My new camera: Bessa, Ikon or CLE?

[piero2025]

Odd twist of the choice.

RF, 85 and 90mm lenses are next to absurd with RF. Tiny frame-lines and parallax.

Plus, none of those three in the list as serviceable as simple and common SLRs.

Bessa is on the mercy of very few. CL is the same and Ikon nobody knows for sure, just some rumors from those who didn't serviced it recently.

You have to grow with RF even more and realize what 35 and 50 are better portrait lenses than your cliche. In fact, anything from 50 and wider is portrait lens on RF.

Thanks Ko.Fe, that is a fascinating idea.

Coming from SLRs, I must say that indeed 50mm lenses are actually quite ok for portraits, the caveat being that some people have irregular features which are minimized by long lenses (but in these cases, you really have to go long, like 135mm or 150).

So if I understand correctly, it's a matter of developing portraiture skills on RFs more than the length of the lens?

 

[ruby.monkey]

My Bessa T's wind-on and shutter release have jammed up. My R3A arrived unable to wind on, but mysteriously started working after being shipped back to the seller (I suspect some small fragment of packing material got lodged somewhere on the initial journey to me, and was jolted loose on the return trip). My Bessa L (before I gave it away) was fine. I enjoyed them, but I never felt any regret about passing them on (or throwing them in the parts bin).

My M3 has worked flawlessly since I bought it well over a decade ago, and it was nowhere near mint then. I had an M2 that looked like it had been through a ball mill, and an M4 that was virtually unmarked, and both were rock-solid; same for my MDa and MD-2. If you can manage it, I'd strongly suggest saving up for a Leica M and a good hand-held or clip-on meter. When the dust settles after WW3 you'll find mutated cockroaches who can service the beasts and you'll appreciate every opportunity to pick up your camera.

 

[santino]

I seriously doubt that the SLR shutters can be repurposed for use in the rangefinders. The Bessa Copal shutter has dual blinds specially made for rangefinder use.

--
Regarding use of 90mm on a rangefinder. 90mm is really an afterthought, not a very pleasant experience and close to impossible to nail focus consistently when moving in close on a moving subject.

And I seriously think it depends on the spare part you are looking for...

 

[piero2025]

My Bessa T's wind-on and shutter release have jammed up. My R3A arrived unable to wind on, but mysteriously started working after being shipped back to the seller (I suspect some small fragment of packing material got lodged somewhere on the initial journey to me, and was jolted loose on the return trip). My Bessa L (before I gave it away) was fine. I enjoyed them, but I never felt any regret about passing them on (or throwing them in the parts bin).

My M3 has worked flawlessly since I bought it well over a decade ago, and it was nowhere near mint then. I had an M2 that looked like it had been through a ball mill, and an M4 that was virtually unmarked, and both were rock-solid; same for my MDa and MD-2. If you can manage it, I'd strongly suggest saving up for a Leica M and a good hand-held or clip-on meter. When the dust settles after WW3 you'll find mutated cockroaches who can service the beasts and you'll appreciate every opportunity to pick up your camera.

The same could not be said for an M6?

 

[keytarjunkie]

Why did you get rid of your SLR? I think it is a big mistake to spend a lot of money, potentially thousands of dollars, on an older electronic rangefinder camera when you are not comfortable enough with photography to use the sunny 16 rule. I don't mean this negatively, but I would recommend you pick up a cheap Nikkormat or Nikon FM with a 50mm and 85/105mm lens, or a cheaper fixed lens rangefinder with a normal lens like the Konica Auto S2 or Yashica Electro etc., and get more confident with the basics, before you buy a camera like the Zeiss Ikon where the viewfinder is quite offset from the lens and is challenging to use with a 90mm lens at close distances.

After all that, if you still decide you want an expensive rangefinder, there are only a few I think you should consider. I would write off the three you've mentioned, for various reasons but mostly because the price has been driven up so high beyond what they are actually worth as a camera, and electronic cameras are bad long term investments. If I were you, I'd get a Leica M3, the best rangefinder camera ever made for the 50-90mm range. If you really need a meter, you can shell out for a M6/M7/MP with the 0.85x viewfinder, again ideal for the 50-90mm range (but still not as nice as the M3 viewfinder, and much more expensive). The ideal match for the M3 is the 50mm Summilux or Summicron, especially the Dual Range model if you want to focus closely. The Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses are great too. The M3 focuses to 0.9 meters, but can be modified to focus to 0.7 meters. Focusing closer than this with any rangefinder camera is not a fun experience anyway.

 

[piero2025]

Why did you get rid of your SLR? I think it is a big mistake to spend a lot of money, potentially thousands of dollars, on an older electronic rangefinder camera when you are not comfortable enough with photography to use the sunny 16 rule. I don't mean this negatively, but I would recommend you pick up a cheap Nikkormat or Nikon FM with a 50mm and 85/105mm lens, or a cheaper fixed lens rangefinder with a normal lens like the Konica Auto S2 or Yashica Electro etc., and get more confident with the basics, before you buy a camera like the Zeiss Ikon where the viewfinder is quite offset from the lens and is challenging to use with a 90mm lens at close distances.

After all that, if you still decide you want an expensive rangefinder, there are only a few I think you should consider. I would write off the three you've mentioned, for various reasons but mostly because the price has been driven up so high beyond what they are actually worth as a camera, and electronic cameras are bad long term investments. If I were you, I'd get a Leica M3, the best rangefinder camera ever made for the 50-90mm range. If you really need a meter, you can shell out for a M6/M7/MP with the 0.85x viewfinder, again ideal for the 50-90mm range (but still not as nice as the M3 viewfinder, and much more expensive). The ideal match for the M3 is the 50mm Summilux or Summicron, especially the Dual Range model if you want to focus closely. The Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses are great too. The M3 focuses to 0.9 meters, but can be modified to focus to 0.7 meters. Focusing closer than this with any rangefinder camera is not a fun experience anyway.

Thank keytarjunkie, I appreciate your suggestions! 🙂

There is something with rangefinders and film that fascinates me, it's much closer to reality, without all the electronics and stuff.

I am rather eager to learn the sunny 16 rule, but, is it good enough for fine art portraiture?

To be more precise...when using an SLR with metering for portraiture, sometimes I like to achieve effects with light, say, I have the model stand in between light and shadow or something like that. In these situations, exposure can be tricky, and sometimes my meter contradicts my idea of what exposure should be, maybe even by two stops.

Some other times, the sky will change during the shoot, and become that shade of grey where you are underexposed 3 stops if you go with your gut feeling.

How would I behave in such situations with the sunny 16 rule? Is it still practical?

Many thanks.

 

[keytarjunkie]

Most B&W negative films are very forgiving, particularly with overexposure. When you're in a situation like that, try bracketing. Shoot one exposure where you think it should be, and then shoot another where the meter tells you. Develop the roll soon enough that it's still fresh in your memory. Then you learn from your mistakes and successes!

It's really easy to use a handheld meter or a free app on your phone to get a good precise light reading of a scene. At first it can feel very slow to work this way, but it also makes you more attentive to changes in the light, and the heightened awareness of working this way helps make you a better photographer, in my opinion. There's a lot of youtube videos these days about working with film, since it is becoming popular with younger people. You could start somewhere like this or this.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Another vote for the Zeiss-Ikon, if and when you have sufficient funds to buy a mint one. Prices for second-hand bodies are very high as we speak. To the best of my knowledge, Zeiss Germany still repairs them. I like the Bessa R3A and R3M but they are also rather expensive today. Cheers, OtL

 

[css9450]

I am rather eager to learn the sunny 16 rule, but, is it good enough for fine art portraiture?

To be more precise...when using an SLR with metering for portraiture, sometimes I like to achieve effects with light, say, I have the model stand in between light and shadow or something like that. In these situations, exposure can be tricky, and sometimes my meter contradicts my idea of what exposure should be, maybe even by two stops.

Some other times, the sky will change during the shoot, and become that shade of grey where you are underexposed 3 stops if you go with your gut feeling.

Do you think switching to a rangefinder will cure those issues?

 

[emraphoto]

Thank keytarjunkie, I appreciate your suggestions! 🙂

There is something with rangefinders and film that fascinates me, it's much closer to reality, without all the electronics and stuff.

I am rather eager to learn the sunny 16 rule, but, is it good enough for fine art portraiture?

To be more precise...when using an SLR with metering for portraiture, sometimes I like to achieve effects with light, say, I have the model stand in between light and shadow or something like that. In these situations, exposure can be tricky, and sometimes my meter contradicts my idea of what exposure should be, maybe even by two stops.

Some other times, the sky will change during the shoot, and become that shade of grey where you are underexposed 3 stops if you go with your gut feeling.

How would I behave in such situations with the sunny 16 rule? Is it still practical?

Many thanks.

I have used the sunny 16 many times but my humble advice would be to invest in a meter. Sekonic L-358 is my go to meter and I use it even with cameras renowned for excellent metering. When you want to do what you are discussing above, and sort the averages, something like the 358 is indispensable. It has an averaging function built into it. Even with today’s techno marvels I have one in my work bag and use it almost daily.

Yes, this sort of stuff can be sorted without a meter, with experience. Something like the 358 makes it much easier to get exactly what you want.

As for the cameras, the Zeiss Ikon viewfinder is spectacular but the used prices where I live are up there with the M6, which I would purchase before the Ikon. I have used both extensively however not for portraits specifically. I also have used a CLE and still have the original one I purchased many moons ago. Works like a champ and has never skipped a beat.

If I could offer up advice... If it has to be a rangefinder, and portraits are your thing, I would consider an M3. I see them in pretty reasonable price ranges compared to the cameras mentioned so far and they are both serviceable and tough as nails. The viewfinder is unmatched for the 50mm and longer. Pair it with a L-358 and don’t worry about electronics or serviceability. If I could go further with the advice, this question really points in another direction for answers. Something like an Nikon F3 with the 85 or 105 would be my direction. The viewfinder of the F3 is outstanding and offers 100% coverage. If framing accuracy is important in your portrait approach the F3 seems far more useful. I stopped using rangefinders as the finder accuracy became an issue. For me, I want control over elements in the frame, down to the most minuscule.

 

[Peter_S]

If you do portraits - I would get the Ikon, simply for RF baselength and viewfinder.

 

[GLL]

I would just add - there's a general sense in this thread that rangefinders are not good cameras to take portraits with, and i'm not sure that's totally true. it's a different experience from using SLRs, and framing is less accurate, but i have taken most of my favourite portraits using rangefinders (I don't share them here because I would rather not not post my friends and family online), including a yashica electro 35.

Rather than scaring you off - a few comments.

1. For close focus full-facial portraits, you need an SLR with a macro lens. Those I have not been able to replicate with a rangefinder.

2. For head and shoulders and full body shots, I find 50s marginally more useful on RFs than on SLRs because being able to see outside the frame is useful for composition.

3. The longest RF lens i've used (and love) is the 75mm 2.5 colour heliar, which I shoot on an R2. The framing is a bit cramped, and close focus is 1m, but it's a wonderful lens and perfectly usable. Personally I'm bothered more by the poor light transmission of my 25-105 f4 L canon lens on my EOS 3 than I am by a small 75mm rangefinder frameline.

4. Wide angles are much better on RFs than they are on SLRs, especially for portraiture.
Jeanloup Sieff took wonderful photos of people using, from memory, a 21mm f4 super angulon on a leica. The rectilinear design of film-era wide angles means much less ugly distortion, and so faces stay pleasant - i've taken great portraits using my 25mm m-mount lens, but none with my SLR wides.

 

[Out to Lunch]

<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/straightnochaser/4297373296/in/photolist-8zNwSj-8yMq1S-8Y61KH-8DFpdh-8KLThs-8JcrVn-8L9uAL-8L9uS7-8Wye1d-8BYrjz-8QthgX-8X7BDU-8vDMUb-8JtePV-8e7vWY-8dMPRb-8bqnkA-8bn6in-8bn5W8-8949gv-897o6m-87zXqp-85VBP9-85Sfk2-82ffnm-81SAJf-81D2iy-7XD1dU-7W7qBN-7SmPQw-7Sidmt-7NZkzd-7N9TQm-7LdV8U-7KZSc3-7HAeDx-7HqfNN-7FJNAN-7DXvU7-7DMKeY-7C5LPj-7z1WAu-7xKan3-7wTheK-8fZmRc-8fZn6B-8g3BVC-6BJeyX-6zH1pw-6xNyjJ" title="."><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/2733/4297373296_c7e5f8da0d_b.jpg" width="1024" height="738" alt="."></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[santino]

Mabe you should try an inexpensive rf first? I‘d suggest a Kiev with two or three lenses from a reputable seller. You can always sell that gear and the Kiev lenses can produce excellent images. The Jupiter 9 2/85 lens is a Sonnar lens for portrait work and the Kiev has the longest rf base of all cameras. You would not spend a fortune and could take all kond of images you wish...

 

[css9450]

my humble advice would be to invest in a meter.

I agree with this. Sunny 16 seems an awkward way to shoot portraits, unless you're outdoors. Indoors, the variation in light is enormous. Are you, say, four stops or six stops or ten stops less than "full bright sun"? Near a window, or not, ect.

 

[raid]

I used mainly a Bessa T in my extensive lens comparisons over the past many years. Focusing with the T is very efficient.. Its meter is accurate too. Get a 50mm external finder.

If you want to spend more money, get a Bessa R2 or R3. External meters can be found for a small amount of money only.

 

[piero2025]

I used mainly a Bessa T in my extensive lens comparisons over the past many years. Focusing with the T is very efficient.. Its meter is accurate too. Get a 50mm external finder.

If you want to spend more money, get a Bessa R2 or R3. External meters can be found for a small amount of money only.

Can you recommend one?

 

[piero2025]

Mabe you should try an inexpensive rf first? I‘d suggest a Kiev with two or three lenses from a reputable seller. You can always sell that gear and the Kiev lenses can produce excellent images. The Jupiter 9 2/85 lens is a Sonnar lens for portrait work and the Kiev has the longest rf base of all cameras. You would not spend a fortune and could take all kond of images you wish...

I'll keep this in mind.

 

[piero2025]

<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/straightnochaser/4297373296/in/photolist-8zNwSj-8yMq1S-8Y61KH-8DFpdh-8KLThs-8JcrVn-8L9uAL-8L9uS7-8Wye1d-8BYrjz-8QthgX-8X7BDU-8vDMUb-8JtePV-8e7vWY-8dMPRb-8bqnkA-8bn6in-8bn5W8-8949gv-897o6m-87zXqp-85VBP9-85Sfk2-82ffnm-81SAJf-81D2iy-7XD1dU-7W7qBN-7SmPQw-7Sidmt-7NZkzd-7N9TQm-7LdV8U-7KZSc3-7HAeDx-7HqfNN-7FJNAN-7DXvU7-7DMKeY-7C5LPj-7z1WAu-7xKan3-7wTheK-8fZmRc-8fZn6B-8g3BVC-6BJeyX-6zH1pw-6xNyjJ" title="."><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/2733/4297373296_c7e5f8da0d_b.jpg" width="1024" height="738" alt="."></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Stunning, rangefinder excellence.

 

[piero2025]

I would just add - there's a general sense in this thread that rangefinders are not good cameras to take portraits with, and i'm not sure that's totally true. it's a different experience from using SLRs, and framing is less accurate, but i have taken most of my favourite portraits using rangefinders (I don't share them here because I would rather not not post my friends and family online), including a yashica electro 35.

Rather than scaring you off - a few comments.

1. For close focus full-facial portraits, you need an SLR with a macro lens. Those I have not been able to replicate with a rangefinder.

2. For head and shoulders and full body shots, I find 50s marginally more useful on RFs than on SLRs because being able to see outside the frame is useful for composition.

3. The longest RF lens i've used (and love) is the 75mm 2.5 colour heliar, which I shoot on an R2. The framing is a bit cramped, and close focus is 1m, but it's a wonderful lens and perfectly usable. Personally I'm bothered more by the poor light transmission of my 25-105 f4 L canon lens on my EOS 3 than I am by a small 75mm rangefinder frameline.

4. Wide angles are much better on RFs than they are on SLRs, especially for portraiture.
Jeanloup Sieff took wonderful photos of people using, from memory, a 21mm f4 super angulon on a leica. The rectilinear design of film-era wide angles means much less ugly distortion, and so faces stay pleasant - i've taken great portraits using my 25mm m-mount lens, but none with my SLR wides.

How do you know Sieff is my favorite!!!! 😀😀😀

The remark about the macro lens is so spot-on...

I'll keep your advice in mind.