Best body for 28/50 combo?

[squirrel$$$bandit]

mabelsound, do you have any trouble focusing a 50 on the R4A? At f/1.4?

I actually am able to focus well with the Canon 50 f/1.2! Well enough, anyway. It is not as good as the M2 of course, but it's good.

I want to agree, though, with the people who are suggesting that having particular framelines is less important once you really get to know your camera and lenses. Overall handling ends up being your main concern.

 

[chrishayton]

M4-p (if you dont wear glasses) or a ZI

 

[kevin m]

anybody with a ricoh gr digital, for instance, can confirm that perspective does not change when you look at a scene through the accessory viewfinder, at the rear lcd, or with the naked eye. perspective is not the issue. the real culprit is angle of view, which is what framelines are for.

Perspective is totally the issue. Anything wider than 35mm is a problem for RF finders, and, contrary to your post, the accessory finders do a great job of simulating the perspective of their respective lenses. Compare, say, an accessory 24mm finder to the Leica .58 finder and the difference should be obvious. Or (shudder!) compare the .58 finder to an SLR with a 28mm or wider lens mounted.

 

[aizan]

so you're saying that accessory viewfinders somehow bend light differently than built-in viewfinders?

 

[venchka]

That's easy...

That's easy...

Bigfoot: 51.9mm DR Summicron.
Bubba: 28mm M-Hexanon.
Canon VI-T: 35mm UC-Hexanon or 8.5cm Nikkor

Altogether a very nice trio.

 

[kevin m]

so you're saying that accessory viewfinders somehow bend light differently than built-in viewfinders?

Yessir, of course they do.

 

[aizan]

just to make sure, i went and looked through a hexar rf and canon f-1n with 28mm lenses mounted.

the perspective is the same. everything is in the same position and the same size relative to each other, front to back, side to side, top to bottom. it must be magic. 😎

 

[trix]

Konica Hexar RF....no contest

 

[Doug]

I recently tried my first true RF wide angle lens, the V/C Snapshot Skopar 25/4, and I just can't get used to the external finder. No matter what I do I can't seem to frame anything accurately.

Paul, this is an example of "unrealistic expectations"... RF cameras just don't frame anything accurately. You'll either come to accept, even enjoy, this approximation, or you'll chuck the whole genre. You did pick a tough lens there, a bit of a challenge to get into due to the non-coupled focusing and need for external finder. Maybe better left until you're a dedicated RF'er! 🙂

First, there's parallax error, because your eye is not in the same position as the lens. Nearby things will not be in the same exact relationships from those two slightly different points of view. With an external viewfinder on top, the eye/lens positions are usually even more different than with the built-in viewfinder. More parallax error.

Then, there's field size error. As the lens is focused on closer objects, the glass moves away from the film, narrowing the angle of view slightly. In effect, the focal length of the lens gets a little longer as it moves further from the film. Some fixed-lens RF cameras feature framelines that expand and contract to approximate this change, but you don't generally find this ability with interchangeable-lens RFs. So the Bessa/Leica/ZI/Hexar framelines show a fairly accurate field of view at one focusing distance, and either too small or too large when focusing closer or farther.

On the other hand, the RF gives you a peek at what's going on outside the picture area, and a bright clear view with no depth-of-field fuzziness effects. This is great for fast action, and when you are not obsessed with aligning this power pole with that distant peak, and not so concerned with playing with compositional frame-edge effects.

Otherwise, you might choose a view camera or SLR, which of course have their own share of inconveniences. Many of us in RFF use different kinds of systems for different purposes, or just on mood. 🙂

 

[ferider]

Well said, Doug.

Paul, you don't mention focusing problems, so I assume you don't have any, and are happy with the uncoupled 25 in that respect. Framing inaccuracies Doug already adressed, they are fundamental to any RF. Note that parallax correction of the typical Bessa/Hexar/RF finder does not adress the field size issue. You might still be disappointed by framing inaccuracies.

If metering is an issue, you might want to try a Bessa L or T with your lens. When you look through the finder, you will be able to see the LEDs of the L's meter in your peripheral vision.

Best,

Roland.

 

[drewbarb]

You'll either come to accept, even enjoy, this approximation, or you'll chuck the whole genre.

Doug is right on about this whole issue- this one sentence of his sums it all up.

As for what camera to use, I'll take a different approach and recommend a Bessa L to go with your 25mm. It's small, cheap, and will do the job. There's no separate finder for the meter- just the diodes on the back of the camera. Since the lens isn't RF coupled, you won't miss anything there. Keep your current camera for your 50mm, (and possibly a 35mm down the line?) a dedicate another body for your wide angle shooting.

Another option is to start using meter-less bodies, or just take the batteries out of your current camera. Get comfortable using a hand-held meter (or use the guidelines inside the film box and do it the way your grandparents did!). Once you get used to setting your exposure long before you raise the camera to your eye, you'll never want to go back to trying to fiddle with it while the moment you want to shoot is passing. This, combined with pre-setting your focus (easy to do with a lens that wide) means the only thing you have to think about is the moment you want to capture. The difference between what you see through the finder and what the lens sees from it's slightly lower position isn't very much; and when this is the only factor you have to pay attention to while shooting, it seems much less of a pain in the ass. And as ever, practice will make all this stuff effortless pretty soon; don't give up.

All of this goes the long way 'round to give MY answer to your question of the perfect body for a 28/50 lens kit- the M3. Perfect for 50mm as is, and great for all wides with external finders.

 

[kevin m]

the perspective is the same. everything is in the same position and the same size relative to each other, front to back, side to side, top to bottom

You are mistaken. It is not optically possible for one finder to mimic the perspective of so many different focal lengths, and this is very evident at the 28mm focal length. No "standard" (.72 to .58) finder I've tried matches the perspective of that focal length, even though the framelines might be close. (Perhaps the Bessa R4 does, I don't know.)

The quickest way to demonstrate the effect is to move while looking thru the finder. Compare the 28 frameline in the Hexar RF to the 28m lens mounted to an SLR and notice the difference particularly near the edges of the frame. If you can't notice it there, then try a 24mm lens on the SLR and compare that to the full finder in the Hexar RF, which covers that FOV pretty well.

 

[aizan]

i'm doing it, and there's no difference. that's only to be expected since perspective is not a property of lenses, though magnification is. perspective is a matter of vantage point.

 

[jonmanjiro]

On the subject of perspective ...

On the subject of perspective ...

For any given distance from camera to subject, the perspective is the same regardless of the magnification of the lens or finder. The only thing you can change while standing in the same spot is the magnification by either adding/removing a magnifier to/from your RF or by switching to a shorter focal length lens (less magnification) or longer focal length lens (more magnification).

The only way perspective can be changed for a particular subject is by shooting the subject from a greater distance using a telephoto lens or from a closer distance using a wide angle lens.This keeps the size of the subject the same, but changes the size of the background in relation to the subject.

The following (taken from the current Nikkor lens catalog) is a good example of this.

 

[ferider]

Someone has to say it ....

The absolutely best 50/28 camera is the Nikon SP with separate 28 window ....

That and the 50/1.4 Millenium would be the two reasons for me to get one.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Someone has to say it ....

The absolutely best 50/28 camera is the Nikon SP with separate 28 window ....

That and the 50/1.4 Millenium would be the two reasons for me to get one.

Cheers,

Roland.

Hehe, I didn't say it, but I was most certainly thinking it 😀

 

[kevin m]

...i'm doing it, and there's no difference. that's only to be expected since perspective is not a property of lenses, though magnification is. perspective is a matter of vantage point.

There is a difference, but you're just not seeing it. If you think the perspective, or the "look," if you will, of a wide-angle lens is solely a function of its magnification, you're again mistaken.

 

[aizan]

um, perspective is not a function of magnification at all. this is why it makes no difference whether you're looking through a rangefinder's built-in viewfinder, an accessory viewfinder, or some kind of ttl viewfinder.

"the look" is the combination of an optical property (magnification, or angle of view once you take format size into account) with a non-optical property* (perspective). look at the scan jon posted (no pun intended).

if you're still not sure what perspective is, look it up in the dictionary or an encyclopedia. better yet, pick up a camera with a zoom lens, stick it on a tripod, and see what happens to the perspective as you change the magnification of the lens.

* well, it's not even a property.

 

[Doug]

Yes, perspective changes only with a change in observer/camera position. Lenses have angles of view and various optical properties/defects, but perspective isn't one of them. Note in jonmanjiro's posted sequence that camera position is different for each sample.

 

[photophorous]

Thanks again to all those who have commented. I'll probably have to think this one over for a while. I guess the most logical thing would be to sell the 25, pick up a 28, and try to use the limits of my R2A finder with it. If that doesn't work, I could try a Hexar or an Ikon, but I'll have to wait until my job situation is more stable before I spend any real money. Damn economy.

I have to confess, part of the reason I’m considering a Contax/Zeiss 28/50 kit is that I could use those lenses on my Canon 450D, for landscapes and portraits. I’m not sure how those lenses would compare to the Voigtlander RF lenses I’m currently using for B&W film, but if they’re good enough, I might just loose interest in my RF completely. Although, I’d have a real hard time letting go of my Heliar Classic. Lens quality, or maybe I should say lens character, is probably 95% of the reason I like using an RF.

Doug, I've been using my R2A with a 50 and 35 for a couple of years and I can deal with the regular parallax problems, but the shoe mount finder is whole different ball game. Did I mention it’s the one with no bright lines? The errors I make with the 50 and 35 are nothing compared to what I’m doing with the 25.

Roland, the lack of RF coupling with the Snapshot Skopar has not been a problem at all, even at f/4. I often pre-focus my 35mm lens too, so I was already kinda used to it.


[FONT=&quot]Paul[/FONT]