Merkin
For the Weekend
rxmd- thanks for taking the time for that long and well thought out post. I have noticed that you and a couple other people have mentioned the zeiss zm body, but I must say that I am concerned about the reliability of them, judging if nothing else by the stickied post in the zi section and the (yes, very small sample size, i know) 40 percent of poll respondents saying they had some sort of issue with their zm. between that, and the fact that they are made, if i am not mistaken, by CV, are they really worth 2-3 times the money?
maddoc- how good of a compromise is the .7something x finder between the .58 and the .8something? Is it the best or worst of both worlds?
as to the testing, a cousin of mine is going to loan me her leica (m7) to test, and while I have not been able to shoot with the bessa, i have gotten my hands on one, and talked to the owner, who is a long time family friend. I live in kentucky, and it is not an environment that is particularly conducive to walking in to a camera store and finding much beyond digital slrs (except for the one guy who has about 200 leicas on display in his shop, but doesn't sell any leicas). Therefore, getting my hands on a wide variety of gear for testing before I purchase isn't very feasible.
maddoc- how good of a compromise is the .7something x finder between the .58 and the .8something? Is it the best or worst of both worlds?
as to the testing, a cousin of mine is going to loan me her leica (m7) to test, and while I have not been able to shoot with the bessa, i have gotten my hands on one, and talked to the owner, who is a long time family friend. I live in kentucky, and it is not an environment that is particularly conducive to walking in to a camera store and finding much beyond digital slrs (except for the one guy who has about 200 leicas on display in his shop, but doesn't sell any leicas). Therefore, getting my hands on a wide variety of gear for testing before I purchase isn't very feasible.
maddoc
... likes film again.
The 0.72x finder is the best compromise, IMHO. It is the standard magnification of Leica M bodies (since the M2) and also of the ZI (Zeiss Ikon). I have tested 0.6x, 0.85x (M6TTL), and 0.91x (M3) and used in parallel but while they all have their advantages, I always ended up having the film in the "wrong" camera. There is no "optimal" rangefinder camera that fits equally good to all situations and for me the 0.72x works best in different situations without to many compromises.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
If 40% of all ZIs had issues, the ZI subforum would be a very different place. The vast majority of owners of issue-less ZIs won't even notice that they could vote on that poll. This poll is worthless by now IMHO; this kind of question is always biased against its own object.
Then again, you can take a look at this thread and see if you really want that M6.
I'd say yes. It's a very decent camera, and the finder is the best in any rangefinder. The question for me would rather be what the M6 has speaking for it that a used one costs the same or more as a new ZI
Again, reading up things on the Internet is not the best way to do research. Asking specific questions on the Internet is already much better.
Philipp
mirrored
Established
As Maddoc told, low magnification brings more wide finder sight but same time worse for 50mm and longer focal lenght sight and focusing.
You must notice different eyegogles differencies: how thick are your optic, how large glasses and frames, and how they bend towards your eye. I use about -1,5 gogles and I have always choose little sized metal frames with pure glass optic (not going bad so easy for rubbing even without rubber frame in finder). Now I have spring-bended frames which work very nice. My experiences about the influence of eyeglasses have differed to most others: not much.
I am as new to RF as you. I choosed R3A which have 1:1 finder. By my read here, I suppose ist good for me with 50mm and longer. I have make a deal 0,72x M6 too for a wide angle 35mm, (but somebody uses R3A finder for 35mm too - I will see what I see.=)
I have seen in reality some M cameras and finders. (And ZI too). They have no 1:1 (1x) RF at all and with available magnification lens cannot reach true 1:1. When I look through the true 1:1 finder first time, I was lighted. With it you can keep both eyes open with restfull natural feel. That additional finder was on one professional prohographers M4-2 and it was for a 50mm.
I soon get my R3A. It is in my post office. (I paid 350€ and it's very near like a new. R3M was too in my sight, but I choiced by best offer.)
In my general knowing on different focal lengts I advise you can forget 28mm and larger wide RF sight and use additional finder for your widest. They are mostly usable without RF focusing and if needed sometimes, you can do that still. With enough much magnification in RF finder, you reach better finder for normal and short tele focal lenghts.
Look my very first postings here, if want know more my experiences, observations and findings with 'RF studies'. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1983340
You must notice different eyegogles differencies: how thick are your optic, how large glasses and frames, and how they bend towards your eye. I use about -1,5 gogles and I have always choose little sized metal frames with pure glass optic (not going bad so easy for rubbing even without rubber frame in finder). Now I have spring-bended frames which work very nice. My experiences about the influence of eyeglasses have differed to most others: not much.
