R2a and R3a Info...

[rover]

On Steve's site it says that "metered manual exposure is also possible" under the 'What is Aperture Priority?' heading. I would assume that means if the battery fails you can still use the camera, just no metering and probably wouldn't function in 'A' mode as well; or am I reading that wrong?

Kirk, the camera has an electronic shutter which will operate in Aperture Priority mode, or manual metering mode, but it remains electronic. There is no mention that it will operate without batteries as the Nikon FM3a does. There probably are one or two speeds that it will operate without batteries, but I have not seen that specific detail yet. There had been speculation that the shutter would be electronic with full mechanical back-up ala the FM3a. It is obviously not the same shutter as used in the Nikon since the top shutter speed is 1/2000, not 1/4000. Perhaps I am not too much a purist to say, "no big deal." I have rearly had batteries die on me while shooting, and the batteries this camera takes are sold everywhere.

 

[rover]

I'm with Peter and taffer. That 40mm Nokton is a sweet lens at a very decent price - $349 - wow! But Gandy says the S.C. version is only for the Japanese market?

CV 40/1.4 Nokton

Made for the Japanese market, but he says that he will be selling both versions of the lens in the States. The availability catch may be that he states that the S.C. version is a limited production lens with a production run of 500.

 

[rover]

Contemplated the 40/1.4, but I think I'll wait to see how the performance is before deciding.

Me too. I'm really interested in it but I would want to use it at f1.4. So I'm going to wait for the reports.

What I don't get is this "Classic" and "S.C." designation. What is the difference between the "imagery of single coated lenses to multi-coated lenses" as Gandy puts it? I thought coating had to do with light transmission and glare reflectance rather than imagery. Maybe the single coat has less contrast?

TBD I guess. In my mind I am thinking of the difference of that classic Leica "glow" vs the smoother classic Contax image.?😕

I think though of the good reviews that the 50 Nokton enjoys and think we can have high expectations for this lens.

 

[Huck Finn]

I'm kind of surprised about the releases. The R2A and R3A are just too similiar, and i think will take sales away from each other. And if the R3A's outside edges of the frame cover 35mm, why will anyone buy the R2A?

I would have thought CV could have released a R3WA, R3NA, R3TA - covering wide, normal and telephoto. The R3WA having 21/28/35 framelines, the R3NA covering 35/50/75, and the R3TA 50/75/90. I would have lined up to get the WA and a TA.

Mourges, I agree that the production of 2 cameras that are so similar appears to be overkill.

But why buy the R2A? The R2A allows you to go wider since its outside edges approximate 28mm coverage. In addition, it is harder to compose using the outside edges, so many people would rather have the 35 mm framelines. I think that the question they have to answer is why buy the R3A since the R2A is more traditional. I think that they have done this by offering the higher magnification & the fast 40 pancake.

I think that this is emulating the Leica M6 philosophy of providing different viewfinder magnifications for different users. I'm surprised that they didn't provide 28mm framelines on the R2A to provide 2 more distinctly different cameras - even if this meant a viewfinder magnification of .6 like the Konica Hexar RF.

It is unlikely that many CV users would buy both the 35 & 40 mm lenses, so you make your choice & go with the camera body that best fits your needs. The higher viewfinder magnification will make it easier to focus longer lenses. Does anyone see a 90/2.5 in the offing?

Back in the '70s, Leica marketed the CL as the ideal 2 lens (40 & 90) travel kit. A similar marketing approach by Cosina would answer your question, Mourges, & the question of all prospective buyers who wonder why I should switch from more traditional focal lengths to a camera with 40mm for its candid lens. The answer to the question would be: R2A for the traditional 35-50-90 lens kit, R3A for a 40-90 travel kit.

I think that the R3A is a very creative of Cosina to figure out a way to accomodate faster long lenses for those who are more interested in this end of the spectrum. It has been done by crimping the wide angle range a little bit.

 

[Huck Finn]

I'm with Peter and taffer. That 40mm Nokton is a sweet lens at a very decent price - $349 - wow! But Gandy says the S.C. version is only for the Japanese market?

CV 40/1.4 Nokton

Peter, I read Gandy to be saying that he will have both versions available.

EDit: Oops! I hadn't noticed that Rover already made this comment. Sorry.

 

[rover]

Mourges, I agree that the production of 2 cameras that are so similar appears to be overkill.

But why buy the R2A? The R2A allows you to go wider since its outside edges approximate 28mm coverage. In addition, it is harder to compose using the outside edges, so many people would rather have the 35 mm framelines. I think that the question they have to answer is why buy the R3A since the R2A is more traditional. I think that they have done this by offering the higher magnification & the fast 40 pancake.

I think that this is emulating the Leica M6 philosophy of providing different viewfinder magnifications for different users. I'm surprised that they didn't provide 28mm framelines on the R2A to provide 2 more distinctly different cameras - even if this meant a viewfinder magnification of .6 like the Konica Hexar RF.

It is unlikely that many CV users would buy both the 35 & 40 mm lenses, so you make your choice & go with the camera body that best fits your needs. The higher viewfinder magnification will make it easier to focus longer lenses. Does anyone see a 90/2.5 in the offing?

Back in the '70s, Leica marketed the CL as the ideal 2 lens (40 & 90) travel kit. A similar marketing approach by Cosina would answer your question, Mourges, & the question of all prospective buyers who wonder why I should switch from more traditional focal lengths to a camera with 40mm for its candid lens. The answer to the question would be: R2A for the traditional 35-50-90 lens kit, R3A for a 40-90 travel kit.

I think that the R3A is a very creative of Cosina to figure out a way to accomodate faster long lenses for those who are more interested in this end of the spectrum. It has been done by crimping the wide angle range a little bit.

Huck, the one thing that they do give up to Leica though is the abiltiy of one camera to do it all. With it's long baselength rangefinder, a .72 Leica has no problem focusing long fast lenses, and has usable 28mm frame lines. As good as the new CV offerings are, the photographer still has to make a decision, should I choose a camera that has 35mm framelines and an approximation of 28mm, but will be challenged up close and wide open with long lenses, or should I forget the convenience of wide angle frame lines and be able to use my normal and tele lenses without a problem?

That being said, you can buy both the R2a and R3a for only 40% of a new M7 or MP and your shoulder will bear the burden of a heavier bag, instead of your wallet.

 

[RML]

Perhaps I am not too much a purist to say, "no big deal." I have rearly had batteries die on me while shooting, and the batteries this camera takes are sold everywhere.

In 'normal' circumstances batteries won't die easily. But we all know that when winter comes and the temperature drops deep down, batteries have a nack of not working when you need them. For my future trips to Mongolia in winter I'm sure to bring a non-battery operated camera.

Next month I'll have a chance to put both the CL and the Bessa R to the cold test. I'm curious to see when the CL's battery will give in and fail. 🙂

 

[RML]

I agree with Huck that it would have made a bit more sense to aim either new Bessa at a slightly different audience. The R3A just seems to beg for 40/50/90 framelines, while the R2A would be perfect with 28/35/50 framelines.

Now that would have made the choice much more difficult for us punters. Some of us would even be "forced" to get both.... 🙂

 

[taunusreiter]

Since I'm not a R2-owner yet (but happy with my Bessa-R and a bunge of LTM lenses) this R3A looks very hot to me, expecially with the 1.4/40 lens...

I already have a 1.7/35 which is a sharp lens, but I prefer my older and considerable more compact Canon 2/35 for my Bessa-R. Now this will get me selling the 1.7 Ultron..

The 40mm is a great niche idea. I always like my old Rollei 35S with its 2.8/40 "Sonnar".

The R2A/ R3A is also a great idea. No big additional cost to produce 2 line-ups. Also the 1:1 viewfinder... great for focussing higher speed lenses (longer RF baselength) or shooting with both eyes open. I like the 1:1 at my Canon-P, though the 35mm framelines are hard to see with eyeglasses at this old camera... but I estimate the Bessa-Viewfinder would be wider, brighter, and maybe this small lever at the rewind knob is really a diopter compensation...

Anyway, this one tooks about 95% what I expect from my next RF camera, and to *much* lesser cost that I would expect to pay for.

...seems that Cosina finished to closed season for Leica to some extend. Poor M7...

 

[iMacfan]

I am very interested in these new developments, but one thing on the CameraQuest page caught my eye:

The effective baselength on the R3A is still less than that on the low-magnification .58 Leicas.

Doesn't that have a slight whiff of missed opportunity to you?

David

 

[Jeroen]

Anyway, this one tooks about 95% what I expect from my next RF camera, and to *much* lesser cost that I would expect to pay for.

It might just be what I expect of my first M-mount RF

🙂

 

[Huck Finn]

I am very interested in these new developments, but one thing on the CameraQuest page caught my eye:

The effective baselength on the R3A is still less than that on the low-magnification .58 Leicas.

Doesn't that have a slight whiff of missed opportunity to you?

David

Yes, it's less than the .58 Leica, but it's still pretty darn close. Would it have been worth the re-design costs to get from 37 to 40? But there is a big difference between the two. With the .58 magnification, Leica was aiming at wide angles, i.e. 28. With its 1.0 magnification, the R3A has an opportunity to better accomodate longer lenses.

 

[Huck Finn]

I agree with Huck that it would have made a bit more sense to aim either new Bessa at a slightly different audience. The R3A just seems to beg for 40/50/90 framelines, while the R2A would be perfect with 28/35/50 framelines.

Now that would have made the choice much more difficult for us punters. Some of us would even be "forced" to get both.... 🙂

RML, it will be interesting to see what news breaks on the anticipated Zeiss-Ikon. So far, the hints on the Zeiss website suggest that it will cover the wide angle range of 21-50.

There is much speculation about who might have built this camera for Zeiss, including Konica-Minolta, Hasselblad, & Cosina. If the Cosina guess is correct, then maybe they avoided their own wide angle body to avoid competing with their sister product being sold under the Zeiss label. This is exactly what they did when they built a silver body for Rollei; they never produced one of their own.

 

[iMacfan]

Oh I understand completely, I was just making the point that the High mag Bessa still has a shorter EBL than the extra-wide Leica. Also, that huge gap round the rewind crank begs the question - why didn't they move the VF there, easily giving a much higher EBL.

David

 

[JohnL]

If I ever get another film camera (rather than digital) the R3A is likely to be it. The 1x viewfinder is the strongest factor in this choice for both eyes open and easier focussing. With my weakening eyesight, the magnification is an issue.
Next is the possible use of the full frame to roughly frame either 35mm or 28mm lenses. As I estimated in a previous post, the full frame corresponds to about a 33mm lens. This means it would be about 85% of a 28mm, which would be usable with both eyes open for street use.
Next would be the 40mm / 1.4 which is really small for a lens this fast. Hope the performance is up to expectations.
Next would be AE, which would probably be my default setting. Not clear from what I read so far, but I get the impression that first pressure on the shutter locks exposure, so you can then compose, focus and shoot. Anyone know if this is correct?
John

 

[rover]

There is an AE lock, I have not read how that is acheived though.

 

[Roger]

Re: Re: CV's new 40mm F/1.4

Re: Re: CV's new 40mm F/1.4

Thanks for the translation Roger 😀

Now, according to that, only 500 SC lenses will be made, how about a RFF special bulk order ? :angel:

Taffer. this is just to confirm that I was writing about the general 40/1.4 not the limited run S.C. version of this lens. Everything I said is true of the multicoated standard version. The S.C. version additionally puts back the clock to '50s lens coating as well as lens design. I don't think I will want to do that, although on the CVUG mailing list someone has said that S.C. may be one of the secrets of that elusive "plasticity" Leitz lens users talk about. I am waiting until there is an exhaustive review, hopefully with a comparison of general vs. S.C. version, in the Japanese mags. These are very good at describing subjective effects, and don't necessarily assume that good test figures mean a good lens. To avoid purely subjective (and possibly biased) opinions, the magazine I prefer (Nippon Camera) always has three or four different photographers do the same set of tests, and publishes their scores side by side. It's interesting to see the differences between the opinions of Canon and Nikon users on Nikon and Canon lenses, for instance! It also helps you to discount the bias when you can see it clearly reflected in the scores the lens gets... More magazines should do this!

 

[GeneW]

On CVUG today I asked if anybody knows what happens if the battery runs out on the new cams. Some suggested that 1/125 might still work.

Guess not. Here's Stephen Gandy's reply:

no battery, no pics

Gene

 

[sfaust]

I find the whole battery issue a moot point, with one exception being extreme cold weather. I just bring a fully manual camera for the rare times I shoot in very cold climates.

In order to make sure I am never without a spare set of batteries, I usually open up a seam in my camera strap and pop in a couple spare batteries. They have a long shelf life, will always be there just in case,
and are very small and unnoticed in the strap. I use them to replace the camera batteries when they are depleted, and then replace the strap batteries with new ones to 'rotate the stock'. I have a second set in the camera bag. I've never been left without batteries in 32 years of shooting, and I've only needed them once.

Doesn't work if the camera needs AA's or D cells 😀 😀

 

[back alley]

i wouldn't let battery dependency be the deciding factor in choosing a camera. it's true i like not needing a battery to operate a camera but it's not hard to keep a spare set or two in every camera bag.
as far as cold is concerned, i used to keep spares in my pocket if needed but that was rarely the case, even when i used to do the long hike in the country (in winter) thing.

joe