jc48375
Changstein
OK, I thought I was set on an M6... However, my research also revealed that an R3M may also be a great camera.
It's also not my intention to start a debate of which is better. I simply want one's experience...
For those who have used both, what are your impressions? What is the one or two differences / features that truly stand out for either camera? If you could only have one - which camera would you choose and why?
I am content to have 35, 40 or 50mm Nokton lenses, probably will never use a flash and consider a camera a tool that allows me to do what I love. I do wear spectacles...
Your input and actual experiences are greatly appreciated -
happy shooting....
Jim
It's also not my intention to start a debate of which is better. I simply want one's experience...
For those who have used both, what are your impressions? What is the one or two differences / features that truly stand out for either camera? If you could only have one - which camera would you choose and why?
I am content to have 35, 40 or 50mm Nokton lenses, probably will never use a flash and consider a camera a tool that allows me to do what I love. I do wear spectacles...
Your input and actual experiences are greatly appreciated -
happy shooting....
Jim
acetonic
Member
I have both. An M6 classic and an R3M.
The biggest advantage of the Bessa is it's awesome 100% viewfinder. It's bright, clear and makes it natural to shoot with both eyes open.
The disadvantage, reliability. While I was shooting my first roll, the rewind knob popped of at some point and I didn't notice until too late. I think it fell off when the camera was hanging at my side. I sent it back to Cameraquest for a replacement. It worked great for about 4 more rolls then I suddenly had trouble getting the ISO dial to move. I got it set then the advance lever locked up on me. I contacted Cameraquest again and Steven told me to send it in to have a tech look at it. Unfortunately it is out of warranty. I haven't boxed it up and sent it in yet.
The advantage of the M6 for me would be reliability and the fact that it's quite a bit quieter than the Bessa, cloth shutter vs. metal.
Of course others experiences will vary. I shot with a Bessa R2A for years without the slightest problem.
The biggest advantage of the Bessa is it's awesome 100% viewfinder. It's bright, clear and makes it natural to shoot with both eyes open.
The disadvantage, reliability. While I was shooting my first roll, the rewind knob popped of at some point and I didn't notice until too late. I think it fell off when the camera was hanging at my side. I sent it back to Cameraquest for a replacement. It worked great for about 4 more rolls then I suddenly had trouble getting the ISO dial to move. I got it set then the advance lever locked up on me. I contacted Cameraquest again and Steven told me to send it in to have a tech look at it. Unfortunately it is out of warranty. I haven't boxed it up and sent it in yet.
The advantage of the M6 for me would be reliability and the fact that it's quite a bit quieter than the Bessa, cloth shutter vs. metal.
Of course others experiences will vary. I shot with a Bessa R2A for years without the slightest problem.
Denton
Established
I have the R2A, the M6, a IIIg and the M9. The R2A has as pleasing a viewfinder as the Leicas. It's a great camera and I actually like the frameline switch with the Bessa's. Film loading is great with both the M6 and the R2A. I don't like the load shutter with the Bessa, so I reserve it for outside shots where it doesn't matter and where a cheaper, but not less capable camera may be more wise. The M6 and M9 do have much quieter shutters. I can discreetly take symphony or other performance images with these cameras which I wouldn't think of doing with the R2A. If you only want one camera, get the Leica. If you are needing two bodies, for example BW and color or two different speed emulsions, get them both.
Denton
Denton
maclaine
Well-known
My first RF was a Bess R3A, then I moved to an M4, a Zeiss Ikon, an M2, an M6, and now I'm currently RF-less (booo! hisss!!!). If I could start all over again, I would probably just keep the R3A and be done with it, spending the extra money on lenses and film. None of the other cameras got me any more than perhaps a 10% improvement over the R3A. I don't find that I need an RF in every situation, and have come to discover that for the type of stuff I'm shooting these days, an SLR is preferable, as are larger formats. I didn't like having so much money tied up in the M6 and lenses, and for a small fraction of what I sold the body for, I was able to pick up a Nikon F3, a couple of lenses, and some accessories, and my photos haven't suffered. The M6 is a phenomenal bit of engineering, fun to just wind and fire the shutter endlessly. It's also quite expensive depending on what you think is reasonable to spend on niche camera. I never had a single problem with the R3A, and as a one camera/one lens setup, it paired with a 40mm Nokton is a dream come true. As others have said, the viewfinder is large and bright. The shutter may be nominally louder, but this is a minor bone of contention as far as I'm concerned.
I do miss the Leicas on occasion, but mostly for their beautiful mechanical properties. If I just wanted something to take pictures with, I'd like to have the R3A back.
I do miss the Leicas on occasion, but mostly for their beautiful mechanical properties. If I just wanted something to take pictures with, I'd like to have the R3A back.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I had an R3A but found I was starting to want wider - down to 21mm. I bought an R4A second hand, sold the R3A with the Nokton 40/1.4 and bought an M6.
To be honest, if the R2A (or M) had a 28mm frame in the viewfinder I'd settle for that and sell the Leica. I'd use an external VF for anything wider than 28. The Leica is a lovely bit of design and engineering but it's heavy and doesn't do anything better than the Bessa can.
To be honest, if the R2A (or M) had a 28mm frame in the viewfinder I'd settle for that and sell the Leica. I'd use an external VF for anything wider than 28. The Leica is a lovely bit of design and engineering but it's heavy and doesn't do anything better than the Bessa can.
I currently have an M6 and previously did own an R3a. Both are perfectly capable cameras. Comparing a Leica to a Bessa is a little like comparing apples to oranges. Both do the same thing well, they are just different.
That said, back to Jim's original post.
The R3a finder is big and bright, but very tight for use with a 40mm lens, particularly for a glasses wearer. I was not able to see the full 40mm lines when I wore my glasses. Likewise, it would be completely inappropriate to use with a 35mm lens unless you are not concerned with knowing all that you will be catching in your frames.
As a glasses wearer, you would be better off considering an R2a which will have that big bright finder, with 35mm lines. As long as you don't intend on using long and super fast lenses the focusing accuracy with a 2 is fine.
And of course the M6 is fine too.
That said, back to Jim's original post.
The R3a finder is big and bright, but very tight for use with a 40mm lens, particularly for a glasses wearer. I was not able to see the full 40mm lines when I wore my glasses. Likewise, it would be completely inappropriate to use with a 35mm lens unless you are not concerned with knowing all that you will be catching in your frames.
As a glasses wearer, you would be better off considering an R2a which will have that big bright finder, with 35mm lines. As long as you don't intend on using long and super fast lenses the focusing accuracy with a 2 is fine.
And of course the M6 is fine too.
Gary E
Well-known
After going through the M3, M2, M4, M4-2, M6 [& my friend's M5, M7 and MP], I'm now using a M4-2 and R3a. The M4-2 because it had the least resale value so I kept it, and the R3a because it's a pleasure to shoot with in the street for those times of quick snaps.
Give the R3M a try, but really, even if only one body the R3a/m can hold it's own.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I think that the Bessas are good entry level cameras for someone interested in RF photography. You can see how it all works without having to come up with $1000 for an M6. However, the M6 is a proven design. There are thousands of these cameras that have been clicking away since the 1980s. If the durability of the M3s, 4s, and 5s is any indication, they will be good for decades more. The shutter springs on those Ms will likely outlast the lives of their current owners. The Bessas are nice cameras, but not built to the same standards and I am confident that in 30 years there will be more M's clicking than Bessas. But many folks will say: so what? Most folks do not purchase a camera based on what will be happening 30 years from now. They purchase based on what their current needs are and short-term budget constraints allow.
Ownership/disclosure: I bought my first M6 in 1994 after using an M3 and M4-P for the previous three years. I still have the M6 and M3. When the Bessa R came out (screw-mount version of the current cameras with no auto mode), I bought one and used it for a couple of years. It always felt "tinny" and lightweight in comparison to the Ms, although it had an excellent finder (and I suspect that that was where all the R&D money went). It performed well, but it is one of the few cameras that I have sold about which I have no regrets. Just didn't bond with it. I do have two Bessa-Ts, which are M-mount and have a rangefinder, but no viewfinder. I find them brilliant -- kind of like a modernized IIIa, stripped to the essentials. I suspect the innards of the camera are essentially the same as the Bessa Rs.
For me, the M's just "feel right" in the hand. The design that leads to this feeling (product of decades of engineering experience at Leica) and the pleasure that comes from that is worth the price difference. I'd say the same for an expensive cooking knife, saw or any other tool.
Ownership/disclosure: I bought my first M6 in 1994 after using an M3 and M4-P for the previous three years. I still have the M6 and M3. When the Bessa R came out (screw-mount version of the current cameras with no auto mode), I bought one and used it for a couple of years. It always felt "tinny" and lightweight in comparison to the Ms, although it had an excellent finder (and I suspect that that was where all the R&D money went). It performed well, but it is one of the few cameras that I have sold about which I have no regrets. Just didn't bond with it. I do have two Bessa-Ts, which are M-mount and have a rangefinder, but no viewfinder. I find them brilliant -- kind of like a modernized IIIa, stripped to the essentials. I suspect the innards of the camera are essentially the same as the Bessa Rs.
For me, the M's just "feel right" in the hand. The design that leads to this feeling (product of decades of engineering experience at Leica) and the pleasure that comes from that is worth the price difference. I'd say the same for an expensive cooking knife, saw or any other tool.
uinku
Established
I've always believed that if you have to ask this question, go for the less expensive option. Use it, try it out, and if it doesn't work, you'll have your own reasons from your own experience to upgrade.
And the great thing about film photography gear, especially used, is that there's very little depreciation.
And the great thing about film photography gear, especially used, is that there's very little depreciation.
MCTuomey
Veteran
If I were going to use the camera heavily, wore glasses, and didn't need AE, I'd get a .72 M6 (and if I used wides a lot, it'd be a .58).
But for occasional RF use, I'd take the Bessa. As maclaine said, tying up a lot money in a Leica kit and not using it frequently doesn't make sense to me.
But for occasional RF use, I'd take the Bessa. As maclaine said, tying up a lot money in a Leica kit and not using it frequently doesn't make sense to me.
jc48375
Changstein
Thanks everyone for chiming in - M6 it will be!!
Happy shooting!
Jim
Happy shooting!
Jim