Like My R4M, But Itching for Longer Lens....

[Solinar]

Two generations of photographers still rely on the camera's on board light meter as a crutch. While a built in meter is good to have, you still have to think about lighting.

On a DSLR you have access to a histogram. It's a fabulous tool and should be used early on not afterward. Digital capture is like color positive or slide film in regards to exposure latitude. Be prepared to override the program mode with some EV adjustments.

 

[wgerrard]

No point, really. I deliberately let the camera go its own way just to see what would happen. I usually use the DSLR on aperutre priority, and fuss with the shots. But, if I'm going to spring for an expensive computer-with-a-lense replete with all sorts of automatic wizardy, it would be nice that, when I dumb it down to the the level of a p&s, if it could manage to automate its way to a correct exposure. What's the point of the automation if I need to intervene in less-than-ideal conditions? (I mean, I put it on full automatic for one shot, again, just to experiment, in the shade of a tree, and the flash popped up, when the ISO was 400. That's just silly.)

I've been at the same location, with the same conditions using the R4. I took more time taking fewer pictures, but they were exposed correctly.


But, that's a digression. Thanks to all for the advice and recommendations. I need to ponder the Zeiss Ikon versus a used MP thing. I also really need to wait until I'm someplace where i can handle and compare the cameras.

 

[kshapero]

But, that's a digression. Thanks to all for the advice and recommendations. I need to ponder the Zeiss Ikon versus a used MP thing. I also really need to wait until I'm someplace where i can handle and compare the cameras.

Photovillage in NYC or Popflash in Ca. You can touch and feel at both places. Good luck.

 

[BillBingham2]

Interesting point
“But, if I'm going to spring for an expensive computer-with-a-lense replete with all sorts of automatic wizardy, it would be nice that, when I dumb it down to the the level of a p&s, if it could manage to automate its way to a correct exposure.”
I’m going to make the plunge to a DSLR in a few months just to ignore all of the automation. I will be using manual focus primes and old fashioned center-weighted metering. I would pay the same amount for a body that was smaller with less automation, but I doubt the masses would.

Now I have to admit, I am very interested in TTL metering and perhaps even wireless flash, to me getting rid of the wires would be very fun. I love off camera flash and not carrying a six foot extension cable would be me much happier.

Am I going to give up on my RFs, NO. There is nothing that can touch my S3 or M4-P, but that’s because I ‘m in control of selecting the exposure and I can see the picture when I take it. Some times I get a feeling about the exposure, what might look better. Doesn’t always work, but it does often enough to keep me happy. I have a hard time believing any matrix metering number crunching system will ever be able to duplicate.

B2 (;->

 

[JayC]

I just held a ZI at ProPhoto Supply in Oregon. Where are you?

 

[pvdhaar]

For lenses longer than say 75mm, I wouldn't go the Hexar route. The 0.6x VF magnification means that the 90mm lines are so small that framing becomes an issue. Focussing is alright, but framing is a hassle.

When it comes to external finders, I use them on a Bessa-T. It's an acquired taste, but they do work, and some are just plain wonderful. Especially the 1:1 finders that allow framing with both eyes open. But on a Bessa R4a/m, I think you're going to have trouble using them for long lenses. The effective baselength of the R4a/m is so small due to the low VF magnification that focussing accuracy becomes a problem close-up..

 

[Roger Hicks]

Given your priorities (AE, one camera), eyesight, etc., I think I'd second the ZI too. It really is very nice indeed.

It's diminishing returns. The Bessas are very good, and excellent value for money. The ZI is twice the price, but with a much better viewfinder and much longer rangefinder base. The MP is twice the price of a ZI, but heir to a lineage of cameras that lasts forever and has some features some like (less obtrusive noise, no battery dependency, Leicavit, etc.) A BJP review summed up the situation very well: if Leica, ZI and Bessa were all sold under the same name by the same manufacturer, the prices would still exactly reflect the market position.

For me, the MP with Leicavit has all the advantages, including no battery dependency, but your preferences are different. FWIW, my wife reckons that if the ZI were not battery-dependent, she'd probably prefer it to an MP.

Incidentally, on fairly careful testing, the 85mm frame on the ZI is identical to the 90mm frame on the MP.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[kalokeri]

Although I´m using a M with 0.58 viewfinder and it´s very nice for 35 and 50 with glasses, I can´t recommend this viewfinder for longer lenses. If you want to use a 75 or a 90 you don´t need the 0.58 viewfinder. Even with glasses you can see the framelines at higher magnification. With framelines from 28 to 90 a magnification of 0.72 will be the best choice even if it´s a little bit hard or - for me - impossible to see the 28 or the 35 frame with glasses.

The MP is a gorgeous camera, no doubt. But if you like AE the Zeiss Ikon or the R3A are the much better choice - at least to me.

Thomas