A tribute to the Bessa R4A/R4M

Here we go fantasizing again about cameras that will never be made but seriously who wouldn't want to own such a beast.

With a full frame sensor and software optimized for wide angle lenses and capable of 3200 ISO shooting with minimal noise ... that would be a hell of a camera!
 
Last edited:
While Bessa R4M/A may be a great camera, and from time to time I even consider it , yet every time I have the same thought. If I already have Hexars RF with .6x VF, would Bessa's .52x make that much of a difference? I know I dont have framelines for 21 and 25 lenses with it ( not that those are very accurate anyway), but I used both of these FL with hexar's own VF by just estimating and it worked fine. On a top of that - I have a great camera, that is well built, has longer RF base that I can focus longer and faster lenses with and faster shutter to list a few. So, sorry to rain on your Bessa R4M/A parade, but I think that Hexar RF fits my bill better as an all around camera for both - wide AND longer lenses. YMMV.
 
A completely logical viewpoint, Krosya... 🙂 I like the HRF and CLE both of which have .6x finders, very versatile for general use. The R4's .52x finder gives a very generous view for those who like wide lenses and seldom use anything longer than 50mm. A bit specialized.

Equally specialized IMO are the .85, .91, and 1.0x finders on other models, great for those who like longer lenses and seldom use anything wider than 50. Actually, an R3 and an R4 would make a useful pairing... But plenty like you have been happy with .6 and .72 finders and would be happy to cope in various ways when the super wide or longer lenses come out. Isn't it great to have the choice!
 
Krosya said:
While Bessa R4M/A may be a great camera, and from time to time I even consider it , yet every time I have the same thought. If I already have Hexars RF with .6x VF, would Bessa's .52x make that much of a difference? I know I dont have framelines for 21 and 25 lenses with it ( not that those are very accurate anyway), but I used both of these FL with hexar's own VF by just estimating and it worked fine. On a top of that - I have a great camera, that is well built, has longer RF base that I can focus longer and faster lenses with and faster shutter to list a few. So, sorry to rain on your Bessa R4M/A parade, but I think that Hexar RF fits my bill better as an all around camera for both - wide AND longer lenses. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Krosya,

About your question, yes, the R4 is totally different compared to Hexar RFs, because the joy of using it is not composing through external finders as you do with a Hexar. And apart from a 25 or a 21 lens, I can use my 15 accurately to compose and control verticals, and without barrel distortion. And the 28 framelines are clean, with no other framelines at the same time.

About focusing a fast lens, I focus a fast normal (1.4) wide open without any problem. Even a 90 Summicron at f/2. Your Hexars can be used for all around shots, but they can't do what the R4 does with several focal lengths in the wideangle range: that's its strength, and its wonderful construction too...

I have other rangefinders with longer EBL than any Hexar, and yet I find the R4 necessary, and its viewfinder very accurate. In general, as you see, having other RFs is no reason for not having an R4, because no other RF of any brand comes even close to the R4 for wide and normal every day shooting. I don't find it dedicated, but more complete. Maybe only after owning one, and after having used it for some time, you would be in a better position to describe it and its advantages.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Krosya said:
While Bessa R4M/A may be a great camera, and from time to time I even consider it , yet every time I have the same thought. If I already have Hexars RF with .6x VF, would Bessa's .52x make that much of a difference? I know I dont have framelines for 21 and 25 lenses with it ( not that those are very accurate anyway), but I used both of these FL with hexar's own VF by just estimating and it worked fine. On a top of that - I have a great camera, that is well built, has longer RF base that I can focus longer and faster lenses with and faster shutter to list a few. So, sorry to rain on your Bessa R4M/A parade, but I think that Hexar RF fits my bill better as an all around camera for both - wide AND longer lenses. YMMV.
Click to expand...



Having had a Hexar RF Krosya I have to say there's no comparison ... not that the RF isn't a brilliant camera in it's own right but the Bessa's finder is way superior.

There is actually a fair amount of space outside the 21mm framelines on the Bessa which is quite an achievment by Cosina IMO. I have never bothered to get a viewfinder for my 15mm Heliar because of this ... I can frame quite accurately using the 15mm Heliar and the entire finder of the R4.

I was never overly impressed with my R3A though and it's interesting to read Juan's comment about the R4's construction ... it seems to be a cut above other Bessa's IMO. Cosina put a lot of effort into this camera I suspect!
 
Last edited:
I appreciate everyone's comments and views. Yet I still have a question or two. I see that some people say that R4 series Bessas are made better than all previous ones. Is there Official Cosina statement that it is so? As I have done some research, all I can find that some say that R4's are better, yet others say that its the same body as R2/R3 with just different VF and frame lines. So, does anyone know for sure?
Also, while Juan says that he doesnt have any problem focusing a fast standard (50mm? ) and 90/2 wide open with R4 - how about others? Again, from my research on this subject - most comments I came across state just the opposite. Actually, several people say that even fast 35mm is hard to focus with R4.
I'd really hate to spend the money and try this not so cheap camera just to find out it's only good up to 28mm lens. So, more opinions are appreciated.
 
Last edited:
I like Voigtlander's Bessa R4 very much too. I settled for the R4A instead of the R4M for the sheer convenience to be able to use the AE function.



I would agree with Keith that the viewfinder is really wide. At 21mm, the frameline is slightly generous and I find that the top and bottom of the 21mm framline is pretty much as that of Canon's 19mm viewfinder, whist the left and right lines are just slightly smaller than the Canon viewfinder. If you frame carefully using the 21mm frameline, you can actually do without the Canon viewfinder when using the RF coupled 19mm f/3.5 lens on this camera.

So for me, this camera allows viewfinder free usage for 19, 21, 25, 28, 35 and 50mm options. 15mm is too wide for the entire viewfinder and I find the framing/composition to be a bit of a hit and miss sometimes. So far, I don't have problem focusing the Nokton 50mm f/1.1 at it's widest aperture with it either.

Cheers,
 
The Bessa R4 is built on the "standard" chassi that is the same as the R2/R3's. Only difference is the viewfinder.
As for the Hexar RF - I had it and though very nice (solid, nice metering system etc) - it was way too fragile for me. The rangefinder kept going out of alignment at the slightest provocation, the meter read out was almost impossible to see and I worried about the complexity of the motorized advance. Service was difficult and it was not a DIY type of camera. Any little thing - camera had to be sent off (including at least 4 times for RF correction).
The 0.6 finder was very good, covered the 28 nicely - and I frequently used the 25 on it too. When I got my first R4M - the Hexar was a goner!
Piece of trivia: The Hexar Rf finder was designed by the same brilliant guy who did the Bessa R4 finder (as well as the original CLE and the X-Pan finder).
 
Tom A said:
The Bessa R4 is built on the "standard" chassi that is the same as the R2/R3's. Only difference is the viewfinder.
As for the Hexar RF - I had it and though very nice (solid, nice metering system etc) - it was way too fragile for me. The rangefinder kept going out of alignment at the slightest provocation, the meter read out was almost impossible to see and I worried about the complexity of the motorized advance. Service was difficult and it was not a DIY type of camera. Any little thing - camera had to be sent off (including at least 4 times for RF correction).
The 0.6 finder was very good, covered the 28 nicely - and I frequently used the 25 on it too. When I got my first R4M - the Hexar was a goner!
Piece of trivia: The Hexar Rf finder was designed by the same brilliant guy who did the Bessa R4 finder (as well as the original CLE and the X-Pan finder).
Click to expand...


Thanks for the info Tom,
Well, now that I know that Bessa R4 is NOT built any better than my R3M, I'm even less interested. It's funny-strange that you had so many problems with Hexar. I have 3 of them and never had any issues with RF allignment or anything else for that matter. I have travelled with mine through many countries and never a problem. Based on that and the way it's built - I wouldnt call it any less fragile than Leica and far better than Bessa - same RF/VF issues you list for Hexars I have had with Bessas. It's almost impossible to see meter info in my R3M in some light, but I never had any problems with Hexar RF in ANY conditions. So, having said all that - I suppose it's all a matter of personal choice. But I'm glad that I got some things cleared out about the R4 Bessas.
 
Last edited:
Yes, perception is a personal thing... I've heard say Bessa T is a fragile camera... It has no viewfinder, it's a mechanical camera, and honestly I feel mine are as strong as my mechanical Nikons or my Hasselblad... It's made of a light metal alloy inside, and external plastic, so just because of its weight some people say it's not well done... Funny! I've shot mine daily, have bumped them, changed their batteries a couple of times, ran lots of film through both of them, and they're perfect, although they were made many years ago: and both rangefinders are precise as new...

But more than about construction we were talking about the things that can be done with the great R4M, those not possible with any other camera in the world...

Strange that you got an R3M having other cameras, and strange that you kept it. Looks like one of those freudian desires usually denied: maybe you just want an R4M...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Well, Juan, (sorry for a bit of off-topic stuff), R3M I got was for a several reasons. I wanted to have a mechanical back-up with metal shutter - so my M5 was not really a match. I also wanted 40mm frames for my 40mm Nokton and 40mm Rokkor (sold this one by now). Plus my R3M isa 250 Jahre version so it's sort of a collectors item and pretty camera with a 1:1 VF. Since I mostly shoot 40 or longer and wide open, R3M seems to work better for that, than say R4M/A would. So, maybe one day I will decide to try R4 Bessa since I do like 21mm FL, but for now, between Hexars, M5 and R3M - I think I have my ground coverd.
 
Hi Krosya, I guess one day soon, as all of us who had the all around shooting camera ground already covered before it, you'll enjoy the unique R4M in your hands... Just imagine it comes as a gift from someone... That could even cause some GAS... You said you've been tempted sometimes... And after using it, you may even end up commenting on how well made your R3M and R4M are!

Cheers,

Juan
 
Krosya: Well, if you don't have the bases covered by now, I'm flummoxed. 😉

I rather like the R4 as well; were I to get one, it would be the "A" model, because of all the time I spend with both my Hexars. (Hell, I've got an M2, and if that isn't "manual" enough for me, I'm stuffed.)


- Barrett
 
Well, maybe someone will let me borrow their R4 to try out - than who knows - Myabe I'll join the R4 camp for good. 😉
 
I believe that the R4M has greatly improved my photography, as I wear glasses and NEEDED (as I rationalized to myself) a camera with a bigger VF.

Here are some shots from my first few rolls with the Bessa R4M. These are pictures from the salt flats in Nasugbu, Batangas in the Philippines.


4574842249_7085bc1f91.jpg
​

4575476438_469a8613d7.jpg
​

4575472402_7e4b016f0a.jpg
​

Bessa R4M | Canon 28mm f/2.8
Ilford Pan F+ 50 | Delta 100
Parodinal de Fotofabrik​

More here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/katcons/sets/72157623859548529/
 
Excellent thread for an excellent sounding camera. Those are some lovely pictures Katcon. This is a great source for looking at what others are producing with theirs.

I'm currently one of the many using LTM and M mount lenses on a m4/3 camera. Using these lenses has rekindled my desire to get back into film. After having spent quite a bit of time weighing up the pros/cons with other bodies... (Hexar RF, Ikon, CLE etc.), this seems like the most desirable option. I shoot wide most of the time. I own the CV15mm 4.5 SWH, CV35mm 2.5 (ltm) and the Jupiter 3+8. - remember, all of these are cropped x2 for me, so I'm not getting the best out of 'em.

I'm dying to try these lenses out at their native fields of view ... it's shocking that this camera is at the same time one of the most affordable and also seemingly perfect for my needs. That doesn't happen often (or am I just rationalising).

Until I can save the cash for one, I've got a Bessa-L... Now I just have to try and be patient....
 
J-P said:
Excellent thread for an excellent sounding camera. Those are some lovely pictures Katcon. This is a great source for looking at what others are producing with theirs.

I'm currently one of the many using LTM and M mount lenses on a m4/3 camera. Using these lenses has rekindled my desire to get back into film. After having spent quite a bit of time weighing up the pros/cons with other bodies... (Hexar RF, Ikon, CLE etc.), this seems like the most desirable option. I shoot wide most of the time. I own the CV15mm 4.5 SWH, CV35mm 2.5 (ltm) and the Jupiter 3+8. - remember, all of these are cropped x2 for me, so I'm not getting the best out of 'em.

I'm dying to try these lenses out at their native fields of view ... it's shocking that this camera is at the same time one of the most affordable and also seemingly perfect for my needs. That doesn't happen often (or am I just rationalising).

Until I can save the cash for one, I've got a Bessa-L... Now I just have to try and be patient....
Click to expand...



If you shoot wide often and don't want to spend a lot of money the R4 is impossible to beat for value.

A comment about the build quality of the camera: I noticed when I first got it the film advance felt a little rough and the shutter speed dial was pretty notchy and difficult to move with a fingertip but as the camera gets more use this changes noticably. It's relatively smooth now and I think I actually like the distinctive 'tchack' of the shutter! 😀

I'm thinking of taking the R4A out for some exercise tomorrow with my new as yet untried 50mm Sonnar mounted ... that should test it's rather short EBL at f1.5. 😛
 
Well, having first bought the R3A and much later the R4A I have to say the R4A has become my main camera. But it developed a problem with the flash synchronisation (which I don't use often but it's annoying for when I do) so today it's off to Mainline and thence to Japan to get a fix. Hans concluded on an earlier inspection that there's a fault in the circuitry that needs a replacement of components, not just a repair. So I'll have to "make do" with the R3A for a few weeks. Pity I don't have a Bessa III to play with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom