shango
Newbie
I'm just curious as to why the R4A/M is more expensive than
the R2/3? I've gone through the available information and I may have
missed some key differences aside from the framelines.
For me, the framelines on the R4 are not a selling point so
I'm considering purchasing an R3 or R2 for a couple hundred less.
Unless I've missed some other goodies.
the R2/3? I've gone through the available information and I may have
missed some key differences aside from the framelines.
For me, the framelines on the R4 are not a selling point so
I'm considering purchasing an R3 or R2 for a couple hundred less.
Unless I've missed some other goodies.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Nope, it's all about the framelines.
I think the price reflects the R4's unique position in the market as the only rangefinder camera with framelines wider than 28mm. For wide shooters, it's a very cool development.
I think the price reflects the R4's unique position in the market as the only rangefinder camera with framelines wider than 28mm. For wide shooters, it's a very cool development.
clintock
Galleryless Gearhead
The optics in the viewfinder are more complex in the R4.
petebown
Established
How good are the optics in the R4*'s viewfinder? I use an R2A and the viewfinder is very good. However, the external viewfinders for my 25mm and 15mm both suffer very badly from barrel distortion. Does the R4* viewfinder have straight verticals or does it look like a fisheye?
"How good are the optics in the R4*'s viewfinder?"
i tried asking the same at some point, only to get a looong silence about it ,-)
i tried asking the same at some point, only to get a looong silence about it ,-)
back alley
IMAGES
the finder is excellent.
no fish eye lines, very clear and easy to use.
i had the 28 on it today and the fl are a treat.
i can't see all 4 fl for the 21 without moving my eye around a bit - i wear glasses though. i look forward to getting the new 25 cv lens as that focal length is a favourite.
don't let the finder hold you back from getting an r4, if you like wides this is the camera for you.
joe
no fish eye lines, very clear and easy to use.
i had the 28 on it today and the fl are a treat.
i can't see all 4 fl for the 21 without moving my eye around a bit - i wear glasses though. i look forward to getting the new 25 cv lens as that focal length is a favourite.
don't let the finder hold you back from getting an r4, if you like wides this is the camera for you.
joe
biomed
Veteran
petebown said:
There is a very small amount of barrel distortion. It is much less than any wide angle external VF. It is more noticeable when using the 21 frame as the frame size puts the edges of the frame lines close to the edges of the VF. Compared to the external 21 VF, it is virtually non existant.
clintock said:
Why? The lack of distortion thing?
peter_n
Veteran
Vertical linearity in the R4 viewfinder is very good indeed.
Leicabug
Established
Cosina aslo has to factor into the account number of units they are able to sell, which should be much less than R2/3. Thus higher cost per unit. I appreciate Cosina's effert because no one else has been willing to develop and produce such rangefinder.
Last edited:
dostacos
Dan
shango said:
no you have not missed anything, if the 21,25 &28MM framelines don't do ANYTHING for you, it is not the camera for you.
On the other hand the R3 gives the 1:1 viewfinder AND the 40mm framelines may well be a great choice for you....that is until you get bit by the wide angle bug [followed by getting bit by the "I hate external viewfinders" bug.
]with both the R3 and R4 you will have a camera that has frame lines for every lens Voighlander makes
0bli0
still developing...
except the 12 and the 15...
btw the viewfinder in the r4a is definitely better than the aux 21 finder. almost no distortion and very bright.
btw the viewfinder in the r4a is definitely better than the aux 21 finder. almost no distortion and very bright.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The R4 finder is a very complex piece of work! It is not just a lower magnification finder with some wide frame lines stuck in it. In Rf designs it is a first of its kind and it took almost three years to develop.
It is obviously designed for the wide angle user - the 50 finder is small and "peepholish" and is more of an 'emergency" finder.
If you are a shooter who primarily uses 35/40/50/ and longer lenses it is not for you. I am wide-angle shooter and the 35 is my normal and the 50 I treat as a short tele! The R4 is a dream come through - no more top-mount finders to loose or snag in straps and a faster frame/focus than with these finders. I have found that my "hit" rate (keepers) with 21/25 lenses has vastly increased with the R4. Shifting from one finder for focus to another for framing breaks the concentration while shooting and with the R4 i dont have that problem. The frame-lines are straight and clearly defined though the 21 lines are right at the edge of vision with glasses, but no more so than the 40 lines on the R3 or the 28 lines of a 0,72 Leica M2. I am considering the R4 as a "mile-stone" camera, right up there with the first M3/M2's with the bayonet lens-mount and the Nikon F. I have had mine since mid-March and so far I have never ventured outside without it! I usually match it with a M2 or R3 (and the 40/1,4).
It is obviously designed for the wide angle user - the 50 finder is small and "peepholish" and is more of an 'emergency" finder.
If you are a shooter who primarily uses 35/40/50/ and longer lenses it is not for you. I am wide-angle shooter and the 35 is my normal and the 50 I treat as a short tele! The R4 is a dream come through - no more top-mount finders to loose or snag in straps and a faster frame/focus than with these finders. I have found that my "hit" rate (keepers) with 21/25 lenses has vastly increased with the R4. Shifting from one finder for focus to another for framing breaks the concentration while shooting and with the R4 i dont have that problem. The frame-lines are straight and clearly defined though the 21 lines are right at the edge of vision with glasses, but no more so than the 40 lines on the R3 or the 28 lines of a 0,72 Leica M2. I am considering the R4 as a "mile-stone" camera, right up there with the first M3/M2's with the bayonet lens-mount and the Nikon F. I have had mine since mid-March and so far I have never ventured outside without it! I usually match it with a M2 or R3 (and the 40/1,4).
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
it is not more expensive than it you think. it is because it is brand new.
wait for a year or so, it will be the same price range of R2/3.
wait for a year or so, it will be the same price range of R2/3.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I don't think low sales volume is the reason for the price hike.
This camera will surely be the best seller in the Voigtlander line as it's unique and it will attract Leica and Zeiss people.
This camera will surely be the best seller in the Voigtlander line as it's unique and it will attract Leica and Zeiss people.
sockeyed
Well-known
While the R4M is designed around wides, I actually find I really enjoy using my 40mm on it (with the 35mm framelines). I spent a weekend out of town with my R4M, 40mm and 25mm, and I'm very happy with the results. I think that using it with a 50mm wouldn't be so great.
The finder is stunning and has the great feature of being able to read the f-stops on one's lens.
The finder is stunning and has the great feature of being able to read the f-stops on one's lens.
What Tom left out ...
What Tom left out ...
What Tom modestly left out is that the R4 viewfinder was Tom's idea!
At first Mr. K didn't think it could be done. But Mr. K kept pushing his designers, because year after year Tom came back to Japan asking Mr. K "Where is my Bessa wide?"
Stephen
What Tom left out ...
Tom A said:
What Tom modestly left out is that the R4 viewfinder was Tom's idea!
At first Mr. K didn't think it could be done. But Mr. K kept pushing his designers, because year after year Tom came back to Japan asking Mr. K "Where is my Bessa wide?"
Stephen