Voigtlander Bessa R3-a as Leica M7 alternative?

[parasko_p]

Hi all,

 

This question has probably been asked to death, but I'm a dSLR user

so please be patient...

 

...M7s are expensive beasts but the R3-a very affordable option. Am

I missing out on anything by purchasing the Bessa and spending the

extra money on Leica glass?

 

Secondly, the Voigtlander lenses are very affordable. Are they even

in the same ball park as Leica lenses? Are they even comparable to

Canon L glass?

 

FWIW, I will be seeking to purchase lenses in the range: 19-21, 35,

50 and 70-90.

 

Any comments appreciated. Thanks

[nkag]

The R3a framelines are only for 40mm and up. You might want to look at the R2a instead

(unless that's what you meant).

 

VC lenses are quite good actually. Build quality isn't the same though. You'll get various

opinions on it. From my experience, the 35mm skopar and 50mm skopar were quite good.

[nkag]

meant good quality.

 

As for 19-21(?), you'll have to use an external finder unless you've got the guestimating thing

down pat.

[al_kaplan1]

The cameras aren't in the same class. Th Bessa has a shorter base length rangefinder, has a louder shutter, and the quality of workmanship isn't as nice. I've had a Bessa L for a few years and run several hundred rolls through it with no problem. The meter is accurate. I only have their 15mm lens but it's an excellent optic. The fit and finish of the focussing mount isn't as nice and smooth as on Leica lenses.

 

One of the charms of Leica is the superb lenses, but many people prefer the look and "signature" of the older generations of lenses over the newer ones. The latest aspheric lenses are truely state of the art. The Voigtlander lenses are very good, though.

 

If you really want the "Leica experience" consider an older model M body. The new ones don't have the superb "feel" of the ones made in the 50's and 60's. The M4 was the last model that had it. As for the glass, try various lenses and see what you like best.

[Allen Herbert]

This question has probably been asked to death

 

So true.If you look there's a thousand of posts on the subject.

 

The Leica is better built,and will last you a lifetime, and the lastest lenses are superior...but at a serious cost. However,the Bessa is a lighter and with the 35mm 2.5 color- skoper is wonderfully compact.If you carry a lot of gear go for the Bessa.

[upe_vantonni1]

i've done the same. I actually prefer my bessa r2 to my auto Hexar RF, though the build quality feels less substantial.

 

someone here will eventually tell you that you can get a M4 or M6 or something used for about $1000 give or take. but if you can spend money on one thing or the other, go with the glass.

 

the voigtlander lenses I have (25/4, 35/1.7) are fine. small, bright, inconspicious they do the job. sexy? no. affordable, yes. i don't think a 300$ 35mm will compete with the 1,400$ canon L 35mm. i think optics are a "get what you pay for" mature industry.

 

and voigtlander has been getting better. the 40mm, a super fast 35mm, more higher end stuff. they do the job.

[buttons_de_ridder]

I would say that VC ultra-wides along with the finders are worth the money.

As far as the standard 35mm and 50mm the Leicas cannot be beat, I looked at the ultron and the VC 50mm (cannot remember the name)and although very much cheaper than the original I ended up buying the original (meaning Leica of course) One of the reason being that I know I would always want one anyway. My first Leica lens was a relatively cheap 2.8 50mm Elmar which as it happens turned out to be my all time favourite lens. Since then I have bought the 28mm Elma, 50mm summilux, and the 35mm summilux and currenly am looking at the 21mm and seriously considering the VC.

[Allen Herbert]

Not much larger/lighter,or more expensive, than a compact.But, in a different place...just one step behind a Leica.<div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

Ooops,yet again...<div></div>

[michael s.]

We've all seen beautiful photos taken with the Voigtlander lenses. They are lighter in weight and for the most part less "substantial" in feel, but they're certainly capable of taking great pictures.

 

Another camera to consider would be the Konica Hexar RF -- manual focus, interchangeable lens, well built M-mount camera body, with motorized advance and electronically controlled shutter, higher shutter speeds, and operates either aperture priority AE or all manual.

 

There are several fine Konica M-mount lenses for it as well -- optically excellent and more substantially built than the Voigtlander lenses, but far lower priced than their Leica counterparts. The camera is available, but has been discontinued.

[Allen Herbert]

For the pure Digital dudes put one in your bag...and, have some pure fun and enjoyment with Velvia and BW film.

 

Just nice and enjoyable 'cause that's what it's all about.

