Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,685   Posts: 1,548,601   Online: 1342
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225

    Getting into RFs

    Guys it's already been said, he/she does NOT want a fixed lens...

    Anyway check out rangefinderforum.com

    They might have more info, but probably many of the same users as here


    ~Stone

    The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  2. #22
    macandal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    150
    Thanks. I was looking at the Canonet QL17, which has been mentioned here. I suppose this is a good camera, right? However, and I don't know if I'm asking too much, I want to be able to use different lenses and I want to be able to use all (or as many as possible in a RF) manual functions. I don't know if the QL17 covers those requirements. If not, which camera does? Thanks.
    Last edited by macandal; 11-19-2012 at 12:30 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: corrected the name

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,086
    Quote Originally Posted by macandal View Post
    Thanks. I was looking at the Canonet QL17, which has been mentioned here. I suppose this is a good camera, right? However, and I don't know if I'm asking too much, I want to be able to use different lenses and I want to be able to use all (or as many as possible in a RF) manual functions. I don't know if the QL17 covers those requirements. If not, which camera does? Thanks.
    There are a lot of folks that think the Canonet is a good camera. I do not. I've used several and they all were less than adequate. You can use it manual or auto, but no interchangable lenses.

  4. #24
    macandal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    ... but no interchangable lenses.
    That's what I thought. Thanks Brian.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,283
    Images
    21
    The problem is that in an interchangeable-lens rangefinder, the lenses quickly dominate the budget. I'm trying to think of what the cheapest general-purpose body-and-two-lenses kit might be, apart from the fSU cameras. Used Bessa-R or older Canon body, Culminar 50/2.8, and a 90mm Elmar? You could put that together from Igor's as I write this for US$235+120+100. Going wide instead of long with the second lens would be more expensive.

    A Kiev or Fed/Zorki kit would be cheaper, but with the potential baggage of fSU cameras. Some people have had very good luck with them, but some, er, haven't. And even those aren't as cheap as they used to be; a Fed-2+Industar-26M+Jupiter-12 from Fedka will run US$224 at the moment, and you need a meter or a good eye.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  6. #26
    macandal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    Used Bessa-R or older Canon body, Culminar 50/2.8, and a 90mm Elmar? You could put that together from Igor's as I write this for US$235+120+100. Going wide instead of long with the second lens would be more expensive.
    This is not so bad. I could live with that. Which model is this?

  7. #27
    Patrick Robert James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    261
    Images
    35
    If you want interchangeable lenses then you are looking at either of the two Leica mounts, screw mount or M bayonet. A screw mount system will be cheaper and be forward compatible with the M bayonet through adapters. The cheapest decent cameras for screw mount lenses would be the Canon RFs. If you just want to get your feet wet you could pick up a Canon 7 and a Russian 50mm (supposedly not entirely compatible) like an I-50, Jupiter 8 or I-61l/d. All are nice lenses and pretty cheap, like maybe $40. Together the camera and the lens would set you back around or a little over $200. You can move up from there perhaps to a better lens and then on to a Leica if you find that you like using RFs.

  8. #28
    macandal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Robert James View Post
    If you want interchangeable lenses then you are looking at either of the two Leica mounts, screw mount or M bayonet. A screw mount system will be cheaper and be forward compatible with the M bayonet through adapters. The cheapest decent cameras for screw mount lenses would be the Canon RFs. If you just want to get your feet wet you could pick up a Canon 7 and a Russian 50mm (supposedly not entirely compatible) like an I-50, Jupiter 8 or I-61l/d. All are nice lenses and pretty cheap, like maybe $40. Together the camera and the lens would set you back around or a little over $200. You can move up from there perhaps to a better lens and then on to a Leica if you find that you like using RFs.
    So, I take it that of the two mounts, screw mount or M, the screw mount is best because it would work with both mounts, whereas the M only works with the M, is that right?

    Also, not all the Canons are capable of changing lenses. The QL17 I mentioned earlier didn't have that capability. Now, you suggest the 7. Is that a solid camera? I mean, not just something to "get my feet wet" but something, in the event that I really like RFs, that I would want to keep?

    Thanks, Patrick.

  9. #29
    Stephanie Brim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,607
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    21
    Screwmount can be used on an M mount with an adapter, but not the other way around.
    No idea what's going to happen next, but I'm hoping it involves being wrist deep in chemicals come the weekend.

  10. #30
    Patrick Robert James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    261
    Images
    35
    The Canon 7 is one of the best RFs ever made in my opinion. The only downside to it is the screw mount so modern M mount lenses can't be used. Voigtlander made a bunch of different screw mount lenses though and many are really good so you could go that route if you liked the camera body and wanted modern lenses. Voigtlander lenses are also cheaper than Zeiss or Leica lenses as well. There are a smattering of different modern lenses that are really good that were made in LTM. For example, Konica made a 50mm f/2.4 that is reputed to be one of the sharpest lenses ever. They also made a 35mm f/2.

    Here is a page about the Canon 7 to give you an idea.

    http://www.cameraquest.com/canon7sz.htm
    Last edited by Patrick Robert James; 11-19-2012 at 02:52 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin