35mm framelines : R2(a) VS leica M.72 / external finder

[maddav_maddav]

I assume that the viewfinder of the R2a will be the same as that of

the R2. The last one had a 0.7 magnification, slightly less than the

0.72 leica. I wear glasses and I can't see all the 35mm framelines

at the same time in the viewfinder of my leica M. I have tried using

contact lenses but, although it is much better, it is still not

optimal.

 

Since I'd like to buy a second body (I don't like changing lenses

and I'd like to have an AE camera for a reasonable price) I'm

considering buying a R2a. However I'm not sure it will really solve

my problem as to the framelines, as the magnification is only a bit

lower. What do you think?

Otherwise I'm also considering an external finder. I have looked

through the 15mm finder of a friend and I was amazed by the image

quality. This one is not very convenient for someone wearing

spectacles but according to stephen gandy a glasses wearer can

easily see the lines of the last 35mm metal voigtländer finder. And

he says it is the best 35mm finder ever made. So maybe it would be

the solution to my problem.

[paul t]

If you want AE, plus 35mm framelines, might be worth looking at the Hexar

RF, or the upcoming Zeiss Ikon. The Zeiss will offer focusing more accurate

than the .72 v/f Leic. The Hexar is not as accurate in terms of focusing - I

believe it's about the same as an M6 with .58 viewfinder, and like the .58 has

easily viewable 35 framelines. But it has AE, and seems to go for reasonable

prices.

[huw_finney]

Just compared my R2 with my M6, I don't use glasses but the R2 frame are visible with my eye further away on the R2. Worth a look through an R2, or have your optican make a 'proper' correction lens for you.

[cameron_sawyer]

External finders are not parallax corrected and are much less convenient than built-in ones. Try the Bessa -- the eyepiece is much larger, and you may find it easier to see the framelines. Magnification is not the only factor.

[vlad_chapkin]

1. Corrective "diopter lenses" that fit Nikon (FM? - the rectangular ones) body will also fit Bessa rangefinder. They are cheap and easily available.<br>

This is because Bessa is a modified mechanical Nikon with a rangefinder put in<p>

2. (to Paul T.) - your thinking is a perfect imitation of that of a volunteer salesman: the more expensive is the solution ("Zeiss"), the better. OR: if I can sell an unpopular product (Hexar) and clear the shelf, it's almost ideal. Do the opposite: think in engineering terms and completely ignore branding.<br>

The coming Zeiss Icon <b>IS A BESSA R2A</b> through and through (with a different rangefinder module plugged in). The failure of a plastic Bessa labelled "Rollei" at $1500 did not teach them, so now they are repackaging the aperture-priority Bessa as a "Zeiss" and all indication is are planning to push it at 3-4 times the price of the aperture-priority Bessa. Just to have a Zeiss branded body to go with their lenses.<br>

Now that we can see through it, we can as easily sidestep their marketing swindle and pick up the cheapest of the equal models.

[andrew_hall1]

>Now that we can see through it, we can as easily sidestep their marketing swindle and pick up the cheapest of the equal models.<P>

 

That can only be true IF ONLY wide angle M-lenses - which do not need the longer rangefinder base-length - are ever offered OR ever used.

[paul t]

"The coming Zeiss Icon IS A BESSA R2A through and through (with a different

rangefinder module plugged in)."<p>

Your rudeness is only matched by your ignorance. The Zeiss Icon is not a

rebadged Bessa, it has an entirely different top plate, rewind mechanism, and

rangefinder. It might have the same shutter mechanism, but we have no

empirical evidence for that, only supposition. Why don't you read the evidence

of those who have actually tried the thing? And as for the Hexar, are you next

going to go on about its being Leica incompatible? Because the last I heard,

they were like gold-dust in Europe, and people were trying to sell examples

here for 90% of the new price. If I am offering a suggestion, it is because I am

trying to be helpful; I note you've made no attempt to address Maddav's

question, unlike everyone else here. <p>Now push off, get a life, and stop

trying to generate propaganda. And if Maddav ends up getting an R2a, or

something that works for him, good for him.

[del_gray]

"The coming Zeiss Icon IS A BESSA R2A through and through (with a different rangefinder module plugged in). "

 

The difference of the new rangefinder mechanism all by itself already invalidates the whole point of the comparison. The Zeiss IS NOT the exact same camera as any Bessa. Even apart from the viewfinder/rangefinder, one look at the pictures shows many differences in design and engineering. In addition, there are several first hand reports on the web already that testify that the Zeiss is a significantly different camera than the Bessas (see Lutz's thread below). Even the negative report in another earlier thread about how well made it is was in comparison to Leicas and in relation to the projected price of $1800-2000. The comparisons with the Rollei model are inappropriate in this case.

[del_gray]

Sorry to repeat Paul, he apparently types faster than I do. I have both a Hexar RF and a Minolta CLE, and they would both fit what you are looking for. The Hexar has a .6x viewfinder and the 35mm lines are way inside the outer edge, easily seen with glasses on. The nice thing about it is that unlike the Bessa series, it has basically the same rangefinder length as the Leicas, not the shorter length of the Bessas. So you still get the accuracy (not as much as a higher mag viewfinder, but still high) mixed with the ability to see the lines. Of course a Leica .58x would do the same thing for you, but the Hexar meets your requirements of a reasonable price and is AE. The CLE, on the other hand, has a smaller rangefinder baselength, but the viewfinder is marvelous. The framelines are clear and easy to see - even the 28mm lines are clearly viewable. The problem is that it doesn't have 35mm lines, only 28, 40, and 90mm. The 40mm lines, however, are very close to 35, and some say even more accurate for a 35mm lens than the Leica's (although I don't have a Leica body so I can't say if that is true). The 35 lenses bring up the 28mm lines, though, so I'm not sure how/if you could make that work. It also has AE and is not that expensive (though you have to make sure you find one in good shape). I love mine for 35/40 mm lenses, and it is fantastic as a second body because it is so small and light. A CL might be even better for the framelines (since I believe the 40 lines are always visible), but it doesn't have AE. Just some ideas that might be worth looking into.

[leslie_cheung]

hexar rf rocks!

[mike_elek]

> This is because Bessa is a modified mechanical Nikon with a rangefinder put in ...

 

Well, not exactly true. Cosina made several SLRs for Nikon and Olympus (possibly others) based on the same platform. So the camera is really a Cosina SLR -- not a Nikon.

 

However, you should be able to use diopters for that Nikon (I think it was the FM10).

[mike_elek]

Oh yes, and it's Zeiss I<u>k</u>on. Not Zeiss I<u>c</u>on.