Bessa R4M or R4A for newbie to rangefinder camera?

[richard_parker4]

Hi all,

 

Newbie, so be kind! After starting out on a film camera, and many hours of messing around in the darkroom, and

then naturally, or perhaps unnaturally drifting into the digital world, I feel the draw back to film. Not for

everything, as it's great to carry round the little compact IXUS 860is in your pocket, but the draw of something more

mechanical is upon me...maybe it's an age thing?

 

Anyway, rambling aside, looking at rangefinder cameras, Leica's shoot to the top of the list - used M6 is

tempting (though I might have to wait a while to afford a lens to go with it!), as do the prices, and since I've

never used a rangefinder, maybe a less expensive version is the ticket.

 

Some research later, I discover the Voigtlander Bessa R4M and R4A, which appear to have very good reviews. I have

read some of the Leica vs R4A threads here. From an asthetic point of view I'd prefer the "piano" black finish to

the matt black, but maybe the full manual is a step too far for a newbie rangefinder! Is this a silly state of

mind - that you'll just get used to a full manual again, or is the

R4A a genuinely easier camera to live with?

 

Also, any advice on lens choice - probably 28-40mm range. I saw a package of R4M with 35mm f2.5 Col. Skopar lens,

which sounded good for all-round use.

 

Any opinions welcome!

 

Many thanks

Rich

[john_gleason1]

First, ask yourself whether the R4x is suitable. It's terrific if you use, exclusively, very wide lenses. But

if you will now and then develop the itch to use a 50mm or longer lens, the R4x isn't so great. (Yes, it does

have 50m framelines, but focusing a 50 will be challenging with an R4x.)

 

As for R4A vs. R4M, that's mainly a matter of personal taste. Do you insist on auto-exposure? Are you happy

with an electronic shutter, or would you prefer a strictly mechanical camera?

 

The 35 f/2.5 Color-Skopar is very sharp, and excellent value for the money spent. (But there are some other

excellent 35s around as well.)

[dennis_ng]

I agreed with John. You at least have to compare R3A/M with R4A/M. The "both eye open" experience of R3x have to be

tried. It is a great experience.

 

For the A/M thing, sometimes once you have A, you would use it more extensively due to "path of least resistance". BTW, it

is sometimes hard to see the number in A mode. It seemed much easier if you are in non-A mode, as it lights up 2 numbers.

Just my experience of using R3A and R4A. The general consideration of battery dependence probably known to you already.

[marek_fogiel]

R4A/M is a camera for the 21-28mm lenses really... The 35mm looks small and 50 mm looks tiny, and there are no 40mm

frames. I'd say, look for a good Minolta CLE with the 40mm kit lens, and start from there.

[frederick_muller]

Your best bet is some variant of the Bessa R, R2, R2A, R2M. The finder is excellent for lenses from 28mm to 90mm. I own both the R2 and the R4. I can guarantee you that the R4 is a special purpose platform designed specifically to work best with lenses of 21mm - 28mm. Even the 35mm frame looks relatively small on the R4. If you are looking for a lens in the 28-40mm range, you will find the sweet spot in the R2.

[richard_parker4]

You see, I'd missed the technical differences, between the models - I thought the R4 was just the newest model, not that

they were designed for different focal lengths/viewfinders. I'll take another look at the R2M. Thanks, that's very helpful!

 

Cost aside, using the "Leica for life" kind of camera mantra, is something like the M6 really that much better? Is getting the

Bessa a kind of "buy cheap, buy twice" option?

[john_shriver]

A Leica can focus the lenses slightly more accurately than the short base-line rangefinders in the Bessa cameras. But a Zeiss Ikon rangefinder (the new one, made by Cosina) can focus every bit as accurately as the Leica, maybe better.

 

But aside from the differences in focusing accuracy (or focusing speed), they all can take equally fine pictures.

[john_gleason1]

"A Leica can focus the lenses slightly more accurately than the short base-line rangefinders in the Bessa cameras"

 

That would be Leicas other than the CL which, per CameraQuest, has an EBL slightly smaller than the Bessa R4x.

[jeff_drew4]

If this is your first foray into rangefinders, I would suggest trying several at a store, if you can. The workflows and handling are somewhat different than SLRs. I would even recommend getting a used Canonet, Minolta, Yashica 35mm rangefinder for under $100 and burn a few rolls of color print film for quick gratification. IF you enjoyed the experience, then shop accordingly. I have used or owned several of the above brands and started with a cheap rangefinder . . . For me, rangefinder cameras rock! OTOH, I have a few colleagues who tried them and absolutely hated them.

[photo_galleries]

Though you probably should try out cheaper alternatives (70's RF) to see if the RF-bug sticks, a CV body is a good value for RF cameras. I have an R3A, R3M and R4A. Here are some tips:

 

1) There are basically 4 things you need to do in shooting an RF: compose, focus, set apeture, set shutter speed.

 

2) With an R?A, you'd only have to do the first 3. The camera sets the shutter speed.

 

3) With an R4M, you'd have to set all 4, although you can just mimic shutter priority by setting a preferred shutter speed beforehand, and THEN compose, focus and set aperture. Of course, you can set the R?A to manual and do the same thing.

 

4) R?A - no battery, no bueno, no life. dead. kaput. R4M - no battery, no meter, but other than that, the body is fully functional. Of course, batteries are cheap and small, and there's excuse for not having spares with you at all time.

 

5) The R4A/R4M is excellent for 21, 24/25, 28mm. For 35mm and longer, I prefer the R3A/R3M, with its 1:1 magnification. Yes, I can and do keep both eyes open with the R3A -- really an eye opener. :-)

 

A lot of folks who shoot RF's will typically have multiple bodies -- one foe WA, another for 50mm / longer.

 

Keith

[christopher_m]

I recently got a Bessa R, my first rangefinder. It's a great camera and I'm enjoying it. I'm coming off a Pentax SLR (film), so the manual focus thing takes some practice to do quickly.

 

As for "buy cheap, buy twice" - That is only the case depending on the price difference and the quality difference. If a Leica is a "10" on a 1-10 quality scale, then a Bessa could be 7.5-8.5. The used Leica M6 and lens may cost $2000-$3000, while the Bessa will cost $400-800.

 

You can always get the Bessa and trade up to the Leica someday, like I aim to. If you are going to pick up golf, you don't get the top of the line clubs right away.

 

As for the 70s era Japaneses rangefinders, they are decent, but the viewfinder/rangefinders are so much dimmer than the Leica or Voigtlander, it takes away a lot from the experience. However, if price is a serious concern, then those are the best option as there is a ton of value for under $50.

[kivis]

I have an R3M. I actually learn photography by using a manual camera. Not as refined an experience as a Zeiss or a Leica but the photos are great and the rig is great fun to use.

[kivis]

<p>Still loving that R3M, considering adding a R4M.</p>

[sergey_zak]

<p>Don't know about R4M, but the R3M which I have, handles 35-50mm beautifully.<br>

With 35, whole glass is your view. For 40, it has frames not far away from edges. But true - for 50mm the area is diminished, although I find it quite usable.<br>

For the maximum setting of 90mm, the frame takes about 1/4 of the visor real estate (half the height and width) and some may I find it challenging. But I don't use such long lenses.</p>

[leo_chiu]

<p>I took my first photo using the Bessa II, spent very little time on the RF and into the SLR since and now I wanted to get into the RF. What a wonderful discussions in here and how little did I remembered about RF.</p>