zippo
Newbie
Hello all. I am looking to buy a new camera for existing light B&W photography. My ideal camera now would be a leica m6/7 with a 50mm Noctilux lens. Since my lucky number hasn't come in yet I need to find a cheaper alternative that can achieve similar results. The bessa series comes to mind particularly for the fast lenses available. I am leaning towards the R3 over the R2 since it has aperture priority which would help me capture those quick shots of my little one. So here are my qustions:
1. Would the R3a be the "best" for focusing in low light due to the 1:1 viewfinder?
2. The lenses I am looking at include the 35/1.2 and/or 40/1.4. The problem is that the R3a only has framelines for the 40. So that forces me to choose the R3a/40 or the R2a/35. The 35 would be faster so maybe I should get the R2a. Any suggestions?
3. One concern I have is quality. I have read many posts indicating that the camera needed adjustment. I know that I should not expect nikon like quality but how "good" are these cameras?
4. Lastly I love the classic black paint on the R3m anniversary, it almost makes me want it over the R3a for this alone. Is there any way to get that on the R3a?
Thanks in advance,
Mike
1. Would the R3a be the "best" for focusing in low light due to the 1:1 viewfinder?
2. The lenses I am looking at include the 35/1.2 and/or 40/1.4. The problem is that the R3a only has framelines for the 40. So that forces me to choose the R3a/40 or the R2a/35. The 35 would be faster so maybe I should get the R2a. Any suggestions?
3. One concern I have is quality. I have read many posts indicating that the camera needed adjustment. I know that I should not expect nikon like quality but how "good" are these cameras?
4. Lastly I love the classic black paint on the R3m anniversary, it almost makes me want it over the R3a for this alone. Is there any way to get that on the R3a?
Thanks in advance,
Mike
ferider
Veteran
Welcome Zippo.
You seem to have a budget of US 1300-1400 (new R3a + 35/1.2 Nokton) ?
For this budget it should be possible to get a good M6, and maybe a Canon 50/1.2 or CV 40/1.4. Just a thought.
Roland.
You seem to have a budget of US 1300-1400 (new R3a + 35/1.2 Nokton) ?
For this budget it should be possible to get a good M6, and maybe a Canon 50/1.2 or CV 40/1.4. Just a thought.
Roland.
MadMan2k
Well-known
A few mm difference in focal length isn't a big deal, so the 40 framelines would work fine for a 35. I use the 50 ones of the M3 with my 35mm, and just keep in mind that a little more will be in the picture.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
on a budget - I can attest that the Canon 50 1.2 in LTM is a fantastic bargain. 1/10th the cost of a noctilux - I'll survive without the extra 1/2 stop. 
mc_vancouver
Established
I have the R3M with two reasonably wide aperture lenses. One thing that really helps in low light, low shutter speed photography is having a beefy camera that helps to absorb the tiny vibrations through your hands. I mean, you still have to hold the camera steady, even bracing yourself, but with reasonable practice one can shoot successfully at 1/15 and 1/8 of a second, handheld. It's not as sharp as if it was on a tripod, but then again, I think a little movement in the picture looks great. I wish I had a scanner so I could show you a few shots (one of these days). Don't feel you need a 1.2 lens, because much of the time you'll only be lugging around a lot of heavy glass for no good reason. A 1.4 or even 2.0 aperture is quite sufficient for low light.
mc_vancouver
Established
Oh, and I forgot to mention, the nice thing with this camera is being able to keep the other eye open because the viewfinder is 1:1. It takes getting used to, but it is great for street photography. You still see the framelines (unless, like me, you wear glasses and you're using the 40 or 50 mm lens, but then I just use the whole viewfinder anyway).
mc_vancouver
Established
You asked:
Well, yes, my new R3M did not align at infinity and I had to make the adjustment myself using jewellers screwdrivers and a complicated but not impossible to follow chart which I've posted somewhere on this site. If you buy from a dealer near you then get it fixed by them, or send it back if you live in the US. It was too difficult with US and Canadian customs for me to send it as I didn't want the hassle of them thinking I'd bought another camera.
It is reasonably well built. The advance lever feels anemic. The paint is very nice. The shutter speeds are right on. The pictures look great. You can get the rapid advance thingy that was originally made for the Bessa T and it works great. You'll have a good camera, not a great camera. Only a Leica is built like a brick sh***house.
zippo said:
Well, yes, my new R3M did not align at infinity and I had to make the adjustment myself using jewellers screwdrivers and a complicated but not impossible to follow chart which I've posted somewhere on this site. If you buy from a dealer near you then get it fixed by them, or send it back if you live in the US. It was too difficult with US and Canadian customs for me to send it as I didn't want the hassle of them thinking I'd bought another camera.
It is reasonably well built. The advance lever feels anemic. The paint is very nice. The shutter speeds are right on. The pictures look great. You can get the rapid advance thingy that was originally made for the Bessa T and it works great. You'll have a good camera, not a great camera. Only a Leica is built like a brick sh***house.
Attachments
Last edited:
trph_2000
Established
Well.... there has been a bit of discussion about this in the camera
mags recently. I can't remember which title or issue, but there was a review
of RF cameras and lenses not too long ago. These articles are always brief
and the new issue of Shutterbug also has a piece about them. In one of
the other mags ,a reviewer noted that because the CV RF mechanism
is not up to par with Leica's that it it hard to get good focus on longer lenses
wide open because of the short DOF. He claimed that this is the reason
that CV does not offer a very fast 75 or 90. Again, his opinion not mine.
I have no experience with CV (except for a Nokton 40/1.4 SC.) Let the
comments fly.
mags recently. I can't remember which title or issue, but there was a review
of RF cameras and lenses not too long ago. These articles are always brief
and the new issue of Shutterbug also has a piece about them. In one of
the other mags ,a reviewer noted that because the CV RF mechanism
is not up to par with Leica's that it it hard to get good focus on longer lenses
wide open because of the short DOF. He claimed that this is the reason
that CV does not offer a very fast 75 or 90. Again, his opinion not mine.
I have no experience with CV (except for a Nokton 40/1.4 SC.) Let the
comments fly.
FrankS
Registered User
I was just going to mention the RF base length issue with Bessa Rx cameras compared to other RF cameras like the Leica (modern and vintage, excluding the CL), and Contax, Canon and Nikon (vintage) cameras.
Low light shooting implies large, wide open apertures. As long as wide angle and normal lenses are involved (and not longer lenses) this SHOULD not be too big a problem, but a camera with a longer RF base length would be better, irrefutably.
Low light shooting implies large, wide open apertures. As long as wide angle and normal lenses are involved (and not longer lenses) this SHOULD not be too big a problem, but a camera with a longer RF base length would be better, irrefutably.
kevin m
Veteran
For low light photography?
Would it be a hanging offense on this forum to point out that any Canon DSLR absolutely kills any film camera for low iso noise?
Would it be a hanging offense on this forum to point out that any Canon DSLR absolutely kills any film camera for low iso noise?
antiquark
Derek Ross
I tried the same thing (kid pics) with a manual SLR and a 50/1.4 lens. It wasn't very successfull, because for kid pics you're mostly up close (1 meter) and they're usually fidgeting and/or running. The result was many blurry pics.zippo said:
The main problem is that the depth of field at f/1.4 and 1 meter is only 3 cm (about 1.5 inch) so it's extremely challenging to get a good sharp pic of the kids. I did get a few, but mostly it's a crapshoot.
I've never used a rangefinder so maybe focusing is easier than with a split prism. However, even when the split prism was easy to focus (because there was a high-contrast boundary at the proper distance) the motion of the kids, or even the motion of my own breathing, would throw off the focus.
And finally, even if you are able to focus perfectly, you can only take pics of a single kid, because if there are two, one will be out of focus, because he's farther/closer to the lens.
