My Old Eyes Are Ticked Off At My R4M Finder

[wgerrard]

I recently bought an OM-2N and I'm very impressed, especially with the finder. So much so that when I pick up my R4M I seem to be having all kinds of trouble focusing. On consideration, I'm not having any more trouble than I ever have, but the fact is it takes me longer to focus the R4M than the OM-2N, often annoyingly so. Sometimes I shoot not really knowing if it's in focus.

I think it's down to the Bessa's magnification (.58, isn't it?). The finder is certainly bright enough. Stuff in the patch is often just plain difficult for me to see clearly enough. I.e., it's small.

What finders (Bessas and Leicas) are gonna work better for me? Let's disregard lens choices -- wide angle and such -- for now.

I should note that I wear glasses with progressive lenses. I wear them all the time, including when I shoot. Off-the-shelf diopters don't provide adequate correction.

 

[Trius]

Bill: I can't contribute much, though I think the R3's finder and the M3 would be better suited in terms of magnification.

In reality, an OM finder will spoil just about anyone. 😀

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

wgerrard, maybe I am confused about your OM, so please excuse me if that's the case.


Focusing with both cameras just can't be compared, as they're different tools. With your SLR you focus seeing through the lens, and the huge focusing screen allows you to see the whole frame coming in and out of focus, while with your rangefinder you have a small patch in the middle of your view to check -aligning two identical images- if a subject at a certain distance will be focused, but never seeing through the lens. A bigger patch wouldn't be so selective and/or would be uncomfortable and obtrusive while seeing the scene for composing...


I received on saturday my new R4M, my first rangefinder ever, and I must say I am completely surprised, I'm so very happy with it. I just didn't expect this level of design and construction. It's dense and tough: I feel it as robust as my Hasselblad and Nikons, and its lines and black finish are so beautiful... It's not magnification only what counts when comparing cameras' abilities to focus precisely, it's EBL, effective base length, which is the product of magnification X real size, and the R4M has the smallest EBL of all Bessas. Curiously it's the most recent model, while the first M Bessa model, the Bessa T, has the largest EBL amongst all Bessas... Larger than famed M3's viewfinder EBL, and superior to all Leicas except the .86 M6 by little... The R4M is another thing: it was designed for an ultrawide view without using external finders. And it is possible for the very first time in history.


Before unwrapping my R4M, and for weeks, I was wondering if I could focus my 40mm Nokton at f/1.4... I thought it wouldn't be possible, but, it can be easily done! I already checked it with a 22x loupe on my just developed first two rolls. I have heard it's not that easy with fast tele lenses wide open... But for a 40 or a 50, I find it easy and fast.


I'm not an optics expert as to say if your glasses are being a decisive factor here...


Superb camera, the R4M! Enjoy it!

 

[spiderfrank]

I don't have an OM-2N (only the cheap OM-10), but I have a Bessa R, a Fed2, a Fed3 and a Kiev II: the Kiev II is the best "focusing tool": it has a 0.9 (I think) magnification and a huge rangefinder base (something like 90mm), so the effective rangefinder base is 81mm, that's really much more than what the little Bessa can do.
Take a look here for a table of the rangefinder accuracy of the Bessas

http://cameraquest.com/voigtchart2.htm

Your R4m has a EBL of 19.24 mm (less than a quarter of the Kiev)

Franco

 

[wgerrard]

Juan, to be clear, I'm not questioning the R4M's ability to focus. I find it is often difficult to clearly see what's going on inside the patch. That's not because the patch is dim or obscured. It's because the images in the patch are so small that I frequently can't be certain when they're aligned. Every thing else in the finder is equally reduced in size, of course. If the image was larger, focusing would be that much easier.

The Oly only highlighted a problem that I'd been living with.

 

[Keith]

Ahh ... aging eyes! I know where you're at and feel your pain.

You do realise the next stage is autofocus! 😛

 

[thomasw_]

Hi, I understand your woes OP. I require the highest possible magnification in order to clearly focus with a RF. That's why I have had trouble shooting with a ,58x MP and even some difficulty focussing my fast 75 on a ,72x VF. So what did I try? 1. I tried using 1,35x megaperls and a Leica 1,25x VF magnifier on my ,72 and ,58 VFs: the verdict:> they both were lame for me. As I like to shoot 35 50 and 75 lenses, I soon realized the best compromise was using a ,85x VF for all 3 of my focal lengths. It allows me to focus with both eyes open and this helps a lot when focussing my 35s, as I can really see outside the frame and inside the frame when composing. btw, I even tried using a 1,25x magnifier to see if it would help me with the ,85x VF: the verdict:> it dimmed the RF PATCH, it was lame.

I think the r4* VF mag is ~.52x.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

"Juan, to be clear, I'm not questioning the R4M's ability to focus."

Bill, I never felt you were questioning it...

"I find it is often difficult to clearly see what's going on inside the patch."

Yes, I understood your point before...

"That's not because the patch is dim or obscured."

I know it's very bright and clear...

