joseph1010
New Member
get leica mp
Getting a Rangefinder
- Thread starter kentay
- Start date
- Status
joseph1010
New Member
just kidding haha
I prefer film photography, and recently I got two russian rangefinders (FED3 and KIEV4), good copies of old Leica and Contax: this is a good way - easy and really cheap! - to enter into the rangefinders world.
I suggest you to consider them, you can try a new way of taking photos without spending too much.
Mauro
I suggest you to consider them, you can try a new way of taking photos without spending too much.
Mauro
nicholas68
Deregistered
Mauro said:
Where can i find Russian rangefinders. I am thinking for starting on film.
Just come back for Pennsulia. find 2 leica M2 and 35mm camera for the price for $2350 and M4-2 at $2600. Are they good price.
nicholas68
Deregistered
Terence said:
Thank Terence
A suggestion: Don't start with a leica first.
As a general rule of thumb, it's best to start with the basic manual models first before going up for any expensive purchases, mainly to 'grow' onto and master the equipment rather than being befuddled with the branding and the often quirky nature of the more high end stuff (Those 'quirks' are often used to an advantage by those more experienced, but more delibating to a new guy just getting used to the hobby).
It's like trying to lift 40kg and one hasn't lifted 10kg without knowing lifting technique. Or driving a ferrari when one has just only ridden a bicycle.
When I mean master, I don't mean just knowing what controls do this and that. I took more than a year of continous shooting (Okay, with NS, that's still around 4 rolls a week at least) in order to 'master' my first rangefinder, which incidentally is a Fed 2, the first version at that.
On another note: In order to use stuff like leicas effectively, you can't rely on p-mode anymore. That's when you really gotta know how the meter works, or how aperture and shutter speed relates to exposing on film, and even the film characteristic itself. Like I said, the experienced ones would take full advantage of that knowledge to do stuff a digital camera with autofocus can't do, but it takes alot of practise, like estimated (hyperfocal) focus-ing as an example. So, just slowly wean yourself off that and see if you're comfortable with it, and make a later decision.
As a general rule of thumb, it's best to start with the basic manual models first before going up for any expensive purchases, mainly to 'grow' onto and master the equipment rather than being befuddled with the branding and the often quirky nature of the more high end stuff (Those 'quirks' are often used to an advantage by those more experienced, but more delibating to a new guy just getting used to the hobby).
It's like trying to lift 40kg and one hasn't lifted 10kg without knowing lifting technique. Or driving a ferrari when one has just only ridden a bicycle.
When I mean master, I don't mean just knowing what controls do this and that. I took more than a year of continous shooting (Okay, with NS, that's still around 4 rolls a week at least) in order to 'master' my first rangefinder, which incidentally is a Fed 2, the first version at that.
On another note: In order to use stuff like leicas effectively, you can't rely on p-mode anymore. That's when you really gotta know how the meter works, or how aperture and shutter speed relates to exposing on film, and even the film characteristic itself. Like I said, the experienced ones would take full advantage of that knowledge to do stuff a digital camera with autofocus can't do, but it takes alot of practise, like estimated (hyperfocal) focus-ing as an example. So, just slowly wean yourself off that and see if you're comfortable with it, and make a later decision.
a leica is as good a camera as any to start your adventure into RF photography. Unlike the others, i favor buying a top end camera right at the start as it saves me money on the long run. If you can afford it go for the top end camera. Upgrading is an expensive business. Unfortunately though, a leica will not make your photos any better than a simple Fed if u don't use it properly. Its only a tool, albeit a really good one. There isn't much u can do with a leica that u can't do with a SLR to be honest (i shoot both regularly) but it is a lot lighter when you go out for a walk or go shopping. Also consider picking up the Bessa Rs that seem to make their way into the B&S forum. There's one at the moment with a very good 35mm lens going for about $500 but i'd steer clear of the feds and zorkis simply because they are close to user UNfriendly cameras and often come with issues.
well i agree with szekiat. Buy something that you believe that you can carry with you for a long time so that you do not need to spend so much money on upgrade. Eventually you will be tempted to change to leica system when you see their camera systems so might as well start with a simple old leica and then build on their lens slowly. Their system can last a life time so no need to worry. Just remember M mount leica, not screw mount.
