Trade R3M for R2A?

Chris Lynch · Sep 8, 2006

ok, i'm new here and new to the RF world... i had been drooling over the Bessa's for a while now on Stephen's site, and when he announced the R2/3M's i was giddy with excitement (mainly over the viewfinder metering display which i love).

well, w/o much thought into glasses, framelines, etc etc- i ordered a black R3M and it's an awesome camera- but i finally got a lens on it, and used it all last week up in NYC, to find that the 40mm framelines are just about useless (for me). I'm very in love with the general layout of the camera and all, but i think i'd be far better off with the 2A/M's finder....

i also do want 35mm framelines and the possibility of using a 28mm w/o finder.

SO:
is there anybody interested in trading my "user" R3M (barely 2-3 weeks in my ownership- but has a few "user" scratches on the front from bouncing around in my Domke with a canon lens) for a (similar) R2A or R2M?
When i get home today i can take a pic or two of it to show the condition...

if this should go in the classifieds, i'll move it there- i just thought i'd get more "appropriate" attention in the Bessa area.

-Chris (maybe not R3Mchris much longer?)

ElrodCod · Sep 8, 2006

Why don't you keep it & put a 75mm lens on it?

clintock · Sep 8, 2006

Sounds like a perfect excuse to get a new R with the 35/2.5 set for 399 to me.. Then you will have two cameras, one optimum for 35 the other awesome for fast 50s and longer..

sockeyed · Sep 8, 2006

I wouldn't mind doing an inverse trade - an R3A for an R2M. Doesn't help you much, though, does it...

Chris Lynch · Sep 8, 2006

hehe thanks guys, you're really not making this easy on me!

i don't really want to shoot "longer" lenses with the RF- that's what i've got my EOS stuff for. I mainly want it for 20 to 50mm stuff. So 75mm = no.
The R is "only" L39 threadmount, right? i don't want to be "limited" to M39 lenses.

and yeah, i could -POSSIBLY- consider trading for the 3A, cuz then at least i'd have AE to speed things up... i might consider that if there isn't much interest for a 2 to 3 trade.

but yeah, i have thought of just grabbing a used R2A for cheap and keeping my 3M (#363). It'd be a shame to sell such a nice/limited camera so soon after getting it... Prolly the first used 2 or 3M on RFF's classifieds? haha

CameraQuest · Sep 8, 2006

Not so fast...

Not so fast...

I suggest you shoot 5-10 rolls with the R3M and 40 before you make a decision either way.

People tend to get hung up about the framelines being "accurate" because new RF shooters are so often SLR converts.

the truth is that framelines on ANY Leica M mount camera are not that accurate because 1) most represent what a slide mount shows (Leica made M's) 2) what is shown represents the LEAST you will see on the film at 3 feet, beause the field of view increases as you focus to infinity showing you MORE on the film.

your brain has a way of "adding" framelines you don't see, if you can only see 2 or 3 of the four edges.

shoot, take notes, and them look at your shots. real world, you may find the advantage of 1:1 shooting with both eyes open outweigh the need to see all four brightline edges of a not so accurate frameline.

What cameras do adjust for the field of view focus shift? Not many, among them the Hexar AF, Konica IIIM, and of all things strange, the high end Zeiss view findered Polaroid film pack cameras !

Stephen

FrankS · Sep 8, 2006

clintock said:
Sounds like a perfect excuse to get a new R with the 35/2.5 set for 399 to me.. Then you will have two cameras, one optimum for 35 the other awesome for fast 50s and longer..

This makes sense to me!

bmicklea · Sep 8, 2006

From a fellow glasses wearer I can tell you that with my R2a I can't comfortably see all four 35mm framelines in the viewfinder at once. At first it bugged me but now I mostly don't notice. In other words getting yourself an R2x won't necessarily solve the problem you're having with your R3m.

Chris Lynch · Sep 8, 2006

ok, this seems to be quite a bit of logic and "voices of reason" as i like to call them, telling me to chill out for a bit... i think i'll try and do that, and think about it more. If i were to get the R2A/M, i'd end up getting the Megaperls viewfinder for it for whenever/if i did want the 1:1 finder (yeah i know, it'd only be .91--- but that's close haha)

CameraQuest · Sep 8, 2006

R3Mchris said:
ok, this seems to be quite a bit of logic and "voices of reason" as i like to call them, telling me to chill out for a bit... i think i'll try and do that, and think about it more. If i were to get the R2A/M, i'd end up getting the Megaperls viewfinder for it for whenever/if i did want the 1:1 finder (yeah i know, it'd only be .91--- but that's close haha)

nope. .7x

Stephen

kshapero · Sep 8, 2006

CameraQuest said:
I suggest you shoot 5-10 rolls with the R3M and 40 before you make a decision either way.