Nando
Well-known
How about a Bessa-T, 35/1,2 Nokton and the 35mm Brightline finder. The silver Bessa-T bodies are pretty cheap. 1.5x magnification in the RF gives really accurate focusing and the external vf a big, bright and excellent for low-light.
back alley
IMAGES
maybe think about a canon p and the cv 35/1.2, i think this combo would be deadly.
or is the cv 35/1.2 m mount only?
hhmmm
or is the cv 35/1.2 m mount only?
hhmmm
Nando
Well-known
I'm afraid the CV 35/1,2 is M-mount only. I'm looking into to getting one myself.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
hey Mc.. I gotta M4-P and I'm not too sure it's a tank... I tried a R3A and M and thought they were pretty well built and it felt solid too.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
kevin m said:For low light photography?
Would it be a hanging offense on this forum to point out that any Canon DSLR absolutely kills any film camera for low iso noise?
Not a hanging offense, but it's a bit like telling someone considering a Ducati motorcycle that a Sea Ray will do a better job of towing a water-skier... factually true, but irrelevant to what he wants to do.
There are good reasons to choose digital and good reasons to choose film. Let's not let this thread turn into another round of that debate!
back alley
IMAGES
Nando said:
thanks for the info nando.
i like the idea of a very fast 35 as it's easier to change a lens when needed than change the film in use.
i could have used a faster lens tonight in the bar, but i had my 50/2 and xp2 rated at 250 or so. i'm pretty confident those shots are gonna be fuzzy.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
zippo said:
It certainly would give you an edge in focusing accuracy, especially if you want to use a 50mm lens (such as the excellent and cost-effective 50/1.5 Nokton.) However, if you are gravitating toward a 35 or a 40, focusing accuracy wouldn't be as challenging and the R2a would be a safe choice also.
The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is only 1/3 stop... nice to have when you're right on the edge of blackness, but not too big a difference otherwise. The 40 is much more compact, if that's any consideration. Another thing to consider about the R3a/40 combination is that the 40mm frameline is 'way out at the edges of the finder -- many people, especially eyeglasses wearers, find it difficult to see. That's only a factor if you plan to compose your low-light shots critically, but it's worth considering.
Actually, Cosina has built some Nikon SLRs under contract on the same chassis used for the Bessas, so you can expect Nikon quality! Really, these cameras are quite nicely made -- just not quite in the league of Leica. (And Leica rangefinders go out of adjustment occasionally too!) We talk a lot about RF adjustment problems here because a lot of us are very critical, but I suspect the vast majority of Bessas that go out the door are just fine; you only hear about the relatively small percentage that have problems.
If you're buying a new Bessa from a legitimate dealer, you'll get a warranty on it -- so if it is "off" when you get it, you just make the dealer make it right for you.
Having said all that: If you want a long-base RF for focusing accuracy, and you want something with a proven record of ruggedness, and you don't mind buying a camera that isn't brand-new, a Canon 7 is a very cost-effective option. It uses screwmount lenses only, so an M-mount lens such as the Voigtlander 35/1.4 or 40/1.4 is out of the question... but as several people have suggested, the 50/1.2 Canon is a good high-speed bargain if you don't mind the slightly "vintage" look of its images. The Canon's viewfinder isn't as bright or as contrasty as a Bessa's, but the long RF base means you can focus very accurately in low light, and the hefty, well-balanced body helps you keep it steady at slow shutter speeds.
mc_vancouver
Established
Jan, you mean you don't use the M4P to hammer nails? Actually, I used to have one, I agree, there are sturdier Leicas, but in comparison with the build of the Bessa I think you'd find the Leica will outlast the Bessa. I mean, I have the bessa, and I like it, but I don't imagine it will last five years of solid use without something busting,whereas the Leicas should last twice or three times that long, n'est ce pas?jan normandale said:
amateriat
We're all light!
My take: buy the 35 Nokton and try several bodies with it. I know of someone who uses one with a Hexar RF and loves this combo (which gets me to thinking about that lens, too). I would think an R2A would be okay, and most any Leica with the right framelines even moreso. Short of this, an R3A with 40mm f/1.4 is likely a decent setup as well, albeit a touch slower. But, in low-light situations, fractions can matter a lot, so I think the Nokton is it.
- Barrett
- Barrett