should i get a Voigtlander R2a or a Olympus XA

[ivzhao]

i just sold me Olympus SP for the price i bought it. it's a fine camera but dont know why i just dont like to use it. maybe becuase it's too heavey, or its werid light meter which makes me constantly keep it in the case otherwise it wont stop running.

on the other hand, i like my Olympust XA2 alot. i take it wherever i go so i rarely miss a shot. but the problem about the XA2 is that it only got a zone foucus, which i cant focus the objects manually. and its auto exposure system gives me little control of the camrea. but the most important: i found my photos are not as sharp as my other friends' photos taken by SLRs.

so i am thinking about purchasing a new rangefinder for my daily aritistic use. (i use a Cannon DSLR for my studio shots or colors shots).

now i basically cut down to two candidates: Voigtlander R2a or a XA.

a XA becuase it's soooooooo small and its useful clam design, which i dont have to put it into a case. and it's a true rangefinder unlike XA2.

a R2a becuase it's a serious rangefinder and it's BRIGHT viewfinder. and it's interchangable M mount.


so how's the XA's lens compare to Voigtlander's M mounted lens (probably not Lecia M lens becuase i cant afford) in term of sharpness.
should i get a R2a or a XA?? is there anything more i should know about either of these cameras??

p.s. i develop and print all my photos myself(at the school darkroom). and i like to shoot wide(28mm-35mm). i do street photography 70% of the time.

my gallery ivzhao.com (http://ivzhao.com). so you can have a hold my my style.

please give me some advices please. :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

thank you all

[Trius]

Get both! Did you expect a different answer on RFF? :angel:

Seriously, they are quite different cameras, as you know. While the lens on the XA is very nice indeed, far exceeding one's expectations of a tiny camera, I wouldn't claim it equals any of the better M mount 35mm lenses. And if you want 28mm focal length, you should be looking for an XA4. But that is zone focus as well, though with the added DOF it's less of an issue.

My prediction is that if you get an R2a, you'll wish you had an XA or XA4 for its size and convenience.

You sold your SP? :bang:

Earl

[caspert79]

Buy both. The XA is not that expensive. Another option is the Konica C35 which has a nice sharp and contrasty lens and is also compact (not as compact as the XA though). They can be found very cheap.

[ivzhao]

You sold your SP? :bang:

Earl

ya. it's a nice camera i know. but it's so heavy. by the way, Trius, why do you like it so much??

[ray_g]

A happy medium would be a Contax T.

[Poptart]

XA. Buy. Me have, me like.

[broadie]

A happy medium would be a Contax T.

I was actually going to suggest the Contax T as well. I've tried one--the viewfinder seemed surprisingly good, it's built like a tank, and the lens is top notch. I definitely second the idea of getting the R2A as well...it's great to have a pocketable walkaround camera to take everywhere, in addition to a somewhat larger interchangeable rangefinder system.

[captainslack]

I'm gonna second the "buy both" opinions. Both cameras are radically different in design and usage. You'd do well to pick up both as you'd end up using each one for different purposes.

[ChrisPlatt]

The Contax T is small and pocketable but IMO too heavy for a chest pocket.

If you like your XA2, you will love the Olympus XA. There are plenty around.
For a clean one, CLA'ed w/new light seals, expect to spend over $100 total.

The Bessas are great cameras, but an entirely different animal...

"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-

[anandi]

For everyday pocketable use, XA. For the form factor alone, like your XA2, you'll find that it gets used more and taken everywhere without any compromises. It seems to me to take the sharpest pictures of any of my cameras to date. Finally, on a variant of "get both": get the XA first, $100 off of *bay or here if you're lucky to get someone to part with. Then if you still have the itch *also* pick up the Bessa. That XA will keep you busy for a few months looking at prints with an eyeloupe wondering what kind of Zeiss lens took them.

[Kin Lau]

I have the XA, and the Bessa R, not R2a but similar enough for this discussion. My suggestion too, is get both. I got my XA about 6 mths ago for $20- :D... the meter needle only works sporadically, but the meter itself is working correctly.

The XA is the "go everywhere" camera for me, and the Bessa is the "done anything" camera.

[Rick Waldroup]

I own an XA and a R3A. Get both. They are quite different but both are superb shooters.

[Trius]

ya. it's a nice camera i know. but it's so heavy. by the way, Trius, why do you like it so much??
First, I don't mind the weight. It's about the same size (overall, different shape) and weight as an OM-1 with 50mm lens.

Second, the spot metering. Not as flexible as the OM-3 or OM-4, but pretty handy for a fixed lens RF.

Third, build quality. This is a really solid, well-made camera. I love the fell, the way it fits my hand. That's just me, others will be underwhelmed, I'm sure.

Fourth, the lens. Nice focal length (for me), enough wider than 50mm to be useful, not too wide for those times when you need to isolate. Not to mention what a good lens it is.

Did I mention it has a great lens? I haven't done serious testing, but I'm pretty sure it's better than an XA. But I love my XAs.

Earl

[Wes Medlin]

If you aren't happy with the sharpness of the the XA2, don't buy the XA. I have both, and love both, but the XA is no sharper than the XA2.

The Bessa is a wonderful camera, and the interchangeable lenses means you can get exactly the type of lens you want. I would say this is the way to go, and keep the XA2 in the pocket for a backup.

[chenick]

Did I mention it has a great lens? I haven't done serious testing, but I'm pretty sure it's better than an XA. But I love my XAs.

Earl

I have an SP and an XA
The lens on the XA is a bit soft at F2.8 and F4, while the lens on the SP is really excellent, even wide open. The SP is the only RF I have I feel I couldn't part with. Sure it's big and not the easiest to use, but I forgive it 's shortcomings, just because of the lens!

I feel the XA is missing something though, it's too small sometimes, or a bit hard to focus. Can take great photos too though, especially stopped down. I'd take an R2A over an XA if I couldn't have both... :D

-Nick

[tedwhite]

I have both. Well, almost. An XA and a Bessa R. You'll find the c/v lenses way sharper. By that I mean an XA neg will go 8X10, period, whereas negs from the Bessa R go to 11X14 and still look snappy.

The advantage of the XA is that it's a true pocket camera and more likely to be carried everywhere - plus it's so tiny hardly anyone notices you're taking pictures. If they do notice they think you're just some rube with a P&S digital. However, I find it a bit more difficult to use than the Bessa R. Focusing, dim patch, etc. Whereas, due to the brilliant viewfinder and the little knob on the c/v lens, focusing the Bessa R is almost as fast as the autofocus Maxxum 7 (great camera, but a real tank).

[sfb_dot_com]

now i basically cut down to two candidates: Voigtlander R2a or a XA.

p.s. i develop and print all my photos myself(at the school darkroom). and i like to shoot wide(28mm-35mm). i do street photography 70% of the time.

my gallery ivzhao.com (http://ivzhao.com). so you can have a hold my my style.

please give me some advices please. :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

thank you all

I'm not sure I can give you advice on either camera, as I do not own either of them! However I looked at your galleries (really liked them BTW - nice minimalist style quirky images - what software do you use??) and along with your do all my own D&P stance I guess that means you like stuff without unecessary fripperies and good solid function. so, thinking along those lines, do you really need the auto features of the R2A?? Maybe the R would suffice? or perhaps a IIIf or even one of the Russian jobbies??

Anyway, you are free to take any advice I give with a pinch of salt as I do own a Bessa L (with 12mm CV Heliar) so everything just looks really straaaaaange to me! ;)

Andy
ps I do like that minimalist gallery!

[Poptart]

I looked through your gallery. You have a fine sense of abstract composition and less so, geometrics. My favorites are the bike handlebars, the tree shadows, and Chopin--for that reason. I was wondering something: have you thought about getting a Nikonos or at least an underwater housing? I have a cheapo ikelite rigid w.p. that takes the different major disposable cameras, w and w/o flash. I think you could get some cool images with something similar.

[DougK]

I love my XA and it was a great vacation camera for me but I rarely shoot with it anymore. I could be convinced to part with it and the A11 flash unit, PM me if you're interested. I have photos of it available on request (well, when I get home to the computer they're on they'll be available).

[Fred]

If it's either or then I guess the initial kick is in the XA direction, your already familiar with the shape and size.

For me I'd take the Bessa, a whole world of different lenses out there and as already stated the CV ones are very good, I have the 15, 28 Skopar, 35 Ultron and 90 Lanthar and very happy with the results. The Bessa is a more versatile camera by a very long way and very light also but it can lead the owner to GAS.

[ivzhao]

(really liked them BTW - nice minimalist style quirky images - what software do you use??) so, thinking along those lines, do you really need the auto features of the R2A?? Maybe the R would suffice? or perhaps a IIIf or even one of the Russian jobbies??

thanks for you comment andy.

actually i really dont know why i want a Bessa R2a.(i have actually ordered it already, for a very good price.) maybe i am just curious about all these lecia M lens things, and i cant focus very fast on a XA/XA2 or SP.

i use photoshop. i shoot my digital photos in RAW. and i have a very crappy crappy scanner(part of an all-in-one machine) which i can only scan the positive photos.

[ivzhao]

If it's either or then I guess the initial kick is in the XA direction, your already familiar with the shape and size.

For me I'd take the Bessa, a whole world of different lenses out there and as already stated the CV ones are very good, I have the 15, 28 Skopar, 35 Ultron and 90 Lanthar and very happy with the results. The Bessa is a more versatile camera by a very long way and very light also but it can lead the owner to GAS.

What are CV lens???? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[ChrisPlatt]

i really dont know why i want a Bessa R2a.
(i have actually ordered it already, for a very good price.)
maybe i am just curious about all these lecia M lens things,
and i cant focus very fast on a XA/XA2 or SP.



Use your R2a when you plan to "do photography".
Carry the XA the rest of the time...

"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-

[Sean Chan]

The big decision making question is :

Do you want / need / prefer a "Rangefinder Camera" or a "Compact Point and Shoot Camera with a rangefinder" ?

I personally would want both ! As you already have the XA2 , your decision to go for the Bessa is a good one. You can always look out for a cheap XA on ebay, there are plenty, I got mine for US$70, no so good body condition but it is in full working order.

[windraider]

If you aren't happy with the sharpness of the the XA2, don't buy the XA. I have both, and love both, but the XA is no sharper than the XA2.

The Bessa is a wonderful camera, and the interchangeable lenses means you can get exactly the type of lens you want. I would say this is the way to go, and keep the XA2 in the pocket for a backup.

I agree with Wes.
Get the Bessa if you already have the XA2.
In my experience the rf on the XA doesn’t really make a difference, as its short focus throw makes it difficult to focus accurately at close distance (0.85-2m) and being a wide angle, aperture selection only provides limited depth of field effects.

[tedwhite]

IVZHAO: In answer to your question, "What are cv lens?", these are the Cosina/Voigtlander lenses that come with the Bessa line of cameras. They are top notch and very small. If I had a Leica body I would equip it with a c/v lens, rather than a Leica lens, save a bundle of money, and still get high quality negatives.

I did some interior shots for a city library with the Bessa L and the c/v 25/4 and they were enlared to 11/14" and are very sharp.

Ted