy to use as a simple manual camera such as a RF, but that is just my opinion. The big turn-off for me of my Minolta F-100 is the user interface, way to complicated and time consuming to use properly. I have handled a Minolta A1 though which I felt was set up very closely to the Maxxum 7 which I thought was a strong point. That is a step up from a P&S though.

I agree about both the interface and the image quality. I have yet to try a digital compact which is as fast and easy to handle as my rangefinders.

[jlw]

Originally posted by curiouslyadrift
Thanks for the recommendations! More are appreciated.

However, I'm still most interested on any input regarding digital point-and-shoot vs. film rangefinder. I know this is an odd place to bring it up, but I'm looking for multiple opinions on how they compare.

Let's leave the whole digital-vs-film can o' worms in the can, and look solely at the point'n'shoot vs. manual-control RF issue.

I'd summarize it this way:

-- A point'n'shoot makes it easier to get adequate pictures, but its limitations also make it more difficult to get excellent pictures.

-- A manual-control camera requires more knowledge to use, but also lets you apply that knowledge to improve your results.

In other words, if you've reached (or hope to reach) that point in your photography at which your point'n'shoot constantly causes you to growl, "@#$%, I know how to get this picture -- why won't my #$%^ camera let me do that?" then you're ready for a more controllable camera.

Whether that camera should be film or digital, SLR or rangefinder, is a separate question that we probably should address separately.