File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Voigtlander Bessa R4M. Worth the money (plus the cost of a 35mm f/1.4)?
>> Anonymous
>>191429

HIPSTER SHIT
>> ken-t !wQS5KmrMzU
>>191429
for how much total?
why not R2 or 3?
have you owned a RF before?
if not, maybe you should consider a cheaper one (maybe fixed lens) just to try it out so you know if you really want a proper RF or not (stick do SLR?)
just some thoughts.
>> Anonymous
>>191432

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/483745-REG/Voigtlander_AA126A_Bessa_R4M_Camera.html

$680 for the body, and another $570 for the 35mm 1.4

Used RF before, so I know enough to know that I want one. Have a DSLR already (along with pretty much all I need in terms of other equipment for it), and have been wanting a rangefinder for a while now.
>> Anonymous
>>191435

that is, $680 for a new one if I can't find used on ebay.

Oh, and I want the R4m because it has the added support for wide-angle lenses (along with a few other minor details)
>> Anonymous
>>191435
Save your money and just get a used Leica M2 off ebay.
>> Anonymous
The finest photos I've ever seen were shot with a Bessa. But I lost the notes and I don't remember the lens or film.
>> Anonymous
>>191441
the camera doesn't make the photographer ect.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>191462
Uh huh. Here you go, pro.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2003:07:28 17:09:43Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width500Image Height500
>> Anonymous
>>191493

FUCK YEAH, WORTH EVERY PENNY!
>> Anonymous
>>191493

i remember cracking those open, breaking the flash, and using it to shock my friends. <3
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
The R4m is a damn fine camera, and VC lenses are in many cases sharper than their Leica and Zeiss equivalents.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>191493
I remember seeing something on TV about one of the sports illustrated bikini photogs using point and shit one timers.
>> Anonymous
>>191666
yea i remember that too...

werent the shots surprisingly good too? (in terms of image quality...)
>> Anonymous
this put me off already:

Note! As a result of the wide-angle design of the viewfinder, this camera is not recommended for use with lenses longer than 50mm, used wide-open, at short distances.
>> Anonymous
>>191680
R4 = wide-angle viewfinder (for 21-50mm lenses)
R3 = same camera with normal viewfinder (for 40-90mm lenses)
>> Anonymous
>>191684
ah sweet that sounds better.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>191680
The R2a/R2m (not the R2) are also current cameras, with 35/50/75/90 frames I think. Falls in between the R3 and R4 and overlaps nicely. Check cameraquest.com for an excellent comparative table.
>> Anonymous
>>191727
The R2 doesn't have the 1:1 finder of the R3, though. (An 1:1 finder is win because you can keep both eyes open when shooting without being disoriented)
>> Anonymous
>>191727
R2M/R3M is available as a special edition bundled with 50mm f/2 heliar collapsible lens. I would highly recommend buying one of those if you want quality lens for the camera.
>> Anonymous
I've thought about getting a cheap Bessa or something similar before too, OP. It'd be nice to have alongside all the digital doohickeys.
>> Anonymous
>>191680
Of course, you can always just buy a >50mm hotshoe mounted viewfinder if you ever get a lens longer than 50.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
     File :-(, x)
>>191840
Or he could buy an R3m instead and when he wants any wides just get an appropriate viewfinder.

...also, the 12mm f/5.6 makes me drool.
>> Anonymous
>>191840
Hotshoe mounted viewfinder will make framing easier, but won't make the inaccuracy of the rangefinder go away, which is the biggest issue with long wide-aperture lenses on the R4.

Anyway, R4 was made specifically for widefags and mounting telephoto lenses on it is just stupid.
>> Anonymous
Rangefinders are better at the normal-wide range anyway. If I want longer then I'd use a (D)SLR.
>> Anonymous
>>192015
Sure, but a 90mm or even 135mm lens is perfectly reasonable on a rangefinder. A 300mm might be a bit idiotic.