Chris Kresser
New member
Thanks to Sean and other folks here and elsewhere, I've decided to go for the GX100. I also want to use an optical viewfinder (more than one, eventually) with it. I'm considering the following three and I'd like to get feedback from anyone who has used them:
1. Voigtlander 28/35 mini
2. Voigtlander 35
3. Ricoh GV-2
The advantage to the GV-2 is that it's made for the 4:3 aspect ratio, which I like a lot. None of the others will work well if I shoot in 4:3. However, I'll be limited to 28mm "permanently" if I shoot in 4:3 since the Ricoh GV-1 and GV-2 are the only OVFs made for that aspect ratio (that I know of).
The Voigtlander 28/35 appeals because then I have a VF for both the 28 and 35 setting on the GX100, which are two focal lengths I imagine I'll use a lot. It is also very small, from what I can tell, which could be both an advantage (compact travel kit) and disadvantage (hard to see through?)
The Voigtlander 35 seems pretty straightforward. If I had to choose one focal length for a VF (which I do right now because of budget), this would be it. Seems larger than the 28/35 and perhaps easier to see through?
Thanks for your comments,
Chris
1. Voigtlander 28/35 mini
2. Voigtlander 35
3. Ricoh GV-2
The advantage to the GV-2 is that it's made for the 4:3 aspect ratio, which I like a lot. None of the others will work well if I shoot in 4:3. However, I'll be limited to 28mm "permanently" if I shoot in 4:3 since the Ricoh GV-1 and GV-2 are the only OVFs made for that aspect ratio (that I know of).
The Voigtlander 28/35 appeals because then I have a VF for both the 28 and 35 setting on the GX100, which are two focal lengths I imagine I'll use a lot. It is also very small, from what I can tell, which could be both an advantage (compact travel kit) and disadvantage (hard to see through?)
The Voigtlander 35 seems pretty straightforward. If I had to choose one focal length for a VF (which I do right now because of budget), this would be it. Seems larger than the 28/35 and perhaps easier to see through?
Thanks for your comments,
Chris