Bessa R2A or R2M or Leica M3?

Bessa R2A or R2M or Leica M3?

  • Leica M3 w/ Summicron 50mm Collapsible

    Votes: 124 53.2%

  • New Bessa R2M with 50

    Votes: 31 13.3%

  • New or used Bessa R2A or R3Awith 40 or 50

    Votes: 78 33.5%
  • Total voters
    233
Ok what if it was a question of not already owning a camera, if it was a new (used) purchase of a m2/3 vs the r2/3m? And just to make it fair lets say the M was recently CLA'd and in good working order for the around the same price as the Bessa's (Ive got me eye on the m2 in the classifieds atm :) ) And I dont mind shooting meterless or with a handheld.
 
Last edited:
I'll be the odd man out here

I'll be the odd man out here

Since you think you want a light meter in the camera, and a fast shutter speed go for it.

There were some valid points made about going meterless, but hopefully you can explore them later by taking the battery out or ignoring the in-camera meter if you want to do that.

I often use 1/4000 sec. on my camera that has it, so there's nothing wrong with wanting 1/2000 either.

Get what *you* want, not what people on the internet tell you that you should want.

anaanda said:
Trying to decide..please help
I just purchased a leica M3 with a collapsable summicron 50 F2 on Ebay. I got it in decent condition..no pictures yet. But now i am thinking i want a light meter in the camera and that extra 1/2000 of a second? I have never shot without a light meter or aperature priority. The Leica is slow to operate but feels nice in the hand....
Click to expand...
 
The virtues of the cameras are quite different R2a's have AE and 1/2000
M3's are quieter and have a longer RF baselength -really both would be preferable as a good complimentary pair.
 
it depends how you plan your whole system. I always suggest to choose a leica as your first camera or basestone of your RF systems. Leica is just can't be replaced and the measure standard for any other RF cameras.

Bessa has no value as collection items, just use them as cheap and reliable or not reliable tools.
 
These questions ask the reponder to give you inside based on their experience. I like the Bessa R and would love a 2m. I am not a fan of the bottom feeding Leicas because of the difficulty I encounter when trying to load them. Before the Leica fans chime in, I know it is a "learned" method, but it was one I did not master and was more frustrated by than enjoyed. They are wonderful tools, but as one commentator in another topic said, buy the 2m/3m and then buy Leica glass. My experience only...others may vary according to mileage, or some such stuff.
 
JoeFriday said:
I have an M3, and I occasionally think of trading it for a ZI..
Click to expand...
Sacre bleu! Whenever you get to that stage, give me a chime, I'll give it a good (crowded, but good) home :D
 
built in meters are very handy. i have no idea why everyone here says using a camera without a built in meter, and estimating the light yourself will make you a better photographer. that is complete crap. it *will* make you better at judging the light yourself, and shooting without a meter. that's it. i have used meterless cameras in the past (and even now every once in a while), and i must admit that i really enjoy how fast it is to shoot that way. it feels liberating to a degree. but in the end, having a meter in the camera is a good thing. just igonre it if you don't want to use it. and really...from a technical standpoint, using the built in meter does produce better exposures (especially w/ slide film). as ampguy said...do what is best for you. but know there is no shame in using a metered camera, and more importantly...you are not any better or worse of a photographer for it. sorry for the rant, but i can only see it written here so many times that judging the light yourself makes you a "better" photographer.
 
AE and preset meterless cameras allow me to concentrate on taking photos. I get distracted by an uncoupled meter that almost always tell me that I am exposing wrong. For me, fewer distractions makes it more enjoyable.

On the other hand, I am not so terribly good at guessing the light, so rely on a handheld meter to give me a ballpark figure and use estimated guesses from it. I think I prefer AE most of the time though.

/Håkan
 
Always get the meter. You will undoubtly find yourself one day in a tricky lighting condition and if you sport the camera w/o the meter and no hand held meter, you'd be screwed. Unless, of course, you are extremely confident in your meterless photography..
 
i really like my m3 but i never take it when i think i will be shooting more than one roll on an outing. it's slow to load. i don't care what anyone says about it, it is slow compared to any camera with a hinged back.
that being said, the m3 makes shooting a wonderful experience.
i use mine with a collapsible elmar as a one camera/lens kit when i want a leisurly outing.

the cl, as much as i love it, is in the smae category for me.

the zi is for shooting when i know it's a few films outing.
 
Last edited:
I would not recommend going entirely without a meter. There are certainly standard situations where one can closely estimate what a meter would tell you, and that's fine. I am often surprised though at the number of users who simply feel a built-in meter is a necessity. Having a meter is a necessity, but it need not be built-in or clip-on... IMHO, a handheld separate meter used in the incident mode usually gives the most useful exposure information. And a handheld meter is a valuable educational device! But I also like AE, and for its benefits I'll compromise on the incident readings. For me AE is the only reason to want a built-in meter.
 
This discussion is only valid for the near term. Now that Anaanda has joined our group he will soon find himself with metered, unmetered, fixed lens, interchangeable lens, FSU, collectible, etc. RF cameras. It is inevitable. If he is married I hope he has a sympathetic wife.:angel:
Kurt M.
 
If you want built in light meter AND AE - then the Bessa does a very good job. I had an R3A I used with 50 mm lens (40 mm frame lines felt a bit tight and I do not wear glasses). The camera is actually a very good tool - excellent viewfinder, contrasty RF patch, simple design. Personally - I was disturbed by the shutter noise enough to sell it after half a year. But most people are fine with that. Zeiss ZI is supposed to have a very similar shutter. I should say that all my other cameras have mechanical or electronic leaf shutters that are naturally very quiet - so I am a bit spoiled. Still - I find many modern APS-C DSLRs to have more pleasing shutter sound than the R3A. Again - just try it before you buy.

What about M6? with bit of patience it should be possible to get one for about price of new R2/3A.
 
shooting negatives, you don't need to be very accurate with the metering, and can overexpose most C41 stuff up to (and beyond!) 4 stops. I wouldn't worry about the top shutter speed and lack of a meter so much.

BUT- the R2_ and M3 are apples and oranges. The R2 compares to the M2's finder, and the R3_ compares to the M3's finder.

I, along with many others, prefer the feel and build of a Leica over a Voigtlander ANY day, and i am willing to give up the "speed" of AE for build and feel of a mechanical camera.

I currently don't have a M body, just a Canon P- which is basically a Japanese LTM M3 (with shorter EBL)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom