patois
Established
I am very happy I bought my R3M over the R3A but that is because I like being forced into manual mode. Whatever you do, you will be happy with your Bessa.
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
I agree 100%. I just got an R4M, and I likek the fact that I have to actually think more about things when taking a photo.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I have an R3A and an R4A.
The metering in both is very reliable, but if I want to intervene I can switch to "Manual" or I can adjust the EV up or down as much as two stops, based on my judgement of the overall scene and what part of it I think is important. Best of both worlds and I don't consider myself an inferior photographer for using AE. It's not a religion, and I'm not a zealot!
Batteries are not a problem in use or availability. I change mine every time I have a birthday and I've never had to change them due to expiry at any time.
Also, for opportunistic "grab" shots in social, family or street photography a fully manual camera will slow down your response time compared to an AE. So what if you're half a stop off the "perfect" exposure? Even reversal slide film will tolerate that much variance and in fact many photographers habitually underexpose slide film by half a stop to get more saturation. For colour negative film or B&W it doesn't make an ounce of difference.
So, I'd go for the R3A but eventually either will make you happy.
The metering in both is very reliable, but if I want to intervene I can switch to "Manual" or I can adjust the EV up or down as much as two stops, based on my judgement of the overall scene and what part of it I think is important. Best of both worlds and I don't consider myself an inferior photographer for using AE. It's not a religion, and I'm not a zealot!
Batteries are not a problem in use or availability. I change mine every time I have a birthday and I've never had to change them due to expiry at any time.
Also, for opportunistic "grab" shots in social, family or street photography a fully manual camera will slow down your response time compared to an AE. So what if you're half a stop off the "perfect" exposure? Even reversal slide film will tolerate that much variance and in fact many photographers habitually underexpose slide film by half a stop to get more saturation. For colour negative film or B&W it doesn't make an ounce of difference.
So, I'd go for the R3A but eventually either will make you happy.
Penceler
Established
AE with exposure lock is the way to go
AE with exposure lock is the way to go
At least in my opinion... until the batteries die.
But the R3A does give you the opportunity to shoot with AE which the M of course, doesn't. I think it is the more versatile camera and let's face it, RF's need all the help they can get in that regard
AE with exposure lock is the way to go
At least in my opinion... until the batteries die.
But the R3A does give you the opportunity to shoot with AE which the M of course, doesn't. I think it is the more versatile camera and let's face it, RF's need all the help they can get in that regard
Merkin
For the Weekend
The R3a is what you want. Ask yourself how much the warranty is worth to you, for the used one won't have one.
Tom Diaz
Well-known
In the past I owned both an R2A and an R2M. (The same cameras, basically, as the R3A and R3M, but with different viewfinders for slightly different ranges of lenses.)
I would recommend the R3M. As someone else said, the automatic cameras can be a little delicate. My R2A jammed at one point, because it was fired with a lens cap on. That is not an uncommon mistake for someone to make, but it basically killed the camera. (The people I bought it from took care of me right away.) The manual shutter on the R3M would not fall prey to such a problem.
The R3M is easy to use. It is not fully automatic but does have a built-in meter, after all. There definitely is the extra step of being sure you turn he aperture ringto match up the indicators in the viewfinder, whereas with the R3A you can just fire away. (And with either one, mount a trigger winder and really blaze away!) So there is no question the R3M would be a little slower on every shot, and perhaps before you got used to it, you would incorrectly expose a couple. But you would get used to it, I think.
I got lots and lots of great images from my R2A, but if I were relying on a camera I would go with the M variation.
Tom
alwinvrm
Member
I would support the idea of having aperture priority automation for the same price as a manual only camera, especially since the A can work in manual as well. BEWARE OF COMMENT BELOW
Plausible example in street photography: You walk on the shady side of a street with properly set camera. You want to take a quick shot of something on the sunny side of the street. You will be a couple of stops off with a manual camera. I come from a hand held meter background, so I don't think it is that much of an issue anyway.
MORE IMPORTANTLY!!! Why do some members say the A's are more sensitive than the M's? More complex / sensitive / faulty construction? I also read a few posts about A's with failing shutters and none, I think, about M problems. I was very enthousiatic about the idea of getting a Bessa R4A (using leica and hexar af) but the posts I read about failing shutters make me very hesitant to say the least. Is the M really better or simply less people buying it, so you hear less complaints?
Plausible example in street photography: You walk on the shady side of a street with properly set camera. You want to take a quick shot of something on the sunny side of the street. You will be a couple of stops off with a manual camera. I come from a hand held meter background, so I don't think it is that much of an issue anyway.
