Rangefinder questions (specific to older Leica M's and screwmounts)

[Dwig]

Several points:

1. There is no such thing as a 30 year old M3. The youngest M3 is well over 40 years old, the oldest is some 56 years old, and the average age is late 40's to early '50s. They are beautifully built cameras and if well maintained are far from the end of their service life.

2. The M3 has frame lines for 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm. Its probably not the best choice for someone wanting to use a 35mm lens with any frequency. A better choice would likely be the M2, M4, or for that may any other M model.

3. The Bessas do descend from the same progenitor as the Nikon FM-10. The original design is probably the Konica Autoreflex T-4 and TC. The newer Bessa R2 and R3 variants are probably better choices than the original R. They have meters and are a bit more refined. The choice between the R2 and R3 line (there are two of each) is the VF magnification and frameline set. The "m" versions are mechanical manual only models and the "a" models are electronic with both manual and aperture priority automatic.

4. Unlike the Bessas and Canons, frameline selection on the Leica M's is "automatic". You can't manually select a frameline though all but the original samples of the M3 (1953-55 approx) have a preview lever to temporarily preview other framelines. If you go with an M and want to use adapted LTM lenses you will want to get a separate adapter for each lens, each with the appropriate mount to set the appropriate frameline.

5. LTM Leicas (aka "Barnaks") are all very old. The last one made is just shy of 50 years old. Only the last and highly collectible model, the IIIg, has a decent VF and frames for anything other than 50mm (it has frame lines for 50mm and 90mm). Only one reasonably priced model that has flash sync (the IIIf, though there is also a variant without slow speeds named the IIf).

6. Learning how to handle anything other than the most common lighting conditions without the aid of a meter is something that takes a lifetime. In a handful of years you can get fairly decent, though you will be relying on film latitude a lot and bracketing for insurance very frequently. Even using a simple "dumb" meter (read: single area reading as opposed to the multi-area readings with computer analysis that is common in modern DSLRs) takes some learning.

My recommendation is to seriously consider the newer metered M-mount Bessas or an older used M-mount Leica. With either, pay careful attention to the fit between your lens choices and the VF frameline set in the bodies under consideration.

 

[Jeff Canes]

A few years back, about 4 plus, Cosina-Voigtlander had an issue with the calibration of the rangefinder in their cameras. I recall reading that maybe 50% where out of calibration from the factory. I do not think this is an issue with current production, But if you buy a used one ask about it.

 

[usayit]

One more thing that came to mind with the Bessa's... more specifically the R3M. The R3M is unique in that it has a 1x viewfinder. Meaning no-magnification. What this means is that you can shoot with both eyes open which presents a different visual "feel" to shooting.

Its hard to explain... You bring the camera's viewfinder to your eye but you keep both eyes open. It feels like you are just "observing" your subject with the framelines floating in space in a "heads up display" kinda way. This is done no matter what focal length lens attached (remember rangefinder no lookie through lens). Street shoots like this as you observe the world around you as you would normally. Then you frame and shoot without a mental switch because of the different magnifications.

My Epson R-d1 (body is based on a Bessa design) has this type of viewfinder and its one of the features that keeps this "outdated" camera at my side. Its really neat.

Again... frameline selection is of the upmost importance during your rangefinder body selection. Later bodies tend to have more framelines but to the point they get a bit cluttered.. (I'm thinking of my M6 which is collecting dust). Magnification usually goes along with the framelines... less magnification for wider framelines.

 

[Antithesis]

One more thing that came to mind with the Bessa's... more specifically the R3M. The R3M is unique in that it has a 1x viewfinder. Meaning no-magnification. What this means is that you can shoot with both eyes open which presents a different visual "feel" to shooting.

Its hard to explain... You bring the camera's viewfinder to your eye but you keep both eyes open. It feels like you are just "observing" your subject with the framelines floating in space in a "heads up display" kinda way. This is done no matter what focal length lens attached (remember rangefinder no lookie through lens). Street shoots like this as you observe the world around you as you would normally. Then you frame and shoot without a mental switch because of the different magnifications.

