i want an r4a

I've been looking at the R4 for my work. I wanted a RF for landscape/Historical Industrial work and shoot mostly <50mm anyway. If I wnat to go longer I might use the SLR. I usually shoot AE since I am most concerned about DOF. Speed is usually of secondary interst to me unless I am shooting falling water then I go full manual. I usually use a spot meter anyway to examine the EV range to seeif I need to make adjustments. If I see a big range I will go full manual and shoot a range of shots. Otherwise I will let the AE do the work. On the other hand my wife refuses to use any automantic exposure controls on her D2X! I told her it would have been cheaper to get a Leica! But she does love her 17-35 2.8! My feeling has always been to get the shot. If AE makes it easier for me then I will use it. If it interfears with YOU getting the shot then don't. Havng come into photography since the automated age I just don't naturally make the calculatins in my head. I can and do a lot, but it is not natural for me, so in the cases where I am looking for the "Decisive Moment" I woold loose it thinking about what shutter speed I want. Whatever makes your corn grow!
 
Joe,

wait until the CLE is back - it'll get you mostly there. Who needs
wider than 28 anyways ? 🙂

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Joe: I say lose the 4m and get the 4a. You'll have a more seamless transition between the 4a and ZI, and this, to me, isn't a small point when you find yourself "in the zone", photographically speaking, and this would encourage frequent use. Since full-manual control (metered!) is always there, you can use it where and when it makes sense; AE isn't evil, folks.

I've gone back and forth a bit on this, but if I were to get a non-motorized body to work with my pair of Hexar RFs, it would likely have AE; the ZI is the frontrunner here so far, but an R4a and its superwide capabilities becomes more tempting with time, and at a reasonable price.

And, finally: would I be mistaken in thinking that the 4a would have at least a slightly more-quiet shutter than the 4m (unless Cosina has done away with the "twin" shutter system used on earlier non-electronic Rs)?


- Barrett
 
ferider said:
Joe,

wait until the CLE is back - it'll get you mostly there. Who needs
wider than 28 anyways ? 🙂

Roland.
Click to expand...

i haven't sent it off yet.
i used it on the weekend to see for myself what it does.
so far, it seems ok in daylight but indoors with weaker light the shutter sometimes seems to fire at about 4 seconds no matter what the meter reads.
as for wider than 28 i see the 25 being my 'standard' wide angle.

joe
 
amateriat said:
Joe: I say lose the 4m and get the 4a. You'll have a more seamless transition between the 4a and ZI, and this, to me, isn't a small point when you find yourself "in the zone", photographically speaking, and this would encourage frequent use. Since full-manual control (metered!) is always there, you can use it where and when it makes sense; AE isn't evil, folks.

I've gone back and forth a bit on this, but if I were to get a non-motorized body to work with my pair of Hexar RFs, it would likely have AE; the ZI is the frontrunner here so far, but an R4a and its superwide capabilities becomes more tempting with time, and at a reasonable price.

And, finally: would I be mistaken in thinking that the 4a would have at least a slightly more-quiet shutter than the 4m (unless Cosina has done away with the "twin" shutter system used on earlier non-electronic Rs)?


- Barrett
Click to expand...


this is very true.
so far my 'problem' with the r4m is that i 'forget' it's a manual camera and often shoot without setting the apeture and shutter speed. with a r4a it will be the same process for all my cameras.
maybe i should sell the r4m.

must think.
joe
 
Thinking about going wide with a 21mm lens I included the R4A in my thinking.

My thought was that the AE could help with wide lenses with their large depth of field as it would be possible to put the camera on the ground with a small tripod. I still have some idea how it may look but don´t want to get down myself because I know how that looks - trying to look in the rangefinder just above the floor. The other thought was that - again because of the depth of field - AE would help to be faster. With my M´s and with my R2M I´m not that fast in metering so I tend to miss a shot before I get ready.

I symphatize with Barret´s argumentation. AE is no evil.

While I would go for a R4A myself the best argument for you to change doesn´t work. I would have no use for your R4M. But think about a change from M to A. I assume it will help.

Thomas
 
Manual vs AE has been covered well here and elsewhere. The fact that there is a choice shows both are valid.

The R4A for my use was based primarily on my ongoing use of crude AE in my Canonet GIII QL 17 and Yashica GSN. I shoot wide due to tight framing situations. Often shooting graf in laneways that are only 12 feet wide it's all I can do to fit a piece into a 25mm frame.

Where there's room I'll use a 35mm or 50mm on the R4A. For me the beauty is not having to fiddle with the mounting of a viewfinder for each lens. It's a great tool and so far it's doing exactly what I hoped it could.

Not the most 'effusive' endorsement but for me it's a good one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom