Going bessa?

ic-racer · Feb 11, 2012

I just got back from a low light project shooting an autofocus Nikon SLR and a Bessa R4. It was not too dim, but I was using slow wide lenses and EI 200 with flash. (Non-flash reading with the Bessa was f4 at 1/8). I can't say one is better than the other in terms of low light focus, they both have advantages and disadvantages. I was using wide angle lenses (35mm and 21mm) and near the end of the night I had pretty much reverted back to zone focus for both cameras.

Rol_Lei Nut · Feb 12, 2012

dugrant153 said:
Well, I received the NikonF3 H2 screen and it's actually made focusing worse for me when light is low.... believe it or not. I guess maybe a G2 screen might fit the bill but at this point I think I'm done trying to make this work for low light. When there's plenty of light, it's good. I think this screen requires some amount of light to work.

Rollei_Nut softly mumbles to the wind something about Leicaflex SLs...

dugrant153 · Feb 12, 2012

Rol_Lei Nut said:
Rollei_Nut softly mumbles to the wind something about Leicaflex SLs...

I just tried an R5 (big mistake) and it's an amazingly beautiful camera .

I managed to play around with a Bessa L (body only - no VF). It really felt like a toy and it was super light. Mind you, no lens or VF attached but I got the sense that it would not last my wedding assignments. Maybe that's just the feel but the build quality may be deceptively better than I thought? I think the R3M is of much better construction, if I remember correctly.

zumbido · Feb 12, 2012

Colin Corneau said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but Bessa's require batteries, no? That alone would rule out a body for me.

As someone else pointed out, this isn't accurate--there is no battery-reliant Bessa without a mechanical sibling.

But secondly... you're already carrying film that you have to change every 40 frames, max (if you bulk-load your own 135). A battery is 1/50th the size and weight and you have to change it once every few years. You're worried about being battery-reliant? Seriously? If you're on a critical assignment, you'll have a second or third body anyway. My eyes roll so hard they fall out every time I see this line. Nothing personal, I just can't begin to understand. Especially from Leicaphiles, who happily use cameras whose focusing mechanism is rendered unpredictable from a bump against the wall.

ntenny · Feb 13, 2012

zumbido said:
But secondly... you're already carrying film that you have to change every 40 frames, max (if you bulk-load your own 135). A battery is 1/50th the size and weight and you have to change it once every few years. You're worried about being battery-reliant? Seriously? If you're on a critical assignment, you'll have a second or third body anyway. My eyes roll so hard they fall out every time I see this line. Nothing personal, I just can't begin to understand. Especially from Leicaphiles, who happily use cameras whose focusing mechanism is rendered unpredictable from a bump against the wall.

I don't think pros worry about it that much, but hobbyist travel photographers can get bitten pretty badly by a dead battery at the wrong time. I only packed one camera because of limited space and a recalcitrant spouse, I remembered to load up my pockets with film but didn't remember that I might need a battery (hey, I haven't needed one in the last few years!), and I'm halfway up a mountain in Outer Elbonia when suddenly my camera poops out on me. Avoidable with some foresight, but mighty unpleasant if it happens and arguably a good reason to favor cameras that, at least, aren't *dead* dead if you made that mistake.

Arguably, everybody should be able to plan ahead and cover themselves for this kind of thing. On the other hand, it can be kind of nice to have one thing less to worry about. It's enough to make me prefer a mechanical shutter, all other things being equal; but I'm kind of flaky about planning ahead and more organized people may not care.

-NT

mgb74 · Feb 13, 2012

How is good is the Bessa viewfinder for users with eyeglasses?

ntenny · Feb 13, 2012

mgb74 said:
How is good is the Bessa viewfinder for users with eyeglasses?

It doesn't bother me---I haven't noticed the framelines blacking out or anything, and I think I have good visibility to the edge, although since I don't have a 35mm lens I haven't really checked.

-NT

dugrant153 · Feb 13, 2012

So I just heard from my loc photo shop that the distributor for Voigtlander in Canada has gone out of business. Soooo.. no new Bessa's in Canada for awhile.

Looks like the used market is the way to go ... At least in Canada!

Colin Corneau · Feb 13, 2012

zumbido said:
As someone else pointed out, this isn't accurate--there is no battery-reliant Bessa without a mechanical sibling.

But secondly... you're already carrying film that you have to change every 40 frames, max (if you bulk-load your own 135). A battery is 1/50th the size and weight and you have to change it once every few years. You're worried about being battery-reliant? Seriously? If you're on a critical assignment, you'll have a second or third body anyway. My eyes roll so hard they fall out every time I see this line. Nothing personal, I just can't begin to understand. Especially from Leicaphiles, who happily use cameras whose focusing mechanism is rendered unpredictable from a bump against the wall.

Well, good luck with that ocular condition of yours but keep in mind batteries = fail for a whole lot of other reasons than just wearing out.

They also fail in cold weather. Not even that cold, to judge from the experience of a friend of mine this past year. Nothing matters other than missing the shot.

I'm also mistrustful of extra electronics that, frankly, you don't need. It's just one more thing to go wrong. And when things go wrong, you don't get the shot (see:above).'

Getting into pissing matches over brand names is childish, but I've yet to have this 'bump on the wall' syndrome you speak of, and neither has anyone I know. I'm just sayin'...

Colin Corneau · Feb 13, 2012

I'm also just sayin' that a used Leica -- one of those mechanical bodies -- can be had for near the price of a new Bessa. An M2, M3 or M4 body are out there. Mechanical Bessa bodies are also the way to go, if that's viable, although I'm not familiar with those offerings...best of luck with the search.

Newt_on_Swings · Feb 14, 2012

Sometimes batteries just fail at the most annoying times. Its usually where you want to capture something quickly, or someplace like on a boat when the waves are really roiling and shaking you about, or someplace where its just a bit too dark to see what your doing clearly, or when its wet or raining outside. Terrible times where even though you have spare batteries, its just a pain to switch em out. But this doesnt put me off from using cameras that have them, I quite like in camera metering on a few of my bodies, aperture priority, and the possibility of very fast and accurate shutter speeds.

But those who know, always carry a spare body =] and just keep on shooting until you can find a spot to change the other set.

Also, even though your camera might not have a battery, your light meter sure does, well atleast the accurate ones nowadays. That doesnt stop you from buying a handheld light meter does it?

Zet Slater · Feb 14, 2012

Buyer Beware

I had a Bessa body that had focusing issues. I sent it to the New York store I bought it from - they could not repair it and explained to me they had to send it back to Japan to repair. Four months later and they still have no idea when it might return.

Leigh Youdale · Feb 14, 2012

Colin Corneau said:
I'm also just sayin' that a used Leica -- one of those mechanical bodies -- can be had for near the price of a new Bessa. An M2, M3 or M4 body are out there. Mechanical Bessa bodies are also the way to go, if that's viable, although I'm not familiar with those offerings...best of luck with the search.

I'm not sure how valid an argument this is. Based on a record of serial numbers I have (and note that Leica didn't necessarily follow a calendar year progression when allocating numbers) M2's could be between 54 and 43 years old. M3's between 58 and 53 years old. M4's between 45 and 37 years old and the M4-2 and M4-P models between 35 and 27 years old. Sure, they were solidly built and are relatively simple, mechanically and so easily maintained. If they were that good, was there any need for Leica to produce any new models after that?

It sounds a bit like saying the only cars to drive are 35-55 year-old Packards or Pontiacs or even Cadillacs because they were similarly top quality in their day, solid, well built and easy to maintain, and rejecting more recent automobiles because they use electronics and fuel injection which, because of their complications are bound to fail. Carburettors, coils and distributors are definitely the way to go if we adhere to your logic. So we'll put up with poor suspensions, poor visibility, poor gas consumption, no aircon, no disc brakes or ABS etc.

A handful of classic car enthusiasts will dote over these vehicles, and other makes which were things of beauty in their day, but the majority of people wanting modern transport with all its' conveniences will choose something else.

Leigh Youdale · Feb 14, 2012

Zet Slater said:
I had a Bessa body that had focusing issues. I sent it to the New York store I bought it from - they could not repair it and explained to me they had to send it back to Japan to repair. Four months later and they still have no idea when it might return.

That's unfortunate. The Voigtlander distributor in Australia has organised a fortnightly courier service to Cosina in Japan and knows exactly where everything is and when it's expected back. He doesn't use the postal service. He talks to them directly. It probably costs a little more but for me it's worth it. Having said that I've only needed to use it once for a flash malfunction on the R4A.
I suspect Stephen Gandy does the same but a third party store might not be able or willing to provide such a service.

