# Rangefinder questions (specific to older Leica M's and screwmounts)



## Antithesis (Dec 18, 2009)

For my next trip, I was thinking I want to shoot film and maybe use a rangefinder. I've lugged around a full digital kit with pro lenses and everything, and I feel like it starts to get in the way and can unmotivate me to lug it all around to take pictures. So, that has led me to rangefinders. Also, the place I'm going is Peru and I will be going in the rainy season. That means that there will be a lot of dampness going on, and would require me to either shoot film or bring weather-sealed bodies and lenses, and I really don't feel like lugging a bunch of heavy glass around. Not to mention, I need to rebuy my camera kit, and a film camera and lenses will cost quite a bit less. 

I'm yet undecided on bodies, but as of now I'm very interested in the Voigtlander Bessa R, but I'm concerned about the plastic body and possible shutter issues. I do, however, like the internal meter and the plethora of available lenses. The bright viewfinder would be a huge bonus as well. I really want to go with screwmount lenses specifically for the voigtlanders as well as old Canon rangefinder lenses. 

The other option is to find a well loved (read: heavily used) Leica M3 with a screwmount adapter for a couple hundred more and not have to worry about it breaking down in the middle of Machu Picchu. The obvious concern would be the lack of a meter, which is something I've always been reliant on. I would probably get a meter for it and train myself the exact settings required for different light and eventually stop using it. I'm aware that bright sunlight is 1/125th at f16, but that doesn't help me in the shade or in a dark building.

The other options are a Leica screwmount body, though I've heard the finders are horrible and they are pretty clunky, or maybe a Canon P (but that even gets me almost into the M3 territory), and I still need a meter for both. 

So, my main questions are, what would you do in my shoes? Also, for those that don't use a meter, how long does it take to be able to 'wing it' in tricky light?

Thanks and sorry for the novel.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 18, 2009)

I think the Bessa-R, the original model, uses the shutter and film advance systems from the Cosina-made Nikon FM-10. I own a Bessa-R, but am unfamiliar with the FM-10 and its record for reliability. Of course, a simple,lightweight R-body could be duplicated with not too much space taken up, and perhaps cameraquest.com has a few other body options. I would e-mail Stephen Gandy and ask him about Bessa series reliability--his site has sold more Bessas than any other in the USA. I think the chances are that a new Bessa R-series would make it to Peru and back with all components intact. A kit with a wide, semi-wide, normal, and 75mm could be carried in a fanny pack, the lenses are so,so compact. I have the 35/1.7,50/1.5,70/2.5; I think the 35/1.7 is discontinued now. All quite good lenses,and very small.

The reliability of a new Bessa-R is probably as good as a 30 year-old M3, unless the M3 has been recently cleaned,lubed,and adjusted by a *competent* and "proficient* Leica repairman. I think a cheap-looking Bessa-R series would draw less attention. I read at Machu Pichu they are now charging a steep admission price for "professional cameras" and tripods. leica III series cameras are, well, old designs; the last were made in the early 1960's IMMSMC: I would prefer the ease of use of the Bessa over a III-series thread-mount Leica. I, in fact, bought the Bessa R for its advantages over such a camera. Thread mount lenses are more-adaptable,as you know,than M-mount lenses. I would take 2 cameras to Peru.

I started shooting B&W as a kid, going only by the Kodak film sheet lighting diagrams; there are a lot of "old" guideline books and pamphlets listing exposures for all sorts of lighting conditions. There is also the old X-factor system; Beginning at Sunny 16, when clouds come out, it's + 1x; heavier clouds +2x, heavy overcast +3,and so on, right down to Moonlight Full Moon at I think +19x. Fred Picker (?) I think has a web page devoted to a similar EV system. if you did a bit of practicing, and shot color negative film, you could be getting good exposures within a month or two; with slide film, I think you'd need more experience to get the exposures "pegged" properly.


----------



## Antithesis (Dec 18, 2009)

I'll probably be using mostly color and B&W negative film because I know it can be pushed and also have exposure compensation done at a lab, making perfect exposure slightly less important. 

The lenses I am considering are the Voigtlander 21mm F4, the Canon Serenar 50mm f1.8 and probably the probably the Serenar 85mm F2 as well. Both the Canons can be had for very cheap from KEH in "UG" condition, which usually just means working-but-not-pretty. I'd also like to get a 35mm if I can afford it, but I don't know exactly how much I'll have to spend. Part of me also wants to spend the money on a good-condition Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 for the wider aperture, as I'll likely shoot on the 50 the most. I'll likely have less than a grand to spend on camera gear, so compromises will have to be made. I really want the 21mm though, as I have a huge soft-spot for ultra-wides. 

Oh, and the wifey will be shooting on a digital point and shoot. I'm just going to be taking the shots that will be mounted on the wall


----------



## Derrel (Dec 18, 2009)

I wasn't aware how low the prices were on the older Canon RF lenses in UG condition. I was wondering if a Cosina SW-107 aka Bessa-L might be useful; no rangefinder, no viewfinder, but $150 or so on eBay, $199 brand new. Separate finder needed for various wides or ultra-wides....just a thought.

I don't know much about the old Canon RF lenses.


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 18, 2009)

Man, get you some Medium Format.

A cheap TLR or even a folder if you want convenience.  

If you spend $200 or $300 on a folder that's been CLA'd you get MF negs that you really can print for your walls, really good glass -coated even- and not only can you carry it in a coat pocket but you could get most if not all of your money back should you want to sell it when you get back.  And an inexpensive hand held meter can be easily had.

Ask Mitca100 from here  home (mitica100) or get in touch with a guy that goes by Certo6  Vintage Folding Cameras

Enjoy your trip!!


----------



## Antithesis (Dec 18, 2009)

I read somewhere that the little 50mm F1.8 Serenar is a great lens, but now I can't find where it was. I thought it was on cameraquest, but for the life of me I can't find the article. And at $89, I probably can't go too horribly wrong. I don't know about the 90mm, but it's pretty cheap and has a wide aperture to boot. 

I was originally looking at the L, but I don't think I could live without the finder. Also, do you find that your Bessa feels kind of cheap? The whole thing is made out of plastic on an aluminum chassis, right? And have you had any problems with finder misalignment?


----------



## compur (Dec 18, 2009)

I have a Bessa R, Canon L-1 and a Leica M2.  They're all fine cameras.

I see no reason the Bessa R wouldn't fill your needs, especially if a TTL meter
is a requirement.

Any camera can have shutter issues including Leica and Canon.


----------



## Antithesis (Dec 18, 2009)

Mike_E said:


> Man, get you some Medium Format.
> 
> A cheap TLR or even a folder if you want convenience.
> 
> ...



I had actually thought about medium format, but I want to be able to get film if I need it. I'm sure medium format film is pretty easy to get in Lima or Puno or one of the other big cities, but I don't want to get caught without film when I need it. Being able to shoot more than 12 or 16 negs per roll will also be helpful as I plan to shoot at least 400-500 exposures (probably more actually), and that will get unwieldy when shooting MF, not to mention expensive. 

My Dad actually just asked what I want for christmas. I might have him get me one of those Bessa R's off keh so I can play around with it before my trip and get to know it. 

Oh, and is LTM glass as legendarily sharp as M-mount glass? edit: from Leica that is. Or is it a lens by lens basis, as with other companies?


----------



## Derrel (Dec 18, 2009)

Well, "plastic" is what the Canon AE-1, A1,etc were made of...the top and bottom decks of those famous Canons were all made out of "plastic", which is impact resistant, and generally tougher than people might give it credit for. I think a good analogy might come from the comparison between Hasselblad 500 series bodies and the Bronica SQ series cameras; as this site's own Compur wrote not long ago, old "Japanese" medium format cameras seem to be more reliable than old "European" medium format cameras. Why? The way I see it, the Euor-concept engineering idea is tight tolerances, metal, and lubrication, combined with regular cleaning,lubricating, and tolerance adjustment. IOW, a CLA every two or three years.

The newer, Japanese camera engineering designers figured out how to make cameras that use parts that can run FREELY without any lubrication needed...making cleaning,lubricating,and adjusting pretty much a non-factor. And if it calls for it, using plastic for the top deck and bottom decks--just like Canon did with the entire A-series. How well have those held up over the past 25 years? "cheap, plastic junk" is how they were described by Nikon shooters when I was a young man...and yet, the A-series went on to be hugely successful and long-lived. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Hasselblad-Bronica comparison is a good example of where the "better-made" European camera has a series of problems,especially overlapping frames, plus shutter jam-ups due to cocking/lens removal issues, which the Japanese engineers completely avoided when designing the Bronica SQ some 25 years later than Hasselblad.

What I like about Cosina is that they have an actual "head guy" who has a vision, a lot like Olympus used to, and the way Leitz used to; one man, a real camera lover, who actually conceptualizes the designs and has a huge hand in the design parameters. And no, I have not had any trouble with the viewfinder getting misaligned--that is IMHO, a typical careless-handling result, of either drops, door-jam knocks, or body-to-body slamming. But then, I don't drop my cameras, or allow them to slam into doorjams as I wear them fashionably slung over my shoulder, as so many people do.

I think Cosina has tried to strike a balance between the fine craftsmanship of the old Swiss watches, and the newer, Japanese time keeping industry which relies on simple electronics to do what *could* be done with complicated mechanical system that require frequent CLA, metal castings, etc. As to an aluminum chassis versus brass or magnesium: I think that entire issue is entirely irrelevant. Aluminum is light,strong, and easily machined to perfect tolerances, so it has been the chassis choice of many camera makers for a long time. A lighter-weight camera is less likely to suffer impact damage when dropped or when it clanks into another camera--Nikon F's dented the prisms of one another when two were worn; Canon's A-series sort of bounced off one another, what with all that plastic!

The one thing I do know--the old Nikon FM could withstand heavy,soaking rain,over years of use and carrying,and its simple LED type of +/ metering that the original Bessa R used proved to be very reliable in many cameras, much more so than the old-school meters used by earlier cameras, and I think that's another example of how very simple electronics and simplified "cheap" engineering solutions (LED metering) actually ended up being better than the older more "luxury" oriented engineering solution >"match needle".


----------



## Antithesis (Dec 18, 2009)

That does make sense: Japanese goods using cheaper materials to make a product that is more reliable than it's German counterpart. Yet the German counterpart seems to be more "crash" friendly (I'd much rather get rear ended in a mercedes than a honda). 

So I think I may go with the Bessa R. Do you have any suggestions on lenses that can be had for cheap to help compliment the 21mm and a 50mm?


----------



## Mitica100 (Dec 19, 2009)

Some ideas:

Leica Screw Mount are pretty compact and easy to work. Rugged and long lasting. I still work with a 1934 Leica IIIa and the spacing between frames is absolutely identical for the entire length of the film.  But... loading it is not easy. Another plus side is the availability of lenses, some really decent ones as well. Think about a collapsible Summitar or Summicron for a 50mm normal lens, it offers you a smaller package than the M3.

Exposure without metering is easily done by consulting a little booklet to be found on eBay *here*.  I use one with success and it's worth every penny of the $10.00 you're going to spend on.

The Canon RF cameras are great, sometimes I can say they're better than the Leicas. They're well built, solid feel and yet comfortable. Their range finders are clearer and of much better quality, helping with better and faster focusing.

If you still tend to go with an M3, which to me is the ultimate 35mm RF camera, make sure you find one with the range finder clean and crisp, for they are known to peter out in time. Even so, there is a simple solution to making the focusing spot more visible. PM me if you want the 'secret'...  

Medium Format cameras can be had as well, as long as you don't want to lug around a TLR or SLR. There are smaller alternatives, such as the Zeiss Super Ikonta A1 (531/16) which is 6x4.5 format, giving you 16 exposures per roll. A little less than the 35mm but much better resolution.

Let me know if you have any questions...l


----------



## Mitica100 (Dec 19, 2009)

Oh, and I would take any day a Canon 50/1.8 over a Summar 50mm lens...


----------



## compur (Dec 19, 2009)

I have an M39 Russian Jupiter-9 85m f/2 that is quite good.

The 90/4 Leitz Elmars can be good too but be sure the glass is clean before
buying.  Old Leica glass often has haze that needs cleaning, making it less
of a bargain.


----------



## usayit (Dec 19, 2009)

Regardless of what brand, you choice of framelines is a very important consideration.  M3 isn't the ultimate rangefinder to someone who needs wider than 50mm framelines.  Some bessas have more framelines which can be an advantage.  

