R2A / R3A viewfinder

[timg]

Can anyone tell me what the R2A or R3A viewfinders actually look like?
Is the RF image split or superimposed?

I'm badly tempted by an R3A, but AFAIK there are no shops near Geneva
where I can see one of these machines before buying.

Another question: when you fire the shutter, does the camera jolt like an
SLR? I have played with a Contax G2 and found it very easy to hold still
for long exposures (1/8s). Is the Voigtlander similar?

Thanks in advance,

-Tim

 

[dcsang]

Hmm... I've got an R3A and I would say it's a superimposed image but one could also say "split" too 🙂 If you mean split as in the Rangefinder patch is split; then I would say that it is most definitely superimposed .

As for the shutter - I certainly have never felt a jolt 🙂 It's a wee bit louder than a Leica M but then some Leicaphiles would tell you that it's a LOT louder 😉 I've been able to go down to 1/15 second no problem and could go to 1/8 if I lean up against something 🙂

Cheers
Dave

 

[Terence T]

I think he means split screen like a typical SLR focusing screen.

My experience with the shutter is similar to Dave's. It's louder than a Leica but still bearable. No noticeable jolt, any jolt would be self induced by the photographer. A soft release would help out in those situations.

 

[jlw]

It's a coincident image rangefinder with a sharp-edged patch. That means you can focus it by merging the two semi-transparent images you see through the center of the patch (coincident-image focusing.) Or, if your subject has strong vertical lines, you can focus it by merging the 'broken' line you see along the edge of the patch (split-image focusing.)

All modern optical RF cameras (Leicas from M3 on, Minolta CLE, Cosina/Voigtlander Bessa R series) have this type of RF patch, but all "classic" RFs and most Russian ones have blurry-edged patches. These can be used for coincident-image focusing, but not split-image focusing.

(One exception is the Leningrad, which has a split-image patch ONLY. I believe Werras are the same way, but I've never looked through one.)

Why does it matter? Split-image focusing is considered more positive (either the lines are merged or they aren't), but only works if the subject has vertical lines in it. Coincident-image focusing isn't quite a sure (it takes more visual acuity to judge whether the images are coincident or not) but works on textures, nature scenes, and other things that tend not to have strong vertical lines in them.

Just this afternoon I was at an art museum, photographing some kids working on artworks that will be sent to Russia as part of an exchange program. Via coincident-image focusing I was able to focus on kids' freckles and other facial features, which would have been difficult with split-image focusing. On the other hand, when I was photographing their art works, which had strong lines on paper, split-image focusing was easier. It's nice to have a choice.

 

[timg]

Thanks all for the replies, that's just what I wanted to know.
The G2 was a very nice camera, but I didn't get on with the
viewfinder or the autofocus. Better start saving for the
Voigtlander!

-Tim