jawarden
Well-known
I agree with Shawn - the "bite" and graininess is mostly due to film choice, developing, scanning, and post processing, with scanning and post processing near the top of the list. Not the lens or camera.
If you find in your search that you prefer more cinematic lenses as opposed to modern highly corrected and sharp lenses (or vice versa) you can have some fun comparing. Zeiss for instance makes two 50mm M-mount lenses: one is a modern Planar design and one is a classic Sonnar design that renders more like a vintage lens. They are quite different though they are both excellent 50mm lenses.
https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-products/us/photography/zm/c-sonnar-1550-zm.html
Filter Factor
Established
Come to think of it, I've noticed the same thing about literature. My favorite books were all written on Underwood typewriters. Much better plotlines, character development, etc. Everything else - Smith-Corona, Remington, IBM.... Not so much.
shawn
Mentor
piero2020
Established
shawn
Mentor
Post processing....
Nikon F3, 105mm f2.5, Tri-X, HC110
with grain added
and with tone curve and exposure adjustment on top of the added grain (probably should have increased the grain slightly)
Literally seconds to make these changes.
Shawn
aizan
Mentor
Nevermind about Sonnars. Both of the images you linked to were taken with Sonnars, but I guess you are really more interested in film, exposure, development, and printing/post-processing. If that’s what you’re looking for, then a rangefinder isn’t going to help.
I don't agree... buy a cheap one, he could totally be turned off. He's on the right track with his choices. My first RF was the Leica M4-2... sold my SLRs soon after. Now, I'd rather have an SLR...
Trask
Established
I have had, and have used, a Minolta CLE for years — the electronics keep right on ticking. One thing that bugged me about how Minolta designed the CLE was that when set to Auto, to use the +/- incremental exposure correction you have to take your eye away from the viewfinder, push a small button, and move the dial off Auto. And if you dialed in some over-exposure, and then wanted to dial in some under-exposure, the dial would pass through the detent for Auto and stop there, so again you’d have to push the button, etc.
To address this issue, when I sent the camera to Don Goldberg for a check-up I asked him to remove the small ball-bearing that kept the dial on Auto. So now I can view and focus, and with one finger easily dial in over or under exposure. The key is remember after you’re done with that image is to return the dial to the nominal Auto position. You get used to doing that automatically after a while, and it’s better to take your eye away from the viewfinder after you’ve made your photo rather than before, when you risk missing the shots you want.
Also, note that the CLE take snap-in Minolta V diopter correction lenses, so unlike some RF cameras this one has a simple solution.
All of this is in the context that I have several alternative cameras that I can use, but if you’re looking for a good travel camera the CLE is a good choice, what with the built-in meter. I’ve done a lot of shooting with an M2 or M3 with a handheld meter, and it’s obviously a viable option, but it does add to the gear you have to carry and juggle.
To address this issue, when I sent the camera to Don Goldberg for a check-up I asked him to remove the small ball-bearing that kept the dial on Auto. So now I can view and focus, and with one finger easily dial in over or under exposure. The key is remember after you’re done with that image is to return the dial to the nominal Auto position. You get used to doing that automatically after a while, and it’s better to take your eye away from the viewfinder after you’ve made your photo rather than before, when you risk missing the shots you want.
Also, note that the CLE take snap-in Minolta V diopter correction lenses, so unlike some RF cameras this one has a simple solution.
All of this is in the context that I have several alternative cameras that I can use, but if you’re looking for a good travel camera the CLE is a good choice, what with the built-in meter. I’ve done a lot of shooting with an M2 or M3 with a handheld meter, and it’s obviously a viable option, but it does add to the gear you have to carry and juggle.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hello nice people,
I finally saw the light
I practically only do portraits on b/w film, so I am happy with a 50 mm and an 85 or 90 mm lens (I thought of getting both from Zeiss or Voigtlander).
My requirements are:
- Leica Mount (I will buy myself Leica lenses when I'm rich)
- Light Meter (I really don't know how the use the sunny rule etc)
- Should be repairable and serviceable (I read somewhere that you should get some kind of realignment done once a year on rangefinders)
I found 3 cameras that could suit me:
- Minolta CLE
- Bessa R3A
- Zeiss Ikon
I was going to get the Zeiss (I read somewhere that is has a "superior viewfinder"), but then I saw that Zeiss does not repair it anymore.
What camera should I get? Keep in mind that my experience with rangefinders is zero, so I might have get my assumptions wrong.
Many thanks.
The CLE is long past finding reliable service or parts for. The ZI is probably a little better through being newer. The CV Bessa line can be good, I just haven't liked their feel very much.
I like all mechanical film cameras as a rule. A hand held meter or meter app in my smartphone is good enough. And most Leicas are serviceable regardless of age. So a Leica M4-2 has been my standard 35mm RF for a long while. Bought the one I have now in 2012 for $750, and while not perfect, it works very well.
G
agentlossing
Well-known
Rangefinder lenses don't bite any harder than SLR lenses. Yes, film and processing make a big difference but lighting and the position of your lens in relation to the light make a difference as well. All a rangefinder is is a way to focus a lens without seeing through it. Its advantages are being faster to operate and generally smaller, but I've used film SLRs that have put out nice and biting images, when I get it all right.
By the way, you can get all kinds of bite with small fixed-lens rangefinders like Minoltas, Konicas, Ricohs and Canons... some of the images I like the look of the most came out of my Ricoh 500G, and a Konica C35 before that. They're easy to carry and fun to use, as well, and much less expensive than an M-mount kit.
