File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I've finally decided to go out and buy a rangefinder, but I've hit on a conundrum.

I'm used to shooting at a 42mm equivalent, and I like that sort of wide-normal very much and want to stay with it. Leica CL and 40/2 Summicron-C, right?

Well, I was researching it, and I found out that the Leica CL has an effective rangefinder baselength of 18.9, compared to the M2's 49.9, making its focusing (at least on paper) much less accurate. I'd also rather have an M body, but none of them have framelines for 40mm.

What I'm asking is if anyone here experienced with rangefinders knows how much of a difference in the real world the difference in focusing accuracy would make.
>> Anonymous
bump
>> Anonymous
It makes a difference with long, fast lenses. With a 40mm f/2, it's irrelevant. You might run into a few issues when focusing at the lens's close limit and wide open, but even then I'd say it's pretty unlikely.

I'm not a fan of the Leica CL though. It's not really a Leica (it's a Minolta), but it's pricey given it's age and features. Plus it takes batteries that aren't readily available in the US anymore and has the stupid front-mounted shutter speed dial.

I'd highly recommend you go for an M3 instead. They aren't much more expensive than a CL, but they are much better cameras.

Another option is any of the numerous Voigtlander models. Most of them are going to be overall better cameras than a CL for about the same price. The original Bessa R is plastic and flimsy, but later models are good and the most recent ones are quite excellent. The only real downside to them is that they have a short effective baselength (around 25mm, iirc) but once again that's only an issue if you're using extremely fast or long lenses.

As for your frameline issue, don't worry about it. Framelines in a rangefinder aren't like a 100% focusing screen on an SLR, they're just a rough approximation. If you're shooting with a 40mm lens, use the 50mm framelines but figure on covering a hair outside the lines on all sides. You'll get used to it very quickly. On an M3, you could probably even use the whole viewfinder as an approximation of a 40mm lens because of the high finder magnification.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
If you don't need interchangeable lenses and just need a 42mm one, try Olympus 35 SP.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTDCamera ModelE-10Camera Software42-0120Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Created2002:07:27 11:32:41Exposure Time2 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating80Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo FlashFocal Length30.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2240Image Height1680Compression SettingHQMacro ModeNormal
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
     File :-(, x)
>>109521
But they're too expensive.

An alternative would be an Electro
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
     File :-(, x)
... or a Fed-2
>> Anonymous
>>109524
35 SP costs like $100-200 in good condition and is basically a Leica CL with an awesome non-interchangeable lens. I don't see how is that "too expensive".

>>109525
Soviet 40-something mm lenses are rare to non-existent, and putting Leica glass on a FED... ugh. And enjoy your lack of metering.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>109533

The Electro does everything the SP does (except for spot-metering and full-manual) at a fraction of the cost. $100 vs. $20
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>109556
I've never seen one of these yashicas before, for that much money I can't go wrong. Thanks for making me impulse purchase a camera. Dick.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
I'm pretty tempted into getting one sometime too now at that price. For that kind of money it's either that or the Nikkei DLN 9000A...
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>109573

glad to be of service.
>> Anonymous
>>109521
>>109524

They're decent cameras, along with the famous Canonet QL-17 GIII, but not at all in the same class as a Leica CL or Voigtlander, much less an M. They have dim, ill defined rangefinder patches that don't work well in low light, and the build quality is far from Leica or even Voigtlander (models after the R2).

I have a GIII and a Yashica Electro, but I rarely use them. I wouldn't pay more than $50 for either camera, but if you find a good deal you might as well get one.
>> Anonymous
The Yashica is a fun camera but fails pretty hard for only being aperture priority and no manual. I rarely use mine because of this.
>> else !L6xabslN96
film/photography noob here, what exactly is a rangefinder?
>> Anonymous
>>109740
It's a different system for focusing/viewing. Google it for diagrams.

Rangefinders are generally smaller, quieter, and lighter than SLRs, and because of the absence of the mirror box the lenses to do not need to be retrofocal and so can also be smaller, lighter, and in many cases of superior optical quality. There are only a couple of companies that still make rangefinders and they tend to feature superb build quality and ergonomics. There are also currently two digital rangefinders on the market, the Leica M8 and the Epson R-D1s (made by Voigtlander).
>> Anonymous
Rangefinders are good for normal to wide. They suck for longer focal lengths. SLRs have it the other way around.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>109773
Eh? SLRs have no problems with the normal to wide focal lengths...
>> Anonymous
>>109775

Not as good as a rangefinder. Like I said, they both have their strengths and weaknesses inherent to the design.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>109776
Okay, but still. I understand the potential issues in long focal lengths on rangefinders. What theoretical or actual problems do SLRs have with medium to normal lenses compared to Rangefinders with 'em?
>> Anonymous
>>109510
>Framelines in a rangefinder aren't like a 100% focusing screen on an SLR, they're just a rough approximation.

I know, I was just hoping for something as close as possible. I'll take your word on it being close enough and avail myself of a nice M. Thank you.

>>109521
I thought about that camera, but I decided against it for two reasons: one, not as good of a rangefinder as a Leica would have. Two, the "look" of the lens didn't really appeal to me. A little too harsh.
>> Anonymous
>>109786
If I understand correctly, there's no "issue," it's just that retrofocal designs have lower optical quality.
>> Anonymous
>>109792

I would consider that a valid issue.
>> Anonymous
>>109796
Not really. It's an inherent limitation to be worked around by lens designers, which they often have. It's not like retrofocus lenses are in a photo-finish with the plastic lenses on disposable cameras.
>> Anonymous
In the contect of 35mm, it's not a huge issue.
You're not going to get spectacular 20x24 prints, no matter what.

If you want to print posters, use larger formats
>> Anonymous
>>109799

That's a retarded statement. You may as well have said the same thing to all lens and camera development after the dawn of the format.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a good design and IQ for the format.
>> Anonymous
>>109799
latest issue of american photography magasine has a 20x30" poster shot at 14mm at iso 6400 with d3 ...

there's nothing wrong with wide angles on dslr
>> Anonymous
>>109803
Lamer, it's not retarded. It's universal (which you support in your second sentence)

True, there's nothing wrong with it. There's just not a great deal of point when there's no visible difference in a practical print size for the format.
Both are good designs, and both have their strengths and weaknesses.
>> Anonymous
>>109809

"lamer" LAWL! 1/10

You've obviously never used a good rangefinder and lens so you don't know what you are talking about. There's not much point having this conversation with someone as clueless as you.