Inexpensive, sturdy, mechanical rangefinder?

A

analogpics

Well-known
Local time
8:57 PM
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
249
Hi friends, so I recently picked up a Nikon F2... which is possibly the sturdiest, yet one of the most inexpensive cameras i own (got mine for $75). I was curious what would be the equivalent in the RF world. I obviously thought of a nikon SP, but they're a bit more than i was thinking of spending. Full disclosure i do have some M bodies, but sometimes ya just don't want to tote an expensive leica as an everyday carry. Would be nice to have something i can kind of beat up and it'll still function fine, but not too pricey if it gets dropped or stolen :cool: Been considering the Canon 7s, but wanted to see what else you guys can recommend, thanks!
 
Well, in the rangefinder world, the Nikon S2 would be the equivalent of the F. Close enough?
You can pick up a really nice S2 with a 50mm for not too much money. And while I have a heavy investment in Leicas as my main system, a couple of S2 bodies and a 28, 35, and 50 are my backup for situations that are too rough or too dicey for the Leicas (say, shooting rodeos, or downtown in the Big Bad City on a Sunday evening).
The Nikons are the toughest cameras I've ever shot with, bar none. Never need servicing, never go out of adjustment. Wish I could say as much for the Leicas!
There's lots of great vintage Nikon glass that seems to have held up better than most other lenses from that era; you rarely see haze, separation, or ruined coatings. Voigtlander put out some great lenses in S mount as well, about 20 years ago, and they're top notch. The 50/1.5 Nokton S is as good as anyone could want. Do watch out for haze on the Voigtlanders, though.
With the S2, you only get a 50mm brightline finder, but it's a big bright 1:1 view. I don't mind accessory finders, and I think they give a better view than you'll get with the SP.
All in all, if you can put up with the quirky handling (it does grow on you), I don't think you could go wrong with the S2 for your needs.
 
M bodies aren’t something sturdy. Too fragile RF and too many soft material inside.
Any LTM not too oversized German or Japanese camera is much more durable.
It is also possible to make primitive Zorki work, just needed full diy rebuild, including springs in rollers washing and new lube. I have done it twice.
 
I would go with a fully working pre 1973 Kiev 4 or 4a or for more money the Canon 7
 
Ko.Fe. said:
M bodies aren’t something sturdy. Too fragile RF and too many soft material inside.
Click to expand...

My M Bodies have all stood the test of time, grime and crazy weather conditions. My M3 was built in 1959 and still runs quite nicely. My Nikon F was built in 1963, runs like a top. So yeah I disagree with your statement.
 
kshapero said:
My M Bodies have all stood the test of time, grime and crazy weather conditions. My M3 was built in 1959 and still runs quite nicely. My Nikon F was built in 1963, runs like a top. So yeah I disagree with your statement.
Click to expand...
He has a point. M3 finder prisms don't particularly like being dropped. And less and less, as they age. This is not really breaking news.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
M bodies aren’t something sturdy. Too fragile RF and too many soft material inside.
Click to expand...

I won't disagree with this completely, but I will say that both my M4 and my (now sold) M2 both survived a deployment to Iraq in the fall of 2004 and helped me document the second siege of Fallujah. I did NOT treat them with kid gloves. I fell on my M4 when I had to drop to the ground during a rocket attack. The M4 did NOT survive long after I fell into the Bay of Cadiz and flooded the camera with salt water at the end of that deployment. Sherry brought it back to life.
The M2 was perfect until the person I sold it to dropped it , blacked out the viewfinder, and asked for his money back a few days after the sale. That was a sick laugh I had at his expense.

All that said, I'd still agree that the Nikon S2 would be a more durable camera and wouldn't hesitate to take one anywhere.

Phil Forrest
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
He has a point. M3 finder prisms don't particularly like being dropped. And less and less, as they age. This is not really breaking news.
Click to expand...

OP "Would be nice to have something i can kind of beat up and it'll still function fine, but not too pricey if it gets dropped or stolen."

Precision instruments aren't really designed to be dropped, or beaten up. If it happens in the course of your work, you get it repaired or you replace it. Like Phil, I've used Leica M's for decades without malfunction. As well, not every SLR (even Nikon) that gets dropped survives. So I also disagree with Ko.Fe's characterization. Even durable mechanical cameras are not indestructible, and you can't really fault them or their makers for that.
 
Most mechanical cameras are going to be durable enough for normal use. Spare parts and ease of service is a factor, because even the youngest are at that 1/2 century mark. Ha, ha, wouldn't call Leica's "inexpensive" though. Even a Nikon rangefinder probably doesn't fit into that category. I wonder if any of the Canon models fits the bill (e.g., 7/P)?
 
kshapero said:
My M Bodies have all stood the test of time, grime and crazy weather conditions. My M3 was built in 1959 and still runs quite nicely. My Nikon F was built in 1963, runs like a top. So yeah I disagree with your statement.
Click to expand...

I don't have "M bodies". I get rid of most of them. I don't want spend money on lengthy, costly CLA just to have camera mostly on shelf. One I have for now was in real use. And not just for south State strolls. It was always on me for years.
All over USA, Canada, Russia, Poland. Under - 28 C (for hours and days) and at + 40 C for hours and days, weeks. Hundreds of rolls. Years.

This M needed CLAs, parts. Just because of regular use. Any M needs is if in use. Not just strolls with few rolls per year. Read about Winogrand regular visits to repair shops.

Nikon F series are much more superior to film Ms. F are not fancy looking, but they are designed and build completely different from flimsy Ms.

I'm done with been film, darkroom hardcore. Just few rolls for pleasure and few prints for feel good. This is it. Don't need M for it. Waste of money, IMO. Light, compact, better made than M, IIIc is about right. And less on CLA, if needed. Even Canon EOS 300 is more effective for little use of film, than any film M. IMO. We have it at home since 1998, it needs no service and just works.
 
No camera is as durable as a hammer, and it seems some people consider that hammers wear out too quickly.

When I was shooting only film, I carried Nikon FM & F, Leica M4-P & M6TTL everywhere. Tossed in the bag on the back of the motorcycle, in rain, in snow, in wind, Summer heat, Winter cold. All worked just fine, all needed occasional service.

I had a Nikon SP for a while: it needed service just as often as the M4-P. Which was, that is, once or twice in the three-some years I owned it. Nothing unusual.

My current Nikon F plain prism a friend found, sans lens, sitting in a box in his basement. He gave it to me. I had it stripped, thoroughly cleaned, lubed, and the mirror/shutter adjusted to spec. Cost me $275 total. I have a 28mm, a 55mm, and a 600mm lens for it, use it every so often. I've had it for ten years now: it works beautifully.

My current M4-2 I purchased in 2012. Body only, it cost me $700 and I had the viewfinder/rangefinder cleaned, lubed, collimated, and adjusted for accuracy for another $100. The shutter measured out as slightly off at 1/500 and 1/1000 sec by .3EV across the frame ... needs a shutter service (new brake) but wasn't bad enough to be worth the cost yet; I'll have it done someday. It's required no service whatever since then, still works exactly the same.

But no film camera in my hands today gets the same amount of use that they did 25 years ago. Except for my Polaroids, of course. And they've been 100% reliable. :D

Set your expectations correctly, buy a good camera at a fair price, have it serviced per what it needs, and don't treat it like a hammer. It'll last a long time and be reliable.

G
 
Godfrey said:
No camera is as durable as a hammer, and it seems some people consider that hammers wear out too quickly.

Set your expectations correctly, buy a good camera at a fair price, have it serviced per what it needs, and don't treat it like a hammer. It'll last a long time and be reliable.

G
Click to expand...

Well said Godfrey. Not much to argue with there.
 
if you're not bothered about interchangeable lenses, there are any number of very useable, very affordable rangefinders from the likes of Yashica, Canon, Olympus, and vide Carjohncarter above, Petri. Just keep your eyes open until you find one. My QL17 was £20, plus £3 for a sheet of light seal foam.
 
The Canon 7 is very cheap these days. Not as pretty as the Nikon SP, but has many features in common. The difference in price between the Canon 7s and 7- basically has to do with how many made. The Canon 7s has an accessory shoe.
 
What normally knocks out Rf's is neglect, bad luck or stupidity. And as we are talking mechanical ones a larger amount of luck is needed to get a good one at a fair price. And a fair price isn't going to be the same as inexpensive.

And then, most of the RF's mentioned have been used by photographers throughout several wars and they managed with them. So make a list, shut your eyes and pick one by poking the list.

There aren't many on the list are there? And as you've decided against a Leica M and the Contax is too dear and too fragile if not dear and guaranteed.That just leaves very few, perhaps just the Leica and FED, based on their war service.


Regards, David...
 
Last edited:
For Zeiss historical camera addicts (like me), there is the Contina II 524/24:

https://www.kameramuseum.de/0-fotokameras/zeiss/contina/contina-2-524-24-auf.html

Or one might go for the later and more advanced Contessa LKE (10.0638B):

http://www.tontrennung.de/html/exponate/gallery/000090/C00090.html

https://www.kameramuseum.de/0-fotokameras/zeiss/contessa/contessa-lke.html

http://www.optiksammlung.de/Zeiss/ZeissIkonContessaLKE.html

which has a built-in light meter (good luck finding one in working order...), and shutter speed / aperture combination visible in the viewfinder.

Both cameras can sometimes be found at a reasonable price in online auctions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top