My Epson R-d1 (body is based on a Bessa design) has this type of viewfinder and its one of the features that keeps this "outdated" camera at my side. Its really neat.

Again... frameline selection is of the upmost importance during your rangefinder body selection. Later bodies tend to have more framelines but to the point they get a bit cluttered.. (I'm thinking of my M6 which is collecting dust). Magnification usually goes along with the framelines... less magnification for wider framelines.

I'm actually blind in my right eye, so shooting with both eyes open poses no immediate benefits, lol.

Also, Dwig, I believe the Bessa R has a TTL meter, as do pretty much all the Bessa's. I would love to get one of the M-mount Bessa's, as they have more metal in their construction and have less issues with the rangefinder going out of whack. They are just in the $600 range and I'd rather put that money into lenses for the time being. I used to have a Nikon FA and an FG20, and while the FA had numerous additional features and a better prism, I used the FG a lot more because it was lighter and simpler. I think I'd probably feel the same way for a rangefinder, so I think he R would fit the bill for now.

And I was actually just reading more about Jupiter lenses, and apparently they are great lenses and super, super cheap. I've been checking out fedka.com, and they have a lot of cool russian rangefinder stuff. I'll probably just get the Jupiter-8 (50 f2) to start with, and then hopefully the Voigtlander 21mm. I'd like to eventually get a 35 and 75 if I can afford them as well.

Do people find that they generally use 35's or 50's more?

 

[usayit]

Just thought of two more good options:

1) The often under appreciated Minolta/Leica CL
2) and Minolta Hexar RF

Both have meters and the CL is very very compact. The Minolta Rokkor (sp?) lenses are M-mount lenses. I liked the Hexar a lot.... during the time the Leica M6 the Hexar had a lot of built in features that were way ahead of the game for rangefinders. It too is M-mount. Quality is very high and it feels like it. The Hexar will require a battery to operate.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Do people find that they generally use 35's or 50's more?

I personally find the 50mm lens boring and always had one SLR body with a 35mm. My Leica also always had a 35mm on. The 35mm is great for shooting blind so it is very useful on a quiet rangefinder to shoot where you are not allowed. PJ habit but it might be useful in some museums.

 

[Dwig]

Just thought of two more good options:

1) The often under appreciated Minolta/Leica CL
2) and Minolta Hexar RF

Both have meters and the CL is very very compact. The Minolta Rokkor (sp?) lenses are M-mount lenses. ...

Both are very good, if in good condition.

BTW, the CL was sold several ways. The Leica CL was the name in most markets and Minolta/CL was primarily used in Japan. The CL vintage lenses were branded "Leica" and not Minolta Rokkor. After the demise of the CL, Minolta offered their own camera, the CLE. The 40mm f/2.0 for the CLE was branded Rokkor though it was the same design as the earlier Leica branded version. The Rokkor 90mm was made in Germany by Leitz. For a little while, Minolta also offered a 28mm lens for the CLE.

The CL was a purely mechanical body and its meter used an antique and dangerous mercury based battery. Replacements are available but have their issues. The CLE was an all electronic camera with manual and aperture priority automatic modes and used a more modern silver oxide battery that is still available. Both are very compact and excellent performers. Their RFs have rather short baselines and using f/1.4 lenses is not recommended nor f/2.0 lenses of 75mm or longer or f/2.8 135mm lenses.

 

[Dwig]

...
And I was actually just reading more about Jupiter lenses, and apparently they are great lenses and super, super cheap. I've been checking out fedka.com, and they have a lot of cool russian rangefinder stuff. I'll probably just get the Jupiter-8 (50 f2) to start with, and then hopefully the Voigtlander 21mm. I'd like to eventually get a 35 and 75 if I can afford them as well.

Do people find that they generally use 35's or 50's more?

Personally I love 35mm lenses and abhor 50's, at least on film and, I would assume, "full frame" digital. My pet kit in my film days (Nikon F3 was my primary body) was 20mm, 35mm, & 105mm. My 45, 55, and 300 were used much less often. Picking lenses for a Leica, or similar, I would lean towards a 21, 35, 90 set. But choices like this are very, very, very personal.

The FSU (Former Soviet Union) lenses can be rather good. They often have issues when used on Leicas or Japanese Leica clones and compatibles. This comes from the fact that the FSU cameras descend from the old Carl Zeiss parts and tools that the Soviet Union "acquired" at the end of WWII. The Contax cameras used a different base focal length than Leica as their standard. This can cause lenses to focus accurately at infinity but slightly mis-focus at close distances. The lenses can be shimmed to move the point of best focus (most infinity shots are in bright light and DOF will cover small errors) and sometimes corrected completely (either remounting, refiguring the focus cam, or respacing the optics to adjust the FL). As a rule, FSU lenses are best used on FSU bodies. They often deliver rather decent images, though. The Jupiter-8 has a good reputation.

 

[usayit]

If you find a Hexar RF, you should have no problems with condition caused by age. Earliest versions are less than 10 years old. Similar rangefinder accuracy as the M6 but with built in motor and arguable a better meter too.

Its biggest fault was the lack of the red dot.

 

[Antithesis]

...
And I was actually just reading more about Jupiter lenses, and apparently they are great lenses and super, super cheap. I've been checking out fedka.com, and they have a lot of cool russian rangefinder stuff. I'll probably just get the Jupiter-8 (50 f2) to start with, and then hopefully the Voigtlander 21mm. I'd like to eventually get a 35 and 75 if I can afford them as well.

Do people find that they generally use 35's or 50's more?

Personally I love 35mm lenses and abhor 50's, at least on film and, I would assume, "full frame" digital. My pet kit in my film days (Nikon F3 was my primary body) was 20mm, 35mm, & 105mm. My 45, 55, and 300 were used much less often. Picking lenses for a Leica, or similar, I would lean towards a 21, 35, 90 set. But choices like this are very, very, very personal.

The FSU (Former Soviet Union) lenses can be rather good. They often have issues when used on Leicas or Japanese Leica clones and compatibles. This comes from the fact that the FSU cameras descend from the old Carl Zeiss parts and tools that the Soviet Union "acquired" at the end of WWII. The Contax cameras used a different base focal length than Leica as their standard. This can cause lenses to focus accurately at infinity but slightly mis-focus at close distances. The lenses can be shimmed to move the point of best focus (most infinity shots are in bright light and DOF will cover small errors) and sometimes corrected completely (either remounting, refiguring the focus cam, or respacing the optics to adjust the FL). As a rule, FSU lenses are best used on FSU bodies. They often deliver rather decent images, though. The Jupiter-8 has a good reputation.

That's a bummer as I was excited because of the prices. How does one "shim" the lens? I'd love to get all Voigtlander lenses but I just won't likely have the money for it before I leave on the trip.

And with the Hexar, while it seems like a great camera (motorized film advance and titanium bottom plates sound pretty sweet), I think I'd feel like it were overly automatic. I believe one of the main attractions of a rangefinder is the simplicity. I always found that having a manual film advance and having to check my settings every time made all my shots more deliberate on a manual camera. The number of keepers on a single roll of film tends to be higher than an equal number of digital images.

 

[Dwig]

...How does one "shim" the lens? ...

