Woh--thanks for the huge survey of the possibilities. I've got a good list now to watch for on kijiji (a Canadian craigslist variant). I've definitely seen the Canonet and the Leica pop up a few times. The Leica is a fairly attractive option, but I'm afraid it may pull me out of my budget in the long run.
iamascientist wrote in post #16544080
$500 opens up a lot of options.
If you want a proper rangefinder you have all the fixed lens cameras from Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Konica, Yashica and others. There are so many options in this category.
You have the high end point and shoots like the Contax t2, Nikon 35ti, Konica hexar, Fuji klasse.
Theres whats considered the Leica of SLRs, the Olympus OM cameras. I personally love the OM2.
Theres the pocketable point and shoots like the Olympus XA and stylus epic, these cameras are cool because there cheap, capable, unobtrusive, and can go everywhere with you.
I'd recommend the hexar and maybe pair it with an XA for portability. You can pull that off for under $500. If you really want a proper rangefinder look into the Canonet QL17 GIII, that shouldn't cost you much.
Nice--did she already shoot film ?
Trent Gillespie wrote in post #16544119I gifted my significant other a Canon QL17 III and she loves it. It is a fun little camera to play around with.
Thanks, Kirk. I notice that the Minolta (and I think the Canonet) offer a max ISO of 800--is that normal ? In the digital medium I'm generally between 800-1600 most of the time, but it's also true that I can simply find ways to express given this possible constraint; that is, I can try to shoot more daylight stuff !
KirkS518 wrote in post #16544446I'll give the QL17 III a third vote, and 'll also throw in the Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII. Very small, and excellent lens that produces crazy sharp images. I just recently sold mine, and it was a great camera.
Yeah, I'm definitely leaning Canonet, even if it looks a little boxy to me.
v35skyline wrote in post #16544513I've got a QL17 GIII and it's my second favorite RF (that I have). I strongly dislike, but still own, a Yashica Electro 35 GSN. I think it's overrated.
I found some images of this camera+lens and scoffed a little--until I saw some of the photos that have come out of it--woh ! That's on my list of ones to look for. Might be a little big, though.
jetcode wrote in post #16545228One of my all time favorite travel cameras is a Fuji 645 60mm which uses 120 film and offers a 35mm equivalent perspective. It's smaller than a DSLR but the image quality far exceeds 35mm film.
Hah. Seriously, though, it's definitely where I'm currently at--MF would make the most sense in terms of what I normally shoot and what I normally care about. This RF project is about veering off this a little, shooting more in public.
maverick75 wrote in post #16545254Go big. Medium format is where it's at.
Oh yes--thanks for reminding me about that Ottawa camera shop. I totally forgot about it !
B.Toews wrote in post #16545363As others have mentioned, a Canon QL17 GIII would make a nice and affordable entry into film rangefinders. If you would like something even more compact, you could look into an Olympus XA. Or if you're willing to increase you budget, user Leica M2s can easily be found in the $600 range. You can find a Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 or possibly a f/1.4 for around $300 if you hunt around. I agree with skyline about the Yashica 35 GSN, I also own one and I don't really get what people like about them.
If you're open to small SLRs, the Olympus OM system is very nice! I love my OM-1n, which is about the same size as my M3, and much smaller than my 5D and 7D.
Seeing as you're in Ottawa, I'd make a visit to the Camera Trading Company on Bank. Last time I was in (mid November), they had a number of Canon rangefinders, as well as an Olympus XA, and OM gear. They occasionally have Leica Ms as well, I bought my M3 from them over the summer.
Won't a Leica with a decent lens be more than $500 ?
Furlan wrote in post #16545481I was going to suggest the Contax G2 but after checking the prices you may just as well look for a
nice Leica. Another good one that wont break the bank would be a Yashica T4 or T5.
Good point--no, I haven't really thought about output. I suspect part of what's attracting me to shooting film is being able to give up a little control in terms of processing and concerning myself more with the moment of capture. So prints mainly ? Yeah, I'll have to think about this.
TooManyShots wrote in post #16545688With $500, you can get some really nice, pro SLR film bodies, Canon F1, Nikon F2, or F3, Olympus OM 4. Even EOS 3 and to use it with your EF lenses. For a rangerfinder, I think the budget isn't enough for a good one like Leica, Voigtlander, or even Zeiss. Then, you get those low budget, toy like rangerfinders like the Canonet and other fixed lens rangefinders. Seriously, I think your number one priority is to determine your output platforms. Prints or digital scans? I bet mostly digital scans. Are you going to scan them yourself? If so, put aside at least $300 for a dedicated 35mm film scanner. Like the Plustek 8100 or the Pacific Image prime XE or XA.
