jamin-b
Well-known
I have a R3a and an R4a, both bought in excellent used condition. Both are really special in their own way. In handling them I always feel that they seem a bit flimsier than I would like, but in real life use I have never had issues. I really like their light weight and compactness, accurate center meter and automatic modes + AE lock, and that they share the same add on grip (also with my Bessamatic SLR).
I also picked up a new old stock Bessa L for around $100. A fun, light camera.
My main issue with these cameras is that I don't seem to use them enough
.
I also picked up a new old stock Bessa L for around $100. A fun, light camera.
My main issue with these cameras is that I don't seem to use them enough
.jamin-b
Well-known
Forgot to mention - I view the fact that you need to dial in the correct viewfinder lines for the lens as a plus. That way it doesn't matter which LTM to M adapter you are using, since it won't automatically bring up a certain set of lines.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
I have an R, bought second hand.
RF patch came misaligned, adjusted at home and it's spot on. Never ran out of whack even though the camera was bumped and vibrated a lot. I have traveled with it a lot and appreciate the light weight of it.
Once I bumped the camera into a marble platform and it left a dent on the bottom plate instead of cracking. After two years of moderately rough using I dont mind its plastic shell anymore But I did wish it could have a metal door like Olympus XA's plastic shell+metal door combination. I now use a half case for it.
Viewfinder is very bright. RF patch is contrasty so it is fast to focus with R. Light meter is handy and accurate.
Strap lug location is as strange as Canon V, VI, 7 series of cameras. It makes the camera face the sky and top plate jab your chest when mounted with most of the lenses.
Film.counter window has fallen inside the camera once. Reglued it at home.
I think the excellent viewfinder alone makes R the best bang for the buck among interchangeable-lens rangefinders.
RF patch came misaligned, adjusted at home and it's spot on. Never ran out of whack even though the camera was bumped and vibrated a lot. I have traveled with it a lot and appreciate the light weight of it.
Once I bumped the camera into a marble platform and it left a dent on the bottom plate instead of cracking. After two years of moderately rough using I dont mind its plastic shell anymore But I did wish it could have a metal door like Olympus XA's plastic shell+metal door combination. I now use a half case for it.
Viewfinder is very bright. RF patch is contrasty so it is fast to focus with R. Light meter is handy and accurate.
Strap lug location is as strange as Canon V, VI, 7 series of cameras. It makes the camera face the sky and top plate jab your chest when mounted with most of the lenses.
Film.counter window has fallen inside the camera once. Reglued it at home.
I think the excellent viewfinder alone makes R the best bang for the buck among interchangeable-lens rangefinders.
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
Yes, I also use the Bessa L as a super wide angle snapshot tool
I agree. My other Bessa is a Bessa R2, again, no complaints, except the rubber grips thing
retinax
Well-known
This, together with the flimsy feel and too light weight, was what made me sell the Bessa R I once bought before even running a roll of film through it. I wonder why so few other people complain about it? Maybe they don't all do this?
JP Owens
Well-known
I've had both the R and the R2A. The R worked fine; but, was too light for my taste and didn't feel durable. I loved the R2A, though. Shot a lot of film through it, never a problem. Actually a better shooting experience than several M Leica's I owned. If I were still shooting film, I would still have the R2A. Can't say enough good things about that camera.
DMA1965
Established
I have a Bessa R4M I bought brand new from B&H Photo a year ago. I love having native 21 and 25 mm frame lines (I use the 25 mm framelines with my Leica 24 mm lens). If I use the whole viewfinder it also works close enough for my 15mm lens. I love the metal shutter that I don’t have to worry about burning holes into (I did this with a Leica). I love that it is fully mechanical and only needs a battery for the meter. I think I paid around $650 dollars for it brand new. Definitely the best bargain for an M body new.
I also have an R2S, which is super unique. It is a native Nikon rangefinder mount camera, fully mechanical, with a meter. It is the only native Nikon rangefinder mount camera in the world with a built in meter. It works perfectly with my 35mm f1.8 Nikon rangefinder lens (which is a superb lens). I bought the camera used in mint condition from a seller in Japan for around $500. The rangefinder patch is not quite as good as my R4M, but works well enough.
I love both cameras and consider them both well made. They are both lightweight and durable enough for my needs, plus they are inexpensive enough to not worry me as much as some of my other rangefinders.
