I have had sort of growing interest in getting a manual focus rangefinder (the Nikon is just too obtrusive for some things). I'm not going to get the Leica -- too expensive, too difficult to load -- so I have a two part question:

1) What do folks know/heard/think about the a)new Konica Hexar RF and b) the new Bessa R? 2) Has anyone heard a rumor about Nikon coming out with a new rangefinder? I was looking at cameraquest.com, and their old SP rangefinder seems like it must have been a first rate piece of equipment in its day. I could have sworn that I heard that they were going to come out with a new RF camera.

I'd appreciate any counsel

-- john beckman (john.beckman@nyu.edu), June 14, 2000

Answers

1) I havne't seen any of these in person. I get the impression that the quality of the Bessa R suprised everyone. Especially the rangefinder optics. The only bad thing that I've heard about the Hexar RF is that it doesn't have the silent mode that the original (point and shoot) Hexar had.

2) Nikon is selling a "new" rangefinder. It's a copy of a 1959 S3. They're taking orders in Japan, and I think it costs between $4000 & $5000. Everyone is hoping that Nikon will anounce a new line of RF bodies and lenses, but no such annoncement has yet been made.

My advice: buy a compact fixed lens (point and shoot) rangefinder from the 1970s and see if you like it. You can get one for about $100. I have a Yashica Electro 35 GS, but I'm sure the ones from Cannon and Minolta were just as good. Unlike today's AF wonders (including the Contax G and G2), you can confirm focus in the viewfinder. You can also get a lens faster the f2.0 and control at least the aperture (some models allow full manual and some -like my Yashica- don't).

-- Geoffrey S. Kane (grendel@pgh.nauticom.net), June 14, 2000.

The price of the new Voigtlanders and Hexars are almost as high as Leica anyway, aren't they? A recent review I saw panned the focus accuracy of the Hexar.

If you can live with a fixed lens I'd echo the above response. I can recommend the Canonet range, the lenses on the original Canonets (pre QL) were superb, but take no notice of the built-in autoexposure, use a separate meter instead. The QLs are a lot more compact, but the fancy take up mechanism sometimes gives trouble.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), June 15, 2000.

I always gravitate back to a rangefinder. I just had my first rangefinder, a Konica from the early 60's, overhauled and it still performs beautifully. I have to make do with a f2 lens, 1/500 maximum shutter speed, but that's not much problem. The optics are good. Amazingly, the selenium light meter is still right on (checked it against my Luna Pro S). I've read recently that if selenium meters are stored in the dark, they don't die as quickly. Perhaps there's not much coincidence that Konica is producing a good modern RF camera, and the 35-year-old Konica I have is pretty good also. When I want to go a bit more retro, I use either a Kodak Retina II or Retina IIa. It's German glass, German steel, and German construction. If you watch out for flare, are willing to be patient with the viewfinder/rangefinder, and can get along without an on-camera meter, it's very unobtrusive. In fact, I prefer to set aperture and focus at waist-level before I bring the camera up to my eye.

-- Jeff Polaski (polaski@acm.org), June 15, 2000.

Peter -- fairly big price difference, at least here in the US. You can pick up the Bessa with a lens for about $1000 or $1100, the Konica with a lens (and I think a flash) for about $1500, and the Leica body alone is about $1800 or $1900.

I'd be interested if you knew where the review of the Konica was that questioned the accuracy of the rangefinder. The only review I've seen is in Popular Photography, a magazine so obsequious and uncritical in its reviews (and so slavishly concerned about the tender feelings of its advertisers) that it's impossible to make a judgment based on them.

I'll give some consideration to some of the older rangefinders. However, while I buy a fair amount of my gear used, I get frustrated dealing with equipment sufficiently old that a certain amount of crankiness is built in; I just find it too irritating

-- john beckman (john.beckman@nyu.edu), June 15, 2000.

There is a reasonable survery among rangefinders in the June issue of practical photography. Each systems have their own pros and cons, you really have to look up by youself.

-- Eric Ung (eung@hongkong.com), June 15, 2000.

Yes, the review was in Practical Photography. John, if you translate those Dollar prices directly to UK pounds you'll know what we have to put up with in the UK. We get hit for car, camera, and fuel prices, and do nothing about it except moan.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), June 16, 2000.

The Hexar and Bessa are over-priced for what they are, but if money's no object, why not? (Then again, if money's no object, why not the ultra-expensive Nikon S3 2000?) I have not used the Hexar and Bessa, but only "played" with them in shops. Most of the reviews I've read seem to consider the Bessa R as the best performer and value for money as compared with the Leica M6, Hexar RF and Contax G. Popular Photography's review of the mentioned cameras is pretty useless (I've read it), as one poster has already pointed out. A better review is published in the latest issue of the UK published Practical Photography--British photo mags are less shy in giving critical equipment reviews.

Geoffrey's advice is a good one; it's better value for money to get a 1970s Japanese fixed-lens rangefinder camera; they are easy to use and capable of excellent photo results. Personally, I prefer 1970s Japanese rangefinders than contemporary European and North American counterparts, which are not as well designed and really fiddly to use. I use an Olympus 35 SP rangefinder and you can't go wrong with any of the models in the Olympus 35 series (RD, RC, etc.; look up cameraquest.com for details). If you prefer one with changeable lenses, a few Canon models have the Leica screw mount, which means that they can use the new Cosina-made Voigtlander lenses (as used on the Bessa L and R). And if you're interested in using old rangefinder camera, Ivor Matanle's Collecting and Using Classic Cameras is a good reference book.

However, if you're looking for a small, quiet and convenient camera with (limited) user control (in the form of aperture-priority exposure mode), I think you'll find it in the Ricoh GR1 or GR1s.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), June 16, 2000.

I don't know why you think the Leica is too hard to load. Compared to maybe a newer auto everything camera perhaps, but it still only takes a few moments. I have had my hands on the Bessa R, and it is an interesting camera, but they blew it on two counts in my eyes. First, it should be an M mount so you could use either screw mount or M lenses on it. Two, the finder lines must be shifted manually, which I can't understand in a fairly expensive rangefinder. That can be a pain if you are changing lenses a lot--very easy to frame with the wrong lines. The camera also felt like a Cosina/Nikon FM10 because that's basically what its guts are made of. The Konica seemed much better made, and wasn't as noisy as some testers complained. I think if I didn't have a great old Leica M3 to play with, I'd get the Konica. A clean used Leica M3 is still my recomendation.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), June 17, 2000.

John, Just today I received the July issue of Popular photography, and it has a full lab report on the bessa R. You might check it out. As far as the Nikon rangefinder, it is a limited edition that has a price that will assure that they are never actually used to take pictures... what a shame. I would not dismiss Leicas as too hard to load. I use a Nikon F which requires the whole back to be removed to load. experience will speed up the process. I use Leicas as well as Nikons and they do compliment each other. seek out an old M series Leica and you will not regret it. Stay simple with the optics, 50 and 35mm work great, use your SLR for longer or super wide lenses.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), June 17, 2000.

The loading still strikes me as time consuming and awkward-- somewhere in the photo.net static content review of Leica or Contax is a posting from a fellow who said he would have chucked his M off a boat because of the loading difficulties if not for the expense -- even though I've had a lot of experience with non-auto loading cameras.

From my very brief look and listen to a Konica, it struck me as quiet; Andrew's assessment seems correct to me. And Al's recommendation about using these rangefinders for wide angle is right on the button -- it was precisely what I had in mind.

-- john beckman (john.beckman@nyu.edu), June 19, 2000.