>>2749403 Well I now I can see it's the camera cause they look like the same one as in this pic. I'm guessing the people holding it are significant in some way but idk who they are. They are good Photoshops though.
>>2749443 Sorry, buddy. No need to be so upset. I looked through the thread again and didn't see anything that deserves a "rangefinder" thread at all. Just more gear talk outside the gear thread and the strange stupid discussion about photoshops. So, if you made 4 posts in this thread they can't have been very good ones. Answering "wuts a gud camera?" posts doesn't make you some kind of /p/ saint who gets to talk smack at the rest of us.
>>2749431 >What makes you think they're photoshopped? You serious? Maybe >I spent ages making that pic >I'm not a shoopist. I was just curious as to what was photoshoped because it was implied. If its not, great If it is, that's fine.
>And how can you not know who Sean Connery is? I'm a retard pleb you can hold me on that one.
>>2749581 I took the camera from Sean Cannery's hands (playing James Bond there I think) and put it in front of a 16th cantury character called the Witchfinder General from the movie "The Witchfinder General.
I took my fed 4 out for the first time today. Pretty sure I'm doing everything right. Minimum focus distance seems to be about 4 feet. I hope to god it's working alright.
>>2750127 Well it's built like a tank apart from the shutter speed selector. ONLY ADJUST THE SHUTTER SPEED AFTER YOU WIND THE FILM. I'm pretty sure mine has been twisted at the wrong time. I fired a few shots at different speeds with the back off, from 1/4 to 1/60 it looks right, I can't really judge higher than that.
Well I'll know when I get my film back. This is very exciting stuff.
From the last thread. My Fed 3 finally arrived with a case in excellent condition which was not mentioned in the auction. The camera overall was better than I expected. I've tested the shutter speeds against my 550D and they are very accurate, at the most maybe 1/4 of a stop out. The only thing is the rangefinder patch is slightly out of alignment vertically. I know this can be adjusted, anyone here done this before?
I want to know a method that has actually been tried by someone on /p/ thanks.
>>2749247 in the old days Japanese rangefinders were fantastic clones of Leica and Zeiss, sometimes with improvements. Nikkor still made lenses canon, so the optics weren't compleaty shit. Build quality was on par with Leica and really, that is why a Nikon S2 will cost you more than a Leica M2.
pic - my new rangefinder, heading out saturday to shoot and I can't wait.
I don't mind answering this as there's often a lot of bad info around rangefinders. People often through non-rangefinders into the mix, like the X100, and you get Leica haters, etc.
If you follow this workflow it should cover some suggestions for you that work according to your needs. It's just my recommendations about what I would buy so not all options are included.
It's just a starting point and there's always other options. Remember that a lot of rangefinders (especially affordable ones - e.g. Epson RD1) are quite unique so you'll need to look into them to understand their flaws and if they'll work for you.
Do you want to shoot: Film ---> go to 1 Digital --> go to 2
Do you have the finances to spend on: High-end (at least £1,000+) but nothing needlessly expensive --> add .a Mid-range (around £400 - £700) --> add.b Budget (sub £400) --> add .c I'm poor and/or just want to try it for fun so cheap as possible --> add .d
FILM 1.a Leica M6 TTL MF rangedfinders like the Mamiya 7
1.b. Zeiss Ikon
1.c. Voigtlander Bessa cameras from R2 onward.
1.d Canon QL17 Yashica Electro
My personal recommendation for best performance for cost is the Voigtlander Bessa R2. It's reasonably cheap to buy, well built and rugged for the price, is m-mount, and easily repairable with no ridiculous electronics to give-up on you.
1.a Leica M9 / M-E (well over £1000)
2.b Leica M8 (If you look hard you might just find one around £700) Epson RD1
2.c/2.d Does not exist
There are very few options if you want to shoot digital rangefinders. Only Leica make them now. People love to hate on Leica prices but digital rangefinders are extremely hard to make and very few people want to buy them. The Epson RD1 cost almost the same as the M8 when new and it was unsustainable for them.
