which is better for viewfinder accuracy bessa r3m or leica m3?

[dede95064]

this is related to two previous posts i've had here but i'm now curious about these two cameras.

i recently bought a zorki4 and was unsatisfied with the getting used to effect i have to do in order to properly frame a subject with both the internal viewfinder (for the jupiter 8) and an external fsu viewfinder (for the jupiter 9). that is, since there are no framelines or parallax correction, i have to "wing it" and hope i get all of the subject in the frameline or it be properly centered. also, i'm trying to figure out if my lenses or camera or both are not calibrated properly as my focus has been off on some shots. i'm sure through repeated use i'll figure it out eventually. :bang:

my question now is with which camera will i have better focusing and framing accuracy between the r3m and the m3?

from doing research on both, it seems that even though the r3m has a 1:1 viewfinder, the m3 is better in terms of focusing accuracy, especially for fast lenses like the 50 1.1/1.0 etc.

my main purpose for these cameras would be to use my jupiter lenses and other ltm/m lenses as well as the noktons 50 1.1 and 35 1.2 and at some point in time the leica 75 1.4.

in the end, which camera is best for the "what you see is what you (mostly) get"???

thanks!!!

 

[david.elliott]

The M3 has framelines for 50/90/135. So it wont have the framelines for all of those lenses. That said, neither will a R3m - 40/50/75/90.

More accurate focusing - M3 because it has a longer effective baselength.

More accurate framing - ehhhhh.

 

[dede95064]

thanks for the quick response!

so what about the framing of what you see is what you get? won't the r3m have better parallax correction because of the (i suppose) newer modern technology when using different lenses?

 

[david.elliott]

No idea. I've never bothered trying to get particularly accurate framing with either camera (I own both). I've also never had anything entirely unexpected show up in a photo because of a framing issue.

If I want more accurate framing, which I never do, I reach for a SLR.

If there are differences in framing accuracy between a M3 and a R3m, I dont think they really matter.

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

thanks for the quick response!

so what about the framing of what you see is what you get? won't the r3m have better parallax correction because of the (i suppose) newer modern technology when using different lenses?

technology? I don't know. physics haven't changed that much in the past 50-60 years...

 

[dede95064]

ok. so aside from the m3 having better focusing and build quality, is the r3m's 1:1 viewfinder much easier to focus than the m3 for low light levels?

 

[david.elliott]

My r3m and m3 are equally easy to focus in low light.

You should budget in a cla for a m3.

 

[dede95064]

My r3m and m3 are equally easy to focus in low light.

You should budget in a cla for a m3.

i see. ok. so it seems that the r3m's 1:1 viewfinder isn't a whole lot more convenient or worth to get over the m3 huh? ok so the m3 it is! the r3m's internal meter doesn't matter to me much, if that's what sets it apart.

thanks!

 

[david.elliott]

The 1:1 finder is nice because you can shoot with both eyes open and the framelines are superimposed in your field of view. You can do this with the M3 too since it is close to 1:1 magnification, but it is not quite the same.

I shoot with my left eye to the viewfinder so it really doesnt make any difference to me at all.

Please keep in mind that if you are after accurate framing, NEITHER camera has framelines for all of the lenses you listed. You will have to rely upon external viewfinders or just plain guessing.

 

[dede95064]

ok. thanks david!

 

[pb908]

I have zorki4 and feel it is very easy to focus (i can see lots of detail on the RF patch as it is 1:1), but hard to frame. i have rollei 35rf which is the same as bessa r2, it is the hard to focus somehow, specially due to small magnification and eye centering. If I set my lens to minimum distance, the patch can easily gone if I move my eye little bit to the right, it happen also on infinity distance with eye to left direction. This eye centering frustated me a lot, untill I get M2.magnification is almost the same, but the patch is soo wide and no need to center my eye to see it either in minimum/infinity distance. and small movement of focus ring will bring a lot of movement on the patch (due to longer baselength maybe) .. So..

I believe either r3M or M3 will accurate enough for your need, but from what I read/heard, almost all bessa have the problem of eye centering (so does rd-1, tested on my friend's camera). For me, M3 is the way ..

 

[ruby.monkey]

I suspect that an R3M would lead you on to a Leica soon enough anyway... 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

The 1:1 finder is nice because you can shoot with both eyes open . . .

Dear David,

With a bit of practice you can so that with most finders, even .72. It's uncomfortable at first but you get used to it.

In response to the OP, in my Zeiss Ikon review there's a comparison of several different finders, both built in and auxiliary, including the M2, MP, R2, R3A but not M3: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/zeiss.html. Scroll about a quarter of the way down.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gary E]

Both have good focus accuracy, but the I prefer the M3 for Summilux lenses for the greater base length; though the R3 is no slouch. I've found the M3 slightly better at focusing in low light. The real issue is the 75mm frameline in the M3, there is none. So you'll either have to guess or use an external VF for 75mm. The M3 is nearly the best built M in my book; used my friend's MP and it comes close. The intended FL lenses (50/90/135) are a joy to use with this body

The reason to get the R3 is AE, 40mm framelines, sole 75 and 50 framelines (40 & 90 share) and it's 1:1 VF. Not as smooth, but the best RF platform to enter RF (new, no need to get CLA and usually costs less than getting an M3/2 as a starter).

 

[spiderfrank]

M3 should be better, I guess, for the rangefinder base...

 

[gilpen123]

Big difference in RF patch contrast, M3 never ever flare.

 

[ferider]

ok. so aside from the m3 having better focusing and build quality, is the r3m's 1:1 viewfinder much easier to focus than the m3 for low light levels?

The r3* viewfinder is brighter, but the M3 patch contrast is higher and it flares less. Which for me makes the M3 much easier to focus in low light.