I want to try the rangefinder thing (of course that's the next step after lurking about this forum), but cheaply 1st. Wich of the 70's RFs is going to come closest to leica lens peformance (wide open or nearly so sharpnes, nice bokeh)? I've heard good things about the Canon Q17 III (?), any others I should consider?

Thanks as always,

-- JDR (jrivera@vapop.ucsd.edu), December 19, 2001

Answers

i suggest getting a contax-t. it was made in the 80s. has a 38mm t* zeiss lens. very sharp, very compact camera....its about $500-600 in most places...but well worth it

-- grant (g4lamos@yahoo.com), December 19, 2001.

although it is a generation earlier you might try a contax IIIa or IIa. there are usually several for sale on e-bay. while their bodies did not quite measure up to leica screw mount standards, they were still very solid and many consider their lens to be superior, expecially the 50mm 1.5. make sure you get one with all the shutter speeds working. the slow speeds are usually the first to go.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), December 19, 2001.

The Kodak Retina IIIc (small c) is also worth consideration. It's a 60's camera with a 50/f2 Schneider Xenon. It also has 35/f4 and 80/f4 lenses you can use that are a bit bulky, but they work well. The lenses aren't up the the standards of the contemporary Leitz glass, but they are very good (especially the 50). Biggest disadvantage is the small viewfinder/rangefinder. It's relatively cheap, though; I paid $200 for the camera and all three lenses in excellent condition. And the selenium light meter is quite useful.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 19, 2001.

Actually I'd consider a Bessa R and the 35... Cheap and reasonably Leica-like. Plus you can sell it for about what you pay for it should you decide RF is not your thing, or decide it is, and want to get the real thing!

;-) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 19, 2001.

Same advice as Jack. Newer is better, more reliable, less headaches. Buy a used Cosina/Bessa and sell it for what you got it for, more or less.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 19, 2001.

JDR: By "cheaply" I assume you mean under $300. Anything over $400 is NOT cheap except to some jaded Leica owners - of which I am one. 8^)

Comparable to the Canon/Canonet - Konica S2/S3, Yashica Minister III, possibly the Yashica Electro G(X?). Buy VERY carefully - those leaf shutters tend to gum up with lack of use and spare parts are rare. In iamge performance these will all be similar - in operation they will vary more.

Personally, I don't think the leaf-shutter RFs come anywhere near close to Leica feel or performance - like pretending your Yashica twin-lens is a Hasselblad (as I did, in high school). The only similarity is in the size of the negative. The leaf-shutters with their long mechnical linkage from the lens to the body, have a much slower shutter response than the Leica, or even the V'lander. The finders tend to have parallax marks instead of moving parallax correction. And the "tink" of the leaf shutter just isn't the same as the rubbery "thupp" of the M.

For kinda cheap money - consider the Voigtlander w/lens at $700 or so. If you want really cheap with some Leica feel - look for a good Russian (FED) screw-mount copy (possibly an oxymoron!). Lenses seem to run under $100 - and the camera backs even swing open M-style for film loading.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 19, 2001.

Another vote for the Bessa-R but really depends on how cheap you want to go. If you have never used a rangefinder before I would recommend a good initial experience and hopefully start using Leicas in the future. Nothing against these 70's so so finder and dim rf patch and all around forgettable. And some require discontinued mercury batteries. IMHO the range of Cosina/Voigtlander bodies and lenses are pretty close to near perfect RF photography. Off course only a Leica can be a Leica but these CV stuff makes good entry level machines. I personally really like the bright finder on the Bessa-R.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 19, 2001.

My old Olympus 35RC is compact and reliable. Contrasty lens but not as sharp as Leica, especially wide open. And I agree with Andy the shutter doesn't feel the same. Also, the rangefinders get dim (much more so than the M) and they are shorter base, so not as accurate. And the lightproofing material wears out - an advantage of the bottom-loading Leicas which some people find so tricky. The Olympus does have a "flashmatic" setting. Another good old one is a Ricoh 35S. Look up cameraquest.com for more info.

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), December 19, 2001.

I did go the same way - buying a 70s rangefinder first. But the others are right, it is not the 'real' feeling. But it is good enough to get to know the way of focussing and the handling in general.
Be aware that most of these rangefinders have their shutter speed selection on the lens, the only exception I know is the Olympus 35 RC. In general the lenses are quite good, but do not come up to leica standards. I personally do not like the canonets (though they have the leica-like focusing tab) and prefer my Olympus RD as a Leica alternative, but others may see this differently. If you buy one of these, please check carefully for light seals and lubrication or send it out for a CLA (though this might cost more than the camera) if you plan to use it for a longer period of time. www.cameraquest.com has lots of these rangefinders featured, you get the most comprehensive Info there.
If you want to have more Leica feeling I have to agree to the other posters that an old Contax II(a) (or the russian KIEV 4am) is a real alternative as well as old screw mount Leicas and copies (also russion ones). For about 70$ you might get a nice condition KIEV 4am with a generally good Jupiter-8 lens (the quality might differ), otherwise an old Zorki or FED might also be in that range. Though the KIEV is more M-like in terms of size / feeling than the screw mount FEDs and Zorkis. If you like to spend about 500-600 US$ you might look out for a used M-body (such as an M2) and stick a russian M39 lens via adaptor on it m- I wouldn't buy a bessa for that much money.