"It's because the images in the patch are so small that I frequently can't be certain when they're aligned."

That's why I came to write to you. Because for me it has been so simple that I thought there must be an optical solution for you. Both my eyes went through surgery 15 years ago and my vision is not 100%... Maybe your glasses make it a little harder somehow...

I never mind about anyone talking in any bad way about any camera I happily use, 'cause I didn't design any of them... But more seriously, who cares about using the best cameras? Me! And I know you use the best cameras too 'cause you have that R4M.

Regards,

Juan

 

[wgerrard]

Apologies, Juan. I didn't mean to annoy. Blame my inability to express my problem clearly.

Without glasses, my eyes are very weak, especially the left eye. With glasses, my vision is essentially 20/20.

I really think its down to the magnification in the R4M, which actually is negative magnification. Subjectively, its finder is as bright and as big as the OM-2N's. The focusing mechanism of the Oly is not that unlike the patch in a rangefinder. When I focus the Bessa on something within, say, 10-15 feet, no problem. Farther way, I have problems. For example, a clump of trees grows about 20 feet from my living room window. If I go outside and try to focus on the leaves on those trees from a distance of 20 feet or so, I'll spend 2-3 minutes with it and still not be certain. I can't tell when the images are aligned. Same thing happens if I try to focus on the vertical railings along my deck. At a distance greater than 15 feet or so, it's tough.

 

[Benjamin]

Try an M3?

 

[wgerrard]

Try an M3?

No, but I'm definitely thinking about it.

 

[tedwhite]

Wonder what the EBL is on the original Bessa R? The chart doesn't show the Bessa R.

Not being a young guy, I too have trouble with rangefinder patches, especially since my last professional SLR was the Maxxum 7 with its superb auto-focus system. But with rangefinders I've gotten fairly good (practice is everything) at estimating distances and the old hyperfocal thing. Plus using mostly a 28mm lens on my RF really helps.

 

[Al Kaplan]

When the images are aligned the visual CONTRAST in the rangefinder patch increases. You don't have to see clearly enough to actually align the two images visually. Just look for that sudden "POP" in image contrast.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

 

[Rob-F]

Your question included Leica options, so I'll comment. First of all, I wear glasses with a prescription that runs around -4.5 diopters plus around -1.25 cylinder (astigmatism). Fairly thick glasses, in other words. I'm also 68, and the doctor says she can see the beginnings of cararacts. I have and use Leica rangefinders with .58, .72, and .91 finders. Having not bothered to put in my contacts in the last 2 years, I now shoot mainly with the .58 finders (on M6 and MP), because I can see my wide-angle framelines the best with them. I'm having no trouble focusing well with the .58 Leicas. I simply use auxiliary finders for lenses wider than 28mm.

So: not having tried an R4 (curious, though) I can't compare directly, but I can say the Leica .58 works for me.

BTW, I did a quick calculation. The .72 finder is the highest magnification that enables use of the 28mm frameline. So I tried this: 21/28 times .72 comes out .54. And that would still be tight, especially with glasses. I am guessing that the r4 might be closer to .50.

Best,

Rob

 

[wgerrard]

When the images are aligned the visual CONTRAST in the rangefinder patch increases. You don't have to see clearly enough to actually align the two images visually. Just look for that sudden "POP" in image contrast.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

I'm sitting here playing with the R4M and can't say I notice any change in contrast, POP or otherwise. Something reasonably close with vertical lines is fairly easy to focus on. Something without vertical lines, like a face, not so much.

I guess I really need to try some other cameras with different viewfinders.

 

[wgerrard]

Your question included Leica options, so I'll comment. First of all, I wear glasses with a prescription that runs around -4.5 diopters plus around -1.25 cylinder (astigmatism).

Rob

Thanks, Rob. My prescription is about the same as yours, except that I'm 61 and already had lens replacement surgery to deal with cataracts. (Too much time in very sunny climes without sunglasses.) If and when you need the same surgery, be sure and ask your physician how much correction can be built into your new lens. With luck, sometimes the correction can eliminate the need for the glasses.

 

[lngu81]

I thought it will be easier once you are familar with it, since I use scale focusing on wide angle lenses and only need the viewfinder to double check the focus. Yet I have to admit, 0.5 magnification is quite annoying, so I only have the R3M now

 

[Tuolumne]

When the images are aligned the visual CONTRAST in the rangefinder patch increases. You don't have to see clearly enough to actually align the two images visually. Just look for that sudden "POP" in image contrast.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

I must confess I have never seen such a POP, but I have never looked for it either. I will have to give that a studied try.

/T

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

When the images are aligned the visual CONTRAST in the rangefinder patch increases. You don't have to see clearly enough to actually align the two images visually. Just look for that sudden "POP" in image contrast.

That's it... When I don't have contrasty shapes to focus clearly, I find a somewhat flat scene's section to focus -composed of two unaligned images- is visually dull and unpleasant, with impossible mixed forms and illumination, and when in focus, there's an evident change in contrast and character, it becomes more "real".