if I were to buy a Bessa again...

M

meandihagee

Well-known
Local time
2:41 PM
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
216
well, it's not a hypothetical question. I lost my R2A and now I'm wondering: R2A, R3A, ZI...?

the thing is I loved the R2A. but it had a problem that really bugged me:

it collected a lot of dust in the viewfinder. believe me, I treated it like a baby leopard, it was always kept in the camera case and so on. makes me wonder if it's reliable in unfriendly places with sand or bad weather. I'm not expecting to be weather proof or something like that, but c'mon I bought it new and handled it with great care.

I wonder if the ZI is any different in this situation. ultimate camera reliability is something I would pay for extra. otherwise, I played around with a ZI and I can honestly say that it's not 3 times better than my Bessa.

The R3A is cool with the 1:1 viewfinder, but a lot of people here on the forum keep saying that the 40 framelines are hard to see. but if you open both eyes how can you not see them? I will not use a 50mm, so the 40 framelines are important to me.

any advice on this?

thanks
 
I've had a ZI and now have an R4A, I think if you buy second hand, the ZI is worth the extra, the price difference brand new is quite a lot though, and not sure if it's worth that much more. Never had any trouble with a dusty finder with the ZI.

The ZI is better for faster lenses, as it has a longer range finder base length than any Bessa, but if you shoot wides, the R4A is stunning for 21mm > 28mm.

If you were happy with your Bessa though, maybe just get the same again?
 
I've owned and shot with several Bessas and several Leica Ms. My choice would be to get a used Leica. M2 if you don't need a meter, M6 if you do.
 
I would ask what lenses you use the most? If you prefer wide, get a R4A. If you like the 40 and up, get a M6 or a R3A. People rip on the bessa's, but those are usually Leica snobs. Realistically any of them will give you years of service.

My 2 cents...
Save some money and get a bessa, and use the extra cash for some Leica Lenses, since thats where the quality really comes into play when you shoot.
 
I've taken my four Bessas to the beach lots of times, and I've had no problems: no dust at all inside any of their viewfinders... By the way, although they have no AE, my Bessas T have the best rangefinder patch for fast or long lenses, or for close focusing: same system as my Barnack Leica, but a lot better...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
People do indeed rip on the Bessas, and I think it's terribly unjustified. I sold my M6 and got an R4A, the R4A was new and actually cost more than the M6. I so much prefer the R4A, if only for the 21mm framelines. But it's not just that, aperture priority, easy loading, better meter, and smell of a new camera all make me very happy with my decision. Plus the Bessa has a 3 year warranty.

I also have a Leica M3, which is gorgeous, and a lot cheaper than the Bessa.

Aside from the red dot, I really don't think an M6 is an improvement on a Bessa, quite the opposite in fact. The Leica is built better, no doubt, but the Bessa is new, and has a warranty. Regardless of build, if you drop either one onto concrete, it's going for a service.

If you like aperture priority, built in meter etc. For me it's either a ZI or a Bessa, depending on the frame lines you want.
 
I have a Bessa R2 and like the viewfinder and frames - not quite up to the ZI, but better than the M6. But I also like Rapidwinders and Leicavits; I have a trigger winder on the Bessa and get frame overlaps when I use it. That's nearly a deal killer for me.
 
Apparantly the 40mm frames of the R3(a|m) really are a matter of taste. I use my 40mm Summicron only on my R2m (35mm frames). My R3a is absolutely fabulous with a 50mm, though.
 
woodphoto said:
IPeople rip on the bessa's, but those are usually Leica snobs. Realistically any of them will give you years of service.

My 2 cents...
Save some money and get a bessa, and use the extra cash for some Leica Lenses, since thats where the quality really comes into play when you shoot.
Click to expand...

I cannot agree with this. The Bessas are not bad at all. But if you prefer a Leica, and can see a difference in quality, you are a snob? How about factors like ergonomics, reliability, quality, materials used, etc? The Leica's are better built and feel like a very solid device. Ergonomically, many of us prefer Leicas because they feel good in your hand...better than anything else to us. That's not saying Bessas don't, just that there is a difference in quality that you don't need to be a snob to appreciate.

While lenses are very important, a body that feels right to the user is just as important IMO. To me, the Zeiss body is a great compromise between price and quality. (And yes, I've used Bessas).
 
jsrockit said:
I cannot agree with this. The Bessas are not bad at all. But if you prefer a Leica, and can see a difference in quality, you are a snob? How about factors like ergonomics, reliability, quality, materials used, etc? The Leica's are better built and feel like a very solid device. Ergonomically, many of us prefer Leicas because they feel good in your hand...better than anything else to us. That's not saying Bessas don't, just that there is a difference in quality that you don't need to be a snob to appreciate.

While lenses are very important, a body that feels right to the user is just as important IMO. To me, the Zeiss body is a great compromise between price and quality. (And yes, I've used Bessas).
Click to expand...

I agree with this disagreement. The appropriate word for this idea is haptics.
 
I have a ZI, an R3A, an R2S, and a R4M (yes, I know this is ridiculous) and had an M7 that I sold after purchasing the ZI as I much preferred the ZI viewfinder/rangefinder and the lighter weight; I guess I don't automatically equate weight with build quality. I enjoy shooting with the ZI the most, its long baseline and bright viewfinder make it a very versatile camera for use with fast or long lenses (I can even focus a 135mm lens reasonably well), and although I wear glasses I can still use the 28mm framelines in the Zeiss giving it a pretty good focal length range before having to resort to external finders (which I happen to like using, perversely enough). I thought I would use the R3A a lot for the 40/75 framelines and the 1:1 viewfinder, but find that it usually stays in the bag in favor of the ZI (as well as because of its current rangefinder misalignment, see below). I just acquired the R4M and am very impressed with it thus far, enjoying the experience of shooting wide angle lenses without an external viewfinder (despite my earlier statement on the subject). The R2S is obviously a niche camera, I can use my old Nikon lenses (and especially the Voigtlander Heliar 50/3.5 in Nikon rangefinder mount that I lucked upon) and have the convenience of TTL metering and a much brighter rangefinder/viewfinder than my old Nikon bodies. I can't say that I've noticed a dramatic difference in how well the Zeiss camera meters exposure compared to the Bessas, I think all their meters perform quite well. I have problems that need to be addressed with vertical misalignment of the rangefinders in the R3A and the R4M, in the former it is bad enough to impair my ability to focus well, though I can still fake it in the R4M (which may also be because of the extra latitude for error that the wide lenses permits).
Anyway, based on my experience with Bessa and Zeiss, I don't think you can really go terribly wrong with either. I did not find the M7 enough of a step up from the Zeiss to justify its cost. I do prefer the Zeiss overall, and maybe my rangefinder alignment problems are an indication of a lesser build quality in the Bessas, but I still find them to be excellent cameras and would be quite happy with any of them if I only had the sense to limit myself to a single choice. Bottom line, they're all fun to shoot, and all can produce very good (IMHO, of course) results.
Enough rambling.
Larry
 
jsrockit said:
But if you prefer a Leica, and can see a difference in quality, you are a snob? How about factors like ergonomics, reliability, quality, materials used, etc?
Click to expand...

Well, it's perfectly possible to prefer those things without being snobbish about them. Snobbery is probably not a question of subject matter, but one of attitude, of feeling compelled to communicate that one's buying and consumption habits are better and more differentiated than the rest.

However, snobbery rarely is completely without subject matter. Usually there is something specific that people are snobbish about. You can be a film snob, a Manhattan snob, an intellectual snob, a Leica snob, or a haptics snob. We all know these things. It seems to me that the more subjective something is, the easier it is to be snobbish about it.

Now, haptics and ergonomics in particular are indeed rather subjective, which is why it is so easy to be snobbish about them, and in fact quite a few people are.
 
meandihagee said:
does the ZI have less viewfinder intrusion with "taller" lenses?
Click to expand...

Compared to what?

You have to distinguish between intrusion into the viewfinder and into the framelines. In a low-magnification finder, more of the lens is visible, but the corresponding framelines are smaller. In a large finder like the ZI, more of the lens is visible too, but the framelines are the same and the intrusion is only outside them. However, what counts in practice is only the intrusion into the framelines. Regarding framelines, a 35mm lens will intrude into a 35mm frameline pretty much the same for obvious reasons - the only factor that makes a difference is the parallax offset between the lens mount and the viewfinder.
 
I love love love my Bessa-R. I almost stopped shooting 35mm completely until I picked one up. To me, the Bessa series is one of the most comfortable feeling cameras ever. I can only assume the R2A is just as comfortable.

Sorry I don't have anything else to say. Just wanted to throw that out there after all the "get a leica instead" comments I've been seeing so much lately.
 
I love my R2a and would not hesitate getting another if I lost it. I use it a lot on beaches (I have small children) and not had a problem. In fact, if I had an M7 I'd probably be too worried about damaging it when using it in those conditions.

I may even get an R4a too sometime soon.
 
Get a Canon Model P and have $$ left over for some quality glass. Model Ps are cheap now and utterly reliable, but you'll need a meter. The Gossen Luna Pro is my choice, calibrated by Quality Metrics in Hollywood.
 
jsrockit said:
I cannot agree with this. The Bessas are not bad at all. But if you prefer a Leica, and can see a difference in quality, you are a snob? How about factors like ergonomics, reliability, quality, materials used, etc? The Leica's are better built and feel like a very solid device. Ergonomically, many of us prefer Leicas because they feel good in your hand...better than anything else to us. That's not saying Bessas don't, just that there is a difference in quality that you don't need to be a snob to appreciate.
Click to expand...

didnt like word "snob" either. luckily its not very common word here in RFF.

I could add to jsrockit's list that many film Leica's these days are worth less or same than new or newish Bessa or ZI. one more reason to choose it, for shooting, not showing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom