Like my Bessa R, will I like others?

P

Pfreddee

Well-known
Local time
7:40 AM
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
528
Location
In the suburbs of Dillwyn, Virginia
View My Gallery
As I noted, I really like my Bessa R; it's kind of grown on me, in spite of the fact that I wasn't crazy about rangefinders to start with. I've got the 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar and a Jupiter 8 50 mm. I've been trying to decide whether to take the plunge and get an R3A. The 40mm Nokton lens combo and the R3A are very appealing. What has been your experience with the R3A?

With best regards,

Stephen
 
I like my R3Ms - the life-size viewing is great. I'm looking to sell one (body), mainly to pay for the M5 I pick up tomorrow. My other life-size view is with the Nikon S series, especially the S2. Back on point, of my R2, R3Ms and R4M, the R3 is easiest on the eyes - "two-eyed viewing" is seductive, with or without eyeglasses - kind of makes the camera totally transparent. The whole rangefinder ethos of "see the entire scene" and not just what's framed is epitomized with the 1:1 viewfinder. Oddly, the R4M 0.52 view gives you a wide view, but only through the "box". It's why the Leica M3 gets such a following (one reason anyway) - the (near) life-size viewing. A bit rambly, but I hope this helps. - alfredian
 
The R3a is awesome! I have both the R and the R3a. The built construct is better and AE is convenient. The bigger magnification improves focusing accuracy.

The only downside is that the shutter speed readings take some practice to see in daylight. You have to look at it straight on, as opposed to any angle with the Bessa R. Oh and no self timer.
 
Stephen, I've had both the Bessa R and the R3A; both now sold. When I had the R3A, I used it w/ a 40 (the Minolta Rokkor-M 40/2). I wear glasses, and the 40 framelines on the R3A are on the outer edges of the vf and were a little hard to see. The R2A, otoh, has the same vf magnification as the Bessa R, and the same framelines too. If you're interested in the 40 Nokton, you might consider getting an R2A instead and learning to frame w/ the 35 framelines. They're probably not too different, particularly at a distance. I think the big deal about the R3A is the 1:1 vf magnification, and the framelines for 50 and 75. But those considerations turned out to be not so important to me.

More generally, I thought the Bessa R was a delightful, simple camera. The shutter is a bit loud, but in every other respect I liked mine (but I sold it to fund the purchase of an M2). The vf was gloriously bright, I liked the framelines, and the fact that I could use a 28 w/out resort to an auxiliary finder.

As for the R3A, I bought it b/c of the 40 framelines, but those turned out to be not so hot to use in practice as I indicated above. The camera has a more solid feel to it than the Bessa R (and it is a little heavier), and the shutter is a little quieter. The AE on mine was excellent; I used it to shoot candids at a wedding, and the exposures were right on the mark. If you wanted an AE camera to use primarily w/ a 50 lens, the R3A would be a very good choice. However, I did have rf alignment issues (for some reason the R3* series has been prone to these), and it took a few trips to the repairman before they were finally corrected. In the end, I decided to go the SLR route for AE when I realized that a Minolta XD body was the same size as the R3A (the Minolta's shutter is much quieter, and the AE is as good or better). So, long story short, I sold the R3A. It's a nice camera, but I wouldn't buy another one for the 40 framelines; I'd get an R2A instead... or an M3. 🙂
 
Very fundamentally (and it might go without saying), if you change lenses very much, you'll find that the bayonet mount on the R3 is much faster and easier than the screw mount on the R.
 
I have had both the R3A and the R4A.In some respects these cameras are better featured than the Leica M6 I have - a neat little window that shows the film type that's loaded, a shutter lock to prevent inadvertent exposures, a handy exposure compensation dial on the top plate - and it's quite well-enough built. The viewfinder on the R3A is great but the downside is that you can't use wide lenses without also using a shoe-mounted accessory viewfinder. The R4A on the other hand has a viewfinder that's a bit small and it needs accessory viewfinders for long lenses but it goes wide to 21mm.

It will depend on what type of photography you favour but I've found that I'm tending to go wider than 40mm these days. Mind you, the 40/1.4 is a great little lens and for a one camera, one lens outfit the R3A with the Nokton 40/1.4 would be hard to beat.

If you like using 35mm (and you already have such a lens) I'd hesitate to recommend the R3A to you simply because I think you'd end up frustrated that the viewfinder doesn't cover the field of view of anything wider than 40mm. Don't be deluded into thinking you can use outside the frame - there isn't any "outside"!

So after buying a Leica M6 which gives me frames for 28/35/50/75/90/135 I decided to sell the R3A. As I want a back-up body and I do shoot with 21/25 nearly as often as other focal lengths I'm keeping the R4A. In a pinch I have the viewfinder for 21/25 to go on the Leica and I have a 90mm viewfinder to go on the R4A.

Personally, I'd like a Bessa that had all the features of the R3/4 series and a viewfinder that gave me 28/35/50/75/90. Hasn't been built yet. Even better would be 25/28/35/50/75/90 - you can skip the 135 of the Leica and give me the 25 at the wide end instead. That would be a killer deal for me - I'd probably sell the Leica!
 
Last edited:
Hi Stephen,

I currently own and use both an R and an R3A. I really like both cameras and I love that I can use my LTM lens on the R3A using M-mount adaptors. But here is the thing, I would seriously look at the new R4M for two reasons: the wide angle frame lines and the manual exposure control. I personally have great difficulty seeing the shutter speed in the VF on the R3A in bright light, and I find that I am not using the auto setting much anyway. Also, I don't get much joy from the 75mm lens, as I personally feel a RF camera is much better with wider lenses. If you like the 40/1.4, you would also like the 35/1.4. Both lenses are great, and you can really use either one on the R4. I'm not sure if I'm making much sense, but the 21/25/28/35/50 frame lines on the R4 are very handy to have IMHO. Either way, I know you will love the M-mount Bessa. Best of luck and good shooting!
 
I have one further thought, which might get you a companion body to your R for much less $$$ IF you don't need AE and don't mind using external finders: a Bessa T works very nicely w/ a 40mm lens. The T is somewhat neglected these days (and so goes for much less than an R3*), but put a CV 40 finder on it and you have a very capable small rf body, w/ fine focusing ability (due to the magnified rf), a meter, but also fully manual operation if the battery dies. I've used this set-up on hikes and backpacking trips where light weight, sturdiness, and compactness count, and the T performed flawlessly. Think of it as a Barnack Leica w/ mod cons. 🙂

Bottom line for me, FWIW: I sold my Bessa R and R3A, but I've kept the Bessa T.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom