Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,771   Posts: 1,484,323   Online: 1070
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee L View Post
    Scaling to the consumer price index, would make those 350 1954 dollars worth $2775 in 2009. So the 1954 Leica M3 has lost close to 80% of its original price in real terms, not appreciated. A good M3 single stroke was about $1200-$1300 in the late 70's through the mid 80's, so the prices don't just keep going up.

    As to the long term viability, an M3 would likely prevail there, being all mechanical and sold in large quantities with parts available in some form. The R2A needs electronics to work, and those are more likely to fail and be unrepairable than a mechanical camera.

    But the real value of any of any camera is in its ability to perform as the photographer needs. I'd say that anyone using either camera could get their money's worth out of them.

    Lee
    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.
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  2. #12
    Rob Skeoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Burlington, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    984
    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.

    -Rob
    Rob Skeoch
    This is my blog http://thepicturedesk.blogspot.com/
    This my website for photo supplies...
    www.bigcameraworkshops.com
    This is my website for Rangfinder gear
    www.rangefinderstore.com

  3. #13
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    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.


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

  4. #14
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by arealitystudios View Post
    I borrowed an M6 from my boss years ago and that darn trademark red dot attracted all sorts of attention wherever I went. "Hey is that a Leica!?" people would constantly stop me and ask. .
    My M6 has gaffers tape strategically applied in a roughly camouflage pattern... What red dot?

    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

  5. #15
    denmark.yuzon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, Laguna, Philippines
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    116
    thanks guys.. ^_^
    Flickr
    Multiply
    My PhotoBlog
    My Twitter!


    WTB: Konica Autoreflex T3 and AR lenses

  6. #16
    Alex Bishop-Thorpe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,455
    Images
    29
    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.
    The Analogue Laboratory, or 'so you built a darkroom in an old factory in the industrial zone'.
    Blog thing!.

    Worry less. Photograph more.

  7. #17
    Philippe-Georges's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Flanders Fields
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    722
    What about something 'in between' and consider the Zeiss Ikon?

    Philippe
    "...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...

  8. #18
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    771
    Images
    11
    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.

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