Also, Leica screw can be adapted to m-mount but not the other way around.

I love my M3 but I think an M4 will be a better choice... faster loading and a more complete set of lines.... assuming u decide on Leica.  People usually immediately refer to the M3 for nostalgic reasons

For bessa, my preference would be R2m.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 19, 2009)

I do not know enough about rangefinders to talk about that but you mentioned buying film in Peru and I would certainly avoid that if at all possible. The problem with that idea is that 1/ you want to try and buy all your films from the same run if at all possible and 2/ you want to buy from a reseller with a good turn over. You don't want films that have sat on the shelf for who knows how long.

I would also find out what it is like to travel with film these days. People used to use lead lined bags but who knows what the deal is today. Something to ask maybe on a film forum if no one here knows. I used to be able to get my film to not go through the scanners thanks to a press card but I don't know if you can even get away with that today.

I wish I could tell you more but I have not travelled with film since 9-11 and things have changed since. So I think it is worth looking into.


----------



## Dwig (Dec 19, 2009)

Several points:

1. There is no such thing as a 30 year old M3. The youngest M3 is well over 40 years old, the oldest is some 56 years old, and the average age is late 40's to early '50s. They are beautifully built cameras and if well maintained are far from the end of their service life.

2. The M3 has frame lines for 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm. Its probably not the best choice for someone wanting to use a 35mm lens with any frequency. A better choice would likely be the M2, M4, or for that may any other M model.

3. The Bessas do descend from the same progenitor as the Nikon FM-10. The original design is probably the Konica Autoreflex T-4 and TC. The newer Bessa R2 and R3 variants are probably better choices than the original R. They have meters and are a bit more refined. The choice between the R2 and R3 line (there are two of each) is the VF magnification and frameline set. The "m" versions are mechanical manual only models and the "a" models are electronic with both manual and aperture priority automatic.

4. Unlike the Bessas and Canons, frameline selection on the Leica M's is "automatic". You can't manually select a frameline though all but the original samples of the M3 (1953-55 approx) have a preview lever to _temporarily_ preview other framelines. If you go with an M and want to use adapted LTM lenses you will want to get a separate adapter for each lens, each with the appropriate mount to set the appropriate frameline.

5. LTM Leicas (aka "Barnaks") are all very old. The last one made is just shy of 50 years old. Only the last and highly collectible model, the IIIg, has a decent VF and frames for anything other than 50mm (it has frame lines for 50mm and 90mm). Only one reasonably priced model that has flash sync (the IIIf, though there is also a variant without slow speeds named the IIf).

6. Learning how to handle anything other than the most common lighting conditions without the aid of a meter is something that takes a lifetime. In a handful of years you can get fairly decent, though you will be relying on film latitude a lot and bracketing for insurance very frequently. Even using a simple "dumb" meter (read: single area reading as opposed to the multi-area readings with computer analysis that is common in modern DSLRs) takes some learning. 

My recommendation is to seriously consider the newer metered M-mount Bessas or an older used M-mount Leica. With either, pay careful attention to the fit between your lens choices and the VF frameline set in the bodies under consideration.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Dec 19, 2009)

A few years back, about 4 plus, Cosina-Voigtlander had an issue with the calibration of the rangefinder in their cameras. I recall reading that maybe 50% where out of calibration from the factory. I do not think this is an issue with current production, But if you buy a used one ask about it.


----------



## usayit (Dec 19, 2009)

One more thing that came to mind with the Bessa's... more specifically the R3M.  The R3M is unique in that it has a 1x viewfinder.  Meaning no-magnification.  What this means is that you can shoot with both eyes open which presents a different visual "feel" to shooting.  

Its hard to explain...  You bring the camera's viewfinder to your eye but you keep both eyes open.  It feels like you are just "observing" your subject with the framelines floating in space in a "heads up display" kinda way.  This is done no matter what focal length lens attached (remember rangefinder no lookie through lens).  Street shoots like this as you observe the world around you as you would normally.  Then you frame and shoot without a mental switch because of the different magnifications.  

My Epson R-d1 (body is based on a Bessa design) has this type of viewfinder and its one of the features that keeps this "outdated" camera at my side.  Its really neat.

Again...  frameline selection is of the upmost importance during your rangefinder body selection.    Later bodies tend to have more framelines but to the point they get a bit cluttered.. (I'm thinking of my M6 which is collecting dust).  Magnification usually goes along with the framelines... less magnification for wider framelines.


----------



## Antithesis (Dec 20, 2009)

usayit said:


> One more thing that came to mind with the Bessa's... more specifically the R3M.  The R3M is unique in that it has a 1x viewfinder.  Meaning no-magnification.  What this means is that you can shoot with both eyes open which presents a different visual "feel" to shooting.
> 
> Its hard to explain...  You bring the camera's viewfinder to your eye but you keep both eyes open.  It feels like you are just "observing" your subject with the framelines floating in space in a "heads up display" kinda way.  This is done no matter what focal length lens attached (remember rangefinder no lookie through lens).  Street shoots like this as you observe the world around you as you would normally.  Then you frame and shoot without a mental switch because of the different magnifications.
> 
> ...



I'm actually blind in my right eye, so shooting with both eyes open poses no immediate benefits, lol. 

Also, Dwig, I believe the Bessa R has a TTL meter, as do pretty much all the Bessa's. I would love to get one of the M-mount Bessa's, as they have more metal in their construction and have less issues with the rangefinder going out of whack. They are just in the $600 range and I'd rather put that money into lenses for the time being. I used to have a Nikon FA and an FG20, and while the FA had numerous additional features and a better prism, I used the FG a lot more because it was lighter and simpler. I think I'd probably feel the same way for a rangefinder, so I think he R would fit the bill for now. 

And I was actually just reading more about Jupiter lenses, and apparently they are great lenses and super, super cheap. I've been checking out fedka.com, and they have a lot of cool russian rangefinder stuff. I'll probably just get the Jupiter-8 (50 f2) to start with, and then hopefully the Voigtlander 21mm. I'd like to eventually get a 35 and 75 if I can afford them as well.

Do people find that they generally use 35's or 50's more?


----------



## usayit (Dec 20, 2009)

Just thought of two more good options:  

1) The often under appreciated  Minolta/Leica CL
2) and Minolta Hexar RF

Both have meters and the CL is very very compact.  The Minolta Rokkor (sp?) lenses are M-mount lenses.  I liked the Hexar a lot.... during the time the Leica M6 the Hexar had a lot of built in features that were way ahead of the game for rangefinders.  It too is M-mount.  Quality is very high and it feels like it.  The Hexar will require a battery to operate.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 20, 2009)

Antithesis said:


> Do people find that they generally use 35's or 50's more?



I personally find the 50mm lens boring and always had one SLR body with a 35mm. My Leica also always had a 35mm on. The 35mm is great for shooting blind so it is very useful on a quiet rangefinder to shoot where you are not allowed. PJ habit but it might be useful in some museums.


----------



## Dwig (Dec 21, 2009)

usayit said:


> Just thought of two more good options:
> 
> 1) The often under appreciated  Minolta/Leica CL
> 2) and Minolta Hexar RF
> ...



Both are very good, if in good condition.

BTW, the CL was sold several ways. The Leica CL was the name in most markets and Minolta/CL was primarily used in Japan. The CL vintage lenses were branded "Leica" and not Minolta Rokkor. After the demise of the CL, Minolta offered their own camera, the CLE. The 40mm f/2.0 for the CLE was branded Rokkor though it was the same design as the earlier Leica branded version. The Rokkor 90mm was made in Germany by Leitz. For a little while, Minolta also offered a 28mm lens for the CLE. 

The CL was a purely mechanical body and its meter used an antique and dangerous mercury based battery. Replacements are available but have their issues. The CLE was an all electronic camera with manual and aperture priority automatic modes and used a more modern silver oxide battery that is still available. Both are very compact and excellent performers. Their RFs have rather short baselines and using f/1.4 lenses is not recommended nor f/2.0 lenses of 75mm or longer or f/2.8 135mm lenses.


----------



## Dwig (Dec 21, 2009)

Antithesis said:


> ...
> And I was actually just reading more about Jupiter lenses, and apparently they are great lenses and super, super cheap. I've been checking out fedka.com, and they have a lot of cool russian rangefinder stuff. I'll probably just get the Jupiter-8 (50 f2) to start with, and then hopefully the Voigtlander 21mm. I'd like to eventually get a 35 and 75 if I can afford them as well.
> 
> Do people find that they generally use 35's or 50's more?



Personally I love 35mm lenses and abhor 50's, at least on film and, I would assume, "full frame" digital. My pet kit in my film days (Nikon F3 was my primary body) was 20mm, 35mm, & 105mm. My 45, 55, and 300 were used much less often. Picking lenses for a Leica, or similar, I would lean towards a 21, 35, 90 set. But choices like this are very, very, very personal.

The FSU (Former Soviet Union) lenses can be rather good. They often have issues when used on Leicas or Japanese Leica clones and compatibles. This comes from the fact that the FSU cameras descend from the old Carl Zeiss parts and tools that the Soviet Union "acquired" at the end of WWII. The Contax cameras used a different base focal length than Leica as their standard. This can cause lenses to focus accurately at infinity but slightly mis-focus at close distances. The lenses can be shimmed to move the point of best focus (most infinity shots are in bright light and DOF will cover small errors) and sometimes corrected completely (either remounting, refiguring the focus cam, or respacing the optics to adjust the FL). As a rule, FSU lenses are best used on FSU bodies. They often deliver rather decent images, though. The Jupiter-8 has a good reputation.


----------



## usayit (Dec 21, 2009)

If you find a Hexar RF, you should have no problems with condition caused by age.  Earliest versions are less than 10 years old.    Similar rangefinder accuracy as the M6 but with built in motor and arguable a better meter too.

Its biggest fault was the lack of the red dot.


----------



## Antithesis (Dec 21, 2009)

Dwig said:


> Antithesis said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



That's a bummer as I was excited because of the prices. How does one "shim" the lens? I'd love to get all Voigtlander lenses but I just won't likely have the money for it before I leave on the trip.

And with the Hexar, while it seems like a great camera (motorized film advance and titanium bottom plates sound pretty sweet), I think I'd feel like it were overly automatic. I believe one of the main attractions of a rangefinder is the simplicity. I always found that having a manual film advance and having to check my settings every time made all my shots more deliberate on a manual camera. The number of keepers on a single roll of film tends to be higher than an equal number of digital images.


----------



## Dwig (Dec 22, 2009)

Antithesis said:


> ...How does one "shim" the lens? ...



It is not something for the novice to attempt. It requires the skill and tools necessary to disassemble the lens barrel, at least part way. The purpose is to move the whole optical tube forward by a small amount so that when the helicoid is set to infinity the lens is focused just slightly closer. This will, when done correctly with exactly the correct thickness shim, cause the RF system and the actual image to both agree at some chosen closer focus point, often around 2m (6ft). There are the occasional discussion of doing this, either by one's self or by a skill repair technician, at the Rangefinder Forum ( Rangefinderforum.com Portal - Rangefinderforum )


----------



## Antithesis (Dec 22, 2009)

Sounds a bit difficult, and I'm not sure that I'd want to pay a technician $75 to calibrate (colimate? Not sure what the word is) a $60 lens. But, it seems like the more I read the more cases I'm finding of people using the Jupiter-8 without any issues on a bessa r. It seems to happen more on the M-mount bessas with an adapter. So, that still leaves the opportunity to to get a very inexpensive 50mm.  Also, the images I've seen taken with this lens seem to be pretty outstanding. I'm still strongly considering the Canon Serenar 50 1.8 for the slightly larger aperture and the fact that it will focus accurately.

I'll probably just end up with the 21 and 50 for this trip, but that doesn't really bug me. I used to carry a 20mm and 50mm with my 5D as a standard lightweight kit and it was good for 90% of situations. A 35 sounds like fun and I'll probably get a Voigtlander with a large aperture a few months later, and a 75 or 90 would finish the kit.


----------



## usayit (Dec 22, 2009)

> I really don't feel like lugging a bunch of heavy glass around.
> ...
> 
> The obvious concern would be the lack of a meter, which is something I've always been reliant on
> ...



Antithesis, just being devil's advocate...

I scanned through your postings in this thread and I don't see anything that "screams" rangefinder.  What are your reasons for gravitating towards a rangefinder?  Have you shot significantly with one?  Keep in mind that much of what you have mentioned are perfect reasons just to go with a compact classic manual SLR.  

lack of meter versus too automatic?
Manual everything is obtainable with SLRs of similar time period.
Too often rangefinder has become synonymous with old fashioned.... but its more than that.

Also keep in mind, many wouldn't consider older lenses (including LTM) ideal for color negative...


----------



## compur (Dec 22, 2009)

Antithesis said:


> But, it seems like the more I read the more cases I'm finding of people using the Jupiter-8 without any issues on a bessa r. It seems to happen more on the M-mount bessas with an adapter. So, that still leaves the opportunity to to get a very inexpensive 50mm.  Also, the images I've seen taken with this lens seem to be pretty outstanding. I'm still strongly considering the Canon Serenar 50 1.8 for the slightly larger aperture and the fact that it will focus accurately.



I've had good experiences with Russian lenses in general and so have my 
friends who've used them. Some say they don't have a good reputation for 
quality control but so far I haven't had any lemons.  And, many are copies 
of legendary German designs. 

The Russian _cameras_, however, are a different story.  I have seen them 
broken when new in the box!


----------



## Antithesis (Dec 22, 2009)

usayit said:


> > I really don't feel like lugging a bunch of heavy glass around.
> > ...
> >
> > The obvious concern would be the lack of a meter, which is something I've always been reliant on
> ...



Rangefinders are cool. Nuff' said....

But seriously, I've been using SLR's my whole life, and I was just interested in something different. Not that a camera should inspire a photographer to do anything different, but I think it might just be fun to use something other than the typical SLR. Light weight and compactness has a lot to do with my consideration (though a RF only seems compact with certain lenses, and a manual SLR won't be that much heavier). I don't really have any reason not to go with an SLR other than the fact that I want a rangefinder. They obviously both have pros and cons, but it ultimately comes down to wanting something _different_.


----------



## chip (Dec 22, 2009)

If you are going to Peru why not take a weather proof Point n Shoot? You don't have to worry about it getting wet and it is compact enough to go with you everywhere.

3508B001 Canon PowerShot D10 Compact Digital Camera, 12 Megapixel, WaterProof to 33 Feet, 3x Optical IS Zoom


----------



## Antithesis (Dec 23, 2009)

chip said:


> If you are going to Peru why not take a weather proof Point n Shoot? You don't have to worry about it getting wet and it is compact enough to go with you everywhere.
> 
> 3508B001 Canon PowerShot D10 Compact Digital Camera, 12 Megapixel, WaterProof to 33 Feet, 3x Optical IS Zoom



The wife will likely be carrying a P&S, so whatever I carry will be for the more "artisitic" shots that'll get turned into larger prints and also, for wide-angle landscapes, architecture and low-light.

And, usayit, the color rendition on the 21mm seems pretty good from the images I've seen taken with it. I tend to use wide-angles a lot, so it'll get the most use. The 50 will be mostly for low-light, snapshots and street type stuff.


----------



## usayit (Dec 23, 2009)

> Rangefinders are cool. Nuff' said....
> 
> But seriously, I've been using SLR's my whole life, and I was just interested in something different.



Ah.. good enough reason as any.


----------



## Dwig (Dec 24, 2009)

Antithesis said:


> ... it seems like the more I read the more cases I'm finding of people using the Jupiter-8 without any issues on a bessa r. ...



DOF will cover the small error when shooting at middle and small apertures and/or when shooting distant subjects. Its when you shoot wide open and close distances that the discrepancy can show.


----------



## Antithesis (Dec 25, 2009)

Dwig said:


> Antithesis said:
> 
> 
> > ... it seems like the more I read the more cases I'm finding of people using the Jupiter-8 without any issues on a bessa r. ...
> ...



Ah, I see. I sent an email to the guy at fedka.com to see if he can adjust the lens for me and give it a CLA before it comes out. It would be worth the extra $39 to get it done and not have to worry about it. 

I've been browsing images taken with the lens on flickr, and it seems like a decent performer. Even the very few shots I could find wide-open were perfectly acceptable. The 21 F4 also appears to be a fantastic lens. If I can swing it, I may try and get a Jupiter-9 as well so I have something longer than 50mm to bring with me as well.


----------

