Leica vs Bessa

For those who own both a Leica (or Hexar RF) & a Bessa, in what ways

does the longer baseline benefit your normal 28 - 50 mm photography -

i.e. exclusive of telephoto lenses & wide apertures?

If you're excluding large apertures and long lenses, there there's little benefit.

 

Godfrey

The Bessas short RF base has an advantage, the split image is less 'split' so you can see the same object in both the split and direct for longer. This can make for easier focussing, i.e. knowing which wasy to turn.

Bessa, with the shorter baseline benefit your with PRICE !!!

Personally, I find the opposite to Huw. Comparing the RF (or, indeed, a Kiev,

with its huge rangefinder baselength) with a CL, I find it far quicker and easier

with that bigger 'sweep". I just hit the shutter when it seems more or less

there, without agonising whether it's exactly 'in', as on the CL. I guess the

Bessa baselength is bigger than the CL, of course. Even in the first couple of

days with the Kiev, I found focusing easier, so obviously I'm hoping there'll be

a few used Zeiss Ikons on the market a couple of years from now. <p>

One man's meat, blah blah blah...

I realise people keep saying how much cheaper the Bessa is than a Leica, but I have an M3 that's nearly fifty years old and working perfectly. How many 'cheaper' Bessas would I have had to buy over that period? Isn't it like buying a pair of shoes because they're cheap only to find out that they fall apart after 6 months?

Steve, you are correct. The Leica is the cheapest camera to own and the lenses always work model to model. I ocasionally use my 1933 summar on a 111f or M6. How can you beat that?

Paul, never thought of that technique, thanks.

The longer rangefinder baselength is beneficial at closer focusing distances, too.

 

Closer focusing distances, wider apertures and longer lenses all tend to have less depth of field; thus, the value of the longer RF baselength.

<i>"I realise people keep saying how much cheaper the Bessa is than a Leica, but I have an M3 that's nearly fifty years old and working perfectly. How many 'cheaper' Bessas would I have had to buy over that period?"</i><p>

 

Steve, your point is well taken. I guess the real consideration will be how much longer will a 50 year old camera last from today onward vs. how long a brand new R3A might last from today onward. Also maintanence is to be taken into account too. Will the 50-year old M3 need more maintanence checks sooner and more frequently, even considering that it might even still outlast an R3A from today? I have no doubt that the M3 was built to more robust and exacting standards than the RA3 but I would not put the RA3 in the category of a pair of cheap shoes that fall apart after six months either. <p>I have a new R3A on the way and also a recently CLA'd M3 SS too. My original idea is I'll try both and see which I like better over time. Might take a long time though.... ;-)

Steve and Ron's argument is more or less bogus. The basic frame the Bessa's are based on has been around for over 10 years now in the quise of various 'inexpensive' SLR bodies, such as the Nikon FM/FE 10, a number of Ricohs and a couple of Pentax bodies. They are out there in vast numbers, yet repair technicians anywhere will tell you that they have an extremelly low rate of repair. It may be because they are not heavily used, but judging by the 20 or 30 rolls a year the average Leica user goes thru, the Bessa's, particularily the R2 and R3's will probably give many years of trouble free use. More carping by the 'aficianados'.

While the build quality that allows a working mechanical device for a fifty year period is a

nice thing, it isn't all that important to most camera owners. And it costs a tremendous

amount to provide it.

 

Godfrey

What would have happened if you would have invested the hypothetical difference between the two cameras way back when? Me thinks the cash and the Bessa would be worth a lot more.

I have no trouble focussing the Bessa, easier than my old FED2 with it's very long baselength, at least now I can see something through the viewfinder! I didn't buy my Bessa R as a starter camera or stepping stone to a Leica, I bought it to use, now. In fifty years I'll be dead. In ten years, I'll buy something else.. if necessary. But I have no reason to believe that the R won't hold up. I've had 30 year old Canonets that needed no more than a CLA. You can't be saying the construction of these Bessas is so much inferior to those and some other 70's fixed lens RFs that are still kicking around. Time will tell, but for now it seems that the Leicaphiles who knock the Bessas on the basis of some mythic lack of reliability are full of it. I can more easily accept the 'nothing can match the opulent luxury of shooting a Leica' argument. I don't doubt it, and I don't care.

Hey guys get a grip. The question was about focusing, not about justifying the inflated prices of Leica equipment. Yes they are great cameras, yes they last forever, but that's not the question.

 

I've used both cameras. My shots are equally sharp and in focus from both. Before the wisecracking starts, yes the pics are in focus.

Considering all of the reports on this forum of Leicas that break after little use (or arrive DOA fresh from the box), I would think folks would stop justifying their cost by citing their durability. I mean, after all, my POS '77 Ford F150 would have run forever, too, if I were willing to spend enough money on it.

Per Douglas' comment, case in point: <p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ARZX&unified_p=1">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ARZX&unified_p=1</a>

The way to avoid these problems is by buying a nice high quality M2, M3 or M4 body. Now that I have mine it wouldn't bother me at all if this drives the price of "user" M2 up to $5,000. ;-)

Bessa T's have a longish RF base length, (around that of the .72 Leica), and cost $185. Granted, there's the added expense of separate viewfinders, but they're great cameras for street shooting and zone focusing.

 

Cheers

I estimate focus, fine tune it then wait until I have the subject look like I want it then fire. I definately don't fire just because I've finished turning the focus ring.

Bill,

 

I used to have a Bessa R. Used it with a Summarit 50/1.5 and a Color-Heliar 75/2.5. Never noticed a focus error attributable to the rangefinder EBL. For what it's worth, I lost more pics to RF flare on my M6 than to short RF base on the Bessa.

 

On the other hand, and just for what it may be worth as a caveat; I gave this camera to a friend about two years ago; the camera was about two years old at the time and had seen about 120 rolls through its film gate. This fellow has shot some 500 additional rolls with it and now the camera has begun to come apart. Meter started acting quirky about two months ago and now the film advance is making funny noises, sounds like a stripped gear. I second Al's advice, take a good look at older M's; Bessas are very good cameras but they are not built for intensive use.

A short base RF means more tolerance and added risk of poor focus with fast or longer lenses.You either have a Leica or you don't.

Not close, not similar,simply not.Yes they cost tons!! My M3 is almost 50 yrs old, the lens is! 65oo rolls later...I guess its worth it.If one cannot feel and hear and see the differences, then i guess be happy.

I own both and for some reason miss focus more with the leica. The Bessa has a great finder with a much wider eyepiece than the Leica. And it doesn't flare. I still prefer to use the Leica, but not because of any advantage focussing which I can perceive.

The original Bessa-R used a lot of plastic in places where metal would have been wiser, specifically the back and the bottom plate. The top plate is a toss-up, because plastic is a bit more resistant to dings. However, using a low grade of plastic does the user no good at all.

 

The Bessa-R body flexes quite a bit, and I have my doubts about its long-term viability under heavy use. For occasional users, the body should hold up well enough.

 

The Bessa-R2 was a step in the right direction in terms of materials, and it looks like the new models take that even further.

 

In theory, the wider baseline should allow more critical focus. In practice, the increased depth of field with wide angles would appear to lessen the advantage of a wide-base rangefinder, although close-up shots wide open would benefit the most from the wide-base rangefinder.

 

The wider base probably comes into play with a fast 50mm lens (and longer, of course).

"However, using a low grade of plastic does the user no good at all." Is the R using a low grade of plastic? I had a very nice SX-70, sold recently, and all the SX-70 "brushed metal" parts were actually plastic. The camera wasn't babied, simply used with normal care and those parts still looked almost mint after 30plus years. No doubt the Leica case is built for more abuse, so the value of that to some degree depends on the amount one abuses their equipment.