Starting with rangefinders.

As for "showing a range" - the metered manual Bessa R/R2/R2m bodies all show over/under/correct. You need to work out from "correct" if you are deliberately deviating from the metered level. Can't speak for low-light capabilities of the later Bessas. If this is what you mean you might be right.
 
Can't speak for all Bessa cameras. I own R and sold L. Both are excellent in terms of metering. As long as you know what you are doing. Low light, direct sun, split ... you just have to think, same as with external light meter.
 
Can't go wrong with a Bessa, I've owned Leicas and Bessas, now own neither, but if I was going to return to 35mm range finders, I'd probably go with the Bessa, the little improvements in usability add up to quite a lot. Mostly film loading, film window so you can see what (if anything) is loaded), meter, and nicer finders make for a very pleasant shooting experience.

Of course if you value the wonderful build of certain cameras, it's hard to imagine many alternatives to a Leica. The M2 and M3, for what they are, also represent pretty good value really, considering you're getting a camera which can last at least one lifetime.

Meterless shooting also for me has a pleasant sense of freedom, hard to explain, but there is something nice about taking a camera out of a bag which has no batteries, and simply does as it's told.
 
Blooze said:
It looks like the R2A/R3A show a range of 1/2 stop increments at the bottom of the finder, instead of just under/correct/over according to the cameraquest site. Or is this only for the 250 models.

http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt_250.htm
Click to expand...
There you go, I'd missed that. I've not used one.

Still comes down to how to split your $750. Get a RXm and you'll need to get a lens for around $300. Achievable but a little below the price of most decent wide lenses.

But as they say, YMMV. The M mount is also definitely an upgrade even with screwmount lenses. And the bodies are more metal, less plastic.

And if that's where your heart is at, you could save a little longer and spend a little more to get a decent lens.
 
My friend is gonna stop in and check out what lens was on the Bessa R. I may go with it if the lens is good and they'll hold it for amonth or so (with a little down payment incentive). I remember taking the lens off and was pretty sure it didn't have the m-mount adapter.
 
Blooze said:
My friend is gonna stop in and check out what lens was on the Bessa R. I may go with it if the lens is good and they'll hold it for amonth or so (with a little down payment incentive). I remember taking the lens off and was pretty sure it didn't have the m-mount adapter.
Click to expand...

If it's the plastic Bessa R, it's screw thread. And the price would match that assumption. Plenty of great lenses in LTM, just no stellar ones (and no stratospheric prices). Plenty of lenses, though, that would exceed your budget in themselves.

Really any lens that will mount on the camera will be a decent design. It's only whether it's been abused or not.
 
Blooze said:
It looks like the R2A/R3A show a range of 1/2 stop increments at the bottom of the finder, instead of just under/correct/over according to the cameraquest site. Or is this only for the 250 models.

http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt_250.htm
Click to expand...

All R2M, R3M, R4M, R2A, R3A, R4A show the 1/2 stop up to 2, then blink 2+ or 2- if the exposure is off by more than two stops. I don't know how the original R or R2 show exposure.

As far as I know, the only thing different about the "250 Jahre" edition bodies is the engraving on the top plate. Nothing functionally different about them. They came in a really nice, fancy box and came with the "250 Jahre" edition 50mm Heliar f/2 collapsible lens. Also a smaller number of the bodies were silver and the majority were black.

I got my 250 R3M as the sole bidder on eBay from someone that didn't market the 250 aspect, gave few detailed pictures; but received the original fancy box plus outter box and the Heliar for what I felt was a good price at the time.
 
I want thank everyone for their advice. It's given me a lot to think about. The main reason I'm looking at getting a RF is that we are going on a company sponsored trip to Mexico in a couple of years and I'd like to have something that supplements my digital and will fit in a small bag.

I think at this point I'm leaning towards something with a built in meter. I have my Retina IIc which is being sent off for a CLA that I can use as well, but I'd have to use my handheld meter which, while not a real PITA, can be cumbersome to carry while on vacation. I want something I can take when we go places that doesn't require me to prethink the trip.

I've been fortunate enough to sell a few things over the last week and should have around $450 set back at this point so my budget may be slightly increased. So I'm thinking either a Bessa R2A or R2M with a 35mm color skopar would be a very nice walk around camera. I would guess that an M6 would would be quite nice, but I just can't justify the cost at this point :)

I don't know that I have a preference between the R2A and R2M. Carrying a couple extra batteries isn't a big deal for the A, but I'm wondering about the the actual convenience of the aperture priority. I have a MESuper that has it and it can be nice if a quick shot needs to be taken, but I tend to gravitate towards my MX if I have a choice between the two.
 
Blooze said:
I would guess that an M6 would would be quite nice, but I just can't justify the cost at this point :)
Click to expand...

Allow me to help you!

Reason 1: the Leica is a much nicer camera to work with.
Reason 2: the Leica won't loose it's resale value, while bessas are difficult to sell.
Reason 3: even if you do buy that bessa, you'll want the Leica later on anyways, so why go the long route?


If I could do it all over again, I would have started out with the M3 instead of the R2M.
 
Jockos said:
Allow me to help you!

Reason 1: the Leica is a much nicer camera to work with.
Reason 2: the Leica won't loose it's resale value, while bessas are difficult to sell.
Reason 3: even if you do buy that bessa, you'll want the Leica later on anyways, so why go the long route?

If I could do it all over again, I would have started out with the M3 instead of the R2M.
Click to expand...

Don't 1 and 3 cancel out 2? You'd never sell it. ;-)
 
Scrambler said:
Don't 1 and 3 cancel out 2? You'd never sell it. ;-)
Click to expand...

Not really; you start out with the M3, then get the M2 for 35mm, then it's the M6 for metering, maybe swap it for a M7 when you get lazy, but in the end you'll end up with the M3 again - and it will outlive you.
 
Jockos said:
Not really; you start out with the M3, then get the M2 for 35mm, then it's the M6 for metering, maybe swap it for a M7 when you get lazy, but in the end you'll end up with the M3 again - and it will outlive you.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of guitars. Get the fender Squire because it's a great bang for the buck. But then buy the USA Strat because it just plays easier, sounds better, and is built better. Then play a Classic Vibe 70's Strat and realize I can get the same sound and feel as the gitfiddle that cost me 6 times as much. :p I did it with Les Pauls too. Ended up back with the $400 Korean made late 80's custom with new pups because it plays as well or better than any $3K model I've played.


Well, I'd want the metering, so it's an M6. But either M3 or M6, where I've never held one or even seen one, is a lot of coin to drop. Besides, I think my photography needs to improve to justify having one. What I do know is the few times I've used my Retina and Signet 80 I have really enjoyed it. Much more than an SLR.
 
Blooze said:
This reminds me of guitars. Get the fender Squire because it's a great bang for the buck. But then buy the USA Strat because it just plays easier, sounds better, and is built better. Then play a Classic Vibe 70's Strat and realize I can get the same sound and feel as the gitfiddle that cost me 6 times as much. :p I did it with Les Pauls too. Ended up back with the $400 Korean made late 80's custom with new pups because it plays as well or better than any $3K model I've played.
Click to expand...

Good analogy, and quite accurate.

Blooze said:
Well, I'd want the metering, so it's an M6. But either M3 or M6, where I've never held one or even seen one, is a lot of coin to drop. Besides, I think my photography needs to improve to justify having one. What I do know is the few times I've used my Retina and Signet 80 I have really enjoyed it. Much more than an SLR.
Click to expand...

I think you have some common misconceptions about this... "I think my photography needs to improve to justify having one" is a pretty harsh assessment of yourself. If you enjoy using a camera (system,) that's justification enough in and of itself. Your ability to make photographs is independent of your equipment. Images may be easier or more difficult to make depending on how comfortable you are with your gear, and how competent the gear itself is, but your processes are and should be independent of your gear.

That said, I switched back to Leica last year (after refusing to pay the price of re-admission for a LOT of years) because I realized that I just plain enjoy shooting a coupled-rangefinder camera more than an SLR. I like the smaller, lighter lenses; I like an interchangeable lens system; and I like shooting large-aperture primes. The process of rangefinder cameras suits my style of shooting more closely than SLR cameras do.

So, my system is easier and more convenient for me to use. Subsequently I appreciate and enjoy using it more. But my process for seeing images hasn't changed (or improved) at all from how I've shot for the past 40 years or so as how I see the world hasn't changed.

And regarding the meter issue, you don't really need a meter. In some cases, a meter can actually impede your ability to make the image as you tend to fuss with them for "perfect" exposure rather than concentrating on making the image itself. Usually your "calibrated eye" (using the sunny 16 rule) will get you within a stop of the "correct" exposure and the latitude of the film (or sensor) will be adequate to carry the image. Carrying a meter can be useful for establishing a base-line exposure at a venue, but once I've done that, I generally stick it back in the bag and merely adjust for opening shadows, or detail in highlights as appropriate. That method is fast, easy, and lets you concentrate on framing the image rather than fiddling with the camera. I zone-focus a great deal too, especially in bright conditions. Obviously that doesn't work as well at large apertures though.
 
I've been researching a little more. Reading some more opinions.

I've pretty much defined my lenses as not needing anything over 50mm. In fact I don't really like the 50mm on the two old rangefinders I have. One of them has interchangeable lenses 35/50/90 and I gravitate towards the 35mm. I've only used the 90mm once, just to see if it worked. I just try to get closer if I need too :) On my SLR's I tend to use 35mm and smaller, with my favorite prime so far being a 28mm. My zoom on my crop-sensor digital exif's usually is in the 18-25mm range. And last of all I wear glasses, which sucks, but is my only option. I can live with an external meter (if I need something smaller than what I have I'll get a Sekonic L-208).

So on that note I think I've narrowed it down to the Bessa R2x, R4x, Leica M2 or M3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom