New to RF: from OMs to Bessas (longish)

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>

I've decided to post a question to this forum after doing an extensive research

for things that interested me but with no luck. First, let me make a little

introduction.</p>

<p>

I've been into photography for more than three years now with results no worth

bragging about - it's just a hobby and I do it for fun. I started from EOS

300V, switched after an year to Olympus E-1 digital DSLR, than bought Yashica

Mat 124G, tried Mamiya C330 and now I am a happy owner of OM-2n and OM-4 and a

bunch of Zuiko lenses.</p>

<p>

Most of photography I am doing can be classified as rather pathetic attempts to

make a good shot assuming you spend ten hours in the office and two hours to

commute. All the time I have for shooting is holiday and weekends. Sometimes I

even force myself to wake at the dawn :-) Here are two shots from our (i.e. my

wife's and mine) travel to Galicia (NW Spain) just to make aware of what I am

capable of (or rather uncapable):</p>

<ul><li><a href="http://grabun.com/tmp/06.jpg">landscape</a></li>

<li><a href="http://grabun.com/tmp/26.jpg">fishmonger</a></li>

</ul>

<p>Both shots were taken with OM-2n and Zuiko 50/1.8 lens.</p>

<p>Anyway, during our stay in Spain I realised that for the kind of photography

I do (i.e. travel shots, occasional weekend trips to the countryside or bike

trips near the place we live in) I don't need a fancy big SLR for which I

usually carry a sturdy tripod, a bunch of filters and diffrent lens. Somehow, I

realized that most of best shots I've made were those made with simple OM-2n

that features no bells and whistles but it has exactly what a photographer

needs.</p>

<p>OMs are wonderful cameras, I guess most of you on this forum had a chance to

play with one during years and will second my opinion. The only thing that I

don't quite like about OM system is that it will never be developed again. Even

simple M42 thread system had new body introduced three or four years ago - I'm

talking Bessaflex here. But you won't expect new body with OM mount from

Olympus or any third-party vendor - OM's are just to complex to make and with

too low popularity to make it profitable. The system - even though there's a

plethora of lenses available - is, well, dead.</p>

<p>

The fact is I am bit concerned about quality of old cameras bought on a flea

markets or auction sites. OM-4 I used extensively during our stay "deceived" me

few times - as it turned out, the self-timer is faulty yielding completely

washed-out frames. It's time for a film camera, brand new film camera that is.</

p><p>

What about EOS 300V, you ask, for which I can buy a nice Canon EF 50/1.8 lens

and maybe few other primes? Yes, it is a interesting option but a dark

viewfinder and lack of control somewhat put me off. And I like to manual

focusing which is - if done properly - more accurate.</p>

<p>Well, it seems as it's the longest post in English I am going to post ever

so making a long story short, here's what I am up to:</p>

<p>I what to buy Bessa R2A or R3A but <em>before</em> I spend one thousand EUR

on an

equipment I do not know here's a list of question answers to which I'd like to

know and I thinking it's the right place to ask:</p>

<ul>

<li>I wear glasses; is it possible to use the viewfinder with glasses on with

either the camera? I've read sad stories about ones who wear spectacles and R3A

viewfinder so maybe R2A is better choice?</li>

<li>I tend to use polarizing filter a lot (I make on color print film, almost

exlusively, Reala is my choice); is it possible to use polarizing filter with

RF camera? I am aware of <a href="http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/

accessories.htm#LabelKRP">this solution</a> but are there any less, er, money

consuming approaches? What about light metering when filter is mounted? Does

Bessa R2A has TTL metering?</li>

<li>is focusing faster and easier with RF compared to manual SLR's? It takes

some time to focus with 50/1.8 when shoot wide open even though OMs viewfinders

are pretty bright. What about Bessa? Which one would you choose to make a

fishmonger photo?</li>

<li>what are the actual differences between R2A and R2M? R2M, as it is said,

has mechanical shutter whereas R2A has an electronic one. Which is better in

terms of the noise it makes? I've read both cameras make noise compared to that

OM-1 makes. It would be pretty noisy, I'd say. Can anyone confirm that?</li>

</ul>

<p>there's a dozen of other questions I forgot about so I'd better finish this

off and hope all you won't get mad for such a long list of - hopefully, well

placed - questions.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance and best regards,</p>

<p>Lukasz</p>

I wear glasses and couldn't see the whole frame with the R3A. I love the Bessa R2 and use its whole viewfinder for 28mm lenses. If you like to use lenses wider than 50mm, the R2 / R2A / R2M is clearly a better choice.

 

While louder than a Leica, the shutter on an R2 is nothing like that of an SLR.

 

You need to truck on down to a dealer and try these machines out for yourself.

i started out with om40 and then ended up with an om4. third party lenses are cheap. if you can afford zuiko wide angles then picture quality would be excellent. however, my hands are not still. so fast film is the only remedy. for my travels i use a bessa r with vc 35mm. leitz elmar 9cm f/4, jupiyer 8 and jupiter 12 lenses. the package is lighter and smaller than my om. focusing is easier too.

Basic used Zuiko lenses for the OM series are not expensive. I bought a Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 for about $35 on auction "as-new." The 2.8's and such begin to climb a bit but not unreasonably so. One of my best lenses is a Zuiko 200mm f/4 and I use it on my Olympus digital giving me a beautiful 400mm f/4 lens. I paid $100 for it. Great lenses!

 

With only a few exceptions I have difficulty looking through an RF viewfinder. I usually use a bright off-camera viewfinder and zone focus unless exact focus is critical. I use Kiev (Contax mount) cameras and they are hard to focus and see through, but I have an off-camera 35mm viewfinder (thanks to Vivek) and I've discovered a way to us it for both 35mm and 50mm lenses. Wonderful!

Reading through a bit more of your question I began to wonder why you would want to spend a huge amount of money when you are doing such a fine job with your current Olympus film camera system. Switching to a rangefinder won't make you a better photographer and the OM is one of the smallest SLR's ever made. Only you can make you a better photographer by much practice and it looks to me that you're doing quite fine.

Sorry, but I keep readin your question and more thought come to mind.

 

You OM will not become obsolete. Buy a couple to in case one breaks. I recently bought a beautiful OM1 on eBay in perfect condition and recovered it with a beautiful lizard skin. I can us the OM lenses with my E-1. Old manual cameras are very strong, and last much longer that digital cameras, at least in terms of the production of new models. I've had my E-1 for a few years and, I am told, it is already obsolete. Well, not for me it isn't. I can use Olympus digital lenses, OM lenses, and Nikon lenses (with an adapter) with the camera and it is working just fine. I have no need for a $3000 E-3.

 

In my opinion, it is very difficult to use a rangefinder while wearing glasses. When I use a Leica M-2 with a 35mm lens I could not see the frame lines.

 

Polarizers are far easier to use with any SLR.

 

Focusing is much faster with an SLR also.

 

A rangefinder has its advantages (especially with leaf shutters and very quiet shutters) but I think you are going to be disappointed.

 

You could always start with an inexpensive rangefinder such as a Yashica Electro (I have a nice black GT for sale that was CLA'd by the Gman), a Canon IIIG QL, Yashica 5000 or 14, and many more. These cost much less than $100. Try one first before you spends hundreds or thousands on something you won't like.

 

My suggestion: use your Olympus.

<p>Dear all,</p>

 

<p>thank you for lot of useful comments; special thanks goes to Todd who is just one step from saving me some spendings :-)</p>

 

<p>To clarify it all a bit as few things may seem a bit unclear.</p>

 

<p>I do strongly believe that is not the camera that makes the picture but rather the photographer who is on other side of the lens. Thus, I do not expect Bessa R to make me a better photograpger. I do expect it, however, to be reliable camera which won't let me down during, say, travels. The OM-4, which is said to be one of best manual cameras ever made, did let me down, actually, and I decided to sell it. I do not need it's all fancy spotmetering and complex - if amazing and cutting edge when it was introduced - mechanics and electronics.</p>

<p>I do own E-1 as well and I do regard it highly as it is superb camera with decent ergonomics, it's well built and delivers top quality pictures. But I am not that into digital photography - I do use E-1 sometimes, particularly when I have take shots of a sport event but it does not happen that often after all.</p>

<p>I prefer film as it has, erm, it has more of something I can't explicitely describe. Some people say the camera is just a tool and if you can't tell a difference between a picture taken by a film camera and a DSLR than that "something" does no longer exist but I still - even if it may be regardes as foolish - do believe that something does exist no matter what they say.</p>

<p>Phew, that's a long one.</p>

<p>Todd. Here's what I am going to do, I think. I will get myself a nice, little OM-2n in mint condition and invest some money in Zuiko lens (35mm maybe and 85/2, why not?). I do have already a nice little collection - Zuiko 24, 28 and 50, Tamron 90/2.5 adaptall, Vivitar 70-210 Series 1 made by Kiron, I think and Tokina RMC 135/2.8 which I rarely use but it's a nice little lens, anyway. The only concern is that soon OM-2n will in it's thirties and that noone would even care about abondoned and long forgotten OM system thus I will have to change the system in a long term anyway but maybe not now. If you say that focusing is faster with SLR than with RF - which still is a bit odd for me as RF are street photographers' cameras where fast focusing is crucial unless you use hyperfocal settings but this can be achieved with any lens and RFs do not exhibit an advantage here - that I am bought for SLRs completely.</p>

<p>Not that owning couple of that Voigtlander lenses with fancy names is something I do not dream of but, heck, you can't have it all. :-)</p>

<p>Todd and all, thanks once again. And Todd, thanks for warm words about my photos. I can say, unhumbly, these two are among a modest set of shots I like most :-)</p>

Lukasz

 

I think your on the right path. I never owned an OM but I am very tempted due to the finder. Don't worry about the reliability of most SLRs from the 70s. I own a 1968 SR-T 101 bought new. It has had one CLA. My other SLR is an Minolta XE-1 which operates perfectly. I think most cameras can still be repaired for the minor stuff that happens. If they can't be repaired economically, they are cheap to replace in order to retain the low cost but high performance glass available in the 70s.

 

If you need to experience a rangefinder try the Konica S2.

Lukasz, two things come to my mind:

 

- if you only shoot colour, then I'm afraid you should take a hard look at digital cameras again, the advantages are numerous and substantial, having said that, I do not find any current DSLR to be really much to my liking, I still use (on occasion) the Fuji S3 for its film like colours and DR, but it is basically a tank, and the VF is a PITA

- the RF route is in my opinion the best for someone who always wants to have a camera at hand, who likes people shots (no makro, no tele), who likes landscapes without pretending big blowups. The RF's let you shoot faster than any other type of camera, including the auto everything electronic crap, and with the right lenses in the range till 50mm you can get quality not obtainable elsewhere. But nowadays, for me at least, the RF's are primarily B&W tools. I also wear glasses, and for that reason I use Bessas, and above all the Zeiss Ikon rather than Leicas. I suggest you try a ZI with a 35mm Biogon, and if you don't like this, rangefinders are not for you.

 

If you want to see some photos with the technical background included, look through my portfolio here:

Most of this has been done with RF's or FM3A - my normal holiday shooting set up is Bessa R4A+Biogon 25/2.8 (on a short strap on the neck), Zeiss Ikon+Planar 50/2 (on a long strap on my neck) and a Nikon FM3A+85/1.4 Planar (on a long strap on left shoulder) this covers most of what I need to do. Don't get rid of the OM's as they are useful for lenses over 75mm and makro.

I also work 10 hours a day and commute, that's why I always have a RF with me, every day.

 

For more info, take a look at the rangefinderforum.com and rogerandfrances.com, if you want to subscribe, also look at the reidreviews.com.

<p>Hello again,</p>

<p>OM's are great cameras and definitely worth trying; OM-2n is absolutely best camera I've had a chance to use and I dare to say it's one of best manual cameras ever even though I am a man of no experience in this matter.</p>

<p>Marek, honestly speaking, I can't think of any blatant advantages of digital SLRs over film bodies if we forget about their up-to-datiness which implies reliability and customer service from vendors. Digitilazition of a film is relatively cheap nowadays and development costs - if you're doing your own process, I am not - are practically zero. Even with color photography it doesn't cost that much - I had developed and scanned eight rolls of print film and payed $50 which - as the job was done quickly and professionally - isn't that much after all. E-6 is another kettle of fish as it can be extremely expensive to have it developed here, in Poland. Which was one of reasons I am giving up slides completely.</p>

<p>I am not very fond of street photography. I do prefer to go somewhere, even if the place isn't that far from the place from the place we live in, and do some shot with no haste and stress. RF I wanted to buy was supposed to play role of a compact camera delivering high quality images. Wide angles aren't also what I like most - 35mm is more than enough for me (even though you can judge differently by the lens I own). As I said before there were two advantages:</p>

<ul>

<li>pocket size; I am not that sure if a set of Zuikos 5cm, 3.5cm and 8.5 and OM-2n would take noticably more space that its counterpart in RF realm. Guess not.</li>

<li>reliability - he says again - of a camera; Bessas are new. OMs are old. But I expect an OM-2n in mint shape - which, if I am lucky, am going to buy - will last just as long as any Bessa I would affor to buy.</li>

</ul>

<p>There's a lot of equipent you have to carry. But I guess pictures you make and which I had a great pleasure to browse through are worth it. With me it's the other way around - the more equipment I take, the less creativity I exhibit. Two or three lenses and two bodies in which I have different types of film, now I have learnt, is more than enough for me.</p>

<p>Thanks for useful resources, I will definitely browse them through.</p>

<p>Oh, and there's a nice guy on ebay who sells cheaply refurbished Canonets. Not Bessa, definitely, but people claim GLIII QL17 are decent cameras and its lens are of outstanding quality. $100 isn't something I would have excuse myself of before my wife :-)</p>

Lukasz, I think you haven't got the cost equation quite correct. If you really want to enjoy your photography, in your situation (someone with no time for a darkroom) you should compare the digital route with film+scanner, so to start with you should consider, that unless you get a first rate scanner (like a KM 5400 used or a Nikon CS 5000 or 9000) you stand little chance to produce prints that can face a comparison against digital.

 

Having said this, I think you should take a look at traditional B&W photography, because at least for me, it is difficult to make colour prints that have the same visual impact, and in B&W, simply put, the digital still sucks.

 

If I were in Poland today with little money to spend, I would either do traditional B&W with a darkroom finish, or I would shoot digital (with regret).

 

I was in Warsaw in march, and I run out of XP2 - I bought 10 rolls in a professional shop/lab (na Dzikiej) and discovered the price was almost twice what I pay in Milan, while the development cost 15% more !!!

 

So, your choice is not that easy, you either should limit your ambitions and shoot slides, or you would have to face significant investments in terms of time (if you go the darkroom route) or money (if you go the digital or scanning route).

 

Last word about the rangefinders: until you don't try a good one, it is useless to explain why the rangefinders are great. I have done photography for more than 35 years, and I have bought a RF recently just for a try, bercause I wanted a small camera for low light shooting - now I wouldn't use an SLR film camera any more, unless it would be for close up or tele... If people keep on paying a substantial premium for rangefinders over SLR film cameras, even today, there must be a point to it... If you just want to taste this, don't waste your time on Canonets - borrow a Zorki or Fed from one of your uncles, and try to shoot a few rolls, there's a lot of info about this type of cameras on rangefinderforum.com.

I had an OM1, then an OM4, and loved them. However, the metering was never perfect, as I discovered when I bought a Pentax MZ5 - perfect exposure every time, and autofocus when I need it. I still miss the feel of the OM, but the photos are much more consistent these days!

<p>Marek, I think you didn't estimate it correcly, either :-) As I said, I made eight rolls of film during a three-week trip in Spain. Now, a simple exercise for a reader: how much time would it take me to scan (with ICE :-) and pp them to make print-ready for my local lab? Luckily for me I every time I have my negatives printed there I get consistent results. Scanning also doesn't cost that much and the quality is more than enough for web purposes.</p>

<p>Also, in Warsaw one would never buy film in a store but goes to photo-market that takes place every Sunday in Stodola. Films and slides are significantly cheaper than even those sold by e-stores!</p>

<p>

Marek, one more question, if you don't mind (somehow it feels more and more strange to write to you in a language that is foreign for both of us): Bessa Rs are relatively cheap. I've read reviews and forum opinions and they are somewhat ambigous. Would you, personally, recommend the camera?</p>

<p>

@Chris: all my negatives are perfecly exposed right in a spot. It seems, however, that more I tweak the exposition and use fancy functions OM-4 features (multi-spot metering I am talking of, for example) the worse - in terms of exposure - my photos are. OM-2n with its CW metering delivered outstanding captures, OTOH. The simpler, the better, you may say.</p>

Lukasz, I think that as long as you are satisfied with the prints from the lab, for you there's no point to get too sophisticated.