Rol_Lei Nut · Feb 14, 2012

Leigh Youdale said:
I'm not sure how valid an argument this is. Based on a record of serial numbers I have (and note that Leica didn't necessarily follow a calendar year progression when allocating numbers) M2's could be between 54 and 43 years old. M3's between 58 and 53 years old. M4's between 45 and 37 years old and the M4-2 and M4-P models between 35 and 27 years old. Sure, they were solidly built and are relatively simple, mechanically and so easily maintained. If they were that good, was there any need for Leica to produce any new models after that?

Apart from any marketing reasons (Leica is already poo-poed by the "features" crowd for not being innovative enough, imagine if they hadn't come out with a new model for 50 years...), basically all the new models added were light meters, AE and - sometimes - few more frame framelines and a different rewind lever.

Those cameras were that good. They had/have all that is really needed and with a CLA every few decades will last several lifetimes.
A comparison with cars is senseless.
Does the "convenience" offered by more modern cameras really lead to better pictures?

For me the choice between a used M in good condition and a new Bessa for the same price is a no-brainer.

2F/2F · Feb 15, 2012

Rol_Lei Nut said:
Does the "convenience" offered by more modern cameras really lead to better pictures?

The way I see it, the features lead to the ability of less skilled technicians to produce a higher percentage of "passable" pictures. The features don't make pictures "better" most of the time. They just make technically acceptable pictures more likely. That is all. The problem is that when you can get more technically passable pictures with less technical ability, people are no longer required to learn as many of the details of their craft. And if they aren't required to, they usually do not.

But, hey. It happens in every area, and it is both good and bad. Look at how few people know how to drive a manual transmission car, or one without power steering or power brakes. More people are driving than ever, though they have less and less of an idea exactly what it is their car is actually doing under the surface.

dugrant153 · Feb 20, 2012

Took another look at going bessa (more as a compliment to my Nikon setup than a replacement).

Well, I've taken a look around and notice that quite a few Bessa's get put up for sale. Also, seems to be some issues with shutters/quality control.

I seem some R2A's and R3A's on classifieds and am wondering... what are some things to look out for? Is there any way to test for certain problems early?

paradoxbox · Feb 21, 2012

I recently bought a Bessa R after I saw one in rough cosmetic condition show up for cheap (Around $140). It works great. The viewfinder is really big and bright, and the selectable framelines are very nice as well.

I have another rangefinder, a Kiev 4 in immaculate condition, which has the same extremely long RF base as a Contax II. In practice I don't notice the difference focusing on either camera that much.

I find that the large bright viewfinder of the Bessa R makes up for the smaller RF length, but I'm still fairly young (26!) with good vision, those who have less than perfect vision might not feel the same way.

As far as all the Leica comparison.. A Bessa R in good shape, not needing any repairs costs 100-200$ and gives you a reliable meter. A Leica M2 in decent operating condition will cost you 500$ or more.. Is it worth it? Depends on you. A Bessa R can use both LTM lenses, AND M lenses with an adapter. You can't go the other way around.

I had the money to buy a Bessa R2 or R3 or even enough to buy a Leica M8 (Which I'm still thinking about..!) but I decided to go with the R for now because of the ability to use LTM lenses, and because the build quality was good enough. I really have to wonder what people are doing with their cameras that makes them feel like a Bessa R would fall apart. It's a camera not a construction tool. It's well built enough.

Rol_Lei Nut · Feb 21, 2012

paradoxbox said:
As far as all the Leica comparison.. A Bessa R in good shape, not needing any repairs costs 100-200$ and gives you a reliable meter. A Leica M2 in decent operating condition will cost you 500$ or more.. Is it worth it? Depends on you. A Bessa R can use both LTM lenses, AND M lenses with an adapter. You can't go the other way around.

I had the money to buy a Bessa R2 or R3 or even enough to buy a Leica M8 (Which I'm still thinking about..!) but I decided to go with the R for now because of the ability to use LTM lenses, and because the build quality was good enough. I really have to wonder what people are doing with their cameras that makes them feel like a Bessa R would fall apart. It's a camera not a construction tool. It's well built enough.

Errrr.... I think you have that backwards.

A camera with an M mount can mount both M mount and M39/LTM lenses (the latter with an adapter). An M39 camera will only mount M39 lenses.

paradoxbox · Feb 21, 2012

woops, you're right, my mistake.

the viewfinder etc. are still fantastic on the Bessa's though.

kivis · Mar 19, 2012

Colin Corneau said:
Why would you get a Bessa when there's Leica M-series bodies? Or even Zeiss Ikon, for that matter.

Because the results are just as good and its cheaper.

Going bessa?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency