Best rangefinder for iso 3200 film?

K

kreuzberg

Messages
174
Edit My Images
Yes
I was looking into getting a small rangefinder style camera that I could keep loaded with Ilford 3200 film so I could easily stick it in my bag whenever I go out to take pictures with friends in low light conditions and I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on a suitable camera?

Ideally it should be as small as possible and quite cheap as my budget is limited. I really like the canonet 28 or canonet ql17 but the maximum iso is 800 but something along the same lines is what I'm looking for. I dont mind if it has full manual controls or not but I would prefer semi-auto as I will mainly be using it for snapshots.

I would be grateful for any suggestions, thanks!
 
Do either of the cameras you mention have exposure compensation on them? If so could you set them to ISO800 and -2EV? It would work but if you're limited to -2EV then you'll be goosed if you need to dial some -EV in for real.

not much help really am I, soz.
 
I've just found a manual online and it doesnt mention anything about it. I was thinking along these lines ***, that i could under expose the shots using the onboard light meter although I have no way of knowing how many EVs I'm under exposing it by so who knows what results I'll get!

EDIT: I've found the manual for a canonet ql25 and this has an adjustable aperture ring so presumably if I exposed it correctly at iso 800, then closed the aperture 2 stops this should work?
 
Kev M said:
Do either of the cameras you mention have exposure compensation on them? If so could you set them to ISO800 and -2EV? It would work but if you're limited to -2EV then you'll be goosed if you need to dial some -EV in for real.
Click to expand...

Delta 3200's real speed is around ISO 1000 so an 800 setting would be fine.


Steve.
 
kreuzberg said:
I've just found a manual online and it doesnt mention anything about it. I was thinking along these lines ***, that i could under expose the shots using the onboard light meter although I have no way of knowing how many EVs I'm under exposing it by so who knows what results I'll get!

EDIT: I've found the manual for a canonet ql25 and this has an adjustable aperture ring so presumably if I exposed it correctly at iso 800, then closed the aperture 2 stops this should work?
Click to expand...

That would work but you would be negating a lot of the need for shooting 3200 film as you wouldnt then be shooting wide open to get as much light in as possible which I would be assuming you'll want to do given your shooting iso 3200 film in low light.

I dont know much about RF's but if you could get a meter reading in an auto mode then you could switch to manual and dial in some adjusted speeds.
 
Steve Smith said:
Delta 3200's real speed is around ISO 1000 so an 800 setting would be fine.
Click to expand...

Wow really, I didn't know that. Why do they market it as 3200 then, surely its just misleading people?

mole2k said:
That would work but you would be negating a lot of the need for shooting 3200 film as you wouldnt then be shooting wide open to get as much light in as possible which I would be assuming you'll want to do given your shooting iso 3200 film in low light.

I dont know much about RF's but if you could get a meter reading in an auto mode then you could switch to manual and dial in some adjusted speeds.
Click to expand...

The next highest sensitivity I can find is 400, so in theory using 3200 and stopping down should give me 1 more stop of brightness over 400 at max aperture.

The other reason I was wary of using 400 at max aperture was it might give me a too shallow DOF.

But then if delta 3200's actual iso is actually is 1000 then I might be better off with using 400 and keeping it simple.
 
If you are shooting at max aperture, it doesn't matter what film you use, the depth of field will be the same.

Why 3200?

For everyday snapshots, use 400 and get on with it. I would prefer 100 and use some intellect when you start getting into dim lighting. Support etc. 400 should get away with just about anything except full sunlight.
 
Lensflare said:
If you are shooting at max aperture, it doesn't matter what film you use, the depth of field will be the same.

Why 3200?

For everyday snapshots, use 400 and get on with it. I would prefer 100 and use some intellect when you start getting into dim lighting. Support etc. 400 should get away with just about anything except full sunlight.
Click to expand...

Got to agree with the above, I rarely stray above 400 and prefer 100, but do have some 800 Fuji Neopan that I have used on some really dark Urban Explores..............but 3200 :thinking: what you shooting??
 
Lensflare said:
If you are shooting at max aperture, it doesn't matter what film you use, the depth of field will be the same.
Click to expand...

Thats why I wanted to use a higher sensitivity film, so I could avoid using max aperture.

I'd be shooting stuff in pubs and restaurants with similar lighting to this:

3725793387_b3ae225cef.jpg


I didnt take this pic, i just found it on flickr to give the general idea. Would 400 be ok to shoot in a place like this?
 
3200 is good for dark holes like churches, dimly lit restaurants and pubs, you'll struggle to cover every situation with 400 unless you push process it.
 
I dunno if there is a truly pocketable rangefinder, the small cameras are compacts.
So I'll chuck in the Yashica Electro as a rangefinder option, and keeping with the cheap and cheerful theme, a Nikon L35 AF as an autofocus compact.
Both have coupled metering.

Another thing is, rangefinders at your budget are fixed lens and not very wide, you'll be lucky to get anything under 40mm, which might be a bit long, I dunno...:shrug:
 
My mums actually got a Yashica electro 35-me and she loves it. The one big scoring point for the canonet though was that its half frame so I can get twice as many shots on a film, yet the films only cost an extra £2 to process so it only would cost me £10 per 72 shots instead of £16.

But maybe thats the cheap mans way to look at it :LOL:
 
what about a faster lens instead I've found f2.8 iso 400 to be a bit slow in pubs giving 1/30-1/60th of a second shutters where you can get blur

but f1.4 iso 400 is the equivalent of iso 1600 @ f2.8
 
Well I've never used half frame before, thats why I was interested on giving it a try. Ive looked at sample pictures on flickr though it gives some nice results with 400 B&W film.

I think I'll try and find a canonet ql17 within my budget and try some 400 with it, whats the worst that can happen right?:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top