 

Shooting film can actually be quite beneficial to cut down on the habit of machine-gunning your surroundings, and make you choose your subjects and composition better. I would not be satisfied with the lab output, hence the misunderstanding above. If you like colour, the only extra hassle (contact sheets, etc) could be to try colour negative films like Reala for landscape, Portra 160 or Fuji 160 as an all-rounder and Portra 400 for portraits. Remember to expose at half the box speed.

 

As far as Bessas are concerned, I use two: the R4A and the R3A, and the main reason for having them are the VF magnifications (0.52 and 1.0)which are different from the Zeiss Ikon (0.74), which I consider the finest RF camera for the money. The Bessas are small, light, reasonably sturdy, but the RF base is short, so even with the R3A it is better to use a VF magnifier for the 75mm and 90mm lenses.

 

The RF alignement can easily go off, so you have to make sure someone in Warsaw services them, and generally it is a good idea to keep a half case on.

 

The wear resistance and reliability, I would say, are medium, but the VF is good, and overall it is a nice camera to start with in the rangefinders. I would say, the best starter kit would be the R2A with the 35/1.7 Ultron (or 35/2 Zeiss Biogon, if you can afford it).

 

I repeat: for me, these cameras excel in the B&W photography, and one of the reasons, is they are fun to shoot with in low light, where you get issues with mixed lighting and huge contrasts, so the slides are out of the question and colour negative is difficult to balance. BTW, if you scan your slides, try to shoot Astia as much as possible. If you want more explanations, you can mail me at mfogiel@yahoo.com.

Witam :-)

 

I can't answer all your questions as I don't wear glasses or use polarizer but:

 

- Bessa R3A meters trough the lens so metering will be fine when you put any filter on it.

- I would say that focusing is not much faster or easier if you use SLR with very good viewfinder. I was able to focus Contax Aria with 50mm f1.4 just as fast and accurate as my Bessa, advantage of SLR being that you can focus in any part of the frame, RF only in the middle. Often my shots are centered cause I don't have time to focus and recompose so I end up shooting centered subjects. Remember that I'm comparing Bessa to Contax Aria, one of the best viewfinders on SLR.

- Shutter in Bessa is very quiet, I've never used Olympus so I can't compare but it's much quieter than any Canon/Contax SLR.

 

I love rangefinders for the compactness and unobtrusiveness, I shoot street a lot and with RF camera no one notices you or care if you're shooting around, not the case with most SLR's :-)

 

If you have any other questions please let me know.

 

Pozdrawiam :-)

Just to add, if you'll decide to go with Bessa, get Voigtlander Nocton

40mm f1.4 MC lens, amazing glass for the price and made for R3A.<br>

<br>

Also, I feel exactly the same way about film, digital is so sterile and

artificial if not postprocessed right. I prefer feel of the film as

well.<br>

<br>

Here are some shots from Bessa and Nokton:<br>

<a href="http://www.tomwidlak.com/alan/" target="_blank">LINK</a>

- pictures from my Bessa except the square and 6x4.5 images<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.tomwidlak.com/shoot/" target="_blank">LINK</a>

- pictures 67-104 are from Bessa, the rest is from Canon 30D

<p>Czesc, Tomek :-)</p>

<p>Thanks for the useful input.</p>

<p>R3M/A was out of my reach (in terms of financial capabilities ;-) so I settled for old and obsolete R model with 39 thread mount. I guess it's more than enough for starters and if I find out this is - RF, I mean - what tigers like most I will save some money and get myself a nice R4M with a decent lens. Nokton, as you have already deduced by yourself, also was too expensive. But I will complete a handsome set of lenses sooner or later, don't worry :-)</p>

 

<p><i>LINK - pictures from my Bessa except the square and 6x4.5 images</i></p>

 

<p>What a cute little fellow. Gratulacje!</p>