It is not something for the novice to attempt. It requires the skill and tools necessary to disassemble the lens barrel, at least part way. The purpose is to move the whole optical tube forward by a small amount so that when the helicoid is set to infinity the lens is focused just slightly closer. This will, when done correctly with exactly the correct thickness shim, cause the RF system and the actual image to both agree at some chosen closer focus point, often around 2m (6ft). There are the occasional discussion of doing this, either by one's self or by a skill repair technician, at the Rangefinder Forum ( Rangefinderforum.com Portal - Rangefinderforum )

 

[Antithesis]

Sounds a bit difficult, and I'm not sure that I'd want to pay a technician $75 to calibrate (colimate? Not sure what the word is) a $60 lens. But, it seems like the more I read the more cases I'm finding of people using the Jupiter-8 without any issues on a bessa r. It seems to happen more on the M-mount bessas with an adapter. So, that still leaves the opportunity to to get a very inexpensive 50mm. Also, the images I've seen taken with this lens seem to be pretty outstanding. I'm still strongly considering the Canon Serenar 50 1.8 for the slightly larger aperture and the fact that it will focus accurately.

I'll probably just end up with the 21 and 50 for this trip, but that doesn't really bug me. I used to carry a 20mm and 50mm with my 5D as a standard lightweight kit and it was good for 90% of situations. A 35 sounds like fun and I'll probably get a Voigtlander with a large aperture a few months later, and a 75 or 90 would finish the kit.

 

[usayit]

I really don't feel like lugging a bunch of heavy glass around.
...

The obvious concern would be the lack of a meter, which is something I've always been reliant on
..
I'll probably be using mostly color..
..

I think I'd feel like it were overly automatic. I believe one of the main attractions of a rangefinder is the simplicity. I always found that having a manual film advance and having to check my settings every time made all my shots more deliberate on a manual camera.

Antithesis, just being devil's advocate...

I scanned through your postings in this thread and I don't see anything that "screams" rangefinder. What are your reasons for gravitating towards a rangefinder? Have you shot significantly with one? Keep in mind that much of what you have mentioned are perfect reasons just to go with a compact classic manual SLR.

lack of meter versus too automatic?
Manual everything is obtainable with SLRs of similar time period.
Too often rangefinder has become synonymous with old fashioned.... but its more than that.

Also keep in mind, many wouldn't consider older lenses (including LTM) ideal for color negative...

 

[compur]

But, it seems like the more I read the more cases I'm finding of people using the Jupiter-8 without any issues on a bessa r. It seems to happen more on the M-mount bessas with an adapter. So, that still leaves the opportunity to to get a very inexpensive 50mm. Also, the images I've seen taken with this lens seem to be pretty outstanding. I'm still strongly considering the Canon Serenar 50 1.8 for the slightly larger aperture and the fact that it will focus accurately.

I've had good experiences with Russian lenses in general and so have my
friends who've used them. Some say they don't have a good reputation for
quality control but so far I haven't had any lemons. And, many are copies
of legendary German designs.

The Russian cameras, however, are a different story. I have seen them
broken when new in the box!

 

[Antithesis]

I really don't feel like lugging a bunch of heavy glass around.
...

The obvious concern would be the lack of a meter, which is something I've always been reliant on
..
I'll probably be using mostly color..
..

I think I'd feel like it were overly automatic. I believe one of the main attractions of a rangefinder is the simplicity. I always found that having a manual film advance and having to check my settings every time made all my shots more deliberate on a manual camera.

Antithesis, just being devil's advocate...

I scanned through your postings in this thread and I don't see anything that "screams" rangefinder. What are your reasons for gravitating towards a rangefinder? Have you shot significantly with one? Keep in mind that much of what you have mentioned are perfect reasons just to go with a compact classic manual SLR.

lack of meter versus too automatic?
Manual everything is obtainable with SLRs of similar time period.
Too often rangefinder has become synonymous with old fashioned.... but its more than that.

Also keep in mind, many wouldn't consider older lenses (including LTM) ideal for color negative...

Rangefinders are cool. Nuff' said....

But seriously, I've been using SLR's my whole life, and I was just interested in something different. Not that a camera should inspire a photographer to do anything different, but I think it might just be fun to use something other than the typical SLR. Light weight and compactness has a lot to do with my consideration (though a RF only seems compact with certain lenses, and a manual SLR won't be that much heavier). I don't really have any reason not to go with an SLR other than the fact that I want a rangefinder. They obviously both have pros and cons, but it ultimately comes down to wanting something different.