A beginner on a budget - What camera to get?

[irreality]

Hello all,

I have been shooting with Nikon and Olympus dSLR cameras since 2004 and know my way around them well enough. However, during the last year or so I have become more and more fascinated by the prospect of shooting film. I got into photography at a time when 35mm film was already in decline and sort of missed that whole thing.

At first I was thinking of getting something like the Olympus OM2 or OM4, but then realized that a rangefinder camera would be more interesting - I would not only get familiar with shooting film, but also experience the "magic" of using a rangefinder

So my question to you is, which rangefinder camera would you recommend to someone who wants to get started? This would understandably be a second camera to me so I am not inclined to spend a lot of money on it. Which camera would currently have superb quality for the price?

Something with a good and affordable 35 or 50mm lens would be preferred as those are the focal lengths that I enjoy shooting with.


Thank you!

[AZSunGod]

I have a Canonet QL17 GIII, that I love, it takes great photo's. And you can usually find them pretty cheap. It has a 40mm f/1.7 lens, so it's pretty fast and has a nice focal length (imo). Here's an example of a photo I took indoors with mine, no flash was allowed in the gallery.

shot with Ilford XP2 Super 400

[Phil_F_NM]

A Nikon S2 with a 5cm f/1.4 lens would be a fantastic way to get into rangefinders and film. That combination goes these days for between $500-700 in very good to excellent condition.

Phil Forrest

[Ariefb]

A Canonet QL1.7 is a good start. Quite bright VF and RF patch. Fast fixed 40/1.7 lens.

[irreality]

The Nikon S2 looks gorgeous but unfortunately is out of my price range. Does the Canonet have full manual controls? I read it has shutter priority. Personally I prefer shooting with manual, or at the least aperture priority.

I am comparing these to e.g. the Olympus OM2 which goes for ~150 € with a 50mm f1.8 lens. This is quite a difference to the Nikon S2 which starts from 890 € in the German eBay.

[Brian Legge]

The Canonette is a great place to start out, as good as any fixed lens rangefinder. The are a lot of good options - finding something in good condition is really the most important part.

[jonasv]

Originally Posted by irreality

The Nikon S2 looks gorgeous but unfortunately is out of my price range. Does the Canonet have full manual controls? I read it has shutter priority. Personally I prefer shooting with manual, or at the least aperture priority.

I am comparing these to e.g. the Olympus OM2 which goes for ~150 € with a 50mm f1.8 lens. This is quite a difference to the Nikon S2 which starts from 890 € in the German eBay.

As you already have digital SLR's, it seems as if switching to a film SLR would be a rather small step. (As good as the OM2 may be.) I'd say go for a fixed lens rangefinder with full manual controls!

You can find a good overview here (it includes a list of the main compact rangefinders with manual controls):

http://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm

[Matus]

Nice to see another rangefinder soul here

It would be easier to help if we knew your budget and whether you look for a 'compact' rangefinder with fixed lens (like a Canonet) or a 'normal' one.

If the later is the case than in the rangefinder world it is hard to beat Bessa R2A (optimal for 35mm lenses) or R3A (great for 50mm and longer). I had the R3A at a time it worked nicely. But it will still cost you more than an OM2 or Nikon FE2 or similar.

For a lens that is good and does not cost a fortune - what about- Skopar 35/2.5, Skopar 50/2.5, Nokton 40/1.4, Rokkor 40/2.0, Ultron 40/1.7, Nokton 50/1.5 - just to name a few. All of these are 'modern' lenses so to speak. But will still cost more than a manual focus 35 or 50 lens for an SLR.

EDIT: Most of the fixed lens rangefinder cameras are older ones - be careful about the condition of you decide to get one. Also very few have aperture priority (mostly only shutter priority). I had a Konica S3 and while it was a nice little camera, the Bessa R3A was easier to use (though louder).

[jonasv]

It was a pretty big camera, which might defy some of the logic for getting a fixed-lens rangefinder, but my Minolta Hi-Matic 7s had full manual controls as well as aperture and shutter priority.

[kutitta]

I don't have any experience with other cameras mentioned above, so purely based on my own personal experience, I recommend a Leica CL with Summicron-C 40/2. It's a great little Leica - actually the smallest M mount Leica body. It is actually not that budget camera, but the ones with dead meter can be grabbed below $500.

I can also recommend Yashica Electro 35 GSN, which was my first rangefinder camera. Even if I now use the CL more often, I still love GSN!

[GaryLH]

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

Worth a read.. The head bartender did a great job with all the info...

My personal favorite in the under 200 to 300 range is a Kodak Retina. Any of the Retina II's should work for u. They are Made in Germany and they are folders . U can fit it in your pocket. Retina III's are bigger due to built in light meter. Given the age of these light meters not sure how accurate they still are.
http://www.cameraquest.com/retIIa.htm
http://www.cameraquest.com/ret3c.htm

If u want more modern design, look at the canon and Olympus rf offerings of the 70's..

http://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm

Good luck
Gary

[Roger Hicks]

At $150 there's quite a choice of fixed-lens RFs. Having owned several different marques in the past, I'd back Konicas -- see http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subsc...ca%20sIII.html -- but not Yashicas (too big) and NOTHING which relied on full auto only (all too many Canons). EDIT: and indeed the Retina - how could I forget that? Possibly because my Retina II is in need of repair... But I bought it in Luxembourg maybe a decade ago for 25€ and it woorked ine for six or seven years.

For the same sort of money you could get a proper interchangeable-lens camera, a good, working Zorki 4K (not all of them fall into this category). Eccentric and agricultural, yes, but not without charm.

Or you could cut out a pointless step and go straight in with a Bessa. Either you find it useful or you don't, and if you don't, you can sell it on for a minimal loss.

Or again, do you want an RF or would scale-focus be OK?

Cheers,

R.

[Bill58]

If you will pardon the shameless commercialism, I've got a nice Canonet for sale here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...et-ql17s/cat/3.

Originally Posted by irreality

Hello all,

I have been shooting with Nikon and Olympus dSLR cameras since 2004 and know my way around them well enough. However, during the last year or so I have become more and more fascinated by the prospect of shooting film. I got into photography at a time when 35mm film was already in decline and sort of missed that whole thing.

At first I was thinking of getting something like the Olympus OM2 or OM4, but then realized that a rangefinder camera would be more interesting - I would not only get familiar with shooting film, but also experience the "magic" of using a rangefinder

So my question to you is, which rangefinder camera would you recommend to someone who wants to get started? This would understandably be a second camera to me so I am not inclined to spend a lot of money on it. Which camera would currently have superb quality for the price?

Something with a good and affordable 35 or 50mm lens would be preferred as those are the focal lengths that I enjoy shooting with.


Thank you!

[one90guy]

For a total manual experience and easy on pocketbook look at the Argus C-3's. You will have lots of money left over for film.

[defconfunk]

I was in pretty much the same boat (but already had a film SLR, I just wanted to try the 'magic' of a rangefinder). I also wanted full manual control, which posed a problem since most the cheap fixed lens RFs I found had some form of automation (Electro 35, Canonet, etc).

I would have liked an Olympus 35, but couldn't find one in my price range (sub $100). I did find a Yashica Minister 700 (45mm F1.7) for $50. The Minister D is similar, but with a F2.8 lens. So far I'm pleased with mine (I get my first roll of film back tomorrow, so I may need to update this). They also made the Lynx 1000 and Lynx 5000 which used F1.8 lenses. Those can also be found pretty cheap on ebay.

I also played with a Voightlander Vito CLR (50mm F2.8). The particular one I played with had a stuck shutter, and I didn't wanted to mess about with trying to CLA a camera, so I passed on it. But, I will admit it was pretty cool to handle.

The one piece of advice I'll give - don't fret over an integrated/working light meter. I really didn't want to buy / carry around a seperate light meter, so I focused on models that had them. Afterwards I found a light meter app for my cell phone that seems to work just fine (matches my SLR's TTL readings close enough). Since I always carry my phone on me, using it as light meter works well enough.

[jsrockit]

Olympus XA

[msbarnes]

Canon P + 50mm f1.8

[thegman]

If you like SLRs, then I'd just get an SLR, the bang for the buck is just vastly better than range finders. Don't get me wrong, I love range finders, but unless you specifically want one, SLRs are so much better value. 150 Euros will give you a great selection of reliable and usable cameras such as OM, Pentax, Nikon, Canon. You'll also be able to get extra lenses far cheaper.

[zuiko85]

Why do you think that RF is "magic"? Have you tried an RF yet?
You may find that you will miss SLR features such a through the lens viewing and close focusing. The most versatile 35mm camera is the SLR design. The OM you mentioned is excellent and there are many other fine choices.

I'm not saying you should not get a 35mm RF, just that you should a least also consider, and try out a 35mm SLR also.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by one90guy

For a total manual experience and easy on pocketbook look at the Argus C-3's. You will have lots of money left over for film.

Not in Germany. The first time I encountered the Brick, after a European upbringing, I was astonished that a camera this ugly, crude and primitive had been produced outside the Soviet Union. Indeed, the Lomo and Droog are arguably better cameras. Unsurprisingly, Arguses (Argi?) were never widely exported, except through the PX (which, in Bermuda, is where I first encountered one).

I realize that for many Americans, Arguses are up there with apple pie, but I have to say that my Cornish grandmother's apple pie beat any American (or French) contender hollow, too. The only reason to love an Argus is nostalgia or misplaced patriotism.

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by zuiko85

Why do you think that RF is "magic"? Have you tried an RF yet? . . .

From http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subsc...n/ps%20rf.html

Rangefinder photographers tend to be somewhat evangelical about the cameras they use, though only the most enthusiastic would suggest that a rangefinder camera can do everything.

and

... Rangefinder cameras are different: there is no doubt about it. For some kinds of photography, especially reportage and travel, many people find them vastly superior to reflexes. For other kinds of photography, such as landscapes, RF or SLR is a matter of choice. And for yet other kinds, especially with long lenses or for close-ups, the SLR is simply better

Cheers,

R.

[ColSebastianMoran]

Originally Posted by irreality

... Does the Canonet have full manual controls? I read it has shutter priority. Personally I prefer shooting with manual, or at the least aperture priority...

My Canonet QL17 G-III has full manual controls. It's a very nice, compact package. Focusing is very nice; changing exposure feels just a bit clumsy.

[irreality]

I just wanted to drop by and quickly thank everyone for helping a novice out! All your comments have been read and now I have listed a few camera models that I am going to research further.

I'd also like to thank 'zuiko85' for the comment. Yes, I think I should try to find a used camera store here in Helsinki where I could actually try both a rangefinder and an SLR to see how they feel on me.

The main reason I wanted to go with a rangefinder is simply the different shooting experience. I currently shoot with an Olympus OM-D, so physically it is already close enough the size of a film SLR. I'm still vary about getting an OM2 since I suspect the shooting experience might not be that much different from the OM-D.

[funkydog]

Originally Posted by irreality

... experience the "magic" of using a rangefinder

IMO, a tyro rf user starting with anything other than a Bessa or Leica M may well find a less than magical experience. Stretch your budget for a Cosina made Voigtlander Bessa R2 or R3 (A or M). They are worth the expense. Really good viewfinders and focusing. You want something new so the camera doesn't spend more time in the repair shop than in your hands. You can easily sell and get your money back if you later decide that the rf schtick isn't working for you.

Kinda like learning to drive. One wants an easy to drive and predictable car. Gotta love them Datsun 120Y's.

[redisburning]

+1 for Canon P + 50/1.8

or if you need to really cheap out, a Konica Auto S2. not a well made camera, but a nice viewfinder and a great little lens.