It really doesn't matter. As I'm sure you know, unlike with digital models, the body is the least important part of the camera. It does lock you in to a specific lens mount - but there are excellent lenses for every mount, and converters to change as needed. You're on a budget, which means you're going to make compromises no matter what - so why also burden yourself with the "hidden cost" of collectability for Leica? The Bessa R is well-liked for a reason. Spend the extra money on glass - or at least not on the Leica name. Ultimately, I wouldn't worry about it; everything you're looking at is widely available both to buy and sell on eBay. If you decide to change, you can always get rid of it in a year, and consider the eBay fee a cheap "rental cost".
And Rollei 35s are great! Biggest problem, actually, you didn't list - the zone focus. When I last used one, I just shot 3200 ISO film and stopped down. I'm almost exclusively digital now - or else with a MF TLR - but a pocketable RF might be a fun pickup. If you want to get rid of yours, let me know. :)
(Rather than guess, don't forget your cell phone is a great light meter; should be free apps for any platform for both spot and incident - or frankly, you can even just use the photo app and see what exposure it chooses.)
This is as good a place as any to ask... and since I'm waiting on the imacon here to finish scanning...
The bessa is great. I've never seen a CL in person, but it's probably also really good. But the choice I would make is an Olympus 35rc. It's tiny, really inexpensive, the provided lens is way better than they have any right putting on the thing, and it's got all the settings you need and none you don't want.Show Image(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3076/2854331486_dc4ec51605.jpg)
Yikes. That's like 3 times the price of the zinc-air replacement here in the states.
The Olympus only needs the battery if you want the meter to do some of the work. If you run it full manual then you don't need to have a battery in the camera, and from what I can find, it won't refuse to work unless you set something to auto.
But since you want a replaceable lens, I'd go with the bessa. The one I held had one of the best rangefinders I've ever looked through. Know that you're technically in the entry level rangefinders here, but you're very quickly going to be dropping serious coin on good lenses. But a 39mm screw mount lens will pretty much always be a useful tool.
, why shouldn't I get it instead?
, why shouldn't I get it instead?
Now it depends on what makes you happy about photography. You've mentioned gear so far, but nothing about what you plan on doing with it. Are you into collecting old photography gear, for the sake of collection*? Are you looking to do street photography? Travel photography? Fine art? Photojournalism? Are your photos going online, clipped and pinned to the wall, or matted and framed? Are you looking for a fully analogue workflow (film to silver print) or digital (film to scanner to pigment print)? And if digital, do you have access to a suitable scanner?
I love the baby Olympus because it's exactly what I think a rangefinder should be. A non-fussy, inexpensive, reliable tool that is small enough to take everywhere with you and won't draw attention. But that's what would fit into my life, since I already have a nice 35mm slr with a great selection of glass, a couple of medium format old manual cameras, and some large format pinhole cameras. My use is not necessarily your use.
So if you're into gear, get the one that sounds most exciting now. If you're into making big prints and want to eventually mat and frame them, probably get the bessa or Leica, as once you get around 8x10" you'll see the difference in lens sharpness. If you're looking for a camera that will go everywhere with you for documenting and exploring the artistry around you, the baby Olympus might be more rewarding than the "better" one.
* this kind of sounds like a pejorative, but I don't mean it that way. Gear collection can be fun! And I shouldn't have to say that on geekhack...
I've been looking into this myself in the last couple of weeks. Just discovered that rangefinders were a thing and I really wanted to try one. I managed to grab two Minolta hi-matic 7 for cheap but they also both came broken and unusable. The parallax line up mechanism was really cool though so I'd still love to try a rangefinder out. But I'm no longer willing to take the chance on under $30 hi matics on eBay.
Would love to know where else I can go to find rangefinders or how to fix them up... And more suggestions on models to hunt for.
For what it's worth, I had the same idea as the OP. I wanted to get into film photography. For slr cameras, I narrowed my hunt to Canon AE-1, AE-1 program, and Nikon FE. I'm extremely happy with my FE and have been happily shooting with it for 2 weeks. Can't wait to see the developed prints.
You can't go wrong with a Leica M5, and you can find them in a just slightly higher price range.
But then the lenses are the more expensive investment in the long rest as some said.
Sniping fotos of Pretty girls from far away eh?
/Tp4 Approved..
Please share fotos..Show Image(http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/onion-head/bled1-onion-head-emoticon.gif?1292862492)
How about a Nikon F3? Very cheap, great lens compatibility.
Not possible. The same way that non-Ai lenses can't be used on new cameras.
Damn those two "best shots" are really nice. I've been looking at picking up an Olympus 35 SP just because I want to shoot a 35mm rangefinder. Really wish I found one when I went shopping. Thanks for the scans :D.
Nice shots. Thanks for sharing.
For negative film a bit of overexposure is ok and maybe preferable. Granted, I only shoot B&W negatives, but I always aim to overexpose by 1/2-1 stop. The dark bits on the film will still have information but if not enough light hits you really get nothing at all. If you want down the rabbit hole search for reciprocity and specifically reciprocity failure. My guess is that you should be able to get those images (especially the one you really wanted to be better) fixed up with more careful settings while scanning. They probably just ran the same setting for the whole roll, or just let the machine go on auto. If I'm scanning for fine prints, I'm using a flextight and adjusting every frame individually. And for challenging negatives I'm making multiple scans at different brightness and combining in Photoshop.
tl;dr if you really like the composition, try getting a better scan.
***and I wrote all that and then looked more closely. Those are underexposed, and there might not be much you can do for them. If I'm shooting hand held exclusively, I'm shooting 400iso.
And for the good CPT'n, come on out to SF. We have a wonderful store that had about 40 35mm rangefinders for sale last time I stopped by.
I got a fully manual rangefinder myself recently... I need to develop the most recent rolls I shot and I'll post a couple if they're worth scanning.
Oh for sure. I probably just should have said that film has a ton of latitude, and that doing stuff when printing/scanning to adjust contrast and exposure is not only possible, but common. But only go into that stuff if you have a negative you really, really like. I rent use of the scanner mentioned for $55 an hour (it's a $20k piece of kit) and I can scan about 3-4 frames in an hour. But I won't scan if I'm not planning on printing.
I also have someone else develop my color film, the tiny bit I shoot. Developing color is nasty business. And printing color is kind of a pain, because you can't have a safe light on in the darkroom. It's a good thing I really like B&W and I enjoy the hobby of developing and printing. Otherwise I really couldn't be bothered.