By the way, you can get all kinds of bite with small fixed-lens rangefinders like Minoltas, Konicas, Ricohs and Canons... some of the images I like the look of the most came out of my Ricoh 500G, and a Konica C35 before that. They're easy to carry and fun to use, as well, and much less expensive than an M-mount kit.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Looking back and rereading this thread, a few thoughts come to mind.
First, quickly, the “Sunny16 rule” is merely a rough guide for outdoor photography mostly. Some of it depends on how much latitude your film has for over- or underexposure.
How comfortable are you with understanding metering? It seems you’re using reflected light metering (which, if you’ve been using SLR’s, that’s certainly the case). Do you know about incident light metering, which may be more appropriate for what you’re doing and perhaps can explain why what your SLR meter told you is different from your gut feeling. Perhaps even a spot meter would be better.
Many people, even those with decades of experience, don’t realize the meter is giving them an exposure reading for what you want to appear as “middle gray” on film. They will perform an average meter reading of a gray tabby cat against a light background and wonder why the light background is gray and cat is too dark. They’ll meter a gray tabby against a dark background and wonder why the dark background is gray and cat is too light. If they made a reading off just the cat itself, and were happy to have that as middle gray, then the exposure would be correct - the cat would be grey and a light background would appear light and a dark background would be dark.
For landscapes or cityscapes, I find an object or area that I want to appear as middle gray and I make a 1-degree spot reading of that. I then check, given that exposure, where the brightest and where the lightest parts of the image would fall and whether that’s acceptable or whether I should modify my exposure. This is the Zone System technique popularized by Ansel Adams. It’s good to know about it even if you choose not to use it.
None of this has anything to do with rangefinders, SLR’s, or lens types.
If you’re not familiar with spot metering or incident light metering, it’s worth researching. If possible, buy a nice small handheld meter like the Sekonic L-308 and experiment with reflected vs incident light.
froyd
Mentor
RE all the way, if you are confident you will not want lenses shorter than a 50. Good as some claim the ZI dinner is, it cannot complete with a 1:1 view. Unless you absolutely need the "a" version, i would also take a look at the "m" variety, which is metered but no AE and less reliant on batteries.
pyeh
Member of good standing
Trask, the problem you identified about the auto/shutter speed dial is exactly what I dislike about the CLE. It's my only dislike though, it's a nearly perfect camera otherwise. i am going to try this ball bearing removal idea. Thanks.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Looking through this thread, I see that the OP likes the look of Sonnar lenses (perhaps around 50mm focal length on FF). Someone correctly pointed out that these lenses are not unique to the rangefinder world. Although I personally prefer an RF camera instead of an SLR, the analogous sonnar lenses in SLR form should give the same results. It is simply a fact that the SLR is more accurate framing, and focus is sometimes more accurate too. Often, the same lens in an SLR mount is cheaper as well.
I guess I'm saying the OP may want to consider staying with SLRs and using the lenses (e.g., sonnars) that provide the desired image quality. But (BUT!) if the OP is curious about RF, who are we to stop them? :angel:
I guess I'm saying the OP may want to consider staying with SLRs and using the lenses (e.g., sonnars) that provide the desired image quality. But (BUT!) if the OP is curious about RF, who are we to stop them?
:angel:I have never heard of a longer base length rangefinder than the Kodak Ektra (is there one in the 35mm format which exceeds it?). In good condition, however an early Kiev or Contax (II/III) is very likely more accurate, somewhat shorter base length notwithstanding.
traveler_101
American abroad
To Piero2020, my suggestion is to ignore dire warnings and go ahead and experiment with RFs if that is what you want to do. Your stated interest in having a simpler instrument than a SLR makes sense. There is something about minimalism in photography. I get that. Whether it fits this or that photographic need, is a question you will determine for yourself with experience. There is nothing like shooting with the camera to understand the parameters.
What equipment to buy then depends on your purse. If you have plenty of money just buy a Leica M and be done with it. If you you don't want to make that kind of financial commitment, there have been two decent suggestions thus far - why not a fixed lens RF from the 1960s or 1970s or a Russian rangefinder and lens combo. To those I would add a third - why not simply stay within LTM rangefinder and lenses? For example, a Bessa R plus a Canon 50mm f,1.8 lens would be economical as well as functional and take good photographs. The Bessa R has a very good meter and bright viewfinder; the Canon is an excellent lens - for the money it is astonishing. Later on should you decide to go further with rangefinders, the Canon lens can be fitted with an adapter and put on a Leica M camera.
What equipment to buy then depends on your purse. If you have plenty of money just buy a Leica M and be done with it. If you you don't want to make that kind of financial commitment, there have been two decent suggestions thus far - why not a fixed lens RF from the 1960s or 1970s or a Russian rangefinder and lens combo. To those I would add a third - why not simply stay within LTM rangefinder and lenses? For example, a Bessa R plus a Canon 50mm f,1.8 lens would be economical as well as functional and take good photographs. The Bessa R has a very good meter and bright viewfinder; the Canon is an excellent lens - for the money it is astonishing. Later on should you decide to go further with rangefinders, the Canon lens can be fitted with an adapter and put on a Leica M camera.
awilder
Alan Wilder
Over 20 yrs ago when I shot film, I had a CLE specifically because of it's build quality, compact size, advanced TTL flash, 28/40/90 mm finder for my 40/2.8 Rollei Sonnar and 90/4 Macro-Elmar M. Great little camera with a nice VF/RF nearly on par with Leica. I agree though that parts/servicing would be an issue of real concern.
hap
Well-known
Have to resort to eBay for Minolta V series diopter?