chris00nj
Young Luddite
From the diagram of the R3a viewfinder on cameraquest, it seems it would be easy enough to use the whole viewfinder to approximate a 35mm lens. However, people say that seeing the 40 is tough.
I'm having a bout of indecision between the Bessa R2A and R3A. I mostly use a 50, don't have a 40, but occassionally use a 35. I like the idea of the 1:1 finder and the longer EBL, but would like not to have to use an accessory finder for 35.
If I could go into a store and play with each camera, I could make up my mind quickly, but alas I don't live in New York or at the Gandy residence.
Edit: I wear contacts.
I'm having a bout of indecision between the Bessa R2A and R3A. I mostly use a 50, don't have a 40, but occassionally use a 35. I like the idea of the 1:1 finder and the longer EBL, but would like not to have to use an accessory finder for 35.
If I could go into a store and play with each camera, I could make up my mind quickly, but alas I don't live in New York or at the Gandy residence.
Edit: I wear contacts.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
If you wear glasses and plan to use a 35, get the R2A... But a better solution is getting the 40 1.4 for the R3A and enjoy the 1:1...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
Gazzah
RF newbie
Its OK..
Its OK..
I use a 35 on my R3A all the time ( but only had it for about 2 months!).
Its fine to use he entire frame as a good guide, but if you wear glasses forget it - itshard to see both sides with the naked eyes, would be impossible with glasses.
Gary H
Its OK..
I use a 35 on my R3A all the time ( but only had it for about 2 months!).
Its fine to use he entire frame as a good guide, but if you wear glasses forget it - itshard to see both sides with the naked eyes, would be impossible with glasses.
Gary H
aizan
Veteran
in a nutshell, it's doable but not recommended.
ethics_gradient
Well-known
You can only see the whole frame if you jam your eye up really close to the viewfinder and look side-to-side, so I don't consider it a viable method if you're trying to accurately frame something at 35mm on the fly. I picked up a separate 35mm VF for cheap, although I have yet to find a 35mm lens to use it with...
mark-b
Well-known
I have an R3a. The whole viewfinder is about a 38mm view, so not quite the 35mm view. But since it's a narrower view, it's like a built-in safety factor that will cover over parallax error for composing.
Don't obsess over it; just make photographs and enjoy.
Don't obsess over it; just make photographs and enjoy.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I have an R3A and R4A and an M6.
I don't wear glasses and can only just see the 40mm frames in the R3A viewfinder I wouldn't want to try using a 35mm lens with it except as an emergency.
Yes, the 1:1 vf is nice. Yes, the 40/1.4 lens is good, but if you have a good 35 then you don't need the 40. It's a compromise - a good one - and many people choose it as their standard lens over a 50. I use a 35/1.4 and a 50/2.5 with the R4A and M6 or the 40/1.4 with the R3A. I'm probably going to sell the R3A with the 40/1.4 lens. At the moment it's the camera I leave in my car.
You have a 50 and mostly use that. You have a 35 and sometimes use that.
I'd recommend the R2A over the R3A based on what you've said.
I don't wear glasses and can only just see the 40mm frames in the R3A viewfinder I wouldn't want to try using a 35mm lens with it except as an emergency.
Yes, the 1:1 vf is nice. Yes, the 40/1.4 lens is good, but if you have a good 35 then you don't need the 40. It's a compromise - a good one - and many people choose it as their standard lens over a 50. I use a 35/1.4 and a 50/2.5 with the R4A and M6 or the 40/1.4 with the R3A. I'm probably going to sell the R3A with the 40/1.4 lens. At the moment it's the camera I leave in my car.
You have a 50 and mostly use that. You have a 35 and sometimes use that.
I'd recommend the R2A over the R3A based on what you've said.
baycrest
Established
The R3A is too tight for a 35mm. I use the v small metal Voightlander finder when I slap a 35 on the R3A.
As that doesn't seem to work for you, then, it doesn't work.
That said the 50mm at 1:1 is really a treat and has sufficient space outside the framelines to see what you're capturing.
I don't think there's a solution other than 2 bodies if you u want to avoid using the finders
Give the finder a second thought, it can grow on you. Occasionally, I leave the 35mm on the R3a all the time, even though similar to yourself, I prefer using the 50mm.
As that doesn't seem to work for you, then, it doesn't work.
That said the 50mm at 1:1 is really a treat and has sufficient space outside the framelines to see what you're capturing.
I don't think there's a solution other than 2 bodies if you u want to avoid using the finders
Give the finder a second thought, it can grow on you. Occasionally, I leave the 35mm on the R3a all the time, even though similar to yourself, I prefer using the 50mm.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
I'm leaning towards think a 35mm finder might be needed for careful compositions, but perhaps its good enough for some general use.
I found this focal length comparison tool to be helpful
I found this focal length comparison tool to be helpful