File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
soup /p/

what's the best kind of rangefinder I can get w/ a collegefag budget?

Also, what's the purpose of getting a rangefinder?
>> Anonymous
I know collegefags who are $50k in debt, and ones who own BMW M6s. Which are you?

If the former: a Canonet, Nikon SP, Argus C3 or similar
If the latter: a gold-plated M7.
>> Anonymous
>>134043

So you're getting a rangefinder cause you heard it would make you a super cool guy, and you don't even know why you might choose one.

gg
>> Anonymous
Secret rule of camera gear buying: If you don't know why you need it, you don't need it.
>> Anonymous
>>134047

nah, my friend wants one, and after I saw the shit that the Leica M8 can do, I wanted one. A fellow photographer is bidding on one on Ebay and his only reason for getting one are "why not" All I know is that the focusing method is different.
>> Anonymous
Leica M3.
>> Anonymous
What sort of "shit", exactly, can the M8 do? I'd like to know what you're so impressed about.
>> Anonymous
I was going to give you an honest recommendation until I realized you're just a wannabe Leicafag.

So, yeah, gold-plated M7.
>> Anonymous
>>134051


http://www.flickr.com/photos/moaan/
>> Anonymous
>>134054

1. there is nothing special about those photos because they were taken on a rangefinder. The colors are like that because it's Velvia and the pictures are that good because the photographer knows what he's doing. Except for the shots taken with the Noctilux, any of those could have been done on a film Rebel.
2. Your shots won't look anything like that
3. If you think that getting a rangefinder will make your pictures look like that, you should just kill yourself now.
>> Anonymous
>>134054
Looks like you're looking for the Leica look more than you are a rangefinder. Rangefinders are for people photography, not flower macros.

Buy a Panasonic point and shoot with a Leica-designed lens attached. If you do want a rangefinder, Leica M3, 50mm Summicron.
>> Anonymous
/p/ underestimates my superhuman ability to understand that buying $10,000 worth of equipment won't make me a photographer.

I want to know why rangefinders are all the shizz.
>> Anonymous
>>134063
Quiter shutter, no viewfinder blackout, one can see outside the frame in the finder, better wide angle lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>134063

1. in 1950s to early 70s, Leicas were THE camera of the professional news/rock/etc photographer (until the Nikon F came out). They were also used by HCB and other famous people, mostly cause back then they really were excellent cameras, well made and with great lenses.
2. Leica decided that rangefinders were the shit and ignored SLRs (ok, yes, they had the R, but have you ever seen one in use?)
3. Leica decided that since rangefinders were the shit and they weren't selling well, they ought to be expensive, so they started talking about how great and perfect and legendary and epitomized the M series was, while all the pros went on shooting with their Nikons and later Canons
4. fags with too much money decided that "if it's expensive and rare, I ought to have it" so they bought leicas
5. fags decided that they had to show WHY their new $5000 cameras with 1955 technology were entirely better than new Nikons, so they made up shit like "I can tell the difference between a pic taken with a leica lens and a nikon" and "leicas are just SOO MUCH BETTER for taking pictures of people" -- even though hey, it's all just glass and the film was 100% the same.
6. Everyone bought into the mystique that Leicas are somehow great and started applying that logic to rangefinders in general.


Here's the reality:

- rangefinders (film) are generally smaller and lighter than SLRs
- RFs are quieter than most SLRs (no mirror slap)
- ^ these make them good for street photography.
- RFs are easier to focus wide-angle lenses, SLRs are easier to focus teles. You choose.

They're pretty, Leica lenses are very good, and I would love to have an M3 + 35mm summicron, but when you get down to it they're not really significantly better than any other camera. The M8 is so backwards compared to the new DSLRs it's not even funny.
>> Anonymous
>>134069

In last part, replace M3 with M4 (the M3's finder doesn't have 35mm frame lines). M4 = the greatest camera Leica ever made, and it came out in the 60s.
>> Anonymous
>>134069
>The M8 is so backwards compared to the new DSLRs it's not even funny.

Most of what you said is right, but this is 100% wrong. The M8 is more advanced than most DSLRs and on par with professional ones when it comes to image quality. The only things it lacks are autofocus, FPS, and live view.

And Leica lenses do have a distinctive look- as do other brands of top-end lenses. Good Nikkors, Canon L lenses, Zeiss lenses, good Pentax lenses, etc. all have distinctive family qualities.
>> Anonymous
In before "Leica glow."
>> Anonymous
>>134071
I'm not too keen on wides, so I'll take the extra focusing accuracy of the M3, but yeah. M2 or M4 if you like wides, M3 if you don't.
>> Anonymous
>>134073

Such an equipmentfag it's sad. The M8's image quality is basically on par with new SLRs, except for oops we forgot the low-pass filter. Well, here, take some screw-ons. We'll still charge you $5000 for a camera that is basically a digital rebel XTi with a metal body. Leica can't even sell their "mechanically perfect construction" ideas with the M8, because it's got none of those lovely mechanical parts anyway -- and the shutter isn't even cloth any more.

Like I said, best camera Leica ever made was the M4, and it's pretty much been downhill from there.
>> Anonymous
>>134071
The M3 doesn't have 35mm framelines, but the whole viewfinder is a pretty good approximation of a 35mm field of view. You just lose parallax compensation.

There are two versions of the M4. The Canada version is generally regarded as the worst M camera ever made (though it's still a very good camera) while the German ones are on par with the M2 and M6. The M4P is probably the finest Leica ever made, other than possibly the last of the M3s or the MP. Leica took some cost cutting measures with the M2, M4, and M6 which is why they are often felt to be inferior to the M3, M4P, and MP.

I personally think they're all great cameras, though the M5 is butt ugly.
>> Anonymous
>>134082

>The Canada version is generally regarded as the worst M camera ever made (though it's still a very good camera)

I agree with you on this. This sentiment, though, is the sort of Leicafaggotry that creates their elitism. The Canadian M4 is built with effectively the same specs as the German M4. Where are the differences? The gears inside are steel, which supposedly makes the action less smooth, and the top is OMG stamped instead of engraved.

When the "worst" camera is different from one of their best only in two measures, and one is the quality of the labeling on the top plate -- and there are people who actually would not buy the Canadian M4 for this reason -- then there's a problem.

Personally, I think the M4 is the finest camera they ever made, because it has the quick-rewind and 35mm framelines (I love 35mm, great length for pictorial and candids), but before they started adding metering or electronics. It's basically an M3 with all the upgrades I would make to it if I had one.

>Leica took some cost cutting measures with the M2, M4, and M6

And probably saved the company, since they were hemorrhaging money at the time. Moving production to Canada (a few miles from where I am in fact) was a great move.
>> Anonymous
>>134077
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NsQi
>> Anonymous
>>134092

relevance?
>> Anonymous
>>134095
Filtering the sensor would've been a bad idea. Scroll down the page.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>134054
You know, I just looked through a bunch of this guy's pictures and... they mostly suck. He's got thousands and thousands of dollars worth of Leica gear and he uses them to take boring flower pictures and shots of his dog.

Here's some Leica examples that are actually good:
http://flickr.com/photos/chachahavana/2226196540/in/set-72157600168526646/
(Granted, I'm biased towards this as it has scantily clad wimminz)
http://flickr.com/photos/70355737@N00/
(Guy's in the middle east and takes frickin' amazing photos. I can't look at his shots for too long because it makes me feel horrible at the crap that I try to pass off as photography)
http://flickr.com/photos/boyshapedbox/2282655473/in/set-72157603957925616/
(My personal favorite shot)
http://flickr.com/photos/moogibang/
(Mostly pictures of his kids, but they're actually good pictures of his kids)

There are much better Leica shots out there than Moaan's, is my point.
>> Anonymous
>>134108

Guy in the ME has some incredible photos - I particularly like the bomb exploding and the burned out car just outside the playground. As to the last guy -- how much USM is he putting in his images? Looks like more than a bayer filter camera should provide.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>134043
Yashica Electro.

