Mini trial of R3A and Leica M 35/2

[Terry Astor]

I should like to introduce myself as an enthusiast of all things photographic and a user -predominently- of the Nikon SLR and the Leica M systems. I was "introduced" to this site by a recent article of Mr Roger Ricks in the UK Amateur Photogarapher publication. Having used an M6 for several years, I was toying with the idea of moving to an M7 for the benefit of automated Aperture Priority. Cost considerations tempted me to "try my hand" on the recently introduced R3A. Living in central London, I have a readily available selection of "models" on which to try new gear. None of these are "glamorous" but being always there, they provide good comparative standards. I am referring to the delights of Westminster Abbey, Parliament and Trafalgar squares, the Admiralty Arch, St. Jame's Park, Buckingham Palace and the magnificent architectural displays on both embankments of the Thames; all the way to Tower Bridge, St. Catherine's docks and beyond to Greenwich, the Maritime Museum and the Cutty Shark tall ship.

With a Leica M 35/2 mid 90's lense on, and Superia 200 in the R3A body, I hit the road on a cloudy but bright Sunday. The film was D&P'ted in a "one hour" lab.

I knew the quality of my lense but I was pleasantly surprised by the, almost faultless exposure provided by the R3A. Loading the film was effortless, the wind-on lever was smooth, the view-finder clear and bright, and the shutter much more quite than expected. Re-winding the film was equally simple and uneventful. I had, of course, read the instrucion manual from cover to cover!

I was VERY impressed with the quality of my prints, and I would be hard pressed to decide if using my Nikon or M system would have made too much difference. This was a point and shoot trial, no tripods and not too much prevarication on every shot, so the results were really those mostly produced by Camera and Lense and not (I am sorry to admit!) by the photographer behind them!

I hope you did not mind my long essay and that you continue to enjoy your hobby as much as I do.

Terry

 

[jmilkins]

Welcome to the RFF Terry.

I enjoyed reading your introduction. You've got some lovely sites to photograph in London.

I use the R3a too, mostly with a Hexanon 50mm.

I'm interested in how you found the framing with the 35 mm lens on the R3a. In use, did you notice it being significantly different to your M6 with the 35 mm framelines as opposed to the Bessa's 40mm ?

 

[Terry Astor]

Thank you for your response and your compliments re: the London sites!

With regard to the "40mm" frame....my apologies to you and all other readers for any confusion caused...it was a typographical error on my part, repeated throughout my message! The camera I have bought and tried was the R2a, hence the Leitz 35mm lense used with it. The R2a's 35mm frame worked great and the rangefinder proved to be very accurate too.
Regards
Terry Astor

 

[vincentbenoit]

and the shutter much more quite than expected.

Terry, how would you compare the shutter noise of the Bessa to that of a Leica M? I had a chance to handle an R2A once and got the impression that the shutter was fairly loud, but I didn't have a Leica at hand for a side-by-side comparison.
As for London being an attractive place for photographers, I agree - I'm based in Cambridge but I often come to the capital on week-ends to snap away.
Cheers
Vincent

 

[Terry Astor]

It is difficult to define, but I would say that the R2a shutter sound is a fairly silent metalic "clic" compared to an M's virtually silent "whishhh", as would be expected from rubberised shutter curtainsn as opposed to metal blades. The R2a is of course by far quiter than an SLR; but the M, well it is a world apart. But then, so is its price...
Regards
Terry Astor

 

[phototone]

The quietness of a camera such as the Bessa R2a, or for that matter any lightweight camera will be quieter with a nice hefty lens attached. Try it. Its true.

 

[djon]

...for many the concept is "small camera, small lens." "Hefty lens" may defeat one purpose of rangefinder camera.

I use a very hefty 50 1.5CV ...the far smaller Summicron f2 would been my preference but for rarity, condition, and price. Maybe the 2.5 CV would have been smarter, and I do think the smaller 50 1.4 black Canon would have been. I paid an extra $100 for a 35 f2 black Canon (perhaps an ultimate 35) instead of 35 f1.7 Ultron specifically because the Ultron 1.7 35 is nearly as huge as the Nokton 1.5 50 and I didn't want another large lens obstructing my view.

