35mm rangefinders other than Leica?

I supposed someone will ask - why not just get another Nikon FE? - there are plenty out there.

I'll assume you know that, and go direct to your title question.

If you want interchangeable lenses, then there's the Cosina/Voigtlander Bessa series - latest ones have Leica M mount but their own low-price lenses. The only other "new" 35mm RF you can buy today.

Or Contax G with autofocus - discontinued but lots available used. Some purists don't count them as RFs, but they do have "the compact size and minimal internal movement" of a Leica.

Or Canons and Nikons from the 60s - collectible ones are almost Leica-pricey, but a sweet little Canon P will be $400 +/- and will take 1960s Canon/Leica screwmount lenses or the screwmount versions of Cosina/Voigtlander (modern production) at, say, $300-$400 each.

If I absolutely had to shoot film today, with an RF, and at least some lens interchangeability (which I refuse to give up).....I personally would get a Canon P and 3-4 old Canon or new Voigtlander lenses. Less ornery than a Contax G (their automation tends to try and tell you when to take the picture, rather than the other way around). A little bit tighter build and finish than the modern Cosinas.

I should have added to that last paragraph: "with an RF, at a reasonable price".

Did you looked for a contax g1 or g2?

I'm a big fan of the Contax G2 - it's (for me) the closest to a perfect combination of RF and automatic, and with some practice can be a very effective and efficient tool for creating fantastic images. You have to learn its peculiarities somewhat (such as making use of focus-lock and re-composing) but it is a very fine camera by any standards. Not purist, but effective. Superb lenses too.

Andy's forgotten the Zeiss Ikon with many devotees and some great lenses. Released as late as 2004, some have described it as better than the Leica M7. It doesn't feel as solid as a Leica but it has some great features and is no doubt a great camera. The viewfinder is large and clear. Like the M7 it can be aperture priority automatic. It is slightly larger but lighter than an M Leica. It looks beautiful. If you never held a Leica you'd fall in love with this camera and not think anything could be better. You might even be right. There are a few reviews on the net.

Just two thoughts: the Yashica Electro 35 is a really big and heavy camera if this model is still on Your list. A decent camera - but no RF is the Konica Hexar AF: nice lens, silent operation mode and in black a real beauty. georg

1) Do you want a meter?

If you do and decide to go with a RF than take a look at Voigtlander bodies. They are modern and lightweight. Look for one with metering and a Leica screw thread mount. You can then use any screw or M lens on them inc Leica although their own lenses are very good. They are not a classic though if you want that vintage look / feel and supposedly don't have the build quality of a Leica.

2) What lens lengths do you like to use and to shoot what with?

***RF are only good for wide angle to 90mm or 135 at a push so are hopeless for sports. ***Any wide angle below 28mm will also probably need an external finder so will involve faffing about. ***They also don't work well or even at all close up so no good for Macro or even frame filling full face portraits.

Disclaimer***The above statements are generalities so may not be 100% factual e.g. there is a 90mm macro lens option for M cameras which may work for you.

If the above issues makes you now think you may well want a classic SLR after all then how about an Olympus? The first OM-1 was called them M-1 originally before Leica objected because it was so based on the compact size and feel of an M camera. The glass is supposed to be very good although I am surprised that you find the SL35 optics to be only so so (are yours zooms or primes?). Buying another Nikon is another easy option.

The fact is this - If you want a metered film camera then virtually any old film SLR offers amazing value at this time including Leica SLR cameras if you fancy a well engineered brick to lug about :-)

Late model Leica RFs with meters have not, to date, suffered quite so badly in the move to digital so they still are not a cheap option nor is their glass.

Addendum:

The Yashica is not that much big - sorry for adding confusion. I have one in its original case and this thing is really large. georg

Aaron, The Zeiss Ikon with ZM lenses is probably the best RF combination around today,and it costs half or less than comparable new Leica equipment, still it is relatively expensive. I'd suggest a Bessa for a start - the R4A if you like the wide lenses, or the R3A in case you can be ok with lenses from 40 to 90mm. The CV lenses are first class and not expensive. An alternative would be a functioning Leica M2 - you can find these for acceptable money these days. Look up the rangefinderforum.com.

Aaron Heinrich: "... I can't afford a Leica. ..."

It's not that you can't afford a Leica, it's that you don't want it badly enough. You will end up spending a lot of money buying this and that, always comparing it to a Leica, and in the end you will buy a Leica, just to experience it. There simply is no substitute. Otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it over here.

Or maybe he really can't afford one, or has other priorities. But what about a Leica CL with 40mm Minolta Rokkor?

"Otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it over here."

This is the Leica AND Rangefinder forum. It is not exclusive to one or the other.

Along similar lines as the Contax G2 or Hexar AF, you might want to consider some of the nicer point & shoots w/manual options, like the Nikon 28Ti & 35Ti.

Here's a journey:

http://www.davebeckerman.com/general/Camera-Addict.htm

Voigtlander Bessa R is probably the camera you are looking for. The built in meter is good. It's a good camera for the price. Here is one for $250. The Canon P will run about the same price, but the Bessa does have a nice meter. You can get a 35/2.5 Voigtlander lens for $195.

Correcting Gadge A... "Look for one with metering and a Leica screw thread mount. You can then use any screw or M lens on them " This is not ture. A screw mount body can only accept screw mount lenses. A M-mount body can accept screwmount lenses with an adapter. There is a wide variety of screwmount lenses which makes it not a problem. Screwmount lenses are also less expensive.

The later Bessa are all M-mount cameras and will be more expensive.

I'd really say $400 is the lowest cost to get into an interchangable lens rangefinder and a lens. If that is too expensive, try a Canonet GIII QL17 for about $50.

As for the Zeiss Ikon, it's a pretty nice camera, but for $1400, you can get a used Leica M6.

I have several MF Nikons, my favorite is the F3hp but if you don't wear glasses a standard F3 is just as good for less money. The sync speed is slower but about what leicas have, I have a 28mm F2 a 50mm F1.2 and an 85mm F1.4. These lenses are just as good as anything Leica has that is that fast and your wallet is not going to be paying thousands more. The F3 is buttery smooth and without a motor drive really tiny compared to todays Dslrs. I would add the 135mm F2 if you want a really fast kit.

I love my Canonet GIII QL 17. It has a 40mm 1.7 lens, unfortunately not interchangeable but very sharp and the camera is small and lightweight. Full manual exposure control with shutter speeds to 1/500, leaf shutter for unlimited flash sync, both PC contact and hot shoe. Often cited in reviews as a poor man's Leica. These cameras seem to go in and out of favor and that affects the price, but you can usually pick one up for $100 or so. I think I paid about $30 for mine.

Craig

Me too, my Canonet kicks butt. Paid 100 for it and had it brought to factory spec for another 100. All my b/w are shot with that camera. I have had it for 5 years

I'll add my $.02 in for one of the Bessa Voigtlander cameras if the price works for you. I don't own one, nor do I own a Leica or any vintage, but I have used both. The Leica, of course, feels more solid and is much more quiet than the Bessa cameras. The viewfinders on both are better than good. Some say that the Bessa has a brighter finder than the Leica, though in my opinion the point is moot. The Cosina Voigtlander lenses are not to be dismissed out of hand either. In many cases, the differences between the Leica glass and the CV glass won't be noticed. When it is noticeable, the differences are subtle. Of course, there's no stopping you from using any Leitz glass on the M mount Bessa cameras. As mentioned proviously, screw mount lenses will fit and work perfectly with an inexpensive adapter should you decide to go that way. M mount Leica glass will work perfectly as is.

If you don't mind autofocus, the Ricoh GR1 series - with a fixed 28mm lens - are wonderfully small, light, and well-designed. The TTL flash is good. Only trouble is that the autowind can be noisy, and good ones go for quite a high price.

Canon made some excellent copies of the Leica IIIa, sometimes marketed as a Tower brand and sold by Sears. However if you must have the Leica name, you'll just have to pay for it

Dude, you don't need to dump a wad for a rangefinder. Get a Canon Canonet or, since no one said it, get a clean Retina IIC or, if you need the interch. lenses, try a Zorki 4.

I had the complete Olympus system, the OM 1, 2,3, and 4... The Zuiko glass is outstanding and never any problems...The cameras are small and light...They were used a lot in my three studios...The metering was always accurate...I gave the complete $5000 (retail) collection to my son when he graduated from Art School...

If you're shooting B&W you don't need (or soon won't need) a built in meter. None of the famous good old boys had built in meters, and few even relied on hand-held.

I recently bought a 2nd hand Contax G1 (after going through the same you are on right now) and I really like it... I mean I REALLY like it. You can probably get a good condition G1 with the upgrade to allow the 35mm lens (although I'm not sure I care about the 35mm option, it's nice to know its there) for $300ish, and if you shop around, maybe get a 45mm lens as part of that package without the price going up.

