Keep Bessa R or upgrade to a R2A?

[paxship]

I have a Bessa R, a 35 and a 75. I also have a Nikon DG-2 (a magnifer that effectively doubles the EBL and allow for diopter adjustment). All up I have about $750 invested. I am pondering adding an R2A which will set me back about $650 ($540 for the R2A snd $110 for the M mount adaptors). Any advice would be appreciated.

 

[tetrisattack]

Much better build, smoother and more ergonomic shutter speed selector, better film rewind, ratcheting film advance feels better and makes that last frame less awkward, better shutter speed readout in the finder (more informative than the R's 3 LEDs), light metering that works intuitively and doesn't indicate flat underexposure, quicker lens swaps, and your slide film will love the Av mode.

Not cheap, but there are numerous improvements!

 

[Bertram2]

I have a Bessa R, a 35 and a 75. I am pondering adding an R2A

What makes you podnering , I mean what are the intentions behind a second body ?
Just a backup or do you need some features the R does not have ? Decisive points for any kind of advice . ? 🙂

Regards,
bertram

 

[paxship]

The question is: are the improvements worth the additional expenditure?

 

[back alley]

if you're not satisfied with the pics you're getting with the r then it's worth a look at moving up.
if you're happy with the r then shoot with it till it dies or something you like better comes along.

joe

 

[Frank Granovski]

You should most definitely go for the R2A. 🙂

 

[Tarzak]

Buy the R2A and sell me the R 🙂

 

[Bertram2]

The question is: are the improvements worth the additional expenditure?

I thought you need a second body and ask if this shall be a R2a.
If the question is if the R2a is a "better" camera there are only individual answers which can differ. Would not be an real improvement for everybody here I supose.
For me the mechanical shutter of the R is an important feature for example.
Depending from the POV will be the answer to the question if the R2a is worth the plus of money. It's solely your personal decision.
bertram

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

My father is perfectly happy with his nineteen-thirties Leica.

If it's working don't fix it.

 

[sockeyed]

I guess that it depends on what you can - or want to - afford. I have an R and an R3A. The R3A has distinct advantages - AE, the M-mount and a more robust build (the 1:1 finder is irrelevant to the R2A you're considering). In all, I prefer using my R3A, but sometimes I reach for my R - it's lighter and I actually prefer the framelines (they have bottom lines for 50 and 35). If you can afford the R2A, you should go for it - I'm sure you'll like it and the features it offers. But you can also stay with the R, knowing that it takes excellent pictures too.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Might be a $lippery $lope...

"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-

 

[Jason Sprenger]

The DG-2 with the adapter works easier on a Bessa R as it slides on and off. On the R2a, you have to unscrew the eyepiece and then screw in the DG-2, and reverse it when done. A pain!

The AE on the R2a is fabulous for candids and street shots. And an M-mount is an advantage.

With both, you could put your 35 on the R2a with AE for quick snaps. Have the 75 on the R for short tele shots and portraits when you might want to quickly slip the DG-2 on for precise focus. That would be a nifty little two camera, two lens rig, IMO.

--Jason