Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,687   Posts: 1,482,355   Online: 783
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Singapore
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4
    I was at a wet market in KL taking pictures-very tricky lighting that changed all the time. With my M6-I did miss some shots and wish I had used my M7 or F100. I have no issues with autofocus what-so-ever. Everyone talks about wanting a mechanical mode in case their batteries fail-(bring spares

  2. #12
    Mark Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,614
    Images
    151
    I had a Bessa R and sold it for an M2. I sometimes wish it had a meter and aperture priority, but the M2 is simply lovely to use. Is it the fastest to use...no. Is it the most solid, pleasant to use camera that has already survived 60 years....yes. In the end, I think which you'd like more depends on the type of shooting you expect to do and what you enjoy using.

  3. #13
    Todd Adamson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    81
    HAha, well, I'm now swerving back into the Bessa lane. One of the things that drew me to Contax is the amazing and (relatively) affordable lenses. But they couldn't be used on anything else, and I'm also now starting to see the Bessa will give me a better entry into the classic rangefinder experience. I'm leaning at the moment toward the R4A and a 35/1.4 Nokton. I'm sure that lens won't touch the Contax-Zeiss 28 or 45, but it will be really nice. I like the Nokton feel, having done a fair amount of shooting with the 58/1.4 in F-mount, on a dSLR.

    So the Nokton will be a really good "cheap" lens, and I will have an M/screwmount body, should I ever really want to dig myself in deep. And of course any lens I buy for the Bessa will be able to be used on a Leica, whenever (if ever) I find a way to get into one of those.

  4. #14
    Katie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    719
    Images
    89
    I have two CV lenses - the ultron 28 1.9 and the 21/4. I wouldn't say they are cheap at all. I really like the image quality they produce and the size and weight (of most rf lenses) is unbeatable. I carry mine under a parka in the boat without fear (a $1K rig, mind you).

  5. #15
    Todd Adamson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Katie View Post
    I have two CV lenses - the ultron 28 1.9 and the 21/4. I wouldn't say they are cheap at all. I really like the image quality they produce and the size and weight (of most rf lenses) is unbeatable. I carry mine under a parka in the boat without fear (a $1K rig, mind you).
    Yeah, I was being somewhat facetious with the description, thus the quotes. I was always impressed with the IQ of my CV58. CV lenses are awesome in every way. They're only cheap when compared to the Leicas, and only lacking in IQ when compared to the Leicas and some of the Zeiss lenses.

  6. #16
    Katie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    719
    Images
    89
    I think you'll be very happy with a bessa ( I got the 4 because I wanted to shoot with the 21 without a viewfinder thingy).

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    460
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd Adamson View Post
    However, I like the idea of a fully mechanical camera, and I'm perfectly comfortable with manual operation (though of course I've never done this with a rangefinder).
    I was in the same boat. I shoot mostly LF and a Hassy MF, so everything is manual. I wanted a camera which was small enough to put in a pocket when I was travelling, and ended up with the R3M, and the 35mm f1.4 lens. I've been pretty happy with it for what it is, and have never missed any auto features.

  8. #18
    Todd Adamson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Katie View Post
    I got the 4 because I wanted to shoot with the 21 without a viewfinder thingy.
    I was looking mostly at the 3, because I'm a portrait shooter, and with my SLRs I have always preferred tele- lenses. But the RF would be just for personal, fun stuff, so I think I should stretch outside of my comfort zone. Thus, looking at the 4.

  9. #19
    Todd Adamson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark_S View Post
    I was in the same boat. I shoot mostly LF and a Hassy MF, so everything is manual. I wanted a camera which was small enough to put in a pocket when I was travelling, and ended up with the R3M, and the 35mm f1.4 lens. I've been pretty happy with it for what it is, and have never missed any auto features.
    Glad to hear you're happy with the 30. I'm starting to feel like my decision is solidifying. Hope I can gather the funds and do this before I start thinking too hard about it!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin