presspass
filmshooter
I have a Zeiss Ikon and a Bessa R2 - the original, not the R2a. I find the Bessa harder to focus at close distances than the ZI; the photos of the R3/4 seem to show a viewfinder window similar to the ZI rather than the R2. Are the R3/4s closer to the ZI - viewfinder and rangefinder - than they are to the original R2? Sorry if this is confusing; any help appreciated.
Thanks.
Thanks.
thegman
Veteran
Hard to say, but I've had an R4A, ZI, and currently use a R3M, the range finders feel pretty much the same to me.
bonatto
looking out
This is affected by the Rangefinder Base Lenght (longer on the ZM, shorter on the Bessas). The ZM will essentially give you more precise focus with brighter lenses. Have a look here:
https://www.cameraquest.com/leica.htm
https://www.cameraquest.com/leica.htm
jmilkins
Digited User
I can't comment on R2 but can compare the ZI, R3a, Rollei 35 RF (and I guess a few Leica finders - M2, 4-P, 5 , 6 and the Hexar RF ). I don't wear glasses so eye relief is beyond my ken.
Overall the ZI finder is my favourite by a fair margin - such a big bright window - it really does jump out to me in comparison to the others.
The Rollei is a R2 but with 40 bright lines - it seems OK but perhaps not as good as the R3a finder which is 1:1. This allows you to focus with both eyes open, but I haven;t really go the hang of that.
The R4 is said to be harder to focus because the effective base is shorter. I also like the the .72 leica finders. Overall the Zi or R3A with a 50mm brightline are what I feel is just right for me i terms of what is in / outside the frame...
The head bartender has a great table, but it predates the ZI : https://www.cameraquest.com/leica.htm
Overall the ZI finder is my favourite by a fair margin - such a big bright window - it really does jump out to me in comparison to the others.
The Rollei is a R2 but with 40 bright lines - it seems OK but perhaps not as good as the R3a finder which is 1:1. This allows you to focus with both eyes open, but I haven;t really go the hang of that.
The R4 is said to be harder to focus because the effective base is shorter. I also like the the .72 leica finders. Overall the Zi or R3A with a 50mm brightline are what I feel is just right for me i terms of what is in / outside the frame...
The head bartender has a great table, but it predates the ZI : https://www.cameraquest.com/leica.htm
presspass
filmshooter
Thanks. I had forgotten this chart existed. I'm still not clear how the newer Bessa viewfinders compare with the ZI and as I live in the sticks, I can't go somewhere and see for myself.
jmilkins
Digited User
Ok -so comparing the R3A and ZI directly just now - in a room at night with lowish light (1/15th f2 400 ASA) ;
- the ZI has better eyerelief but less magnification - think of a big, bright,but wider window.
- The R3A feels a more tunnel like and squinty but because of its greater magnification is easy to focus.
The ZI feels like it snaps into focus a bit easier, but the R3A has the benefit of magnification.
My choice is the ZI, but is close - especially with a 50mm - and with the difference in price between to two you could have up $500 to spend on a lens...
- the ZI has better eyerelief but less magnification - think of a big, bright,but wider window.
- The R3A feels a more tunnel like and squinty but because of its greater magnification is easy to focus.
The ZI feels like it snaps into focus a bit easier, but the R3A has the benefit of magnification.
My choice is the ZI, but is close - especially with a 50mm - and with the difference in price between to two you could have up $500 to spend on a lens...
lawrence
Veteran
I think that these kind of comparisons are very personal. I've had three Bessas - R2m/R3a/R4a - and a ZI and they've all gone apart from the ZI. All of the Bessa finders seemed dim and squinty to me compared to the ZI but then the Leica M finders are as well.