Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Let me see if I get this straight... Mr. Brick is willing to condemn something (in this case a camera), that he has neither seen or used. If he doesn't like the Bessa T, great, but his comments would probably be a lot more informed if he bothered to inspect one before jumping to erroneous conclusions. Mr. Brick rakes the Bessa T over the coals based upon on inaccurate statements, by completely ignoring the success of roughly roughly TWO MILLION rangefinder cameras whose success show most of his arguments are untrue.[ (550,000 plus knob wind Leica Screw Mounts (screw mounts with 50 finder, IIIg not included), 96,000 Nikon Rangefinders (One to S2), 227,000 Canon Rangefinders (Hansa to IIF2), 75,000 ?? Contax Rangefinders (I to IIIa), plus a Million plus (if Russian figures are to believed) Leica Copies]. Almost all of these cameras had only ONE built in finder, the 50. Any other focal length required a separate finder. If you wanted a large bright 50 finder, the best way to get it was with a separate finder -- just like the Bessa T. More screw mounts were built than M cameras. The concept of different finder for different lenses worked well for them, regardless of whether or not Mr. Brick likes it or approves. Mr. Brick's statements about the the supposed inaccuracies from switching from the Rangefinder to a separate viewfinder simply aren't true, at least not if you are a careful photographer. Search the LUG archives. You will find much praise of the Leica Screw Mount cameras, you will find few if any photogs complaining about the problem Brick describes. I don't remember anyone complaining about focusing inaccuracy on their knob wind Leica, Contax II or IIIa, knob wind Canons, or earlier Nikon Rangefinders because they had to change from the RF window to the auxiliary 85/105/135 finder. The same is true of the Nikon Rangefinders and Canon Rangefinders. So what if you focus first and then switch to the different viewfinder? If THAT resulted in focusing inaccuracies, either you were very inept, or shooting a moving subject that you would probably be better off with an AF SLR anyway. Another way to think of the Bessa T is similar to an M mount IIIf -- but without the 50 finder. With both you focus with the rangefinder, and then switch to the accessory finder for a large bright view. The Bessa T is a retro camera, a different style of taking pics, much like the pre-M camera era. If you don't happen to like that shooting style, great. It's not for everyone -- that's why we have SLRs. But to claim this RF shooting style results in inaccurate focus is just nonsense. Mr. Brick also ignores that the Bessa T is intended as an entry level M camera. Comparing to a $600 camera to a $2000 one really doesn't make a lot of sense, especially when the Bessa T will focus more accurately than the $2000 .58 M6 or .72 M6. Of course he could compare the Bessa T to the new $600 Leica M camera -- but there isn't one. Not everyone has the money, or the inclination, or the virus, to spend $2000 on a camera -- without even a lens. Unlike Leica for the past quarter of a century or so since the discontinued CL, Cosina is trying to offer people a low cost way into the M system. I think that is something to be thankful for, not something to complain about. Besides, the way Leica is going, all production might switch to handbags -- Cosina would then become the largest interchangeable lens rangefinder manufacturer in the world. oops.....I take that back. They already are. Stephen Gandy Jim Brick wrote: > Let me see if I have this straight. > > A camera with no viewfinder. Every time you change lenses, you also have to > change the viewfinder. Is this correct? So instead of three pieces (35, 50, > 75) I would now have six pieces to find pockets for. Now where did I put > that 35mm finder? Oh shit! I've been using the 35mm finder with the 50mm > lens. Oh well... cut off heads and cut off feet! > > And to focus, you have to look through an eyepiece on the camera and focus, > and then to take a photograph, you have to move your eye to another > eyepiece, frame, and push the shutter release. Is this correct? Let's name > this ping-pong-eye-ball. > > If I remember correctly, Leica lenses are KNOWN for their stellar > performance WIDE OPEN. This is why many folks like Leica lenses. Great > performance at f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8 . This I agree with. I love using my > 75/1.4, 50/1.4, and 35/1.4 wide open or near wide open. Gorgeous Leica > photographs. The Leica "glow." > > Was it not too long ago that LUG folks were bemoaning the fact that it is > so very difficult to take sharp photographs wide open or near wide open > with lenses longer than 28mm. Even 28mm in close quarters. Lenses must be > true to the RF. The subject must not move even an inch. Critical focus > drops off very rapidly. > > So now everyone is wetting their pants over a camera that cannot possibly > (well... one could get lucky) take sharp photographs with these lenses at > wide open apertures. The very apertures that define Leica lenses. Even the > lenses supplied for the Bessa have wide apertures that become reasonably > useless when, after focusing, you have to move your eye, which gives the > subject and photographer time to move that dreaded inch or two to > completely destroy "critical" sharpness. > > Now if you were to use only 12mm, 15mm, and 21mm lenses, where auxiliary > finders are mandatory AND depth of field, even wide open, will overcome > minor focus errors, I could see the point. But as a general, useful, Leica > M camera replacement... no way, Jose (Hose-A)! Perhaps this is why Leica > puts the longer lens viewfinders IN THE CAMERA and uses external > viewfinders for wide angle lenses. Sure makes sense to me! Obviously made > sense to someone else for a very long time. > > People will buy the Bessa-T, find the problems that common sense should > have dictated, then try to sell them. I predict a glut of finderless Bessa > cameras on the market in a couple of years. Either that or folks will > exclaim "where's the finder?" and not buy them in the first place. Nah... > the first scenario seems correct. > > So if you wait a year, someone will probably pay you to take it away. ;) > > The bottom line is that you get what you pay for. I'll pay the extra $600 > and get the most used viewfinders built-in thank you. And have a durable > metal camera that has withstood the test of time to boot! > > JMHO, > > Jim > > NO JUNK SCIENCE