Zeiss Ikon=R2A

[5nap5hot]

Ok ... I don't want to ruffle any feathers but I am curious.

How different is the the Zeiss Ikon in comparison to the R2A. From what I have been able to see on the net, the Zeiss looks ALOT like the Bessa. They share parts and are made by the same company.

What makes it so much more expensive than the R2A? The little Zeiss sticker? The fixed strap lugs? 😛

 

[Nachkebia]

Never used R2A but zeiss ikon is fantastic! even after M7 😀

 

[rogue_designer]

I don't own either, so this is based on what I've gathered from this formum only.

Different shutter assembly (as far as I know) - the Icon also has a longer rangefinder baselength - which means it should (theoretically) focus more accurately (useful for lenses longer than 50mm).

Zeiss also has imposed harsher quality control and tolerance specs on the manufacture. So it should have a slightly higher build quality.

That said - the R2A is supposed to be a fine camera in it's own right.

 

[FrankS]

I can understand spending $2000 on a mechanical camera that can be repaired and kept going for more than 50 years (think of the mechanical RF cameras from Nikon, Contax, Leica, and Canon that many of us still use) but due to my unfounded bias against battery-powered electronic cameras with circuit boards, < I > would spend the money on a Bessa A camera, but not so much on a ZI or M7. This is just me, and I'm not disparaging others who think differently.

 

[peter_n]

And I'm perfectly happy to dole out that kind of dough for an M7 or whatever 'cos I've used my electronic Nikon SLRs for more years than I care to remember without any problems, and because when I needed my mechanical Leica M6TTL recently it wouldn't work and had to go into the shop. And I'm not disparaging mechanical camera owners either! 😉 We are all different.

 

[FrankS]

It's all good. Sincerely.

 

[peter_n]

Yes indeedy! It really is. 🙂

 

[Paul T.]

If the net has told you that "the Ikon = the R2A", it's a good example of how the 'net is a source of second-hand, inaccurate, biased information.

I have no desire to buy a ZI (at least, until they produce a digital version) but it shares no crucial parts with the Bessa bar the shutter, which is bought in from Copal and modified - rather like Leica buy in the M8 and R10 shutter from Seiko, I believe.

the Bessa's main drawbacks are that it's tall and bulky, being based on an old Cosina-made Nikon chassis, with a RF of short baselength; the ZI body was designed from scratch. THis allowed Zeiss to design the most crucial element, the RF/VF without any compromises, particularly in respect of having a baselength that's hugely bigger than the Bessa, and significantly bigger than a Leica M. The RF is essentially superior to any Leica, including the M3, as it is designed to have the M3's resistance to flare, but having a longer baselength, it is more accurate but can simultaneously show framellines for wider lenses.

Although the ZI reportedly has much superior QC to the Bessa, it seems obvious that, like the Bessa, it doesn't have that wonderful tank-like heft of the Leica. But that tank-like heft doesn't help take better photos - whereas a superior RF might just do exactly that, if being in focus is important to you.

 

[tomtodeath]

if they made a mechanical ikon, i would buy it

 

[Nachkebia]

plus RF alignment is an easy DIY

Can I do it myself?

 

[Nachkebia]

I read it but I did not get it 😀 my english is bad I guess 🙂

 

[Nachkebia]

ferider : You are right, I will fix all together! Thank you for great information

 

[back alley]

the zi does not cost $2000, more like $1200.

the base is longer than an m3 which i thought was the longest of all the leicas...?

joe

 

[FrankS]

All M leicas have the same physical RF base length, but the .91 M3, and the .85 mag M's have higher viewfinder magnifications, resulting in a longer effective base length than the ZI.

 

[Paul T.]

All M leicas have the same physical RF base length, but the .91 M3, and the .85 mag M's have higher viewfinder magnifications, resulting in a longer effective base length than the ZI.

Of course, there's a trade-off for the higher mag, namely that it's difficult/impossible to see 28/35mm framelines (indisuptably to on the M3, which doesn't have them)- both of which are easily viewable on the Ikon. <p>
I'm not a cheerleader for the Zeiss, I own an R-D1 and an M4, not an Ikon, but I do believe they've delivered the best RF/VF on any camera to date. WHich is why I wish they'd hurry up and produce a digital....

 

[Kyle]

I have owned both a ZI and an R2a at the exact same time. I sat and compared them side by side. If you do this, you will see that the ZI is not simply a rebadged Bessa.

 

[back alley]

All M leicas have the same physical RF base length, but the .91 M3, and the .85 mag M's have higher viewfinder magnifications, resulting in a longer effective base length than the ZI.

i just checked...i hate it when i'm wrong!!

none the less, the zi is the brightest finder i have ever used and i can see the framelines with my glasses on, so good enough for this ol' grump!

😉

 

[Nachkebia]

viewfinder is brightest and widest but M7 has more contrasty viewfinder also framelines are brighter in M7

 

[pizzahut88]

Thank goodnes there is FrankS

Thank goodnes there is FrankS

I can understand spending $2000 on a mechanical camera that can be repaired and kept going for more than 50 years (think of the mechanical RF cameras from Nikon, Contax, Leica, and Canon that many of us still use) but due to my unfounded bias against battery-powered electronic cameras with circuit boards, < I > would spend the money on a Bessa A camera, but not so much on a ZI or M7. This is just me, and I'm not disparaging others who think differently.

I too am the same kind of person,
which is why I bought a R2 instead.

How long would an electronic shutter work?
Ten years? Twenty years?
Actually I don't know.
but mechanical stuff are proven to last long.


By the way, the Ikon and R3a share the same shutter assembly.
They are identical.
I have the chance to compare both at the store.
They are totally the same.
At least visually.

Manfred

 

[ZeissFan]

While the shutters began as the same electronic Copal, it is my understanding that Carl Zeiss modified the shutter to lower the noise it emits.

So visually they might appear to be the same, but they are not identical mechanically.

Physically, the cameras are different dimensions. The Bessa is thicker than the Zeiss Ikon, which wouldn't be possible if they were rebadged cameras.

Other improvements are different back designs. Not sure about the Bessa R2A/R3A, but the Zeiss Ikon doesn't have the Bessa hump, nor does it use foam to block stray light. Carl Zeiss used deeper channels, so no foam was necessary. While this makes no difference now, it will down the road when the foam begins to deteriorate and you're left with gooey clumps that occasionally end up in the shutter. When that happens, you have real problems.

The actual rangefinder/viewfinder assembly using prisms is very different from the Bessa.

As well, the Zeiss Ikon has automatic in-viewfinder frameline selection, while the framelines on the Bessa are selected with a top-mounted switch.

There is some sharing of parts. It appears that the button for AE LOCK is the same, although they operate differently. It's a toggle on the Zeiss Ikon, while you must keep it depressed on the Bessa.

I also believe the shutter release is identical, although again implementation is different. From what I've read, the pressure points are different.

I think the shutter speed dial might be the same but with different paint.

It would make sense to share some parts where it makes little difference.

But in the broader sense, no, these are not even close to being clones.

Now, the Rollei 35 RF -- that's a Bessa-R2 clone. And the Leica P&S digicams are clones of Panasonic models (and before that, Fuji).