Godfrey
somewhat colored
I had one of the Cosina bodies for a while. It was all right ... reliable, a little noisy, somewhat cheap and crude feel compared to any Leica or Contax ... but it worked. It was definitely an RF body that was derivative from an inexpensive SLR body ... there were bits of mechanism in it that were vestiges of the SLR mirror/auto-diaphragm mechanism. I didn't keep it, just as I didn't keep the Epson R-D1 that I tried, as it just didn't appeal to me at all: like the Sony A7, I was just too put off by how crude the body felt in my hands.
That a camera works is somewhat irrelevant since 99.9% of all cameras manufactured in the past forty years work just fine. I want cameras that work and feel right, allow me to enjoy the picture making activity.
G
That a camera works is somewhat irrelevant since 99.9% of all cameras manufactured in the past forty years work just fine. I want cameras that work and feel right, allow me to enjoy the picture making activity.
G
agentlossing
Well-known
I would say the Cosina Voigtlander bodies were a little more than just alright. They're loud, I'll give you that, but My T has an extremely precise rangefinder that was made "from scratch" essentially, I think it and some of the later R models with more refined metal bodies deserve some love. Heck, even an L with the snapshot 25 or the 15 and those bright plastic-body hotshoe finders makes for a pretty fun experience that turns out some pretty good pictures thanks to Cosina's lens making prowess.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have no experience with any of the later Cosina bodies so cannot judge them, albeit I can safely assume that they work just fine. Mine was an early model, and it worked fine too. 
G
G
To be clear, I was talking about the original Bessa R. The T and L could be too. Certainly the L. I've never used the T, but that certainly has some unique elements. The R is the one that feels a little cheap and was certainly derivative:
https://www.dantestella.com/technical/daddy.html
The R2 had a similar design but felt better. The later models R3, etc were very nice actually.
agentlossing
Well-known
The L and R had that smooth rubberized back that quickly became sticky and wore off around the hand, that was no bueno. But the T got the higher quality, textured rubber that the later R2/3/4 got, making it much nicer in the hand. Still plastic body, but my anniversary edition has the metal dials and fittings which give it a better quality feel. I get the sense that, apart from that sticky cheap rubber, even the all-plastic R was a pretty decent camera, though. It just didn't project Leica class.
That's it exactly... and it was LTM too.
boojum
Mentor
Check out Godfrey's review of his Pixii. He gives the rangefinder high marks. The camera is being revealed as a good one.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/nod...27#post4781381
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/nod...27#post4781381
Shafovaloff1
Well-known
Try the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 with the Leica branded design lens, "aspherical" even. Vario-Elmar. I keep mine with me for quick shots. Soon enough I will upgrade but for now this is my non film user.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
That's all well and good, but what on earth does it have to do with the Pixii Digital M rangefinder camera? :angel:
G
Shafovaloff1
Well-known
There are some great fixed lens digital cameras available for a pittance that do excellent work. Something new at such a high price better have something special IMHOP. Sorry to offend though. Enjoy the day.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
That's fine ... I'm not offended, just puzzled.
The Pixii offers Leica M-mount lens compatibility, a high quality APS-C sized sensor, and an optical range/viewfinder. To me, these are rather special features that none of the fixed-lens digital cameras offer, and should be especially appealing to people participating in a forum dedicated to rangefinder camera use.
G