Which is the best Bessa to get for an eyeglass wearer ?

[flamingo]

R2, R2a, or R3a ?

Title says it all. I like to shoot wide and I am seriously eyeballing (no pun intended) the 21/4, the 35/1.2 or the new 40/1.4.

I am talking frameline visibility here on the wide end for an eyeglass wearer. I believe the 21/4 requires the seperate included finder anyhow, correct ?

I like the idea of the R3A's 1:1, but I saw someone mention that the viewfinder was unusable with a 35 or 28 for an eyeglass wearer.

Anyone out there with practical experience ?

Thanks all...

 

[Fred]

I also wear glasses but could not see the 40mm frames easilly on the R3a.
The R2 (same finder as the R2a) it was easier to see the 35mm frame. If your shooting wider than that you'll need the external finder then either will do.

It might boil down to which lenses your more likely to use, 35mm go for the R2 or 40 for the R3a. Personally I'd prefer the R2/R2a.

 

[chug]

I have an R and I can see the frame lines just fine. So the R2 and R2a is suitable for us glasses wearers 🙂 I still want to look though an R3a to see what its like.

 

[Roger Hicks]

R3A. I've tried it. No question.

Roger

 

[rover]

All camera are fine...

But for an eyeglass wearer who wants to ues wide angle lenes and wants to see the framelines, then I would not choose the R3a. Wearing my glasses I could not see the entire 40mm framelines in the R3a where as with the R2 I could see the 35mm framelines.

The R2 or R2a would be better choices IMHO.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Rover,

Interesting. My wife has the exact opposite opinion. For me (with a monocle) the R3A is also better. A lot must depend on face shape and glasses shape.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[rover]

To a certain extent it actually doesn't matter. If you can live with the 40mm framelines, see them or not, in any of these cameras there isn't any framelines wider than 35mm. If you wish to go wide, 28 or wider, you are best served to use an external viewfinder, in that case the framelines are insignificant.

I guess I can say this too, the 40mm framelines in my R3a were just a little less visible than the 35mm framelines in my M6 (when I am wearing my glasses). So, not much of an improvement.

This is where the ZI is going to clean up, that viewfinder is wonderful.

 

[Fred]

Another two pennies worth. Just to add more info.

Although my preference is the R2/R2a, the R3a has a longer effective RF base length which will certainly help if your using longer lenses wide open and up close. Should not make any difference if you normally shoot wider angle lenses.

 

[Huck Finn]

The best "Bessa" for use with the 40/1.4 for eyeglass wearers is the Rollei 35 RF. It's a special edition of the R2 made for Rollei by Cosina, but with improved close focus ability & uncluttered 40 mm frame lines. (The 40 & 35 mm frame lines of the Bessas also include 90 mm frame lines.) It shares the .68 magnification of the R2 & R2A. I can see the entire 40 mm frame lines easily with my eyeglasses. Given the great depth of field of a 40 mm lens, there is no significant advantage of the increased magnification of the R3A at this focal length & wider - even at f/1.4.

Cheers,
Huck

 

[flamingo]

I suspected I would touch a nerve with this topic.
Thanks for all the quick replies.

Roger, did I understand correctly that your wife is an eyeglass wearer and she does NOT prefer the R3A such as you do ?
That was also an interesting observation regarding face shape and eyeglass shape.

And Huck, while the Rollei 35RF sounds like a great alternative, (improved close focus and no 90mm framelines), how do they achieve improved close focus ? Is it a logarithmic insteaed of a linear "throw" optimized for the wide focal lengths ? What is the "longest" focal length frameline on the Rollei ?

And rover, I am glad you mentioned the M6. Is your M6 a .72 or a .58 ? I was thinking of getting an M6 instead of a Bessa and joining the "Snob" crowd over there, but obtaining one with the .58 VF. Problem is they seem much rarer than the .72 and .85 and command almost double the price !!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. Frances says 'this is the best camera I have ever found for using with glasses on', i.e. the opposite of Rover's post.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[aizan]

if you can, try out both. wearing glasses, i can see the same amount of the 35mm framelines on a .72x leica as i can of the 40mm framelines on a bessa r3a. on rangefinders, i think precise framing is more a matter of memory than framelines, so i'd use it for 35mm or even 28mm lenses. not that it's really important most of the time. forgetting about the edges helps you pay more attention to your subject, and you end up with natural, less precious framing.

an alternative to the r2/r2a is the hexar rf. it's even better for glass wearers and wider framelines.

 

[flamingo]

Hmmm-m-mmm (beard scratching motion). Now I'm more confused than ever. Guess it's time for a trip to NYC so I can play touchy feely with these beautiful things in the flesh ....

 

[Huck Finn]

Huck, while the Rollei 35RF sounds like a great alternative, (improved close focus and no 90mm framelines), how do they achieve improved close focus ? Is it a logarithmic insteaed of a linear "throw" optimized for the wide focal lengths ? What is the "longest" focal length frameline on the Rollei ?

Flamingo, the standard close focus distance of Leica M cameras is 0.7 meters (27 inches). All of the Leica standard & wide angle lenses are built for a minimum focus distance of 0.7 meters.

For some reason, when Cosina came out with the Bessa R, the built it to rangefinder couple to a close focus distance of only 0.9 meters (about 3 feet). When they came out with the upgraded R2, it remained 0.9 close focus distance.This was odd since many of the Cosina lenses by that time (2002) were built to a minimum focus distance of 0.7 m, although some of the early lenses like the 50 Nokton & 35 Ultron were only 0.9 m.

I don't have any idea what the engineering issues were that led them to choose the longer close focus capability for the R & the R2, but I do know that my Rollei 35 RF close focuses to 0.7 m, which means that it is rangefinder coupled to focus lenses with this minimum focus distance & that the viewfinder is parallax corrected to this distance as well. I suspect that this was an important specification for Rollei because the whole point of the camera was to feature their legendary 40/2.8 Sonnar lens & I expect that they wanted a camera that could take full advantage of its capabilities - which included a minimum focus distance of 0.7 m. Rollei was perfectly happy to use the R2, but they needed this spec to be improved.

When Cosina developed the R2A & R3A, they retained the close focus capability that they had developed for the Rollei 35 RF, so these 2 cameras have the 0.7 close focus distance.

The frame lines in the Rollei viewfinder are 40/50/80. I use the CV 75/2.5, which works perfectly well with the 80 frame lines because it is actually a little longer than 75 mm. As measured by Popular Photography, it was 77 mm when they tested it. This is a close enough approximation of 80 mm, given that few lenses measure exactly what they are marked anyway. To my way of thinking, this is the ideal "long" lens for the R2 or R2A because the base line of these cameras forces you to use a 90 mm lens with a slower maximum aperture of f/3.5 - & the 75/2.5 is so compact for its focal length, something which I prefer in a RF camera. When I want to shoot longer than this, I use my SLR, which handles these longer focal lengths better anyway. The R3A, of course is more capable with longer lenses. But even with the increased magnification, faster 90 mm lenses of f/2 & even f/2.8 sometimes can be challenging for critical work.

Cheers,
Huck

 

[Huck Finn]

Hmmm-m-mmm (beard scratching motion). Now I'm more confused than ever. Guess it's time for a trip to NYC so I can play touchy feely with these beautiful things in the flesh ....

Flamingo, perhaps you'd like to join us at a Rangefinder Forum gathering in NYC on June 28. members will have cameras with them, so you will be able to sample a wide variety of bodies & ask questions of their owners. Some plan a stop at one of The City's renowned cameras shops - probably B&H. Details are in another thread.

Aizan makes a good point about learning to estmate the frame lines from memory. It's a matter of personal shooting style. I'm doing the same thing with a 28 mm lens on my Rollei because I don't like using an auxiliary viewfinder, but it's not an ideal way of shooting & you lose one of the benefits of RF shooting, which is the ability to see outside the frame lines when you are composing. Because of its 1.0x magnification, some are able to learn to do this with the R3A - again a matter of personal style.

Good luck,
Huck

 

[flamingo]

Huck thanks for the invite, but I meant that half facetiously. I am currently living in St. Pete Florida, and I don't get up to NYC that much anymore, although that is where I'm from originally. Besides my summer trip is already booked for Las Vegas in mid June,

This whole idea started because I was looking for a little higher quality glass for 35mm and the idea of interchangeable lens RF intrigued me. I have been shooting with a Petri Color 35 since 1968 and more recently with an Olympus Stylus Epic.

Oh well, my insatiable need to collect must be quenched soon, otherwise I will be doomed to drag my overweight Mamiya 6 rig with me to L.V.
We all know what a piece of junk glass that G/f4 50 L Mamiya lens is, don't we ? There is still something magical about looking at a 2 1/4 chrome under a loupe on a light table right ?
Try doing that with a digital camera !!

That's why we're all here, right ?

 

[vsolanoy]

Just to throw my two cents in, I have an R3A with the 40mm Nokton and am also an eyeglass wearer. I think someone mentioned it already, but I think whether you can see the framelines depends on the shape of your face and the distance of your eyeglass lens to to your eye. At normal distance (not pressing the camera in to my glasses so it's closer to my eye), the frameline is roughly my eye's field of view, so estimating isn't all too difficult, particularly for quick snaps. In cases were I'm working on composition where I have time to compose a shot, for me, without my eyeglasses, I can see the full frameline and still focus effectively (although, I'm now consdering lasik eye surgery <grin>)

Initially, it did bother me and considered returning the camera for the R2A, but what made me change my mind was the longer effective RF base, and the fact that all my test shots were not affected at all by not always seeing the framelines ll the time. I also took into consideration that the 90mm frameline served as a general guide dividing the center of the frame to the edge of the frame almost in half.