lshofstra
Established
I use a bessa r2 and r3a. Nice camera's, but what's bugging me is that focus is hard to get spot-on (as soon as this gets somewhat critical, for instance in a portrait, not too much light). So I have been wondering whether trading in de r3a for a zeiss with it's longer rangefinderbase would be worth the expense. Do any of you have any experience using (or even consciensly) comparing the two?
Mind you, I'm not trying to get into any debate about which is the better camera, just wondering whether I would gain "real world" better focusing. I'm leaving out Leica's, which perhaps I shouldn't. But: as the zeis has the longest rf-base (and buying it would give me a lesser guilt complex toward the family) thats the one I'm considering right now....
Mind you, I'm not trying to get into any debate about which is the better camera, just wondering whether I would gain "real world" better focusing. I'm leaving out Leica's, which perhaps I shouldn't. But: as the zeis has the longest rf-base (and buying it would give me a lesser guilt complex toward the family) thats the one I'm considering right now....
mfogiel
Veteran
ISHOFSTRA,
This is more an issue of focal length/aperture combination than anything else. I've made some portraits with the R4A and a 50mm at f2.8 and they are wonderful, At the same time, I took some photos with the R3A, a 90mm at F4 from 15 meters, and they appear not to be sharp. Overall I would say ZI makes the impresson of focussing more accurately than the Bessas - it is really a question of RF excursion. A help comes from the 1.33 magnifier you can get from megaperls, if you use longer lenses often.
This is more an issue of focal length/aperture combination than anything else. I've made some portraits with the R4A and a 50mm at f2.8 and they are wonderful, At the same time, I took some photos with the R3A, a 90mm at F4 from 15 meters, and they appear not to be sharp. Overall I would say ZI makes the impresson of focussing more accurately than the Bessas - it is really a question of RF excursion. A help comes from the 1.33 magnifier you can get from megaperls, if you use longer lenses often.
lshofstra
Established
Hi mfogiel,
Thanks for reply. Perhaps I'm just being naïve, wanting accurate focusing no matter what focal length, distance or aperture. Probably impossible by laws of physics?
Had a quick look at your photographs, like them and found the one of the dead bird no less than stunning, great picture!
Thanks for reply. Perhaps I'm just being naïve, wanting accurate focusing no matter what focal length, distance or aperture. Probably impossible by laws of physics?
Had a quick look at your photographs, like them and found the one of the dead bird no less than stunning, great picture!
madsolitaire
Established
I have a R3M and i don't use any lens beyond 50mm so i am not able to compare different focal lengths. However, when i fitted a diopter lens to correct my slight short-sightedness, i found that focusing was so much clearer and easier.
Not sure if this helps...
cheers
Not sure if this helps...
cheers
kshapero
South Florida Man
I have owned an R3A and still own an R3M (for sale, BTW) and I now own a ZI. I love the Bessa's, but the ZI definitely focuses more accurately when using either a 40mm or 50mm lens.
ZeissFan
Veteran
The Zeiss Ikon should provide more accurate focusing. The Bessa-R2 and R3A have effective rangefinder baselengths of 25.9mm, compared with 55.9mm for the Zeiss Ikon. The Zeiss Ikon's baselength is more than double that of the Bessa.
Even with a 1.33x magnifier, it still brings you up to only 34.4mm, more than 21mm less than the Zeiss Ikon.
Even the Bessa cameras with a 1.0x viewfinder combined with a 1.33x magnifier are still still statistically significantly short (49.2mm vs. 55.9mm) of the Zeiss Ikon.
So, the short answer is yes, the Zeiss Ikon has an advantage over the Bessa cameras in rangefinder accuracy. The longer the focal length of the lens, the more this matters. This is why the Bessa lens range maxes out at 75mm. The Zeiss Ikon should easily be able to handle a 135mm lens (but lacks viewfinder framelines).
Even with a 1.33x magnifier, it still brings you up to only 34.4mm, more than 21mm less than the Zeiss Ikon.
Even the Bessa cameras with a 1.0x viewfinder combined with a 1.33x magnifier are still still statistically significantly short (49.2mm vs. 55.9mm) of the Zeiss Ikon.
So, the short answer is yes, the Zeiss Ikon has an advantage over the Bessa cameras in rangefinder accuracy. The longer the focal length of the lens, the more this matters. This is why the Bessa lens range maxes out at 75mm. The Zeiss Ikon should easily be able to handle a 135mm lens (but lacks viewfinder framelines).
Last edited:
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
While a longer base length should give greater accuracy, it is debatable whether the difference can be more than marginal. After all, the base length is determined by the overall size of the body. It is no accident that no lenses longer than 135 mm have commonly been made for R/F cameras, and that 85/90/100/105 are generally the longest lengths used.
"This is why the Bessa lens range maxes out at 75mm." There is a 90 mm too.
"This is why the Bessa lens range maxes out at 75mm." There is a 90 mm too.
foto_fool
Well-known
I have a ZI and R3A and use the R3A only for the 40/1.4 where it is just brilliant. I get more in-focus frames with the 75 Summilux and Canon 50/0.95 on the Ikon than I do with these lenses on the Hexar RF or the 0.72 M6. That said, a magnifier would help on any body, and you could just screw it off when you use your short lenses.
- John
- John
ZeissFan
Veteran
payasam said:
Ah -- so there is.
lshofstra
Established
Thanks for your anwers so far. I'll be having a look at a magnifier, although I get this problem on 40mm as wel as on longer focus lengths - ofcourse on fairly close range and with maximum aperture.
(I'd insert examples if only I could figure out how, got as far as "please enter the URL of your image". Say what? If I copy the pathway in my computer all I get is a line, not an image. Not savvy about these things as you'll have guessed...)
(I'd insert examples if only I could figure out how, got as far as "please enter the URL of your image". Say what? If I copy the pathway in my computer all I get is a line, not an image. Not savvy about these things as you'll have guessed...)
lshofstra
Established
Ah, I missed that section, thanks. I'll fiddle with it sometime this week, at a first try I can't downsize them to below 300kb.