R3A more popular than R2A?

[domagojs]

Hi all,

I'm trying to buy a R2A (I want to have a 35mm lens), but I seem to be able only to find the R3As around.

What's the reason for this? Cheaper 40mm Nokton, or is there some other reason?

 

[varjag]

Many were excited about high-magnification finder.

That, and consumerist thinking habit that anything 3 is better than anything 2 😉

 

[domagojs]

I thought it was the second argument 🙂

I even heard that the R3A is a newer model and that R2A is discontinued 🙂

 

[Brian Legge]

The R3A is the only bessa rangefinder I've seen, had a chance to handle, etc. It would be my go-to if I was going to buy one of their cameras. Success builds on success.

 

[andersju]

The R3A's/R3M's 1:1 finder is glorious for 50mm and is the sole reason I'm on the verge of buying one again. I've had a few Leica Ms and a ZI but it's just not the same, finder-wise.

 

[Matus]

R3A -v- R2A is a bit like M3 -v- M2 I guess. One is more-less for 35 mm lenses and the other for 50. I had the R3A for a while and it was a perfect match to a 50 mm lens. When I checked the frames for 40 mm it always seemed a bit too tight (no glasses).

But the 1:1 finder really has something to it. To be able to shoot with both eyes open is cool ...

 

[rbiemer]

Don't know about more popular but when I was deciding between the two cameras, I was tempted by the R3a 1:1 vf but ultimately chose the R2a because the frame lines seemed better for me. And once I got the camera, that choice has worked very well; with my vision and glasses, the 50 frame in the R2a is just about ideal.
I may well have chosen the R3a had I been able to handle the cameras before I bought them but I am very happy with the choice I made.
Regards,
Rob

 

[kshapero]

They came out at the same time. But there was also a big push to sell the CV 40/1.4 which fit the R3A frameline. But it really shines at 50mm and up. The R3x is a poor man's M3, sort of.

 

[andersju]

Having used both an R3A and a sweet M3 extensively I'd choose the R3x any day if I want to shoot rather than fondle - baselength and (much) better looks be damned. 🙂

 

[ruby.monkey]

Having used both an R3A and a sweet M3 extensively I'd choose the R3x any day if I want to shoot rather than fondle - baselength and (much) better looks be damned. 🙂

Eh, I'd choose (in fact I did choose) the M3 over the R3A for my shooting pleasure; but I certainly never felt underequipped with the R3A.

That R4A looks like one Hell of a lot of fun, though...

 

[Bingley]

Some R3As had RF alignment problems (there has been discussion of that here on RFF albeit not recently) so that may help explain why more if them are around on the market.

 

[sper]

The R2A's problem is that it doesn't have 28mm frame lines. It's a hard sell in my opinion. I looked through an R3a's finder today and like it's sister, the R4a, it's quite a wonder to behold.

The R2A on the other hand does an 'okay' job at all it's focal lengths. But no 28mm frame lines! Makes me say, 'meh.'

 

[Bingley]

The R2A has the same vf magnification as the Bessa R, which means that the entire vf is pretty close to 28 mm. When I had a Bessa R, I used a 28 and simply framed w/ the entire vf, and it worked fine. Now, of course, that's not the same thing as having framelines, so you won't be able to see outside the framelines, but that would be hard to do on just about any rf other than a Bessa R4*.