MORE IMPORTANTLY!!! Why do some members say the A's are more sensitive than the M's? More complex / sensitive / faulty construction? I also read a few posts about A's with failing shutters and none, I think, about M problems. I was very enthousiatic about the idea of getting a Bessa R4A (using leica and hexar af) but the posts I read about failing shutters make me very hesitant to say the least. Is the M really better or simply less people buying it, so you hear less complaints?
Colman
Established
I went with the R3A, because I like having AE. If you don't, I recommend the R3M. As you can see from the discussion, different people have different ways of working. They can get pretty defensive and insulting about it, but the truth is that it's a matter of finding what works for you: I can't handle zoom lenses - I'm too undisciplined to use them effectively (I tend to stand where I am and zoom rather than use my feet to find a good angle). Other people work fine with them. It's not up to me to tell them that they're being lazy because I am.
I suspect that there are many more R3A's sold, but that's a guess, and that as a result there will be more problem reports. Anyone know what the proportions are?
I suspect that there are many more R3A's sold, but that's a guess, and that as a result there will be more problem reports. Anyone know what the proportions are?
Colman
Established
That makes me think you should get the R3M though, at least until you are that confident - sometimes jumping in at the deep end is a good idea.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Using Manual is easy as pie and will make a better photog out of you. get the R3M.
Tom Diaz
Well-known
See my story, above, about the R2A shutter being broken by firing the camera with the lens cap on. Other AE cameras might drain the battery or get hosed in in some way when you do that (and I say when because it is hard to avoid ever doing that in the whole lifetime of the machine), but you would be able to reboot them or something. I guess. I am fairly certain I'm not the only one who has broken a shutter that way. If you buy from an official distributor (i.e., CameraQuest) you will be taken care of, so in some respects it's not an issue.
When you accidentally shoot a frame with an R2M with the lens cap on, you will just get a nice perfectly exposed picture of the back of a lens cap and can move on from there.
alwinvrm
Member
@Tom Diaz
Thanks Tom, So it seems there is a bug in the system of The A when the camera thinks it has to make an indefinitely long exposure for example when the lens cap is on. The camera is unable to get itself out of this situation. I agree with you that although avoidable this kind of thing is bound to happen in practical use.
The problem seems rather caused by a design flaw in the circuitry / processor than wear and tear of the mechanical components of the shutter, pitty.
Anyway, the beautiful finder aside, I was interested in the R4A as a Leica M7 on the cheap with its aperture priority automation. Now it seems a fact though that the A has a reliability issue and the R4M is the only wise choice remaining. That would mean there is no exposure automation available reliably in the Bessa line up. Then I might as well safe a bit more for a second hand Leica M6 which has also a built in lightmeter but of course lacks the nice wide angle finder, .... hmmmm, interesting but difficult choices to make.
Thanks Tom, So it seems there is a bug in the system of The A when the camera thinks it has to make an indefinitely long exposure for example when the lens cap is on. The camera is unable to get itself out of this situation. I agree with you that although avoidable this kind of thing is bound to happen in practical use.
The problem seems rather caused by a design flaw in the circuitry / processor than wear and tear of the mechanical components of the shutter, pitty.
Anyway, the beautiful finder aside, I was interested in the R4A as a Leica M7 on the cheap with its aperture priority automation. Now it seems a fact though that the A has a reliability issue and the R4M is the only wise choice remaining. That would mean there is no exposure automation available reliably in the Bessa line up. Then I might as well safe a bit more for a second hand Leica M6 which has also a built in lightmeter but of course lacks the nice wide angle finder, .... hmmmm, interesting but difficult choices to make.
Tom Diaz
Well-known
I like to shoot with two bodies, do you? If so that's another thing to weigh into your thinking. The CVs are otherwise nice machines. If you have two bodies you're protected against being out of commission in the event of some kind of failure. Things happen to me all the time, mostly my fault. Two new CVs vs a second hand m6 might be worth thinking about. (I have an M6 so I can understand why you would want to go there.)
In my experience, the Zeiss Ikon I owned was more like an M7 on the cheap. Beautiful finder, somewhat quieter than the CVs, etc. Check it out. I do not know if it has the same shutter issue, but the shutter sounds different so maybe it is. The ZI also has a great top-mounted dial that incorporates auto and manual shutter speeds plus exposure compensation. Nice and easy to use.
Tom
alwinvrm
Member
@Tom Diaz
Sound advice, thanks. I have an M4P (too mint to use, almost) and an M2 for 90/50 mm lenses or occasinal color slides and a Hexar AF for B&W.
What attracted me was the R4A was the 1) aperture automation 2) finder. I think I still would not like the idea of a "shutter with a bug" (RxA types) even if I would have back up body. I may be overreacting to the shutter issue. So that would leave the R4M's finder as its only attraction left. The price difference in Europe between a new Bessa R4M and a decent 2nd hand M6 is probably around 250 Euro's.
I hope I have been a bit clearer about my dilemma, after having given all the details.
Sound advice, thanks. I have an M4P (too mint to use, almost) and an M2 for 90/50 mm lenses or occasinal color slides and a Hexar AF for B&W.
What attracted me was the R4A was the 1) aperture automation 2) finder. I think I still would not like the idea of a "shutter with a bug" (RxA types) even if I would have back up body. I may be overreacting to the shutter issue. So that would leave the R4M's finder as its only attraction left. The price difference in Europe between a new Bessa R4M and a decent 2nd hand M6 is probably around 250 Euro's.
I hope I have been a bit clearer about my dilemma, after having given all the details.
Tom Diaz
Well-known
Ah, the Hexar AF. What a great machine. That's one I'll never part with.
Anyway, yes check into the Zeiss Ikon. It's really a nicer camera than the CVs but a lot less expensive than a Leica. (The ZI will bring up an 85mm frame when you mount your 90mm lens, but I found that easy enough to live with.) Even if it has the shutter problem, which it might not, you're pretty well armed at that point.
Tom
FS Vontz
Aspirer
You could always use that extra money you'd have to buy extra film and go a little way towards being able to meter with your eyes, which is in my opinion, one of the hallmarks of a great photographer.
Last edited:
Vincent.G
Well-known
The fastest way to shoot a RF is to have your aperture and shutter speed all set, with some range focusing done, before you bring it up to your face. So you quickly bring it up to your eye to do fine focusing adjustment and shoot, all in one fluid motion. You should learn to do minor adjustments along the way as you shoot by reading the lighting condition. Stick to one film and learn its characteristics. After some time, you should be able to rely less and less on your meter and throw AE (or maybe metering) out of the window!
A manual (non-metered) RF helps you learn this (with an external meter) e.g. M2 or M3. But are you prepared to take this humbled route? A R2M, R3M and R4M offers full manual (with internal meter) for a start but you still got to peer through the VF to check your metering values. Here is where the advantage of external meter is, you can meter without even bringing up the camera to your eye and drawing attention.
There are lots of RF cameras caterring to different needs of RF enthusiasts. What works for majority here does not mean it is the best choice. Many seem to favour the auto bessa because of AE but I prefer the mechanical version because it is more robust. Look at the many RF users surviving well with all manual cameras. If they can do it, ask yourself why not you? And should one day the all-manual classic leica bug bites you, you can have a smooth transition to them. If you want fuss-free fast shooting, then you should be using an AF SLR with aperture priority instead, not RF.
Last but not least, automation takes the fun out of RF photography. Learn to handle a manual camera, and it will make you a better photographer. You can then claim the picture is truly taken by you, not the camera.
Just my humble opinion.
A manual (non-metered) RF helps you learn this (with an external meter) e.g. M2 or M3. But are you prepared to take this humbled route? A R2M, R3M and R4M offers full manual (with internal meter) for a start but you still got to peer through the VF to check your metering values. Here is where the advantage of external meter is, you can meter without even bringing up the camera to your eye and drawing attention.
There are lots of RF cameras caterring to different needs of RF enthusiasts. What works for majority here does not mean it is the best choice. Many seem to favour the auto bessa because of AE but I prefer the mechanical version because it is more robust. Look at the many RF users surviving well with all manual cameras. If they can do it, ask yourself why not you? And should one day the all-manual classic leica bug bites you, you can have a smooth transition to them. If you want fuss-free fast shooting, then you should be using an AF SLR with aperture priority instead, not RF.
Last but not least, automation takes the fun out of RF photography. Learn to handle a manual camera, and it will make you a better photographer. You can then claim the picture is truly taken by you, not the camera.
Just my humble opinion.
climbing_vine
Well-known
What silly hubris. Only you can decide what you want your exposure to look like. Nobody is disputing that--you're the only one talking about the strawman of thoughtless happy snaps.
But if you want to talk about what is more accurate in quickly-changing lighting conditions (not a studio setup, or on a high desert plain where you're only concerned with the predictable tracking of the sun), then the meter will provide a more accurate starting point than your eyes. It is simply a fact, and if you don't like it you're happy to argue with 300 years of scientific inquiry into the nature of human perception. I'll continue on my merry way until I bump into the next ignoramus.
Even more to the point, the majority of the time the AE-calculated exposure will be "correct". Again: not every time. Sometimes you want to do this, and then, like a person with a brain, you overrule the AE in no more time than it takes to adjust a manual exposure camera. The other 90% of the time, you can take your picture, after quickly evaluating the scene, without fiddling with the knobs.
Not to mention that I've never seen anyone *accurately* set manual exposures on the fly in changing conditions without using, subconsciously, the same middle gray evaluation that autoexposure systems use.
In short, you're silly. Stop that.