The only two remotely affordable digital rangefinders are the M8 and the RD1. Both are capable of great results when used within their limitations.
>>2750493 Why the m6 ttl and not the regular m6? How often do you need ttl flash on a rangefinder? If you are going to use flash you can get a good lightmeter for less than the price difference between the two.
.85 viewfinder is nice I guess if you never shoot wider than 50
As insignificant as it sounds the reason I recommend the M6 TTL over the M6 (classic) is because of the shutter dial.
The M6 TTL and M6 Classic have shutter dials working in different directions (i.e. clockwise vs anticlockwise). Leica change it from the M6 TTL onward.
In isolation this isn't too big a deal. BUT... It can be quite a frustration if you end up with another body. Say, the M6 + a digital M. You end up with two identical looking cameras (almost) but shutter dial working the opposite ways. Can be an annoying mind-fuck.
It's a little thing, but one of those little things that matter, IMO.
>.85 viewfinder is nice I guess if you never shoot wider than 50
The .85 viewfinder is optional on the M6 TTL. Mine had a .72 (just sold it). [Pic show the MP vs M7 but the shutter dial differences are the same as M6 vs M6 TTL]
>>2750501 Cool, I didn't think there were any other differences. I didn't know about the shutter dial being different on the TTL. My Nikon F2 has it the other way from my m6 and I do find it confusing.
I left the Leica CL out as I think for the money the Bessa R2, R3, etc, is a much better buy.
Regrading the dial, I do appreciate that it works the other way (M6 -> M3) but I'm thinking that it's far more common for people to add a digital to an M6 rather than another film M.
Regarding flash --> lots of people. I think it's sad that a lot of people have such an aversion to using flash with a Leica. As if it's some sort of taboo. It's just nonsense, IMO. Using flash on a rangefinder is no more/less stupid than using flash on a SLR.
Just try to get a decent clean and well adjusted camera. A lot of people buy a super cheap rangefinder, which is out of adjustment and barely visible patch, and dismiss all rangefinders as crap. It's worth spending a little more for an enjoyable experience.
>>2750621 fair enough about the CL, the bessa is a better camera but my feeling with leica is that it is often a quicker sell than non leica rangefinders. So if you don't like rangefinder approach, it doesn't take that long to get back your investment.
Lenses on the other hand, Minolta Rokkor glass is a super value if you want cheap M lenses.
with the dial, not trying to be contrarian, just pointing out it all depends on what way you are coming from. really there is a rangefinder for everyone. I think there is more variation in 35mm rangefinders than there is in SLRs. The Fujiblad Xpan is a vastly different experience than the Zeiss Ikon.
flash - nothing wrong with it, but a lot of rangefinder shooters are hard core on available light
>>2750621 >Using flash on a rangefinder is no more/less stupid than using flash on a SLR. I'd say better, because you see the flash through the viewfinder, and know exactly what you caught. Also at low flash powers you have a confirmation that the flash actually fired, sometimes it's difficult to tell with an SLR. >as long as you're not using something ancient and actually have the switch set to M-sync for 2 whole fucking rolls ;_;
Yeah, away from any niche or limited edition stuff used Leica anything can be a good buy as there will always be a market for it and you can get your money back. I sold an M6 for exactly what I payed for it after owning it for 2 or 3 years.
I've never used any m-rokkors but I was looking at the 90mm and it's definitely cheap. IQ looks good too. Just the f4 putting me off.
>flash - nothing wrong with it, but a lot of rangefinder shooters are hard core on available light
I'm 100% convinced that people adopt this attitude because they lack the ability/skills to use flash well. Any idiot can use flash badly but using flash well and mixing ambient/flash is a real skill. Some people are happy to admit that it's not a skill they posses so they just work with ambient. Others force the whole hardcore ambient light thing so their feelings don't get hurt.
One went a few months ago on eBay for £300. I don't think that's a ridiculous amount of money for someone which is obviously not available in large numbers. Especially when you consider the M8 will cost £700-800.