[alun]

Parasko,

 

Earlier this year I bought a Bessa R2A (framelines start at 35mm as opposed to 40mm on

the R3A) and a 4th type Summicron 35/2. A wonderful combination. I also bought the CV

trigger winder because it was being sold at a special price. I'm glad I did -- it offers

several advantages. It adds depth and weight to the Bessa body and in my view improves

handling. Some people also note it improves the balance of the camera in that it offers a

better-placed selection of strap lugs. But these are minor points. The great thing is that it

is a perfect complement to the Bessa's AEL function (a thumb button on the right rear of

the camera). With the trigger winder you can meter, engage AEL with your thumb and

ALSO wind on while holding that exposure. Comfortable for three or four shots in my

experience (beyond that it gets a bit rough on the thumb), but great for speed and street

shooting.

 

Build quality overall is so much better than the earlier Bessas that certainly on the outisde

it may as well be a different camera. Handle one if you can. I think you'll work out for

yourself that it's unlikely to last one or several lifetimes but I defy anyone to fault it on

value for money.

 

Best, Alun

[andrew1]

Nobody here has so far steered you wrong. But think about what you are doing- why

do you want to switch from the DSLR's? If you just want to shoot film, you might stick

with your Canon L glass and get a film body- this will yeild a very familiar shooting

experience, and yield fine pictures. If you want to try rangefinder shooting, and

you're on a budget, you might be on the right track. As far as Bessa R3a/Leica M7

comparisions, yes the price difference is big, and either one will expose film well with

a lens on it, so in that sense it's a fine alternative. But if you are after "the Leica

experience", you'll want to get a real Leica. Check out cameraquest.com's disscusions

about viewfinder magnifications and lenses, and consider the fact that you'll be using

top-mounted finders for lenses below 40mm. As someone else suggested, you might

consider the Bessa R2a if you want to use 35mm (though I love the 1:1 finder of the

R3a, and this feature alone makes the camera worthy of my bag- try it with a 50mm

and see what the fuss is all about). Other things to consider- the Bessas, while totally

functional, are not as well made as a Leica. Just no contest. Will this difference of

feel bug you? The longevity is an other issue. Also, even with that 1:1 finder I love,

the Bessas'a RF base is much shorter than that of a Leica (of any magnification), so

the Rf is not as accurate. This is more of an issue with longer and faster lenses, but

it's something to consider.<p> Now the real issue is lenses. The

Voigtlanders are remarkably good, especially considering their prices. Leica lenses

are made better, and will probably last longer than some of the Voigtlanders. Some

will argue that the Leicas will give better images, either sharper or contrastier, or with

more character or something- this is an issue you'll have to decide for yourself, and

really applies more when you start looking at specific lenses. But

to tackle the question of Leica vs. CV vs. Canon L, well, the biggest difference you'll

see with the rangefinder lenses VS Canon L (besides size!) is the basic design

differences inherent between rangefinder lenses and SLR lenses. And while Canon L

glass is superb,

it's not really any match for a well focused rangefinder design lens, even the

Voigtlanders. They are just different beasts. Want to see what I mean? Carry the

range of glass you are talking about all day- one day for each system- and compare

how your back feels, and look at the images. How did you like focusing in low light?

How did you like focussing wide angles? How do you like manual focus feel of each

system? Take a look at the distortion characteristics of these lenses.<p>Finally, I'd

say it's a good idea to try one, and I love the Leica/Bessa route, but think carefully

about what you want, and why, and read more (there's tons of info here in the

archives and other places online) and your answers will come to you.

[jtk]

I have the CV25/4..slow, sharp/contrasty, lousy accessory viewfinder, wonderful click-stop zone-focus.

 

I also have the CV50/1.5...sharp, inadequate shade therefore prone to flare, huge (get a CV40 if M).

 

Nobody could tell sharpness difference between these CVs and the best Leicas in practice, though there's always the worry about bokeh. Comparison to Canon L is silly because of the gross difference in concept...might as well compare to video camera or Sinar.

 

If Canon made L lenses with M mounts, or still made rangefinder cameras...there would be no CV or Leica.

[andrew robertson]

No matter how good the Voigtlanders get, there are a lot of people who will prefer to

suffer in quiet dignity with their Leicas. Many of those people make this forum their

home.

 

I have the C-V 15, 21, 28 f/3.5, 40, and 90 lenses, and they are all stunning, razor sharp,

and present such a better value than Leica products that I wouldn't even consider the

alternative. C-V offers a lot of lenses that Leica hasn't had the balls, money, or

engineering to even consider as well, such as the 12 and 15 Heliars, and the 35 f/1.2

Nokton.

 

Think of it this way: You can buy a new R3a, and every single lens in the C-V stable, for

less than the cost of a new M7 and three new Leica lenses, you can try them all out, and if

they don't satisfy you I will buy them from you for only 66% of what you paid for them. On

the other hand, you will never know if you missed out on a great deal on some superb

lenses and a nice body if you buy the Leica.

 

People flap gums about the legendary reliability of the Leica, but they are fooling you.

Leicas aren't extremely reliable (or any more so than 500 other mechanical cameras I could

name), and require regular tune ups just like an old Lada.

[m_powell]

I got a fantastic deal ($300 off retail) for a 'used' R2A from Badger Graphic about a month

ago, planning to sell it on Ebay for a decent profit. Once it got here and I got it working, I

can't really convince myself to sell it. I guess I'll keep it for an M7 backup and/or buy a V-

C 21mm to go on it.

 

The shutter sound is louder than my M7, I guess, but I never thought of either one being

all that quiet. I doubt that it would matter in the vast majority of situations.

 

Workmanship is fine. Feels just as solid as the Leica, it's actually easier to hold (there's a

little raised section on the back that makes it easier to grip) without an accessory grip, the

viewfinder is bright and clear.

 

The only sticking point (in my view) would be the short baseline. But as V-C makes a

35/1.2 and 50/1.5, I assume the R2A is safe for lenses in that range of focal length and

aperture.

 

As to lenses in that range, my choices would be:

Voigtlander 21/4. Cheap and compact, you have to pay three times as much to get one

more stop from the Zeiss Ikon 21mm.

 

I love my 35mm Summilux ASPH - if you're going to splurge for something expensive and

fast, this would be the one (IMO, of course). Used prices were reasonable when I got mine,

I don't know about these days. The pre-ASPH is well-loved by some for its signature, but

commands a price close to the ASPH from what I understand.

 

The Zeiss Ikon ZM Planar 50mm f/2 (I don't know how many of those actually apply to the

name of the lens) for $600 from Stephen Gandy's Cameraquest looks to be the best deal in

M-Mount lenses going. Performance rumored to be equal to the Summicron for less than

an Elmar.

 

70-90, I have no experience in RF optics.

[parasko_p]

Thanks for your comments.

 

Andrew, you have made some valid points as to why I wish to make such a purchase.

 

I am basically seeking a small unobtrusive camera so I can take more people shots/street shots which is impossible to do with a modern Canon slr system, digital or film. My 1Ds +24-70 is heavy, large and scares the crap out of everyone I point it at. Plus, in these days of 'terrorism', street photography (here in Australia anyway)is becoming very restrictive and people are paranoid and on high alert about most things.

 

So I wasn't specifically after a rangefinder but definitely a small but easy to handle system in which the lens options are of high quality.

 

It seems that the Bessa system is a worthwhile option for the money, and judging by all your comments, the R2-a seems the better option for my preferred range of 35mm and 50mm.

 

I have found a V-C distributor here in Sydney so I will have a look at the camera up close to make a final decision.

 

If anyone wishes to add anything else, please do.

 

Thanks again.

[andrew1]

Greetings P. Since you are interested in rangefinder shooting (and I think every

serious photographer should at least try a rangefinder!), the Bessa's are indeed a

good inexpensive alternative to a Leica- and their lenses are stunning, especially for

the price. As for the choice between an R2a or R3a, I would go to a shop and try out

both bodies. As I mentioned, I love the 1:1 finder in the R3a, and I would not dismiss

it without trying it. I use a 50 about half the time, and with this body and finder, if

you are a right eyed shooter (as I am), it's easy to keep both eyes open and get the

best

overview you could ever hope for. This is not to be overlooked. But the R2a might

make you happier if this is disorienting to you, (as it is for some) and if you prefer to

use a 35mm lens more.<p>Also, think about finding a used Leica body- handle one

and you'll see what the fuss is. At first blush, it might seem that an M6 or later is the

only way to go, but using one of the older meterless bodies can be a real treat- the

build quality, for one thing, is amazing. Besides, using a hand held meterand

learning to do it smoothly

when shooting is an invaluable photogrpahic experience, and with a little practice,

very easy. You may never want to use an in camera meter again. It will give

you a whole new take on photogrpahy. After a short while, you will learn to guess

exposure most of the time anyway. When I began working like this, I thought I might

prefer a meter body. So after a few years with my M3, I saved up and got an M6- and

found the

meter lights distracting; I found the built in meter to be superfluous. I know how to

expose with a seperate meter; I walk into a

situatuion and pull out the meter, take a couple of readings and put it away. I know

what the highlights and the shadows read, and where my midtones will be, so I set

my camera accordingly, and shoot. This way of working, practiced by millions of

photographers works incredibly well, and you really learn what you are doing, and

internalize it after a short time. Your photography will really improve. My negs are

all

fine. So don't be afraid of a non metered body. Of course, an AE body will give you

the set it and forget it experience too, but you won't know what it's doing. Either you

or the camera could be wrong sometimes, so thats a wash. Try a few and see, and

play with both the R3a and the R2a and see about the magnification issue. That's not

something to decide without trying both, if you can, IMO.<p> As for the lenses,

of course the Voigtlanders are all great. But I bet most folks here have some of each.

Try

them both out, and see for yourself. Keep an open mind, and enjoy!

[parasko_p]

Thanks again Andrew for your comments.

 

I will try out the Bessas and try to find a Leica to get a better idea of both.

[troy m.]

Good idea. You should also think about how you're going to use the camera. If you want a rangefinder as a "second body" that you can keep in a backpack or toss in a travel bag without too much fuss, consider the Bessa and use the savings for a good set of lenses. If you're planning to put the camera to more rigorous, heavy duty use, then the Leica may be a worthwhile investment.

 

By the way, I got a Bessa R2 a couple years ago. It's held up nicely under moderate but fairly constant use.

[frederick_muller]

Your lens choice argues for an R2A, which has a .7 finder and will be more comfortable at 35mm.

 

If it is autoexposure you are after, I am convinced the averaging meter in the Bessa makes the Bessa a superior autoexposure platform to the M7.

[bill_marshall1]

The Zeiss Ikon is another alternative to the M7 - lnger base line than a Bessa, a viewfinder with better eye relief, & 28 mm frame lines built into the viewfinder unlike the Bessa.

[_Alex_]

I shot with a Leica M6TTL for two years and it's a great camera. However, I sold it about 10 months ago because the majority of my recent stuff has been digital. Recently I got the itch for another rangefinder camera and Santa scratched that itch with an R3A and 40mm f1.4 classic VC lens.

 

Personally, I'm glad I chose this camera over an older M body. It was only $550 new, the lens costs less than $360, it has aperture priority with exposure compensation and an exposure lock button (that I believe the M7 lacks), and it's an overall great little package. Three rolls of film have gone through it so far and I'm very, very pleased. An MP it isn't, but for the price of one MP I could have bought 5 1/2 R3As. The M mount assures that I can purchase and use Leica glass without an adapter, which is a great feature as well.

 

For a shooters comparison I've noted the following:

 

<ul>

<li>-The M6TTL rangefinder patch seemed a little more contrasty

<li>-I LOVE the 1:1 mag of the R3A

<li>-The trigger lock on the R3A is convenient, and the metal shutter means I can walk around without my lenscap (and w/o paranoia about buring a hole in my shutter curtain)

<li>-The M6TTL is noticeably quieter than the R3A, but the R3A is still pretty quiet compared to any SLR

<li>-Build quality of the R3A remains to be determined as I've only had it about a week

<li>-Shortly after I sold my M6, the new owner had the frame counter quit on him; other than that the M6 never stuttered in 2 1/2 years

</ul>

As for lens choice: <b>SERIOUSLY CONSIDER the 40mm f1.4 instead of the 35 and the 50</b>. It's a sweet piece of glass and a great all around focal length! I think a 40 and a 75 or 90 is a great compact kit.

[azem koleci]

Wonderful and helpful review of R3m. A beautiful camera and one of the best rangefinder in market together with voightlander lenses that are known for its optic.

Myself I have the Bessa R2m which is pretty much similar exept few features like viefinder settings which R3m goes wider etc.

But in general are the same and both mechanical/manual which makes perfect choice to have a full controll over it and to achive the best possible result.

The flash setting remains same which now I rarely used my Bessa R2m but nevr experienced to use the flash.

Voightlander is good for its rangefinder cameras and lenses so I hope the R3m will find its user and deliver its highest quality result of course on the right hands.