Retina IIc viewfinder compared to M2 or R2A

Blooze

Established
Local time
9:50 AM
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
91
I posted a thread a couple of weeks ago asking about a few rangefinders. I tend to lean towards a 35mm or 28mm lens more than any other and even find the 50mm on the Retina a bit much most of the time. So on that note I'm thinking about getting into an M2 or used Bessa R2A. I have a LOT of astigmatism (I wear glasses) and contrary to what I've read I find focusing the couple of RF's I have easier than my SLR's. My problem is that my distance vision leaves a lot to be desired so I'm afraid a viewfinder like on the Bessa R4A at 0.58 is gonna not gonna be enough, even though the framelines might suit me better. I have no idea what magnification the Retina IIc is.

On to the question :p:

With my Retina IIc I can see the 50mm framelines without any trouble. Since I can't find an R2A or and M2 anywhere near me I was wondering if anyone could compare the Retina to them? It will really help me narrow down a bit more and make a decision.
 
I wear glasses and can just about see the Retina IIc's frame lines comfortably. My M2's 35mm frame lines are not quite as visible. The sides are slightly out of view if my eye is centered. However, I use the M2 so often that I 'know' what's in the frame.
 
If you really like the Retina experience, consider the Retina IIC or IIIC (Big C) models, which have much larger and brighter viewfinders. The eyepiece is noticeably larger than the "small c" models, and also have the 35mm and 80mm framelines visible. However, some prefer the uncluttered view through the "small c" models.

The nonfolding Retina IIIS and IIS also are nice cameras. The IIIS has true interchangeable lenses and a wider body. The IIS has a fixed 45mm/2.8 Xenar. It's a smaller body with the same viewfinder as the "Big C" models but of course with only one set of frames because the lens cannot be changed.
 
I wear glasses and can just about see the Retina IIc's frame lines comfortably. My M2's 35mm frame lines are not quite as visible. The sides are slightly out of view if my eye is centered. However, I use the M2 so often that I 'know' what's in the frame.

Thank you, that helps very much!

If you really like the Retina experience, consider the Retina IIC or IIIC (Big C) models, which have much larger and brighter viewfinders. The eyepiece is noticeably larger than the "small c" models, and also have the 35mm and 80mm framelines visible. However, some prefer the uncluttered view through the "small c" models.

The nonfolding Retina IIIS and IIS also are nice cameras. The IIIS has true interchangeable lenses and a wider body. The IIS has a fixed 45mm/2.8 Xenar. It's a smaller body with the same viewfinder as the "Big C" models but of course with only one set of frames because the lens cannot be changed.

I really like the Retina the couple of rolls I've put through it. In fact, it's going off to Chris Sherlock hopefully near the first of the year for a good going over. But I'm not a huge fan of the 50mm. I'd like to have something I can put different lenses on and am leaning toward the M2 just because of the build quality reputation. I have a Signet 80 with an external finder that has made me not want to have to use an external finder if I don't have to. Although, I can see from edge to edge on that external finder (35-50-90mm framelines) which would be about a 28mm frameline.
 
Finally got the chance to handle a Leica this weekend. Looked through an M3 and an M6. Very similar with glasses on. The M6 was brighter, but barely and not enough o make a difference. I had to rock my eye back and forth quite a bit on both to see the 50mm framelines on the M3 and the 28mm on the M6. I can actually see the 50mm lines on the Retina easier even though the eyepiece is slightly smaller. I think it's because the eye guard may actually be thinner letting my eye get closer.

What I did notice was the build quality. Holy ****! The M3 was just a jewel to hold and run through the motions. They actually had 3 at the shop and they were all that way. They were all spotless on the outside as well, but I didn't ask about mechanicals as I wasn't looking to buy one. They felt much more solid and smoother than the two M6's they had as well. I wish they had an M2, but if they are built anything like the M3 I will definitely be getting one down the line.
 
M3, M2, M4 should all have pretty much the same build-quality.

Generally, the common view around here is as follows:
If you only use 50mm lenses -> M3
If you use wider lenses (like 35mm) and want or need faster film loading/rewinding -> M4
If you use wider lenses (like 35mm) and like things as simple/classic as possible -> M2

I've got an M4-P and I've never noticed any lesser build-quality issues that the internet seems to have played up a lot (I've an M5, and have friends with M3s, M4s, and M6s). Only big differences are the black chrome, which doesn't wear as nicely, and the RF patch white-out issue which seems to affect M4-2 bodies and later, until the issue was acknowledged and addressed by Leica during the M7 run (and IIRC some late production or special edition M6s also came remedied)
 
Back
Top Bottom