While I started off with a Leica, I would agree with Wisp that it would be preferable to start with a cheaper version.
Why did I start with a Leica? For one simple reason. I like the equipment and I could afford it. And thankfully after a few years I still like it.
Why do I agree with wisp? For the simple reason that the rangefinder style of photography may not suit everyone. Another issue that is very relevant is whether one wants to deal with films.
To quote an example, one of our moderators, Streetshooter, really dislike the process of processing films, even though he wrote a "sticky" on how to process films.
Why did I start with a Leica? For one simple reason. I like the equipment and I could afford it. And thankfully after a few years I still like it.
Why do I agree with wisp? For the simple reason that the rangefinder style of photography may not suit everyone. Another issue that is very relevant is whether one wants to deal with films.
To quote an example, one of our moderators, Streetshooter, really dislike the process of processing films, even though he wrote a "sticky" on how to process films.
fuwen
Senior Member
With bodies like Voigtlander R2/R2A (Leica M mount) or R (Leica M39 mount), I think if u cannot afford a Leica should at least consider Voiglander (modern onby Cosina). These are good value for money bodies with build in metering, very convenient to use. For the same price u cannot even get Leica bodies without metering. Those with build in meter like M6 are very very expensive, even 2nd hand. But if u can afford, then go for them as I believe u will not regret.
koolcat said:
Well, paying $50 for a FED (even if it's user unfriendly, which to me it isn't if you get it from a reputable source) is still better than plonking up to $2k+ for a body that you find doesn't suit you. (believe, aside from equipment fetishist alot of people sell off their leicas cause they were disappointed they can't do magic. I think I just recently heard of a few guys in singapore who want to sell off too. One of them just bought a leica MP from a collector for just a few weeks! )
Besides, it's not as if it's like digital, where you keep on upgrading. You could still jump straight to a M series if you like after fooling around with a simple rangefinder like the FED or a QL7 for a really long time. At least you know what to expect out of that camera system. Consider $50 as extra insurance to check if you really want that big red dot.
The screwmount leicas, if you are charmed by them are actually pretty good. You could still use voigtlander lenses with them if you want coated lenses. For me everybody thought I was nuts because I was running around with 1930s and 40s uncoated lenses. I still have them now, and I still think they're great, but that's besides the point.
Plus there's the contax IIa and IIIa cameras with their excellent zeiss lenses which are around the same price as the screw mounts. But upgrading would be a problem, as most of their lenses are collector items now. But if you're happy to stick to just 1 or 2, it's still a very good workhorse.
(As in range finder photography, we don't or hardly upgrade at all...another thing to consider too if you're the type that likes to buy a new 'better' lens every year)
As for szekiat, who made the suggestion to straight for the kill, I'd like to ask out of curiosity: How often do you actually use the leica you have in proportion to your DSLR?
I'm of the opinion that a $500+ Voigtlander R2 with lens is enough to start with. As Student rightfully pointed out, rangefinder photography is not for everyone and the investment on the R2 can easily be recouped if you should decide to sell off the setup. Dropping a $2k+ investment into a Leica setup may not be the wisest thing for a RF beginner to do.
Depending on how you look at it, i bought an MP and M7 a few years ago when they first came out new at approx $3600 a piece. Today they are easily worth as much on the used market so i'm not sure i have lost much. The SG leica market is a bit inflated but if u buy them off ebay or external forums, you ought to be able to get more reasonable prices. And if u decide to sell them, you will probably lose about as much money as you would with a voigtlander.
Now why leica? I started of RF photography on a Bessa R2 and while their lenses are great and on paper the R2 sounded like a great beginner's camera, i thought it lost one of the greatest advantages of a leica mount RF, stealth! It's shutter is nearly as loud as my nikon SLRs and it really put me off RF for a while. I eventually sold it at a huge lost and bought a leica M2 anyway. An external meter cost me another $150, and i was all set to go!
As to how often i use my leica, more often than my DSLR really. I'm a medical student and as part of my course i have to visit patients at their homes. Its not practical to travel with a DSLR and lens and carry my school books, but i normally am able to bring my leica with me. It makes for great conversations with them and also allows me to keep a record of the ppl i've met. Its also great for going out shopping, walking etc. with as slung on the shoulder with a 28mm or 40mm lens, it hardly weighs a thing. A clean looking one, shiny and all also goes well with a tux btw and one can get away with it in a formal ball
All in all, i can safely say that i use my RFs at least as much as my DSLR if not more. The digital is mainly for nature photography and for event coverage and paid assignments where digital is the order of the day. My big problem now is which RF to take out!
Now why leica? I started of RF photography on a Bessa R2 and while their lenses are great and on paper the R2 sounded like a great beginner's camera, i thought it lost one of the greatest advantages of a leica mount RF, stealth! It's shutter is nearly as loud as my nikon SLRs and it really put me off RF for a while. I eventually sold it at a huge lost and bought a leica M2 anyway. An external meter cost me another $150, and i was all set to go!
As to how often i use my leica, more often than my DSLR really. I'm a medical student and as part of my course i have to visit patients at their homes. Its not practical to travel with a DSLR and lens and carry my school books, but i normally am able to bring my leica with me. It makes for great conversations with them and also allows me to keep a record of the ppl i've met. Its also great for going out shopping, walking etc. with as slung on the shoulder with a 28mm or 40mm lens, it hardly weighs a thing. A clean looking one, shiny and all also goes well with a tux btw and one can get away with it in a formal ball
All in all, i can safely say that i use my RFs at least as much as my DSLR if not more. The digital is mainly for nature photography and for event coverage and paid assignments where digital is the order of the day. My big problem now is which RF to take out!
szekiat said:Depending on how you look at it, i bought an MP and M7 a few years ago when they first came out new at approx $3600 a piece. Today they are easily worth as much on the used market so i'm not sure i have lost much. The SG leica market is a bit inflated but if u buy them off ebay or external forums, you ought to be able to get more reasonable prices. And if u decide to sell them, you will probably lose about as much money as you would with a voigtlander.
Now why leica? I started of RF photography on a Bessa R2 and while their lenses are great and on paper the R2 sounded like a great beginner's camera, i thought it lost one of the greatest advantages of a leica mount RF, stealth! It's shutter is nearly as loud as my nikon SLRs and it really put me off RF for a while. I eventually sold it at a huge lost and bought a leica M2 anyway. An external meter cost me another $150, and i was all set to go!
As to how often i use my leica, more often than my DSLR really. I'm a medical student and as part of my course i have to visit patients at their homes. Its not practical to travel with a DSLR and lens and carry my school books, but i normally am able to bring my leica with me. It makes for great conversations with them and also allows me to keep a record of the ppl i've met. Its also great for going out shopping, walking etc. with as slung on the shoulder with a 28mm or 40mm lens, it hardly weighs a thing. A clean looking one, shiny and all also goes well with a tux btw and one can get away with it in a formal ball
All in all, i can safely say that i use my RFs at least as much as my DSLR if not more. The digital is mainly for nature photography and for event coverage and paid assignments where digital is the order of the day. My big problem now is which RF to take out!
*looks at his battered black m6* *Gulp* *tightens the necktie ribbon on his tux*
I can help you solve your problem: toss that m7 or mp to me and I'd give you with burns, dents and brass for free!
why on earth would i want burns dents and brassing on my cameras? I use my cameras thoroughly but that doesn't mean that i go all out to damage them. I think its important to differentiate between using your camera and being reckless. I do lend out my cameras to ppl just so that the grease does not stagnate though. The problem is that i have mood swings and i'd favor a particular body/lens combi for a few months and then move to another set before coming back to it a few month later. Just me...i'm wierd.Wisp said:
szekiat said:
Urm okay, not everybody has a choice to pick his own body or lens. I guess you're one of the lucky ones.
That's just a prelimary joke at best for the above post. We all of course try to take care of our cameras, but if there's one photograph I want, it doesn't matter if I'm carrying a leica or not. I pay a few thousand dollars not for it to sit pretty and get body shined.
As a friend say, 'give no chance.'