I also have an R2S, which is super unique. It is a native Nikon rangefinder mount camera, fully mechanical, with a meter. It is the only native Nikon rangefinder mount camera in the world with a built in meter. It works perfectly with my 35mm f1.8 Nikon rangefinder lens (which is a superb lens). I bought the camera used in mint condition from a seller in Japan for around $500. The rangefinder patch is not quite as good as my R4M, but works well enough.
I love both cameras and consider them both well made. They are both lightweight and durable enough for my needs, plus they are inexpensive enough to not worry me as much as some of my other rangefinders.
tonyc
Established
The RF patch comment on Bessa and ZI camera is mentioned often, but it does not quite tell the truth.
Leica cameras have a much smaller, squintier exit pupil which restricts one's eye from not be centred on the viewfinder.
This is why you do not notice this issue with Leica cameras, not for any other reason.
This comment about Bessa being inferior is quite subjective:
If you are looking for a bright, uncluttered viewfinder then Bessa or ZI is are the best choices. [ The R and R2 having much nicer
viewfinders than the R2A/M R3A/M etc ]
If you want an expensive cluttered viewfinder then there are other options . . .
-TC
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
That's true and that is also why it is much easier to see the 35mm frame line on Bessa R/R2* than 0.72x Leica M.
Plus, I've never had a problem of searching the RF patch with my Bessa: when I can't see the patch, I can't see one or more side of the frame line either, even with 50mm, so it's no go. When I could see the whole frame the patch is right there in the center.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
But the bessa and ikons still have the problem. It's not a deal breaker for some but it's something worth mentioning.
It's common for people to say that the digital Ms are overpriced and not much bang for the buck. I can somewhat get behind that argument.
But the film Ms are another story. It's my opinion that the film Ms are superior to the Bessas. If you want to throw the cluttered VF argument out there you can get an M2, M3, M4, M5 which all have nice uncluttered viewfinders. It does appear that the Bessa has a bigger fresnel window so it could have brighter framelines but a clean M will perform just as well.
Maybe it's worth mentioning that the bessa's rangefinder baselength cant match the Ms? You might not notice any focus error with a standard 50/2 or 35/2 but getting into a 50/1.1... with the wonky rangefinder patch... On paper I can't say it's very confidence inspiring.
Don't get me started with the sticky plastics and weight of the bessas...
I will agree with you about the Ikon. It's probably the best viewfinder out there. Decently bright but WIDE.
pvdhaar
Peter
I had a Bessa-T, but in the end didn't hang on to it. The main problem with the Bessa is lies in the shutter speeds below 1/30. In this range, the slow shutter speed escapement literally kicks in, making the camera jolt. That takes away one of the main advantages rangefinders claim to have over SLRs, namely being able to shoot at slow speeds without camera shake. The M4 that I had definitely didn't do that and ran smooth at every shutter speed.
robert blu
quiet photographer
When the Bessa R came to the market I bought it with the 35/1.7 mainly because curiosity.
I soon realized that I liked it, small, light, i could even bring with me during my working trips. And I liked the rangefinder experience. I added a 50 and a 75. Still a small kit.
Later I bought an M7 and recently the M10.
But sometimes I still shoot the Bessa R beside the M7 (iso 100 film in one camera, iso 800 in the other).
Still satisfied without problems.
robert
I soon realized that I liked it, small, light, i could even bring with me during my working trips. And I liked the rangefinder experience. I added a 50 and a 75. Still a small kit.
Later I bought an M7 and recently the M10.
But sometimes I still shoot the Bessa R beside the M7 (iso 100 film in one camera, iso 800 in the other).
Still satisfied without problems.
robert
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I have several, but haven't shot with them in years. I like them. Each has its own advantages. For instance, I liked the T's long focus base a lot. It worked really well with my Noctilux -- quite reliablely in focus. I found them adequately built for what they were, and have never had any mechanical problems with mine. I also think they were a great way for folks to experience rangefinder photography without breaking the bank. I wouldn't pound nails with one, but I never gave mine any special treatment.
rionda
Never Used an SLR
After my film CL broke (film takeup spool broke), I bought an R3A in January'18 with the idea of using it as a carry-everyday-everywhere-body with the Cron-c 40/2, while keeping my M6TTL for "special occasions" (no idea now what I meant about it at the time) and for other lenses.
Turns out, I am carrying my M6TTL with me more often. Why?
For once, I have had the M6TTL for 9 years now, so it's not a surprise that I'm more familiar with its controls and ergonomics than I am with the R3A's. This aspect is not a defect of the R3A, just lack of experience with this body on my side.
More to the point though, I wear glasses and it is very hard to see the exposure indicators in the R3A's viewfinder, while I have no trouble with the M6TTL's ones. When I manage to see them (by moving my eye and losing track of the subject), it is hard for me to distinguish between the currently set shutter speed versus the speed that the meter suggests (which is supposed to be blinking, but I find it barely noticeable).
The above could be solved by relying on the AE function (one of the reasons why I bought the camera), but I found that the exposure meter is a bit too "spot" (compared to M6TTL's) for me to be relied on without first measuring exposure on a middle gray and then using the AE-lock button (which is not in a great position, IMHO). Doing this takes a bit too much time.
I'm still going to keep it for a while, and try to use it more often to see whether the above issues are just a question of habits.
Turns out, I am carrying my M6TTL with me more often. Why?
For once, I have had the M6TTL for 9 years now, so it's not a surprise that I'm more familiar with its controls and ergonomics than I am with the R3A's. This aspect is not a defect of the R3A, just lack of experience with this body on my side.
More to the point though, I wear glasses and it is very hard to see the exposure indicators in the R3A's viewfinder, while I have no trouble with the M6TTL's ones. When I manage to see them (by moving my eye and losing track of the subject), it is hard for me to distinguish between the currently set shutter speed versus the speed that the meter suggests (which is supposed to be blinking, but I find it barely noticeable).
The above could be solved by relying on the AE function (one of the reasons why I bought the camera), but I found that the exposure meter is a bit too "spot" (compared to M6TTL's) for me to be relied on without first measuring exposure on a middle gray and then using the AE-lock button (which is not in a great position, IMHO). Doing this takes a bit too much time.
I'm still going to keep it for a while, and try to use it more often to see whether the above issues are just a question of habits.
LukeBanks
Established
I am more than happy with my R3A, and will happily use it as my primary 35mm / RF body for the rest of my days.
Yes, the exposure read outs can be awkward to see if you're not perfectly straight on to the VF but I bought the R3A over the R3M for one particular reason. Go figure... however I could easily see the annoyance for those using the bodies manually.
My 2 focal lengths are 50mm / 35mm. The 1:1 VF is ideal for both in my book. I know some will say the window is not suited to anything beyond 40mm (because that's what it says on the body) but I find the full VF window to almost perfectly match the 35mm frame when ignoring the frame lines. I've never once had an issue with framing or perspective. It seems perfectly intuitive for me.
Reliability has not been an issue. At all. Nothing has broken or failed to this day and the RF is bang on. That is with regular use. I'm an every day professional photographer who can dish out a fair bit of abuse in some scenarios but I've found the Bessa to fair admirably with straight forward good care practices.
Voigtlander glass is stunning.
Voigtlander prices are realistic.
Mr. K is a traditionalist. That counts for an awful lot in my mind. Just a personal taste kind of thing. It makes me like and trust the guy, and CV by extension. Call me fickle.
The best image I've ever taken was on my R3A.
If for any reason it ever becomes a paperweight then I will be heart broken and seek to replace it like-for-like immediately.
Yes, the exposure read outs can be awkward to see if you're not perfectly straight on to the VF but I bought the R3A over the R3M for one particular reason. Go figure... however I could easily see the annoyance for those using the bodies manually.
My 2 focal lengths are 50mm / 35mm. The 1:1 VF is ideal for both in my book. I know some will say the window is not suited to anything beyond 40mm (because that's what it says on the body) but I find the full VF window to almost perfectly match the 35mm frame when ignoring the frame lines. I've never once had an issue with framing or perspective. It seems perfectly intuitive for me.
Reliability has not been an issue. At all. Nothing has broken or failed to this day and the RF is bang on. That is with regular use. I'm an every day professional photographer who can dish out a fair bit of abuse in some scenarios but I've found the Bessa to fair admirably with straight forward good care practices.
Voigtlander glass is stunning.
Voigtlander prices are realistic.
Mr. K is a traditionalist. That counts for an awful lot in my mind. Just a personal taste kind of thing. It makes me like and trust the guy, and CV by extension. Call me fickle.
The best image I've ever taken was on my R3A.
If for any reason it ever becomes a paperweight then I will be heart broken and seek to replace it like-for-like immediately.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Are you saying Nokton 35 1.4 is no go on R2M as well? And Jupiter-3? Or just 7Artisans 50 1.1?
I have expired Kodak 50D (something like 400+ feet bulk from late nineties) and my idea was to get it all exposed by fast lens on Bessa.
Bessa R2M with Canon 50 1.8 cap and neck strap is 680 gm.
M4-2 with 50 Cron, hood and and cup, plus neck strap is 770 gm.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
That is a useful trick. I put a sticker on my R's frame illuminating window and use the whole frame as a 28mm frame when shooting with my Orion-15 28/6.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
You'd be fine with the 35 1.4. Really you should be fine with all lenses. I think it's safe to say that anything past 1.4 would be considered extreme and when you are pushing the limits, for me I would prefer to have the M. I shot my 50 F1.1 with my M5 and had consistent results from it. I've never shot a Bessa with that lens but I could see it being difficult with the rangefinder setup in extreme low light conditions even with the bright clear viewfinder.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Compared to my Leicas, the Bessa R is a decent camera (sorry, couldn't help myself -- compared with Leica)
Seriously, the only Bessa I own is the R. It really is a unique animal in this world -- native LTM body with built in meter, hinge-back loading, framelines for different focal lengths, etc.
It is worth a slight comparison to other LTM cameras (in my case Barnack Leicas and Canon RFs). The R is very nice and light weight. The meter is quite accurate and useful for folks who know how to properly use meters. Native LTM mount is kind of neat, but yeah I can use LTM lenses on the M6 to get the same experience. The R is sized well and handles easily. The batteries only power the meter, so its always ready to take photos even if the batteries die. The R has a hotshoe, something not found on any of my other LTM cameras (are there any other LTM bodies out there that have a hot shoe?)
The meter layout of the R is the same as the M6TTL. Its because of my experience with the R that I desire an M6TTL today (as opposed to classic M6). That central led dot makes metering easier for me.
One thing about my Bessa R: Viewing through the viewfinder is persnickity. It might just be my camera, but I have to look through the viewfinder precisely dead on to get the entire RF patch and frameline to show. Any tiny deviation right or left and I don't see all of those. I don't notice such pickyness with any of my Leica M cameras (sorry, another comparison but it makes a point). While this is not a horrible detraction, it is one reason why I don't use my R very often. However, the main reason is that I just really prefer to use my M cameras because my brain likes their size, shape, layout, etc. more than most any other camera.
Oh, and the back door on my R is just now getting sticky/tacky.
Seriously, the only Bessa I own is the R. It really is a unique animal in this world -- native LTM body with built in meter, hinge-back loading, framelines for different focal lengths, etc.
It is worth a slight comparison to other LTM cameras (in my case Barnack Leicas and Canon RFs). The R is very nice and light weight. The meter is quite accurate and useful for folks who know how to properly use meters. Native LTM mount is kind of neat, but yeah I can use LTM lenses on the M6 to get the same experience. The R is sized well and handles easily. The batteries only power the meter, so its always ready to take photos even if the batteries die. The R has a hotshoe, something not found on any of my other LTM cameras (are there any other LTM bodies out there that have a hot shoe?)
The meter layout of the R is the same as the M6TTL. Its because of my experience with the R that I desire an M6TTL today (as opposed to classic M6). That central led dot makes metering easier for me.
One thing about my Bessa R: Viewing through the viewfinder is persnickity. It might just be my camera, but I have to look through the viewfinder precisely dead on to get the entire RF patch and frameline to show. Any tiny deviation right or left and I don't see all of those. I don't notice such pickyness with any of my Leica M cameras (sorry, another comparison but it makes a point). While this is not a horrible detraction, it is one reason why I don't use my R very often. However, the main reason is that I just really prefer to use my M cameras because my brain likes their size, shape, layout, etc. more than most any other camera.
Oh, and the back door on my R is just now getting sticky/tacky.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not comparing is impossible, but put it this way: at the 2018 Arles Rencontres, Frances carried her olive-green R2 instead of her black MP. Smaller, lighter, and the battery had gone flat in the MP. She did not miss the MP.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.