R2A or R3A: Just depends on framelines & magnification?

[arnopoon]

Hi everyone,

I am very new to rangefinder and I am thinking of having one to try. I prefer new product and AE function so there isn't any choices for that (M7, Zeiss Ikon, R2A and R3A). I have several questions (sorry, perhaps very "entry" level) about rangefinder, and also choosing of R2A and R3A.

I have read several camera forums and searched the differences / making decision between R2A and R3A. Most of the users have similar replies: It depends whether you need 35mm or 40mm lens, then whether you like the 1:1 magnification viewfinder, and then whether you wear glasses or not...etc.

I am not sure whether the 1:1 and 0.7x magnification if that really matter? In what case will that make great differences? In practical, does it mean 1:1 can use both eyes open for focusing and framing, and that's just only for this purpose? But then can R3A still able to framing with one eye open? Frankly, I am not familiar with framing and focusing by using both eyes open.

So if I choose R3A, and use 35mm lens. As it have 40mm framelines so does 35mm lens is also easy to frame, by guessing a bit wider through the viewfinder?

I don't wear glasses. I am planning to either having VC 1.2/35 or ZM 2/35 with Bessa. So I am pretty sure I won't go for 40mm. The next one should be either 50mm or wider lens (e.g. 21mm or 24mm). I also want to try 75mm lens but this shouldn't be in the highest priority to get it.

Should I choose R2A, or R3A? Or it is just ONLY need to concern whether I use 35 or 40mm lens? Will there have any other concerns and differences that current R2A and R3A users can tell me more?

Thank you so much.

 

[Huck Finn]

Arnopoon, the lenses that are the most demanding to focus accurately are longer, faster lenses. The increased magnification of the 1.0x viewfinder makes it more accurate, but such precision is not necessary with the wider angle lenses that you are considering due to their depth of field.

The R2A is perfectly adequate for focusing even a 75 mm lens with a maximum aperture of f/2.5 or smaller, i.e. f/2.8, f/4, etc. and a 90 mm lens of f/3.5 or smaller as well as a 50 mm lens up to f/1.4.

Given your interests, I see no benefit to the R3A, and would choose the R2A.

Huck

 

[f/stopblues]

This page at Stephen Gandy's site has everything you ever wanted to know about these two cameras:

http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtr2ar3a.htm

I personally chose the R2A because I usually use shorter lenses, so the 35mm framelines were a plus and many people use the outside perimeter of the viewfinder to approximate 28mm. In contrast, the R3A's widest frameline is 40mm.

You probably have seen this, but the R2A has framelines for 35, 50, 75, 90 and the whole viewfinder approximates 28.

The R3A has 40, 50, 75, 90.

40 and 50mm seem too close IMO.

Hope this helps a bit! Feel free to ask away on these cameras.. I recently agonized over which of these to buy. Welcome to the forum by the way!

 

[f/stopblues]

Oh, and that's good info from Huck about the 1:1 finder BTW!

 

[tetrisattack]

If your primary focal length is 35mm, then it should be a no-brainer: go with the R2A! The R3A doesn't even have framelines for 35, and it probably wouldn't be terribly comfortable to jam your eyes up to the 1:1 finder trying to see the "approximate" FOV for 35.

Neither camera will be particularly accurate at framing 24mm, and if you later get a 75, both cameras will be able to frame it roughly the same (judging by the frameline diagrams on that cameraquest page, the most notable difference is in the wide end).

Also, it's not as if you can't compose with both eyes open on an R2A. I guess it sort of depends on how your brain is wired, but the lower-mag finder has never stopped me. 🙂

And both cameras are excellent, beautiful things, so worry not about durability and ergonomics.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I went for the R3a because I've gotten used to 40mm with my other favorite camera (Minilux).

You can right-eye shoot and more or less ignore the framelines, if you are using the 40mm lens. Sounds a little crazy but it actually works. Try a roll yourself and see.

SLR is about framing and RF is about about getting in there and being there....

 

[George S.]

I also agonized over which to buy, and chose the R3A, but I was never able to see the entire 40mm frame, and I don't wear glasses. I can't imagine how someone can say they use the entire VF for a 35mm framing, when I can't even see 40mm.

I recently sold the "3" and ordered the "2" and it arrived today. I think it'll suit me much better. I was glad to hear from Chris's post above that the entire VF of the "2" approximates 28mm, as that is what I've done with my Leica CL and it works, so any switching I do between the CL and the R2A should be easier.

I'd echo what others have told you, that if 35mm is your usual lens length, then the R2A is the hands-down winner.

Tip- Photovillage has the R2A/R3A for $539 and for $1 extra they'll include the Bessa L case, which the lower half fits the "2" and "3" perfectly I'm told.

 

[Frank Granovski]

George, are you using a 40mm lens with your R2A? If so, this isn't a problem? (I wear glasses as well and my eye sight ain't what it used to be.) Thanks.

 

[George S.]

I do plan on using the 40mm Summicron-C from the CL kit. I don't expect it to be a problem, ( I say "expect" because my R2A literally just arrived!) because framelines, and even the stated focal length of any given lens can vary. I'll just use the 35mm frame and test it out with a few shots carefully framed. I don't see it as a potential problem at all. I've been guesstimating the entire VF of the CL as a 28mm for a while with no issues, something I can now also do with the R2A. My lenses are: 25,28,40,75,90, so I feel I'll only need the accessory VF with the 25, which I'd need with any camera I'd choose anyway. ( I know, I'm weird- no 35mm, no 50mm. But that's because I love the 40mm field of view so much)

 

[bmicklea]

Since you mentioned the wide angles (21mm or 25mm) my advice is to get the one that suits your style better. I grabbed the 21 which I love mainly because it featured rangefinder-coupled focusing and being new to RFs I figured this was pretty important. But now that I've lived with it for awhile I can tell you that 99% of the shots I take with it are scale-focused. In fact, I've started using scale- or hyperfocal-focusing whenever possible - it's incredibly liberating to be able to fire off shots without needing to worry about focus. Then, once you get comfortable with guesstimating your exposure and not "chasing the meter" you'll be set to take pictures faster than any hopped-up Nikon-Canon-12-frames-a-second-rapid-fire maniac.

Oh, and you'll be able to do it discretely and without lugging a suitcase of equipment around with you...seriously, it's a great feeling.

brad