R4 Framelines?

[Benny Boy]

Is there any further word about whether Voigtlander is going to stubbornly resist including the 40 frameline in the new R4? Is there a polite word for stupid?

 

[Spyderman]

I think 35mm framelines are good enough approximation of 40 framelines.

They show the coverage of 35 at close focus, but at infinity, the 35 includes more than that. So if you imagine the 35 shows the coverage of 40 at infinity, you can use that...

PS: IMHO it's a marketing reason. They want you to buy the R3 as well 😉

 

[arbib]

Considering the frames are 87% of the FOV at 3 feet. and maybe 90% at INF.
Just use the 35mm FRAME as the 40mm frame. It should be closer to 95% of the 40mm. Since it is 87%-90% of the 35mm.

I think we are talking MM's in differance in the Frame Lines. Like how the Shoe mount VF's have a dotted line just a few mm's below the standard frame line. I think we are talking about the same very small framing differances here. framing through a 35FL for a 40mm lens.

Math is just questamated here. But the 87% is from CV.

 

[Richard Black]

I don't think the framelines are meant to be exact to the last mm. General guidelines, so to speak. So the 35mm would give a reasonable approximation of the 40mm. If in doubt flip between the 35 and 50 for a different view point. If accuracy is critical, I think an slr would be appropriate.

 

[rpsawin]

Do the math kids....there are far more people currently using 35mm lenses than 40mm lenses. That trend will not change in the forseeable future.

CV is providing a camera, specializing in wide angle framelines, that will meets the needs of the greatest market (yes, market....they are so stupid they really think they need to make money in order to survive...hah!).

Bob

 

[kshapero]

i have used both with an R3 and it is no big deal.

 

[Benny Boy]

Yes, 35 may be close to 40 - but there is room for six framelines (2 per selector position) and there are only five framelines in the camera right now. Why not make the sixth frameline for the 40. I'll just use the word - stupid!

 

[Bébèrt]

Just take a look at the site of cameraquest

http://cameraquest.com/voigt4m4aintro.htm

 

[Benny Boy]

And your point, Bébèrt, is . . . ?

 

[back alley]

Yes, 35 may be close to 40 - but there is room for six framelines (2 per selector position) and there are only five framelines in the camera right now. Why not make the sixth frameline for the 40. I'll just use the word - stupid!

is it just because you disagree that it's a stupid move?

joe

 

[Benny Boy]

Gandy seems to be justifying the lack of 40 on the R4 because it is on the 1:1 finder in the R3. Well, so what, the R3 has 50 framelines too, yet they are found on the R4. Moreover, the R4 rangefinder is even less suited to the 50 than the 40.

The other justification stated here, i.e., the 40 is close enough to 35, do not justify the lack of a 40 frameline either. One could make the same argument for the 21 vs. 25 or 25 vs. 28. But all those framelines are included in the R4.

Voigtlander has obviously left the 40 lines out in order to force more sales of the R3 body. It is not only stupid, but deliberately so. Perhaps I will be proved wrong when the camera is released with 40 framelines. If it is not, a big flying bird to Voigtlander.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Gandy seems to be justifying the lack of 40 on the R4 because it is on the 1:1 finder in the R3. Well, so what, the R3 has 50 framelines too, yet they are found on the R4. Moreover, the R4 rangefinder is even less suited to the 50 than the 40.

The other justification stated here, i.e., the 40 is close enough to 35, do not justify the lack of a 40 frameline either. One could make the same argument for the 21 vs. 25 or 25 vs. 28. But all those framelines are included in the R4.

Voigtlander has obviously left the 40 lines out in order to force more sales of the R3 body. It is not only stupid, but deliberately so. Perhaps I will be proved wrong when the camera is released with 40 framelines. If it is not, a big flying bird to Voigtlander.

It's all compromise...there are far fewer 40s out there than 35s. No doubt the R3 is positioned as the camera for the 40, but I don't take that as an obvious attempt to sell more cameras. On the other hand, what's wrong with an obvious attempt to sell more cameras?
I think the R4 would be better off with the 40mm framelines, but I don't see the lack of them as a source of so much animosity.
I tell you what. My R3A has 40mm framelines that I'm not using. I'll trade you for some 35mm lines? 😀

 

[rover]

Ben, the anger....please relax.

 

[Huck Finn]

Yes, 35 may be close to 40 - but there is room for six framelines (2 per selector position) and there are only five framelines in the camera right now. Why not make the sixth frameline for the 40. I'll just use the word - stupid!

I have to agree with Benny on this one. Cosina is making a camera for lenses in the 21-50 range & they leave out one of the lenses that they manufacture & sell in that range. And to make the oversight more egregious is the fact that the 40 mm frame lines are impossible to see for many people on the R3, so it is a focal length that desperately needs another platform.

I don't think that it was stubbornness on Cosina's part, I think that Benny got it right when he called it "stupid." I don't mean that as an insult to Cosina, but just the stupidity that we all commit in everyday life. A kinder word might have been "oversight." My guess is that they were so focused a creating a viewfinder for wide angle lenses that they never thought about 40 because it's not considered "wide." My hunch is that 50 was thrown into the mix just because it's "standard" & because it's on every camera except the CLE, but that otherwise they never gave much thought to anything longer than 35.

As Benny sais, there was room for it, so why leave it out? I doubt that they actively considered it & then actually rejected it. Once someone points it out, it would have been a no brainer to include it.

It sure would have been nice if they had included 40 & would probably have helped sales.

 

[Graham Line]

Rangefinders are not about precise-to-the-millimeter framing. There are plenty of zoomy SLRs and view cameras to fill that need.

 

[ferider]

Is there any further word about whether Voigtlander is going to stubbornly resist including the 40 frameline in the new R4? Is there a polite word for stupid?

Why they resist ? Because they can.


The R/R2 35mm framelines completely cover the 40mm FOV from 3m onwards.
If you own one please check, they are much more conservative than on a Leica, for instance.

If I will get an R4, it will be because it has an isolated 28mm frameline. That by itself is valuable to me.
Like with 75mm lines on an R3*. I would not like to have another frame there.

Roland.