Bessa R2a even exactly with focussing as Leica M (0,72)

[Marco Peereboom]

I've searched on the forum, but didn't find any thread's.

I'm doubting between an Leica M, or the more more friendly priced Bessa R2a (*). I see picture's of those 2 camera from the front, next to each other. Looking to the most little window: On the Bessa it's in the middle of the camera, above the lens. But at the Leica M it is almost near the release-button.

So am i right, that the Leica M is more exactly with focussing?
With wide angle lenses this is not realy important off course. But with tele lenses it is much more important.

And who have blurred pictures with 75 or 90 mm lenses?

(*) As i'm wearing spectacles, this one is the most interesting for me.

 

[f/stopblues]

Yes, the base length is longer on the M's. As per Stephen Gandy's site, the R2A/R3A is 43mm, whereas the M7 .72 is 49.9mm. The .85 viewfinder is 58.9mm though. In practice, I'm not sure how much difference this makes. If you're typically shooting 90's and 135's then it could be an issue, but if its only occasional I'm not sure that alone jusifies the price difference. I tend to stay on the shorter end, so I wouldn't be an authority on this, but thought I'd throw some numbers at ya!

 

[f/stopblues]

Ok, so the M6 is 68.5mm.. correction!

 

[ZeissFan]

The R2A/R3A rangefinder has an actual base of 37mm. The R3A effective base is 37mm because it uses a 1.0x viewfinder. The R2A's 0.7x finder gives an effective base of 25.9mm.

And depending on which viewfinder you choose for the Leica, the EBL will range from 40.2mm to 58.9mm.

Take a look at this table that compares the Zeiss Ikon, the Voigtlander Bessas and the Leica M7.

 

[ZeissFan]

A longer effective base is always preferred over a shorter one, because it should allow you to focus more accurately. This become more important with high speed lenses, which have shallower depth of field wide open and consequently less room for focusing errors.

In practice, the Bessas seem to perform well with most lenses, although the general consensus (from Internet postings) is that it can be hit or miss with the Noctilux and lenses longer than 75mm or 80mm.

On my very old Contax IIa, I can focus very accurately with a 135mm Sonnar at non-infinity distances, something I probably couldn't do as consistently with the Bessa-R.

 

[ZeissFan]

A little piece of useless trivia:

The original Contax (I) and the Contax II had actual rangefinder bases of 90mm. The Contax IIa had a rangefinder base of 75mm, ironically (or maybe not) it's identical to the new Zeiss Ikon.

I don't know what the viewfinder magnification factor was with the Contax I, II or IIa, and none of the cameras have framelines. Well, the edges of the prism are the framelines.

 

[Marco Peereboom]

Thanks so far, for the info.

... and none of the cameras have framelines. Well, the edges of the prism are the framelines.

So without the framelines, it's almost like using an SLR-camera?

I'm not that well-known with the Zeiss Ikon. And in fact i'm planning to buy the pre-Asph lenses at an bessa or an Leica-M.
But i also like to know: How should you describe the character of the Zeiss Ikon-lenses. Are they near the Asph Leica lenses? Or are they near the pre-Asph Leica lenses? Harder, or softer in contrast? Can you tell me something about that?

 

[ZeissFan]

Marco, the comment about framelines refer to the Zeiss Ikon AG Contax rangefinders from the 1930s-1950s.

The new Zeiss Ikon has framelines. It's a totally different camera. It uses M mount lenses.

I own two Leicas, but I can't tell you anything about the lenses. Perhaps someone else will be able to step in and answer your question.

 

[Marco Peereboom]

Aha, i understand now. Thanks so far.

I also thought you are using Zeiss-lenses, because of your nickname.

 

[MCTuomey]

Marco, I can offer only my practical experience with my R2A and M4. I am able to focus successfully the following lenses with the Bessa: Summicron 50/2, Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8, CV Ultron 35/1.7, and the CV Heliar 75/2.5. I have tried the Leica 90/2 on the Bessa wide open and that lens is difficult for me to focus confidently. I should say that I'm fifty years old and don't have the eyesight of my youth, however.

The Bessa is an excellent camera in other respects. Its viewfinder is very bright and easy to use, and compares very well to the viewfinder in my M4. The auto exposure of the Bessa is surprisingly good indoors and outdoors in available light.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[Marco Peereboom]

Good to hear that.

One question: When i put the quickrelease-grip (*) at my Nikon FM2 against the body, it insn't possible anymore to measure the light (and so i contnue for an long time with one battery). And also in my bag it isn't possible the release-button will be pushed (with blanco images as an result).

I heard that the 'old' Voigtlander-camera's (i don't know which types) had also this quickrelease-grip. So my question is: Does the Bessa R2a also have this quickrelease-grip?

(*) Is this good english? I mean that grip (next to the shutter-dial) to move the film-transport.

 

[MCTuomey]

Marco, I'm not familiar with the Nikon grip you mention, or for that matter the side grip that you can order for the Bessa, but my R2A has a shutter button lock (which is also the on/off switch). If the lock is set to the off position, the shutter can't be inadvertently released.

Your English is fine, by the way. Far better than my Dutch ;-))

 

[Marco Peereboom]

Allright, thanks again. 🙂

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

There are two grips for the Voigtlander.

One is just a simple grip, and the other is the trigger winder.

I have the trigger winder and it doesn't affect the functioning of the R3a at all. It has two attachments for a strap, so the camera/winder hangs vertically on the neck (shoulder) strap. Although I have a custom made wrist strap on mine.