By the same scale of the cpi they still have more perceived value than other cameras of the same era. And there isn't anything that compares to long term value and production numbers vs common usage today.
Originally Posted by Lee L
Either one would be great to use... but if you haven't used a rangefinder much I would spend the least money to see if you like it. In my own shooting I find a camera without a built-in-meter to be a hassle.
I have an R3M which I bought new. I chose it instead of the R2A or R3A because I prefer non-battery dependent cameras. It is quick to use, I rarely use the built in meter, preferring a handheld incident meter which can be used before raising the camera to my eye. I also had the chance at time of purchase to buy a second hand M6TTL, but I didn't like the idea of having to dismantle the camera to change rolls and having to juggle camera, base plate and film.
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
My M6 has gaffers tape strategically applied in a roughly camouflage pattern... What red dot?
Originally Posted by arealitystudios
In 7 years, only 2 people have commented on my Leica. A professional photographer thought I was using a Voigtländer (because of the lens cap on the C/V lens I was mostly using that day).
Looks and what other people think shouldn't be a factor: To 99.9% of the population, my M6 looks like a piece of junk!
M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I can only comment as an R2A user, but construction was one of my main concerns when I bought it last year. Actually it's been around one year I've owned it, now I think about it...
In that time it's replaced my Nikon FM2n as my main camera, and I've dropped it a few times...its got some scratches, dinged up my nice little Canon 50/1.8, and had quite a few rolls through it by now. Hasn't missed a beat in any respect, the RF alignment is spot on and it's quick and easy to change rolls. The body construction holds up really well to everyday use.
The only thing I'd change would be to get a R3M to compliment it, since the metering system looks a lot nicer for manual use.
What about something 'in between' and consider the Zeiss Ikon?
"...If you can not stand the rustle of the leafs, then do not go in to the woods..."
(freely translated quote by Guido Gezelle)
PS: English is only my third language, please do forgive me my sloppy grammar...
I just bought an R2A after months (or more) of contemplation and am very happy with it. It feels tough (lots of metal) and it is not as heavy as the Leicas, which is a pro for me. I also couldn't do without the R2A's aperture priority; this rules out the Leicas for me (M7 is over the top).
My reasoning was to buy the cheapest possible body and invest the rest of my money in glass, which for me has to be either Zeiss or Leitz. I haven't regretted this strategy so far.
Another consideration for me to get the Bessa instead of a Leica is the better and cheaper availability of (new) accessoires. I got an eveready case and a diopter correction lens, both new, for the price of which I could never have gotten the Leica equivalent.
To sum up the pros and cons of R2A, for me:
Pro: relatively cheap, small, light, very well-built and thought-out, aperture priority, great bright viewfinder with bright focusing patch, accessoires readily available and not so expensive.
Con: maybe not so well built as a Leica, but I don't care so much about that.
Go for the R2A and save the rest of your money for glass, would be my advice.