Bessa. What kind of quality are we talking about?

[robert_hooper1]

<p>I'm starting a new thread here because, though I asked this question in a former thread, "<b>Leica CL lenses on M Bodies?</b>", I think I will get a better response under a new topic.</p>

<p>How would you compare the quality of Bessa rangefinder bodies to Leica M bodies? I'm thinking of purchasing a Bessa body and would like to get feedback on the subject of electronic vs manual and any other input regarding bessa raingfinder cameras. To reiterate what I have stated in the above mentioned thread, ("<b>Leica CL lenses on M Bodies?</b>"), after coming across a fantastic deal on two Leica CL lenses, I'm considering getting a Bessa body to use these lenses with. Thank you for your input.</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>Hi Robert, I have a R2C for Contax rangefinder lenses and feel the quality is adequete to take pictures. It has it's advantages, a decent VF is what like most about it.</p>

[marcantel]

<p>Rob I have a Bessa R2 and i reallly love it .you can use leica lens on it.As you know everything for leica is out my price range ,but the voigtlander lens are realy nice and more affordable .The viewfinder on this camera is really awsome and user frindley. check out camerquest.com <steven gandy>He is big on rangefinders and comparsions.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Hi Michael,</p>

<p>"Adequate to take pictures", does not inspire much confidence, Michael. :-) </p>

<p>I do like the idea of the 1:1 viewfinder of the Bessa R3, so I can use my "new" Summicron-C 40mm f2 on it. Have you ever had the opportunity to compare the apparent quality of a Leica rangefinder body to a Bessa RF body? I wish I could. I have a Leica M6, and I am thinking that I want that same kind of quality in a Bessa R3 or R2 before I spring for the cost. I doubt that I will get Leica M3 or M2 quality with a modern Bessa, but I could be wrong.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Hi Danny,</p>

<p>I have been to the Steven Gandy site and read all the great things he says about Bessa, but he is in the business of selling these cameras. It's good to hear you are impressed with the product, Danny. How does a Bessa rangefinder body compare in quality to Leica M bodies? Thats what I want to know. </p>

[tom_burke3]

<p>They vary, isn't that the message? The original Bessa L was not only very cut-down, I believe it felt quite flimsy. The Bessa R was an improvement, but the feel was further improved with the R2/R3/R4 family. None of them are going to feel like an M, but that's not surprising - they're about 1/6th the price of a new Leica M. I had an R shortly after I sold an M2, and there was no comparison - the Bessa felt much lighter and flimsier. As I say above, the next generation (which also have an M bayonet lens mount) are reputedly stronger, but I wouldn't expect them to be up to M standards. The Zeiss Ikon camera is also made by Cosina, and reports say that it is lighter than the M. I wouldn't expect the Bessas to be better than the Zeiss, in terms of feel, let alone an M.<br>

But that's not the point. The argument, surely, is that the Bessas offer other advantages: the almost 1:1 VF on the R3, the ultra-wide VF on the R4, automation on the A bodies, and of course the affordability.</p>

[sitemistic]

<p>It sounds like you want someone to tell you that a Bessa is as well made as a Leica. It isn't. I own a Leica M2, M3, M5 and Bessa R, R2 and R2a. If heavily used, the Leica will probably far outlast the Bessa. It will have far more resale value. The Leica will slow the blink rate of other photographers more than the Bessa. But...<br>

When I walk out the door with a rangefinder it is usually one of the Bessa cameras. They are lighter, have better and brighter finders (IMHO), and offer more features. I paid $400 for my mint looking used R2a because of the aperture preferred autoexposure. An equivalent Leica would have cost me 10 times as much. I've had the R since they came on the market - over 10 years I guess - and shot hundreds of rolls of film through it. And it will probably outlast me. And the R2 and R2A are also heavily used with no problem.<br>

Bottom line: If you've got over $4,000 to spend on an RF body, buy the Leica. Clearly money is no object. But if you are looking for a good camera at a great price, get the R3A. It will likely be around taking photos far longer than you will keep it, anyway. Unless you plan to burn hundreds of rolls of film every year with the camera, and plan on keeping it forever, worrying about durability of a modern camera is simply wasted time.</p>

[nzdavid]

<p>You don't need $4,00 for a Leica. You can get a secondhand M2 or M3 body for under $1,000. Sorry, can't help with the Bessa. You really need to pick up any camera and try it for yourself rather than relying on what you read alone.</p>

[kris]

I bought a Bessa R2 back in 2003 and used it for a couple years. Ran about 100 rolls through it over that two years. Never had reliability problem whatsoever. RF drifted a bit but with the help of Huw Finney's article on RF adjustment, I put it back on track without much effort.

<p>

Despite it was reliable for taking pictures, the rubber coverings on my camera peeled off from exposure to Australian heat and my sweaty hands. They were attached to the chassis by double sided tapes only! The black painted R2 really becomes hot under the sun - enough to make holding it uncomfortable. Especially after those rubber coverings came off.

<p>

Viewfinder is bright but the movement of the RF double image is not as pronounced as that of Leica; the Bessa has significantly shorter RF baselength.

<p>

Despite being 40+ years old, the viewfinder of my M3 is still very good in low light. Recently I was taking photos of landscape under star light and I used both Hasselblad Xpan and the M3. My response when changing from Xpan to M3 was "Whoa! I can see clearly now in the dark!". It's that good!

<p>

Kris

[rui_lebreiro]

<p>Want a lifetime camera? buy a leica.<br>

Want to have fun? buy a bessa.</p>

[michael_p2]

<p>Nice camera but not durable. I loved the images I got from my Bessa R and Voigtlander 35mm lens. After two years of regular (not heavy) use the rewind spool has snapped off and the thread for the lens has gone out of alignment. So I would say OK for occasional use, but somewhat flimsy. Meanwhile my 70-year old Leica IIIa is still going on and on ...</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Generally good cameras but those rubber covers come off and stretch out of shape. Fortunately Camera Leather has nifty replacements. I recently had Morgan redo the covers of my RD-1s, a close relative of the Bessas. Now waiting to get it back.</p>

[sitemistic]

<p>LOL. Robert, if you posted here to get people to convince you to buy another Leica, you've come to the right place!<br>

While I really do like the Bessa better than the Leica as a tool, I'll give you my standard advice. If you want a Leica, buy a Leica. For most of us cameras are toys and you should play with the toys that scratch your itch.</p>

[wai_leong_lee]

It's ok quality, great bright viewfinder.

[steve_unsworth1]

<p>Given the choice of a new Bessa or a used M2/3, I'd pick the Leica every time.</p>

[christopher_m]

<p>I own both a Bessa and an M3. If you want something of exquisite quality that will last generations, get the Leica. If you want something that has some modern convienences, get the Bessa. </p>

<p><strong>Bessa</strong><br>

Average built quality<br>

Built in meter / aperature priority<br>

Great viewfinder<br>

Hot shoe for flash attachment<br>

Noisy shutter<br>

Quicker loading<br>

<strong>Leica M2/3</strong><br>

Amazing build quality<br>

Great viewfinder<br>

Extremely quiet shutter</p>

<p>While, I enjoy having both, if I had to keep one, I would keep the Leica without much thought.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>The Bessa is good camera - my main concern is the ruggedness of the rf. It can be adjusted but that is a pain to do and a concern . The "real" Leica M r/f is very robust. The CL r/f is not nearly so robust in my experience. The last thing you want is to have a poorly adjusted r/f if you are using Leica lenses.</p>

<p>I agree with the others that for longevity and robustness an M2, M3, M4, M4-2, M4-P take some beating. If you get an MR meter for it too then it is scarcely less convenient to use than an M6/M6TTL/M7 or M8 for that matter. The only issue I see is that only the Leica CL has the 40mm frame so if you have a new 40mm the only cameras with the suitable frame are the CL and the Bessa.</p>

<p>I can't say enough positive about the VC lenses though - fantastic value and excellent quality.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I was at Photokina last weekend in the Chicago area and had an opportuniry to fondle a few Bessas...I have owned 6 Leicas, and currently own 3. I liked the Bessa viewfinder, and it felt less heavy then the M bodies. It had good ergonomics in my small hands. The shutter seemed louder then the Leicas, although the noise level was pretty high in the room. I'm sure the Bessas are fine cameras, I've been using a variety of RFs for over 50 years. They don't feel like the same precision workmanship as the Leicas...but so what. They use Leica lenses, and I'm sure the photos taken with Leica lenses on a Bessa and M body camera are indistinguishable. So get what floats your boat.</p>

[orvillerobertson]

<p>Go to a good Leica/Bessa dealer if possible.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>I woke up early here in Hawaii to catch the inauguration ceremony. When I checked photo.net for responses to this post, I was astonished. Thank you all for your input. I will analyze everything said here and hopefully make the right decision for my situation.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>LOL Robert! I just did a side by side fondle with an MP (gawd I hate that word in this forum, but it seemed apropos), and was reminded about the first time I picked it up. It sounded like an old fashioned glass thermos that was broken.</p>

<p>Switching or choosing between a Blad 500, the Contax IIIa and the MP, I really do like the VF and especially A priority. On the R2C VF framelines are selected on the top deck, 35, 50 and 85.</p>

<p>It is it not very usefull to compare it against them for build quality, if you have an M camera, it would be a great backup also.</p>

<p> </p>

[john schroeder]

<p><!-- [if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --></p>

<p >I have an original Bessa R. The build quality of the body is more than adequate and with normal care will probably out last its owner. The meter is very accurate and the viewfinder is bright. Where these cameras really shine is with their lenses. I have the 35mm f1.7 Ultron and it is magnificent. Cosina knows that it is the lens, which takes the picture not the body</p>

 

[ralph_jensen]

<p><em>"Cosina knows that it is the lens that takes the picture, not the body."</em> My own feeling is that it is the <strong>photographer </strong> who takes the picture, not the lens <em>or </em> the body-- and that ideally the photographer would resonate strongly with all of the tools he or she uses to take the picture. So the "feel" of the body is not insignificant from my point of view.</p>

<p>But regardless of that discussion, there's no way you should buy either a Bessa <em>or </em> a Leica without personally handling them both, even for just two minutes. What is hugely significant to some is completely insignificant to others, and you can't know which way you lean just by asking other photographers their opinions.</p>

<p>Fwiw, I use CV lenses on a 1958 M3. Budget is a consideration for me and I decided that the feel of the Leica <strong>body </strong> - and again, "feel" is important to me - has never been matched, while the performance of some Leica <strong>lenses </strong> <em>can </em> be matched by CV's best lenses. But that's just for the kind of shooting <em>I </em> do; others who have some money but not tons of it can just as reasonably argue that nothing matches a Leica lens for the photography they do while "the camera is just a light-tight box" and its "feel" is not that important. People with that perspective logically choose to same some money by buying a new Bessa body instead of an old Leica.</p>

[john schroeder]

<p>Okay. I guess I left myself open for that. In my defense; I'm sure that Mr. Hooper knows the importance the photographer plays in taking the picture. His question dealt with the build quality of the bodies not the build quality of the photographer.</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<p><em>"Okay. I guess I left myself open for that."</em> Yeah, John, sorry-- I didn't mean for my response to be a cheap shot or anything at you and I'm afraid it came across that way. After all, those (like me) who say the body's so important were leaving themselves open for <em>you</em> to say "Let's not forget the importance of the lens," and especially with SLRs I'm the first to agree that it makes more sense to spend money on glass than on bodies.</p>

<p>One thing good about all of this is that Bessa (CV) makes so many good, affordable choices possible that weren't there for decades. Old Leica with new CV lens. New Bessa body with new CV lens. New Bessa body with classic Leica lens. Etc. Anyone with a reasonable DSLR budget can apply it instead to RF and, thanks to CV/Bessa, be able to afford a very attractive combination.</p>

<p>The other thing that's good is that no one's arguing that the Bessa takes worse pictures than the Leica. The experience may be different, but - being film cameras all - someone on a budget can make photos that are technically just as good as those made by someone with money to burn... something that can't always be said about digital photography.</p>

<p>In other words, in the 35mm RF world, it's all good.</p>