The R-D1 is 6mp and 1.5x crop vs the M8 at 11mp and 1.33x. I think the RD-1 is slighty better at 1600 but both aren't exactly good at higher ISO.
There's a lot of rangefinder users still getting really good results from them. Too many people obsess over gear and forget that you don't really need all that much to get good shots. Look at the original 5D - I had one new and briefly used on again last year. Still a great camera and more than most people will need. You could easily ask why a dSLR from 2005 still goes for £300.
>>2751659 great point, it print size is not a concern a lot of the older CCD based cameras were great. I personally think they had better colour rendition than the current CMOS offerings. The Fuji s5 was probably the best digital SLR ever made (not including MF cameras)
Sadly the consumer demand was for 10bizillion ISO and over saturated colour with shit depth.
Something I should have posted in the previous rangefinder thread, still applicable, still worth mentioning.
PSA: For any potential FED-fanciers out there, regardless of anything else about the soviet leica knockoffs, there's one thing few people mention - the stock Industar-61 L/D has awful, awful barrel distortion you'll have to put up with or correct in post every time. Included an uncropped scan example.
>>2752451 It is awful when you plan and compose a shot around straight lines and symmetry - i.e. in that classic reflective surface selfie, framed by the doorframe's rectangle. Each to their own, but w/ rangefinders you can't see a ground glass image and are sorta dependant on assuming your viewfinder image will be what's on film, save for parallax and fov.
>>2752685 Buddy, 1.Cropping. 2.This was the first time I was using a rangefinder and the first time I've used a FED5. The entire point was to shoot stuff like this exactly to figure out these shortcomings. 3.You're blaming the tool instead of the workman, why assume something's difficult to do from a single snapshit? 4.Cropping. 5.High-end rangefinders have both stepless parallax compensation and very precise/accurate framing for popular focal lenghts.
>>2752946 the batteries it takes are not produced anymore and had a slightly different voltage resulting in the light meter to be slightly off when using modern LR44 batteries. I got good results when compensating a full stop, so when shooting 400 ISO film you set the dial to 200 and you're good.
>>2753002 you can eaaily replace the seals with rubber foam you find at any crafts store. Just cut 1-2mm strips of 2mm thick foam at put them into the gaps. thick wool might also work, but I haven't tried this.
>>2753006 >>2753006 Wouldn't you have to cut out the corroded ones? I wouldn't be too afraid to try this but if Walmart doesn't have the rubber foam then I'd be sol since the nearest craft store is somewhat far.
>>2753014 just use a toothpick and scrape them out if they're that much corroded. This is the stuff I mean: http://www.amazon.com/Foam-Sheets-2-Inch--2-Inch-50-Pack-Rainbow/dp/B00284NN82/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1453748423&sr=8-4&keywords=foam+crafts
>>2753020 Actually, I think I may have seen those the other day while browsing craft stuff with a friend. These will do great since it is only the top portion of the images that are being ruined anyway. Thank you.
>>2753027 I'd replace top and bottom anyway, otherwise you have to start working on the camera soon again. I only have to walk 10m to the next crafts store to get this stuff and it is very cheap here. You could also buy the real stuff here: http://www.ebay.com/sch/pilgrim18/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=
Note that I was talking about copper eur 1cent coins before. Not sure which foreign coins fit and I guess you just have to try other coins.
>>2753032 That's what I meant to say, apologies. Going to look at the rubber foam inserts a little more since they're already at the store. As for an adhesive I'm assuming just some sort odorless and translucent paste.
And as for a coin I think an american dime may fit in the compartment.
Just got my M39 -> Fuji X adapter and tried out all the M39 lenses we've got in the household. I shot each lens wide open and at f8. My subjective results on these copies:
Jupiter 8 - Really soft wide open. Good at f8. Has some nice character. Lowish contrast. Industar 26 - IMO the loser. Sharper wide open than the Jupiter 8, but doesn't really improve when stopped down. Low contrast, boring. Industar 61 - Nice wide open, works at f8. Pretty good lens. Industar 50 - Heavy vignette at wide open (f3.5, slowest of the bunch). A bit soft, but great contrast. Vignette is gone at f8, real sharp.
The Industar 50 seriously impressed me, I think I'll be shooting this on my Fed 2 for the rest of the roll I've got in it. Jupiter 8 was a bit of a letdown, but my copy might be bad too.
>>2754243 You're an idiot. >>2754240 You'll have a 6x6 slight tele 6x9 rangefinder folder with shutter speeds from 1/250s to 1s f/3.5 lens focusing down to 1,5m min - some might find these specs lacking. Pointless to go for an older Zeiss or Voigtlander because they've similar if not inferior specs and are older, more likely to be broken, and more expensive, as you pay hipster tax for the brandnames and buy'em off rich germans rather than poor ukrainians/russians.
>>2753882 I really like your wording and objectivity - "how these copies subjectively seemed to me" - no retarded generalisations and overinflated notion of credibility. Did you research anything about those lenses beforehand? Asking, because your test matches up with the general opinions on those lenses perfectly.
>>2754261 These specs aren't too bad for me if its just going to be landscapes, and some portraits. Would I be better off with a Kiev MF SLR? Never occurred to me that parallax maybe an issue for portraits until now.
>>2754261 Thanks! Yeah, I've googled them before and watched some comparison pics, but wanted to do my own too. Seems there can be a bit of a difference between copies, but to be honest after testing it seems a bit exaggerated. My Jupiter though is actually pretty scratched and banged up, and even has some fungus growing on the edges, so it might have lower contrast than better copies.
>>2754302 Sadly the p-six mount slr 6x6 kievs are failure-prone, moreso than their (honestly comparably priced) pentacon six predecessor. You either only buy more expensive, proven-working ones from credible sellers, or go straight to Arax - the company that refurbrishes Kievs, replacing failure-prone mechanisms and improving existing ones. The prices are still very reasonable for a western buyer. But those are square fomat MFs, landscapes would suffer from that. Also, incredibly ridiculously large, bulky and heavy, with a mirror snap louder than your mom last night, supposedly. Pic related, stolen off someones flickr via google image search.
If you're gonna focus on 6x6 might as well go for the hasselblad copy Kiev 88, original or refurbed by Arax.
All that said, ultimately any camera can make a good picture if used correctly, and the Moskva-5 with its slight tele 6x6 and normal focal for 6x9 seem perfect for both square portraits and nice, wide landscapes. Parallax is something you learn to compensate with one test roll or by improvising a ground glass screen on the film focslmplane with the back open and comparing viewfinder image with actual shot framing. Less'n'hour's work innit.
>>2754240 I have one. Has taken some nice shots for me but the light leak ruined it. Thankfully the image is so big cropping it will still gave me a usable image. The chance of getting light leaks in Soviet cameras are high.
>>2753882 Cannot judge on the Industar 26, but: Industar 50 is slow, but really nice. Heard they called it eagle eye. Industar 61 might be a bit too contrasty sometimes. My favourite is the Jupiter 8, nice lens with interesting bokeh. Best shot in good light (e.g. golden hour) for color. Attached photo is from a series of private shots I took with Zorki 5 and Jupiter 8 after CLA (testing focus adjustment).
>>2754392 Light leaks from what, anon? The leather bellows that deteriorate at very different rates depending on storage and usage conditionsnover the decades? Those easily replaceable things every vintage camera repair service makes with their eyes shut? Or is the camera body itself give lightleaks, that thin metal tin that can be misshapen when dropped from over 4ft, ruining the light-tight seals? The kind of damage that's entirely dependant on the camera's previous owner, rather than an unavoidable manufacturing flaw developingmover time?
For goodness' sake, be specific when accusing a brand or camera make of flaws because otherwise you're only shitting on its reputation because of your own ineptitude. Are you sure the lightleak problem isn't your fault?
My Ricoh 500 G just arrived and externally it looks fucking new. Mechanically it seems fine. Optically it's great and there is no corrosion in the battery compartment. One problem, the light sealing foam has turned to mush. wot do?
>>2755132 Thin craft foam can do it, felt or wool can work too, as long as it'll stick. I used foam and it worked pretty good in my canonet, it does tend to bunch up a bit but as long as you stick it in right it shouldn't be an issue. In the mean time you can always just tape the back of the camera up.
>>2755023 Can't you just type in "Industar 61" in flickr? I mean, if you want to see how the lens renders stuff (as absurd as that is with how post/editing work), or do you specifically want vosh's stuff? I've an entire shitty 24 colorplus200 roll shop-scanned with Fed5 Industar 61 L/D testshots.
>>2755172 I've used some 1mm craft foam and it's not happening. The door won't close, or it will but it feels like it's going to pop the clasp. I made another sheet where I used the minimum amount of foam to still get a seal. Still too chunky to close.
I've got some felt and some light seal foam in the mail. Will report back.
Got my Ricoh 500g up and running. Scraped the old light seal gunk out. Replaces with craft foam. Wouldn't close. Scraped craft foam out and ordered some light seal foam. Stuck that in. Feels good. Put l44 battery in the wrong way. Thought the electrics were goosed. Changed the battery round. All good now.
The thing is, I'm pushing 400asa film to 3200 but the metering options only go to 800.
>>2759023 at 800 and 2 LR44 batteries you're near 1600. Higher will only work if you adjust the shutter speed. So you would have to check the correct speed for your chosen aperture and then adjust the speed to underexpose 1 stop.
>>2759028 Stop doing what shit? Pushing film? You think I should be a good little boy and stick to 800asa or below? Fuck that. This is basically a club camera. I can stop down 2 from whatever the meter tells me, if I even look at it. I've been eyeballing the ISO on my main camera for the last year and I'm getting decent at it.
If I actually want properly exposed crisp shots, I won't be shooting on a cheap rangefinder from 1972.
>>2759050 disregard it.. won't work anyway. I mixed it up. I had good results when compensating a whole stop at mine, but I guess it's better you try some bracketing when exposing the first film and check.
>>2759061 Yeah. This is going to be the first roll i develop myself so it's mainly an experiment. I'll be happy enough if any pics come out. There's a good chance I'll fuck up putting the film on the spool and throw my tank at the wall.
>>2759073 the problem is that you can only shoot at the compensated (if necessary) ISO aperture/speed combination as the camera is going to open the aperture for the set speed according to the ISO. There's no way of pushing this. I didn't think of this before. Keep calm when getting the film on the reel. It's the worst part at the beginning. You're going to get better the more you shoot/develop.
>>2759086 >the camera is going to open the aperture for the set speed according to the ISO That's only if I wanted to use the auto aperture feature isn't it? I do't think that's something I'll be doing anyway.
While I'm on the subject, does anyone kmow anything about light meters? I think I might be needing one as I get more into film. Can I get away with a cheap one?
>>2759196 It's got a film speed setting around the front of the lens. Then a focus ring (3ft - 30ft infinity) Then a shutter speed ring (500th - 8th Bulb) Then an aperture ring (2.8 - 16 Auto)
If I have the aperture ring on anything but "auto" there's an "M" in the bottom left of my viewfinder. I can see the aperture closing when I twist it. I don't think the camera needs the battery to operate at all. It's just for the meter and auto mode.
Now that this thread is not dead can someone help me. Got a FED 3 but I cannot figure out how to adjust the rangefinder patch VERTICALLY. I have no problems with horizontal adjustment which is good cause the vertical adjustment apparently offsets the horizontal alignment so I'll have to adjust that after.
>>2759295 Whats wrong with ebay? Got my FED 3 in better condition than I expected. Only thing is you probably will need to adjust the alignment which hopefully someone will answer my post >>2759290 soon.
>>2763562 I've heard they tend to break easily and are a bit quirky to use. For me personally I just liked the way the FED 2 looks, the specs were right and I've got access to a bunch of M39 lenses already.
>>2763595 I heard that Leitz and Soviet M39 have slightly different alignments, though. The razor wheel and "contax grip" do kinda suck, but it's pretty nice to use overall. Plus, its lenses are supposedly better/focus closer than the Soviet M39 alternatives, but that's not usually what we're in this for anyway.
It's really well built, I think I need to get used to the rangefinder format - I've always shot with 35mm SLR - so there is an added difficulty.
The only issue that I've come across is the battery, which needs to be substituted for something similar. Now, I've done this, I got Duracell 625 zinc air cell (£2.50 for 6!), but I needed to make a small metal shim to wedge between the battery and the holder since it was loose. It works great - but I think the camera works without a battery as it's fully manual - so I might get a light meter.
Cool camera, can't wait to get my pictures developed.
I hate to do another "wat camera iz gud" post, but maybe you guys are feeling charitable since I pretty much know exactly what I want.
Anyway, here's what I'm looking for:
>Compact >Usable RF >Fixed lens around 35mm, f/2 or faster >No meter or auto modes necessary >As much metal and gears and as little plastic and electronics as possible >Works with modern batteries, or without batteries at all >Preferably under $200 in working condition
The Canonet above seems to tick the right boxes pretty well. I see that it doesn't work with modern batteries that are available in the US, though. Does it only need a battery for the meter, or is it actually critical to make the camera work?
>>2763734 http://www.ebay.fr/itm/371373106929?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2648&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT I found an adapter for the batteries on ebay, they manage to get the same old 1.35V current in the camera (so it doesn't overcharge the light meter) Can't wait to get my camera in the mail
This pops up in every thread with old CdS lightmeters - both handheld and built in - and ill-informed fucks always post the same posts, repeating the same misinformation. Look: >CdS-cell based lightmeters need a constant (not changing, seriously, can't stress this enough) reference current to work - to measure light intensity. >Older CdS meters relied on the clutch existence of mercury-based power cells outputting an almost-ideally steady current of 1.35 volts. They were cheap, readily available, gud. So camera meters used them. All was gud. Until >muh environment and >mercury poisenous omg bs caused them to be withdrawn from use. >Later CdS meters have built-in voltage stabilising circuits so alkaline and zinc batteries, which put out lower voltage as they deplete, could be used.
OLDER METERS LACK THIS CIRCUIT.
YOU CANNOT REPLACE 1.35V BATTERIES WITH 1.5V ALKALINE ONES AND HAVE RELIABLE READOUTS.
Sure, they will work - giving wrong readings. How wrong? Depending on how depleted the battery is - how much its voltage depleted. Sorry if I mix current and voltage, techppl. Principle same.
>inb4 ppl say they do it and it works and I'm retarded.
Sure it "works" - film is ridiculously lenient with exposure, we all know this. It's better than sunny16, but don't expect perfectly exposed slide films from your old camera. Get a lightmeter that takes 1.5v batteries. Or buy a converter like >>2763931 said, it effectively makes the battery output around 1.35v till it dies, technicalities aside.
Please, for the love of Glod, cut the "old battery for camera lightmeter" bullshit discussions in every single thread.
>>2764424 Yeah as long as it gives out a steady voltage over its entire lifespan you just gotta compensate a few steps and it works perfectly - albeit its normal range is reduced by the amount of steps you gotta substract/add so its lowlight or bright light metering range suffers - never tried, don't remember which.
Hearing aid batteries zinc-air batteries give 1.35-1.4V, but once you start the chemical reaction by stripping their sticker, they run out in two months or something like that - inevitably. So pretty shit in the long run, dependability-wise. Converters if done correctly are the best long-term solution, imo.
>>2764439 Silver oxide does give steady voltage until it dies, unlike alkaline as you say. I use a 1.5v silver oxide in my canonet with a bit of tin foil to pad the compartment out. I've never felt the need to compensate at all, auto exposures all fine. I can't speak for every camera but at least on the canonet in my experience the difference is completely negligible. I have read that with a converter you lose the ability to use the check battery function on the canonets.
Thread replies: 157 Thread images: 18
Thread DB ID: 508890
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.