Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Good M-Mount rangefinder for fast 50mm lenses?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:54 am    Post subject: Good M-Mount rangefinder for fast 50mm lenses? Reply with quote
I never get happy Wink I wan't to sell my Minolta CLE and Summicon-C 40/2 (I can both sell and rebuy them with profit) to buy a very fast 50mm lens (f1.2 or faster).
Any idea which rangefinder will be precise enough and provide higher viewfinder magnification?
I was thinking about a Leica M3 or CV Bessa R2A - any recommendations?

Bye the way I don't like these underexposed-correctly exposed-overexposed LEDs on Bessa cameras. I prefer full automatic because it's easy or external light measuring by hand because it's better. So the TTL of non automatic Bessas is no a big advantage for me.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
i have the bessa t with 1.5 vf magnification. it is supposed to be the best focusing RF for fast lenses. i love it. have not missed focus yet, and did fairly often with my summarit 50/1.4 with other cameras. of course it requires framing through an external vf. i have a tewe 35-135, inexpensive, but does the trick. very compact, even with external vf, i often carry in my jacket pocket. also, least expensive of any non russian RFs.

as for metering, i have not had any issue in this regard with the T, always properly exposed, and having the meter on the outside of the camera is a huge plus in quick street shooting.
tony


PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The only film cameras with M mount, that I know of, which feature automatic exposure in aperture priority mode, are:

- Leica M7
- Zeiss Ikon ZI
- Konica Hexar
- Bessa R2a
- Bessa R3a
- Bessa R2m
- Bessa R3m
- Bessa R4a

If you decide to buy a cheaper camera that has no automatic exposure, then I would not set myself a limit due to the manual exposure dots. Just use an external meter and ignore the dots.
Actually, I think you can also not feed the camera with the battery, if the shutter is mechanical you will still be able to use it and the dots will not even appear.
If street shooting is what you are after, however, I strongly recommend spending more for an automatic exposure camera. The benefit of it is huge when street snapping.
And if you want to use it manually, you always can, just set it to manual mode.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't care very much about automatic.
I wan't to use more external meters (with the "white balls") in the future anyway.

Which M-Mount cameras are comparable cheap, precise and have (most important) a large viewfinder?

I also thought about the Bessa-T but the missing viewfinder is a bit abhorrent for me for the price and I couldnt find the camera below ~360€ (is that a normal price?)
How long is the "focal length" of the build-in "viewfinder" of the Bessa-T? Is it possible to guesstimate how a 50mm potrait will look or will I only see an eye or an nose through it Very Happy?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i dont know the Ts FL, but no you cannot guesstimate 50mm, the image is too enlarged for that. it is however as i said before, the most accurate RF camera you can buy. i bought it for specifically that reason, to focus my 1.4 50mm lens.

i got my first copy for a little over $200usd, mint condition. i now have the 100 year edition in navy, a beautiful camera.
tony

btw did you find the 5.5 adapter for the summicron 40-c i linked for you?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
i dont know the Ts FL, but no you cannot guesstimate 50mm, the image is too enlarged for that. it is however as i said before, the most accurate RF camera you can buy. i bought it for specifically that reason, to focus my 1.4 50mm lens.

i got my first copy for a little over $200usd, mint condition. i now have the 100 year edition in navy, a beautiful camera.
tony

btw did you find the 5.5 adapter for the summicron 40-c i linked for you?

No, thanks, where did you link the adapter?

200$ sound like a very suitiable price - I would buy directly without hesitation If I would find such a cheap offer. Here the cheapest price for a slightly used copy I found in the last few weeks was about 360€


PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
try looking on US ebay, there is one on sale now for $265usd.

re 5.5 adapter, it was on your thread about how to put filters on the cron 40-c...
tony


PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thx very much rbelyell!
The problem about Ebay.com for Germans is that we usually have to pay a lot for shipment (50-100$) and customs duty (+~20%) I decided not to buy an Bessa T unless I find it very cheap

At the moment I stand between Leica M3 (0.92:1 Viewfinder, 65mm effective rangefinder base(!!! but no 35mm framline)), Leica M2/M4 (0.72:1 Viewfinder, 50mm effective rangefinder base), Leica M5 (Same as M2/M4 but less compact and with TTL) and Bessa R3A (1:1 Viewfinder, but unknown rangefinder base Sad). They should be all avaible in my budget.

A local store offers a very good looking and as far as I know technically perfect M3 with and Elmar(it?) 90/4 and one year warranty for 600€ - if I would resell the Tele it would fit into my budget - is that a good deal?


PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
good luck FS. honestly though, if youre looking for accurate focus for fast lenses up close, i would not go with old leicas, regardless of base, as they will doubtless be a disappointment to you in this very specific aspect. also, at least for me, i like an 'on board' meter.
tony


PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Coming late to this, but . . .

The M3 rangefinder will give you the best chance of pin-point focus in all the Leica models provided it's properly adjusted and in good optical condition And - of course - if the candidate lens is also set up correctly Very Happy

If the M3 viewfinder and rangefinder images are clear and bright, then all that could be needed is for it be adjusted to factory tolerances. If the images are cloudy or indistinct, pass that one over and look for a better one. There simply is no better 35mm rangefinder/viewfinder . . .

If the camera rangefinder is correct but the lens mis-focuses, then - whatever it is - it can be adjusted by a skilled technician. But be sure to adjust the lens to a correctly set up body.

