Question

[singlewhip]

Hi, I've been looking into rangefinders, particularly the bessa. I have a question. Based on what I know abt film SLR's, the quality of the image is mostly dependant on the lens, as opposed to the body. Does this hold true for rangefinders as well? If so, what would a leica offer over the bessa when it comes to image quality?

 

[fraley]

Leica lenses are generally considered the best. Putting one on a Bessa body would still give you the lens performance it would have on a Leica body. The Leica bodies focus more accurately than a Bessa body, due to a longer triangulation length of the rangefinder, compared to a Bessa. But this is only noticeable under certain conditions, like wide open with a telephoto lens. This is my admittedly incomplete knowledge. Others who are much more experienced will be along shortly.

 

[Takkun]

Unlike digital imaging, where the image recording medium (the sensor) is built into the body, the only "hardware" that affects any film camera is the lens.
obviously the focus system and the meter system affect the image output, but they are not in the light path.
So in theory, putting superior Leica glass on a Bessa would provide better results than a Voigtlander lens on a Leica.

My personal take on it: I am willing to spend a good deal on lenses, but I also don't want to skimp on the body either.
(However, as much as I would love a nice Leica body, I would be too afraid to take it out of the box! My Bessa R shows some signs of skimping here and there, but from what I have heard, the R2/3 models are much sturdier.)

 

[Trius]

The factors that a body brings to the table are film flatness and vibration/damping. As well, balance and ergonomics are variables that can affect the photographer's ability to make a technically better exposure.

 

[pizzahut88]

Light box

Light box

The body is the light box, of far more importance is the lens.
People use to say "the lens is the soul of the camera".
and I accordingly agree.

A more expensive body won't affect your final image much,
but rather offer such other benefit of:
(1) quieter shutter (by a tiny amount);
(2) priestiege;
(3) a better feel, & handling;
(4) reliability (might work without a hitch for thirty years!);
then I have a feeling, the Bessa might last at least ten years . . . or more,
well no one knows for sure.
(5) film flatness? Not really,
given both Bessa & Leica M's does not have a vacumm back,
(6) investment? perhaps, maybe . . . if you get one of those limited ed? Hammertone?

A more expensive Leica has one detriment:
thief especially if you live in a hostile neighbourhood,
extra care needed as it is expensive,
unless you don't care, and just bang it around.

Manfred

 

[pvdhaar]

Ah, Leica versus Voigtlander. As an owner of both an M4 and a T, here's my take:

There are only two things truly great about the M4. One is the viewfinder and the other is the silent shutter.

Now here's what I think of the T:
(1) smaller and lighter
(2) better 'tactile' experience (i.e. not a lump of metal)
(3) built in lightmeter
(4) flash sync 1/125 instead of 1/50
(5) 1.5x RF magnification
(6) film window that actually shows what's in there
(7) easier loading of film

I'm sure I forgot some, but this should be food for thought..

 

[David Murphy]

The Bessa series are fabulous camera bodies capable of producing professional quality results in the right hands -- they are great to start with.

You are unlikely to regret buying a Bessa R. They hold their resale value pretty well too.

 

[singlewhip]

Okay. So it seems like most agree that the lens determines the image quality. "Better" bodies offers more accurate instrumentation in some instances, and better design/build quality.

So when I look at these rf galleries i ought to pay more attention to the lens being used than to the box?

~whip

 

[Davor]

You shouldn't really rule the Bessas out as "bad". They are pretty good cameras, it's a shame that they have to be compared with Leicas' all the time, which aren't even in the same pricerange - by far.

 

[Terao]

Okay. So it seems like most agree that the lens determines the image quality. "Better" bodies offers more accurate instrumentation in some instances, and better design/build quality.

So when I look at these rf galleries i ought to pay more attention to the lens being used than to the box?

~whip

Nope, you should be paying more attention to the photographer. Sure lenses make a difference in some respects but you can have all the gear yet still shoot a load of rubbish...

 

[oscroft]

Nope, you should be paying more attention to the photographer. Sure lenses make a difference in some respects but you can have all the gear yet still shoot a load of rubbish

I couldn't agree more.

Also, the small size pics we post in the galleries makes them far too small to see much of the differences between lenses anyway (and they're scanned, so the quality of the scanner is likely to be a limiting factor too).

 

[kully]

If anything, the Bessa's are "better" as the shutter speeds will be Seiko accurate, rather than expensive wind up watch accurate.

But it's bollocks really.

 

[Justin Low]

I find that my R2 doesn't cut it for handheld shooting at night (1/15, 1/8s). The Leica makes it easier due to the heavy weight, and the shutter seems to vibrate to a lesser degree. The shutter release on the Leica also has a more positive feel.

That said, if I were going on a trip, I might take the Bessa as it has the modern niceties of 'quick' loading, and the built in meter.

 

[fishtek]

Interesting set of responses...
having just bought a Bessa R, and never having owned/used a Leica, I'm impressed by the machine, the results, and the quite intuitive "feel" of the camera. I've owned lots of cameras, and currently use a Canon 10s, a Canon 300D, and, or course, the Bessa. All have their strengths, and possibly missing features. Sounds just like everything else that's produced in various models/makes/user group.

On another matter....does your user name signify a particular interest? (Let 'em figure THAT one out...)

Regards!
Don

 

[David Murphy]

Interesting set of responses...
having just bought a Bessa R, and never having owned/used a Leica, I'm impressed by the machine, the results, and the quite intuitive "feel" of the camera. I've owned lots of cameras, and currently use a Canon 10s, a Canon 300D, and, or course, the Bessa. All have their strengths, and possibly missing features. Sounds just like everything else that's produced in various models/makes/user group.

On another matter....does your user name signify a particular interest? (Let 'em figure THAT one out...)

Regards!
Don

Yes I agree exactly. The R has that intuitive feel. It's like a modern SLR in convenience, yet it has the nimbleness of a rangefinder. It's actually the camera I take out most often when I really need reliability of results.