But man, do I wish I have that luxury to choose a body and lens depending on the day! That would be awesome. Then again, that would confuse the hell out of me.
Nah, 1 body will do. Or 2 if I have the extra dough and I want to spoil myself.
Then again, I'm very happy with my own current set. I'm not the type that would save assidiously just for a leica lens or body. I'd rather leave that in the future when I have that earning power to get anything I want. I'd concentrate on getting that first =).
a very good motto to keep to as well wisp! Getting the shot is crucial, but hardly is there a shot where i'd quite literally die for! Normally i find if i sit back an analyze the situation, there will be a easier way of getting a better shot. Just need to pay attention to details i guess. Thats me at any rate. My days of hanging of stage scaffoldings are over. That said, i do have some really used cameras. My F3 is completely brassed out till there are now specks of black rather than specks of brass! If you are want to keep your camera in mint condition though, do consider leica's chrome finish. It really is impossible to damage that surface. Just apply some clear tape to it and you're sorted for life! Most lenses are equal in performance or if not, the difference is minimal. But i think when you decide on a favorite focal length, then it is good to get the best length of that focal length. For me, thats the leica 40mm summicron C. Sad to say, some leica lenses really have no equal. Try out the asph 50mm f1.4 for instance, the sharpness at 1.4 and the creamy background will just blow you away. It really does define sharp. I've shot many 50mm lenses over the years and i used to preach that they were all about par until i tried it. wow. Sadly, i prefer a 40mm so the summi-C is my lens.Wisp said:
woah
*to the readers of thread: pardon me, don't mind if I descend into abit of L lenses fetishism*
I don't know about that, I'm not that fussy to go peeping around for qualities I wouldn't really notice.
Anyway, case in point, I have a pre asph 50 1.4 which happens to be my standard lenses for the past 2 years. I have seen stuff taken with the asph 50 1.4, and honestly the difference to me is negligible to my pre asph. Then again, I don't shoot colour nowadays except on digital slrs I borrow once in a while.
Then again, it's easy to fill my palate for sharpness. I'm not too fussy about that.
The only difference that's remarkable is simply lens design and the presence of multi coatings/ no multi coatings. I love uncoated or single coated lenses simply for the fact..it flares! Plus it really becomes more dependent on the glass design. For example, the uncoated summitar 50f2 and the summar f2 are both a different kettle of fish togather. Even a lay person could see.
Put a summicron and another nikkor 35 f2 of a similiar era however, and you'd be enlarging to 20x24 to see that lil bit of difference such as abberations and bla bla bla.
Hence my kit doesn't really contain much. Just 2 uncoated lenses, a 90 f4 from the 1950s and 90 f2.8, a 50 1.4 and a 35 f2 and 1 135 f4. That's about all the photography I do.
*Say..aren't we going abit OT here?*
*to the readers of thread: pardon me, don't mind if I descend into abit of L lenses fetishism*
I don't know about that, I'm not that fussy to go peeping around for qualities I wouldn't really notice.
Anyway, case in point, I have a pre asph 50 1.4 which happens to be my standard lenses for the past 2 years. I have seen stuff taken with the asph 50 1.4, and honestly the difference to me is negligible to my pre asph. Then again, I don't shoot colour nowadays except on digital slrs I borrow once in a while.
Then again, it's easy to fill my palate for sharpness. I'm not too fussy about that.
The only difference that's remarkable is simply lens design and the presence of multi coatings/ no multi coatings. I love uncoated or single coated lenses simply for the fact..it flares! Plus it really becomes more dependent on the glass design. For example, the uncoated summitar 50f2 and the summar f2 are both a different kettle of fish togather. Even a lay person could see.
Put a summicron and another nikkor 35 f2 of a similiar era however, and you'd be enlarging to 20x24 to see that lil bit of difference such as abberations and bla bla bla.
Hence my kit doesn't really contain much. Just 2 uncoated lenses, a 90 f4 from the 1950s and 90 f2.8, a 50 1.4 and a 35 f2 and 1 135 f4. That's about all the photography I do.
*Say..aren't we going abit OT here?*
- Status
Similar threads
