Leica vs Bessa vs Ikon

jakobfoto

Member
Local time
8:53 AM
Joined
Oct 4, 2013
Messages
25
Hey! I recently had a Bessa R3A on loan along with the Voigtlander 50mm 1.5 (new version). I am kept the lens btw. It was my first rangefinder experience and I loved it. I did have some struggles with achieving focus...didn't feel very confident I was in focus when pressing the shutter. That said, I am definitely acquiring a rangefinder body next week. Question is, will it be the Bessa R3 (A or M doesn't matter to me), Zeiss Ikon or Leica M6. Those are the cameras I have narrowed it down to and now I go back and fourth every day.

I shoot mostly portraits, and mostly wide open or close to it. I've learned through my research the Leica patches are more contrasty and much easier to secure focus with? Does anyone here feel that's the case?

I am leaning towards Leica but unfortunately I live in an area where there are none for sale so I haven't even held one in my hand...but the appearance and engineering behind it is very appealing to me.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Jakob
 
If you can afford it, go with Leica. I had a Voigtlander, then sold it to buy a Zeiss Ikon. After a while, I sold the ZI and bought an M7. A Leica is far sturdier than a Voigtlander or a Zeiss Ikon, and it is easier to have repaired if necessary.
 
Welcome at RFF forum and to RF club :)
If you keeping this lens you might be better with longer RF focusing base.
Leica and Zeiss have it. And it makes big difference in focusing with confidence.
You could get used Leica here or from reputable sellers.
 
Hello Jakob,

Well, you can't go wrong with either of the 3 body types you mentioned.

I have personal experience with the Bessa (an R2A) and also a Leica M3 & M2. Here are my observations:

The Bessa will likely be cheaper if it's used -- and you can probably find one in very good condition with minimal use for approx. half of what they go new.

The viewfinder is very big, bigger and a bit brighter than the Leica's I think -- the patch has strong contrast and easy to focus with -- however, with say a very fast Voigt over 35mm, the rangefinder base length isn't long enough, and so the very accurate wide open focus will be difficult to nail. I struggle a bit with the 35mm 1.2, but I can typically get it if I take my time...but say with a 50mm F1.1...not happening too often.

Appearance wise, they have a pleasing look to the eye, and the build quality isn't cheap but it's not Leica M rock like...I never had a mechanical issue really, and if the rangefinder is slightly out of alignment, it's an easy fix to do yourself without sending in for repairs.

-----------------------------------------

The Leica cams however are different -- The M3 vs M2 are quite similar in appearance, with some subtle styling differences. They are without question beautiful, masterpieces in design -- the engravings on the top panels are very pretty, and there is no plastic to be found...still unmatched for build quality if you ask me.

The biggest usage impact are the different frame-line sets -- you have a 35mm set of lines for the M2 vs. nothing wider than a 50mm lines on the M3 (I think the M3 has a set for 50mm, for 90mm, and for 135mm).

Both viewfinders are large, bright, and easy to focus -- I wouldn't say the rangefinder patches are bigger than the Bessa ones...maybe somewhat bit wider and more rectangular, while the Bessa's patch is more of a square.

If you want to shoot with a fast (F1.2 and fast) 50mm or longer (is there anything longer than 50mm and faster than 1.4 anyhow?), I suggest you shoot the M3, as it has the longest rangefinder base length of any of the camera we're discussing, and would it be the easiest to focus with in that regard. If you like fast 35s, I would recommend the M2. Both very beautiful cameras...
 
Hey, thanks guys! The base length info was news to me.

@budajoe I'm only considering the M6 because I do need a built in meter.
 
i would stick with the r3a. the baselength of the r2a is just fine with a 50/1.5, so the r3a is even better. you get 1:1 viewing, too.
 
I think they are all excellent choices. Only a few things would make a difference to me:

Film loading: It's a matter of opinion, but I think the Ikon and Bessa have far easier film loading than any Leica. If you're not burning through film, or changing rolls on the move, then no big deal.

Aperture priority: Ikon and Bessa R3A (not R3M) have Aperture priority, which I love for just walking around taking snapshots. Generally I'm not bothered about having a meter, but for slide film or just being on holiday where your no. 1 concern is relaxing, not photography, then I really like AE.

Personally, I'm not crazy about the M6, for me it seems to lack the magic that older models like the M3 have, but you can't question the build quality, the M6 will be better than both the Ikon and Bessa in terms of build.
 
Ok, my 2 cents worth. I am a completely dyed in the wool Zeiss Ikon fan. In my humble opinion (as if) I feel it is the finest rangefinder camera for 35mm film I have used.

However, that being said, everyone has an itch for Leica and it appears to me that those who have stayed with the ZI have come from Leica and then found that the ZI was the better camera for them. So, to save time, first go buy a Leica. Use it. Get it out of your blood. Then try the ZI if you are still not happy. But if you buy a ZI first, even though it is the finest rangefinder, you will always wonder if a Leica is better.

So, go try out a Leica, if you need a meter go with the M6. If you like using a handheld meter go with an older Leica like the M3, M2 or M4.

Edit - Clarified that the ZI is the best 35mm rangefinder. There are certainly other medium format rangefinders that are certainly terrific cameras in their own right.
 
Last edited:
Ok, my 2 cents worth. I am a completely dyed in the wool Zeiss Ikon fan. In my humble opinion (as if) I feel it is the finest rangefinder camera for film I have used.

However, that being said, everyone has an itch for Leica and it appears to me that those who have stayed with the ZI have come from Leica and then found that the ZI was the better camera for them. So, to save time, first go buy a Leica. Use it. Get it out of your blood. Then try the ZI if you are still not happy. But if you buy a ZI first, even though it is the finest rangefinder, you will always wonder if a Leica is better.

So, go try out a Leica, if you need a meter go with the M6. If you like using a handheld meter go with an older Leica like the M3, M2 or M4.

I think if you qualified 'finest rangefinder camera for film' with '35mm film', then I'd agree, as for me, the finest rangefinder I've used is probably the GF670.

I think you're right though, I had a ZI, had the Leica itch, bought a M6 and preferred the ZI. The M3 is a different matter, and for me, my favourite RF for 35mm film is a toss up between the M3 and ZI.

The ZI is better in just about every way, but the sheer feel and beauty of the M3 is hard to ignore.
 
I agree with Aizan - get a used Bessa R3A/M as your first 35mm rangefinder.
It'll give you 90% of the fun at less than half the cost of a ZI, or M6. It's main limitation is the short rangefinder baselength, but you won't be worrying about the cost of the camera as much as with the others. If you find that you really like the RF experience, you can always purchase the more expensive cameras later.
 
I think that the VF magnification should be your #1 priority. If the 50 Nokton is your main lens, then it's hard to beat the R3_. Maybe an M3 would come close, but no buit-in meter.

I would rule out most newer metered Leicas because the majority of them will have a 75 frameline displayed inside your 50 frameline unless they have been modified.

The Zi has a stand-alone 50, and has a long base-length, but it's not like the R3 are not sufficient for the task...you could probably use it with confidence with the 50 1.1. Also, the FR patch of the ZI tends to disappear at critical moments.
 
Personally, I like how the ZI feels in my hand better than my Bessa. Its RF patch is also a lot better than the bessa. I don't currently own a Leica, but when I had an M9 I remember enjoying my ZI more in almost every way.
 
I am a longtime Leica user.
Played with the Bessa and ZI.
I really don't like either..
If i were to choose, than it would be a Bessa.


The M6 is not an M2 or M3.
It is also not 40~50 yrs old!
The built in meter is great, the construction good.
The framing lines are optimistic.
You will have to judge more than rely.
My M6 is now 13yrs old and a real joy.
I mostly use a Collapsible Summicron 50mm.
It flares easily but is really sharp, but in a nice way.
They are plentiful.
The TTL is improved on the Classic version.
 
Why not consider an M3 with the Leicameter MR or MR-4 coupled light meter on top. I just got one (MR-4) with dings and scratches but working perfectly from KEH for $100. Next best thing to a built in meter...
 
The M2/M3/M4 rangefinder patch has a good chance at not being as good as a Bessa. I'd stick with a more modern camera if that is a major concern.

Edit: And I say this as someone with an M4 who loves the camera. I've checked out a bunch of M2s as well and the Bessa patch is much better on average.
 
Hi build quality of the bessa and ZI are just the same, very reliable and with a kind of plastic feeling, but as i said reliable and well built.

Of course when you compare them to leica you would feel them as plastic, but in absolute terms they are nice cameras.

The difference are mainly the rangefinder in each one (and design)

The ZI is far better in every sense, large VF longer RF base much more precise in it´s framing etc. But mine tend to jamm...but wasnñt a deal once you got used to it. (it was new).

At least the bessa r3a which i had suffered from the same problems thatnmy dr1s, the 40mm FL where not precise in close up range, making compositions asimetric, perhaps both cmaras where faulty, don´t think so thou...

The m7 is a fine camera, but´s too pricey and is too heavy...the best of them is by far the ZI...the black one is simply superb!

The ZI is also very light and with a wrist strap quickly was the preferred for going shooting...jsut sold it in favour of a m9.
 
Hey! I recently had a Bessa R3A on loan along with the Voigtlander 50mm 1.5 (new version). I am kept the lens btw. It was my first rangefinder experience and I loved it. I did have some struggles with achieving focus...didn't feel very confident I was in focus when pressing the shutter. That said, I am definitely acquiring a rangefinder body next week. Question is, will it be the Bessa R3 (A or M doesn't matter to me), Zeiss Ikon or Leica M6. Those are the cameras I have narrowed it down to and now I go back and fourth every day.

I shoot mostly portraits, and mostly wide open or close to it. I've learned through my research the Leica patches are more contrasty and much easier to secure focus with? Does anyone here feel that's the case?

I am leaning towards Leica but unfortunately I live in an area where there are none for sale so I haven't even held one in my hand...but the appearance and engineering behind it is very appealing to me.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Jakob

Here you go:

Available at: http://www.tamarkin.com/products/m-series/cameras#products-used

Also - take a look at http://www.camerawest.com/categories/usedProducts/12545/

There's a lot of options out there...
 
Thanks everyone. At least it seems as though I wouldn't make a bad decision with either camera :) I'm going to order a used Leica with a return policy.
 
Back
Top Bottom