R3a/r4a

anthony_semone

anthony_semone

Established
Local time
5:22 PM
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
162
I'm considering the purchase of one of these cameras for my son as a present. Can anyone of you all whom might have experience with them comment on their build quality relative to, e.g., and M3 or a Zeiss Ikon ZM?

thanks in advance,

tony
 
I don't think it's the build quality you should worry about. The R3A and R4A are very different cameras as they have very different viewfinders and framelines, so you should concentrate on nailing that choice. Leica and Zeiss Ikon are not really in competition with the R4A which is a unique camera for wide-angle lenses. With its 1:1 viewfinder the R3A is also very special. Someone shooting 50mm and longer will like it.
 
I don't think you'll find many people agreeing that the Bessas are "built" way better than Zeiss Ikon or Leica M3. They're all just different from each other. Bessas are adequate for their intended use and market, as are the others.
But it is the viewfinders you need to think about.
If you never want to shoot wider than 40mm (unless with an external viewfinder) then choose the R3A. If you never want to shoot longer than 50mm (except with an external viewfinder) choose the R4A. I have both cameras and my preference would be for the R3A simply because the 1:1 viewfinder at 40mm is just great compared to the 50mm viewfinder on the R4A which is tiny. It really doesn't come into its own until around 28mm focal length.
 
If your son really likes wide angle lenses, and likes film range finders, then the R4A would make an awesome present I think. If he's never expressed interest in wides, and does not own a wide angle lens, then perhaps the R3A is better.

Personally speaking, I'd get the R4A, but only because other focal lengths are taken care of by other cameras.
 
I don't see what's so bad about them. And that metal shutter is so much better than the cotton one on the Leica.
And that removable base-plate crap. Yuck.
 
Between my M6, Ikon and Bessa R2 I actually prefer the R2, go figure. I never thought that would be the case based on internet talk and specs, but in practice it is that hump in the back that simply agrees with the way I hold a camera, and everything else is just where I can comfortably and intuitively reach it.

In terms of longevity the Bessa is probably the worse of the 3 but personally I dont care, I dont use my camera as a hammer, I'd be very surprised if film even exists in 10 years, and generally I dont stress about a camera that I know I can find used like new for $300.
 
tomalophicon said:
I'll agree with that. And the price-tag for the Bessa poops on the Leica.
Click to expand...
Not really. I bought a near-mint M3 (1M serial number) with 50mm f/2 rigid Summicron for almost exactly the same price as my R3A with 40mm f/1.4 Nokton.

I ultimately kept the M3 and traded the R3A towards a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II. The R3A was/is a supremely competent camera, but the M3 just felt right in my hands. Go figure.
 
thegman said:
If your son really likes wide angle lenses, and likes film range finders, then the R4A would make an awesome present I think. If he's never expressed interest in wides, and does not own a wide angle lens, then perhaps the R3A is better.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I've never been much of a wide shooter so I went with the R3A. Now if Bessa made a RF with M6 framelines I'd be all over it for the occasional wide shot.
 
anthony_semone said:
I'm considering the purchase of one of these cameras for my son as a present. Can anyone of you all whom might have experience with them comment on their build quality relative to, e.g., and M3 or a Zeiss Ikon ZM?

thanks in advance,

tony
Click to expand...

Back on topic... since your sole stated criterion is build quality here goes.
1. M3
2. Zeiss Ikon ZM, R4a
3. R3a

Frankly all these cameras are of adequate quality build some are 'over specification' but used as a camera and not a hammer or seat cushion these will give normal life use of 5 - 10 yrs before a CLA and should have a reasonable life of +/- 20 yrs unless your son is a pro who will fire off 20,000 shutter actuations a year.

Personally I would be more concerned with other criteria than build quality of these three cameras. Good luck.
 
ruby.monkey said:
Not really. I bought a near-mint M3 (1M serial number) with 50mm f/2 rigid Summicron for almost exactly the same price as my R3A with 40mm f/1.4 Nokton.

I ultimately kept the M3 and traded the R3A towards a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II. The R3A was/is a supremely competent camera, but the M3 just felt right in my hands. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Oh so you bought a really old camera without a light meter with a bad pull-apart-body-film-change thing and a sensitive shutter for the same price as a NEW camera WITH a light meter and a lens a FULL stop faster and a 2 year warranty AND an extra shutter speed with a proper shutter? And they both cost the same??:p:p:p

I'm just teasing buddy.
 
tomalophicon said:
Oh so you bought a really old camera without a light meter with a bad pull-apart-body-film-change thing and a sensitive shutter for the same price as a NEW camera WITH a light meter and a lens a FULL stop faster and a 2 year warranty AND an extra shutter speed with a proper shutter? And they both cost the same??:p:p:p

I'm just teasing buddy.
Click to expand...
All that *and* it made me a better photographer. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom