Bessa R vs QL17 - comments?

g0tr00t · 11-19-2004

Ok, I know looks funny...

What I am really getting at is this. I have blasted through rolls of film with my QL17 now and LOVE this thing. I was thinking of getting the Bessa R with a nice 50mm on it.

I cannot find a Bessa to touch, squeeze, smell, taste, etc.... For those that have both, can you please give me a quick scoop of what to expect as the "differences". Yes I know the specs of both and the Bessa interchangeable lens, etc....

What I want is what to expect as far as viewfinder brightness, focusing, picture taking, size/weight comparision, etc....

Still a newb.....

back alley · 11-19-2004

hey david, no answers yet?

it's a tough proposition to compare one to the other as they are different animals.
both are solid yet lightweight and inspire confidence.
the r is a brand new camera and therein lies the biggest difference. the vf is brilliant compared to the canonet. bigger, easier to focus patch and no flare in the r. and the ability to change lenses is a deal breaker.
both can be thrown in a bag for a daily carry camera.
the canonet is silent next to the r but the r is not a loud camera.
i like the ideaof having a small light fixed lens camera in addition to my other rf cams.
in my case i chose to keep my 2 oly 35 rc cams and let the others go.
hth

joe

sfaust · 11-19-2004

You will like the R better than the QL17 if you could only keep one. But, it will cost you several hundred dollars more once you outfit it with a lens. You can grow with the R, but with the QL17, thats all you get, body and one lens.

Ideally, you would have both. The R for interchangable lens, and the QL17 for a light easy to pack 'I just need one lens' travel kit.

The viewfinder on the R is much better than the QL17. The handling of the R for me is also much better than the handing with the QL17. You also get higher shutter speeds and ISO setting s with the R.

But it does come down to dollars and sense! A QL17 at $100 ready to go is a nice deal. A R at $425 ready to go is much more, but something you can grow with. The best, is both!

rover · 11-19-2004

I agree with the above. I love my Canonet, but, if the difference in cost isn't an issue, the R simply is a much more capable camera. The difference in shutter speed and available ISO settings mean a lot in the range of usefulness. There are work arounds, ND filters and the such, but those are compromises. Next, there is no comparing the rf/vf of these two cameras. A 30 year old Canonet's rf/vf cannot match the big bright R. Two area's where the Canonet wins, the shutter is quieter than a Leica, any leaf shutter is, and the lens is faster (assuming you would be buying the R kit with 35/2.5 or 50/2.5) or more compact. Stepping up to a 35 Ultron or 50 Nokton will give the R the speed, but at much more $ and size. This of course is an option that could be put off until the future too. The cameras are roughly the same size, the R being just a hair larger. The Canonet may be a hair heavier. The only other significant difference is that the Canonet has AE and the meter doesn't work in manual mode. The R is metered manual only.

g0tr00t · 11-20-2004

Thanks all that is exactly what I wanted to know. You see, where I live there are ZERO photo stores that would even consider carrying a Bessa and fat chance on a Leica. So trying to compare the QL against anything is all done by looking at the pictures and having a ruler next to me making boxes out of paper....LOL

Since I have been shooting the Canon, I wanted to see how much bigger or smaller the R was compared to it. Also the difference in shooting.

I am taking a photo class because I wanted to learn how to develope my negatives and print at home. I bought an EOS3 for the class. My idea now is to sell the EOS 3 and get a Bessa for Photo II and so forth.

Thanks so much for the info. I would never sell the QL and she would be the backup for my Bessa....

Huck Finn · 11-20-2004

I would agree with all of the comments above. (I own an R2, not an R). Let me just add that the Canonet was produced at a time when ISO 100 was the standard film. Film quality has advanced light years in the past 30 years. People routinely use 400 now for general shooting. (I have a friend who is a professional specializing in flowers & only uses 400.)

When I shoot with the Canonet with 400, I am able to capture most everything with that fast lens - until I go out in bright sunlight & want a shutter speed faster that 1/500. This was not an issue for general photography back in the 1970s.

IMO, a Bessa series camera with an f/2 - f/2.8 lens is more versatile with fast film because of the extra 2 stops of shutter speed. The Canonet is best used with 100 speed film, as it was designed to be, unless you know that the entire roll will be used before you need to shoot in bright light. ISO 200 works fine in winter & ISO 100 is fine indoors with the flash that comes with the camera.

g0tr00t · 11-22-2004

Hey Huck Finn, thanks for that info. Now about ISO 400. Hmm...I am shooting FP4. I always thought it was better to shoot with ISO 125 or under for cleaner images. Now you have me thinking...

Is ISO400 that good? I only shoot B&W and I may crop once in a while...

Forgive my ignorance, I just bought 2 100' rolls of FP4 and trying to find B&W 400 speed film around here is next to impossible..

Jeroen · 11-22-2004

Quote:

Originally posted by Huck Finn
When I shoot with the Canonet with 400, I am able to capture most everything with that fast lens - until I go out in bright sunlight & want a shutter speed faster that 1/500. This was not an issue for general photography back in the 1970s.

Ofcourse, you could use an ND-filter.

doubs43 · 11-22-2004

Quote:

Originally posted by g0tr00t
Now about ISO 400. Hmm...I am shooting FP4. I always thought it was better to shoot with ISO 125 or under for cleaner images. Is ISO400 that good? I only shoot B&W and I may crop once in a while...

Forgive my ignorance, I just bought 2 100' rolls of FP4 and trying to find B&W 400 speed film around here is next to impossible..

Bulk film is available from mail-order dealers such as Freestyle (www.Freestyle.com) where I buy most of my film. Their Arista Brand film is made by Ilford and they also sell all of the Ilford films. I presently have three bulk loaders with Ilford ISO/ASA 50, Agfa APX-100 Pro and Arista D-Max 400 in them.

www.jandcphoto offers Efke Brand B&W film which is the old Adox formulations. It's made in ISO/ASA 25, 50 & 100 speeds and is excellent film from all I hear.

Film speed often depends upon what you want to accomplish. I use 100 & 125 film most of the time because I want the finer grain and better tonality that it will generally give when compared to faster films. However, 400 films have come a LONG way from what it was in past years and sometimes the 2 f-stops it gives over 100 film is needed for the shot. In low light there's simply no alternative to fast film. In normal daylight, however, 400 or faster film can be too fast depending upon the results you want. If you want to throw the background out of focus, a shutter speed of 1/1000 and an f-stop near 11 is not likely to do it. In terms of grain, the newer 400 films are a vast improvement over years past with Tri-X still seemingly the standard setter.

IMO, over time you'll experiment and decide for yourself what you prefer. It always boils down to personal choice in the end.... as it should be.

Walker

g0tr00t · 11-22-2004

Yeah, I am going to spring for a roll of some FP5 next. A friend of mine said she will let me borrow a few rolls later next week. Yeah! Should be interesting....

Pherdinand · 11-22-2004

fp4 is really great. Still planning to try it in 120-format, however...

GallenWolf · 11-22-2004

Try Ilford XP2, if you don't mind chromogenic films. Grain is fine, and I have tried shooting the same roll from EI50 - 800, it actually works, though it seems 200-400 is best.

Alvin

Natron · 11-23-2004

I saw a good article on apug.org about developing chromogenic B&W films in standard B&W chemistry instead of C-41! The test actually stated going off of development times for Ilford FP4+, he found the best combination to be Ilford XP2 and Kodak Xtol developer that resulted in very nice negatives. Interesting.

I own both a Bessa R2 and a Canonet QL17. The Canonet is well built, very small and very quiet but it does have limitations. Shutter speed, no metering when you're not in AE shutter-priority mode, top film speed of 800 for the meter, their age causing problems.. Just go for the Bessa R. I love the Canonet but mine has problems too and I'm not even going to bother fixing it.

Film advancements and improvements in 400 speed film are also applied to slower films as well. 100 speed films are just as improved. FP4+ has very, very fine grain. Some of the Pan F+ (ISO 50) negatives I scanned in last night have nearly invisible grain. Even though 95% of the film I shot over this last year was Kodak Tri-X and half of that was pushed to 1600, I'm beginning to adore the slower films for their microscopic grain and will definitely purchase at least one if not two 100' rolls of Pan F+ and a roll of FP4+ when I place my next film order. You may as well take advantage of these rangefinders' sharp lenses, right?

peter_n · 11-23-2004

If you like slow film and fine grain you should try Efke KB25!

DougK · 11-23-2004

David, you evil tempter you... this discussion has me sorely tempted to throw caution to the wind and attempt to trade in some of my cameras that I don't use regularly for a Bessa.

If I was to commit this rash act, what would a suggested beginning outfit for this camera look like? Also, which model Bessa would you recommend? I won't need a suggestion for a bag, I've got plenty of those in my closet which would work fine.

I won't be online for a few days, so I won't be able to respond for a while.

Opine away, folks...

PS - Joe, if this post feels like it should be a new thread to you, please feel free to move it. I'd hate to derail a thread for my own selfish gain

g0tr00t · 11-24-2004

Well, I took the advice of the group and when I foung a used R2, I bought it. She should be here today. I must have a talk with my QL17 to let her know that she will still be my low light performer, but the Bessa is just an extension of my right arm as she is the extension of my left arm.

They will be sharing a bag so I must make sure they can behave together...I have 10 days to work with the Bessa and see if she is a good fit for the RF family.

Oh my folks, I need help......

Kris · 11-24-2004

David, Canon and Voigtländer are good friends. Nevertheless, had you brought home this evil camera starting with L, the story will be different

- Friends-

rover · 11-24-2004

Very nicely done Kris.

Um, what did you use to take the picture?

g0tr00t · 11-24-2004

Kris, what a cute couple!

Kris · 11-24-2004

David, so where's the R2? I had a good 6hrs sleep, morning shower and first cup of coffee and still no news! What's taking you so long?!

Ralph, I had three cameras for 10 days or so and that picture was taken with Eos 30, now being abused by this guy also residing in Melbourne. I have to sell camera(s) after buying a camera.

--- edit ----

Speaking about films, I normally rate FP4 at ISO50. Somehow, now I like Plus X more also rated at ISO50. FP4 seems to be grainier than Plus X when scanned with this SD IV.

rover · 11-24-2004

Well, I have sold 5 cameras, 5 lenses, a monopod, focusing screen and probably a few other things in the past couple months. And happily, my Canonet has survived the purge.