R4 vs Multiformat external finder

[Tuolumne]

What are the pros & cons of the new R4 vs a multiformat view finder for an M body? The new Leica 21-25-28 finder (all metal) sells for $399 at B&H, so if you already have an M body you can get wide-angle capability for it for about half the price of an R4 and still get to use that lovely Leica body. Your thoughts appreciated.

/T

 

[Huck Finn]

Just off the top of my head . . .

1. With the R4, you can focus & compose in the same viewfinder.

2. The R4 will apply parallax compensation as you adjust your focus to a change in distance.

3. With a built-in VF, the camera is more compact & you don't run the risk of breaking off your VF in an accident - at least if you're a klutz like me.

4. Some auxiliary finders come with higher magnifications while the R4 is limited to .53x magnification.

 

[rover]

Some auxiliary finders look cool, others look dorky.

 

[0bli0]

i love my KMZ turret. it has (manual) parallax correction and proper magnification (not a reduction of view like some conical variable vf).
the crosshair is a nice touch, too.

that said, it's great for the bessa-L which is scale focus anyway. as Huck Finn said, you're doing everything in the same finder on the r4 body. if i put on the 15mm, which is not coupled - i manually set the focus then compose through the finder. easy action for both styles.

 

[Bertram2]

What are the pros & cons of the new R4 vs a multiformat view finder for an M body? The new Leica 21-25-28 finder (all metal) sells for $399 at B&H, so if you already have an M body you can get wide-angle capability for it for about half the price of an R4 and still get to use that lovely Leica body. Your thoughts appreciated.

/T

Huck said it all.
Somehow a strange question ? Because the R4 was made to avoid auxiliary finders ? They are a PITA, a compromise, which makes RF cameras slow !
To compare a finder and a complete camera does not work either.

When it comes to innovation, this is a perfect example for comparing the two companies. Mr. K builds a specialized Camera, and Leica builds a new finder.

bertram

 

[Tuolumne]

Just off the top of my head . . .

1. With the R4, you can focus & compose in the same viewfinder.

2. The R4 will apply parallax compensation as you adjust your focus to a change in distance.

3. With a built-in VF, the camera is more compact & you don't run the risk of breaking off your VF in an accident - at least if you're a klutz like me.

3, Some auxiliary finders come with higher magnifications while the R4 is limited to .53x magnification.

Well, yes, these are the obvious points, but just how important are they? Never having used a lens wider than 28mm or a external view finder, they seemed like a big deal to me. But I just got a VC 21mm with its free outboard view finder, popped it on my Leica MP3 and was totally blown away by how functional it was and how easy the external finder was to use. I also happen to like the retro look that the external view finder gives the camera. So, yes, there are benefits to having the frame lines internal to the view finder, but it hardly seems like the revoltion the marketing hype would have us believe. What's revoltionary is putting a 21mm lens on the camera. Now that IS eye opening in a way I never would have believed. I finally feel my camera has room to breathe.

As far as point 4 above goes, isn't that to the advantage of the higher magnification finder? More accurate focusing with the ability to still have the ultra-wide field of view. But even this point seems moot since lenses this wide have a tremendous depth of field and focusing is hardly critical with them. The same goes for parallax correction - it doesn't seem like a very critical issue for such wide lenses, plus alot of external finders use dotted lines to demarque the parralax.

Again, I'm not denying the benefits of the wide internal frame lines, just questioning how truely useful they are compared to an external finder. When I first read about the R4 I tought it was a must have camera. Now I'm not so sure. You can buy alot of technology for ~$800 to work with your Leica bodies.

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

i love my KMZ turret. it has (manual) parallax correction and proper magnification (not a reduction of view like some conical variable vf).
the crosshair is a nice touch, too.

that said, it's great for the bessa-L which is scale focus anyway. as Huck Finn said, you're doing everything in the same finder on the r4 body. if i put on the 15mm, which is not coupled - i manually set the focus then compose through the finder. easy action for both styles.

This is a lovely finder, but it only goes as wide as 28mm. Very wide for its day, but not so wide today with 21mm and 25mm lenses available at great prices from VC. Still, a good buy if you can find one.

/T

 

[Huck Finn]

Well, yes, these are the obvious points, but just how important are they? Never having used a lens wider than 28mm or a external view finder, they seemed like a big deal to me. But I just got a VC 21mm with its free outboard view finder, popped it on my Leica MP3 and was totally blown away by how functional it was and how easy the external finder was to use. I also happen to like the retro look that the external view finder gives the camera. So, yes, there are benefits to having the frame lines internal to the view finder, but it hardly seems like the revoltion the marketing hype would have us believe. What's revoltionary is putting a 21mm lens on the camera. Now that IS eye opening in a way I never would have believed. I finally feel my camera has room to breathe.

If you don't mind working with an auxiliary finder, then the advantages of the R4 are not important at all. It's a personal preference, so it's all up to you.

As far as point 4 above goes, isn't that to the advantage of the higher magnification finder? More accurate focusing with the ability to still have the ultra-wide field of view. But even this point seems moot since lenses this wide have a tremendous depth of field and focusing is hardly critical with them. The same goes for parallax correction - it doesn't seem like a very critical issue for such wide lenses, plus alot of external finders use dotted lines to demarque the parralax.

Yes, that was my point. #4 references an advantage for the aux finder. Parallax correction is not a critical factor for such wide angle lenses, but it is a factor. DOF decreases as subject distance decreases, so while not critical, it is helpful.

[/QUOTE]Again, I'm not denying the benefits of the wide internal frame lines, just questioning how truely useful they are compared to an external finder. When I first read about the R4 I tought it was a must have camera. Now I'm not so sure. You can buy alot of technology for ~$800 to work with your Leica bodies.

/T[/QUOTE]

I've learned that there is no camera that's a "must have" unless you earn your living with it. 😉

 

[Bertram2]

Well, yes, these are the obvious points, but just how important are they? Never having used a lens wider than 28mm or a external view finder, they seemed like a big deal to me.

So, yes, there are benefits to having the frame lines internal to the view finder, but it hardly seems like the revoltion the marketing hype would have us believe.
/T

How can it look like a big deal to you if you never used anything wider than 28mm ? For you the R4 is surely not important.🙄

Not surprised tho, I did expect the attempts of some Leicaists to explain that the R4 is an absolutely superflouos innovation and not more than a marketing fart of Mr.K....
If Leica should bring out the same as an M 17 some 50 years down the road the enthusiasm will be so excessive that some of the red point crowd will die from an heart attack.😀 😀 😀

Anyway, for me the R4 is my next purchase, together with the new 21 and 25 and it will replace my L, which I use as a fixed combo together with an old 25 plus a.- finder.

bertram

 

[peter_n]

Again, I'm not denying the benefits of the wide internal frame lines, just questioning how truely useful they are compared to an external finder. When I first read about the R4 I tought it was a must have camera. Now I'm not so sure. You can buy alot of technology for ~$800 to work with your Leica bodies.

/T

I'm sort of thinking the same way now. I do have a 24mm/f2.8 lens and I am worried about the lens + hood occluding the VF. I was in NYC last weekend and very disappointed that Photo Village didn't even have a demo in their store so I could test the combo. I used a $75 CV 25mm finder with the 24mm and it was OK. I'm very interested in the R4, particularly the parallax correction aspects, but you are right, $700-800 is a lot for something that is handled by an accessory that is under $100.

 

[Tuolumne]

How can it look like a big deal to you if you never used anything wider than 28mm ? For you the R4 is surely not important.🙄

Not surprised tho, I did expect the attempts of some Leicaists to explain that the R4 is an absolutely superflouos innovation and not more than a marketing fart of Mr.K....
If Leica should bring out the same as an M 17 some 50 years down the road the enthusiasm will be so excessive that some of the red point crowd will die from an heart attack.😀 😀 😀

Anyway, for me the R4 is my next purchase, together with the new 21 and 25 and it will replace my L, which I use as a fixed combo together with an old 25 plus a.- finder.

bertram

This seems like a rather over-the-top response to my straightforward request for a product comparison. I do use a 21mm lens, which is what caused me to ask the question in the first place. Would you care to give me a reasoned response if I change my questions to say I put an external viewfinder on my CV R3 and had the following reaction...?

Yours as a non-Leicaist but rangefinderist,

/T

P.S. I do own three CV rangefinders as well as a number of other brands.

 

[Bertram2]

Would you care to give me a reasoned response ..

Quote:
you can get wide-angle capability for it for about half the price of an R4 and still get to use that lovely Leica body

That was what I was referring to. The R4 is the solution for a prob, which is called an external finder. And the finder stays the prob no matter how lovely the body below might be.🙄

Again I am not surprised that some say they do not need a camera like the R4. They are happy with the external finders. They are from that kind which always stated that they don't "need" a light meter built in as long as the Ms had none. Or that they do not need an A mode, until the M7 finally had it . Ridiculous.

I mean who photographs statues and landscape only with his RF camera shall do it and get happy with auxiliary finders (the name says it all) but they should avoid derisive statements about a really innovative product, which the RF world has not seen ever before.

Is that enuff reason for you ?

Bertram

 

[Tuolumne]

Bert,
You are a reverse snob. Enough said.

/T

 

[rbiemer]

Tuolumne,
I look at the R4 in this way:
(I do want an R4 so I'm not un-biased.) What thrills me is that with an M-3 and an R4, I would have two bodies and could use all of my lenses with out having to buy/carry/worry about extra stuff to haul around.
Right now, I have neither camera--I'm happily using several FSU cameras(Zorki 3m and FED5 are my primary shooters)and a Canon P. For all of those cameras I need an external VF for anything other than the "standard" lens(50mm for the FSUs and 35mm for the Canon). And yes, the Canon does have frame lines for 35, 50, and 100 but with my eyesight I have to wear glasses all the time and so can't see the framelines well enough to make them easily usable for me. So, I use a russian turret finder and the dedicated finder for the CV 21mm lens. Don't have any thing against that approach but things would be much simpler if I could skip the external finders all together.
Rob

 

[Bertram2]

Bert,
You are a reverse snob. Enough said.

/T

A really poor, also an extraordinary silly and an offensive answer.
My fault tho. I checked too late that you are a collector . One cannot talk with collectors about photographical issues which refer to any practical experience. Go fondle your watches and cameras and what else and be happy.

 

[back alley]

some like or even prefer external finders and those folks need not apply for the r4 camera.
some are ok with finders (me) but find it awkward at times.

the r4 eliminates the need for external finders for 21 and 25 lenses and is a perfect body for folks that primarily only use wides - it's just simpler and easier.

i shot a roll with the r4m and my zm 25 sans hood and it was a pleasure to see what was going to be in the photo instead of guessing with my zi and no finder. i have ordered a bunch of cv lenses because it's very clear, to me, that this body is made for the smaller cv lenses. i may even order a 25 in the future just to shoot w/o any finder blockage.

 

[FrankS]

I like using my CV25 with aux finder on my Leica IIf. It makes a nice compact package. Focus is done by scale, so there's only the finder to look through for framing. It's a great way to use that lovely Leica body!

 

[peter_n]

Actually one of the things that I find really appealing about the R4 is that 28mm frameline all on its own. I have a sweet 28mm lens that would just love to live on that body.

 

[0bli0]

This is a lovely finder, but it only goes as wide as 28mm. Very wide for its day, but not so wide today with 21mm and 25mm lenses available at great prices from VC.

🙂 which is why i bought the r4a 🙂 i was always thinking it would be great if they made a wider version of the finder - or one with replaceable barrels. obviously i dont need it now, but it the design could have had great potential in its day...

 

[ray_g]

I guess I would strongly consider the R4 if I shot more wides. As it is, I will only use it for 21mm, which I shoot with about 2% of the time. At that, I use it at hyperfocal, and focusing is not critical for that lens, IMHO. I would prefer not to use an ext VF with it, but for $750 (did the prices just go up by $90?), it is not practical for me.

For 35 and up I am happy with an M body with regular magnification.

That would leave 28mm: my ultron apparently intrudes quite a bit into the VF.