Hey folks. Don't mosey through these parts much, but I've been thinking a lot recently, and I would like to dabble into rangefinderdom. I've never even held a rangefinder, and I've only shot 2 rolls of film in my entire life, so to say I'm clueless is an overstatement. I definitely WON'T be buying anything without handling it first, just FYI. Things to note:
I realize (more or less) how rangefinders work. That's good. That's what I want.
This will just be a little side project, I still have my Canon stuff for "real" shoots.
I'm a college student. That means I have diddly squat for $$$. So cheaper = better. My research so far has put EVERY Leica out of my price range as far as I know.
Speaking of price range... This is where I have no clue. A quick search of KEH showed some stuff from $150ish-300ish (and of course a whole lot more). Is it reasonable to expect to go even lower than this? A body under $100 would be a start.
Definitely just one lens for now. Most likely a 50 (since they're cheap/fast/common), but I'll take a look at anything 2.8 and brighter in the range of 35-50mm. Glass is where I'm even more clueless. Am I an idiot for wondering if I could snag something for less than $100?
Good questions. It does need to have some kind of meter built into the camera. Electronic, alien space beam-powered, whatever. Just something that gives me a solid general idea on where I should be. Flash won't be used. Ever. That's what my Canon stuff is for. And while I prefer black, I'm not against silver. Heck I'll shoot a pink camera if someone gives me enough reason to!
Seriously, consider the olympus XA1. Doesnt change lenses, doesnt take filters, cant change shutter speed, doesnt do higher than 1/500 or ISO800, but in every other way its a full blown RF, with a coupled rangefinder, a patch, a distance scale,aperture priority and everything. You use it exactly the same way you'd use a metered Leica with a 35/2.8 lens, only difference being you can slip the XA in your shirt pocket. But it will show you what its like to shoot a rangefinder and this lens is no joke, it does take some awesome photos (it just vignettes a bit). After a while you get used to the focusing tab and you can focus the camera relatively accurately before you even take it out of your pocket. It costs about $100 in EX condition and later, if you see that you liked the experience, you can sell it for the same and move on to a more versatile kit.
If you have to use more than one lens consider a Konica RF, which is an M-mount RF. You can sometimes find them for around $300 in user condition. If a fixed lens camera will work I'd get a Canonet like the QL-17 with the 40/1.7 lens.
Look for a Konica or Minolta C35. Cute little fixed lens rangefinders which will get you started on the cheap and let you decide whether you like the RF experience before you spend a lot of money. There's a bunch of compact RFs in this size and configuration. I have a Rollei XF35 which has a 40mm f/2.8 Sonnar lens. Haven't played with it for a while but it takes surprisingly good pictures and is compact and fun to use...
I've started utilizing my rangefinders again (Yashica GSN, Olympus XA) and I would not hesitate to recommend the Yashica GSN. It's a very classic looking camera with a great, sharp 45/1.7 lens and aperture priority only. This is the camera that got me into rangefinders and they can be had for fairly cheap. I personally would go this route (fixed lens) before going with an interchangeable lens one first, to see if you really like it or not.
The Olympus XA is a great little camera also and very pocket-able but I find the controls fiddly. That and it has a relatively slow lens (35/2.8). But other than that it is a fantastic camera.
But yeah, I would not hesitate to go with the Yashica GSN. The Canon QL-17 is supposedly a great camera also, but it is shutter priority (and I prefer aperture priority by far). I do like the slightly wider lens on it though (40mm vs 45mm for the GSN).
Good luck! rangefinderforum.com is a great source of information.
Dang you guys are good! I didn't realize there were that many rangefinders.
Ok. So apparently there are a few things that need to be clarified:
There needs to be a MINIMUM of aperture-priority. Brownie points for full manual control. Tv advocates need not apply.
I'm still looking for a rangefinder. So as cool as the Konica Hexar AF may be, it's not really applicable. I have a point and shoot, I have an SLR, and I have a pencil and paper, so I'm definitely look for a rangefinder. No substitutes.
It needs a built in meter. So no Kiev 4 for me. I couldn't really tell about the QL-17. Does that have a meter or not?
All that said, right now based on all your suggestions that leaves me at the Olympus XA and Yashica GSN (the Konica C35 loses out on price). Neither of which were even close to what I was thinking about in the beginning, but the more I think about it, the more appealing they become.
The XA looks like a crazy little camera! (relatively) Modern, sleek, automated. The exact opposite of what I was thinking, but I kinda like it! My biggest hesitation is that it will be a little cumbersome to use. And I'll kind of be missing the "old school" feel of the other rangefinders. The slower lens doesn't help either.
The GSN looks like pure sex with a lens. Major bonus points right up front for that. I'm also diggin' the 1.7 lens. Great price as well. Looks like I can scoop one up for around $50 fairly easily, cheaper if I'm patient. The only minor nit I have with it is that it's not full manual. So if something like this exists but as a full manual camera, that'd be sick!
My final issue is with the 1/500th shutters. Really it's close to a non-issue, but if all things equal, a rangefinder offers more than 1/500th of a top end shutter speed, that'd be sweet. But like I said, that's at the bottom of my priorities list.
I'm kinda impressed I have so much choice. Way to be FM peeps. So far the top contenders are the Olympus XA and Yashica GSN. Any other thoughts?
Wanting aperture priority means that most of the good deals are out as most fixed lens RF's are either manual or shutter priority. 1/500 is the typical top-end shutter speed for these as they use leaf shutters. The Canonets are shutter priority or unmetered manual aside from the 28 which is shutter priority only.
IIRC the XA has aperture priority, but that's very unusual for its class. The Hexar AF is not a rangefinder but rather a high-end AF P&S.
But as a general statement, if you want aperture priority, you need a Bessa RxA series body, a Zeiss Ikon, a M6, M7 or a Hexar RF. The Bessa R2a and Hexar RF are the two cheapest of these.
While the GSN is aperture priority and is not a manual camera, you can fake exposure compensation by moving the ISO dial around to underexpose/overexpose. Works like a charm!
Yashica did make a camera called the Lynx 14E. It is a monster camera (my Dad has one that I've used a bit). Selling points here are that it has a 45/1.4 lens and is manual exposure only. Downsides are that it is heavy and is manual exposure only. Sweet camera though!
And yep, 1/500 is pretty standard among these in your price range. Not a big deal though, juse use a neutral density filter if you have to!
I wouldn't hesitate with the GSN...go buy one right now!
PS. I hate shutter priority. The Yashicas are some of the few that use aperture priority.
Yeah I figured most of them would have leaf shutters. Just thought I'd ask. The Hexar and Bessa are way out of my price range, and the Lynx 14E looks sweet, but man is it a BEAST! Haha, not exactly discreet!
So as of right now that still leaves the XA and GSN. I'm having a hard time sizing them up though. Is the XA really as small as I think it is? Like, typical point and shoot size? And as for the GSN, sometimes it looks big and sometimes not so much. So who can help me out with that? Pics would be great to try and show the size.
So I'm gonna move along, but feel free to keep coming up with rangefinder suggestions...
Next up: Film. I have only shot two rolls of film. Don't even remember what they were. I'm open to any suggestions, but for starters I think ISO 400 or 800 BW. I'm all about contrast and clarity. I love a subject with bold, well-defined lines. It'd also be sweet to grab something around ISO 50 color. Maybe Velvia? Something that POPs. And is there any film that will give me this kinda of warm, low-saturated, cross-processed look (maybe even with more contrast/clarity) with out me processing my own images? Just wondering. You can also check my blog to see my style and recommend loveliness. The "london." post is the kind of photography I'm thinking for the RF.
Sorry. Lots of questions. Geez it's like starting photography all over again!
mikethevilla wrote:
Next up: Film. I have only shot two rolls of film. Don't even remember what they were. I'm open to any suggestions, but for starters I think ISO 400 or 800 BW. I'm all about contrast and clarity. I love a subject with bold, well-defined lines.
TriX or Ilford HP5. You can develop at home, takes all kinds of abuse and pushing to crazy ISOs and responds very well to red filters, which can double up between adding contrast and deep blacks and also dropping exposure by 2 stops so you can use that slow shutter with fast rated film during the day.
mikethevilla wrote:
It'd also be sweet to grab something around ISO 50 color. Maybe Velvia?
Sounds good to me, not for people though, it gives an orange skin tone. Astia works better, but keep in mind that 35mm slides are damn fussy to scan. C41 is easier to scan and gives you more ISO options. Maybe PortraVC
Tri-X or HP5+ are good choices for a first B&W film. Both are 400 speed films. If you want to shoot at 800, either push them, or pick up TMAX 3200, Delta 3200, or Neopan 1600. TMAX and Delta are actually ISO 800-1000 films, and Neopan 1600 is more like 640 from what I hear. I use a fair amount of TMAX 3200 and it looks very good at 1600, and 3200 doesn't look that crummy. I would imagine Delta is similar. I don't like what I've seen from Neopan 1600 but some people rave about it.
As far as home processed B&W films go, contrast is for the most part controlled by your development and printing. Sure there are some films that are a bit contrastier than others, but if you want tons of contrast, push the shit out of your film or print at a harder grade. Or do it in photoshop on the scan.
For color, I'm a big fan of the Kodak Portra films and Ektar. Pick your speed, pick your contrast (NC or VC) and go to town.
As for films, I usually end up using Ilford XP2, which is a C41 process black and white film. Using this means you can get it developed at the local drug store for $2 in an hour. I don't have the patience to develop myself. If I do want to use some real black and white film (which I get the urge for fairly often), I'll use Tri-X or Neopan.
The XA really is pocketable and compact. The GSN is not large or heavy by any means. I find it much easier to carry around than even my Rebel XT. Differen't form factor.
Here's two photos that should help with the size a bit:
