agoglanian
Reconnected.
So I've been thinking a lot about this, during my extended leave of absense from RFF and I think I want to get myself a Bessa RF and start shooting film again (just for street shooting and art projects) I so desperately miss the concept of film in this digital era.
I'm not going to give up my digital gear, I still need it, but I would like to add this camera as a suppliment.
So far I have my eye on the R4A with the new 35 f/1.4 and maybe the 21mm f/4.
My question is, which camera body makes more sense? I would absolutely be getting the 35 as that is my favorite focal length, the 21 would come later, I may or may not get a fast 50, I haven't decided that yet. So my question is, if I would primarily be using a 35, but most likely having some ultra-wides later on would the R4a make the most sense? Or would something like a used R2a be better?
as always, I appreciate everyone's feedback.
- Abram
(I hope I don't get GAS again!!!
)
I'm not going to give up my digital gear, I still need it, but I would like to add this camera as a suppliment.
So far I have my eye on the R4A with the new 35 f/1.4 and maybe the 21mm f/4.
My question is, which camera body makes more sense? I would absolutely be getting the 35 as that is my favorite focal length, the 21 would come later, I may or may not get a fast 50, I haven't decided that yet. So my question is, if I would primarily be using a 35, but most likely having some ultra-wides later on would the R4a make the most sense? Or would something like a used R2a be better?
as always, I appreciate everyone's feedback.
- Abram
(I hope I don't get GAS again!!!
)Hates_
Established
I'd say R2A if you are going to be using a 35mm lens most of the time.
GeneW
Veteran
Or skip the 50 and the 35 and get an R3A with 40/1.4.
Gene
Gene
funkaoshi
Well-known
If you are mainly interested in shooting with wide angle lenses i'd go with the R4A. Not having to use accessory viewfinders is a big plus. I think for longer focal lengths you may as well stick to using your SLR.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
I agree about a 40. But if you plan to NEVER change lenses, save a bucket load of money and buy a Canonet QL17. IMHO, of course.
RLG
Established
I have a R2M 250 y set with the collapsible 50 mm but I do not use that lens very often. For most pictures I use the 35 mm Ultron. From time to time the 21 mm with external viewfinder. My 75 mm is getting dust.
If I would start now perhaps I would choose a R4M so I do not have to use an external viewfinder.
However I'm very satisfied with the R2M. It is perfect with the 35 mm.
Best
If I would start now perhaps I would choose a R4M so I do not have to use an external viewfinder.
However I'm very satisfied with the R2M. It is perfect with the 35 mm.
Best
agoglanian
Reconnected.
Well I do intend to periodically change out lenses, it's just for the most part I would be using a 35mm. But I am definitely an ultra-wide fan! I can certainly see myself winding up with a 21 ( the new CV one ) and possibly even the 12mm.
*edit - So if I go the Bessa route, Here's what I'm thinking of getting.
R4a (or should I do the R4m?)
the new 35 f/1.4 nokton S.C.
and the new 21 f/4P
sound good?
*edit - So if I go the Bessa route, Here's what I'm thinking of getting.
R4a (or should I do the R4m?)
the new 35 f/1.4 nokton S.C.
and the new 21 f/4P
sound good?
Last edited:
Hates_
Established
I think it depends on what you are going to be shooting. As I shoot mostly street stuff I would find framing with a 35mn on the R4 to be a real pain. On the R2 I know that what I see in the entire viewframe (I wear glasses) is pretty much what I'll get in the final photo.
agoglanian
Reconnected.
That is a good point. i didn't think about that. Well. In that case does it make more sense to get a R2a?
Man. this is really confusing.
Man. this is really confusing.
funkaoshi
Well-known
The R2A is the perfect magnification for a 35mm lens. That said, any wide angles you want to use will require an external viewfinder. You can see the frame line layout for the R4A here. There was another thread on the R4A recently you may want to read.
Last edited:
Lance
Established
Get a Leica. Less choice. Germans knows best.
89rzweig
Member
I'd also consider R3A or R3M, because these cameras have life size viewfinder magnification and that's a great thing -- what you see in the viewfinder is exactly what you see normally by naked eye. You can even have both eyes open while composing the picture. As for the missing 35mm framelines in these cameras, I think it's quite Ok, because the framelines are quite "generous", so the 40mm framelines are pretty close to 35mm. Just keep in mind, that with R2A or R3A and with your favorite 35mm focal length you will be using the widest framelines available in the camera, that's about, say, 85% of what's visible through the viewfinder. You may or may not be comfortable with that.
As for the wide-angles, you do not need to use rangefinder in order to focus 21/4 lens, just zone focus and use external finder for framing.
...and definitely get the 12/5.6 sometime in the future, the perspective is just awesome !!!
-P.
As for the wide-angles, you do not need to use rangefinder in order to focus 21/4 lens, just zone focus and use external finder for framing.
...and definitely get the 12/5.6 sometime in the future, the perspective is just awesome !!!
-P.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I vote for the R#M with the 40mm Nokton. 1:1 VF magnification and the best exposure reading I have ever seen. But warning once you get a ZI you won't go back.
edho
edho
I have considered buying a R4A because of its 21mm frame lines. But I eventually gave up because 35mm is my favourite focal length, and I found the 35mm frame lines in my R2 is a very comfortable magnification. The 35mm frame lines in R4A is a bit small. So I would rather use an external viewfinder whenever I want to use my 21mm lens.