People tend to get hung up about the framelines being "accurate" because new RF shooters are so often SLR converts.

the truth is that framelines on ANY Leica M mount camera are not that accurate because 1) most represent what a slide mount shows (Leica made M's) 2) what is shown represents the LEAST you will see on the film at 3 feet, beause the field of view increases as you focus to infinity showing you MORE on the film.

your brain has a way of "adding" framelines you don't see, if you can only see 2 or 3 of the four edges.

shoot, take notes, and them look at your shots. real world, you may find the advantage of 1:1 shooting with both eyes open outweigh the need to see all four brightline edges of a not so accurate frameline.

What cameras do adjust for the field of view focus shift? Not many, among them the Hexar AF, Konica IIIM, and of all things strange, the high end Zeiss view findered Polaroid film pack cameras !

Stephen

I have an R3A and I wear glasses. The 40mm frameline is a non issue. Keep your camera! That's my two cents.

Chris Lynch · Sep 8, 2006

well the 2A/M finder is .7X, and if i were to add the megaperls 1.3X mag on it, wouldn't that make it a .91X finder? am i totally wrong with my math or my thought process?

CameraQuest · Sep 8, 2006

R3Mchris said:
well the 2A/M finder is .7X, and if i were to add the megaperls 1.3X mag on it, wouldn't that make it a .91X finder? am i totally wrong with my math or my thought process?

I don't know megaperls finder, or how well it will work.

generally most add-on higher magnification finders accessories reduce the field of view.

try it, let me know.

Stephen

Burkey · Sep 8, 2006

Hi Chris,
Stephen has made a good suggestion. I have an R3A and 40mm Nokton and I do wear glasses. I admit that the lines are a bit "out there" but I've put many rolls through the camera and gotten images very much like what I visualized when looking through the finder and I'm a "fussy" framer in that I don't crop my work. So, for what it's worth put a few more rolls through the camera before you jump. 'Just a suggestion from a fellow Voigtlander user. Good luck.

Chris Lynch · Sep 8, 2006

i totally understand where you guys are coming from, and i appreciate the helpful advice- but another thing (that i probably should've mentioned originally) is that i'd like to have the AE for quick shooting. I guess i should've tried the finder on the 2A while i was at B&H this past weekend (foolish me), but i'm totally not sure now. I've already shot about 10 rolls through this camera and it's great- and i'm seeing one thing so far that's grabbing me:
i'm very OCD about horizons- if i want it straight, i want it straight... if i want it crooked, well yeah.
most of my shots are slightly crooked (not intentionally), and i'm not sure if it's because i can't see the framelines to help me shoot on level- or if my framelines are just crooked and composing with them is the "problem".... i know that they are just guides, but i'd like to at least have them -somewhat- closer in like the 35 lines on the 2A/M....

mc_vancouver · Sep 9, 2006

This is most interesting, and I'd like some advice, because I want to get either the R2M or the R3M. Originally I had a 40mm lens but I recently traded it. Now, I might end up with another 40 sometime, but currently I have 25, 35 and 50. Would the 1:1 viewfinder and a "loose interpretation" of the 40mm framelines be a better choice than the R2M's wider view?

Palaeoboy · Sep 9, 2006

Maybe trying a diopter instead of using glasses?

Can you supply a link to that megaperls magnifier you were referring to? Just curious what its about.

ClaremontPhoto · Sep 9, 2006

Use the 40mm lens and forget the framelines if you can't see them. It's just a bit less than full viewfinder.

But select the 50mm framelines, not for framing but for holding the camera straight.

marknyc · Sep 9, 2006

Look, the whole thing is moot, given your name you HAVE to stick with the R3M. Oh, wait a minute, my name is marknyc and I now live in LA . . .

rxmd · Sep 9, 2006

Oh, wait a minute, my name is marknyc and I now live in LA

You can always change your last name to Nyczranowski or something. R3MChris doesn't have this option and should be quick to register a new username. 🙂

Trade R3M for R2A?

Film Enough.

Established

Galleryless Gearhead

Well-known

Film Enough.

Head Bartender

Registered User

RF Newbie

Film Enough.

Head Bartender

South Florida Man

Film Enough.

Head Bartender

Well-known

Film Enough.

Established

Joel Matherson

Jon Claremont

Established

May contain traces of nut

Similar threads