sv1cec
Member
Hey folks,
I am a newbie here obviously, and a newbie in rangefinder cameras. A few words about me.
I started photography when I was 18 years old. A Russian Zenith was my first camera, followed by my beloved Nikon F2 Photomic. Stupidly enough I exchanged the F2 for an F3 after a few years, I never got to love the F3, I hated it every time I grabbed it. Fast forward to about 10 years ago, when I got tired of carrying the huge bag with the F3, an FM, 4 Nikkor lenses, motors etc around, and went digital with a Sony camera, which was later replaced by the then new Nikon D80.
A few days ago, however, a discussion in my forums site, re-ignited the ... analog bug. At this moment, I am waiting for a mint Nikon F2A Photomic, a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor AI, a 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor AI etc. plus the reason I am here for, a Voigtlander R3M 250th Anniversary edition with a 50mm f/2 Heliar lens. I got the camera from Stephen @ CameraQuest, and if USPS does what we paid them to do, I should have it in my hands by next Thursday (long story).
Stephen introduced me to this board, and i spend some hours this morning reading through the various threads. Being a total newbie to rangefinders and not having the camera in my hands yet, I have some questions for you guys, and I thought I would ask them, after this bried (long?) introduction.
1. Am I correct in assuming that the R3M rangefinder is showing an image of what's in front of the camera, and that the brightlines denote what will be registered on the film (more or less)? Please keep in mind, I am talking about the 50 mm lens.
2. If the answer to (1) above is yes, I assume that a wider angle lens will cover more area of the image shown in the viewfinder, than a standard or a telephoto lens. Correct?
3. Again, assuming that the answer to the above is "Correct", what lens would correspond to the entire image in the viewfinder? I assume a wide-angle one, but which one would be covering more of the shown image? In other words, which lens would give an image on the film, equal to the one shown in the viewfinder?
4. Since the R3M I am getting, doesn't have brightlines for any lens wider than 40 mm, if the answer to (3) is (for example) 28 mm, I assume that I could just leave the brightlines adjustment to any focal length and use the entire viewfinder to frame my pictures? Will focusing still work OK? Or will I have problems with paralax as the lens is focused to closer distances?
I plan to use the R3M in that configuration for quick snapshots, more like a point-and-shoot camera, to capture kids playing, or animals etc. In that role, the deep depth of field of a wide-angle should correct any focusing mistakes, while good lighting conditions would eliminate most aperture and shutter speed adjustment errors.
Your thoughts on that matter would be really appreciated.
Finally, one more question: What's a "collapsible" lens?
Thank you for your attention.
I am a newbie here obviously, and a newbie in rangefinder cameras. A few words about me.
I started photography when I was 18 years old. A Russian Zenith was my first camera, followed by my beloved Nikon F2 Photomic. Stupidly enough I exchanged the F2 for an F3 after a few years, I never got to love the F3, I hated it every time I grabbed it. Fast forward to about 10 years ago, when I got tired of carrying the huge bag with the F3, an FM, 4 Nikkor lenses, motors etc around, and went digital with a Sony camera, which was later replaced by the then new Nikon D80.
A few days ago, however, a discussion in my forums site, re-ignited the ... analog bug. At this moment, I am waiting for a mint Nikon F2A Photomic, a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor AI, a 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor AI etc. plus the reason I am here for, a Voigtlander R3M 250th Anniversary edition with a 50mm f/2 Heliar lens. I got the camera from Stephen @ CameraQuest, and if USPS does what we paid them to do, I should have it in my hands by next Thursday (long story).
Stephen introduced me to this board, and i spend some hours this morning reading through the various threads. Being a total newbie to rangefinders and not having the camera in my hands yet, I have some questions for you guys, and I thought I would ask them, after this bried (long?) introduction.
1. Am I correct in assuming that the R3M rangefinder is showing an image of what's in front of the camera, and that the brightlines denote what will be registered on the film (more or less)? Please keep in mind, I am talking about the 50 mm lens.
2. If the answer to (1) above is yes, I assume that a wider angle lens will cover more area of the image shown in the viewfinder, than a standard or a telephoto lens. Correct?
3. Again, assuming that the answer to the above is "Correct", what lens would correspond to the entire image in the viewfinder? I assume a wide-angle one, but which one would be covering more of the shown image? In other words, which lens would give an image on the film, equal to the one shown in the viewfinder?
4. Since the R3M I am getting, doesn't have brightlines for any lens wider than 40 mm, if the answer to (3) is (for example) 28 mm, I assume that I could just leave the brightlines adjustment to any focal length and use the entire viewfinder to frame my pictures? Will focusing still work OK? Or will I have problems with paralax as the lens is focused to closer distances?
I plan to use the R3M in that configuration for quick snapshots, more like a point-and-shoot camera, to capture kids playing, or animals etc. In that role, the deep depth of field of a wide-angle should correct any focusing mistakes, while good lighting conditions would eliminate most aperture and shutter speed adjustment errors.
Your thoughts on that matter would be really appreciated.
Finally, one more question: What's a "collapsible" lens?
Thank you for your attention.
Kozhe
Well-known
Hi and wellcome!
1. Not sure what you mean... The image you see is not a reflex one, so even in camaras with parallax corrected viewfinders you´ll have issues. You see thru the rangefidner window, not the lens. Brightlines show the apropiate film "coverage". Once again this is "more or less" since focusing close or far (as far as I understood) changes framing. For close focus, frames cover less surface than what you get on film, for far focus, they are bigger than real. Someone please correct this if I´m wrong!
Honestly I really don´t care about this "issue", it has to do with the kind of photography you do, I guess.
2. You have diferent frames for diferent focals. The R3M has three positions, they change only the superposed frames, not the image you see.
3. For the R3M it´s like a 35. You have no 35 frames in the R3M but 40mm. Not a big deal anyway. It´s NOT the image you see, John, it´s the FRAMES what´s showing you what you get on film. Rangefinders have nothing to do with reflex. Nothing.
4. Focusing will work. You´ll allways have parallax problems at one point or another.
Using rangefinders for snapshots is great since that´s exactly where they are better than a noisy and heavy slr. I also have an F2 and that´s just a diferent kind of beast. With a wide lens you can prefocus or use hyperfocals and just shoot from the hip or use the viewfinder for fast framing.
Collapsible means that the lens can be retracted inwards so it takes less space when you´re not using it. Of course you cannot use the lens retracted or you´ll get a compeltely unfocus image.
1. Not sure what you mean... The image you see is not a reflex one, so even in camaras with parallax corrected viewfinders you´ll have issues. You see thru the rangefidner window, not the lens. Brightlines show the apropiate film "coverage". Once again this is "more or less" since focusing close or far (as far as I understood) changes framing. For close focus, frames cover less surface than what you get on film, for far focus, they are bigger than real. Someone please correct this if I´m wrong!
Honestly I really don´t care about this "issue", it has to do with the kind of photography you do, I guess.2. You have diferent frames for diferent focals. The R3M has three positions, they change only the superposed frames, not the image you see.
3. For the R3M it´s like a 35. You have no 35 frames in the R3M but 40mm. Not a big deal anyway. It´s NOT the image you see, John, it´s the FRAMES what´s showing you what you get on film. Rangefinders have nothing to do with reflex. Nothing.
4. Focusing will work. You´ll allways have parallax problems at one point or another.
Using rangefinders for snapshots is great since that´s exactly where they are better than a noisy and heavy slr. I also have an F2 and that´s just a diferent kind of beast. With a wide lens you can prefocus or use hyperfocals and just shoot from the hip or use the viewfinder for fast framing.
Collapsible means that the lens can be retracted inwards so it takes less space when you´re not using it. Of course you cannot use the lens retracted or you´ll get a compeltely unfocus image.
sv1cec
Member
Thank you for your answer, much appreciated.
I understand that with a rangefinder, I am not looking through the lens, so I am not seeing what the film will register. And that you have to use the brightlines to get an idea of what approximately will register on the film. What I want to avoid (and maybe I didn't clarify it very well) is the usage of the brightlines. In other words, if we assume that there were brightlines for every lens focal length, is there a lens whose brightlines would cover the entire viewfinder? So that a quick peak inside it will show you approximately what will register on the film? I do not want to look in the finder and focus my attention on the square made by the brightlines, to figure out what the final image will be.
What I am trying to find, is what lens frame will cover more of the image viewable inside the viewfinder, I guess.
Or am I asking for the impossible and no matter what lens you install there will always be more image viewable in the viewfinder than what will be on the film??
Darn, I wish I could explain it better.
I understand that with a rangefinder, I am not looking through the lens, so I am not seeing what the film will register. And that you have to use the brightlines to get an idea of what approximately will register on the film. What I want to avoid (and maybe I didn't clarify it very well) is the usage of the brightlines. In other words, if we assume that there were brightlines for every lens focal length, is there a lens whose brightlines would cover the entire viewfinder? So that a quick peak inside it will show you approximately what will register on the film? I do not want to look in the finder and focus my attention on the square made by the brightlines, to figure out what the final image will be.
What I am trying to find, is what lens frame will cover more of the image viewable inside the viewfinder, I guess.
Or am I asking for the impossible and no matter what lens you install there will always be more image viewable in the viewfinder than what will be on the film??
Darn, I wish I could explain it better.
Last edited:
Austerby
Well-known
I think your question is clear but the answer is less so. On the R3a the framelines for the widest lens (40mm) are at the outer edges of the viewfinder so perhaps the extremities may support a slightly wider lens.
However, there are a couple of points to consider:
a) the way you look through the viewfinder will affect the amount you see of it, for example if you wear glasses then you may find the 40mm framelines are already out of view.
b) one of the features of rangefinders compared to SLRs is that you can see more than the lens, so it's the bits outside the framelines help you spot a better composition, or a distraction coming your way as you are composing the scene. I like to have space around the frames for just this reason.
One of the lovely things about the R3a/m is that the viewfinder magnification is 1:1 which means you can use the camera with both eyes open - the framelines will then appear to float in front of you which makes it easy to use for just the scenarios you mention.
Hope this helps.
However, there are a couple of points to consider:
a) the way you look through the viewfinder will affect the amount you see of it, for example if you wear glasses then you may find the 40mm framelines are already out of view.
b) one of the features of rangefinders compared to SLRs is that you can see more than the lens, so it's the bits outside the framelines help you spot a better composition, or a distraction coming your way as you are composing the scene. I like to have space around the frames for just this reason.
One of the lovely things about the R3a/m is that the viewfinder magnification is 1:1 which means you can use the camera with both eyes open - the framelines will then appear to float in front of you which makes it easy to use for just the scenarios you mention.
Hope this helps.
sv1cec
Member
OK, so in reality, the 40mm lens is "shown" in the viewfinder to almost match the whole area of the viewfinder. Good to know, so if I were to use a wider lens, let's say a 35mm lens or a 28mm one, the viewfinder becomes useless and one has to use an external finder?
One more question if you do not mind.
Please look at the pic below.
As you can see, in this picture, there is a tube connecting the rear part of the lens to the front one. Is that how the lens is, when taking pictures? And it is collapsed to this position shown below, for storage or carrying???
Again, I apologize for these questions, which may sound silly to the experienced users, but I still have almost a week before my camera arrives, and I can't just find the answers myself.
Many thanks to all.
One more question if you do not mind.
Please look at the pic below.
As you can see, in this picture, there is a tube connecting the rear part of the lens to the front one. Is that how the lens is, when taking pictures? And it is collapsed to this position shown below, for storage or carrying???
Again, I apologize for these questions, which may sound silly to the experienced users, but I still have almost a week before my camera arrives, and I can't just find the answers myself.
Many thanks to all.
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The lens should be extended and the barrel turned to lock it in place when shooting. You can also collapse it when carrying. The Heliar is the only collapsible lens that is safe to collapse on a Bessa camera because it doesn't collapse very far into the body.
Peter_Jones
Well-known
Yes you are correct, the lens is manually extended for use by pulling out then twisting to lock in place and collapsed when not in use. (Oops, cross posting - must type faster)
Welcome to the forum, don't worry about asking "silly" questions as there are photographers of all levels of experience on this site, nobody will look down on you.
Welcome to the forum, don't worry about asking "silly" questions as there are photographers of all levels of experience on this site, nobody will look down on you.
sv1cec
Member
I was afraid of that. Is the 40mm lens the same style? Collapsible, I mean? I can't stand the looks of this lens when it's extended. Something tells me that I'll soon be selling the 50mm and replace it with a 40mm if this last one is not collapsible.
And thanks for the kind words, sincerely appreciated.
And thanks for the kind words, sincerely appreciated.
Austerby
Well-known
The 40mm is not a collapsible lens.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
It's mostly 50mm lenses that collapse, a tradition going back to the earliest days of the Leica camera. There have been 90mm lenses that collapse but none in the current line-up.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Al,
Have they dropped the Makro-Elmar? I hadn't noticed (which might explain why they dropped it, if they have -- not enough people noticed it).
Bit to answer John's question, brightlines are dead easy to use, and it's nice to be able to see what's going on outside the frame.
Cheers,
Roger
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I don't know if they dropped the Makro-Elmar. I will remind everybody, though, that the Dual-Range Summicron at its closest focusing distance with the "goggles" in place covers exactly the same subject area as the standard 90mm lenses do at their closest focusing distances. You'll have less paralax when using the 90 as a bonus.
kshapero
South Florida Man
John Caradimas, your avatar (the gun) is kind of creepy, IMHO. Good luck with film, you will love it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Al,
You know, I'd never noticed that! Amazing! Thanks.
This must be why I've never felt a real need for a DR, apart from the screw-up in Shutterbug where I said it was incredibly sharp on an M8. Well, it is (I borrowed one), but it won't focus any further away than about 8 feet. Which was all I tested (it was the depths of winter, and cold and dark and... I screwed up).
Cheers,
R.
sv1cec
Member
Thank you Sir!
I can hardly wait for my new toys. Something tells me this is going to be a very interesting summer, at least photography-wise.
sv1cec
Member
My friend, guns are tools, like a screwdriver. It's the person behind it that makes it good or evil.
And it's not my first taste of film, as I said I used to be an amateur photographer for years, during the pre-digital period. I am just returning to the film, after an almost-10-years absence.
I discovered that the good old Kodachrome 64 is still available, only now it is only developed in US, the EU factory is shut down. And Ilford B&W films are still around, which is a good thing.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear John,
I completely agree. I also agree with Al that pistol shooting will help you hold your camera steadier. I own several pistols, most notably a Colt .45 National Match from the 1930s and a Ruger stainless-frame .44 magnum.
There's even a photo of a pistol among the 50-60 others on my séjour wall. Monochrome, with the only colour the red dot of the 'off' position when the safety catch is released. Moral? As you say, everything depends on when you release the safety catch...
But while I'd assiduously avoid the grossly over-used word 'creepy' I'd have to agree that it seems to an odd choice for an avatar. What does it say about you and your photography? Either too much or (as I suspect) nothing.
Tashi delek,
R.
sv1cec
Member
If you go to M1911.ORG, which is my Internet organization dedicated to the M1911 pistol, you will see that that's the avatar I am using in all my sites. So while it may say nothing about my photography or my photographic skills, it is something that describes me and my 15-years work on the 1911. And I guess an avatar is exactly that, a little image that describes you.
As for my photographic skills, I hate to admit it but for the last years, I have never had the urge to explore photography as an expression tool. I guess there were so many things to do in my life, that I had very little interest in artistically expressing myself. With my twin kids now being 7 years old, and my work being more or less established, I guess I can start doing more of the things I love, photography being one of them. We'll see how it goes.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear John,
As I suspected, then, it says nothing about your photography. On a 'photo forum, I don't use my BMW R100RS as an avatar, or my Series III Land Rover, or my Colt National Match. If I used anything, it would be a portrait of me (which accompanies my 'photo and LR columns in magazines).
I'm not trying to be awkward, and I'd hate to make you feel unwelcome here: yours is a great site which I shall explore at far greater length, not least looking for information on my National Match which was bought new by my late father-in-law in about 1935 as far as I know (he is long dead). It's a stunning gun. But if even I can be puzzled at your choice of avatar, others might be downright unhappy.
Tashi delek,
R.
As I suspected, then, it says nothing about your photography. On a 'photo forum, I don't use my BMW R100RS as an avatar, or my Series III Land Rover, or my Colt National Match. If I used anything, it would be a portrait of me (which accompanies my 'photo and LR columns in magazines).
I'm not trying to be awkward, and I'd hate to make you feel unwelcome here: yours is a great site which I shall explore at far greater length, not least looking for information on my National Match which was bought new by my late father-in-law in about 1935 as far as I know (he is long dead). It's a stunning gun. But if even I can be puzzled at your choice of avatar, others might be downright unhappy.
Tashi delek,
R.
JFH
Established
John:
Just a little solidarity here.. I don't think your avatar is creepy. I just uploaded one for myself, hope it works. It's my ugly self inspecting some of my work with a borescope. I build precision rifles in my retirement, and I love that, photography, motorcycles, history, and a variety of other things.... Enough that I'm bound to run into someone from time to time who takes exception. Their problem, not mine.
Just a little solidarity here.. I don't think your avatar is creepy. I just uploaded one for myself, hope it works. It's my ugly self inspecting some of my work with a borescope. I build precision rifles in my retirement, and I love that, photography, motorcycles, history, and a variety of other things.... Enough that I'm bound to run into someone from time to time who takes exception. Their problem, not mine.