comments invited on Bessa R2

[keith alan sprouse]

I've been thinking about putting together a rangefinder kit to go

along with my Nikon F100, and after doing some research (and taking

a long, hard look at my bank balance), I've been thinking that the

best way for me to go might be to get a Bessa R2 and then some Leica

glass to go with it. Perhaps later on I'd want to move up to a Leica

M6 or M7, but then again maybe I wouldn't. I'd appreciate any

comments that those familiar with the camera could share. (i.e., do

Leica M-mount lenses work well? how do you like the viewfinder? is

the construction solid enough to stand up to normal use? is the

shutter loud and/or could you compare the shutter noise to a

Leica/SLR/etc. are there any problems with shutter lag? what else

do/don't you like about the camera? etc.)

 

Thanks, in advance, for any responses!

[jay_.]

My local store had a mint one (the grotesquely ugly olive-drab, or I might have bought it)and I used it for a day. It was familiar as I own a Nikon FM10 and it's the same chassis.

 

Con:

 

Shorter-base rangefinder

 

Manual frameline selection

 

Delicate finish, cheap strap lugs

 

Rangefinder adjustment finnicky and requires removal of top plate to adjust

 

 

No US repair facility

 

 

 

Pro:

 

Easier film loading (and unloading compared to retrogressive MP)

 

Metal-bladed vertical shutter has 1/125 flash sync, 1/2000 top speed, and is overall much more precise and consistent than recently-tested MP

 

Eyepiece eye-relief better than M Leica, takes cheap correction lenses meant for Nikon FM10

 

Shutter sound different but not really louder than M Leica

 

 

IMO the short-base rangefinder is the major drawback of this camera, otherwise I'd probably own one. Or if it were as small as a CL, but it's almost the same size as an M6TTL so the rangefinder baselength reduction is inexcusable.

 

IMO the best bargain buy going for use with Leica glass is the Konica Hexar RF.

 

And if you do get an R2 get the C/V lenses also. You won't see enough difference between them and "affordable" Leica lenses to make it worthwhile paying a premium for the latter.

[jerry_freeman1]

Search this forum under Bessa R2. Lots of past discussion...jf

[kevin m.]

"Shutter sound different but not really louder than M Leica"

 

I have to disagree with this. I'll admit I'm a bit of a snob for well-made machinery, but the R's I've tried sounded like the shutter was in desperate need of lubrication. Leica M's make an elegant, muffled 'thock' sound, but the Bessas make a metal-on-bare-metal 'chick' noise. Sounds cheap. And no one fixes them.

 

The Hexar RF is a better budget choice. Pay a little extra but you get motor drive, 1/4000 top shutter speed, and an RF accurate enough to focus fast glass. If Konica made a .72 viewfinder, I'd own two. Konica service is quick, friendly and reasonable, too.

[richard_zevnik]

Contrariwise: I did exactly what you are considering. I used the Bessa R2 to learn whether I'd like using rangefinder cameras vs. SLRs (strictly manual SLRs). I had wanted a Leica since I first became interested in photography as a teen, but could not then afford one. Then years went by and photography was backburnered more and more. The Bessa very much was a factor in bringing photography back into my life. The rangefinder approach involves smaller less intrusive cameras that get taken along and used more than would an SLR. I then graduated to an M6TTL and mostly, but not exclusively, Leica glass.

 

The Bessa R2 shutter is quieter than all SLRs I've ever used: Canon F-1; A-1; TL, and Olympus OM2. It's louder than a Leica, but not by a whole bunch. Build quality not spectaclar; feels a little lightweight, and tinny. Viewfinder was easy to focus and rarely flared out (I did not try to use with anything longer than a 50mm, but it did fine with the VC Nokton 50mm 1.5, which is a pretty good lens. The only thing I did not like about the 35mm f2.5 compact lens was I do a lot of available light work, and losing that half stop versus an f2.0 lens was an occasional handicap. I felt both VC lenses (both were chrome finish) were well made. I never found the manual switch for the framelines selector to be a bother -- seems to me to have been a very reasonable design compromise for purposes of reducing costs while still providing multiple framelines. Did I end up eating a few $$ when I sold the VC stuff? Yes, but I kept it and used it regularly until I could pick up a second M6TTL that someone was giving away, so I really don't think the $$ were wasted in any sense.

[johnmarkpainter]

I have a Bessa R2 and Leica Glass.

 

The Bessa works great...great metering, great Finder.

 

However, it feels cheap and will probably not last that long. I got it for $300

though...I am getting an M3 now and will make the Bessa my backup or alternate film

body.

 

All in all it is a great deal.

The shutter is WAY louder than an M....it isn't just the Volume, but he actual tone of it

is more obtrusive...quieter than an SLR.

 

jmp

[dave_flanagan]

The R2 may feel cheap next to an M3, but not so compared to most of the cameras

out

there. (My other camera is a Rolleiflex, so I do know how "not-cheap" feels.) Stephen

Gandy will repair them, so yes, there is a US repair facility. I don't think the body is

light-weight, but I do have the triggerwinder mounted on the bottom which may

increase the mass. I also don't think the finish is delicate-- I take care of my cameras,

but the paint hasn't worn off after using it for about a year now.

 

I use it with a Summicron 50 and a CV 28/3.5, and it handles and shoots well with

both lenses. The viewfinder is nice and bright, and comfortable with glasses. I don't

notice any shutter lag. The shutter may be louder than a Leica, but it has a distinctive,

higher-pitched "click" which exaberates the problem. The tradeoff: higher sync speed.

(Again, when I want to be quiet, I use the Rollei.)

 

Overall, I've been satisfied with the R2, and would recommend it to anybody who

wants a new (or newish) camera with a meter that takes M-mount lenses and doesn't

want to drop more than $1000.

 

Cheers,

Dave

[davidv1]

If you're taking Jay's advice about using only Voigtlander lenses, you might as well save a few more bucks and get a Bessa R instead of the R2. That and their 35/2.5 can be had for under $500. Except for the M-mount, the R2 doesn't offer much real improvement over the plain R. The shutter, meter, rangefinder, etc. are the same. Use it until it breaks and save your cash for the Leica.

 

But if you do decide on an R2, scout out a 40/2 Rokkor. It's the exception to the rule about affordable M-mount lenses.

[cmphoto1]

Great camera.

 

Pro - the meter is an ambient light meter. It looks at the light bouncing off the 1st shutter curtian which is painted great. You do not have to adjust for a light subject or a dark subject.

 

Con - The shutter is LOUD. 1st time I tripped the shutter in the store, I took the lens off and looked for the mirror. :)

 

Overall, a great camera for the price.

 

chad

[keith alan sprouse]

Thanks for the feedback; I appreciate it.

 

I did consider the Konica, but decided against it because of the auto-rewind, which I didn't need or want and which also added some pretty serious noise. And if I do get a Bessa R2, it would be so that I could use Leica glass, although I do understand the recommendation to consider the CV lenses.

 

I'm going to have to find a way to get my hands on one of these (in black, as the idea of an olive drab camera strikes me as odd for anyone not in the military) and play around with it a bit.

[travis1]

if you can get over the shutter noise, then get it. IMO, the shuuter is just too noisy for some indoor scenes. YMMV>

[bart feliciano]

perhaps OT but.

 

Do you think i could muffle the higher pitched noise of my Bessa T with some sort of half case?

[cameron_sawyer]

What everyone said, especially Jay, more or less.

 

Except that contrary to Jay, I find manual frameline selection a benefit rather than a drawback, especially when using VC screw mount lenses with adaptors. On a Leica M, each screw mount adaptor must be matched to the frameline you want. On the R2, you can use any old adaptor or even one adaptor for all your screw mount lenses. Plus, you can choose and leave the frameline selector where you want, instead of having to press and hold the preview lever like on the Leica M.

 

Contrariwise, Jay lists loading of the R2 as an advantage. It's funny, but I have come full circle and have come to LOVE the unusual Leica loading system, and now prefer it to the Bessa. But in any case the Bessa's loading will be familiar and easy for anyone accustomed to loading SLR's, which I suppose is an advantage.

 

One great advantage of the R2 which no one mentioned is the fantastic finder. The Bessa finder is practically immune to the rangefinder flare which (for most but apparently not all people) plagues M cameras from M4-2 up until only the current MP and very latest M7. It has a much wider opening for your eye so is much less sensitive to eye position, and you don't have to squint like with a Leica. And it is bright and contrasty and a snap to focus. I miss focus less with Bessa than I do with my Leica, despite the shorter RF baseline.

 

Yes, the R2 will stand up well to normal use. It is not as pretty as a Leica, but I doubt that it is less reliable (Leicas are pretty fussy, and every service will cost you more than half the price of a brand new R2). The finish will wear off quickly, in case you care. There is no shutter lag to speak of. The shutter is considerably louder than a Leica M, but relatively quiet compared to any SLR (no mirror).

 

I have a Bessa R (even cheaper and flimsier than the R2) which I use quite intensively in bad weather, when skiing, on construction sites, etc., and which gets thrown around a lot and often actually rolls around on the floor under the seats of my car. It looks like sh*t but has been absolutely bulletproof in use.

 

Highly recommended!

[jay_.]

<<"Shutter sound different but not really louder than M Leica"

 

I have to disagree with this>>

 

It's mostly the frequency, it's higher-pitched which makes it grate on the ears and seem louder but it's not really. I placed the borrowed R2 next to my M4 equidistant from a microphone hooked up to my Sony cassette deck that has a level meter and fired them alternately. There was some variability depending on the speed but on average the meter needle deflected almost the same for both cameras. It was a down and dirty test but more scientific than anyone else has offered.

[cameron_sawyer]

If you say so. But it sure sounds a LOT louder. And it's a nasty, tinny sound -- like fast-moving metal parts. The M makes an elegant, discreet "thwop" -- like slow-moving cloth.

[cmphoto1]

Jay,

 

Of all my friends who own and use M's, they have commented on the noise of the R2 when I show it to them.

 

Since different pitches carry differently, you might try the same experiment with the mic 4 feet away or so.

 

chad

[film rules]

The thing I do not like about VC rangefinder cameras is that the rangefinder only works down to about 0.85 meters or so. Most Leica lenses and others focus closer than that so the rangefinder disengages after it reaches its close-up limit.

[bee flowers]

If you want to save money buy a a Konica RF; the build and lenses are within touching distant of Leica, some think better. Bessa R2, A TIN MACHINE. Try them out, then you will believe.

[larry_anonymous]

>Pro - the meter is an ambient light meter. It looks at the

>light bouncing off the 1st shutter curtian which is painted

>great. You do not have to adjust for a light subject or a dark

>subject.

 

Actually, that's not correct. It functions as a reflected light meter because it is reading the light reflected off the subject.

 

You need only use the camera to meter an all white subject and an all black subject under the same light to prove this for yourself. It is a reflected light meter.

 

 

>Con - The shutter is LOUD. 1st time I tripped the shutter in the store,

>I took the lens off and looked for the mirror. :)

 

Never having used a Leica before, I did side-by-side comparisons in the store with a Bessa R and a Leica M4. To me, there was very little difference. Only at the slower speeds (below 1/60) does the Bessa become more noticeable because you can then distinctly hear the two shutters operating. For me, the Bessa was a much better choice for a metered rangefinder simply because it cost over a thousand dollars less to buy it.

 

BTW, the shutter noise of the Leica is pretty much the same as my Olympus OM1 with the mirror locked up, probably because they both use a horizontal cloth shutter (and which is why the Leica has a flash sync speed of 1/45).

 

As for the build quality, it is to be expected that the Bessa isn't going to be on par with a camera costing $1000 more. The question is, will it meet your functional requirements? For me, I decided it would. I wanted a daily carry camera that was small, light, and took interchangeable lenses. The Bessa fit the bill perfectly. If I drop it or it gets stolen, I won't be out a couple thousand dollars, either. And IMO, that's a good thing when you're talking about a camera that you're carrying every day. It may not _feel_ solid but that doesn't mean it won't do the job and be durable enough. And to be honest, I'm glad it's lighter than a Leica.

 

Larry