How do other rangefinders you have used compare to your M? we usually get some comments on voigtlander, and an occasional comment on contax g1 and g2, but what about the others? I personally shoot with a contax IIIa which I picked up for $250 with a 50 f1.5 lens. the camera is a solid well built camera with excellent chrome work. it is difficult to focus in low light, but the lens is quite sharp. i prefer it to the leica screw mounts that i have used but it is definately out classed by my M3. I also shoot with a fuji gw690 in medium format. the camera body is plastic and tacky, but the lens is sharp and the price is right. the 6x9 negative allows plenty of options for cropping and enlarging. the body includes a level and a running exposure counter. the exposure counter is a nice inexpensive addition that i wish professional cameras would add. it helps to let you know when it is time for your camera to be serviced

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), May 29, 2002

Answers

my much worn BessaR ...

http://64.192.168.77/bessa/index.html

... unlike my M's, it will focus accurately at minimium distance with the lenses wide open. Those pics are from about 4 months ago, the finish is even worse now, literally rubbing off with the pressure of my thumb on whats left of it (paint just rubbing off, joining the Ether, etc etc).

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 29, 2002.

X-Pan ain't all bad. Slow lenses compared to my Leica outfit. But the panoramic format is a lot of fun to compose with. Very nice color. When set on the standard 35mm format it falls down compared to the Leica glass. No TTL, but I don't miss it. I just use any old flash with the auto feature.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.com), May 29, 2002.

Charles; re "unlike my M's, it will focus accurately at minimium distance with the lenses wide open"

Your Leica M 's roller cam's arms are not adjusted correctly..ie either they are too short or long........ When adjusted the leica will focus corectly at all distances.

Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 29, 2002.

i would love to have an xpan!! it makes me drool just thinking about it...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), May 29, 2002.

Currently my only 2 non-Leica rangefinders are the Konica Hexar RF which I used to call "my Leica M7" but now I call it "my Leica M8", and a mint Ukrainian Fed 5C I got for $15 with ERC and 50/2.8 Industar lens. Judging by the rangefinder alignment and shutter accuracy, when the Soviet Bloc fell, it must have landed full-force on that camera. But it looks cool in the display case.

I owned a Fuji GW670-III for a short time, it was nice but film flatness was less than perfect. I also had a Horseman VH-R, a 2x3 technical-field camera with a coupled rangefinder, which I liked a great deal but sold for some Hassy gear. Back in college I had a Konica Auto S-1.6 (with AE) which got sold toward the M4 (without even a meter) which I still own. And in high school I found a Baldina at a junk store, which I used while I was the yearbook photographer (didn't want to bring my LTM's to school)and subsequently, when the flash sync gave out, sold to a kid in junior high who was getting into photography. I think he's CEO of some megacorporation today.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 29, 2002.

I also regularly shoot w/many other RFs (mostly Zeiss Ikon Contax II & IIa, Canon P, & Kyocera Contax G2) & my M2 & M3 (especially the M3) definitely have the best VFs. The Canon P has a very nice, life-sized 1x magnification VF, but the (reflected, not projected) framelines & round RF spot can be hard to see (I'll have to try the yellow gel on the RF window trick). In fact, the VF & the availability of fast lenses are the main reasons I got into Leica (I like to do a lot of low-light & stage/performance shooting). In all other respects, such as build quality, shutter reliability & accuracy, film-loading, etc., my other "classic" RF cameras have been comparable or superior to the Leicas (makes me wish Leica had more competition today).

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@yahoo.com), May 29, 2002.

The Contax IIIa color dial I have is a nice solid camera, but lacks the refinement of a Leicas M by a large margin. Shutter release is not as smooth, finder is small and pretty dark,plus no other finder lines, parralax compensation, etc. Easy to load though, and the built in meter works surprisingly well. They sure were some great Zeiss lenses that were made for those old Contax cameras.

I also have a Voigtlander (a real Voigtlander!) Vitessa "barn door"folder with a f2.0 Color Ultron-a very nice lens. That camera is actually a lot of fun to use and if it had a bit brighter finder would really be a superb camera. I love the plunger rapid wind and the thumbwheel focus, as well as flash sync at every speed and the compact though weighty size. The leaf shutter release linkage is not as smooth or direct as a leica M, and that limits low speed hand holdability some. I have gotten some images with that camera that look very much like those taken with a Leica M and a 1950's vintage Summicron-nice tones and not too contrasty. If you can find a really nice example of this camera, it really is a good shooter. Mine even has a working, accurate built in meter.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 29, 2002.

My only non-Leica RF is a Canon-7SZ, the ultimate evolution of the Canon RF series. It is a nicely made Leica SM camera with a built-in but non-TTL cadmium sulfide lightmeter powered by the now outlawed mercury cells (with two sensitivity ranges). It has multiple parallax corrected VF frames (35,50,85,100,135 mm)which are not actuated by mounting the lens: you select the frame by rotating a wheel. The VF mag is 0.8X. The RF patch is weaker and less contrasty than that of a Leica M. There is a hinged back for film loading. It's not a bad camera, but relatively few cameras were made, so they are not easy to find. The 7S has similar features and is a bit more common.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 30, 2002.

1) Old Olympus 35RC. Faint rangefinder patch. Nice and compact. Shutter priority AE very efficient. Light seal wears out. Lens good but no chnace to try interchangeable Leitz lenses. 2) My father's old Ricoh 35SP. Match needle exposure, selenium cells, lens not bad at all: like many Japanese ones, seems contrasty but without the same resolution as the German ones - of that era, 1960ish, anyway.

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), May 30, 2002.

olympus xa. the perfect cheap, but high quality backup. great design, manual focus, adjustable f-stops, excellent 2.8/35mm lens, unhearable shutter as small as 35mm gets.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 30, 2002.

The Canon GIII QL17! Amazing little rangefinder that can be used manually without batteries. Light, quiet, cheap, amazing glass. Did I mention cheap? I have two, both purchased for under $40.00

-- Ben Hughes (ben@hughesbros.com), May 30, 2002.

Contax G2 with the 45/2 and 90/2.8, all black. Excellent travel/family combo. More automated shooting, but the results are stunning.

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), May 30, 2002.

Olympus 35 RC, nice and compact RF with AE and manual override. It still uses that PX625 mercury battery.

-- edgaddi (edgaddi@msn.com), May 30, 2002.

A number of these cameras are leaf shutter cameras with fixed lenses; not fair; they make no noise. The M camera seems about the quietest of the focal plane shutters, and what distinguishes it. I have a late Canon with a metal shutter which works great but attracts attention. Early Leicas with top speeds of 1/500th seem quiet. I have a pre war Contax II which is accurate & relatively quiet but I don't use it for obvious reasons. Just want a quiet life

-- James Elwing (elgur@acay.com.au), May 30, 2002.

I assume you mean the ones that I have now: Personally, I prefer RF for the things it will do.

My 45 y old M3 still has the most contrasty focusing area of any RF that I have. It also has the best view finder. The M6 was also easy to use, but the finder was cluttered. The Bronica is close enough to the M's to not warrent discussion. The Mamiya 6 x7 is more difficult to focus [the focusing area is less contrasty in mine] but easier than a 6 x 7 SLR. As you go to even larger formats, the focusing contrast decreases IMHO. I don't think I am supposed to discuss Linhof here. ;<)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 30, 2002.