masamunexs
Newbie
I'm deciding between one or the other. The one thing that I have been trying to find the answer to (maybe it is too obvious) is given that the R3A has a 1.0 viewfinder would that mean that focusing should be easier on this camera vs R2A. I would prefer the R2A to have the option to get the 35mm 1.4, but much of my photography will be in low light conditions and I would overall have to bias my decision on which of these cameras would be the easiest to focus under those conditions.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Sam N
Well-known
Yes your effective baselength will be longer with the R3A, but the R2A's baselength is already more than sufficient for a 35/1.4. There are some charts elsewhere in the forum, but you'll be fine with an R2A.
hiromu
Established
I had a similar question when I choose from those two. Before I bought R2A, the only range finder camera I had (and still have) is Mamiya 7II, which is MF with big finder, so I was afraid of small(er) finder.
To my surprise, R2A has very very good finder, and focusing is very easy, or at least easier than I have thought... So I think whichever you decide, you will be able to focus well with fast lenses.
Hiromu
To my surprise, R2A has very very good finder, and focusing is very easy, or at least easier than I have thought... So I think whichever you decide, you will be able to focus well with fast lenses.
Hiromu
funkaoshi
Well-known
I have an R2A, and haven't really had any trouble focusing with it. I think the real issue when deciding between the two is whether you want 35mm frame lines or not.
masamunexs
Newbie
Well I was wondering how ease of focusing on the R3A compares to the R2A. I have only had experience with two rangefinders, an yashica electro gsn and an olympus xa, both of which have really dim rangefinder patches, mostly I assume to old age, and are worthless in low light.
wintoid
Back to film
Isn't the patch in the R3a somewhat smaller than in the R2a? I don't know this, just a vague memory.