Heretical question - Leica glass on Bessa R2 to start, M body later?

[al_kaplan1]

Stop comparing the Bessa to the SLR bodies upon which it's based as an indication of relative value. A rangefinder had to be designed and manufactured in relatively small quantities compared to the number of "mirror boxes" in all those various SLRs. The rangefinder then had to be of sufficient quality that it would at least be acceptable to a lot of people who are already using Leica cameras, no small feat!

 

Because of small production runs costs increase. If Cosina were to design an SLR body based on their current model with an Alpa lensmount, I'm sure it would be in the R2 price range. Same thing if it was designed for 2 cam Leicaflex lenses.

[peter_white2]

Before buying a new Bessa, check the price of a good condition user Leica M2 or M4P. You may not have to pay much more for a body that will last as long as you will.

 

PJW

[Bill Blackwell Images]

I have a Bessa R2 as a back-up body to my MP and M6. I like it because it does things the M doesn't (higher top shutter speed, higher flash sync, and standard film loading). You can also get a pretty slick rapid winder that attaches to the base plate (without exposing the film). I personally will not recommend a Hexar because it's not a manual camera. It's too �automatic� IMO.

 

However, as has been pointed out, there are other choices. If I could have only one body, I would opt for a user M2 or an M3 before getting an R2 (there are options getting around the fact there's no internal meter); there is no comparison in the quality of construction between a Leica M and a Bessa R2 (remember, I have and use both). There is also the CL (which is priced very similar to an R2), but its age is pushing 25 years and I really don't think they'll hold up like an M, even if the M is 20-years older than the CL. On the other hand, if you do like auto exposure and would opt for an M7, there is still the Hexar.

 

But at the end of the day, if you must have a NEW inexpensive manual M camera, the R2 is your only choice and will hold up just fine until you can get a Leica M body. Then you'll have a great back-up body in the R2 as well...

 

I wish you the best of luck in building your M system from the ground up. Please let us know what you decide to do.

[chiba]

Thanks all, this is absolutely great stuff! I want to add some more input, if you'll forgive the slight drift. I took a look at the Hexar RF too a while back and, even though the build quality is good, it felt a bit too singy-dancy (if you get my drift). Once I picked up an M6 I was pretty much smitten - to be honest I thought it felt a lot like my 35RC. I love that metal brick feeling, and the totally different experience that a rangefinder gives compared to SLR. I've got a Canon SLR, Rolleicord and even a couple of view cameras. I love the intimacy and involvement of that raw large format ground glass, and shooting waist level with a Rolleicord is another great experience - relaxing and again involving, but tricky to do dynamically. That's sort of what I'm looking for now, and 35mm is the obvious format. I'll never buy digital; tried that once but rehab worked, fortunately. Eventually I'll buy an M, but like I said, this is just to get me started down that slippery financial slope. If you're thinking, "lots of gear but he said he couldn't afford Leica", well, all my current gear put together still comes in less than a Leica and a couple of lenses. :o) Anyway, photography for me is as much about the experience as the end result - there's little joy in producing a beautiful image if you haven't enjoyed taking it. Some people get pleasure out of technically perfect product work, where everything's bolted down and measured to the millimetre, but that's not for me. Meter once an hour, shoot B&W negs, enjoy self. I figure if you're relaxed and having fun then the results will reflect that.

[johnmarkpainter]

Gavin,

I 'started' by getting a Bessa R2 and an old Summicron RIgid.

 

The R2 was $300 and the 'cron was $325. I have since added more lenses and have

now also added an M3. The R2 makes a GREAT 2nd body (load color film in one, B&W

in the other etc....).

 

The build of the R2 WON'T excite you like an M, but it is not a waste of money (if you

buy it CHEAP). The V/C lenses are fine, but you really want Leitz/Leica so go ahead

and buy "user" Leica Glass instead of spending money on V/C.

 

jmp

[love4leica]

Bill Blackwell , dec 03, 2003; 12:11 a.m.

<I have a Bessa R2 as a back-up body to my MP and M6. >

 

Bill Blackwell

 

Very interesting. You have MP to back up your M6 and you have Bessa R2 to back up your MP. Now you need Fed/ Zorki to back up your Bessa R2. It would not be a bad idea to get Olympus 35RC to back up your Fed/Zorki. For God's sake lets be realistic!!!!!

[Brian1664876441]

I did that! My $5 Olympus ECR gives much better pictures than a disposable and has been to places that I would not bring anything that I did not consider disposable. I have a few thrift-store $5~$10 RF's that serve the same purpose. I also have a Kiev 4a with a Jupiter 8, Jupiter 9, and Tanar 135 in Contax mount. Total Cost: Under $100.

