viewfinders of sp 2005, s3 2000, and bessa r2s

[aizan]

for those who know, could you describe each of these viewfinders in terms of brightness, color cast, rangefinder patch shape and contrast, and visibility of framelines (especially for glasses wearers)?

[fbf]

dont' know about r2s.
I am no expert. Just some experience i had.
The s3 2000 vs. sp2005 is like m6 (no mp finder) vs. mp (finder wise, regardless of function, framelines).
The sp 2005 has a slight blue/greenish tint in the finder. I find it pleasant to use. I like it more than mp finder though I think the mp finder is slightly easier to focus in dim light.

[jonmanjiro]

brightness
R2S - typical bessa, very bright
S3 2000 - very bright but can be "flarey"
SP 2005 - slighty darker than an S3 2000 but doesn't flare

color cast
R2S - don't remember but not obvious
S3 2000 - very light blue tint
SP 2005 - similar to looking through an A2 warming filter

rangefinder patch shape and contrast
R2S - typical bessa
S3 2000 - blob type, not as contrasty as modern cameras
SP 2005 - blob type, not as contrasty as modern cameras but IMO better than S3 2000

visibility of framelines (not an eyeglass wearer so cannot help there)
R2S - fine
S3 2000 - 35mm is hard to see
SP 2005 - fine

my favourite is the SP 2005 finder. i love the 1:1 finder. the slightly darker tint helps to give the focus patch more contrast. plus the finder doesn't flare (vintage SPs can flare in tough lighting).

[maddoc]

Most important for me: SP 2005 has two VF, one for 50mm and 1:1 and another for 28 / 35 / 85 (if I remember correctly ...), S3 2000 has only one VF with three frame lines permanently visible. For me, wearing glasses, the SP 2005 was easier to use.

However, in dim light, the RF patches of both my M4-P and M7 are much easier to see, clearer and higher contrast.

[jonmanjiro]

Originally Posted by maddoc

Most important for me: SP 2005 has two VF, one for 50mm and 1:1 and another for 28 / 35 / 85 (if I remember correctly ...)

Almost got it right. The 1:1 finder is for 50/85/105/135 and you dial in the framelines for the focal length. For 50, only the 50 frameline is displayed. For 85, both the 50 and 85 framelines are displayed. For 105, the 50/85/105 frame lines are displayed. For 135, all frame lines are displayed. The wide angle finder is for 28/35 only.

[jonmanjiro]

A 50mm or 85mm is perfect on an SP. Here's what the frame lines look like (images are of a vintage SP finder).

50mm frame line


85mm frame line


105mm frame line


135mm frame line


wide angle finder

[VinceC]

Never used the R2S.
The SP is best for eyeglass wearers. The two finders allow you to get the best of 1:1 viewfinder for 50 and longer lenses while getting servicable framing for 28 and 35mm. The wideangle viewfinder is about one quarter (1:4) lifesize. Surprsingly accurate for framing.

One drawback is that, for the SP, the P stands for professional, and this really is kind of the case. A lot of times a family member or friend will offer to take the camera and take a group photo that includes me. They are faced with a very confusing viewinder situation for the casual user. They intuititvely seem to go for the lifesize finder, even though the camera often has a 28 or 35 on it.

If I did not wear glasses, S3-2000 would be my favorite camera by far. You're talking lifesize framing of 35mm lens FOV, and ample space left over to comfortably frame a 28mm lens at 1:1 lifesize. Alas, the metal rim is really hard on eyeglasses, and to get that framing you have to get really close to the finder. In my experience, the 1:1 compensates for the tendency to flare. If you have both eyes open, the flare in the camera finder is less important.

[VinceC]

Jonmajiro,
Great shots through the finder. I find that the 105 and 135 also are quite usable because the finder is lifesize.

[markwatts]

VinceC,

I have just found the perfect accessory for the S3-2000...LASEK. I am in my third week of recovery now. Too early to play seriously but I have found my missing 35mm frameline. I thought I had misplaced it!

[steveyork]

Do the modern, limited edition Nikon rangefinders have a rangefinder patch that is more bold then what we see from the older SP above? That patch is a mere apparition of a patch you'll find on a modern Leica.

[furcafe]

I have all of the cameras in question & agree for the most part w/jonmanjiro's description(s) of the VF/RFs. Coming from a Leica M perspective, I think the R2S has the "best" or most modern VF/RF, w/the only downsides being the low magnification & small baseline & Cosina's weird decision to go w/an oval-shaped RF patch rather than a simple rectangle.

Originally Posted by aizan

for those who know, could you describe each of these viewfinders in terms of brightness, color cast, rangefinder patch shape and contrast, and visibility of framelines (especially for glasses wearers)?

[VinceC]

There are different schools of thought here. If you want a large defined rectangle in the middle of your miniturized field of view, then Nikon isn't the way to go.

Nikon gives you a life-sized, windowlike view of the world. The central spot if very contrasty but, once the images are alligned properly, the fact that its boundaries are ill-defined means it often seems to disappear so that you can concentrate on your photograph with less distraction.

[BillBingham2]

Originally Posted by steveyork

Do the modern, limited edition Nikon rangefinders have a rangefinder patch that is more bold then what we see from the older SP above? That patch is a mere apparition of a patch you'll find on a modern Leica.

Had a M4-P and a M6, now I have an M3-2000. I found the Nikon every bit as easy to use as the Leica and actually better from time to time.

B2 (;->

[VinceC]

Jonmanjiro's viewfinder webshots look like a modern SP.

EDIT: Oops. I just read that he said his shots from from a vintage one. Both my vintage and modern viewfinders look about the same, but on the vintage ones you can end up with some dust on the wide-angle finder.

[fbf]

Originally Posted by BillBingham2

Had a M4-P and a M6, now I have an M3-2000. I found the Nikon every bit as easy to use as the Leica and actually better from time to time.

B2 (;->

Ditto.
I only wish there is more lenses options for nikon RF system and possibly a digital nikon RF in the future...

[awilder]

Great finder pics! Regarding the SP's wide angle finder, as I recall from the brief time I owned one, the open area outside the solid frameline is for 28 coverage at all distances, the solid frameline is for 35 at normal distances and the broken lines inside the 35 is for close-up parallax correction with the 35. Slightly reminiscent of the 35Ti that has parallax correction marks, but down to 0.4 meters. This must be why some have claimed it's finder is like the SP's.

[steveyork]

Just for a point of reference. Modern Leica patch taken with a "cheap" digital at high iso.

[steveyork]

The "blobbiness" of the Nikon patch doesn't interfere with the vertical aligning for focusing, right?

[jonmanjiro]

Originally Posted by steveyork

The "blobbiness" of the Nikon patch doesn't interfere with the vertical aligning for focusing, right?

Well, you cannot "split focus" using the edge of the focus patch like you can with a Leica, but you will clearly see when the focus target is in focus.

The viewfinder photos I posted above are of a vintage SP with a very good focus patch (nearly as good as an SP 2005), and just after I cleaned the finder and reinstalled it. I have no problem focusing this SP in all but the darkest of rooms.

Compared to my SP 2005, the biggest difference is that this finder is prone to a little internal flare when shooting in mixed lighting such as a dark warehouse with multiple bright lights here and there. I noticed this for the first time at the Tsukiji Fish Markets when shooting this vintage SP back to back with an SP 2005. The SP 2005 didn't flare at all.

[jonmanjiro]

Originally Posted by fbf

Ditto.
I only wish there is more lenses options for nikon RF system and possibly a digital nikon RF in the future...

Actually I'm kinda glad there aren't that many lens options for Nikon RF. The options that are available are mostly excellent, and once you've got a few, there aren't many GAS temptations left

A digital SP would be nice, though

[steveyork]

Originally Posted by VinceC

There are different schools of thought here. If you want a large defined rectangle in the middle of your miniturized field of view, then Nikon isn't the way to go.

Nikon gives you a life-sized, windowlike view of the world. The central spot if very contrasty but, once the images are alligned properly, the fact that its boundaries are ill-defined means it often seems to disappear so that you can concentrate on your photograph with less distraction.

This sounds like a lot of stretching to justify something. Don't worry, Leica users do it all the time.

[VinceC]

steveyork,
You're probably right. If it was really just about the pictures, my D40 that I got in sell-out bin for 220 euro is just fine. But I still prefer the ergonomics of the small old RF film cameras. Clearly the majority of folks prefer the Leica finder but, having caught a Nikon RF bug long before laying my mits on a Leica, I grew too attached to the S3 and SP finders.

[steveyork]

I've often said that there are at least two elements to photography: The taking of the picture and the final product. And the process of getting the picture can involve meeting interesting people, traveling to new areas, ect., and even just using the camera. And there's no cameras with greater "fun factor" then rangefinders. They get you up close and they're just plain old fun to use. And the fact that you get great pictures with them is like a bonus.

[P. Lynn Miller]

Would someone with a S3 be able to post photos of the S3 viewfinder... thanks!

[jonmanjiro]

Originally Posted by P. Lynn Miller

Would someone with a S3 be able to post photos of the S3 viewfinder... thanks!

There's a photo in this thread.