Unresolved R4x questions

[kossi008]

I am considering buying an R4x to use with my 21 to 50 mm lenses, and I don't have a dealer close by. I do own the Bessa R, and am using it as a reference point.

(1.) The 21 mm frame:
According to my calculations, the 21 mm frame on the R4x should be about 25% bigger than the 35 mm frame on the Bessa R, unless the eye-point is radically different between the two cameras. Also, the 21 mm frame on the R4x should be roughly the same size as the 40 mm frame on the R3x. And since a lot of glasses-wearers report problems with the latter, I am wondering...

(2.) The 50 mm frame:
According to the same calculations the 50 mm frame on the R4x would be 10% bigger than the 75 mm frame on my Bessa R, so no problem for me. Yet a lot of people complain that it's tiny.

(3.) Focusing the 50/2:
Erwin Puts tells me (in his article on RF accuracy) that it should be no problem focusing a 50/2 on an effective RF basis of 19.2 mm. It might be less fun, but not impossible, right? Any experience is appreciated here...

(4.) The shutter noise:
My Bessa R is definitely noticable, maybe not on rush-hour sidewalks, but usually on a quiet street and certainly indoors. How does the R4x compare here (or any of the newer R's, for I guess they have the same shutters). Any differences between M and A versions?

(5.) No AE vs. manual discussion please. That's about the only thing I can figure out for myself.

I know the decision is up to me, but I feel I'm lacking critical info here, and the reading on RFF so far has left me confused ... 😕

 

[gliderbee]

I am considering buying an R4x to use with my 21 to 50 mm lenses, and I don't have a dealer close by. I do own the Bessa R, and am using it as a reference point.

(1.) The 21 mm frame:
According to my calculations, the 21 mm frame on the R4x should be about 25% bigger than the 35 mm frame on the Bessa R, unless the eye-point is radically different between the two cameras. Also, the 21 mm frame on the R4x should be roughly the same size as the 40 mm frame on the R3x. And since a lot of glasses-wearers report problems with the latter, I am wondering...

(2.) The 50 mm frame:
According to the same calculations the 50 mm frame on the R4x would be 10% bigger than the 75 mm frame on my Bessa R, so no problem for me. Yet a lot of people complain that it's tiny.

(3.) Focusing the 50/2:
Erwin Puts tells me (in his article on RF accuracy) that it should be no problem focusing a 50/2 on an effective RF basis of 19.2 mm. It might be less fun, but not impossible, right? Any experience is appreciated here...

(4.) The shutter noise:
My Bessa R is definitely noticable, maybe not on rush-hour sidewalks, but usually on a quiet street and certainly indoors. How does the R4x compare here (or any of the newer R's, for I guess they have the same shutters). Any differences between M and A versions?

(5.) No AE vs. manual discussion please. That's about the only thing I can figure out for myself.

I know the decision is up to me, but I feel I'm lacking critical info here, and the reading on RFF so far has left me confused ... 😕

1) the 21mm on the R4x is indeed about the same as the 40mm on the R3x; for me, it's a little bit better visible then the 40mm, but the difference is very small.

2) I wouldn't say it's tiny; it's small, but very usable; it's comparable to the 75mm frame on the R3x.

3) It can be done, but I didn't experiment with it systematically; I prefer the R3x for 50mm (obviously).

4) I don't know about the R, but I have the R2, R3A and R4A side by side: the former makes much more noise then the R3A and R4A. I do have the R3M and R2M in the box; didn't use them yet. The sound of the R2 is quite comparable to the sound of the Olympus OM-1 (a SLR ..).

5) of course 🙂

I like the R4A a lot; although I have plenty (too much) cameras, even so-called better ones (Leica M6, Zeiss Ikon), I think for wide-angle lenses, there's no better than the R4x.

Stefan.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Focusing the 50 f/2 won't be difficult: I shoot my 40 f/1.4 wide open without any problem... But if the lens you'll use the most is a 50, don't get an R4 for that, thinking you'll only go wide sometimes... Get an R4 for 35, 28, 25, 21 and 15... The shutter is quiet enough for unobtrusive street shooting... I use it even inside the church... The R4M is an outstanding and unique camera. I use my 90mm f/2 summicron on it: as with any rangefinder, focusing is hard only if the subject is low contrast and has no clear edges, but not because of the rangefinder...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[kossi008]

@ gliderbee & Juan: Thanks for the replies, you are really helpful.

I was wondering if any of you guys is wearing glasses? I was worrying about the 21 mm frame lines after figuring out the size of them... still beats having to fumble with the accessory finder. I guess.

Obviously, I am considering the R4x because I am a wide-angle type of guy. It would be more like this: the 50 would see occasional use, but it's not my main lens, and for the 35 to 75 range, I would still have the Bessa R. I was asking about the 50 on the R4x because I want to buy and carry ONE body.

@ gliderbee: Good to hear that they really did reduce the shutter noise on the newer Bessas. How would you rate the RxA in comparison to the Zeiss Ikon?

 

[Tompas]

I was wondering if any of you guys is wearing glasses? I was worrying about the 21 mm frame lines after figuring out the size of them... still beats having to fumble with the accessory finder. I guess.

Since gliderbee said that the R4x's 21mm frames are about the same size as the 40mm frames on the R3x...: I do not wear glasses, but I use an eyecup (Nikon DK-3; can't stand cameras without eyecups) on my R3a and I can not see all the frame lines for 40mm at the same time, at least not comfortably. I got used to it after a while (using my Summicron-C 2/40) but it's not ideal.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I don't use the ZI or any Leica body, but I've heard R4M is quiet and close to M Leicas in sound... (We should wait for other opinions here...) I never used the R4A... I don't wear glasses, but I would bet you'll find a way to use your 21mm lens with it: I use my 15 and my 90... My advice is buying the R4M, no doubt... I wonder if someone would say don't buy it...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[KenR]

I wear glasses and have no trouble seeing the 21mm frame line. My only problem is getting accurate focus with a 50mm lens wide open. It really is meant for wide angle lenses. I think that the 28mm is truly a winning combination with the R4x body.

 

[gliderbee]

I was wondering if any of you guys is wearing glasses? I was worrying about the 21 mm frame lines after figuring out the size of them... still beats having to fumble with the accessory finder. I guess.

@ gliderbee: Good to hear that they really did reduce the shutter noise on the newer Bessas. How would you rate the RxA in comparison to the Zeiss Ikon?

I've put my glasses back on for a moment to check it out again: for the 21mm lines, I have to move my eye a bit to the sides, but not much.

As for shutter noise, it's hard to describe noise, but I'll give it a try:

As I hear them, the Bessa R4A is a bit "harder", a bit more mettalic then the Zeiss Ikon (as the ZI is a bit more metallic then a Leica M6TTL). The difference between the Bessa and the ZI is bigger then the difference between the ZI and the Leica (that difference between these last two is more in type of sound then in volume, and a higher sound "ZI" seems "louder" then the low sound of the Leica), but the difference between the Bessa R2 and the Bessa R4A is much bigger then every other difference I mentioned here.

If I had to put it on a scale (only as I experience them, of course, I have nothing to measure all this):

Bessa R2: 10,
Bessa R4A: 5,
Zeiss Ikon: 3,
Leica M6TTL: 2.5

When using a halfcase with the Bessa, the sound of it is still a bit "fuller" then the Zeiss Ikon without halfcase; it sounds "bigger" then the Zeiss Ikon.

Anyway, in all but the most silent of places, the difference in sound between these can be neglected. You would notice it in a church when everybody is silent, but if somebody is preaching or singing, the difference doesn't matter anymore IMHO: all will be noticed or will not be noticed.

Does all this make sense .. ?

Stefan.

 

[gliderbee]

And as for the difference between R4A and R4M:

I don't have a R4M, but I do have a R4A, R3A and R3M.

The R4A and R3A sound exactly the same, as expected, as it are the same shutters in the same bodies.

Assuming the R4M will sound the same as the R3M, I tested the R3M against the R4A, and again, the sound (to me) is the same except in the slower times (1 sec, 1/2 sec, etc ...); there of course you hear the mechanism of the mechanical shutter between the clicks versus the silence of the electronic shutter between the clicks (I LIKE that mechanical sound 🙂).

Stefan.

 

[telemetre]

I wear glasses, and I have to move my eye a little using the 21mm frame lines, but find them much more usable than the 40mm frame lines on R3A, and at least as comfortable as 35mm frame lines on 0.72x Leica M cameras.

As others already pointed out 50mm frame lines are a bit small but not tiny, and quite usable.

I can only comment on the R4m, but shooting outdoors can not hear the shutter. Actually I can't distinguish the shutter noise of R4m from a Leica MP indoors/outdoors, but of course, haven't done any measurements.

By the way, the R4m has the best meter readout I've ever used.

 

[kossi008]

Thank you all for the insights, very helpful indeed.

Today I had a chance of shooting side-by-side with my Bessa R and a friend's M7. Besides the expected difference in shutter sounds (thanks for the scale, gliderbee), I must admit that I loved expecially the focusing on the M7. So I guess I will not be buying the R4x after all, as I need to go larger in the RF base, not smaller.

Too bad, I would have loved the wide-angle frame lines, but exact focusing is more important to me, and I was already worrying about the 50 on the R4x... and I did take a look at my negs from the Bessa R, and I am losing a lot of shots to focus error.

Damn. Well, maybe later in life. You never know... For now, if I can justify the expense from the IQ difference after developing and scanning, I will probaly be buying a ZI...

 

[gliderbee]

Thank you all for the insights, very helpful indeed.

Today I had a chance of shooting side-by-side with my Bessa R and a friend's M7. Besides the expected difference in shutter sounds (thanks for the scale, gliderbee), I must admit that I loved expecially the focusing on the M7. So I guess I will not be buying the R4x after all, as I need to go larger in the RF base, not smaller.

Too bad, I would have loved the wide-angle frame lines, but exact focusing is more important to me, and I was already worrying about the 50 on the R4x... and I did take a look at my negs from the Bessa R, and I am losing a lot of shots to focus error.

Damn. Well, maybe later in life. You never know... For now, if I can justify the expense from the IQ difference after developing and scanning, I will probaly be buying a ZI...

Maybe for the 50, but is exact focussing so important for the wider lenses ? After all, that's the raison d'être of the R4x.

Stefan.

 

[kossi008]

You are right, but I find a lot of mis-focused shots from my Ultron 35 wide open or at f/2. Maybe it is just me, but if I make the Rangefinder base smaller, this is not going to improve...

As I said, I am buying exactly one body (if at all, the scans will show). I might come back to the R4M later... it's still tempting, of course.

 

[Gary E]

Just so happens, I had my first hands on experience with the R4m today. What a revelation it was to finally look through the WA VF! 😱 Just as Stephen at CQ, Tom A. and others have said, if you use 21, 25 or 28 as your main lens this is a great camera to use them with.

From your questions:
1) I use glasses and have to move my eye around a little to see the 21mm frame lines; just like I do on the R3a for the 40mm frame lines. Not discomforting and easier on the R4m than on the R3a.

4) It was definitely quieter than the R3a. Also the shutter button on the R4m was a little bit more harder to press than the R3a. Not sure if it was because the R4m was a mechanical shutter compared to the electronic shutter on the R3a.

I almost pulled the CC out to buy it today, but after a bit of playing around with the R4m I wished it only had dedicated 21, 25 and 28 frame lines. The 35 frame lines looked usable, but I wouldn't push it with the 50 (squinty small) unless you're shooting at F5.6 or higher.

 

[KenR]

I was a bit surprised last weekend when somebody took offense at my picture taking with the R4A - he heard the shutter while we were standing on 42nd Steet in Manhattan and moved in to confront me. I'm not sure which surprised me more - his hearing the shutter or his response to it. I never had anyone look up after a picture, from even closer in with the camera. So much for stealth.