 

Too much gear? The cost of repairing a dropped or banged around Leica, Nikon RF, or Canon RF is much more than replacing a "user" camera. In terms of resell value, One dent on an EX+ Leica will cost you more than that R2.

 

On Cosina Quality: My Argus/Cosina STL1000 still works perfectly more than 30 years after it was made. It is certainly as well made as the Nikkormats.

[cameron_sawyer]

Gavin, I'll tell you a secret which will annoy many of the "Leica-centrists", but it's true. The Bessa R2 AND the VC glass is functionally equivalent to Leica M and Leica glass with differences amounting to almost nothing outside a laboratory.

 

The Bessa system, UNLIKE the Hexar and other RF cameras, is based on the same idea as Leica (at least, up to the M7) -- very simple manual apparatus with great finders and great glass. The ONLY serious functional difference is that the Bessa shutter is much louder (still quieter than SLR shutters, though). The rangefinder baseline of the Bessa is theoretically too short to focus radical lenses (Noctilux, 75 Summilux), but the finder is actually brighter than Leica M and doesn't flare in side-light, so in real life use focussing just about anything (short of, maybe, a Noctilux) is just fine.

 

So if you're on a budget, by all means, buy a Bessa, second hand Leica lenses, or VC lenses, or whatever, and a ton of film, and have fun. When you have more money, then by all means buy some Leica gear -- just for the pure pleasure of using it, not because it will make the slightest difference in your photos.

[john_boyle3]

Time for a contrary opinion. You don't need another camera so if you want a Leica buy a Leica. There is no substitute. A good used M2 or M4P can be bought for a reasonable price and if you don't have the cash stop in at your bank. It shouldn't take too long to pay off the difference between the price of a Leica and that of a Bessa or Hexar. This way you will have what you want and have no concern about what to do with the other body.

[kevin m.]

Cameron, I'll tell you a secret, too: If you make a claim, (you have repeatedly claimed the Nokton is "better" than the Summilux, for example) back it up with a pic. This is a <i>photography</i> forum, after all.

<p>

"Functionaly," the Bessa R is a good substitute for a Leica CL, maybe, but not an M. It's not really suitable for use with the Summicron 90, the Summilux 75, the Elmarit 135, or the Noctilux. In a quiet church, the shutter sounds like an asthma attack. Many SLR's are quiter. And subjectively, the camera feels cheap. Nothing worse than paying <i>real</i> money for something only to be reminded that you bought for price every time you use it.

<p>

Gavin, I think you've got it backwards. I think you'd be better served getting a user M2/M3 body, then buying new(ish) VC glass to use on it. The VC glass is generally better than the old Leica glass, but the old Leica bodies are built to a standard that even modern Leica bodies don't match, nevermind Cosina. If you really want an M and can live without a meter in the body, that's the way to go.

[Alex_Es]

R2 advantages and disadvantages.

 

Advantages:

 

Cheaper than Leica. Easy to load. Top speed 1/2000 sec. Bright finder. Service readily available if you are in Japan. Takes the Trigger winder. Excellent built in meter. Frames are less cluttered than Leica.

 

Disadvantages:

 

Build quality is not great. The rubber grips tend to peel off quickly, especially from the back. Service slow and less than wonderful. (Sent my R2-C for to Cosina service for peeling-off rear grip; they took a month and half and the same day I got it back the rear grip started to peel off; finally fixed it myself.) Paint chips off quickly. Noisy shutter compared to Leica. The Trigger winder I got for my R2 stopped working after about a year.

 

Here is what I suggest. Don't be a cheapskate. You'll pay more later. Get a used M6 classic. It is going to hurt but it will last longer than an R2 and you'll like it better.

 

Put used Leica, Canon, Nikkor or C/V glass on it. The C/V 50/2 is excellent. The Nokton 50/1.5 is quite good. The 35/1.7 is good optically but a pile of you know what in terms of build quality. The 35/2.5 Classic and Pancake are gems.

 

My favorite C/V camera is the Bessa T. Get a Leica 35-135 varifocal finder (they aren't expensive) or a Russian 28-135 finder (cheaper) and an old 'cron 50/2 and a C/V 35/2.5 and you are in business. The Bessa T's build quality is a lot better than the R2's. Used they are very cheap--about 28,000 yen. New they go for about 44,000 yen.

 

So where is the Camera Box in Tokyo?

[stephen_w.]

I repeat: I had NO confidence with the Hexar RF. It always got left behind. The camera's features are great, especially the speed/meter readout in the finder; one may gauge the scene very easily. 1/4000 is great with fast glass. But focus was hit-and-miss (part RF magnification, part RF alignment, part back focus calibration/incompatibility?). I didn't like the motor. I wished Konica put a manual wind option on the camera. Shutter lag; yeah, I know about human reaction time (100 msec), but it bothered me. The RF image was/is fuzzy; I tested it on LEDs (point source of light), and the images don't have the same "snap" into a point as the M's, and asforementioned vertical alignment problem.

 

I sold the RF but kept the lenses (50/90).

[vic_.]

1500 quid, that over US$2,000. A good thing it's not guineas. If you take a vacation to New York (via Virgin Atlantic), you could stop off at Rich Pinto's www.photovillage.com and buy a used M6TTL and go back to England with some money in your pocket. A mint M6TTL costs around $1,200 here. Even a day trip to New York would save you money.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I have a Bessa R ; a Leica M3 ; and a zoo of Russian thread mount bodies. The Bessa R was bought over 2 years ago. The meter LED's on mine are way to bright on mine; at least for available light work. The Bessa R has a modern cam roller; and can use most of the LTM lenses. Some wide angles and collapsable lenses hit the internals; and cannot be mounted. For available light work with a 50mm F1.2 Canon; the rangefinder is way too short; and focus repeatablility is alot poorer than my Zorki3C; the Leica M3 is alot better than both. The rangefinder on mine has been misaligned about 3 times; a minor bump seems to missalign it. I have learned to religiously check it; because it is so delicate. The Soviet Zorki and German Leica of mine are alot more robust in alignment; and dont require this concern as much. The Zorki is loud; the Bessa quiet; the Leica super quiet. The big plus for the Bessa series is light weight; a roller cam; and a high flash synch speed. With a 105mm or 135mm tele; the Bessa is not that certain in focus; the rangefinder baseline is dinky. We placed the camera on a tripod; and shot many shots about 40 feet away; wide open with a 105mm and 135mm lenses. The Leica is alot better in its accuracy of focus; due to its big baseline. I got a Bessa R as a light weight available light rig; ans was disapointed by its focus consistancy; with big aperture lenses wide open. For regular photography; with shorter lenses stopped down abit; the Bessa's short baseline problems get masked by DOF. <BR><BR>The Russian bodies are a crap shoot. They are loud. Alot of stuff sold has problems. Big problem is no cam roller; this limits many longer Leica lenses being used. I use a new LTM one grand Summicron on a Zorki alot; and have no problems at all with focus consistancy at F2.

[vic_.]

Woops, you live in Japan. Get a body from Alex Shishin. He has too many.

[m_.]

If the sound of shutter is a concern, than a Leica M is neccessary. R2 is louder than any Leica Ms and I don't want to hear any argument here. But if you can ignore that loud sound, R2 is as good as a M6 except cheaper. camera is more than a light tight box that holds films so think carefully. especially you mentioned that the process of making images is as important as the end result, then you need to think very hard if a painful substitute R2 really is going to make that process joyful to you.

[bobtodrick]

This is something I've first hand experience with, having this past year sold a mint IIIg for two R2 bodies (the lack of internal meter was just too annoying). On these cameras I use a 35 Summicron Asph (latest gen), 50 Summicron and 90 Elmar. The difference in my images...ABSOLUTELY NONE!!! Of course not...as someone above stated the lens is what takes the image. Though I wanted in-camera metering I did not want a battery dependent camera so nixed the Hexar. As well, the fact that Konica (now merged with Minolta) has completely dropped camera production leaves me feeling uncomfortable with service issues. The R Voigtlanders are built on a standard chassis (literally millions of Nikon FM/FE 10, Olympus 2000, Cosina, etc abound) that even if the Voigtlanders are disc'd in the future, parts should be no problem (not to be said for some of the parts in the chassis of the Hexar, of which not very many were produced, limiting the future spare parts situation). Also For what I was getting for the IIIg I could buy two new R2's or one used minty M6. The differences I have noticed (I've also owned M4 bodies) is that the shutter is louder, and crisper sounding. I've still been able to shoot in quiet cafes' and remain unobtrusive...but anyone who says it isn't louder is lying. It is however still a very smooth shutter. Just this past weekend I made some images, wide open at 1/15 of a second, and at 11X14 the models eyelashes are nice and crisp. In all I agree that it is definitly the camera Leica should have made...an entry level M6. They still would have been able to justify the cost of the MP/M7 (better construction, quieter, longer base rangefinder), but I think they would have sold a ton of 'em if they'd made them first.

[h._p.]

One thing no-one seems to have mentioned is the feel of the body. I spent a lot of time looking at both the R and the R2 but found they just didn't feel as good as the M3 I finally went for. And before anyone starts, I mean 'feel' in the same context as with any other tool.

 

A tool that feels right in the hand does seem to make things go better and more smoothly. I used to do a fair bit of engineering maintenance and tools that felt good: good finish, the right heft, always seemed to make my life that little bit easier. I think the same applies to cameras. So perhaps Gavin should visit the camera shop and concentrate on how much he likes the feel of the R2 before committing himself.

 

And the price gap between the CV and the Leica needn't be that big if you're not bothered about cosmetics. My M3/Summicron cost £695 from a first class dealer with a good guarantee.

[douglas_green1]

Stephen W. I suggest that the fact you lack confidence in the Hexar might be more attributable to your lack of confidence than the Hexar itself. Personally, I lack confidence that I can rapidly re-load the film on a Leica M body while the decisive moment is occurring. I also lack confidence that a Leica M body would not be a wasteful deployment of around $1000 or more of my funds, when other perfectly useful light-tight boxes with shutters can mount the same lenses equally effectively, yet leave me more funds with which to buy more excellent optics.

 

If you learn how to use a Hexar RF camera properly, it is one of the better tools available. After all, they are ALL just tools. The user of the tools should not blame the tools when the result is unsatisfactory.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

Martin: Since you posted your remarks in open forum, I'll do you the same courtesy. I find your remarks insulting. Not that I need to explain myself to you, I purchased the R2 as a back up to the M6 and then (much later) acquired the MP. I kept the R2 because of the things the R2 does the M6 and MP do not, which is why I chose to get it in the first place.

 

Now to my point: I appreciate you comments as they relate to the forum questions as posted, but these quips folks seem to take the liberty to do at each other are getting on my nerves!

 

We�re here to help each other in our photography, not insult each other. Damn it, just grow up!

[patricks]

If money is tight - isn't it always? - you might want to consider a M3/2/4, which can be had for little over $600 in good condition and recent CLA.

 

A Bessa R2 is a great little camera, however, the long term quality and value isn't there, thus FINANCIALLY speaking you will lose more money going down that road.

 

The Hexar RF is a great camera, however, the smal VF mag is a great disadvantage for my preferred focal lenghts. The VF seems to more delicate and easier to misalign. Having said that, it is hyper-convencient and good quality. The AE/AEL, 1/4000 shutter speed, easy loading, good built in meter etc. makes it a great buy. But it has been discontined so long term value/reliablity for service might be in question here as well.

 

A M2 w/ a 40 lens is the cheapest place to start. And by no mean an inferior start. If you really want to do Leica, sell off some of the other stuff...

[stephen_w.]

What's to learn with the Hexar RF? It's a pretty intuitive camera, brilliantly designed, too. Easier to learn than the M-7, and much easier than the Hexar AF. I've been using manual rangefinders for over 30 years now. I just couldn't make it work for me:

 

Rangefinder hit (yes, with a Noct') and missed focus RESULTS.

 

Very delicate RF.

 

I couldn't turn the motor off.

[bobtodrick]

These threads get so annoying. Gavin asked if the combo would work because he would rather spend $$ on glass. 1/2 the above posts tell him how much better a 30 year old beater will be (assuming he has enough knowledge of Leica to know what to avoid), how much better his resale will be when he sells it down the road (assumes he's a fondler), etc...MAYBE HE JUST WANTS TO MAKE PICTURES. He asked for an answer...why not leave it at that.

[mike dixon]

Bob, just where the hell do you think you are?!? ; )

 

Besides, he said, "Comments?" That's always an invitation for

people to preach from their particular pulpit of the day . . .

 

ps: M3s rool!!

[bobtodrick]

Sorry to offend your sensibilites Mike, but I am migrating further into the camp of people who tire of constantly hearing how anything with the red dot is so superior to anything else, no matter what the resulting photos look like. Maybe I'm in a pretty crappy mood today but I see a lot of images posted here that are less than sterling...yet accepted as really darn good because they were taken with a Leica. Yes, Gavin asked for comments, and I have no problem with the kind that run "gee I've used both and like my Leica because...", but there are just too many posts from people who've obviously never used an R2/Hexar RF claiming how a 40 year old beater with the Leica name on it is just so damn much better.