full price R3A or cheaper R3M? Please help!

ryca

ryca

@_2126000
Local time
2:21 PM
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
28
Location
Western Australia
View My Gallery
Hi All

Need some help please!

I’ve been looking at Bessa’s for a while and decided I’d sell my D70 & replace it with a R3A.

I chose the Bessa R3A as I figured having the ability to change from full Manual to AE would be advantageous at times....and well to be honest, I dont think I’m really *that* confident a shooter yet to trust myself with a camera thats ALL manual– especially with film as it’s not as easy as digital where you can quickly shoot, preview the shot to check exposure then reshoot if necessary .

So I have made my mind up on this decision and was just waiting a few more weeks until purchase (as needed to save a little bit more for lens also) but now have a spanner in the works....
...I’ve been offered a mint condition R3M for around $150-200 less then a new R3A.

Should I just get the R3M, save the $150 and put it towards a lens?
Will I be able to handle it? I don’t want to buy it only to find out every shot I take is going to be exposed incorrectly?
What I think Im asking here is.. is there a big learning curve on the R3M? Will a person who regularly depends on A-Priority & S-Priority be lost with this camera?

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
I can only say the whole time I had an R3a it never let me down and one does not hear about it here on RFF. The batteries are easy to find, smal, cheap and last long.

The electric shutter is quiter than the R3m and of course more consistent in speed than a mechanical one.


On the other hand I rarely used the AE and learning to work with the R3m meter is easy and if you do not use the R3a's metering, AE and AElock correctly you will end up with the same mistakes on both cameras.
You should off course see if the mint second hand camera has any warranty left.

Cheers,

wim
 
Last edited:
I've got an R3A and I'd switch to an R3M, but they are generally a smidge more expensive. If I could find one for less, I'd go for it.

I hesitate to recommend you try working manually, especially since you are now shooting with a D70 -- it will certainly slow you down -- but all I can say is that it will eventually make you a better photographer.

I did have one (just one) occasion where I missed a shot or two when my R3A's batteries died and I had to fiddle changing them, but it surely won't happen again anytime soon.
 
As a mainly slide film shooter, I'm a big fan of aperture priority auto exposure, so would choose an R3A over an R3M for the added exposure accuracy.
 
I have an R3A and the aperture priority is good, but you can't get away from making exposure compensations in diffcult lighting circumstances - which slows things down (as you will know). Using the exposure lock button is quicker again, but then you still have to use judgement.

I guess getting to know the light meter is most important, it isn't an 'infalliable' multi spot matrix meter on the R3A. The only bad exposures I have had were the ones where I let the automation take control without thinking about the lighting. You can't look at a screen on the back to see if you were right to trust the AP!

Coming from an AF and AE Dslr to a R3x, there's going to be a learning curve in the way you take pictures. Perhaps it will be slower and more considered (no bad thing?) regardless of which R3 you get. The manual focus is quite different for a start!

I doubt with the R3M you would be consistently dogged by poor exposures, particularly as soon as you got to know it and taking full control of exposures. From what I understand (please correct me if I am wrong); generally, film (not slide) has a large latitude (dynamic range) which will be slightly more forgiving in terms of exposure compared to Dslr sensors.

The R3M was more expensive when I was buying. And R3A can of course be used full manual if desired anyway - but it doesn't work without batteries. $200 would probably go a fair way to a nice used lens. The new camera will have warranty?

Overall the learning curve will be large from Nikon to Bessa, but I think the difference between Bessas is less significant. Enjoy your decision!
 
A loud vote here for the R3M.


The truth is that AE allows you to shoot without caring for the expo... But 90% of your shots won't be properly exposed. Even with AE you should use the metering just as a guide and decide correction for every shot depending on how light or dark it is... Or exposure lock... So AE isn't really AE!


With the R3M you decide every time. Not only about deciding and having perfectly exposed shots as the general rule, but also about learning, and learning quickly lots of things about light in the way real photographers have learned for near two centuries.


I was tempted to buy the R4A. I was lucky I got a good advice here and got the R4M instead... It has marked a whole new way for me, even avoiding AE in digital: now I meter, focus and shoot manually in digital... No doubt at all: finally I am getting the best results from digital too.


The R3M is one of the best cameras in RF world. I would buy it even without warranty. Yesterday there was a Special Edition R3M at KEH.com for a good price... Or buy it new from CameraQuest with free shipping inside the USA and a free black case...


R3A is a more delicate camera, by the way.




Cheers,


Juan.
 
ryca said:
especially with film as it’s not as easy as digital where you can quickly shoot, preview the shot to check exposure then reshoot if necessary
Click to expand...
surely the shot is gone already...
Juan Valdenebro said:
The truth is that AE allows you to shoot without caring for the expo... But 90% of your shots won't be properly exposed.
Click to expand...
Well maybe not 90% but I agree in general. You can get very lazy with AE.

I think your experience of moving from SLR to RF will slow you down anyway. It takes a little time to get used to being able to see outside the frameline through the VF, visualizing DOF (no DOF preview in RF!) etc. The learning curve of moving to a rangefinder is bigger than that of switching from AE to manual. Unless you're going to shoot color slides you don't really need the stepless exposure accuracy provided by AE, but if you feel a bit lost without AE maybe you should stick with it. Only you know how badly you need the crutch of AE.
 
R3M is more like having a shutter-priority camera as you'll fit the aperture to the chosen shutter speed and you'll probably end up taking more photos at mid-range speeds and apertures (say 1/125 - 1/500 and f4 to f11) whereas with an R3A it becomes easy to take photos at more of the extremes - say 1/1000 and f2 or faster - and that will make the photos look quite different.

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that I like AE (I have an R3A and Nikon FE) but find I don't like manual cameras with internal meters (I sold my M6 and MP and FM2n) as I'd rather use an external meter (I've kept my M3) when using a manual camera as I'm less likely to be driven down the shutter-priority route.

(I know you can always take the batteries out and use a separate meter but I like trying different cameras 🙂
 
Last edited:
I think this stuff about getting "lazy" with AE just means that the people in question are lazy... or, they think everyone else is and they're trying to insult you.

The "truth", since someone wanted to claim that mantle, is that when you're shooting in manual mode you're always making your choices based on either aperture or shutter priority--in your mind.

Unless you're just letting fate handle your exposures.

So, that being the case, why not keep the capability to choose the parameter you care about and let the camera choose the other? The statement in this thread that "90% of your shots won't be properly exposed" is laughable trash, to put it bluntly. The metering and AE on the R2A and R3A is very good. It was rare that I needed to correct it. It only misjudged those few times when I had no choice but to shoot into the sun with gradations of silhouettes in the foreground, and so it had to deal with an extreme variance of EVs across the scene.

The fact is that *especially* in the difficult lighting that people say makes AE useless, a proper modern AE system with aperture priority will usually get the job done equally or more accurately than you on your own, and almost always faster.

Not always. I still use manual on my automatic bodies a good, I dunno, 10% or 15% of the time. But unless you are in dire financial straits, or grew up using manual cameras and don't know what you're missing, losing that ability for AP is so not worth it. It's not a crutch anymore than metering itself is a crutch, or shooting with your eyes open instead of just sensing the light through your lids.

How aggravating, this puritanical conceit.
 
Hi All!

Thanks so much for all the replies...it's really been so helpful getting insight from experienced users.

Right now I'm still umming & ahhing... but the thought of the full manual doesn't seem so daunting anymore. I do understand with 'auto' cameras, the shooter must still take into account certain lighting situations etc, so I guess deciding how to shoot something from the start (with a 'manual' camera) will as mentioned, force me to be a better photographer. That being said, I still think I'd go with the R3A if they were the same price point (only in this situation due to the offer of a *cheaper* option)

Something skibeerr said about the R3M is bothering me a little though:
The electric shutter is quiter than the R3m and of course more consistent in speed than a mechanical one.
Click to expand...

How much of an issue is this? Should I be worried that shutter speed of a full manual camera will not be as consistant as its electronic brother?

Lastly, I've been shooting with me Yashica Electro 35 GSN recently... would this be a sufficient introduction into the rangefinder world (albeit it being a fixed lens) or is the Bessa rangefinder something completely different?

Again, thank you all for the replies... this seems like a really helpful & friendly community (unlike dpreview!)... I think I just may stick around here for a while

Cheers!
r
 
Frankly speaking - when compairng the AE and non AE cameras - I do se NO difference wheter I use AE and apply an +/- exposure correction based on the situatin and my knowledge - or I just use the meter in camera and and just the eposure in +/- direction directly with useing other shutter speed or aperture. None of the two above is more "clever" than the other one - in both cases one uses the built in meter and starts from that point. Surely - if you allways without thinking set your camera to AE and fire away - you will get not correclty exposed images if the scene is not close to medium grey - but the same danger is when you use the information from the meter and just translate it into particular shuter speed/aperture setting.
However - the AE will allowe you to take shots where there is no time to contemplate about the eposure setings - and in most cases you get your shot. With the manual camera - it will be just harder.

So - with the above said - I would go with the R3A - most probably with a used one - these sell about $100 - $150 less then new ones anyhow ...
 
Ryca, the Yashica is in the same ballpark, but you're likely to notice two differences immediately. First, the Bessa will be easier on the eyes viewfinder-wise than the GSN. Clearer and just generally nicer. Second, it feels far better. Nothing wobbly, nothing clunky, well-balanced. But yes, the Yashica is a useful introduction to rangefinders.
 
climbing_vine said:
...why not keep the capability to choose the parameter you care about and let the camera choose the other?...

...The statement in this thread that "90% of your shots won't be properly exposed" is laughable trash, to put it bluntly...

...The metering and AE on the R2A and R3A is very good. It was rare that I needed to correct it...

...The fact is that *especially* in the difficult lighting that people say makes AE useless, a proper modern AE system with aperture priority will usually get the job done equally or more accurately than you on your own, and almost always faster...
Click to expand...


1) ...why not keep the capability to choose the parameter you care about and let the camera choose the other?...


Because a good photographer can decide things, take control on both parameters when both of them may be decisive, not only on one of them... Of course it depends on your good understanding of photography. For example, let's say one sunny day you are using your Nikon FE in A, and you're in front of a person you want to photograph, and when you try to shoot you can't, because you got no more of that roll film; you already shot frame 37... You see the metering and it was 1/4000 f/5.6... Then you realize anyway you would have preferred a narrower depth of field so the details on the white wall behind the subject could go nicely out of focus... You think what the hell, it wasn't possible... With this Nikkor 50mm 1.4, to use it wide open, I would have needed a speed of 1/64000...!


Then you find me at your side just passing by, and I offer you my plenty of the same film R4M to make the shot yourself, with my Nokton 40mm f/1.4... You tell me it can't be done because of your Nikon metering of 1/4000 f/5.6... I recommend you to make the shot thinking, I mean instead of with AE. Then I explain you that your AE camera can't know, never, any right metering, but only a blind promedy of reflected light. So I tell you that your AE camera was wrong. By so far, I mean... So I continue and tell you then that because of that sunny white wall, your camera thought there was a lot more light than really there was, and I state that the real situation should have been metered as 1/4000 f/2.8, that's 2 stops of difference between your AE machine and my brain. Then I recommend you to take control on both parameters: instead of 1/4000, open one more step to 1/2000 on my Bessa because there's no 1/4000, and use f/1.4 on my Nokton (open 2 more stops) for a narrow depth of field, and then I put a 0.9 ND filter on my camera: THEN you can focus easily, what you couldn't do if doing the same on your Nikon...


Then, thanks to my generousity and clear understanding of photography, you get your shot done AND well exposed. This is called photography, which is far away from clicking in AE without thinking.


2) ...The statement in this thread that "90% of your shots won't be properly exposed" is laughable trash, to put it bluntly...


It's a simple math thing. How many scenes reflect exactly the light reflected by a medium gray? Almost none. Really less than a 10%. If you get wrongly exposed negatives constantly, and then try to correct while printing, or scan and use photoshop to hide your lack of skills, it is not called photography. Give it any other name you want, but it's a totally different thing from #1 perfect shot. Any fool knows what happens if you shoot a roll of velvia in AE.


3) ...The metering and AE on the R2A and R3A is very good. It was rare that I needed to correct it...


You, of course...


4) ...The fact is that *especially* in the difficult lighting that people say makes AE useless, a proper modern AE system with aperture priority will usually get the job done equally or more accurately than you on your own, and almost always faster...


You are very wrong, really. I recommend you some study. I don't mean a career and the degree I have on photography, but a very basic course. Or you can shoot in AE as a child, and keep smiling, to put it bluntly...


Glad to have helped you,


Juan.
 
Last edited:
climbing_vine said:
I think this stuff about getting "lazy" with AE just means that the people in question are lazy... or, they think everyone else is and they're trying to insult you.

snip

How aggravating, this puritanical conceit.
Click to expand...
I fully admit to being lazy, which is my personal problem with AE. Over the course of a number of years I've found that my exposures are more accurate using manual exposure, that's all.

Keep the tone down mate, it doesn't help.
 
climbing_vine said:
Ryca, the Yashica is in the same ballpark, but you're likely to notice two differences immediately. First, the Bessa will be easier on the eyes viewfinder-wise than the GSN. Clearer and just generally nicer. Second, it feels far better. Nothing wobbly, nothing clunky, well-balanced. But yes, the Yashica is a useful introduction to rangefinders.
Click to expand...

ahh thanks mate, comforting to know as the *yellow* focusing part in the Yashica viewfinder is so faint that its at times a little tough to determine if i've focused right! cant wait to get mine.. !
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
1) ...why not keep the capability to choose the parameter you care about and let the camera choose the other?...
Because a good photographer can decide things, take control on both parameters when both of them may be decisive, not only on one of them...

Then, thanks to my generousity and clear understanding of photography, you get your shot done AND well exposed. This is called photography, which is far away from clicking in AE without thinking.

Juan.
Click to expand...

Other than the $150 savings, the only relevant difference is the fact that the R3M will work without batteries. However, since SR76 batteries are so easy to find and so cheap, that really should not be a deal breaker.

The above quote is really laughable... however, even if real men only use manual exposure, Mr.Valdenebro fails to mention that you can actually shoot manually with the R3A (BTW, you can do that on the FE2 as well). Set BOTH the aperture and shutter speed to your heart's content. The AE is there if you need it, but you don't have to use it if you don't want too. OTOH, the R3M obviously does not give you AE.

As someone has stated, you would typically use the R3M in "shutter priority." It's a little slower to use in constantly changing light, but you can get used to it. I used to have both and preferred the R3A; even today, I use a body with AE (ZI).

I do recommend the R3A even if you can save $150 on the R3M.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
However - the AE will allowe you to take shots where there is no time to contemplate

However - the AE will allowe you to take shots where there is no time to contemplate

This for me is the point. I prefer the R3A purely because it allows you to take a grab shot ( as in street photography) with a good chance of meter accuracy.
 
kxl,

My posting was written to bring a smile, of course.

And it just showed the benefits of keeping an open mind and not thinking that you must use a meter reading literally... Allowing imprecise meterings decided by a machine instead of a constant photographic vision and understanding of light has always been, and will always be, a mass thing... That's why cheapest consumer digitals are AE cameras too!

I never really feel using ANY non AE camera as if it was shutter priority... That was a surprising sentence to me... Any good photographer translates what any kind of meter says.

It's a path you can't really understand unless you've been there... And being there is not just having metered manually sometimes... Being there means having made that way of shooting your normal and easy way, and enjoying it!

As payasam said before, for many of us any camera with a meter and no AE, is an automatic one.

Don't forget why AE cameras usually have exposure lock... To avoid that majority of badly exposed frames. I repeat you can't see it on negatives, and maybe you don't want to see it at all, but you can see it with slides, if you want to do yourself a favor...

So, if AE isn't really reliable, why to have a more delicate camera? To be lazy and get worse shots is the answer. Or to have one that can't work without batteries... This happens not only when they're exhaust, but in adverse weather conditions too.

Finally, we all manual photographers know what most people prefer, and I guess none of us see any problem in so many bad exposures made by the masses.

Cheers,

Juan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom