JohnL
Very confused
I am considering getting a new RF as a second body. With RF, I use lenses from 28 to 90mm. I use an RF camera for only about 10% of all my photography - for street and snapshots. I am in doubt between ZI and CV. It is some time since I looked at these cameras closely, and I would greatly appreciate input from those who are familiar with both. I know the ZI is made by CV, and is generally thought to have a (slightly) quieter shutter. From my hazy memory, I did not notice much apparent difference in quality of finish. The ZI is signifcantly more expensive - actually I could get two CVs for about the same price, maybe a 3A and a 4A! I am not hung up on brand image - currently I have an M7 but all my lenses are CV or old Canons. What do you think?
Guaranteed
Well-known
Considering the amount of time your going to be using I'd pick up a CV. No sense in spending all the extra money when it could go towards something else instead of sitting in a bag or on a shelf.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
An R3A will do all your M7 does except shooting without batteries... For the price of the ZI I'd buy the R3A and the R4M. I did, and never had any problem with any of my four Bessas, using them daily... The ZI has more issues and requires more repairs than Leicas and Voigtländers...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
mfogiel
Veteran
ZI is definitely the answer. I have a M7, ZI and Bessas. The ZI is superior in everything to a Bessa, feels nicer, gives you a better vf with less lens intrusion visible, and is better balanced. But above all, it actually covers all the frames from 28 to 85mm in a perfectly acceptable way. If ZI was made by Leica, it would be the best Leica ever.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
I have both bessas and the ZI and the ZI is definitely a better camera: a five star view finder, better build and overall a more attractive rangefinder. If money is an issue, the bessa is always ok. I've just come back from a long leave and favored the ZI for daily use. For an excellent review of this camera have a look here: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/zeiss-.html
sper
Well-known
Just buy based on frame lines.
Wide: R4x
28-85: ZI
Normal on a budget: R2x
Normal-Tele/Both Eyes Open Shooting: R3x
The Zeiss is a little nicer, but hey it's a tool not a jewel.
Wide: R4x
28-85: ZI
Normal on a budget: R2x
Normal-Tele/Both Eyes Open Shooting: R3x
The Zeiss is a little nicer, but hey it's a tool not a jewel.
goo0h
Well-known
I like the 1:1 finder of the R3A, but the finder on the ZI is wonderful, especially if you wear glasses as I do. I have both, but so much prefer the ZI. Handling smoother, fits my hands better, I like that the eyepiece is way over on the corner and not more into the near middle of the back. The ZI is just a wonderful camera to shoot with.
However, if you use a rangefinder so little, you'd probably be better served by getting an R3A, or R4A. After all, the Besas are really fun cameras too, hence my not getting rid of my R3A. Though, if I ever get a 2nd ZI, the R3A is going to have to find a new home.
However, if you use a rangefinder so little, you'd probably be better served by getting an R3A, or R4A. After all, the Besas are really fun cameras too, hence my not getting rid of my R3A. Though, if I ever get a 2nd ZI, the R3A is going to have to find a new home.
jamais
Established
Today I compared a ZI to an R4A. Both seem to be excellent cameras of very high build quality, the ZI all in all slightly superior. I would prefer the Bessa though, mainly out of three reasons:
1) I find the shutter speed indication in the ZI finder very hard to see - placed much too far on the left side
2) The ZI (black finish version) was laced with fingerprints after a few test shots. Not so on the Bessa which stayed absolutely clean.
3) The main knob for AE correction is a little sturdier than on the ZI. I also prefer the 0.5 stops instead of the 0.3 stops on the ZI
The shutter noise of these two cameras is - suprisingly for me - similar, again with an insignificant advantage for the ZI. They are both, ZI and R4A, not as much louder than my M4-P as I have expected.
I have planned to buy the ZI originally but changed my mind today.
1) I find the shutter speed indication in the ZI finder very hard to see - placed much too far on the left side
2) The ZI (black finish version) was laced with fingerprints after a few test shots. Not so on the Bessa which stayed absolutely clean.
3) The main knob for AE correction is a little sturdier than on the ZI. I also prefer the 0.5 stops instead of the 0.3 stops on the ZI
The shutter noise of these two cameras is - suprisingly for me - similar, again with an insignificant advantage for the ZI. They are both, ZI and R4A, not as much louder than my M4-P as I have expected.
I have planned to buy the ZI originally but changed my mind today.
bwcolor
Veteran
Have both... I suspect both share many of the same internal parts. Both are good cameras.
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
As I wear eyeglasses, the viewfinder of the ZI was the one I had always hoped for. I wish my digital Leica had such a viewfinder. The downside is the meter display is somewhat awkward being on the far left side of the finder.
I find the Bessa R2a's finder compares well to the Leica finder and the meter display is better placed than the ZI. But with the Bessa, the accessory grip is needed so the camera hangs properly from a strap.
So if you're out for a "second" camera, a Bessa R2a will serve and serve well. If you want an alternative "first" camera, the ZI is good way to go.
I find the Bessa R2a's finder compares well to the Leica finder and the meter display is better placed than the ZI. But with the Bessa, the accessory grip is needed so the camera hangs properly from a strap.
So if you're out for a "second" camera, a Bessa R2a will serve and serve well. If you want an alternative "first" camera, the ZI is good way to go.
presspass
filmshooter
I have a Bessa R2 - older model - and a ZI. The viewfinders on both are superior to most Leicas (M7 and MP are almost as good). The ZI auto indexes the framelilnes, you have to remember to do it with the Bessa. The Bessa's meter is much easier to read with glasses. The Bessa I have is much louder than the ZI, which isn't as quiet as the M7. The Bessa draws glances when it goes off, not so the ZI or the Leica.
For a second body, I'd go Voigtlander. For a first body, I'd go Leica. The Zeiss sits right in that spot between too expensive and cheap... I'd buy a used Leica M6 over the Zeiss...but that is more out of comfort than sense.
JohnL
Very confused
Many thanks to you all !!
Clearly, there is not a whole lot to choose between them, based on these opinions, which is more or less what I expected. There were 2/12 clearly in favour of the ZI, 5 in clearly favour of the CVs (one suggested I get two), and 5 basically saying it is a toss-up, many pointing out the pros and cons of each camera. Two or three mentioned the difficulty of reading the shutter sppeds on the ZI, a point I had noticed when I looked at one at B&H a year or so ago. One pointed out the (significantly) louder shutter on an older Bessa 2, but it seems the later Bessas are just about the same (as the ZI).
I won't decide for a month or so yet, but I'm seriously considering the Bessa 3a (and maybe a 4a to go with it). I (nearly) always carry spare batteries, and I like having the Av option, which is also available on the M7. I'll only sell this later if I'm entirely happy with whatever I get, or maybe not even then.
Once again, thanks for lots of valuable advice.
Clearly, there is not a whole lot to choose between them, based on these opinions, which is more or less what I expected. There were 2/12 clearly in favour of the ZI, 5 in clearly favour of the CVs (one suggested I get two), and 5 basically saying it is a toss-up, many pointing out the pros and cons of each camera. Two or three mentioned the difficulty of reading the shutter sppeds on the ZI, a point I had noticed when I looked at one at B&H a year or so ago. One pointed out the (significantly) louder shutter on an older Bessa 2, but it seems the later Bessas are just about the same (as the ZI).
I won't decide for a month or so yet, but I'm seriously considering the Bessa 3a (and maybe a 4a to go with it). I (nearly) always carry spare batteries, and I like having the Av option, which is also available on the M7. I'll only sell this later if I'm entirely happy with whatever I get, or maybe not even then.
Once again, thanks for lots of valuable advice.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Both the A-series Bessas and the ZI have much harder-to-see shutter readouts (in the VF) than the manual Bessas.
The RF base on the ZI is longer = more focusing accuracy, and the finder is much brighter and clearer.
Ask yourself this question too: if there were no price difference, which would you choose?
Cheers,
R.
The RF base on the ZI is longer = more focusing accuracy, and the finder is much brighter and clearer.
Ask yourself this question too: if there were no price difference, which would you choose?
Cheers,
R.
bwcolor
Veteran
I've repeatedly tried to put this one over on my wife. I hope that you are single. That said, given the difference in price, two years from now you will be enjoying which ever camera you buy and you will forget about the price difference. I will second or third the frustration of using the ZI, or the R4A (in my case) in bright light. I always lose the LED readout. Of course, using the ZI in low light is really nice because of the wonderfully bright and large viewfinder.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Nope. Next wedding anniversary is our 29th. Second marriages for both of us; got it right second time 'round.
But the philosophy goes back to before we were married. As a friend said to me 35 years ago, "The cost stays with you for a while, and it hurts. The quality stays with you longer, and is always a pleasure."
Of course, this applies only if you are in it for the long term, both for the camera and the wife -- and I started using Leicas long before my first marriage. If you chop and change your cameras, and don't know how people sustain long term relationships, just go for whatever seems like a good idea at the time. Works OK up to about age 30. I know a distressing number of miserable guys of around twice that age.
Cheers,
R.
thegman
Veteran
I speak as a ZI owner, if you're not bothered about the fondling factor, I think 2 Bessas makes more sense. An R3A and an R4A would give you an awesome range of frame lines, and a backup should you drop one or something.
The ZI is a lovely camera, no doubt, but I'm one of those people plagued by the need for their camera to be pretty. If I was not, then 2 Bessas for me I think.
Disclaimer: I think the black paint Bessas are actually rather good looking.
The ZI is a lovely camera, no doubt, but I'm one of those people plagued by the need for their camera to be pretty. If I was not, then 2 Bessas for me I think.
Disclaimer: I think the black paint Bessas are actually rather good looking.
Darshan
Well-known
Huck Finn
Well-known
Since you already have an M7, why would you want 2 Bessas? Or are you saying that you also want a 3rd body?
If you get a ZI, you may find that you like it better than your M7 & the M7 may be relegated to being your 2nd body.
When you buy a ZI, here are some things you are getting that you do not get on the Bessa:
1. Long rangefinder base for more accurate focusing, the longest effective base line (55.5 mm) of any camera ever made which includes 28 mm frame lines.
2. Short time lag of only 14 milliseconds in manual mode & 20 ms in AE mode. This is very similar to the time lag of your M7. However the Bessa R was tested by Popular Photography with a much longer shutter lag of 100 ms, which is closer to a typical SLR than to a Leica or ZI.
3. The shutter release button has a depth of travel of only 0.9 mm. Compare that with your M7, which has a depth of travel of 2.0 mm. The first 0.6 mm of the ZI's depth of travel is to activate the meter, leaving only 0.3 mm further that the button has to travel to release the shutter. Combined with the short time lag once its shutter is actually activated, the ZI provides immediacy of response that is almost unparalleled. And immediacy after all is at the very heart of rangefinder photography. In addition, there is significantly less force required to depress the shutter release button, which is a benefit when taking hand held pictures at slow shutter speeds while maintaining a steady hand to hold the camera.
4. The metering pattern in the ZI was improved over the one previously used by Cosina in the Bessa series & is more accurate. Moreover, the AE Lock button allows for "permanent" lock (20 secs,) to further assist in metering without having to hold it manually depressed while compsing your picture as is the case with Bessa cameras. I also find the location of the AE Lock button easier to use with my thumb.
You'll also notice that when compared with your M7 that the frameline options offer a range of 28 - 85(90) but without the extra clutter of 75 & 135 framelines as you have on the M7. This makes the 35 & 50 mm settings a joy to use as those are the only frame lines which appear in your view when you use those respective lenses. Another advantage over the M7 is that the ZI is virtually flare free due to differences in design of the rangefinder itself.
Last edited:
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
No ZI experience, but an M6 and the two Bessas.
First, there's nothing wrong with the quality of the R3 and R4 series Bessas. There are some who will nitpick no matter what but if they carried on about their cars the way they do about their Leicas they'd all be driving Rolls Royces - or walking! The (optional) AE feature is nice on occasion. Or you can go manual.
There's a small difference in shutter noise between the Bessas and the Leica but I don't usually shoot in church or at concerts so it's not really an issue. Compare any of them to my Nikkormat and I wonder if my deafness isn't due to mirror slap!
Second, don't get too technical about it.
Third, for me it boils down to viewfinders.
The M6 goes from 28 to 135 (I never use above 90 anyway).
The R3x goes from 40 to 90. The 40 frames are hard for some glasses wearers to see, making it a 50/75/90 camera for them.
The R4x goes from 21 to 50 (without the 40). The 21 frames are hard for some glasses wearers to see, making it a 25/28/35/50 camera for them.
So, on the M6 if you want wider than 28 you need a separate optical viewfinder.
On the R3x if you want wider than 40 you also need such a viewfinder.
On the R4x if you want longer than 50 you need a separate viewfinder.
I think the ZI only goes from 28 to 85mm?
You've got an M7 which presumably covers 28-135. Do you want to duplicate those frame sizes in a second body?
Are you happy enough with 28 and a supplementary VF for any wider lens? (ZI)
Are you happy to have 28 frames and use supplementary VF's for wider than 28 and longer than 85? (ZI)
Do you want to have a camera with wider frames available in the viewfinder but limited to 50mm at the "long" end and needing a supplementary VF for 75/90/135? (R4)
Will the R3 do with frames for 40/50/75/90 and supplementary VF's for 35 & 28 or wider?
To my mind it's those questions, relating to how and what you shoot and your lens choices, that will decide the issue, not 0.05mm difference in movement of the shutter releases.
First, there's nothing wrong with the quality of the R3 and R4 series Bessas. There are some who will nitpick no matter what but if they carried on about their cars the way they do about their Leicas they'd all be driving Rolls Royces - or walking! The (optional) AE feature is nice on occasion. Or you can go manual.
There's a small difference in shutter noise between the Bessas and the Leica but I don't usually shoot in church or at concerts so it's not really an issue. Compare any of them to my Nikkormat and I wonder if my deafness isn't due to mirror slap!
Second, don't get too technical about it.
Third, for me it boils down to viewfinders.
The M6 goes from 28 to 135 (I never use above 90 anyway).
The R3x goes from 40 to 90. The 40 frames are hard for some glasses wearers to see, making it a 50/75/90 camera for them.
The R4x goes from 21 to 50 (without the 40). The 21 frames are hard for some glasses wearers to see, making it a 25/28/35/50 camera for them.
So, on the M6 if you want wider than 28 you need a separate optical viewfinder.
On the R3x if you want wider than 40 you also need such a viewfinder.
On the R4x if you want longer than 50 you need a separate viewfinder.
I think the ZI only goes from 28 to 85mm?
You've got an M7 which presumably covers 28-135. Do you want to duplicate those frame sizes in a second body?
Are you happy enough with 28 and a supplementary VF for any wider lens? (ZI)
Are you happy to have 28 frames and use supplementary VF's for wider than 28 and longer than 85? (ZI)
Do you want to have a camera with wider frames available in the viewfinder but limited to 50mm at the "long" end and needing a supplementary VF for 75/90/135? (R4)
Will the R3 do with frames for 40/50/75/90 and supplementary VF's for 35 & 28 or wider?
To my mind it's those questions, relating to how and what you shoot and your lens choices, that will decide the issue, not 0.05mm difference in movement of the shutter releases.
Last edited: