R2a vs R3a Framelines

[superultramega]

I'd like to know how the respective 35 and 40mm framelines compare in these cameras. I've seen a lot of complaining about the tightness with the 40mm but on the Camera Quest website both the 35 and 40 lines look equally spaced from the edges of the viewfinder. The image posted there may not be accurate, I don't know.

I recently held a R2a and was amazed at the build quality when compared to my Bessa R. So now I want one of course, or maybe the R3a. It would also be helpful if someone could compare the 35 framelines of the R to the two newer Bessas' wide framelines.

P.S. Does the classifieds' search not work for everyone else?

Thanks in advance.

 

[jody36]

I have a bessa R and a R3M no complaints here with anything on either camera.

 

[jsrockit]

I had the R3a and with glasses, I didn't feel I could see the 40mm framelines correctly.

I would say these don't tell you much: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=752658&postcount=10

 

[superultramega]

Jody36,

Can you say which camera has more space between the edge of the viewfinder and the widest frameline?



Jsrockit,

Have you used other Bessas that didn't have this problem?

Thanks

 

[jsrockit]

It's not a problem. It's just that they put a 40mm frame in a 1:1 viewfinder that seems to be optimized for 50mm framelines. It's fine if you don't wear glasses.

 

[superultramega]

I understand the mechanics of the viewfinder/framelines in the R3a. What I really want to know is how it compares to other Bessa cameras. I own the R so if someone could say it is the same or significantly worse that would be the most helpful for me. I wear glasses sometimes and the 35 framelines in the R seem to work fine. As I can't get my hands on a camera where I am I'm trying to find a point of common comparision.

Although if anyone knows a place to view the R3a in SF that would be great too.

 

[jsrockit]

I can see the 35mm framelines in a R perfectly fine, but I cannot see the 40mm framelines in the R3a without moving my eye around. I believe the 50mm frameline in the R3a is more like the 35mm frameline in the R.

 

[PrimeTime]

I can see the 35mm framelines in a R perfectly fine, but I cannot see the 40mm framelines in the R3a without moving my eye around.

I can see the 35mm framelines in a R perfectly fine, but I cannot see the 40mm framelines in the R3a without moving my eye around. I believe the 50mm frameline in the R3a is more like the 35mm frameline in the R.

IMHO: ^ AGREE +1 !

Bessa R2(_) w/ 35mm = Perfect FL Balance/ VF Picture
Bessa R3A(_) w/ 50mm = Perfect FL Balance/ VF Picture

* The R3(A/M) 1:1 VF + 40mm frameline works for me as a Natural Point of View, Both eyes open. . . . It gets some getting use to but not much. I basically use the whole VF as my FL . . . . . If that makes any sense.

Again, IMHO: I prefer a 35mm on the R/R2 & 50mm on the R3

 

[kshapero]

I really think either framelines are fine, but on my R3m my comfort zone is 50mm.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

I never owned or used the R2 so I can't make a direct comparison, but I don't wear glasses for photography and on my R3A the 40mm frame lines were right at the edge of the viewfinder with absolutely nothing to spare. I know a lot of people with glasses had a little problem.
I think a key difference might be the degree of magnification in the viewfinder. The optics will be the same size but the magnification in the R2 is 0.7 compared to 1.0. What that does to the visual perception of the 35mm frame lines in the R2 is not immediately apparent to me. It should, by rights, miniaturise the image in the viewfinder a little which would allow the 35mm frames to fit. Whether they then take up all the available space thus provided or leave a bigger margin around the frame, or a bit of both, needs someone with an R2 to comment.

 

[ssmc]

I have not used an R2 but I am also in the crowd who couldn't comfortably see the 40mm framelines in the R3A without "looking around" - and I don't wear glasses - which is why I reluctantly sold it. I was hoping to use the entire VF for 35mm framing but that just didn't seem to work out for me. The 1:1 magnification was great though and it's very relaxing to be able to keep both eyes open.

 

[jody36]

Ok just woke up drinking first cup coffee eyes are fuzzy. I wear reading glasses. The frame lines for 50 are same spacing on both. the 40 is closer to edge than the 35 is mot much but noticeable but even with my eyes in this state and sitting in bedroom one light I can see lines no problem. Hope that helps. If frame lines are issue don't let it be the r3m is a nicer camera if I was choosing between the two. Hope this helps.

 

[superultramega]

Jody36,

You've gone ahead and ruined a consensus. I need to get my hands on the R3a and see for myself. Is anyone in San Francisco willing to meet up and let me check out their R3a/m?

I'm trying to decide between the R3a and R2a. I think you are referring to the original R2 which was produced after the R. But to clarify the R3a and R2a are the same camera other than the viewfinder magnification, correct?

 

[PrimeTime]

Here is a great comparison chart for all the current Voigtlander Bessa models:
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtchart2.htm

Besides the VF Magnification & framelines, also consider the EBL=Effective Baselength

R2A/M = 25.6mm
R3A/M = 37mm + 1:1 [Great for fast lenses]

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

superultramega,

If you're in San Francisco, why don't you try to stop by Rayko Photo Center in SOMA? It's an official Voigtländer distributor, at least last time I checked. They have a bunch of other neat stuff as well. Was able to try out an R3x with 40.4 and an R2x with 35.2 the last time I was there, and manually go through the framelines, of course. Had to move my eye around for the 40mm framline, but the 35mm frameline was comfortable to work with. I always test cameras with glasses on. What's the point if I couldn't use glasses as an option?

 

[Bingley]

I had the R3a and with glasses, I didn't feel I could see the 40mm framelines correctly.

My experience, too. I also had a Bessa R at one point (same framelines and vf magnification as the R2*) and had no trouble seeing the 35mm framelines. If you're thinking about using a 40mm lens, the 35 framelines on the R2* may be accurate enough for 40, but easier to see if you wear glasses.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

If it helps at all, just last week I asked Stephen if the R2 viewfinder could be used for a 28mm lens by assuming the whole field of view would "just" cover it.
This is his reply, and I think it probably applies to the R3/R2 35mm question as well.
"an aproximation is just that - its not a 28mm finder - will do in a pinch, but not that good of a solution".
Substitute 35mm in the quote for the R3 and I think you have it.

 

[Joosep]

I use a R3m.

My eyesight aint the best and I dont fancy glasses.
So all my cameras have diopters on it.
I bought a -2 diopter for my R3m.

Dont have the 40mm, I use the 35mm on it.
I can easily see the 40 framelines, and guessing 5mm on top of that is really easy (for me), because of the 1:1 (having both eyes open).

 

[Steve M.]

If you wear glasses, get an R2a. Otherwise, get the R3a.

 

[Tompas]

I prefer to use my 40mm lens on the R2m instead of the R3a; I cannot see all the R3a's 40mm frame lines at once -- and I don't wear glasses.