Bessa?

[Kouyoubushi]

Greetings everyone.

This is my first post here. I've been lurking for about a year now. Here's the deal. I was primarily a digital shooter until my rig got stolen at the beginning of the year. I acquired a Canonet QL GIII, but grew frustrated with it due to the ergonomics, hard to view viewfinder and meter, lack of high shutter speeds and inability to meter above ISO 800. I'm much more a digital person except I think that B&W photography is amazing and looks best when done with film. I'm looking for a good, ergonomically sound, and fully functional rangefinder like the R2 or R3A. I don't have Leica or even Zeiss money to spend on Photography. So My questions related to the Bessa are largely around functionality and build quality (I don't find paying the price for the body, but I expect it to last me forever in a way that I don't/can't expect from digital).

What say you all?

Nice to have finally posted!

 

[jl-lb.ms]

Welcome, Kouyoubushi. You will not be disappointed with any of the Voigtlander bodies or lenses. A few years ago I picked up a Bessa L with the CV 15. Since then I've owned a Bessa T and a Bessa R, both now sold since I shoot almost exclusively in digital (first an R-D1, and now a Leica M8). But I do have CV lenses 15, 28, 35, 40, with a 12 on the way. The exact Rx that you choose would depend on the range of focal lengths that you anticipate using. You are surely aware of the vast repository of information on Stephen Gandy's site, cameraquest.com.

Good luck, you can't go wrong. John.

 

[BillBingham2]

Yes Kouyoubushi, welcome. Bessas have been one of the best buys out there to get into RF photography perhaps ever. Like John, I've had several Ls, Ts and an R. While I had them they served me very well. My first was a T that was used but not know from where, then the L came from a photographer who didn't like it with two other CV lenses. It was used but not abused, then I got everything else new from Stephen, watching for sales and such. I never had a problem with my L that went just about everywhere with me while I was shooting LTM and M glass. The T was my main camera for many years (when my kids were young) when I want a carry more than just a 25/4.

While I doubt they will take the abuse a Leica M will, I do strongly believe that with a reasonable amount of respect any of the Rx Bessas will work very well for years to come.

For RF work I've moved over to a Nikon range finder but all my Bessas are working well at the homes that bought them. I would not hesitate recommending to anyone on a budget or not to start with a Bessa. You may feel the itch to move after some time, but in reality unless you need a higher level of reliability due to the abuse you will put her through there's not a lot of reason to change. Another approach is to get two bodies and use one. When it breaks use the second (or rotate them every month) and send the first in for fixing. You will still have a bit of cash in your hand.

B2 (;->

 

[Jason Sprenger]

I've had a Bessa R2a since they came out and used it just about daily for two years and I still use it in my smaller bag fairly regularly.

Functionally, the viewfinder is first class at least as good as Leica in terms of clarity. The metering is accurate, and the automatic exposure mode makes the camera nicely versatile in some situations.

Ergonomically, the strap lug placement is not great for neck straps so the Bessa grip is a good accessory to have as it incorporates another strap lug that permits the camera to hang more comfortably.

In terms of wear and tear, the contact cement used for the rubber material on the back recently gave out and some light seal material near the hinge is curling up. I sent away for a new griptac cover from CameraLeather.com as a replacement. The OEM cover had a ergonomic hump on the back, but losing that hasn't been issue for me with the grip attached.

I also replaced the eye piece once as the rubber surrounding it wore away. It wouldn't have been an issue except that I wear spectacles and didn't want them scratched by the metal. The part is the same as is used on some Nikon models so it wasn't difficult to get a hold of.

On a budget, I find the R2a pairs well with a 50/2 Jupiter-8, 50/2 collapsible Summicron or a 35/2.5 Color Skopar though pricier lenses work well too.

Overall, it's a pretty conventional modern camera with a metal magnesium body that happens to be a rangefinder. I'm not sure that it will last forever, but I don't figure much can go wrong with it.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Bessas are very well made and have great metering, easy loading, and have all of the most advanced and comfortable features... CV lenses are impressive as line and as individuals. You'll enjoy and keep any of their cameras. I use three Bessas with the 15 Heliar and the 40 Nokton (M mount).

You'll find plenty of interesting threads here, about which camera goes well with which shooting or lens...

We will also be glad to answer any particular question.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[David Murphy]

All of them are good, but I recommend the mechanical shutter models. I personally prefer the R and R2 - For the money of the R3 and R4 series one can just about buy a good used Leica M and that's superior in most respects (The R2C and R2S are also wonderful if you want the more offbeat).

 

[le vrai rdu]

IMHO Bessa are nice cameras with minor drawbacks

I am very pleased with my bessa R wich is not the best bessa ever built, so there is no reason not to buy one

 

[Kouyoubushi]

"On a budget, I find the R2a pairs well with a 50/2 Jupiter-8, 50/2 collapsible Summicron or a 35/2.5 Color Skopar though pricier lenses work well too."

I have heard of the Jupiter 8 before and see tons of them "cheap" on eBay. I would rather have a less than optimal lens and get back to shooting earlier and get a CV 40mm later than to wait for a R3A/CV 40 pair. What would I need to get the Jupiter to mount on the R3A?

 

[bwidjaja]

All you need is an LTM to M mount adapter. If you use it with a Bessa, you dont need to get the one for 50mm, any will work since you need to manually select the frame line. Let me know if you are interested in a nice Jupiter 3 lens 50mm f1.5. Gives a pleasing vintage look to the image.

 

[bwidjaja]

some sample images using the lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/warung/sets/72157622498885303/

 

[wlewisiii]

The Jupiter 8 is an exquisite lens that is still available stupid cheap because it's tarred with the brush against FSU gear.

Get a R2, I'd say, with a VC LTM ->M adapter and a Juptiter 8. I like the newer black lenses best, myself.

The R3 is a nice body with the 40 frame lines, but it shortchanges the strength of the rangefinder - wide angle lenses. I'd really suggest the R2A, the J8 &, as soon as you can afford it, a 35/2.5 Color Skopar. Those two lenses will do 90% of what you'll want to shoot with a rangefinder as good as any two lenses are likely to do so.

Good luck & good light.

William

 

[Jason Sprenger]

I got a Jupiter-8 that I like from the auction site but I've also been burned a couple of times on other stuff. At this point when I get FSU gear, I go with Fedka as he offers a money back guarantee. These things haven't been made in a while and even the unused ones aren't new.

If you go for a Jupiter-8 or any LTM lens, you'll need a M-mount adapter for a Bessa R3A or any M-mount camera. These adapters cost as much or more than a Jupiter 8 and need to be factored into your calculations.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The Jupiter 8 is an exquisite lens that is still available stupid cheap because it's tarred with the brush against FSU gear.

Dear William,

Exquisite? No. Sometimes quite good? Yes. I long ago lost track of how many I've had over the decades, in both LTM and Kiev fit. I do not have one at the moment because I have never found any sort of picture that I couldn't take better (i.e. giving me results I prefer) with some other 50mm lens. I have even been known to give them away.

They're not awful, and as I say, a good one can be quite good, but the design is around 80 years old and was originally a compromise to allow the minimum number of air-glass surfaces in the days of uncoated lenses: resolution was sacrificed to contrast. The main reason they're silly-cheap is that there are so incredibly many of them.

I once had one that clicked faintly as it was tipped from side to side. This was because the centre group was flopping to and fro inside the lens. It still delivered amazingly good results... Ah, Soviet quality control!

Cheers,

R.

 

[wlewisiii]

Roger,

I've apparently been luckier. While some have been better than others, none have ever been as bad as some of the ones you've described. Perhaps over the years, a few of the real stinkers have ended up in the optical graveyard? Perhaps, too, my standards are different - there are few finer things to me than a prewar Zeiss lens. As well, I love my Summitar & consider the collapsible model to be the best of the Summicrons ... 😱

In my experience, which is worth what the OP paid for it, the newer black lenses that you can occasionally find as NOS are the best bargain out there right now. A good to great lens for less money than even a KEH ugly Elmar. That qualifies as exquisite to me. 🙂

William

 

[baycrest]

Bessa?

Back to the OP's comment that he'd like it to last longer than a digital, there's no problem there, however, for the electronic Bessa's R2A/3A, I imagine they're less robust than the 2M/3M.

I don't have any evidence or data regarding the number of shutter actuations that the mechanical has versus the electronic versions.

I expect my electronic Bessa, will still be around and functioning well, long after my M8 has bit the dust 😱.

I do enjoy the R3A's Aperture Priority mode with the EV adjustments, which gives me M7 functionality at 20% the cost. For that I can replace the 3A 4 four times and benefit from whatever improvements Bessa comes up with in the future (brighter finder? more contrast on the focus patch in dim light? although I have no serious complaints), rather than go with the M7, today.

Best,
Rob