Bessa tough decision - need assistance

[Alain]

Let me preface this by saying on on a budget, but at the same time sometime it pays to wait and pay a little more and get a lot more, so that in mind here's my situation.

Option 1 - A friend has offered me NOS Bessa R2, and I've found a couple options for used 35/2.5 lenses in both M and LTM. I can get everything for around $550.

Option 2 - Buy a new R2m with the same used lens options as above for around $850.


So what would you do?

I'm on a budget so something close to $500 is looking much better than something closer to $900. I'm new to rangefinders (though not to photography), but I also like to make choices I feel good about. Would I be making a bad decision (or missing the virtues of the R2m) if I went with the cheaper package? Of course, in the back of my mind I'm thinking I should just get a starter camera to get the feel for it and then save my pennies for a Leica M2/M3 or the Canadian models or a pre-TTL M6 (I've always wanted a Leica but just cannot spring for one right now).

The R2m has the nicer/stronger rewind knob and nice black finish (stated to be the same as the Zeiss Ikon) but are there really any other virtues that make it a far better camera than a NOS R2?

Appreciate any and all feedback.


Best,
Alain

 

[fraley]

Not a far better camera. Seems to be incremental improvements. I have an R2 and can tell you it's a very dependable camera.

 

[sf]

Not enough information on the R2m to really say, but the R3A/2A are supposed to be better than the R2 in some ways, and I assume the R2M is going to have a little on the R3A/2A. $300 worth . . ? Who knows. I'd buy the R2M with that nice 50/2 lens on it before I'd buy the R2.

 

[back alley]

i had a bessa r and found it to be a great camera and with a good lens it was capable of doing very good work.

the r2 is supposed to be better built and feel more substantial.

you wont lose either way.

joe

 

[fraley]

Alain,

Probably a deciding factor would be the automatic exposure you get with the R2/3A. The R2/3M models are all manual. They are supposed to have quieter shutters than the R2 and some other improvements which seem minor to me. The other thing you should consider is whether you want the R2A/R2M - with 35/50/75/90 brightlines - or the R3A/R3M - with 40/50/75/90 brightlines. If you want to use a 35mm lens then you should get an R2A or M (auto or manual). If you buy the new 40mm lens then you'll want an R3A or M to go with it.

Actually I think the body construction is very similar across the board for the R2 and later models. As always, CameraQuest has very full descriptions of the models.

 

[JohnM]

I've owned an R2 and an R3a - the supposed difference in the shutter sound was negligible. I thought they were both wonderful cameras and truth be told, I wish I had hung onto the green R2 as a backup body. Ditto for the improved black finish - I think that's a non-issue, just like the rewind knob.

If it were me, I think I would opt for the R2 and the extra $300 in my pocket.

 

[Dougg]

Hi Alain -- Given your statement I'd think the NOS R2 would be the more reasonable choice. You're still getting a new camera body with M-bayonet mount and the cameras are very similar... Unless as stated you need the 1:1 viewfinder of the R3M, I suggest the R2.

 

[Alain]

Reasonable, sensible responses...thanks for your time all.

Yes, I think the NOS R2 is a fine choice. I think the R2m looks better (btw, I'm opting for the non-1:1 finder of the R2m because I intend to shoot with a 35/2.5 and eventually upgrade to a 35 summicron or Zeiss 35/2) but looks aren't everything and certain not worth an additional $300 right now.

I don't want the R2a because of the electronic shutter. I've decided that whatever camera I get will be fully manual. So, the R2 wil likely be my choice.


Thanks again folks,
Alain

 

[Max Power]

And of course, $300 is a lot of money to put towards either a really nice lens and/or a boatload of film, which IMHO are more important than the body.

Kent

 

[ZeissFan]

I'd probably go for the R2. The savings of $300 is a significant amount, and will buy you plenty of film. As long as the rangefinder itself is accurate, then the R2 should give you all that you need.

The one plus of the earlier Bessa-R cameras is that they have all-mechanical shutters and are not dependent on a battery to function. If the battery dies, you lose only the meter.

 

[kmack]

Go cheap, buy film

 

[payasam]

Makes sense to start moving slowly and use the fuel money saved to accelerate. Also, you won't have cut off a limb if you decide to stop or to change course.

 

[Toby]

I always try to ask myself this question: If I spend $xxx what will be the impact on the final image. In this case I cannot believe you would see any significant difference in the contact sheets. If the R2m offered a longer rangefinder baselength or more sophisticated metering then the choice becomes more difficult but as it is, they are more to do with collectiblity and aesthetics the R3M is, to an extent, a collectors' rather than users' camera.

 

[troym]

I also recommend the R2. It was my "starter" rangefinder camera, and it's really a lot of fun to use. Given the substantial savings if you buy the R2, I think it's the better choice for getting your feet wet.

 

[CameraQuest]

Cosina improves their cameras over time. I think the R2M has an improved RF/VF and meter readout compared to the R2. and I like the R2M's classic black paint finish and stronger rewind knob. But the R2 is still an excellent camera. You can choose blindfolded and be happy with either choice.

Stephen

 

[Fred]

I have the Bessa R and find the VF very good and the build is better than the costs suggest. The R2 onwards are better built. Remember get good glass to use on it. Theres some cracking FSU kit out there and the CV lenses are very good IMHO.

 

[f/stopblues]

Alain, you said you're new to rangefinders.. What kind of cameras are you coming from? I ask because if you're used to a whiz-bang auto-everything slr, then this may be a substantial adjustment.

I know it's a party pooper, but starting with a fixed lens cheap RF camera may be a good idea. Even if its just for a month or so, you'll get to know the shooting style and know quickly if you like it.

I hated doing it, but I started with a Canonet QL17 and a couple months later bought a Bessa R2A. At the time it was tourture, but now I feel like it was a very worthwhile experience. I was able to get a real feel for RF shooting and what to expect, as well as notice certain features that I thought would be valuable that I hadn't thought of before.

Just a thought! Have fun!

 

[f/stopblues]

By the way, I should say that if you're going to go for one that you mentioned, the R2 is a perfectly splendid camera. $300 is a big difference, and like others, I think could be better spent in film or even a Luigi case with $$ to spare!

 

[stric]

I have a R2 which is an excellent little camera. R2m is a little improvement over R2 but I don't think it is worth $300 more. In any event if you are on a small budged go with that first deal. But I am sure that after some careful research you can put together a very nice system. Just be patient and you'll come across something

 

[Alain]

Just to answer a previous question...yes, I'm new to rangefinders but not new to manual cameras. My previous camera was an Nikon FM2n and I continue to shoot 16mm motion picture film with a Bolex SBM (spring-driven) and Eclair NPR. So being involved and engaged in the process of photography is something I'm familiar with.

I wanted to update the group...

I got a good deal on an R2 and a 35/2.5 PII. I should have these two items by next week and will start shooting immediately.


Thanks everyone for the assistance!

Alain