I shoot Canon Ps. Metal shutter. They're more compact than R2 R3, heavier...certainly noisier than Leicas.

 

[vincentbenoit]

...for many the concept is "small camera, small lens." "Hefty lens" may defeat one purpose of rangefinder camera.

I very much agree with that. To me there's no such thing as a "nice hefty lens".

Vincent

 

[Fred]

Welcome Terry,

I'm sure that you'll be very happy with the R2a. I had the chance to try an R2A and found it better than I'd have thought. Although quite light, it was well constructed. In every day use the shutter is quiet enough regardless of the lens fitted.

I would certainly consider the R2A as another body.

You'r very fortunate to have so many 'models' available to shoot locally. Post some examples in the gallery sometime.

Cheers

 

[dcsang]

I very much agree with that. To me there's no such thing as a "nice hefty lens".

Vincent

hehehe.... I know we're talking RF here but have you seen some of the behemoths that Canon or Nikon has for their SLR systems? 😀

A lot of talk has been given to the R3A/R2A shutter vs the M.

I think Terry hit it right on the nose - that's exactly how I would describe it - based on my M6 memories of the sound of the shutter and my current R3A.

I also concur regarding the exposure from the R3A/R2A - bang on. And this makes all the difference in the world imho 🙂

Cheers
Dave

 

[Way]

Anyone here with both the Leica CL and an R2A/3A compare the shutter sounds? Which do you consider louder?

 

[aizan]

i've compared them at the store. they're pretty much the same.

 

[djon]

The problem with CLs is they're fragile. They're not Leicas, no matter the label. It's one thing to have a metallic dinosaur like old Canons and real Leicas, quite another to have an electrical dinosaur. I think some of the recent mini Leicas and Contax, which have incredibly fine lenses, make more sense...and they're smaller even than CL.

 

[phototone]

I very much agree with that. To me there's no such thing as a "nice hefty lens".

Vincent

Well, the "speed" lenses, the Noktons, Ultrons, Summilux, Noktilux, Jupiter 3, etc., are more massive, and that is what many people use to shoot in "candid" situations with available light and not drawing attention to themselves. This is the type of lens I was referring to, and if you use a lens with more "mass", such as these, then the camera shutter noise will be more muffled, or damped, thus making the camera appear to be quieter. Other than that Canon f/0.95, I cannot think of a RFDR lens that is "massive" in the same sense that a SLR lens can be massive. So all things are relative.

 

[phototone]

The problem with CLs is they're fragile. They're not Leicas, no matter the label. It's one thing to have a metallic dinosaur like old Canons and real Leicas, quite another to have an electrical dinosaur.

Uh, the CL is a pure mechanical camera, it just has a built in lightmeter, which does not have to be used, thus making the camera totally battery independent. Perhaps you are thinking about the CLE? which is battery dependent for its shutter and exposure automation.

The Bessa R2a and R3a, and the upcoming Zeiss-Ikon are battery dependent, as the shutter is electronically timed (not mechanical) and will not work at all speeds without a battery.

 

[learner]

anyone with links to audio clips of how leica Ms sound like?

 

[djon]

My point about the CL (and CLE) is that they're not in the same league as any real Leica (or Canon), in terms of ruggedness. More comparable to CV. They're cute, of course. Leica blew an opportunity discontinuing them.

IMO for the same price a person might do better investing in a Leica CM zoom, with its superb Leica 35-70 lens, rather than the same amount in a "Leica" CL/CLE with its Minolta lenses and possible service challenges. To each his own.

 

[Doug]

But then the Leica CM zoom will turn into an "electrical dinosaur" soon enough, won't it? 🙂

FWIW I've been waiting years for my CLE to become unserviceable, but it refuses to die... so there's hope for the CM too I guess!