Help a new guy take the plung

[funky1]

So I am new to rangfinder cameras. Most of my experience has been with auto focus Nikon SLR’s. I eventually came to realize that they are too big and loud for the photography I want to do. I am looking at getting an R or an R2. The cameraquest web sight is great describing each camera but I am still having trouble figuring out what the real difference is. What are the real differences between these cameras? And which one should I buy?

I ware glasses.
I will probably be getting a fast 35mm lense, 35/1.7 Aspherical Ultron
Quieter is better
I am concerned about durability ( I tend to be hard on cameras)
Any information would be really appreciated.
Which one has the best light meater

I have thout about getting a Bessa T and spend more money on glass. But I am conserned about how I would focus it. I have handled one in person and I couldn’t see throu the finder

Is there anywhare in Portland Oregon whare I can get my hands on either one to check it out?
rvw

 

[amateriat]

Well, for starters, welcome to RFf!

Second, there are quite a few ways to go with this, and others here will have various ideas. Given that, like me, you're bespectacled, it helps to have an accomodating viewfinder. For that reason, IMO, the bessa T is out. The combination I'm thinking would be good for you is a Bessa R3a and 40mm f/1.4 Nokton.

Reasons:

- Nice, big 1:1 viewfinder

- Electronic shutter quieter than all-mechanical R2

- Aperture-priority AE and manual metering. Choice is good

- 40mm Nokton is fast, compact and reasonably wide

Cost might be a few notches up from what you were considering, but I think this is a combo you'd stick with for a long time and not want for anything (at least unless/until you pick up a Leica or the like...let's not go there for a while). From the bright lights to next-to-no-light, you'll have what you need, and then some.

But, as I said, this is just one idea. Others are about to follow.


- Barrett

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

But, as I said, this is just one idea. Others are about to follow.

A hundred percent agreement with R3A and 40mm Nokton.

There are two versions of the Nokton, one with single coating to the elements and one with multi coating. Your choice.

 

[iml]

I recently bought a Bessa R2. It's a great camera, fun to use, good meter, good value for money. The 35/1.7 Ultron is my standard lens and is an excellent all-round lens. I don't think you can go wrong with an R2 or R3 and any CV lens that takes your fancy.

Ian

 

[hth]

If you have glasses the R3A may be less than ideal, many people have trouble seeing the 40mm framelines.

Given that you want durability and quiet, I would like to steer you towards a Leica M. The big divider here is whether you want an onboard light meter or can live with a handlheld meter. If not, the M2 might be ideal for you, otherwise a late M6 probably fits your description better. There are also some M4* models in between that might be interesting. Also take into consideration what framelines you want for the future and whether you prefer an uncluttered viewfinder.

/Håkan

 

[Terao]

Welcome. Do you ever shoot your Nikons in fully manual mode? If you're happy doing that then you'll be happy with a metered body but no automation. If you're not and want to smooth the transition go for the R2A or R3A as they offer aperture-priority automatic exposure. As to which of those, I believe the R2A is slightly better for glasses wearers...

I also highly, highly recommend the Nokton 40mm f/1.4 - its a great lens and good value

 

[mtbbrian]

You sound a lot like me!
Former Nikon SLR user, F3 and F100.
Looking to change photographic process and technique.
Wears glasses.
Finding it a challenge as to which Bess R camera to choose!
Right On!
Brian

 

[GeneW]

As a glasses wearer I had no trouble seeing the 35mm frames in either a Bessa R or R2.

Gene

 

[dazedgonebye]

I can't speak to the glasses thing but I've been going through my reasoning of R vs perhaps R3M.
The robust build of the R3M would be nice...but not essential.
The M mount of the R3M would open up the possibility of many wonderful lenses (that I can't afford to buy) to me.
The Aperture priority Auto-exposure and half-stop increment indicators look pretty darn compelling!
My rangefinder and street shooting technique is pretty much non-existant and being able to go auto-exposure would allow me to concentrate on all other aspects.
In the end though, I went with the R. Cheap me won. Also I'm thinking that by April I'll know if I'm cut out for this style of work and that R4M is looking mighty sweet.

 

[BillBingham2]

Brian,

Welcome.

While the R is a bargain, it’s not as sturdy as I think you would like. It is a great started camera, to learn and grow with, but somewhat challenged by taking only LTM (not a M mount body) lenses only. New lenses seem to be coming out only in M mount.

The speaking of the 40 is dead on, it is a great lens. I replace my 35/1.7 with one and have never looked back. My 35/1.7 is with my son and its fine for him. But if you are buying new, go 40/1.7.

Body wise, IMHO, Leica is first, ZI might be next (too new to really call, but it seems rock solid) and recent Bessas after that. I love my T, used one for the past four years or five years. I am replacing my L in its role of dedicated 25/4 body with it as I move back to my M6 as my primary camera. The T will be about the same amount of money when you figure in Brightline finders as a R2, so a lot depends upon what lenses you are going to use. If you want to use longer lenses (105, 135), you must go with an external finder, so the T is actually less expensive. If you are going with the say a mix of 15, 25, 40, then the T will also be less expensive. If you are going to start with the 40 and stay there for a while, not a lot of difference. The external 35mm metal CV finder is one of the best and it works fine for the 40mm, as to the 35mm frame lines on the R2/R3/R4, think full frame (f3 viewfinder).

It should be said, that I am moving back the M6 because of the auto parallax correction. While external finders are fine, I’m getting lazy in my old age. The question of Leica or ZI or Bessa is one that only you can answer. I got my Leicas 15 years ago so ZI and Bessa were not an option. I would highly recommend purchasing from Stephen Gandy at CameraQuest.com, one of the best dealers of cameras (actually anything) I have ever dealt with.

I would recommend the new Bessa R2a/R3a/R4a(when she comes out). From what I know, some folks have troubles with full frame and glasses on the R3, others do not. The R2a is no slouch and I would recommend either. The R4a is a future (spring next year) and while it sounds way cool, go with the what is available today and get the R4a as a second camera next summer.

Also, get the rapid winder, best $150 I’ve ever spent.

Hope this helps.

B2 (;->

 

[pcfranchina]

If you can find an R2a or R3a at a good price used you really can't go wrong. You can always get some cheaper FSU glass and put together a nice kit.

 

[pizzahut88]

I was a Nikon DSLR user

I was a Nikon DSLR user

So I am new to rangfinder cameras. Most of my experience has been with auto focus Nikon SLR’s. I eventually came to realize that they are too big and loud for the photography I want to do. I am looking at getting an R or an R2. The cameraquest web sight is great describing each camera but I am still having trouble figuring out what the real difference is. What are the real differences between these cameras? And which one should I buy?

I ware glasses.
I will probably be getting a fast 35mm lense, 35/1.7 Aspherical Ultron
Quieter is better
I am concerned about durability ( I tend to be hard on cameras)
Any information would be really appreciated.
Which one has the best light meater

I have thout about getting a Bessa T and spend more money on glass. But I am conserned about how I would focus it. I have handled one in person and I couldn’t see throu the finder

Is there anywhare in Portland Oregon whare I can get my hands on either one to check it out?
rvw

I was using Nikon DLSR a month ago.
Then I sold all my gear and bought a Bessa R2.
At first I was slow focusing my lens,
now I am really fast.

I also wear glasses.
So I am sure you will get better with practice.

Visit my blog for some samples:
http://viking-manfred.blogspot.com/

Manfred

 

[funky1]

“Given that you want durability and quiet, I would like to steer you towards a Leica M.”

I would love to have a Leica but they are just to expensive for me right now. I would love to get one eventually but not as my first rangefinder body.

The body I am really interested in is the R4M or R4A but they are at least 4 months away. I kind of want this first body to be one I can either sell quickly and get an R4 when they are available, or compliment an R4 when I finely get one.

There definitely seems to be more support for the 40/1.4 Nokton than the 35/1.7 Aspherical Ultron. What makes the 40 so much better.

Everyone definitely seems to have a different opinion regarding the glasses issue.

 

[Huck Finn]

To be honest, I'm surprised that prople are suggesting the R3A. Its 40 mm frame lines are very difficult to see & with glasses they are almost impossible. Thsi is a high magnification camera (1.0) & the general rule of thumb is that decreased magnification offers greater eye relief.

A better choice IMO would be an R or R2 with medium viewfinder magnification (.68). The R2 has better build quality & uses M-mount, which is the modern standard. If you like the idea of a 40 mm lens, the Rollei 35 RF (also .68 magnification) would suit you better. It is an R2 clone with 40/50/80 frame lines.

The advantages of the 40 mm lens are that it's very compact , is more than half a stop faster than the 35 Ultron, & focuses to a closer minimum focus distance (27+ inches vs 35+ inches), but most users seem to like the look of the 35 Ultron better. Both are very good lenses, so you take your pick.

The R4 sounds like a fine plan if you are going to concentrate on wide lenses; the lower magnification (.52) should make most of the frame lines easier to see with glasses. However, the magnification will also reduce the effectiveness of the rangefinder as a precision focusing tool. Not a big deal with wide angles & their great depth of field, but it will not be adequate in some situations with a fast 50 (f/1.4). Even with a wider angle like the 40 Nokton or the 35 Ultron when shooting wide open & up close, your depth of field is only an inch or two, so your margins of error is not great & greater precision is an advantage.