MacDaddy
Certified Machead
Never did get an answer from the membership vis-a-vis landscape camera/lens recommendations, so we'll try to get your response to THIS instead: I wear glasses, if that is a consideration, and really don't understand the advantage/disadvantage of the different viewfinder lengths between say, the Bessa R3M and the R2M. I'll be shooting mostly wide (50mm and wider; say, down to 21mm) if that is a consideration as well. Anyone care to tackle this one and explain why one camera over the other?
Thanks in advance for any input!
Thanks in advance for any input!
yoyo22
Well-known
I think you are refering to the viewfinder magnification. The difference between the R2x/R3x/R4x is this viewfinder magnification.
It's just very simple. The more broad your view shall be, the less magnification you need.
The R3x got a magnification which is great for >50mm (1.0x), while the R2x (0.7x) is great for 35-90mm. The R4x got the least magnification, making it possible to see those wide framelines up to 21mm.
Now imagine the tiny framelines of 90mm showing up an a viewfinder that covers 21mm in total. They would be so small, that focusing and/or framing would become virtually impossible.
Coming to your glasses: wearing glasses makes everything worse, since most likely you will not be able to see the widest framelines, no matter what viewfinder magnification you have. On my M2 I hardly see all the 35mm framelines, on my M6 the 28mm framelines are so far out of sight...
For your use of wide angles mostly I would suggest an R4x. Perhaps with an additional 21mm addon viewfinder in case you have a hard time to see those lines in the built-in one.
It's just very simple. The more broad your view shall be, the less magnification you need.
The R3x got a magnification which is great for >50mm (1.0x), while the R2x (0.7x) is great for 35-90mm. The R4x got the least magnification, making it possible to see those wide framelines up to 21mm.
Now imagine the tiny framelines of 90mm showing up an a viewfinder that covers 21mm in total. They would be so small, that focusing and/or framing would become virtually impossible.
Coming to your glasses: wearing glasses makes everything worse, since most likely you will not be able to see the widest framelines, no matter what viewfinder magnification you have. On my M2 I hardly see all the 35mm framelines, on my M6 the 28mm framelines are so far out of sight...
For your use of wide angles mostly I would suggest an R4x. Perhaps with an additional 21mm addon viewfinder in case you have a hard time to see those lines in the built-in one.
MacDaddy
Certified Machead
Hmm! I suspect I'll need auxiliary viewfinders to see the lines with any of the Rfs. So it sounds like from a versatility standpoint, if I want the widest lens "support" an R2M would be the logical choice, while if I stick with really wide lenses, the R4M is best. What about using 50mm down to 21mm on the R4M? I want to use fast lenses because my favorite way to shoot is available light and usually at the "golden hours" for landscape and architecture. My thoughts are to get a R2M with both the 35/f1.4 and the new 28/f2. Am I off here?
mfogiel
Veteran
R4A for the 21,25, and the best of all - 28mm
R2A for the 35mm
R3A for the 50mm (just). 75mm and 90mm
I also wear glasses, and so I have to use various bodies.
R2A for the 35mm
R3A for the 50mm (just). 75mm and 90mm
I also wear glasses, and so I have to use various bodies.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
I wear glasses. Before I needed them I wore sunglasses. Anyway, this is how I shoot (non-professional): One camera, one lens. Look in the viewfinder...determine your angle of view & try to memorize it for the that day. You will only focus in the center on the patch. I personally find the 90mm more difficult to concentrate on than the 28. With a 28 you a grabbing a whole lot but you can crop but with the 28 you could be too tight & you can't expand. You asked about landscapes: Two things to consider angle of view: I find the 24mm on an SLR to be better than the 28mm on a rangefinder. The extra 4 is good for large buildings in enclosed spaces. Also, for large prints the medium format is better. & I personally do not like external viewfinders on my camera. I have enough problems loosing cheapo eyecups and lens caps.
MacDaddy
Certified Machead
To give an idea how wide I go digitally, I use a Sigma 10-20mm and a Nikkor 18-135mm on a Nikon D300. This gives me anywhere from 15mm to 27mm wide to roughly 205/6mm telephoto. Most of the time, I shoot the zoom at close to its widest, between 27 and 35mm equivalent when using it for landscape (all on a tripod). I use the Sigma for architectural and use the whole range of the lens from 15-30mm equivalent. Both are very slow lenses, require a tripod for best results and frustrate me with their size and bulk.
So I'm heading back to RF, especially for B & W shots and more creative control (film recommendations would be appreciated as well! I'm thinking Ilford HP 5+ or ??). I've pretty well decided that the new 28/f2 and the 35/f1.4 SC will be the two lenses of choice, unless CV really does come up with a faster, wider lens or three (maybe at Photokina next month?) and now need to figure out which camera to go with both. (alas, if I DO get both lenses, I can only afford ONE body for now!)
So, your thoughts, comments, raspberries please? 8o)
So I'm heading back to RF, especially for B & W shots and more creative control (film recommendations would be appreciated as well! I'm thinking Ilford HP 5+ or ??). I've pretty well decided that the new 28/f2 and the 35/f1.4 SC will be the two lenses of choice, unless CV really does come up with a faster, wider lens or three (maybe at Photokina next month?) and now need to figure out which camera to go with both. (alas, if I DO get both lenses, I can only afford ONE body for now!)
So, your thoughts, comments, raspberries please? 8o)