With any M Leica, you can buy a viewfinder screw-in magnifyer in either 1.25 or 1.4x. I have no experience of those, but many forum contributors say there's a loss in contrast and brilliance.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I may be partial to Zeiss, but now that I have the ZI, I would not change it for any other film camera, Leica or not.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
if leicas could be relied on to close focus fast lenses there would be no need for a camera like the bessa T, whose only purpose is to do what leicas couldnt. point is they cant, not as was said without 'technician' matching up camera and lens.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
if leicas could be relied on to close focus fast lenses there would be no need for a camera like the bessa T, whose only purpose is to do what leicas couldnt. point is they cant, not as was said without 'technician' matching up camera and lens.


With all due respect to rebelyell, I think he is somewhat mistaken here. Firstly, the rangefinder base length and image size in the M rangefinder (and of ANY other precision camera with a similar set-up) is more than adequate to focus accurately at distances under 2 meters. The Leitz factory tolerance for error at short ranges was nil, which has been carried through by Leica Camera. I'm sure that Canon and Nikon would have followed similar practices when they made rangefinder cameras. If the lens and camera are both set correctly, then the Leica/Canon/Nikon rangefinder will measure ranges with sufficient accuracy even for the widest aperture lenses.

The principal factors governing rangefinder accuracy are (as we all know!)
1: design and quality of manufacture, which are critical to consistent accuracy.
2: optical base length
3: visible image size
4: effective base length (optical base x viewfinder image size)

Longer bases are, given (1) above, inevitably of greater measuring accuracy than shorter ones. Increasing the image size adds to confidence in alignment but cannot in itself make the rangefinder able to measure distances with greater accuracy. The converse is equally true - reducing the image size makes reliable operation harder but doesn't affect the mechanical accuracy of the rangefinder.

The Bessa follows the logic of the screwthread Leica cameras (models III to IIIg) in using an increased image size to compensate for the relatively short optical base of its rangefinder. Its effective base (optical base x image size) is still slightly less than the M3 and scarcely more than the M2 and M4. It is, in fact, about the same as a Leica III series. Paradoxically, this is of greater benefit as distances increase and it becomes harder for the operator to judge image superimposition correctly.

I have no doubt that a properly set-up Bessa T will measure ranges as well as a similar M3, or an M2/M4, but it simply can't be expected to be more accurate. (Mr Gandy's website is very persuasive, but might well have been written by a politician's spin doctor.) The image size in the M3 particularly is large enough to allow easy assesment of alignment at all ranges. The Bessa may be better value for money, though, at least for some photographers.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that errors in the setting of lenses are more common and troublesome than rangefinder problems, particularly with digital imaging. Leica User Forum is riddled with users complaining that lens A works properly when lens B doesn't.

I have a Bessa R which works perfectly at close distances with a 35mm f1.7 Ultron at full aperture. I know from using the same lens on a Lumix G1 that ANY focus error at under 1.5 metres will produce a less than shap image, so I'm confident that Mr Cosina can make good rangefinders. Biased in favour of Leica I am certainly not! Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
wow...i give up! Very Happy

however, in my defense i will lastly site my own experience. regardless of camera i used i could not properly focus my summarit 50/1.5. although perfect in vf, all my wide open close up portraits backfocused. i was going to give up on RFs altogether when i read about the bessa T on Gandys site. since having the T i have not missed focus on any shot, it has revitalized my summarit as well as my interest in RF photography.

perhaps i am mad, or my experience is unique. i cant argue the science, only experience (though i recall from school the hallmark of the scientific method is 'observation'?) Laughing
tony


PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
wow...i give up! Very Happy

however, in my defense i will lastly site my own experience. regardless of camera i used i could not properly focus my summarit 50/1.5. although perfect in vf, all my wide open close up portraits backfocused. i was going to give up on RFs altogether when i read about the bessa T on Gandys site. since having the T i have not missed focus on any shot, it has revitalized my summarit as well as my interest in RF photography.

perhaps i am mad, or my experience is unique. i cant argue the science, only experience (though i recall from school the hallmark of the scientific method is 'observation'?) Laughing
tony


Hi Tony !

Nah, don't give up - Very Happy

Funny things happen with rangefinders and lenses - I bought a used Leica-screw Voigtlander 90 Apo Lanthar a while back and it worked just great on my M8, close up or out to infinity. Then I sent the M8 back to the factory to get a couple of things tweaked and while they had it they set everything back up to factory spec. When it came back , the Apo Lanthar is way out at close range but gets better as objects get further away. My 90mm Tele Elmarit which SEEMED okay before at close range is now decidedly better at around 1/1,5 meters and still fine at infinity. My 50 Summicron was perfect before and is still so now, as is my 35 Ultron, my 75 Heliar and my 135 Hektor. But my 35 Summaron now back focuses slightly at close range . . . and my 50 and 135 Jupiters were inaccurate at all ranges before and still are - even though they line up correctly at infinity !

No, you're not mad, rangefinders and (allegedly) coupled lenses can be queer beasties. And they can drive you mad in both senses of the word. Experience may not always beat theory, but it often confounds it, eh?


PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stephen i have to say, were i you, i'd feel a right lot more than 'confounded'...i'd be pretty pissed! Very Happy

i do think what you say is true, these RFs are a peculiar lot. i guess the thing to do is try to find some combo that works for you, and then dont screw with it!

seriously, though, your experience is exactly why i havent invested in a digi RF...
tony


PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stephen i have to say, were i you, i'd feel a right lot more than 'confounded'...i'd be pretty pissed!

Aww, no . . . it's all part of the Joy of Rangefindering Exclamation
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
Page 1 of 1