Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,930   Posts: 1,585,418   Online: 1033
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Pasadena, Fl
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    53
    Images
    2

    Ok, help with RF's. R2a, R3a, speed, etc...

    Ok, now that I have been playing with this Agfa for a couple of weeks....I am hooked. I leave my EOS3 at home now and walk around with the Agfa and my light meter.

    I was trying to understand the difference between the R2a and R3a of the Bessa's. "Bessa R2-A has a x 0.7 magnification ratio and the Bessa R3-A has x 1.0 ratio" -- Why would I want the .7 mag over teh 1.0 mag?

    Actually, I am trying to understand RF's....How slow can you hand hold a RF? I mean with SLR's the rule of thumb is not set the shutter slower than your focal length.

    Although, with RF's it seems you can shoot much slower due to lack of a mirror and also since the lens is closer to the film plane, my 2.8 is much brighter than a 50mm 2.8 on an SLR..

    Correct? Sorry for the noob question, but I gotta start somewhere....
    David Savkovic

    My home page

  2. #2
    clogz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,837
    Images
    114
    Generally you can sefely go one shutter speed slower. It's of course best to test your handshaking yourself.
    Regards
    Hans
    Digital is best taken with a grain of silver.

  3. #3
    garryl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    542
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by clogz
    Generally you can sefely go one shutter speed slower. It's of course best to test your handshaking yourself.
    Regards
    Hans
    Then Political candidates should only use the higher speeds- cause they handshake all the time
    "Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect."

  4. #4
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    'Why would I want the .7 mag over teh 1.0 mag?'

    David,

    With everything else being equal, 'in general' and off the top of my head, the viewfinder magnification affects:

    Rangefinder precision - the higher the magnification, the higher the precision.

    Minimum equivalent focal length of viewfinder field of view - the lower the magnification, the wider the field of view. A 1x might be able to show framelines for a 35 mm lens while a 0.7x may be able to show them for a 28 mm lens.

    Brightness - the lower the magnification the brighter the image, but this is usually barely noticeable and it is affected by other factors.

    Ability to use both eyes - with a 1x magnification you can keep both eyes open, and you see the brightline frame 'floating' in space. With other magnifications it is still possible to keep both eyes open (a lot of us do), but it takes a little getting used to, and it doesn't look so perfect.

    'my 2.8 is much brighter than a 50mm 2.8 on an SLR..'

    That's a new one on me. How are you measuring or judging 'brightness'? There may be a tiny difference because of the slightly higher light transmission of a simple lens compared to a lens with more glass and more air-glass surfaces, but one is unlikely to be 'much brighter' than the other.

    Best,
    Helen

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Pasadena, Fl
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    53
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Helen B[i
    That's a new one on me. How are you measuring or judging 'brightness'? There may be a tiny difference because of the slightly higher light transmission of a simple lens compared to a lens with more glass and more air-glass surfaces, but one is unlikely to be 'much brighter' than the other. [\i]
    Thanks for the responses. I am taking a photo class now and the teacher said that since the lens elements are closer to the film plane in a rangefinder than they are in an SLR, you get "more light" using a RF at 2.8 than you would using an SLR.

    Confused me too and am still confused...
    David Savkovic

    My home page

  6. #6
    garryl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    542
    Images
    2
    So am I! If true, then the "same" lens used on an RF and then an SLR (at the same F/stop)would require differing exposures.
    "Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect."

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,310
    Sounds like a very creative logic. Remember those that can't do, teach.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Pasadena, Fl
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    53
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by garryl
    So am I! If true, then the "same" lens used on an RF and then an SLR (at the same F/stop)would require differing exposures.
    See, can't be true. I think it may only relate to zoom vs prime. That makes more sense to me. Otherwise, my light meter would have to be different for a RF compared to an SLR. I'll bug him again later this week about that....
    David Savkovic

    My home page

  9. #9
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by g0tr00t
    Thanks for the responses. I am taking a photo class now and the teacher said that since the lens elements are closer to the film plane in a rangefinder than they are in an SLR, you get "more light" using a RF at 2.8 than you would using an SLR.
    Confused me too and am still confused...
    Confuses me too!!

    I would say the instructor was asked a question, and not knowing the answer, tried to create something.

    A wide angle lens on a single-lens reflex camera tends to be more complex ... requiring more elements (read: retrofocus). That usually means more air-to glass surfaces... and less efficiency. Very little less efficiency. DAMNED little less efficiency.
    It may be of concern in certain photometric (read wild scientific) applications. but for anyone with a modicum of sanity, it means *nothing* in any type of photography in which the most fastidious photographers - as we know them - might be involved.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  10. #10
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    For RF lenses, more of the light that strikes the lens ends up in the correct place on the film. There is less diffusion. The OVERALL amount of light at f/2.8 is theoretically the same. But correct placement contributes to better sharpness and higher contrast, hence the high regard for RF glass.

    Actually few lenses hit their stated apreture f/stops accurately. Cine lenses, which need high tolerances, use "T/stops" which are set lens-by-lens by actually measuring transmission for individual lenses, rather than trusting the theoretical numbers printed on the barrel by the mfgr

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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