The optics on the lenses are fantastic, and although the Zeiss optics on the Contax aren't comparable to the Zeiss optics on the Hasselblad cameras with respect to resolution, they're surely equal (or better) in contrast. Frankly, once I started shooting with the G1 I decided my quest for a relatively inexpensive RF was over.

Although Leica people seem to think manual focus is a virtue (or better yet, they think it excludes the G's from inclusion in the RF category altogether), I think MF just plain sucks for street photography. And if you're really a purist and insist on MF, just turn the AF off for god's sake! There is also the advantage relative to older RF's of having metering, which is nice since I've never been able to guess exposures like some folks can, and if I try I end up wishing I hadn't.

Although you mentioned wanting a 35mm, I'd also encourage you to broaden your search to include the Fuji MF rangefinders, esp the GA645ZI (which has a wide to slightly tele zoom range on its fixed lens). Although I don't have one yet, I'm planning to purchase it very soon. While the limited zoom of the fixed lens is less than ideal, it DOES cover the range most useful to me for street shooting.

Aaron Heinrich: "... I can't afford a Leica. What options are there that might be more affordable? ..."

Aaron,

In addition to your budget (provide us with a range), you need to figure out the focal length of the lens that you would most like to use with your RF camera.

There are many options available to you. One of the cheapest is the Voigtlander Bessa L. Just slap on a lens and go shoot.

Here's a website for research:

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

Swing down to the Voigtlander section, and try these pages:

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

http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtr2ar3a.htm

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

One argument in favor of Voigtlander gear is that the technology is current, and you won't have to dance around with a prehistoric camera that would probably require an expensive overhaul. Nostalgia is not cheap, especially if you want it to work.

Best of luck!

PS. If you're still interested in a Nikon FE, let me know, I have a silver one, and lenses for it. I also have Voigtlander and Leica gear that I'm going to be selling shortly.

I have many fixed lens RF cameras but I mostly use SLRs. I know some people really like the Cosina made Voigtlander RF cameras and do nice work with them. What I can't understand is why they cost so much more than the Cosina SLR cameras they are based on. If I get a Vivitar V4000S for $25 and put on a 55/1.8 SMC Takumar I will be able to get pretty sharp negatives and slides. Will a CV RF camera with a 50/2 Summicron be even better? It will probably be a little better but you will have to make a pretty big print to see the difference.

Why do people on this RANGEFINDER forum keep suggesting the original poster get an SLR camera?? Yes, SLR equipment is cheap. Yes, it can be quite good and give great results. But this is nothing new, the advantages of an SLR over RF have been known for almost half a century now. In a rangefinder forum, when someone specifically asks for advice on buying a cheap rangefinder, what is the point of telling them to buy an SLR?? That's as dumb as telling them to buy a digital point-and-shoot since, you know, it's cheap and can take great pictures ...

Having said that, the original poster has not stated a budget, nor what they like to shoot, so other than recommending a new Cosina, it's pretty much impossible to give any useful advice, isn't it?

i've got a Canon VL, a very rare canon rangefinder from 1958, which i love to death. I heartily endorse andy piper's suggestion above. the old canon rangefinders are solid all-mechanical wonders. and in addition to the old canon lenses and the new voightlander ones, you can also use the soviet jupiter series lenses in M39 mount which are copies of well-proven prewar zeiss designs and are cheap and plentiful.

I have a friend who, amongst other things uses a G1 and she loves it. The pictures look great and its a good price. The 35mm lens is aces.

Why do people on this rangefinder forum keep suggesting he get an SLR camera? Because he said he'd 'like a smaller 35mm camera' and 'may end up with another SLR'.

I think the Olympus OM suggestion is a good one - unless you need a mint OM3 or OM4Ti they are reasonably priced and the lenses are outstanding. In other discussions I've seen Leica users recommending them as a modern equivalent.

I keep forgetting about it, but my P&S Leica Mini produces some sharp negatives. Could be a good camera to keep in the car, and I do not think you have to pay much for one. Not much control, but some. It could be a good street shooter. I have a Minolta Color 7?, that looks as if it can do some work as well.

Also, the old Ricoh's and Petri's, just have to find one that is in good working order. They have all the control you need in a low cost fixed lens camera.

John

<Correcting Gadge A... "Look for one with metering and a Leica screw thread mount. You can then use any screw or M lens on them " This is not ture. A screw mount body can only accept screw mount lenses. A M-mount body can accept screwmount lenses with an adapter.>

Many thanks for that correction. I even use an M mount with screw adapter and Ultron VC myself so I do know this. Can't explain why I got that the wrong way round. As Homer Simpson might say DOH! ;-)

BTW, in answer to another poster, the reason I suggested using a film SLR was amazingly low cost and the stated low budget. In fact the original poster does not give sufficient detail to really make a recommendation at all.

What is his budget? Does he need/want interchangeable lenses? What lens lengths does he wish to use? What work does he wish to do with it?

To be fair though he does ask for specific thoughts on some cameras which I am not qualified to give so maybe I should not be addressing the SLR versus RF issues anyway.

I have an agfa. bought it for 12 bucks on e-bay, and it takes beautiful pictures. There are some seriously good deals out there.

I'm surprised that this is only the second time someone's suggesting the Canon Canonet QL-17 GIII...

Some people have said that it's the poor man's Leica. I like to think of Leica's as the rich man's Canonet QL-17 GIII.

You can find them for cheap, feed it a couple rolls of film and see how you feel. If you are looking for interchangeable lenses you might as well go with an slr.... sorry to mention slrs again!

"So, maybe I'll end up with another SLR, but I'm interested in the compact size and minimal internal movement of range finders."

Two points, if you compare actual dimensions of a Leica to the SLR's of the 1970s and later (starting with the OM-1) you will notice that the Leica is only just a tad smaller... except that early Leica's and many of the other cameras mentioned here lack an internal light meter, whereas all of the SLR's of that time period had one. As far as internal movements go, the RF camera does lack the moving mirror of an SLR, but other-wise has the same shutter mechanism, and metered versions will have the same mechanical lens aperture linkage to the meter. In addition, the RF camera has the complicated RF system of moving parts instead of the moving mirror. So really, number of moving parts is about the same. If you are talking about mirror slap, check out some of the quieter SLR's... an OM-1 in good working order is very very quiet in the mirror department and hand-held shots at low shutter speeds are perfectly reasonable. Basically, you are more likely to see motion from your subject or your hand than you are to see the effect of a modern camera shaking because of the mirror. If you want quiet, Leica isn't even the quietest, you'll need to look at leaf-shutter cameras for that! I think you will be really surprised if you ever pick up a Leica with the Leica accessory light meter on top, that your old Nikon FE is pretty much the same size, and the shutter is only slightly louder.

Also, in the size department, many of the Yashica rangefinders and early Minolta rangefinders are HUGE. We are talking about cameras the size and weight of an early Nikon SLR easily. Photographs on the web can be really deceiving about this. I recommend you check out Steven Grady's page over at cameraquest about compact 35's, he is a Leica-phile who is not afraid to dabble in other cameras...

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

Many of these cameras make Leica's look like Mack Trucks, but none of them offer interchangeable lenses. So really, avoiding the questions of size and noise levels (which are basically even between a Leica and modern film SLR's) the questions left are:

Do you prefer rangefinder focusing over SLR focusing?

Do you require interchangeable lenses?

Do you require flash sync speeds over 1/60th?

Do you require an internal light meter?

Do you require full manual control over exposure?

I'm not sure why people are so touchy about SLR's, the OP said he really liked his Nikon FE, but wanted a smaller camera, which most Leica's are only nonimally smaller than a Nikon FE, while the cost difference is considerable!

I also suggest the Canon QL17 GIII, a camera with a lot of publicity and hype but actually lives up to it. It's a nice compact camera and the lens is very sharp. This is one of my favorite cameras period, not just a favorite rangefinder. Someone also mentioned the Leica CL with its excellent 40mm Rokkor; why not consider the Minolta Hi-Matic E or 7sII, both with superb 40mm f/1.7 Rokkors. And then there is the Vivitar 35ES, a sometimes difficult camera to find, but well worth it if you do find one. It's basically the Minolta 7sII (both supposedly share the same basic body and parts made by Cosina) without a full-manual mode, but the same excellent lens and a significantly lower price tag. Another consideration is the Olympus family, starting with the Olympus 35RD, which is prone to sticky shutters, and the Olympus 35DC, a fully automatic version of the 35RD without the shutter issues but with the same outstanding lens in a body more compact than the Canon or Hi-Matic E. One last Olympus choice is the much-loved 35RC; it has a 'slow' but amazingly sharp 5-element f/2.8 lens and it has lots of capability built in to it (auto and full-manual, plus an off switch!) and a very compact body. All of these cameras are superb choices and will deliver incredible images. If you are considering another slr, why not consider a small but full-featured model like the Pentax ME Super? With a 50mm lens mounted, it's close in size to a lot of classic rangefinders, and it's a great all around camera. Of all these choices though (and I have and love each one of them), my first pick would certainly be the Canon QL17 GIII. Some purists scoff at it, but give it a try and see why it has such a loyal following.

I had a Canon GIII QL17 for a few years, and I can vouch for the sharpness of the 40mm lens. But I sold it because I felt that I had to have interchangeable lenses. I got a Contax G2 over 10 years ago with the 28, 45, and 90 mm lenses. The one drawback is that manual focusing is very fussy. I love the focusing dial on the front of the camera body, but focusing by diodes in the viewfinder that are very finicky is not a good system. On the bright side, the autofocus is very good. I can focus using the AF lock and recompose about as quickly as I could manually focus, and if I have to focus manually, I can manage. Overall, this camera is a favorite among a too long list of cameras over the years. I've never had a Leica (I've used a IIIf), but I don't have any envy owning the Contax. The build quality is excellent (no repairs in 10 years plus), the lenses are excellent, and it's just a lot of fun to use out on the street. I've used it almost exclusively for B&W, but I need to change that because the lenses are great with color.

The Contax G1 is a good alternative to the G2 for those on a budget. I've been making carrying and using one for a few months now, and it's a fine camera indeed.

The best and primary reason to buy into the rather quirky G system though is for the lenses. The 45mm f2 Planar, specifically, is arguably amongst the finest general photography lens ever made.

http://www.zeiss.de/en

Hi, OP here. Since there have been some questions in some of the responses, I thought I'd clarify a couple things:

1) The reason for the original question was that while I know a bit about SLR modles, I don't know anything about rangefinder models other than Leica. I don't know if I want a rangefinder yet, but I want to find out more about what's out there before I make a decision, and wasn't sure where else to start researching. So the responeses have been perfect: lots of options to research here. Thanks.

2) I should, however, have been clearer about the intended use of the new camera. One reason I wasn't clearer is that I'm fairly flexible. I don't NEED a meter (the Rolleiflex doesn't have one), but a meter would be nice. I don't NEED interchangable lenses, but, again, that would be nice. The Rolleiflex works well for standard shots, but it would be nice to have something to shoot moderate wide angle (maybe down to 28mm) and moderate telephoto (like 90mm; more for portraits than actually zooming in on distant subjects).

3) Yes, yes, I know that I'll "eventually end up with a Leica anyway", and I'm "wasting my life until I get one", etc.. If someone offered me a choice of cameras for free, I'd choose a Leica. But, right now I have maybe $400 to spend on something. I don't have $2000.

Thanks again for all the responses.

If I had to decide between a Leica M7 and Zeiss Ikon RF, I would choose the CONTAX G2 !!

Cheers

For $400, you could pick up a Canon P with 50/1.8 lens. A good combination. Look for one that has had a recent CLA. I've bought such Canon P bodies for $250 and under, and a good Canon 50/1.8 for under $100.

I used my Canon P today. It is a highly functionable camera. The Canon 50/1.8 (Serenar and non-Serenar version) is an awesome lens. You really cannot go wrong with this combo.

OK your caveats are that you want to move to RF but are unsure if you will like the transition.

Fixed lens RF cameras are inexpensive and have quite a following. Canon, Yashica, Konic, Minolta all made good ones.

You may want to look at interchangeable lens RF. Get one with a 40-50mm prime, use it as a fixed lens camera and you will have a foundation for further exploration and a means to decide if RF photography is for you. My suggestion is either a Leica/Minolta CL or a Bessa R. Both are Leica M mount, but can use just about any LTM lens with an adaptor. I don't know what your budget is but with patience ~$300 should do. If you like what you see, you can begin to aquire additional lenses and accessories. If you decide it isn't for you, you can resell the equipment and likely recover what you paid.

Another way to go about it Russian Contax or Leica copies. Lots of info available on the web and the cameras are readily available inexpensively. You may have to aquire a few to get a good one, but that is part of the appeal. My personal favorite is the Zorki 3m. Classic Leica look, with a much brighter viewfinder.

Best,

Ross