Bessa R3a or M7 .85?

[chesapeake1787]

Currently, I have a Bessa R2 with a latest 50 summicron. A number of years back I had a Pentax LX that had incredibly accurate off the film plane ae metering – I sold the camera, as the glass was never as sharp as I would have liked. Of the 6 or 7 cameras I have owned in this life, I took the most photos with the LX (it had a winder as well).

I have been thinking of acquiring an M7 or a R3/2a for the ae functionality. What I find appealing is the magnification on the .85 m7 and the 1:1 on the R3a. The focus patch is a bit small on the R2 and I find that if I hand the camera off for a candid people have a very hard time focusing if unexperienced with the camera.

Has anyone here owned both and what would be your rationale for choosing the M7 or the R3a? I am most likely to use 35, 40, 50, 75 lenses. I currently have the one summicron.

Thanks.

Dan

 

[sf]

M7, without question. I mean, the R3A is a great camera for the price, but is simply not on the same plane as the Leica. Of course the M7 will set you back 4 or 5x as much, so that might be an important factor.

The M7's baselength is far longer than the R3A's - that makes the M7 much better for people photography where the accurate determination of the plane of focus is vital. The M7 is a Leica - the R3A is not, and is notorious for VF misalignment.

If money is important, the R3A will make the most sense since it will allow you the $$$$ for more lenses and other toys.

Personally, if I had the dough, I'd spring for the M7 for sure. But, I'd have to have lots of dough to justify spending 4-5x as much.

 

[George S.]

I've owned the M7, R2, R3A, Rollei 35RF and have finally settled on the R2A. It was so difficult for me to see the entire 40mm frame of the R3A, that it was a major annoyance. If you want to use a 35mm, forget the R3A. I know people say to just use the entire VF area and interpolate it as roughly 35mm, but it was so difficult just to see 40mm, I couldn't do that.

M7 if money is no option, and you want to impress others, R2A if your income isn't unlimited and you don't care about image. (assuming others will actually know and care what a Leica is). The R2A/R3A bodies are a step above the old R/R2 in quality looks and feel, IMO.

 

[Paul T.]

What about the ZI? Its rangefinder is nearly as accurate as the .85 M7, but it has usable framelines for 28mm lenses too. Opinions differ as to how the camera compares with the Leica, but the viewfinder is pretty universally conceded to be superior...

 

[Fred]

Dan,

It's a shame the glass you used with the LX was not good enough, my experience of Pentax glass has been very good with my old MX and ME Super.

Anyway on to the question in hand. There are a few thing that you need to consider before going for an R3a or M7 .85 and these are:

1) what lenses are you going to use?

2) how often do you pass the camera to others?

3) do you have glasses?

4) what can you afford?

Q1 covers 35 and 40 lenses so either camera should do. Generally I prefer the 35 as it's a tad more different than a 50 but that's my view, a 35, 40 and a 50 would be too much for me. So if you go for a 35, the R2a or M7 fit the bill, a 40 then the answer is R3a.

Q2 You can always either pre focus or use a smaller aperture for a bigger depth of field and the focus accuracy problem goes away. Otherwise someone who knows how to use an RF should have no problem with either camera.

Q3 If you have glasses the 0.85 M7 might not be ideal as the 35 framelines are close to the edge as are the 40 framelines on the R3a.

Q4 If you want the best value for money and you longest lens will be a 75 of f2.5 or slower then the R2/3a will be more than good enough. However if you want to use faster longer lenses and want a higher 'hit' rate at close quarters or go for a 28mm the M7 0.72 and a 1.25x magnifier will cover all bases with ease. An M7 .85 frame lines do not include 28mm.


If you can, try them out at the dealer.

Hope this helps.

 

[Mazurka]

I am most likely to use 35, 40, 50, 75 lenses. I currently have the one summicron.

If you use 75 Lux, the M7 is probably a better choice, otherwise the R3A should be accurate enough for a 75/2.

OTOH, are you sure you are comfortable with a 35mm lens on the R3A? Some people can't even see the 40mm frame-lines.

 

[Frank Granovski]

Which camera takes better pictures, the Voigt Bessa R3A or the Leica M7? Just curious. 😉

 

[Fred]

Oh Frank, you really cannot be serious. 🙂

Is it not clear? The person behind the camera is the most important part of the process of course 🙂.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Oh Frank, you really cannot be serious.

Oh, Fred...you bite, you bite...

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I think at times there's a bit of tunnel vision. If AE is very important, why not consider the Konica RF? It has a top speed of 1/4000 sec, AE, and is more than a serious contender when held up in front of an M7. That is, unless you're into that one subtle thing: shutter dB level.

Konica RF owners love their cameras as much as M7 owners love theirs. I haven't read about that much dedication from R3 users. I own an R-Bessa and they're nice, but hands down, it's my M6 over any of the Rx-Bessas (to me).

 

[Fred]

Good point Gabriel, if AE is not a must have but a built im meter is, the M6 is not as much extra dollars as an M7. The non TTL version is still TTL metering, just not TTL flash metering. Given the Bessas don't have that either the used M6 price looks even better.

I'd really consider the 0.72 mag for frame line versatility though.

 

[Kyle]

I have not handled an M7 or an R3a. However, I would suggest the R3a. Handling a Bessa may not be the religious experience that a Leica is, but with the money you save, it doesn't matter. For less than $600, you will have a brand new, nicely equipped camera with one year warranty. The money you save buying the Voigtlander body will get you more Leica glass. If you have lots of money to burn, then get the Leica and your choice of lenses. However, if your choices are M7 and your Summicron, or an R3a and a range of Leica glass, then I would hands down go with the R3a.

 

[regit]

Hi Dan, my answer is both a irrational and rational one ... just get the one you REALLY want!!! I had a similar experience last July and in a lot of ways, the Bessa seems like a logical choice. I'm almost set to get the Bessa... until my wife stop me... She said that she knew me too well and it would be months (or weeks) before I change over... Not to knock the Bessa in any way, but she knew I always wanted a Leica.

Sometime, if a rational answer can't be found, go with the irrational ones ... seems rational enough for me 🙂

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

My grandfather died and left me some money and asked me to buy a decent camera.

There was plenty for a Leica, but I actually decided on the R3A for its viewfinder. I've not regretted my decision at all.

 

[George S.]

I am most likely to use 35, 40, 50, 75 lenses. I currently have the one summicron.

Thanks.

Dan

Maybe you should first settle on your focal lengths, THEN choose the camera, as the R2A has 35/50/75/90 framelines, and the R3A has 40/50/75/90. Also ask yourself if you really need to own a 35, a 40, and a 50. Eliminate one or two. IMO, the 50 should be the first to go, [...I don't even own a 50mm any longer. I have 25/28/40/75/90...] and if you settle on the 35mm length, than the R2A is the way to go, and if you find you really like 40mm, the R3A _may_ be the choice. I say "may be" because it wasn't easy for me to see the whole 40mm frames in my R3A. My vote was and is, for the R2A. ... Just my two cents from my own experience and feelings, YMMV

 

[Frank Granovski]

Well, I have a 40mm M and 90mm M left over from my sick Leica CL---and I want to get a non-Leica 50mm M in the future---so that's why I went with the Cosina Voigtlander Bessa R3A instead of the Cosina Zeiss Ikon. It wasn't because of the money---really. 🙄

 

[sf]

Which camera takes better pictures, the Voigt Bessa R3A or the Leica M7? Just curious. 😉

haha. Yeah. Obviously the Leica, DUH! Every photographer depends on the camera to come through with great pictures. I know that I always produce better work with my more expensive cameras. The cheaper cameras produce really sketchy shots, and the moment only comes through the better glass.

I am kidding - very kidding. My best work has been with the least expensive of my cameras. But really, the cost of a camera has NOTHING to do with its function. Its quality of construction, refinement of design and function, and its various abilities are most important. If you need a 1:1 finder, the R3A is better than anything on the market. If you like the silky smooth operation of the Leica, buy an M3 or something. If you use telephoto lenses, try the ZI. If you shoot landscapes or portraits for huge prints, try a LF camera or a RZ67. On and on.

The only argument for the M7 is the baselength and the overall refinement - so maybe the ZI is an even better choice because it's price is right in the middle, and might even be more of a classic in future times. THe R3A is a lower cost body, built well for hte most part (with exceptions for the viewfinder misalignment issues), and has a great 1:1 viewfinder image which I really liked alot. Kind of makes up for the shorter baselength too, actually. Probably about the same accuracy as shooting with a camera with 2x the baselength but a .58x of whatever viewfinder magnification.

 

[peter_n]

I only have experience with the 0.85 M7 and focusing a 35mm on it is no problem and neither is seeing the full 35mm frameline (I don't wear glasses). As Tony says, the 35mm framelines are quite close to the VF edge on the cam, and there is no 40mm frameline on the M7.

Why 35, 40, 50? They seem just a little close to me...

 

[regit]

Which camera takes better pictures, the Voigt Bessa R3A or the Leica M7? Just curious. 😉

I've seen many questions in the line of "will a Leica gives me better pictures?" and most if not all answers are "NO!" along with the mandatory tagline "it is the person behind the camera that counts"... Well, I want to offer the contrary ... The popular answers emphasizes too much on logical reasonings and ignore the effects of irrationalities, aka human mind...

If it is the person behind the camera that counts, how can the person be better? One can take a lot of photos and grow into the camera, or one can take classes and improve on techniques ... but how far will this go? And would such improvements be purely technical or asthetic?

So to really change a person point of view, it is really a mind-job. One need a muse or something like that. One that make things "click" for the person and make one see things differently... And using a more expensive camera may be just the muse that one is looking for!!! It may be as simple as "since I'm using a $10k camera now, I jolly well take better pictures".

This may work or may not work, but if does, I would say the end results will surpass any photographic classes ...

... For the record, I've not seen any improvement with my pics since I got my Leica, they still stink ... I'm researching on Hassy now 🙂

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

HCB with a disposable camera would take better pictures than me with an M7.