Rangefinder users?
- Thread starter Red Dawn
- Start date
- Status
I use the Fujifilm GA645 rnagefinder. A bit cheating,as it is an idiot proof auto everything camera, but it churns out EXCELLENT slides and the EBC lens is Phenomenal!!! Am never gonna get rid of it. A user's review of the camera is Dante Stella's at http://www.dantestella.com/technical/ga645.html. Must confess his description was pivotal in my decision to buy it.
Things I like about the camera= medium format rangefinder, nice contrast, fairly idiot proof, point and shoot, auto everything, nice price, easy to get batteries(CR123) small(for medformat), light, fixed lens at 60mm, can work very fast, no fiddling about with knobs etc, can think about composition more, takes 52mm filters(not exotic 40.5mm like contax), auto wind for film,leaf shutter which is so silent (need electronic beeper to let you know it has fired) and smooth(cannot feel it moving) all round fun to use point and shoot camera like Leica on steroids
Things I dont like = cannot really tell where is the focus point sometimes, focus is not continuous range , ie it focuses in steps with prefixed distances,
a bit slow(as autofocus cf to 35mm), but much faster than manual focus, only takes 15 (not 16) shots per roll of 120.
Not everybody's rangefinder, but does bear serious thinking about if looking for a medium format rangefinder!
Things I like about the camera= medium format rangefinder, nice contrast, fairly idiot proof, point and shoot, auto everything, nice price, easy to get batteries(CR123) small(for medformat), light, fixed lens at 60mm, can work very fast, no fiddling about with knobs etc, can think about composition more, takes 52mm filters(not exotic 40.5mm like contax), auto wind for film,leaf shutter which is so silent (need electronic beeper to let you know it has fired) and smooth(cannot feel it moving) all round fun to use point and shoot camera like Leica on steroids
Things I dont like = cannot really tell where is the focus point sometimes, focus is not continuous range , ie it focuses in steps with prefixed distances,
a bit slow(as autofocus cf to 35mm), but much faster than manual focus, only takes 15 (not 16) shots per roll of 120.
Not everybody's rangefinder, but does bear serious thinking about if looking for a medium format rangefinder!
do you know for a fact you can't?
I bought a Leica elmar 9cm f4 for $200 from Cam.X
and a Summarit 5cm f1.5 from Ron for $400 (add $50 for cleaning).
Not the latest sharpest leica glass, but both have a pleasing character.
The elmar 9cm is a favourite esp.
Or check out the russian glass...some are good. I have a very nice 50/2.
The J-3 50/1.5 is sharper than the summarit throughout the range.
I bought a Leica elmar 9cm f4 for $200 from Cam.X
and a Summarit 5cm f1.5 from Ron for $400 (add $50 for cleaning).
Not the latest sharpest leica glass, but both have a pleasing character.
The elmar 9cm is a favourite esp.
Or check out the russian glass...some are good. I have a very nice 50/2.
The J-3 50/1.5 is sharper than the summarit throughout the range.
hoppinghippo
Senior Member
Hi I've a question after reading all the posts on RFs, I don't understand why does Leica bodies cost so much or why are they so acclaimed, isn't it the lens that matters more than anything else? esp so for RF where its manual and so the bodies don't really differ much other than bright rangefinders? Cuz I"ve been thinking of trying out RF but been put off by the prices. Would it make more sense to get say a bessa R2 and leica lens so I could get a cheaper body yet get to use the best lens?
hoppinghippo said:
IMO, the Ms have more silent shutters, let you use slower shutter speeds, have framelines for 28/35/50/75/90/135 (vs 3 framelines for R2). Trade off is the price + silly film loading.
Your logic also works for lenses. Apart from the newest generation M glass, VC lenses are mostly equivalent to their M circa 1980 counterparts.
I'm sure you would do fine with a R/R2 and VC lens. The problem is what happens when you like it and start hankering after a M kit
hoppinghippo
Senior Member
pipefish said:IMO, the Ms have more silent shutters, let you use slower shutter speeds, have framelines for 28/35/50/75/90/135 (vs 3 framelines for R2). Trade off is the price + silly film loading.
Your logic also works for lenses. Apart from the newest generation M glass, VC lenses are mostly equivalent to their M circa 1980 counterparts.
I'm sure you would do fine with a R/R2 and VC lens. The problem is what happens when you like it and start hankering after a M kit
Thanks for replying pipefish! may I know what's this "silly film loading" about? And are VC lens really comparable to leica lens? looks like VC is on to something good! I"ve been salivating over cameraquest's website for a while now!
AFter using the Bessa-R for about 2 years, I'm pleased to say I'm happy with it. I do yearn for a bayonet mounting sometimes.... and eye the Leica M6 or the Contax G system... but can't make the commitment.
The older Leica lenses are not all that sharp, but therein is the charm. It has a pastel-like rendering which you will not find anywhere else. Ultimately, any lens character is how you use it as a tool.
I have handled the M6 recently and after a while, I didn't mind it... but that said, I still like my Bessa-R. Sure it's noisy ... but the viewfinder is bright, its cheap (no worries about getting stolen), reliable ... its smaller than the M6 ... and the voigtlander lenses I have (15mm and 35mm) will beat any Canon EOS prime lens on any day. It's tack-sharp without being too contrasty.. and distortion very low or non-existent (advantage of RF over SLR wide-angle lenses).
And I enjoy using the soviet and old Leica lenses on it too (summarit 50/1.5, elmar 9cm f4).
Since shooting RF, I have somehow found more possibilities ... can shoot at lower shutter speeds easily ... more portable... and I find I don't miss the faster lenses as much... .whereas when shooting SLRs I often hanker for lenses of at least f2.0 ...
RF cameras benefit wide-angle users most and tele-users least. If you like wide-angles ... those available for RF cameras are typically very compact, and very wide at a good price point. The 15mm f4.5 is only S$500++ new ... and smaller than any canon or nikon SLR wide-angle prime I know. And I often shoot it down to 1/15 handheld. RF wide-angle are mostly non-retrofocus design... and this means less distortion compared to a retrofocus design which is necessary for SLR lenses.
If you are a tele user, you are better off with SLR... as the fine focusing on an RF camera is harder to use or sometimes simply less precise... because you are using the VF and Rf-cam mech. as a proxy for focus. With SLR lenses, you pretty much focus what you see.
So choose a tool for your style.
The older Leica lenses are not all that sharp, but therein is the charm. It has a pastel-like rendering which you will not find anywhere else. Ultimately, any lens character is how you use it as a tool.
I have handled the M6 recently and after a while, I didn't mind it... but that said, I still like my Bessa-R. Sure it's noisy ... but the viewfinder is bright, its cheap (no worries about getting stolen), reliable ... its smaller than the M6 ... and the voigtlander lenses I have (15mm and 35mm) will beat any Canon EOS prime lens on any day. It's tack-sharp without being too contrasty.. and distortion very low or non-existent (advantage of RF over SLR wide-angle lenses).
And I enjoy using the soviet and old Leica lenses on it too (summarit 50/1.5, elmar 9cm f4).
Since shooting RF, I have somehow found more possibilities ... can shoot at lower shutter speeds easily ... more portable... and I find I don't miss the faster lenses as much... .whereas when shooting SLRs I often hanker for lenses of at least f2.0 ...
RF cameras benefit wide-angle users most and tele-users least. If you like wide-angles ... those available for RF cameras are typically very compact, and very wide at a good price point. The 15mm f4.5 is only S$500++ new ... and smaller than any canon or nikon SLR wide-angle prime I know. And I often shoot it down to 1/15 handheld. RF wide-angle are mostly non-retrofocus design... and this means less distortion compared to a retrofocus design which is necessary for SLR lenses.
If you are a tele user, you are better off with SLR... as the fine focusing on an RF camera is harder to use or sometimes simply less precise... because you are using the VF and Rf-cam mech. as a proxy for focus. With SLR lenses, you pretty much focus what you see.
So choose a tool for your style.
hoppinghippo said:
Hard to explain how the film is loaded. The entire baseplate of the camera is removed vs a normal camera where the back is hinged.
As previous user has said, VC lenses are pretty good. You can find out more by going to photo.net and surfing the Leica forum - look for the lens subforum.
In the Leica (and early canon RF, maybe nikon RF cameras), the baseplate is removed... the film drawn out a bit and the film cartridge is pushed in with film out. the film leader fits into a space between the "box" (not mirrorbox since no mirror!) and the filmback. A flap in the filmback where ISO dial is flaps open so you can align the film. It is slipped onto the takeup spool on the other end.... back is closed, bottom put back.
The rationale in the old days was because this allowed a more rigid body to be built compared to using a hinged back (like comparing a car with or without a roof)... but
in 95% of the time, the hinged back works just fine. The last time I know of someone dropping a camera and having the back spring open must have been 10yrs ago!
The rationale in the old days was because this allowed a more rigid body to be built compared to using a hinged back (like comparing a car with or without a roof)... but
in 95% of the time, the hinged back works just fine. The last time I know of someone dropping a camera and having the back spring open must have been 10yrs ago!
hoppinghippo
Senior Member
Thanks for all your comments and advices, I"ve bought a FED 5 off Ebay (hopefully it arrives and I don't get conned, first time buying off ebay) and I"ll try it out first before deciding to upgrade to the Bessa R2. thanks!
it's not really the same experience at all ... hope your piece is ok.
many of these old feds and zorkis are 20-50yrs old and given the poor quality
of old lubricants, need a servicing to work well.
I have had a zorki C, 4, 4K , Fed-2 etc. ... and while nostalgic to use, feel
rough, and sometimes detract from the full RF user experience. There is a 80% chance that your piece will need at least a RF adjustment unless it was recently serviced. Almost all my soviet RF cameras needed adjustment...
but the good news is in most cases you can do it yourself if so inclined.
Try out a Bessa at one of the second-hand shops even if not buying.... at least you know.
many of these old feds and zorkis are 20-50yrs old and given the poor quality
of old lubricants, need a servicing to work well.
I have had a zorki C, 4, 4K , Fed-2 etc. ... and while nostalgic to use, feel
rough, and sometimes detract from the full RF user experience. There is a 80% chance that your piece will need at least a RF adjustment unless it was recently serviced. Almost all my soviet RF cameras needed adjustment...
but the good news is in most cases you can do it yourself if so inclined.
Try out a Bessa at one of the second-hand shops even if not buying.... at least you know.
hoppinghippo
Senior Member
Shucks, really so jialat? the seller listed it as brand new somemore... ah well.. I like tinkering with stuff so at least will get a kick out of self servicing it. and yeah that's a gd idea, will go try it out at the 2nd hand shops, but feel a bit guilty since I know I won't be buying!
parlin can tell you more since he's the expert... but you must understand old soviet QC .... factories make the camera ... it is then shipped to the shops, where the attached workshop will do the adjustments ... so if its new old-stock... it don't mean its a perfect camera! Sometimes better off buying a used one in good condition.
First time I saw a soviet-era "warranty" translated I got a shock. Translated, it means that you (the buyer) warranty the factory against any defects as you have examined it on purchase and are satisfactory.
anyway ,the bright side is if you have a properly adjust one, they are tough users (like lada) and the lenses are good (if you have a bad one, toss it and get another).
I still use some of the lenses on my bessa R i.e.
Orion 28/6.3
Jupiter-3, 50/1.5
Jupiter-9, 85/2
Jupiter-11, 135/4
The russar 20mm is expensive due to collector value and for the price you're better off with a voigtlander. The J-12 35/2.8 will not mount on the Bessa, but when I use it on my old zorki or my canon-7 ... it's not a contrasty lens ... but sharp sharp sharp. Puts my Canon EF 35/2 to shame at f2.8
First time I saw a soviet-era "warranty" translated I got a shock. Translated, it means that you (the buyer) warranty the factory against any defects as you have examined it on purchase and are satisfactory.
anyway ,the bright side is if you have a properly adjust one, they are tough users (like lada) and the lenses are good (if you have a bad one, toss it and get another).
