Enquries about the R3x + 35mm 1.4 nokton combination

[The Dry Box]

I have been considering my starting kit for film photography, and am looking at a potential R3x + 35mm f/1.4 nokton setup.
From cameraquest webby, it says that I am able to use the entire frame of the 40mm finder to get an estimate for 35mm. I am wondering do anyone who don't wear eyeglasses have any experience with this setup as I am quite interested in it's accurancy at 5 feet and above. The 1:1 finder is certainly much more intriguging than 0.7x of the r2x.
I have searched online, and at the rangefinder forum but I can't find anyone with similar experience so I wonder if anyone(like chiif) can point me to the right direction?

The reason I am not going for the 40mm nokton is because I may be changing body in the future, and hence will prefer to stick with common focal lengths.

Lastly, the LH-6 hood looks HUGE. would it not block the finder especially since I will be using the entire frame? Are there any suitable alternatives?

Much thanks.
gerald

[chiif]

Honestly speaking, if you shoot street, you will not find much difference. When you get back your negatives, you will probably forget where exactly you frame at.

Picture angle difference is 7 degrees and that's pretty subtle.

But most people will find it funny to mount 35mm lens on the R3A body. Because the frameline thingy bugs them more than the physical difference.

Personally, if you are a real shooter, it doesn't really matter...

[Cactus jACK]

i think that trying to use the edges of the viewfinder to estimate the 35mm framelines would get a little will get a little annoying after a while... if you trying to get "exact" framing, i'd say either use the 40 or get the r2. alternatively, as chiif has suggested... if you are shooting street with a 35mm lens, you should be able to live with the "agar 40mm lines plus some"... the "some" would be from the additional 7degrees.

[osocan]

Hi Gerald

I dont own the R3 yet (Chiif, I'll probably pick one up from you when my 40mm VF has arrived) but I would like to share my own preference:

Eventually, I would like to have a 3-lens setup: 28mm, 35mm and 50mm. I would go for an R3 body so that I can just leave the frameline at 50mm on the body - uncluttered VF and dont have to remember to switch. The 1:1 would also be great for focusing the 50mm. For 35mm, I would use the whole VF to approximate. As for 28mm, the way I am shooting now, I'll probably get a 28mm hotshoe VF, set to zone or hyper focus and just shoot from the hotshoe VF.

BTW, when are you resuming your posts in flickr? I miss them

[The Dry Box]

Thanks Chii Fei & Cactus jACK, yes that make sense. It's strange that I have never thought about that dispite having actively done spontaneous shooting when using my dslr... I guess sometimes reading too much from different sources actually made me think of the process of photography too technically, and I failed to realise it actually doesn't work that way for me.
See you next week.

osocan: been a while. =) I wasn't very motivated to shoot after I gotten the grd2, I missed having the manual controls of interchangable lenses and wanted to learn more about film. It's a little oxymoron that I gotten the compact to encourage myself to shoot more, but ended up shooting less because it's too small, and made me too invisible; get the sneaky feeling that I don't like... and i missed the sound of crashing shutters. =)
GRD is a nice camera, but doesn't work for me.

I don't think I'll be resuming postings on flickr untill after some practise with the new focal range and polish up my developing techniques. As much as I like 28mm, distortion is still too much for spontaneous shooting. I put up my own focal length comparision images using 28, 35 and 50 and think I can step back a little more and use 35mm instead.

See you around.