Thanks again for all the very helpful replies to my previous thread! I am going to buy the R3A and have a few final questions.
-any comments on the Nokton 40/1.4 MC vs 50/1.4
-Tri-X seems to be the recommended film.If travelling and this film is not available,what kind of results can I expect with other types of film,say something that a drugstore or Walmart might sell
-how much of a difference is the result if you take film into Costco vs a professional place to have prints made
-for general travel photos with mostly daytime but some lower light photos,is it better to use 400 or 200
Thanks,
Adam
Don't worry Adam, we're all newbies when we first start something.
I'm guessing you are trying to choose between the Nokton 50mm f1.5 and Nokton 40mm f1.4. For the Bessa R3A, I would recommend the Nokton 40mm. I personally love the 40mm FOV, and it will serve you in place of both a 35mm and 50mm while you get started. Another consideration is this: there is a tremendous variety of incredible 50mm lens out there. If you find that rangefinder photography is your thing, you'll likely want to try some of them. The Nokton 50mm is a terrific lens, but if you start experimenting with Summicrons, Summitars, Sumarits, Summars, Heliars, etc., etc., it will probably end up neglected or sold. There aren't as many choices in the 40mm range (the Summicron-C and the Rokkor, which is the same design, being the two most accessible), so the 40mm is likely to be a better long-term investment IMHO. Plus, part of what makes the Bessa R3A unique among modern rangefinders is the 40mm framelines, so you might as well get full use of them. Don't worry if you wear glasses - just use the entire viewfinder to compose and you will be fine.
In addition to Tri-X, you might consider Ilford XP2. This film can be developed anywhere, including one-hour labs, and the results are very pleasing (all the b&w shots I have posted here are on Ilford XP2). If you are not going to develop the film yourself, Tri-X can cost a little more to send out, and you'll have to wait longer to get your results.
Most off-brand film sold at Blacks, Loblaws (in Canada), etc. is just repackaged brand-name film. If you do a search on RFF, you'll find a thread where all this is explained. If I had to grab a roll out of a drugstore, I'd probably choose Fuji Superia 400. I like the colours and it scans reasonably well, which is important to me.
For print film, I would choose ISO 400 over 200 for several reasons. The first is that my understanding is manufacturers sometimes simply rerate their 400 as 200, instead of producing a "real" ISO 200 film. The wiser and more knowledgeable members will be able to clarify/correct me on this I'm sure. Also, when I shoot ISO 400, I usually rate it below that (manually set the ISO to, say, 320) which has the effect of slightly over-exposing the negative. Print film holds detail very well in the highlights, less so in the shadows, and this will give you more information on your negative which you can make use of when printing or scanning.
As for the print quality of different labs, that will probably vary from place to place, but I wouldn't expect a huge advantage at a pro lab vs a one-hour joint at 4x6 or 5x7. Larger than that I would definitely go to a pro place. As for processing negative, I have had as much negative damaged at pro places as at chain stores. These days, I drop my film off at a one-hour photo place, get the negative developed, no prints or scans, and then scan it myself. If you can process your own negative at home, all the better (I don't have room). Through trial and error, you will find the method that works best for your needs.
