cbettis Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 In reading Gandy's site about the new CV bodies, it would seem that the only difference between the two are the frames (25, 50, 75,90) vs. (40, 50, 75, 90) and the .7 or 1.0 viewfinder. Assuming that one did not need the 40 frameline, why would anyone opt for a .7 over full frame? Am I missing something? (I usually am!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Chuck: The 40 frameline goes with the 1.0 finder. You would get the 0.7 finder if you want/need the 35 frameline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_kim2 Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 I beleive its 35 not 25...ie (25, 50, 75,90) vs. (40, 50, 75, 90) A 1.0 viewfinder is 1:1 perspective and produces what people call the floating frame cause it frames the same as you see. My only question is, is there really that much difference between the 40 and 50mm perspective to jusitify it being on the same camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_neuthaler Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Peter, I agree, but at last those with the famous old 40mm Summicrons & Rokkors can call a frame their own beyond the CL or CLE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_ho Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Since the minilux, I'm dreaming for the new 40mm in M-mount. For me, 40mm is right in between 35 and 50. I want to use 35 with M6 but can't see the frameline, so I use the 50 thus I can see "outside" the frameline (the goodie for RF, and a major reason to keep a RF, even you are mainly use a DSLR). With 1.0 viewfinder, 40mm is the logical choice, to feel the power of RF. I will still keep on dreaming for the "remount" 40mm from Leica. Before that, I will have CV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_marshall1 Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Peter, I see the reason for the 50 as being the fast or ultra-fast lens in your system since it is not as expensive as the other extremes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
del_gray Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Actually, to me the 40mm seems almost the same as a 35mm perspective, not 50. I often carry both of them, but usually one on the CLE and the other on the Hexar RF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 A forty seems to be close to perfect for a single lens. Perhaps this is why the CL has 40 and 90 for traveling light. If one goes back to the definition of normal lens being equal to the diagonal of the neg, 40 is very close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_matherson Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 "Assuming that one did not need the 40 frameline, why would anyone opt for a .7 over full frame? Am I missing something?" The R3A with its 1.0X finder means that it has a larger effective baselength of 37mm than the R2A of approx 25mm. So the R3A will focus tele lenses more acurately. The sacrifice is that 35mm framelines wont fit in the viewfinder hence the use of 40mm instead. So if you need a larger EFB and dont mind the 40mm focal length then the R3A is the one to go for, if you use 35mm alot and dont mind slower telephoto lenses then the R2A is the model for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted September 25, 2004 Share Posted September 25, 2004 I wonder if one can use the outside edges of the 40mm frame to frame for 35mm..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_marshall1 Posted September 25, 2004 Share Posted September 25, 2004 I've read that you can . . . but no parallax correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfred_alfred Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Why they miss out the 28mm? Will the 0.7 viewfinder full frame to the edge covers a 28mm? Is there a user reviews of the BESSA R3/2A ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_telur Posted October 10, 2004 Share Posted October 10, 2004 I'm also very surprised thet don't cover the 28mm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_telur Posted October 10, 2004 Share Posted October 10, 2004 There's no more flash TTL neither Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_marshall1 Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 Alfred, Stephen Gandy reports on his website at cameraquest.com that the .7 viewfinder, full frame to the edge approximates 28mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_marshall1 Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 Alfred, Stephen Gandy reports on his website at cameraquest.com that the .7 viewfinder, full frame to the edge approximates 28mm. I have not yet seen a user review of the new Bessas. They are just beginning to get into consumer's hands, but keep your eyes peeled; reviews should start cropping up soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_gardner1 Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Ho, not sure if this is what you had in mind, but VC has a 40mm f/1.4 that looks like a corker! http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt4014.htm hth/Scott Gardner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now