Bessa R3A of Zeiss Ikon?

[Pfreddee]

OK, I need some help. I'll have to save for one of them, but I won't need as much money for a body and lens for the Bessa. And if I'm not mistaken, the innards of both camera are made by Cosina. And the R3A has a Leica M mount. And Zeiss makes M-mount lenses that the Bessa can use. So from a cost standpoint, which is imprtant, I am leaning toward the R3A and the 40mm Nokton. What has been your collective experience with either the R3A or the Zeiss Ikon? Both are wonderful cameras, I'm sure. ( My Bessa R is ever so much more portable than my Nikon F100. And I really do carry a camera with me where I go.)

Thanks to all who reply.

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[kshapero]

Get a R3A and the 40mm Nokton, you won't go wrong. I used to live up the road with the hippies by the river. You know.

 

[jsrockit]

Well, the Zeiss feels better in the hand to me, but both will do the same job. Zeiss bodies do not seem to hold there value well. Perhaps a used Zeiss Ikon will be a good compromise. Then again, at Zeiss prices, Leica comes into play (but not an AE one).

 

[Gary Briggs]

I have an Ikon and love it (35 f/2.8, 50 f/2). I agree with others on the feel of the body, it is very solid, but not heavy.
I forget the term for the rangefinder 'width', but it is better/wider than the Bessa, though that may come into play more for the long lenses.

 

[mfogiel]

For entry level experience I'd go with the R3A, but instead of the 40 Nokton would look for The Summicron C 40/2 or Rokkor 40/2. If you want to get a camera you won't like to swap for something better soon though, save up for the Zeiss Ikon, the difference is very considerable in every respect.

 

[kxl]

I've owned an R3A, and now own 2 ZI's.

Purely from a cost standpoint, the less expensive R3A is the obvious choice But, to me, part of the joy of shooting a rangefinder is the feel (as others have stated), and what you see through that viewfinder... and on those two points, the R3A is not even in the same league.

 

[sojournerphoto]

If you can afford it get an Ikon, but the R3a is also a great camera. I wouldn't feel short changed if that's what fits the wallet.

I've not used the 40 NOkton, but it's one of those lenses I'd like to try one day.

Mike

 

[Salt...]

R3A all the way

R3A all the way

i shoot with a R3a and SC 40mm Nokton almost exclusively hers my blog with links to my flickr.

Doldrum Eśque

i love the 1. finder , aperture lock placement is perfect, pushing and pulling +/- 2 stops in .5 increments in aperture priority.

the only thing i can say i do not like is the neck strap clip points. its top heavy but i love the camera in every way.

 

[rxmd]

I find the 1x finder more difficult to use, I find myself hunting for the edges of the frame already with the 40.

 

[Matus]

I used to have R3A and Jupiter 50/1.4. The camera gets the job done without problem. The viewfinder is great for 50mm lens. When I tried the 40mm frame lines I found them hard to see at once - and I do not wear glasses.

What I did not like at the end whas the total feel and shutter sound (sharp, loud - not nice), but it was not bad or something. And anyhow I tend to use the 6x6 more often 🙂

If I were to get 35mm rangefinder again I would either go for used IKON or even M2/M3/M4 and keep using my Digisix. AE is nice to have though. But I actually never had a classical Leica in hand ...

 

[Guaranteed]

I've got the R3A and love using it, I found getting the accessory grip for it much more comfortable in all around usage. Plus I was able to put the extra scratch towards glass so that helped($1000@current pricing).

 

[Tompas]

I don't have a Zeiss Ikon, but the R3a is a very nice camera. It's perfect for 50mm lenses; for my Summicron-C 2/40 I prefer my R2m[1]: the 40mm frames of the R3a are too tight to the edges for my taste. An important point of using a rangefinder is to be able to see what's outside the picture, isn't it?

[1] That is, I would if it weren't broken. The exposure meter freaks out at and above 1/250s. I have to find out where to send it for repair...

 

[Out to Lunch]

The Zeiss-Ikon is definitely the nicer camera. The Bessa is a good camera.

 

[Steve M.]

Do you wear glasses? If so, the R2a will be perfect. If not, maybe an R3a. I've never shot one of the Ikons, but I will say this....the R2a is one of the better cameras I've used. Really nice camera. If you buy one of these cameras at a good price and find that you don't like it, sell it and get the other one. That's my methodology, anyway.

 

[baycrest]

I've got the 3A and will echo Thomas' post. I don't enjoy using it with the 40mm for the same reasons. I usually put the 50mm on it and with the 1:1 viewfinder, its magic. Oddly enough, I don't mind using the 35mm with a finder and prefer it over using the 40mm. :0)

I don't own the Zeiss, but I do have the M6 Classic. Which do I prefer? Well, I do enjoy the 1:1 viewfinder on the 3A, but the M6 has more useable framelines for the 35 than the 3A for the 40mm and the M6 handles the 50mm fine. YMMV. So I get more utility from the M6.