Zeiss Ikon or Bessa R3-A?

P

Pfreddee

Well-known
Local time
7:59 PM
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
528
I am wondering which one to begin saving for. I had a Bessa R, and didn't really take to it. I have held a Zeiss Ikon, and really enjoyed the feel of the camera. Now the question for me is: do i spend about 2K+ for the Ikon and a lens, or about half of that for a Voightlander R3A and a 40 mm lens?

Are there substantive differences between the two cameras? If they were made by two separate companies, I wouldn't have a problem. I would go with the Ikon. But I know that the guts of both and most of the lenses are made by Cosina. Of course, this a silly nit to pick on my part, but I wonder if I would (a.) regret not buying the Ikon kit if I bought the less expensive Bessa, or (b.) regret spending the money on the Ikon and thinking I could have saved some money if I had bought the Bessa.

I really like the Ikon, and I suppose I'm trying to find out if the build quality of the body is worth the extra cash.

What has been your collective experience with these cameras?

Thanks to all who reply.

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)
 
imho:

If you shoot mainly 50mm = R3_
* imho: 40mm framelines are kind of hard to see, & I dont wear glasses.

If you shoot mainly 35mm & the occasional 50mm = Ikon ZM

* Both have good EBL to use fast glass

* The CV R3M/A has a 1:1 VF w/ a 37mm EBL, imho best with 50mm, but useable with 40mm

* Ikon has .74x VF w/ a 55.9mm EBL, imho best with main 35mm paired with 50mm
- Zeiss IKON VF is HUGE/BIG = AWESOME !

^ Above is all my opinion, so YMMV. :)
 
Or get a used Ikon (~1000) and the 40mm. Or get a new Bessa and a used ZM lens. There are a lot of permutations to think about.

I'd give more thought to picking a lens, and then figure out how much that leaves for a body. The lens has a much bigger impact on the end result. I always check out the Flickr group for any lens I'm considering, as it tells you much more than test charts and specs.
 
I will pick the ZI, which is a better body in design and building quality. If the budget is an issue, you can buy a CV lens, which is excellent.
 
Go Zeiss and Don't look back!

Go Zeiss and Don't look back!

As bensyverson already said, I recommend a used Zeiss Ikon. I bought a silver one from KEH in supposedly excellent condition, but it was what I would call new condition. It included the original box and all, and cost about $1200--compared to $1600 or so for a new one. You could also get a Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZM Biogon T* lens or a Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar T* ZM lens used. B&H has today a used ZM f/2 50mm lenses listed at $650. That would be $1850 for the camera and lens used, compared to the new price at Adorama (which also has used equipment) of $2110. That's more than the Voigtlander camera and lens, but I think it's a much better camera and lens.

If you get the Voigtlander equipment, I suspect you will wish you had bought the Zeiss equipment. However, if you get the Zeiss camera and a Zeiss lens, you won't ever wonder or wish you had bought the Voigtlander equipment. You won't one day sell the Zeiss equipment to buy the cheaper Voigtlander.

-Russell
 
I've had both.

I wouldn't stress about quality issues. Concentrate instead on what you want to photograph and what kind of lens set up will get you there.

The R3* has two great advantages IMO:
1) the 1:1 VF
2) the framelines for 75
okay it also has a third: price.

If either of these are really important to you, get the R3*. Otherwise, the ZI outperforms it in every other area. It gives you better view, wider view, easier loading, better EBL, nicer shutter sound...There is even a trick BTW for approximating 75 FL on the ZI: the imaginary cross made by the inside break of the lines on the 50 = 75.
 
The Zeiss viewfinder is a lot better. Brighter and has a lot more room around the brightlines. Shutters on the ZI and R3 are equally loud... just different in tonality. The ZI 'feels' more substantial due to weight, but who knows really.

Now... unless you never come back to this site, you are eventually going to be dreaming "Leica". Its inevitable. So why not just go for the M6. I'm not saying its better; again, who knows really! But unless you just get a Voigtlander or Zeiss or Leica kit and then never return to RFF, you'll always be chasing something else. Its inevitable. Around here they call this sickness GAS. Good luck dealing with it. :p
 
Jamie: I had thought about the Leica for many more years (30+) than I have thought about the Ikon, but at this point I could afford , maybe, an M4-P body, and a Zeiss lens, but not a Leica body AND a Leica lens. Never have been able to cobble together that much loose cash at one time.

But maybe you're right, after all...

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)
 
Stephen,
I've had an Ikon and an R4A. Each are great cameras, but the Ikon I found *a lot* nicer. The build really is similar to Leica, the R4A, as good a camera as it is, is not.

I'd go for a used Ikon, and don't look back.

Garry
 
If and when you appreciate aesthetically pleasing and well made machines, go for the Zeiss Ikon. If and when a few hundred dollars is of a real concern, you may as well get the Bessa.
 
I've a couple of Ikons and an R4a. The shutter and electronics are probably the same. The Ikon viewfinder is brighter and the camera feels more substantial. The shutter is a bit more quiet on the Ikon.

That said, I mostly use my M6TTL 0.58 with a permanently attached Zeiss 35mm f/2.8c. I use the R4a for 21 and 28mm. I use M3 for fast 50 and 90mm. I almost never use my Ikons and will be selling at least one of them. So, if you shoot mostly 35, or 50mm I would get the Ikon. I have shot 90mm with them using a viewfinder magnifier. If you shoot mostly wider, I would go with an R4a, or R4m.
 
I don't have a CV R3, just an older R2, but in comparison with the ZI, there's one other factor - the shutter speed display. The ZI has a wonderful finder, probably the best around, but the shutter speed display, and you need it if you don't shoot AE, can disappear, especially if you wear glasses. I love my ZI, but it's my least-used camera for that reason. Otherwise, a wonderful camera.
 
The ZI is a great camera, but even without glasses it was a lot of work to see the shutter speed for me.

The longer base is nice, but I'm not sure it would be worth it if my primary lens was a 50/2 (as it would be if I got back into a rangefinder).
 
The difference in quality justifies the difference in price, but a R3A is good enough to start. Make sure, the RF is well aligned. For the first lens I would pick the C Summicron 40/2, this way you get a great start with a classic lens. BTW, best would be, if you look through the VF before buying, because the 40mm frames on the R3A are a bit tight, even if you do not wear glasses
 
One can go a bit too far with the rangefinder baseline. For instance, I own a Kiev 4AM, and focussing it involves some different fingers than you use with a short base rangefinder. Also applies to anyone with a Contax.

Just sayin'!

Thank you all for the replies so far. Had I but money enough, and time...

With best regards.

Pfreddee(Stephen)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom