After a while with both cameras and this may be specific to the two I have since I'm not in a position (yet) to test every production camera:
- The viewfinder in the R3A is less contrasty and not as bright as the one in the R2A.
- It is actually easier to focus the R2A than the R3A. Although I have discovered that if you move your shooting eye a bit off the viewfinder, focusing is better, though still not as easy as the R2A.
- With a 40mm lens on the R3A, it is difficult to get a sense of the framing, since your eye moves all over the place; i.e. you can't really see the whole frame at the same time. However, I think that with longer lenses it should be better... maybe... but I think I'm going to return the R3A tomorrow while I still can and stick with the R2A.
- Oh, one other thing: the vertical gaps between negatives weren't even with the R3A. One thin gap, then a large gap, then a thin gap ... Made cutting some of the negs. difficult.
Problem not present with the R2A.
1 comment:
The first R2A wouldn't advance the film and was returned.
The problems with the R3A: probably QC - but I don't care for the full 1:1 viewfinder all that much either.
I'm not getting a second body. And I'm not getting another lens.
I'm going to just get a refund; and then figure out where I go from here.
To be honest, between the 28mm and the 40mm - that's about all I need right now.
Post a Comment