Bessa Choice

[msvadi]

Hi guys,

I am looking for something more "robust" to replace my Canonet (died after 5-6 rolls of film). And I wonder if you can help me with a few question.

Except for cost considerations, is there any reason to get Bessa R instead of R2A or R3A?

How would you compare 35/1.7 and 40/1.4 lenses? I was very impressed with pictures that 35/1.7 delivers. Check out for example this gallery:

http://www.pbase.com/kepha/nurses_of_singapore

I realize that this has a lot to do with a photographer, but my impression is that 35/1.7 produces more "classic" less modern images.

I am interested only in B&W, so if I decide to go for 40/1.4, should I seriously consider the single coated version? Cameraquest says it was developed especially for B&W and that single coated lenses are better for that purpose. What do you think?

 

[phototone]

the Bessa R (at current prices) represents the most "bang for the buck" in Bessa rangefinders.
but it lacks some of the improvements of the R2a and R3a. The Bessa R is a LTM mount camera, and cannot mount "M" bayonet lenses.

1. Bessa R is a manual camera, with LED's to indicate correct exposure. Turn lens or shutter until middle LED lights up. Shutter is purely mechanical...works without batteries. Body is plastic, but at least as good and rigid as any current mid-range SLR or DigiSLR.

2. Bessa R2a and R3a use electronic shutters, which by their very nature are more accurate. These cameras have aperture priority exposure automation, if you wish to use it. (You set the f-stop, the camera determines and sets the shutter speed) You can use either camera as a purely manual camera with LED exposure read out to guide your settings. The camera body on these is metal, and the rewind crank has been made more robust. The camera will not work without batteries, as the shutter requires them to fire.

3. The Bessa R2a and R3a are Leica "M" mount cameras, which increase your lens options vastly, as you can now use not only all the LTM lenses (with a very few exceptions), with a simple adaptor, but all the Leica "M" mount lenses, as well as the new Zeiss "M" mount lenses, as well as others that have been made over the years in "M" mount. (Hexanon?)
The R2a and R3a only differ in the bright lines provided in the viewfinder, and resultant viewfinder magnification.

 

[Huck Finn]

A Canonet is pretty robust. They don't build them like that any more. What does "died" mean? Stephen Gandy will do a CLA on the Canonet for $100.

I'm not pushing the Canonet. Just wondering if you have given up on it too soon. Or do you really want a different kind of camera?

You asked: ". . . is there any reason to get Bessa R instead of R2A or R3A?" Only if you prefer a mechanical camera instead of one that is more battery dependent. If you prefer mechanical, you can still find an M-mount R2 if you look hard, or a Rollei 35 RF, which is a special edition of the R2 with 40/50/80 frame lines & closer minimum focus distance.

One specific advantage of a mechanical camera that I can think of is that it is less affected by very low temperatures than an electronic camera. So, if you plan to be shooting outdoors in severe winters, think of the Bessa R, R2, or its variants.

 

[msvadi]

thanks for the replies, guys. regarding my canonet, i think the problem is the shutter - does not fire. the speed dial is very loose in 30-500 range, and won't go below 30. i'm not sure if fixing it for $100 is a good option, since i can get another one for that price.

what do you think about 40/1.4 vs 35/1.7?

 

[Huck Finn]

I like the 40 mm point of view & I like the pictures of seen with the 40/1.4 . . . and most of all, I like the nice compact size of the 40/1.4. The optics & the size are both a lot like the Leica pre-Aspherical 35/1.4 Summilux. Plus, it's cheaper than the 35/1.7, especially when you consider that it comes in M-mount, so you don't have to add the $60 cost of an adapter t the price of the lens. I'm considering one myself.

 

[Terence T]

An often missed difference between the R2A and R3A is that the former comes with a .7x finder while the latter is 1x. That might make a difference to some.

 

[msvadi]

what do you think about single coated vs. multi-coated versions of 40/1.4?

 

[Huck Finn]

I haven't used the 40/1.4, but FWIW reports I've read say that there isn't much difference between the two.

An additional thought about the comparison of the 35/1.7 vs 40/1.4 . . . Minimum focus distance of the 35/1.7 is only 0.9 meters (about 3 feet), while the 40/1.4 can get in as close as 0.7 meters (about 27 inches). If you like to shoot up close, the 40 is a better choice. If that's not your style, then it doesn't matter.

 

[Aperture]

I don't have any of the lenses discussed, but I have looked at loads of photo's made with them. Personally I like the photo's made with the 35/1.7 way better. The main problem I have with the pictures taken with the 40/1.4 is that in a lot of them I get cross-eyed when looking at the out-of-focus highlights in the pictures....

 

[GeneW]

I've owned a Bessa R2 and now a Bessa R and liked them both very much. I suspect the A models are fun to use. The Ultron 35/1.7 is one of the best lenses I've owned and on the R, R2 and R2A the 35mm framelines are easy to see, including the area beyond the framelines. I find the Bessa metering accurate and reliable. Here's a shot I took last week in a restaurant with some friends. Tri-X @ 1600, 1/30 f/1.7, Bessa R + Ultron 35.

Gene

 

[tedwhite]

I have the Bessa R with the 35/2.5. It's a superb lens and I suspect the 35/1.7 will be also, plus faster. Personally, I prefer the 35 view over 40 or 50. Contains more environment. The kit is one heck of a bargain. For the money I don't know of another that approaches it in price and quality.

I have found the metering on the R to be excellent and I like the fact that it's a mechanical camera. I've had my share of electronic marvels. My Maxxum 7 is (was? I sold mine) probably the best AF available. It came with something like a 130 page manual (all English) and I never did get familiar with its amazing array of bells and whistles. Also, it made the loudest (and most professionally decisive) shutter release sound. I like small, quiet cameras, and while the R is not the quietest, it's in the ballpark.

Ted

 

[Stu :)]

Have you followed the notes in the repair forum, you might be able to fix that shutter yourself.

However the Bessa-R is brilliant little beastie and cheap as chips. I have one and think it's gorgeous. The day I part company with it, is the day I trade upto an M7, or long while yet.

Stu 🙂

 

[tedwhite]

"Cheap as chips." I like that. You don't hear phrases like that down in these parts.

It is indeed "brilliant" and also in the sense that every time I look through the viewfinder it's as though someone turned on the lights (compared to the rest of my cameras). I'm flirting now (GAS attack) with acquiring a Bessaflex (SLR body) as it's M42 and all of my Super Takumar glass will screw right in. In the Book of Gandy it is written that the viewfinder is much brighter than the Spotmatic's. That's why, and imagine having a brand new Spotmatic clone.

"Monophiliac." Hmmm. Lover of one thing?

Ted

 

[rover]

Another vote for the 35 Ultron. I owned one and was always pleased with the results I got with it. In general, viewing images made by the Ultron and the 40/1.4, I find the Ultron shots more pleasing.

I too would not count out your Canonet. You have to consider if you want to invest the cost of a CLA into the camera, but if you do it will be a good partner for time to come. Which model Canonet is it? There is the home repair route too.

The info above regarding the Bessas is excellent. I would just add, when you read about the Bessa R being made "cheaply" don't listen. Yes it is polycarbonate instead of aircraft aluminum or whatever they make those camera/hammers out of at Leica and Nikon. My opinion always has been that a better description is to say that the R is made lightly. It is a very nice camera to handle and shoot with.

 

[msvadi]

Thanks for all you answers guys. I, probably, will go for R3A + 40/1.4 anyway. As much as I would like to have a 100% mechanical camera, I don't think I'll ever use it without batteries. Also, as I understand, R3A has a better build quality and quiter shutter. 1:1 Viewfinder and compactness of 40/1.4 are also very appealing.

By the way, concerning the size of 40/1.4, as I understand it's not that compact with the lens hood attached. Which makes me wonder if it really needs one? if it does, are there any cheaper and smaller alternatives to the dedicated lens hood?

 

[msvadi]

Concerning the Canonet, I am not totally giving up. I don't think I can fix it myself though. I'll keep watching the ebay for a reliable seller, and try to find someone who can take a look at my camera for not too much money. Actually, yesterday, I was outbid at $92.50 + $7.50 shipping, but the seller sounded like a very knowledgeable guy, and said that the shutter was timed and looked perfect.

Canonets are very nice, and I liked a lot shooting with it.

 

[tedwhite]

Actually, the body on the Bessa R is metal, it's the top and bottom plates that are "plastic." Also, the 'R' does have batteries (2), but the batteries power only the meter.

 

[chug]

Dont forget the back door is plastic too. Not that that makes any difference. Its just lighter than that huge chunk of metal called an M3 😉