Help! which bessa R body....

bellyface

bellyface

Registered Nice Guy
Local time
2:47 PM
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
243
Hi guys, I'm longing for an R body and just can't sem to lock it down on which body I want.

R - nice, scaled down, simple, love it

R2 - same thing with the M mount

R2m - pretty much the same camera with a few different cosmetic additions

R2a - same body with the A mode, battery powered shutter

R3m - 1:1 viewfinder, need I say more

R3a - 1:1 viewfinder, A mode, battery powered shutter

I shoot with a broni rangefinder, shoould I be looking at the R3's? I love em' all, but I use aperture mode for quicker street shooting. I also enjoy the 28-90 range, and possibly entertain the notion of going wider.
 
if you plan on sticking to the 35-90 area get an r2a, mine is great, the r2a has no 28mm lines though

if you want wider then a upcoming r4a is right up your alley


go check out glazers over there in seattle, sometimes they have bessa bodies in there you can look at, ask for mark
 
You could be better with the r3* for the 40-90 range and it’s the less “focus-critical” wide-angles that require the auxiliary finders
 
I have the R and R3a, they both have their plus and minus points.
The RF spot in the R moves as the lens is focused, and can disappear altogether if your eye does not move to follow it sometimes. This can make you believe you are in perfect focus, since there is no double image, when in fact the RF patch is just gone. My R3a does not seem to have this characteristic.
The cure is to pre focus via the scale and be aware of the tendency.
The R has the three LED meter display that is dazzling in dim light, but fine in bright light. The R3a has a long line of numbers for it's display of metering, but like the R's rf patch, the R3a's meter display numbers are only visible if your eye is in exactly the right spot, and since the meter is activated via a partial shutter button press, it's easy to take shots of your feet etc., as you struggle to see if the numbers lit up or not. This is only a problem for me outdoors in bright sun.
The work around there is to have a pretty good guess what the meter would be telling you anyway, set the diaphram accordingly and leave it on A.
 
I have used the R3A for about two years and really like it. I am right eyed and shoot with both eyes open. The CV lenses I use are the 75, 50/1.5, 35/2.5, 21 and 15. The 21 and 35 are used with brightline finders and the 15 lives on a Bessa L. The AE capability does allow shooting a little faster IMHO. There is a R4m coming soon where the 35 and 21 will live and maybe a 28 or 25 too.

I think the AE feature or a purely mechanical shutter would be a major part of your final choice. I believe for general photography I would suggest one of the R2 or R3 bodies.

Mike
 
so I'm here, R2a and R3a. No go on the R4. Only issue is I wear glasses... I wonder how much is visible if you wear glasses....
 
I chose the R2m because I wear glasses. You have to find out yourself and look through the viewfinders. If you don´t want to use a 35mm lens and feel comfortable with the 1:1 viewfinder of the R3a, it will be the better choice concerning focus accuracy. Otherwise the R2a will be fine.

My R2m has a good build quality - better than the R2 or the r.

Thomas
 
The R3m viewfinder 1:1 is very special, especially with the 40mm -- its huge! Also gives new meaning to a 90mm, no longer that little tiny rectangle (not much bigger than the focus patch) way, way off in the distance.
 
bellyface said:
so I'm here, R2a and R3a. No go on the R4. Only issue is I wear glasses... I wonder how much is visible if you wear glasses....
Click to expand...
bellyface
if you do consider an R3A, let me know for i am helping my friend sell one in mint condition. cheers
 
I would take this from the other end:
  1. Decide on your finder, you now have three to choose from: 1.0x 0.7x and 0.52x.
  2. Decide on the shutter: fully manual or automatic.
From the answers to 1 and 2 you get your body. If you happen to come down on a 0.7x finder with manual shutter, the R and R2 might be an option. Though the R has a limited potential for lenses, since all Ms are out.

A few points how I would come up with the finder I want:
  • It depend on your lenses. If you want the scope for a 75mm or 90mm lens, disregard the R4a/m. The rangefinder will not allow for critical focus of these, hence an aux-finder will not bail you out.
  • If a 35mm lens is very important for you a 0.7x finder (or 0.52x if you do not need the 75/90) is the way to go. I am not sure on 40mm lines of the R3a/m. I never saw one, but for me the 35mm frame on 0.7x R is marginal, with respect to visibility (wearing glasses) and magnification. From this experience I can not imagine I would enjoy an R3a/m with the 40mm. If 50mm, 75mm and/or 90mm are most important I see the point for the R3a/m. Larger magnification and increased precision when focussing. "Occassional" use of the 35mm can be accomodated with an aux-finder. I view the R3a/m as an "improved" T, which definitely has its place.
  • For the 28mm which seems important to you, I would want an aux finder, unless I had the new 0.52 finder. On the 0.7x finder some people get away with using the entire frame - I would not. So to me the 28 seems no differentiator between 0.7x and 1.0x
So for me the key is the 35mm lens. To me this is very important and since I would want to have a 90mm as well, my answer would be a 0.7x finder. Now it is over to you to find your answer. I hope this is useful.
 
tokek said:
THe frame lines R4, 21, 25, 28 looking good here, 50 a goner, 35 ok
Click to expand...

Why do you think the 50 is a goner? The frame should be about as large as the 90mm on the R3a/m and a lot larger than the 90mm frame of the R2a/m and any Leica (appart the M3). I see that there might be "issues" with fast 50mm lenses, but a 50/2.5 should be "just fine".
 
bellyface said:
so I'm here, R2a and R3a. No go on the R4. Only issue is I wear glasses... I wonder how much is visible if you wear glasses....
Click to expand...


I wear glasses and have never been bothered with the 40mm frame in the R3A. I often shoot with a 35mm lens and just use the entire visible area in the VF for framing ala Zorki 4. It's close enough. If for some reason I am not comfortable with this, I'll slap on the 35 brightline finder. If you are right eyed you are able to shoot with both eyes open. This method, with practice, makes the frame lines seem to be projected in space without the edges of the VF being very noticeable. The 1:1 magnification is also great with 50mm and longer lenses.
 
tokek said:
Why do you think the 50 is a goner?................it's quite clear that this camera is made with wides in mind, in comparison the 50 is a keyhole
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. So this is a personal thing, not a does not work thing.

I actually prefer lower magnification view finders (aka keyholes). I own a Minolta XE-1, which has a pretty high magnification finder like most SLRs of that vintage. When I moved onto a Pentax MZ-5n (ZX-5n in the US) I was a lot happier. Many people criticise the Pentax for too low a finder mag, but I loved it. With the higher mag finder I spend to much time scanning the scene and loosing the overview on the composition. Essentially not seeing the woods for the trees. About 0.7x to 0.8x is right for me for a 50mm, 0.52x should still be ok, but 1.0x is definitely a compromise for me. A nice thing about rangers is you can have lower magnification finders and high focussing accuracy.

As I say, it is a personal thing. If you and so many others on this list prefer higher mag finders, fine by me :). There is something to be said for choice, isn't it ...
 
looking at the R4M and the R2 the frame lines look real close to the same size. one has Corners on the frames and the other has open spots at the corners but they look real close to the same amount of space in the eyepiece
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom