pismo923
Established
I have seen quite a number of posts here suggesting that the later Bessa's have a "MUCH better build quality than the R2". Looking at Steven Gandy's site it seems obvious that significant improvements were made between the R and R2 bodies. The differences between the R2 and later models seems much more subtle. So what is it exactly that makes the build quality of a R2A for example "so MUCH better" than an R2? I have used both an R2 and R2A and quite frankly never noticed a significant difference between the two.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Same here. I've used most of 'em and the R2 is pretty damn' good (a lot better than L and R). My olive drab version has been used hard and never given a problem. Later cameras may be a tiny bit smoother but I'm not convinced they are. People sometimes want to justify illusory 'upgrades' to themselves.
Cheers,
R.
Krosya
Konicaze
I have R2 and R3A. Used to have R3M and R2M. All I can say is that they are different in some ways - RF patch has different shape, obviously bodies are different shape as well as rewind knob. RF adjustment screws are different - dont know if there was an improvement there or just different design to accomodate different shape of the body.
Otherwise - they seem pretty much the same to me. For some things I actually prefer older body design of R2, but thats just a personal thing.
Otherwise - they seem pretty much the same to me. For some things I actually prefer older body design of R2, but thats just a personal thing.
pismo923
Established
So for the most part some incremental changes to an already solid camera in the R2. Nice to hear that yours has been such a solid performer Roger - I hope my experience mirrors yours which I am confident will be the case.