amateriat
We're all light!
Lately, I've been going on (and on...) about how I simply don't seem to grok SLRs anymore. This isn't a conceit or pose: in some ways, the things are almost as alien to me now as they were when I was the proverbial mere lad with a Yashica GT outfit, but drooling over the ads in Modern and Pop and Petersen's for Nikon Fs and F2s, Canon F-1s, Minolta XKs and whatever else I had to choose from as my Very First Future SLR. Had I known then what I know now, and all that...
The lone SLR remaining in my photographic universe is a nicely worn-'round-the-edges Olympus OM-2n. What it usually has bolted to the lens mount is a Sigma 21-35mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom, which is a very credible performer optically (reasonably sharp, and better-than-negligible distortion). I've done some interesting work with this combo (soon to be seen in my Gallery). But...
Great as the OM-2 is, I think I'm growing ever-more estranged from the SLR experience. My time out the other day with my Konica Auto S3 was much more satisfying, especially the spur-of-the-moment snaps. And I've been making noises about getting a used ZI. But I also think I'm spreading myself a bit too thin in terms of gear. I'm thinking a lot about "less is more." The stuff I've normally used SLRs as the go-to camera for–close-up and longer-than-90mm tele work–are quite rare events, and are easily handled by either of two digital cameras on hand here.
My thoughts have drifted to, and from, the Bessa R4a. When I first heard about it, and read Tom A's glowing review of it, I was quite jazzed: the ability to shoot as wide as 21mm without messing about with external VFs was big news to me. But then I thought about stuff like shutter noise, film-transport alignment (a colleague of mine got rid of a Bessa R2a because of seriously-irregular frame-alignment issues, especially pronounced when he used a trigger winder), and that blasted manual frameline setting arrangement. I didn't write the camera off completely, but definitely back-burnered it in favor of eventually getting a ZI.
Now I'm re-thinking that idea. The R4a would still give me the non-motorized M-mount addition to my pair of Hexars I've wanted for a while, plus give me the option of elegantly using optics wider than 28mm (a 21mm would likely be my only lens addition to my M-Hex trio). The manual frameline-setting thing bugs me just a little, but no longer enough to put me off the Bessa. This addition would likely allow me to let go of the OM-2 setup and Auto S3; as much as I love 'em in other ways, I think I need to concentrate my setup a bit more.
(The Hexar system, BTW, isn't going anywhere. If anything, it's the reason why I'm contemplating changes elsewhere in my little box of hardware.)
So, to those people here conversant in the Bessa R4 (preferably the R4a, but if you have an R4m, I'm still all-ears): if you've used it a while, how's it been, overall? If you've used other Bessas, how does this one measure up in the usual metrics that count in the field?
(And, what about this film-registration thing?)
This is actually more than just a case of a cat desperately in need of a ball of string: this could answer a few interesting questions for me.
- Barrett
The lone SLR remaining in my photographic universe is a nicely worn-'round-the-edges Olympus OM-2n. What it usually has bolted to the lens mount is a Sigma 21-35mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom, which is a very credible performer optically (reasonably sharp, and better-than-negligible distortion). I've done some interesting work with this combo (soon to be seen in my Gallery). But...
Great as the OM-2 is, I think I'm growing ever-more estranged from the SLR experience. My time out the other day with my Konica Auto S3 was much more satisfying, especially the spur-of-the-moment snaps. And I've been making noises about getting a used ZI. But I also think I'm spreading myself a bit too thin in terms of gear. I'm thinking a lot about "less is more." The stuff I've normally used SLRs as the go-to camera for–close-up and longer-than-90mm tele work–are quite rare events, and are easily handled by either of two digital cameras on hand here.
My thoughts have drifted to, and from, the Bessa R4a. When I first heard about it, and read Tom A's glowing review of it, I was quite jazzed: the ability to shoot as wide as 21mm without messing about with external VFs was big news to me. But then I thought about stuff like shutter noise, film-transport alignment (a colleague of mine got rid of a Bessa R2a because of seriously-irregular frame-alignment issues, especially pronounced when he used a trigger winder), and that blasted manual frameline setting arrangement. I didn't write the camera off completely, but definitely back-burnered it in favor of eventually getting a ZI.
Now I'm re-thinking that idea. The R4a would still give me the non-motorized M-mount addition to my pair of Hexars I've wanted for a while, plus give me the option of elegantly using optics wider than 28mm (a 21mm would likely be my only lens addition to my M-Hex trio). The manual frameline-setting thing bugs me just a little, but no longer enough to put me off the Bessa. This addition would likely allow me to let go of the OM-2 setup and Auto S3; as much as I love 'em in other ways, I think I need to concentrate my setup a bit more.
(The Hexar system, BTW, isn't going anywhere. If anything, it's the reason why I'm contemplating changes elsewhere in my little box of hardware.)
So, to those people here conversant in the Bessa R4 (preferably the R4a, but if you have an R4m, I'm still all-ears): if you've used it a while, how's it been, overall? If you've used other Bessas, how does this one measure up in the usual metrics that count in the field?
(And, what about this film-registration thing?)
This is actually more than just a case of a cat desperately in need of a ball of string: this could answer a few interesting questions for me.
- Barrett
Last edited:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
hey Barrett, I've both an R3a and an R4a. The R3a is about 3 yrs old now and the R4a is about a year and change for me. Both receive regular use. Both are adequately quiet. Some people feel the R4a is a little more solid and slightly quieter than the R3a. I think this is probably true.
Since most of my shooting is not of people noise isn't an issue. Durability in both cameras is good. I've a small urban legend surrounding my use of cameras. I'm hard on them and I also take them in difficult and dirty places. All my cameras are kept in ziplock bags not cases. As a result they 'bang/clunk' together in my courier bag style camera bag. It's one large pouch about 18x10x6 inches and everything goes into it.
My cameras are frankly well worn and some bear scar tissue. To the point these cameras are still working like a pair of Percherons.
Use, I like the R4a and bought one as soon as I could after they came out. I shoot in tight quarters and seldom use more than a 50 mm lens. Most of my lenses are 'wides' ie 15mm, 25, mm, 28mm, 35mm, and a couple of 50mm's.
The metering is very close and if you use the "compensation" dial for difficult light situations the camera does an equally fine job. Most of my stream in flickr now (see link below my sig) is from these two cameras excepting for the MF material.
Conclusion; I would buy the R4a again if I lost it or it was damaged irreparably. Since I use both cameras interchangeability of lenses is a snap and I can shoot 160 ISO + 400 ISO in two separate cameras easily. Alternatively I can shoot BW + colour with these two bodies. I find I like the ability to switch between BW and colour depending on how I see a subject. I know you know what I mean.
Conclusion, the R3a is a slightly more versatile camera because I can add a long lens on occasion. So far in 6 years I haven't though. In practical terms I use the framelines of the R4a most of the time and I love not having to jam on then take off a viewfinder to move from 28mm to 35mm or what ever requires a viewfinder. It’s wonderful bonus and I prefer it because it make life simpler.
Since most of my shooting is not of people noise isn't an issue. Durability in both cameras is good. I've a small urban legend surrounding my use of cameras. I'm hard on them and I also take them in difficult and dirty places. All my cameras are kept in ziplock bags not cases. As a result they 'bang/clunk' together in my courier bag style camera bag. It's one large pouch about 18x10x6 inches and everything goes into it.
My cameras are frankly well worn and some bear scar tissue. To the point these cameras are still working like a pair of Percherons.
Use, I like the R4a and bought one as soon as I could after they came out. I shoot in tight quarters and seldom use more than a 50 mm lens. Most of my lenses are 'wides' ie 15mm, 25, mm, 28mm, 35mm, and a couple of 50mm's.
The metering is very close and if you use the "compensation" dial for difficult light situations the camera does an equally fine job. Most of my stream in flickr now (see link below my sig) is from these two cameras excepting for the MF material.
Conclusion; I would buy the R4a again if I lost it or it was damaged irreparably. Since I use both cameras interchangeability of lenses is a snap and I can shoot 160 ISO + 400 ISO in two separate cameras easily. Alternatively I can shoot BW + colour with these two bodies. I find I like the ability to switch between BW and colour depending on how I see a subject. I know you know what I mean.
Conclusion, the R3a is a slightly more versatile camera because I can add a long lens on occasion. So far in 6 years I haven't though. In practical terms I use the framelines of the R4a most of the time and I love not having to jam on then take off a viewfinder to move from 28mm to 35mm or what ever requires a viewfinder. It’s wonderful bonus and I prefer it because it make life simpler.
amateriat
We're all light!
Keith & Jan: Thanks muchly for the feedback. The R4a would replace two cameras in my photographic constellation (OM-2 and Konica Auto S3), and would end up snuggling quite close to my Hexars, as well as likely becoming my principal go-to solo camera. Besides a new 21mm lens (which it would have all to itself), it would share the 28 and 50 M-Hexanons...this is where the "less is more" equation comes in. The reason for going with the R4a, as opposed to the R4m, is that the "a" configuration groks more closely with the Hexar RF, which it will be switching off with a good deal. I'm also cutting down the number of cameras on the "active" roster, partly for the sake of reducing the photographic mental "clutter" I deal with on a daily basis. All my cameras are good: it's a matter of how I want to work with them that's dictating my changes here.
If I do this, I'm not certain how fast I'll be able to move on it: like most everyone else right now, I'm counting my lucre quite carefully. But, that R4 is truly looking very good again, and it's important enough for me to contemplate acquiring somewhat sooner than later.
- Barrett
If I do this, I'm not certain how fast I'll be able to move on it: like most everyone else right now, I'm counting my lucre quite carefully. But, that R4 is truly looking very good again, and it's important enough for me to contemplate acquiring somewhat sooner than later.
- Barrett
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
the r4a is a great camera. it feels solid and comfortable in my hands.
it is made for the smaller cv wide lenses meaning there is no vf interference. there will be interference with other normal sized wides.
i use the zm 21/4.5 on mine and use the zm for my other lenses.
if you can try your lenses on an r4a body before you buy one that would be best as only you can decide if the interference is bothersome.
it is made for the smaller cv wide lenses meaning there is no vf interference. there will be interference with other normal sized wides.
i use the zm 21/4.5 on mine and use the zm for my other lenses.
if you can try your lenses on an r4a body before you buy one that would be best as only you can decide if the interference is bothersome.
amateriat
We're all light!
Minor anecdote: getting on the 7th Avenue bus here in the Slope yesterday, I ran into a man and his young daughter. He had what I remember to be an R3a around his neck, fitted with a collapsible black Heliar. (Anybody here?) He liked his setup a lot, his only regret being the lack of time to go out and photograph. That meeting, and my brief handling of his Bessa, got me thinking again about all this. (As I'm recalling this, I know it was an R3M...gloss-black finish.)
Good thing few other in-production cameras interest me quite this much...
- Barrett
Good thing few other in-production cameras interest me quite this much...
- Barrett
amateriat
We're all light!
Joe: This is some of the info I needed. I can deal with a bit of interference using, say, my 28 or 50 (they're not all that big, thankfully). It's the 21 that's the big deal for me, and the major impetus for getting an R4a, although I'd obviously like to use the 28 and (more often) the 50 as well.
Any examples of your work with that 21, perchance?
- Barrett
back alley
IMAGES
i have been using the sony a300 exclusively since i got it.
i have some shots with the zm 21 but have not processed any of them yet.
i have some shots with the zm 21 but have not processed any of them yet.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Beware if you wear glasses!
Barrett,
By your avatar photo, it looks like you may wear glasses. If so, beware. You may find the R4A's framelines somewhat uncomfortable. I wear glasses and I had the R4A for a brief time. The only frameline I liked was the 28... it was PERFECT for my bespeckled eye. The 28 lines sat perfectly just inside the viewfinder frame... very comfortable. But the 50 framelines felt too much like a postage stamp... too small for my taste. And the 21 lines were unuseable. I had to take my glasses off to barely see them. These problems, combined with the somewhat noisy shutter convinced me to sell off the R4A and some other stuff so that I could buy the ZM. Its widest frameline is 28mm (so you'd need the add-on 21 viewfinder). But the 28 lines are only a bit too wide, but useable for me. The 35 lines are perfect, and the 50 lines are fine... not nearly as small feeling as those in the R4A. And the overall feel of solidity of the ZM is truly a step above the R4A.
Good luck with your search. I completely understand your need to slim down on equipment choices... I've just gone on a "diet" myself and am now MUCH slimmer.
Jamie
Barrett,
By your avatar photo, it looks like you may wear glasses. If so, beware. You may find the R4A's framelines somewhat uncomfortable. I wear glasses and I had the R4A for a brief time. The only frameline I liked was the 28... it was PERFECT for my bespeckled eye. The 28 lines sat perfectly just inside the viewfinder frame... very comfortable. But the 50 framelines felt too much like a postage stamp... too small for my taste. And the 21 lines were unuseable. I had to take my glasses off to barely see them. These problems, combined with the somewhat noisy shutter convinced me to sell off the R4A and some other stuff so that I could buy the ZM. Its widest frameline is 28mm (so you'd need the add-on 21 viewfinder). But the 28 lines are only a bit too wide, but useable for me. The 35 lines are perfect, and the 50 lines are fine... not nearly as small feeling as those in the R4A. And the overall feel of solidity of the ZM is truly a step above the R4A.
Good luck with your search. I completely understand your need to slim down on equipment choices... I've just gone on a "diet" myself and am now MUCH slimmer.
Jamie
mfogiel
Veteran
Barrett
The R4A feels ok, but it is not an Ikon. It is slightly smaller and feels less solid, however I've had no serious issues with it so far. It certainly is very good for the lenses in the 21-28mm range, although if you wear glasses, the 21mm frames are visible only if you press your face well against the VF - more or less like you have to do on the Ikon to see the 28mm frames. The biggest problem of the R4A is the short distance between the lens and VF, which obliges you to use only the smallest possible lenses, else the vignetting becomes substantial. Another annoying factor, common with the R3A is the backward tilt of the camera when you carry it on a strap. All in all, if a ZI with a wider VF came out, I'd snap it up in a heartbeat, but for now this camera is pretty much without competition for the wide angle coverage.
The R4A feels ok, but it is not an Ikon. It is slightly smaller and feels less solid, however I've had no serious issues with it so far. It certainly is very good for the lenses in the 21-28mm range, although if you wear glasses, the 21mm frames are visible only if you press your face well against the VF - more or less like you have to do on the Ikon to see the 28mm frames. The biggest problem of the R4A is the short distance between the lens and VF, which obliges you to use only the smallest possible lenses, else the vignetting becomes substantial. Another annoying factor, common with the R3A is the backward tilt of the camera when you carry it on a strap. All in all, if a ZI with a wider VF came out, I'd snap it up in a heartbeat, but for now this camera is pretty much without competition for the wide angle coverage.
Colman
Established
Why the low-light difference? Brighter viewfinder?
Others can comment too, but I would say 50mm is a stretch with the R4a Barrett. The frame lines for the 50 are like those for the 90 on a .72 M, for me too small to use. I find it a great camera for 35mm and wider, often just walking around with a 28 or CV21 on it. The AE is accurate, I am just careful with the 21 what I meter as to not capture too much light sky and cause an underexposure. And though the 21 lines are out on the edge of the finder, I still find them very usable. Let's face it, composition with a 21mm lens is much looser than with a normal or tele lens, it is hard not to get a little extra because you are getting so much.
nico
Well-known
Intersting thread,
hope not to hijack it, but I'd like to know if the entire field of view of the finder would cover the 15mm fov.
thanks,
hope not to hijack it, but I'd like to know if the entire field of view of the finder would cover the 15mm fov.
thanks,
nico
Well-known
Thanks Keith,
and what about a 18mm fov?
Another doubt I have is about 35mm framelines: are them similar to the 50 framelines of a bessa R (that has 0,68 mag.)?
I'm asking because I'm thinking about getting a r4m.
Thanks again,
and what about a 18mm fov?
Another doubt I have is about 35mm framelines: are them similar to the 50 framelines of a bessa R (that has 0,68 mag.)?
I'm asking because I'm thinking about getting a r4m.
Thanks again,
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I agree with Keith, the answer is no...but it's close enough for me. When I'm shooting with the 15mm Heliar, I sometimes leave the finder at home. This might be anathema to some shooters, but you do get to learn how much more there is outside the frame. The whole frame is probably closer to 18mm.
So, the R4A. In my view, there is nothing else like it. If you love shooting wide, it's the one. I find it extremely comfortable, have not had film alignment problems, do not mind the sound of the shutter, and love the AE when I'm shooting slide film. The finder is excellent, though I agree it could be brighter, and I regard the manual frameline selection as hugely superior to any other system. Leica's automatic selection is a pain in the ass, in my view--it requires a bunch of different adapters for screwmount lenses, whereas with the Bessa you can use whatever you have around. And it is nice to have total control.
You can't use the widest framelines with glasses, but I actually quite like the 50mm lines. They are the smallest in there, but shooting with glasses is no problem, and the finder is plenty large to get a good sense of what you're framing. When I shoot wide, I put in my contacts.
peter_n
Veteran
I had an R4A for about a year and sold it recently. I bought it for my 24/2.8 and liked it very much. It was my first CV body and I thought the build quality and fit were excellent. I didn't like the manual frameline selection as I use M lenses. Also I didn't like the matte black finish at all but that's just a personal thing. Shutter noise is totally reasonable and I really liked the VF (no glasses) - very sharp and clear. It is an absolute pleasure to use a super-wide lens on the camera. The 24mm lens blocked the VF quite a bit but it didn't bother me at all, I don't know why people complain about this.
I would not buy the camera other than for heavy use of a 21 or 24/25 lens. I tried both a 50 and a 35 on the camera but much preferred my 0.72x mag M for those lenses. I really did like the solitary 28mm frameline though and to my surprise I found myself using the 28 a lot more just because of that clean VF. Unfortunately, I liked the design so much I bought a Leica MP3.
I really think the R4 is a unique solution for super-wide lenses and I wouldn't hesitate to buy another. The addition of the solitary frameline for 28mm makes it even more attractive, and when you think that this body is a heck of a lot cheaper than the new Leica brightline finder for the 24/1.4, well...
I would not buy the camera other than for heavy use of a 21 or 24/25 lens. I tried both a 50 and a 35 on the camera but much preferred my 0.72x mag M for those lenses. I really did like the solitary 28mm frameline though and to my surprise I found myself using the 28 a lot more just because of that clean VF. Unfortunately, I liked the design so much I bought a Leica MP3.
I really think the R4 is a unique solution for super-wide lenses and I wouldn't hesitate to buy another. The addition of the solitary frameline for 28mm makes it even more attractive, and when you think that this body is a heck of a lot cheaper than the new Leica brightline finder for the 24/1.4, well...
nico
Well-known
Thanks Keith and Mabelsound,
Keith, if i don't go wrong (I'm not an expert) the r3a should have a 1:1 mag but, as I can understand, the 35mm framelines are easily usable on the r4...
amateriat
We're all light!
Lots o' data here, guys, thanks!
Musing a bit over some things:
- I would like to use my 50 M-Hex on the R4a occasionally, so I'll need to sort out just how difficult it is to work with that combo. (As an aside, shooting a 90 with my Hexars has not been a problem for me; is this situation comparable?)
- Playing around with a colleague's R2a, I found the overall feel and build quality to be acceptable. My Hexars are luxurious in both these regards, but that didn't make the Bessa look shabby when I used it.
- VF brightness: I'll want to check this out closely, as it doesn't have to be the brightest, but I'm hoping against hope it's not crazy-dim. (Some Leicaphiles had warned me that the Hexar's VF was "noticeably" dimmer than the garden-variety M...after six years of use, they've been just fine in low-light conditions for me.)
- Working with glasses: It's time (correction: way past time) for me to get a new prescription, and I'm toying around with the idea of contacts, though I've had my reasons in the past to avoid them (my sister's wild and crazy experience dealing with them years ago, although she finally got to grips with them). Going with contacts, natch, would obviate any concerns with proper eye-relief with the biggest framelines.
Edit: What I could really use right now is a little input from Tom A. (who, amongst other things, is also bespectacled). But much of what I've read here so far has been a big help.
- Barrett
Musing a bit over some things:
- I would like to use my 50 M-Hex on the R4a occasionally, so I'll need to sort out just how difficult it is to work with that combo. (As an aside, shooting a 90 with my Hexars has not been a problem for me; is this situation comparable?)
- Playing around with a colleague's R2a, I found the overall feel and build quality to be acceptable. My Hexars are luxurious in both these regards, but that didn't make the Bessa look shabby when I used it.
- VF brightness: I'll want to check this out closely, as it doesn't have to be the brightest, but I'm hoping against hope it's not crazy-dim. (Some Leicaphiles had warned me that the Hexar's VF was "noticeably" dimmer than the garden-variety M...after six years of use, they've been just fine in low-light conditions for me.)
- Working with glasses: It's time (correction: way past time) for me to get a new prescription, and I'm toying around with the idea of contacts, though I've had my reasons in the past to avoid them (my sister's wild and crazy experience dealing with them years ago, although she finally got to grips with them). Going with contacts, natch, would obviate any concerns with proper eye-relief with the biggest framelines.
Edit: What I could really use right now is a little input from Tom A. (who, amongst other things, is also bespectacled). But much of what I've read here so far has been a big help.
- Barrett
Last edited:
fuwen
Well-known
With my brief experience with my R4M:
1. The 21mm frame lines are all the way to the edge, will definitely poses some problems to spectacle users.
2. Bigger 21mm lens will block the view finder, like many had mentioned before, almost 25% at the lower right corner.
3. I am very happy with the build quality of the body, it is a great improvement from my Rollei 35RF (Voigtlander R2), but then again I am not a fussy user, and has never use a Leica before.
4. The view finder is as bright as my 35RF/R2, and based on one of my experience comparing my 35RF with a M6 (not the TTL) the finder is definitely brighter than the one on M6 but not by a lot.
5. No practical experience but I believe focusing with 50mm wide open need extra care.
6. I have no film transport issues with both my 35RF and R4M and I use both of them with trigger winder. The trigger winder is there to make up the size and I am not using them to wind the film.
1. The 21mm frame lines are all the way to the edge, will definitely poses some problems to spectacle users.
2. Bigger 21mm lens will block the view finder, like many had mentioned before, almost 25% at the lower right corner.
3. I am very happy with the build quality of the body, it is a great improvement from my Rollei 35RF (Voigtlander R2), but then again I am not a fussy user, and has never use a Leica before.
4. The view finder is as bright as my 35RF/R2, and based on one of my experience comparing my 35RF with a M6 (not the TTL) the finder is definitely brighter than the one on M6 but not by a lot.
5. No practical experience but I believe focusing with 50mm wide open need extra care.
6. I have no film transport issues with both my 35RF and R4M and I use both of them with trigger winder. The trigger winder is there to make up the size and I am not using them to wind the film.
back alley
IMAGES
i used the cv 50 on my r4a without problem. it is very doable even with the small framelines.
build quality is very good, maybe it won't last 50 years but i have a heart condition and am 58 so i'm really not too worried about camera longevity.
finder is very bright, it is smaller than the finder on the zi and a bit of a different colour tint but easily viewed through.
i wear glasses and am just used to moving my eyes around to see a full frame. it mostly done by feel really.
build quality is very good, maybe it won't last 50 years but i have a heart condition and am 58 so i'm really not too worried about camera longevity.
finder is very bright, it is smaller than the finder on the zi and a bit of a different colour tint but easily viewed through.
i wear glasses and am just used to moving my eyes around to see a full frame. it mostly done by feel really.
Barrett, I think the R4A makes a nice partner to the Hexar RF, and I like both of them. The R4 is flat-out unique, and one wonders why its wide VF idea has not been done, so obviously useful in retrospect. Its framelines encompass the focal lengths I use the most, and it's easily usable for the full range 21 to 50. A must-have...
The only fly in the ointment is lens/hood intrusion into the view. This is at least exacerbated by the typical Bessa VF window placed closer to the lens than on, say, a ZI or CLE body. It's something to accept and get used to, and for those who object to this occlusion, R4 ownership is just not going to be a happy time. Sticking with compact lenses (for instance 21mm Skopar or C-Biogon rather than the Elmarit) minimizes the effect. But of course this is simply an RF fact of life, just a bigger issue with this body.
I have the trigger winder on my R4A, with the thumb film wind taped closed to remind me to use the trigger, and have no trouble with frame spacing if I don't try to get it into a race with the shutter release. For left-eyed me it's mainly a way to keep my right thumb out of my right eye!
The only fly in the ointment is lens/hood intrusion into the view. This is at least exacerbated by the typical Bessa VF window placed closer to the lens than on, say, a ZI or CLE body. It's something to accept and get used to, and for those who object to this occlusion, R4 ownership is just not going to be a happy time. Sticking with compact lenses (for instance 21mm Skopar or C-Biogon rather than the Elmarit) minimizes the effect. But of course this is simply an RF fact of life, just a bigger issue with this body.
I have the trigger winder on my R4A, with the thumb film wind taped closed to remind me to use the trigger, and have no trouble with frame spacing if I don't try to get it into a race with the shutter release. For left-eyed me it's mainly a way to keep my right thumb out of my right eye!