I am as new to RF as you. I choosed R3A which have 1:1 finder. By my read here, I suppose ist good for me with 50mm and longer. I have make a deal 0,72x M6 too for a wide angle 35mm, (but somebody uses R3A finder for 35mm too - I will see what I see.=)
I have seen in reality some M cameras and finders. (And ZI too). They have no 1:1 (1x) RF at all and with available magnification lens cannot reach true 1:1. When I look through the true 1:1 finder first time, I was lighted. With it you can keep both eyes open with restfull natural feel. That additional finder was on one professional prohographers M4-2 and it was for a 50mm.
I soon get my R3A. It is in my post office. (I paid 350€ and it's very near like a new. R3M was too in my sight, but I choiced by best offer.)
In my general knowing on different focal lengts I advise you can forget 28mm and larger wide RF sight and use additional finder for your widest. They are mostly usable without RF focusing and if needed sometimes, you can do that still. With enough much magnification in RF finder, you reach better finder for normal and short tele focal lenghts.
Look my very first postings here, if want know more my experiences, observations and findings with 'RF studies'. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1983340
Last edited:
Merkin
For the Weekend
rxmd- I will be giving that a very thourough read over the next day or two. While I don't expect any camera to work perfectly for a century, I must admit that part of the attraction to the leica bodies is the fact that, like the hasselblad 500 series and the pentax k1000, they have very long lifespans. I don't expect a CV body to last for the rest of my life, but they are only 500 bucks or so new, whereas a well taken care of used m6 or a new zi is 1000-1500 bucks. I just don't know if the zi would fall in to the 10-30 year lifespan (like I expect a bessa would) or the 50+ year lifespan category that leica (film leicas, at least) bodies seem to. I am not one who ever sells gear, and as someone who has been shooting since they were 8 or so, i only have (and have ever had) 4 cameras (not including holgas). One is the afforementioned k1000, one is an EOS elan IIe that an ex replaced because she pepsi syndromed the light meter, one is a broken seagull tlr that I haven't taken apart and fixed yet, and one is a leica d-lux 3. Similarly, my father has only ever had a ricoh slr and a yashica electro 35. Therefore, while Zeiss lenses are the absolute pinnacle of awesomeness in my book (no offence to people who swear by leica glass, i am not trying to bring this thread down in flames, just stating personal preference), I am not certain that the zeiss body in question lives up to the name. If nothing else, there will always be people who can repair leicas, just like you will always be able to get a 501cm or a k1000 repaired, but I am not certain that you will always be able to get a ZM repaired.
infrequent
Well-known
leica owners rave about the reliability of their cameras while sending out their M's for periodic CLAs.
but there is no question that any M is a solid camera. it feels substantially hefty in your hands which really helps in holding it steady. compared to that the bessas just don't feel right. maybe the later models are better build but they just don't feel solid. i feel the ikon is probably the same considering its from the same factory. the hexar is solidly built like the leicas. there is something dense in that body.
when it comes to repairability, leicas have the edge. no doubt...simpler bodies will always stand the passage of time.
but there is no question that any M is a solid camera. it feels substantially hefty in your hands which really helps in holding it steady. compared to that the bessas just don't feel right. maybe the later models are better build but they just don't feel solid. i feel the ikon is probably the same considering its from the same factory. the hexar is solidly built like the leicas. there is something dense in that body.
when it comes to repairability, leicas have the edge. no doubt...simpler bodies will always stand the passage of time.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Nothing lasts forever. Infinite and eternal repairability is a myth as well. I've had an acquaintance send a lens (a 1950s Summaron 35) to Leica, only to get it back saying they can't repair it, because of a lack of spare parts. Some Hasselblad lenses are irrepairable now because of spare parts for in-lens shutters. I wouldn't bother too much about this.
FifthLeaf
amateur
I own both an M and a Bessa R3M. And getting the Leica body is a no-brainer.
Thinking I'd like the life size viewfinder, I bought the R3M but have only taken it out once. The camera feels much flimsier than the M, the film advance will lock when you try to shoot rapid-fire, and I personally think the viewfinder is much worse.
Just get proficient with one lens until you can afford the second. I never understood how people can have so many lenses and work quickly. Even when I carry two bodies, I still shoot 90% with one and only occasionally with the other.
But if you still want the bessa, I have a barely used R3M and Nokton 50/1.5 that I'd gladly sell to you.
Thinking I'd like the life size viewfinder, I bought the R3M but have only taken it out once. The camera feels much flimsier than the M, the film advance will lock when you try to shoot rapid-fire, and I personally think the viewfinder is much worse.
Just get proficient with one lens until you can afford the second. I never understood how people can have so many lenses and work quickly. Even when I carry two bodies, I still shoot 90% with one and only occasionally with the other.
But if you still want the bessa, I have a barely used R3M and Nokton 50/1.5 that I'd gladly sell to you.
nrb
Nuno Borges
My 2.8/50mm elmar from the fifties got the same reply from Leica. No spare parts, uneconomical to restore to its former condition.
mirrored
Established
I have now first experiences on R3A shooting. I like it very much and I can't imagine how somebody can accept smaller sight in finder after using 50mm. And finder is just fine.
I have find some not so excellent review on Voigtländer made 'rapidfinder' earlier too.
I wait still my M6 to arrived. I have interviewd some professional Leica M users and got therefore some sight to it. In Bessa have certain development happened too, compared to M. Opening the back is one. Now I can't say what is number two!
But they are different - and properties "rules" choice! Be free. Both work on their own.
Last edited:
funkaoshi
Well-known
I have an R2A and an M2. I bought the R2A first. The CV cameras are quite nice, but I find they just leave you wishing you had a Leica. So, I think if you have the funds, you should just get a Leica from the get go. You can always buy the second lens when you have funds again.
dar
david rizzi
One of my favorite kit was R3a + 40mm + 25mm snapshot. Lenses are first quality, and you have more options to choose from. I wouldn't spend more money just for the sake of the Leica body, the advantages they offer do not justify the extra money, IMHO.
Moreover 35 are 50 are just too near to carry both.
Moreover 35 are 50 are just too near to carry both.
kevin m
Veteran
The 1:1 finder in the Bessas is nice, with a big exit pupil, but here's where it falls down: The RF base length is just too short to accurately focus fast lenses. It works fine for near focus, but it can't seem to consistently tell 20ft. from infinity shooting a 50mm at f1.4, and it's hopeless with anything faster than that. Second, the RF patch doesn't move with the framelines. That sounds minor, but try it and see if it annoys you or not.
While I don't subscribe to the notion that the Leica M is "whisper quiet," it's certainly quieter than any Bessa body I've tried. The mouse-trap snap of the Bessa shutter sounds cheap and tinny for what the camera costs, and if it bugs you, it'll bug you every time you fire a frame.
The Leica is a bit expensive, maybe, but in the hand, an M6 for $1,000 seems like an excellent value, while a used Bessa for $300 seems kind of over-priced.
While I don't subscribe to the notion that the Leica M is "whisper quiet," it's certainly quieter than any Bessa body I've tried. The mouse-trap snap of the Bessa shutter sounds cheap and tinny for what the camera costs, and if it bugs you, it'll bug you every time you fire a frame.
The Leica is a bit expensive, maybe, but in the hand, an M6 for $1,000 seems like an excellent value, while a used Bessa for $300 seems kind of over-priced.
nanthor
Well-known
Get a Hexar RF. Every bit the equal of an M7 and about the same cost as the R2A used. The only niggle I've heard is about the loudness and the viewfinder and I have to say that the viewfinder is fantastic and the camera is very quiet. I do not advise the Hexar if you are into 90mm and 135mm but for normal to wide angle it is very bright, easy to use and just a pleasure. I just bought the hexar set with 50mm lens for $1000.00 so I think you should be able to get the body alone for about $600.00.
mirrored
Established
That was surprise for me today when I take first roll. It's a clear drawback when RF patch is not in the middle - and it is here only to infinity sharped. In forming composition, middle point is a most primary thing, and moving point in middle finder is absolytely no no.
Of cource it's personal. My background is in SLR and somewhat professional attitude too. It's possible that I find with M something fundamental fail too. That little point decrease meaninfull using area. I still like it very much! Little beautiful, wonderful AE too!
Note that I used it "like a SLR". Tripod - still target - snowrain - night time. Thus I liked RF and the finder in general. My first roll ever with RF.
That "absolytely no no" I still think. Perhaps hoping too much and with it can easily live and learn.
I find the sound very nice in Bessa. And more: it's an accurate and fast metal focal shutter. I think it's same shutter than ZI have. Only body material is different when plastic ZI is not so musical one!
Last edited:
infrequent
Well-known
@nanthor - i disagree...HRF is a lot better than an M7. as for higher magnification, one can always get a leica adapter. 1.25x would be more than suitable for 90/135mm lenses.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I found it more useful in the Bessa where the patch stayed where it was. I sometimes use the edge of the patch for precise focusing and when the patch moves it really gets on your nerves.
roundg
Well-known
Vote for the M6. Leica M6 and Bessa are two different level products, not want to be offensive to someone, myself used to be a Bessa User too.
Yes, u can say they function the same. Then why u want a RF, u can get a SLR at a much cheaper price and function the same.
Don't overlook the "Leica Feel".
Yes, u can say they function the same. Then why u want a RF, u can get a SLR at a much cheaper price and function the same.
Don't overlook the "Leica Feel".
astroman
-
Yes I agree the M6 feels more solid but is a lot heavier.I had a M6 for a while this summer great camera.I bought a bessa R3A sold the leica and I dont miss it.Im glad I tried a leica but to be honest I perfer using the bessa I like the viewfinder and the rf patch is easier to focus.Yes leicas are the ferrari of cameras but it wont help you take better photographys.That just my though on the matter.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
You need a wide effective rangefinder base to shoot in low light. Get the M6 with the 35 CV lens, IMHO the best buy!