bessa R2A and R3A focusing

[masamunexs]

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!

 

[Sam N]

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]

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

 

[funkaoshi]

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]

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]

Isn't the patch in the R3a somewhat smaller than in the R2a? I don't know this, just a vague memory.