Bessa R3A or Leice M3, ViewfinderWise??

[wgerrard]

I started a thread a week or so ago about my problems focusing a Bessa R4M. I attribute that to the R4M's 0.58 viewfinder magnification. I've concluded that I'd be happier with a camera whose viewfinder approached 1:1.

Two obvious candidates are the Bessa R3A/M and the M3. The Bessa is 1:1 and the M3 is 0.92. Not much of a difference.

Bessas are cheaper. And new. The M3 is probably a better piece of hardware, but it would be 50 years old, even with a CLA. And M3's cost more.

Are there things that happen to an aging M3 that a CLA cannot fix?

I would not be in a position to quickly swap by Voightlaender lenses for Leica lenses.

Should I spend $600 on a Bessa or twice that on an M3?

 

[thomasw_]

You're mistaken about the cost of a M3 user. They are not 1200USD. A good user can be obtained for 550-800USD tops. It depends on the external condition. Higher serial no.s over 1 million are more.

If the VF of any M3 is not clear, do NOT buy it.

Make sure the shutter has no Holes, the speeds are accurate. Other than that The M3 is the best camera for a 50mm lens....bar none.

Also I think the R4* VF mag is even lower at .52x.

The big difference is whether you need/want a meter in the camera. The price between these is negligible.

Another thing is the EBL of the two cameras, the M3 is tops in terms of rf base length, and that makes focussing much more clear. I think there is a section on CQ about the concept of EBL.

 

[maelswarm]

R3 VF is terrific, I'd say better than a M3. Big, bright, huge focusing patch, and it has better meter display than Leica. It's also faster to load, shows you what film you have, faster top shutter speed... definitely go for the R3 if you want a normal-view RF.

 

[wgerrard]

You're mistaken about the cost of a M3 user. They are not 1200USD. A good user can be obtained for 550-800USD tops. It depends on the external condition. Higher serial no.s over 1 million are more.

I keep seeing "Excellent" M3's priced at well above $1000. What are people paying for?

I guess that means what's the difference between a "user' and something that costs twice as much?

The odds of me being able to find and examine a used M3 in my neck of the woods is nil, so I'd be buying from some place that has an established return policy. I don't see buying on eBay.

 

[maelswarm]

Bill, it's mostly cosmetic. The main thing is the RF window, and the M3s are known to have ungluing issues with the glass inside the RF mechanism. This cannot be repaired. Take a good look at the RF windows in the pictures, or ask for additional pictures showing the window. You may see some separation or haziness suggesting dehiscence.

After you buy it, you will probably need to factor in $100-200 for a CLA since these are old, mechanical cameras and will need a tune-up regularly.

 

[payasam]

M3 finders, even those without serious problems, will have dimmed.

 

[Bingley]

There is no doubt that the R3*'s vf is bright and a joy to use, particularly w/ a 50. However, the rangefinder patch has a tendency to go out of alignment. I got an R3A to use w/ a 40 and also for the AE feature. Great camera body, but the rf patch on mine is slightly out of vertical alignment. I suspect that's less of a problem w/ an M3.

 

[Keith]

If eyesight is an issue the Bessa should be your choice. I have an M3 that was CLA'd recently and the rangefinder is as good as it can be for a camera of it's vintage ... but it's certainly not as good as the R3A I had.

For $1200.00 you could by a mint used Zeiss Ikon ... they have by far the best viewfinder/rangefinder on the market!

 

[normclarke]

Hi,
Contrary to what maelswarm claims early M finders can be repaired. There are two people in the U.K who can carry this work out, CRR and Malcolm Taylor. It is a fiddly job but not impossible with the correct equipment.

Best,

normclarke.

 

[ferider]

When people talk about great viewfinders, they talk mostly about brightness of the overall finder. Bessa R3* and ZI have plenty of that.

I find, for ease of focusing, patch contrast to matter most. There is nothing better than a good M3 in that regard. Get a good user with serial nr > 1 Mio (should run you less than US 800 including a good CLA) and you are set.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[wgerrard]

Roland, I think that's my issue. It isn't the lack of viewfinder brightness that bothers me, it's difficulty seeing what's going on inside the patch, especially when obvious vetical lines aren't present.

Keith: Glasses are always an issue for me. My eyesight is actually pretty good with them. I wear progressive lenses. I'm vain enough to pay for making them as thin as possible. With any camera, I usually have to adjust to see the very edge of the viewfinder, but I've grown accustomed to that. Seeing framelines hasn't been a problem.

 

[johannielscom]

When it comes to ease of focussing a 50mm lens, have a look here for a comparison on the different finders on several cameras.

The M3 is taken as a benchmark here, its finder is 100% in this table.

After reading this, you should decide what is most important to you, viewfinder brightness and a meter, or ease of focussing due to magnification.

Good luck on your decision!

 

[wgerrard]

Ok... just bought a CLA'd user single-stroke M3 from Youxin Ye. Should be here in a few days.

Guess that settles that. Now I'll see what all the fuss is about.

Of course, this opens the door to spending money for things like lenses, half-cases, meters, etc. Heh.