Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,814   Posts: 1,581,596   Online: 875
      
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oakville and Toronto Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,372
    Images
    311

    Specific Questions for the owners of a Voightlander R2a and Canon 50/1.4 LTM

    I am suffering from major case of gear aquisition syndrome so assistance is welcome. I am toying of getting an R2a from Voightlander, already have the 35/2.5 Skopar and a Canon 50/1.4 LTM with the M mount converter. Are there any focusing issues with the R2a and fast lenses like the Canon or the Nokton etc? Or am I being paraniod?

    Bill
    "Life moves pretty fast, if you don't stop and look around once and a while, you might just miss it."
    Ferris Bueller

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Burley, New Forest
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    48
    I may not be the best person to offer an opinion, because I'm a very new R2a user and also new to rangefinders. I've just replaced an R with an R2a, which I'm using with the CV Ultron 35/1.7. I guess you are thinking about shooting wide open, when you may only have a few inches DOF. My (limited) experience is that differences in focus over those kinds of distance are quite obvious in the viewfinder and certainly the Ultron gives me enough control to focus accurately. As a rangefinder newbie I'm surprised at just how easy (and better than an SLR) it is.

  3. #3
    kaiyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    bay area, california
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    331
    Images
    4
    Have you asked on rangefinderforum.com? (I feel like I've seen a similar question there so perhaps you have).

    allan

  4. #4
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    It's pointless, I think, to go at the nature of rangefinder focussing directly. We get into all kinds of matters that have no meaning but to technoids and camera makers. But is is VERY easy, not to mention instructive, to compare rangefinder focussing to an SLR. And - hopefully - get to the heart of your concerns.

    Back in the mid '80s, the late Bob Schwalberg wrote about focusing fast rangefinder lenses and fast SLR lenses. Along the way, he talked about the limitations of focus accuracy with an SLR, usung the Nikon F3 as an example, compared to a Leica M4P.
    At the same time, I had the misfortune of breaking my leg in a soccer game and while hobbling around the house took on an investigaton of the same problem. I was relieved to find my crude discoveries validated by Schwalberg. By the way, Schwalberg was not your 21st century pundit, being both a master photographer, passionate teacher, fine writer, and very capable technical apologist.

    Anyway, here's the salient points. A first rate 35 slr, like the F3, has it's focus accuracy limited by the effective depth of field induced by the focus screen. The longer the lens, the greater the possible magnification, and the greater the accuracy.



    A rangefinder, however, has a given ability to distinguish detail, with no relation to the lens it is focussing.

    The rangefinder on an M4P has almost the same accuracy as a 135 lens at f/2.

    Compute the effective aperture and you can compare other focal lengths. [ 135/2=67.5mm aperture ].

    Focus a 50/1.4 lens on an M4P, and the rangefinder is as discerning as a 135/2... or a 50mm f/0.74 [ 50/67.5=.74 ]. An Nikon F3 is far less discerning, dependent upon the focus screen. No SLR has been better ( arguably, the Leica R8 or R9, but nothing else --- and AF accuracy is nowhere close, nor as consistent ! ).

    Look at the effective focus aperture of a 21 mm lens: 21 / 67.5 = f 0.3 !

    Any wonder why people still use Leicas ?

    NOW, the Bessa rangefinder is not as discerning as the Leica. But it is still FAR superior to any SLR and the equal to Canon's rfdrs, or Nikon's.

    With the Canon at f/1.4, at minimum focus range, you will probably find the Bessa to be able to focus perfectly sometimes, and very well, all the time. The f/1.4 performance of a Canon / 1.4 is very good, and a good match for the Bessa. If you want to record hairsplitting detail from 1 meter, I doubt you'll be able to do it. But if you want to be able to get sufficient information to make beautiful pictures in low light, no trouble at all.

    Finally, in order to surpass the images you'll get from the Canon on the Bessa, in a meaningful and visible way, you'll need an M rangefinder, AND the latest M Summilux. With that combination, you'll see a difference... if you want to be hairsplitting.

    SO, the Bessa and 1.4 Canon should be a fine combination on it's own merits. Compared to ANY SLR, it's markedly superior. And compared to the very best, it is close enough in performance to not worry over. You'll never lose a picture.

    Finally, finally. There is a small chance the bessa rfdr will need to be adjusted for the Canon lens, or the Canon lens collimated. Not a big deal. There are a good technicians in Toronto.

    have fun !

    .
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    If you have already decided that a 35mm rangefinder is tool well suited for what you wish to accomplish then for the dollars spent a Voigtlander RF camera body, I belive will provide you with a good return on your investment. It will certainly work better than owning the 2 lenses and no camera body.

    I like rangefinder cameras. For taking candid photos of people or to photographer without a need for very precise framing or examining depth of field etc on ground glass, a 35mm range finder camera has much to offer and is near impossible to beat.

    For me, auto-focus is not a consideration. The question is is 35mm suitable for the size print and quality level I want for an end resut. I have answered yes. Is what I photograph and my manner of doing so better served by a rangefinder or an SLR. For me the answer is SLR.

    The question that came next for me was would I benefit from having both an SLR and a rangefinder camera systems. For me the answer is no.

    Would I lke to have a 35mm rangefinder camera: Hot damn, you betcha. I think the new Zeiss Ikon is the prettiest and most desireable subject for my attention since first I saw Brigette Bardot naked on a theater screen.

    For me it is better that I avoid thoughts both Ms Ikon and Ms Bardot and stick to taking better photos with what I have.
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  6. #6
    Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oakville and Toronto Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,372
    Images
    311
    Thank you for the insight.
    I am a well aquainted with Rangefinders owning a Leica M3, Contax IIIa, Canonet Ql17 GIII and a Kiev III. My query was specific to the coupling of the Canon lens and the R2a. From what I have seen here and on Rangefinder where I am also a member is the issue is neglible. The reason I want an R2a is the second M mount body and I would rather get something with an on board meter.

    Bill
    "Life moves pretty fast, if you don't stop and look around once and a while, you might just miss it."
    Ferris Bueller



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin