M body on a budget - Bessa questions

[jean_moxhet]

<p>I have a IIIf (cla 3 years ago and receiving her back, the guy at the shop said me: "See you in 30 years!"), what a beautifull, small, noiseless, well made,... camera. But loading it is not far from a nightmare and the viewfinder is so tiny. Anyway, I love that camera and will keep her forever. As lenses I started with the 50/3.5 Elmar and a 50/2 Summitar. Later looking for wider point of view and because of limited budget I went for the VC SnapShot Skopar 25/4, of course with external viewfinder. Nice lens!!! <br>

Later, looking to wider point of view, I bid for a Super Wide Heliar 15/4.5... that came with a Bessa L "around it". What a cheap, plastic made camera... but so easy to load... with external control of the lightmeter...<br>

And finaly, I discover that I was using more the ugly plastic japanese toy in place of the lovely german beauty. Shame on me ;-) easyness wins.<br>

Now, I'm using a Bessa T anniversary model that I was lucky to find at good deal. That's the good compromise. Because of metal dials it's no more plastic toy, her grey paint is beautifull, the inboard rangefinder great for using all lens (even and mainly the VC 90mm),... It's my favorite everyday camera.<br>

But I still love so much the IIIf... strange</p>

 

[ross_lipman]

<p>Reply from left field.....what about a Canon 7, V or P LTM body ? <br>

Somewhere between a Bessa and a Leica in quality, with a wide base RF, back loading, coupled RF and Finder. Price for a good working body should not be much more than a Bessa, and MUCH less than a Leica M. Canon bodies hold their value so when (if) you want to move to a Leica M, you can sell the Canon body for what you paid for it. I would be surprised if you have to pay more than $400 US (~275 Euro) for body that has had a recent CLA. </p>

[nomad_.]

<p>Jean, I know what you mean about the 30 years thing. When I got my IIIf, I did some partial disassembly and lubricated some parts. They really are built to last, and that's a big attraction.</p>

<p>The Canons are interesting, Ross, but seem to be a bit rare in the UK. Quite a few at attractive prices on eBay (£300-350, generally), but in the US, and geenrally a little the worse for wear. By the time I imported one and paid for a CLA and repairs, I think I'm getting close to decent M2 prices. And still no M mount. By contrast, there's plenty of Leica to choose from in the UK/Europe.</p>

<p> </p>

[nzdavid]

<p>I've used the Oly 35RC, Leica IIIa, and Leica Ms. My favorite, beyond a doubt, is the M series. The viewfinder is bright and clear, quality of construction is superb, as are the results. Olympus is very nifty and compact but I love the Leica optics. The LTM or "Barnack Leicas" certainly have their charms, and they are very compact. Have you thought of buying a 35mm lens and separate viewfinder by Voigtländer? Quite easy to get the hang of and your IIIf will feel like a whole new camera. </p>

[nomad_.]

<p>I quite like the little Olympus - very compact and easy to shoot one-handed (I have it on a wrist strap). I tend to agree about the optics. Although I haven't done a side-by-side comparison, the Olympus hasn't produced anything of note in terms of image quality, while the (1953) 50mm f3.5 Elmar surprised me with its sharpness and contrast. I ordered a Russian 35mm Biogon copy and turret finder just before my IIIf went in for its CLA - they've arrived, but the camera isn't back yet. I'll be giving them a whirl as soon as I can. I bought the Olympus to use while the IIIf was away, and then went out and tried street photography for the first time. I think I realised that I prefer a lever wind, and an integrated view/rangefinder. At the moment, I'm not sure if I'll get along with the IIIf for this. Another reason for considering an M is pairing it with a faster lens - the Cosina Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 is tempting if its optically good. Nice and small.</p>

[horse bodotes]

<p>I have been very happy with my M6 w/ .72 VF. The viewfinder is better than average, but more importantly the RF covers virtually all of the lenses I commonly use, from 28mm all the way out to 135mm. My first choice for a second or backup body is the M4-P.</p>

[nomad_.]

<p>I know I said I wasn't planning on doing this quickly, but I just bought a spotless M2. Oops. Next thing is to get an LTM-M adapter for my Biogon copy.</p>

<p>Been looking for reviews on the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4, and I'm having second thoughts on that. Most common criticisms seem to be about the bokeh and a tendency to suffer from flare. From the sample shots I've seen, the bokeh has looked okay (perhaps I'm not refined enough to know what to look for). However, there are some comparison shots here...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2009/12/02/the-voigtlander-nokton-35-1-4-mc-lens-review/">http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2009/12/02/the-voigtlander-nokton-35-1-4-mc-lens-review/</a></p>

<p>About a 3rd or so of the way down, there are two shots of a mantlepiece, one with the Voigtlander, and the other with a Summicron ASPH. The barrel distortion on the Voigtlander is clear. I'm not sure that I'd be happy to pay half a grand for a lens that does that. Another thing the reviewer says is that the CV has a tendency to underexpose, and this is apparent in the various comparison shots. My feeling just now is to see how I get on with the Jupiter 12. If it isn't a dog, I might just keep using it while I save up my pennies for the 'cron.</p>

 

[andrew_kaiser2]

<p>Reading your initial post I am reminded of my own story when it comes to rangefinders. I too started out with a Leica IIIf and I still use it often to this day. It's a great little machine and it has served me very well.<br>

There came a certain point though where I wanted a camera that was a bit more modern with a better viewfinder and the ability to take M mount lenses. A Leica was well out of my price range so I ended up going with a Bessa R3A. I have ZERO regrets and at this stage I think I'll just keep the R3A and focus on the lenses I want to buy.<br>

The current crop of Bessa's are very nicely made, much better than I expected. Is it a modern Leica? No...but I don't need it to be. Don't for a moment think that the Bessa is just "good enough" either. It's an excellent camera and does everything I need it to do while leaving plenty of money in my pocket for the glass I want to put in front of it. </p>

[nomad_.]

<p>I make no bones about the fact that Leica is what I want - a new or near-mint black paint MP to be exact. Well out of my price range for now, however. The Bessa is a much cheaper way to start on the M path, and its main attractions over an early M were black paint and the built in meter, as well as being a new camera. It as a toss-up between that and an early Leica M for similar money. In the end, I got a nice looking M2 for less than the cost of a Bessa in the UK, or about the same if I include the cost of a CLA and new shutter curtains. Importing a Bessa from the US was an option, provided VAT is the only additional cost over the basic purchase price, which would make a total just a little more than the M2 with a service. For a difference in cost that amounts to servicing the Leica, I felt that a UK sourced M2 in good clean condition was the way to go - the balance between saving and compromise fell in favour of the Leica.</p>

<p>Aside from the emotional appeal of the Leica, and given that an MP is still the longer term goal, the M2 is more likely to hold its value, and is also physically very close to the MP. It's meterless, has a chrome finish, different frame counter, and the older loading system, but it essentially is an MP. So, it also serves as a way to try much of the MP configuration without the large outlay.</p>

 

[sean_gilder]

<p>Glad you found your M2. For anyone else looking for a similar solution, don't forget the M4-P, the M5, or even the CL/CLE. After much research it looks like these are consistently the lowest priced entries to the "M" world. Although it looks like the M5 prices are actually starting to rise.</p>