I still use some of the lenses on my bessa R i.e.
Orion 28/6.3
Jupiter-3, 50/1.5
Jupiter-9, 85/2
Jupiter-11, 135/4
The russar 20mm is expensive due to collector value and for the price you're better off with a voigtlander. The J-12 35/2.8 will not mount on the Bessa, but when I use it on my old zorki or my canon-7 ... it's not a contrasty lens ... but sharp sharp sharp. Puts my Canon EF 35/2 to shame at f2.8
Last note:
Soviet RF cameras use a wedge-shaped coupler, Bessa and Leica use a circle shape coupler. The latter is obviously more expensive to make.
The difference? Many non-soviet 135mm lenses e.g. canon, leica use a "tongue" coupler on the lens... so they will NOT mount on your soviet RF. Soviet RF lenses use a circular coupler on the lens.... so will mount on both soviet and leica/japanese RF cameras.
Another good value are the canon RF lenses are not necessarily expensive ... and sometimes can be had for cheap... e.g. I bought a severely marked down canon 135/3.5 from cash converters for $70. Sometimes you will find canon RF lenses costing only marginally more than the soviet counterparts... primarily due to people not being so familiar with them...
When doing your own RF calibaration, besides calibarating for vertical and horizontal axis, ideally, you should also calibarate for both infinity and at min. focus distance ... the latter is difficult to do, so do at least the infinity stop. Calibarate with a 50mm lens...
if you ask parlin, he will tell you you're better off buying a Kiev RF i.e. contax-RF mt rf camera. The reason is simple... the contax RF cameras have the focusing mech on camera .. the lenses are effectively just "lens heads". So the system is more robust and less prone to focusing errors (which account for at least 70% of all blur pictures with LTM cameras). And the Kiev RF cameras and lenses are even cheaper than the LTM counterparts because again, less demand. But the viewfinder of the Kievs are really BRIGHT. At least as bright as the Leica M3 , I think. Cosina makes the Bessa-R2c which is similar to the R2, but takes contax RF mount lenses.
And maybe now you know why I bought a Bessa-R and a Canon-7.
Soviet RF cameras use a wedge-shaped coupler, Bessa and Leica use a circle shape coupler. The latter is obviously more expensive to make.
The difference? Many non-soviet 135mm lenses e.g. canon, leica use a "tongue" coupler on the lens... so they will NOT mount on your soviet RF. Soviet RF lenses use a circular coupler on the lens.... so will mount on both soviet and leica/japanese RF cameras.
Another good value are the canon RF lenses are not necessarily expensive ... and sometimes can be had for cheap... e.g. I bought a severely marked down canon 135/3.5 from cash converters for $70. Sometimes you will find canon RF lenses costing only marginally more than the soviet counterparts... primarily due to people not being so familiar with them...
When doing your own RF calibaration, besides calibarating for vertical and horizontal axis, ideally, you should also calibarate for both infinity and at min. focus distance ... the latter is difficult to do, so do at least the infinity stop. Calibarate with a 50mm lens...
if you ask parlin, he will tell you you're better off buying a Kiev RF i.e. contax-RF mt rf camera. The reason is simple... the contax RF cameras have the focusing mech on camera .. the lenses are effectively just "lens heads". So the system is more robust and less prone to focusing errors (which account for at least 70% of all blur pictures with LTM cameras). And the Kiev RF cameras and lenses are even cheaper than the LTM counterparts because again, less demand. But the viewfinder of the Kievs are really BRIGHT. At least as bright as the Leica M3 , I think. Cosina makes the Bessa-R2c which is similar to the R2, but takes contax RF mount lenses.
And maybe now you know why I bought a Bessa-R and a Canon-7.
hoppinghippo
Senior Member
Designer said:Hello! Everybody,
I'm just a newbie to RF world. Just got my new Bessa R2 & My 1st RF lens (15mm). It's really a different fun & technique comparing w/. SLR.
Hi how much and where did you buy the R2?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