HTH - Kai

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), December 19, 2001.

Well, why not the Voigtlander Bessa R?

They have a great bargain at Jessops (www.jessops.co.uk, me think)

Same functionality as the 70's RF and quite modern too.

For more information, look at the RF articles on http://www.cameraquest.com

Enjoy.

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), December 19, 2001.

I went through three QL 17's before deciding I was ready for a Leica. Although I haven't used any of the above mentioned cameras, I can't think of a better way to test the RF waters. For about $50, you get an all-metal body, a sharp, contrasty 40mm f/ 1.7 lens and an amazingly accurate meter. There's usually ten or so on EBAY, so you don't even have to get up and go to the camera store. Read more about it.

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), December 19, 2001.

If you buy a Leica and 50/2 or 35/2 used and keep it in the same condition, you'll: 1) have the real McCoy, 2) if you like it you'll already be "there", 3) if you don't like it you'll sell it and get all your money back.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 19, 2001.

I went through the same process that you are considering. I have a Retina III-c, which has a great lens and collapses (great for throwing in your jacket pocket); a Canonet G-III QL-1.7, which is fun, but a comment on a previous thread mentioned that the lens wasn't very good wide open; my absolute favorite is a Rollei-35, but it's guess-focus instead of RF. All of these cameras are fun and fairly well-built (Rollei feels like it's better-built and has the best lens IMO) and they all have their quirks. The Retina especially has some funny controls which took a while for me to get used to. The greatest reward for me are the comments that I get from people who either recognize the cameras or are fascinated by them. Have fun shopping! Pat

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), December 19, 2001.

There's a rf list over at topica.com, and you might hop over there and do some research. Those folks are rabid about exactly the thing you want to know and get involved in, and in the past have assembled lists in order of preferance of all the contenders, along with notes of all the problems (finding the right battery is going to be your first).

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), December 19, 2001.

Thanks to very good marketing, hundreds of thousands of Canonets were sold in the 70s and I cynically believe that their revival in all internet communities is caused by all those who want to sell them on Ebay. The Canonet was a fun camera but its lens was below any serious expectations. Its performance was good only above f 8. Below f 4 it was soft and practically useless.

On the contrary, the Rolleis of the same age can give very good results even wide open. Their lenses were not very fast, but in terms of contrast and clarity they could compete with the best primes of the time. The same applies to 35mm Minox cameras of the 80s.

Nevertheless I think that a modern, second hand Bessa would be your best bet on your way to a genuine Leica...

-- George (gdgianni@aol.com), December 19, 2001.

Here is an example shot of the Canon QL-17 GIII at f/1.7. Not bad for $50. he re

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), December 20, 2001.

The Yashica TL-Electro-X has a good lens that is useable at f1.7, and the auto shutter works well too. Lens is not as good as a Leica, but it is a good cheap introduction to r/f photography. It has a nice Compur shutter, so you may need a CLA to get it working. I think this is a much better camera than the Canonets.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

I actually played with a Canonet today - this post being on my mind.

It has one nice advantage - it's automation is trap-needle shutter- priority, so that if the battery dies, you can still fire the mechanical shutter while setting apertures manually. The one I looked at had good shutter speeds - but they were asking $149.00.

Viewfinder is strongly colored - blue overall tint with yellow lines/RF patch. The RF patch is just a fuzzy yellow area in the center with a double image - no sharp edges to use for extra focusing alignment.

I'd remembered correctly - it has a very long "throw" to the shutter button, because it has to move a long chain of linkages out through the lens barrel to the shutter.

My previous analogy stands - it's a Yashica TLR to Leica's Hasselblad. But so long as you bear that in mind, it seems like a functional way to experiment if in good shape.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 20, 2001.

Canonet QL was my favourite camera; its auto exposure, was a relevation vs my IIIf, and its quickload mechanism was heaven compared with the bottom load of Leica screwmount; self timer, Canonlit flash.. all these are great features.

The lens was quite good stop down to f5.6

However, the Copal shutter was not that reliable, repaired once then failed again a year latter. The Canonlit flash died even before the shutter.

I heard good words about Olympus XA rangefinder;you may take a look (I have a XA2, which is a viewfinder camera.)

-- martin tai (martin.tai@sympatico.ca), December 22, 2001.