$20-30.

You break it, lose it or get tired of it, you won't baaawww because you spent a lot on it.

People, most of the time street photographers, get rangefinders because they are generally smaller and more silent than SLRs
>> Anonymous
>>134184
They go for about $80, if you want a working one.
They do rock however.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>134267
The GSN/GTN, but the G or GS models (which is the exact same thing save for the hotshoe) are cheaper.
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
i just got a fully restored canonet QL19 and im waiting for a GIII QL17 which is supposedly a great rangefinder with a nice sharp 1.7 lens on the front.

bear in mind both are fixed lens rf's but are also V sexy cameras :D

my ql19 was 120NZD but the guy spent 100 to get it CLA'd not long before.
the QL17 GIII was 50 AUS$ off the bay.com.au and another one was ~75? ill reseal them both and sell the lesser one if anyones keen :)? will let you know further down the line...

try this site for a brief review/good fixing tips and advice etc:
http://mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/rangefinders.html

will agree with most others, i only brought my rf's for street. theyre not nearly as practical as a modern dlsr(film processing, no insta ISO, no review, limited amount of shots before changing, cost of developing/scanning etc)
so think whether you actually need one or just buy one and decide if you like it.
as for me? im waiting for my first roll back, just looked at the negs this morn and getting it scanned and ill pick up the digi's tomorrow :DD
again, ill let you know how it goes :)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Never tried a Leica, but, honestly, I don't think it'll magically create good photos. I think it's because they're owned by good photographers.
>> Anonymous
>>134308addendum

That vignetting is really cool nevertheless. Photoshop does the job, though.
>> Anonymous
Dear OP if you plan on buying a Yashica Electro off ebay make sure they have tested it because they are more prone to breaking than other camera of the same age. I have 7 yashica electros in my home, ONE WORKS. Thes rest have all types of problems, pad of death, uncoupled rangefinder, wire corrosion.

As much as i love the yashica electro, I recommend the Canon Canonet QL17 GIII or equivelent minolta instead. Better made.

Anyway if you don't know why you want one don't get one save your money for rent or something else mundane.
>> Anonymous
>>134046
HAHAHAHHAHA look up the price of a Nikon SP and come back.

Rest of that is true though. Dunno why there's no CV Bessa love in the thread yet.

>>134087
The top of the M4-2 is actually kinda dissuading me from a hypothetical Leica purchase. The most beautiful part of all the Leicas I've handled so far is the bit that says ERNST LEITZ WETZLAR, and if I can't get a camera with that, I might as well get a Bessa and have a built-in meter and an extra lens with the saved money. If I'm going to buy into the OMG LEICA mystique, I'd better be getting the real deal.

I have two lenses with the Wetzlar engraving so life is good so far :V
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>134314

I'm checking them out on ebay, can /p/ tell me what the fuck that is at the top of the lens?? Something looks shooped
>> Anonymous
>>134435
That's the metering cell.
>> Anonymous
>>134435

Disregard that, I suck cocks
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>134046
Nikon SP is *not* a cheap camera
>> Anonymous
>>134799All Nikon rangefinders are not *cheap* cameras

fix'd
>> Anonymous
>>134838
Incorrect. Since when is 30/40$ expensive for a top-notch camera?

>>134435
You should buy a Konica C35, and leave all those nice rangefinders for people that will use them well instead.
>> Anonymous
>>134853Incorrect. Since when is 30/40$ expensive for a top-notch camera?

If you happen to know a source for $30-40 Nikon SPs, please let me know, I'd gladly buy all of them. All the ones I've seen were in the $1500-2000 price range, even more than a Leica M6- except for the one a friend of mine bought at a junk shop for $100 because the owner had no idea what it was.
>> Anonymous
>>134853
Please do your research before you shit up /p/ any more.
>> Anonymous
>>134871
I'm sorry, I misread your sentence. I thought you were implying all rangefinders were expensive. Saging myself.