R3a review in Shtterbug

[physiognomy]

Just a HU for those who might be interested... Along with the ZI review in the latest Shutterbug there is also a piece on the R2/3a. A good read for those who might be deciding on whether to go for the ZI or a Bessa.

Cheers!

Peter

 

[Huck Finn]

April, 2006

 

[Huck Finn]

I had the opportunity to read the review of the R2/3A this week when Shutterbug arrived at a nearby library. I'd recommend that anyone interested in this camera or owning one take a look at it. The authors present a fairly comprehensive look at the camera & have used the Bessa line extensively, so they bring useful insights. A couple of things about the review were a little odd:

First, the authors describe the viewfinder display of metered information, which indicates both the photographer's choice of shutter speeds & the camera's recommendation if they are different. The author's comment: "This alone is brilliant." This may be true, but if so, the credit belongs to Nikon, who originally employed such a display on the Nikkormat EL - 32 years before the introduction of the R2/3A. They have also used it since then on the FE, FE2, & FM3a. The only difference is that Nikon used a match needle system to display the information instead of illuminated number LEDs. For all I know there may be other companies that have also used such a system, but it certainly didn't originate with Cosina, as implied by the authors.

I'm a bear for detail, so this may not have bothered anyone else, but little details seemed to be treated by the authors in a way that would provide a more positive impressions of the R2A/3A. For example, "The shutter . . . accuracy was excellent, with most of the speeds spot on and even 1/2000 coming in at 1/1600." Is that supposed to be a good thing? I understand that I might have to live with a little slush in shutter speed accuracy in a mechanical camera, but I expect an electronic shutter to be spot on. 1/1600 is a 20% error when the camera is set at 1/2000. Anther little detail that bothered me was the comparison of the effective base length of the R3A with a Leica M (.58x magnification), represented as 38 mm vs 39 mm. In reality, it is 37 mm vs 40 mm. As I said, it may not have bothered anyone else, but why the error? And why an error on both cameras in a direction that would make the R3A appear more like an M than it is? Such errors make it appear to be more than an oversight that there was a lack of comment about the much discussed difficulty in seeing the 40 mm frame lines The R2/3A is a fine camera in its own right. No need to "gild the lily."

Again, a very good review of the camera overall & an interesting read that I enjoyed. If you're not a stickler for small details - like me - you'll have no complaints. Just my 2 cents.

Huck

 

[jlw]

First, the authors describe the viewfinder display of metered information, which indicates both the photographer's choice of shutter speeds & the camera's recommendation if they are different. The author's comment: "This alone is brilliant." This may be true, but if so, the credit belongs to Nikon, who originally employed such a display on the Nikkormat EL - 32 years before the introduction of the R2/3A. They have also used it since then on the FE, FE2, & FM3a. The only difference is that Nikon used a match needle system to display the information instead of illuminated number LEDs. For all I know there may be other companies that have also used such a system, but it certainly didn't originate with Cosina, as implied by the authors.

I'm a bear for detail

If you count analog-readout systems, there are lots of predecessors. I think the specific type of blinking-vs-fixed-LED readout the reviewers laud on the R3a originated on the Chinon CE-4 Memotron of 1979.