Zeiss Ikon=R2A

pizzahut88 said:
How long would an electronic shutter work?
Ten years? Twenty years?
Actually I don't know.
but mechanical stuff are proven to last long.
Click to expand...

I'd say at least 20-30 years. My dad's Contax RTS (I) still works fine, shutter, meter & all. There are a huge number of Nikon & Canon SLR bodies out there which have been used & abused & held up fine (the F3 came out 25+ years ago).

Clearly the standard in rangefinder cameras has been set by Leica which incorporated mechanical shutters until the M7 & M8. All of the remotely affordable (used) M bodies have mechanical shutters. I think this is the reason for the bias against electromechanical shutters amongst rangefinder users.

I think the Ikon might be the first new rangefinder designed from the ground up which can compete with Leica on the quality of the rangefinder & design of the overall camera--it happens to use a modern shutter. Personally, AE with a ZI (or M7 or R2/3a) is reason enough for me to prefer an electronic shutter. The M7 brochure mentioned the cloth shutter as one of the characteristics of a Leica M (not mentioning a mechanical design) while the MP is sold on the basis of the more expensive construction of its mechanical shutter when compared to the M6. Both of these points are absent from the M8 literature, so even Leica has used multiple shutter designs which presumably meet their accuracy and durability standards.

My view of mechanical shutters & battery independence is that they are overrated in the context of photographic tools, but I also happen to like mechanical watches and fountain pens for the traditional approach they represent. I think that a mechcanical shutter is a prefectly reasonable choice in a camera, but to me the choice isn't one justified on technical merit, but rather preferences/sentiment/history just like watches or pens.
 
Last edited:
I am interested in the Zeiss as a possible future camera. I just wanted to know if it is truly worth what it costs. Is it on par with the Leica M7? (my other choice)
 
look here, ive had two zeiss ikons and have used my friends r3a a bit, I can say right off the bat that he and I both can agree, the zeiss ikon while sharing some common factors with each other is like comparing a nikon f3 and a nikon fm3, while the fm3 is technically brilliant and will do everything you want for day to day photo taking, but the f3 is just better. Its the same with the ikon, my friends bessa has done him well and he has taken some great pictures with it, but the zeiss ikon is just simply better.
 
5nap5hot said:
I am interested in the Zeiss as a possible future camera. I just wanted to know if it is truly worth what it costs. Is it on par with the Leica M7? (my other choice)
Click to expand...
Firstly, the ZI is much less expensive than the M7 & I think it is priced fairly. There are important differences between the two which can guide your choice. If based on these differences, you would prefer an M7, I think that it is better to spend the extra money than buy a ZI. I found that the ZI fit what I wanted (& my budget) over the M7.

Key Leica M7 features
  • TTL flash metering (1/50 max sync)
  • 75 & 135 framelines
  • auto ISO setting based on DX coding
  • mechanical 1/60 & 1/125 shutter speeds
  • cloth shutter (quiet, 1/1000 max)
  • traditional Leica form factor
  • AE compensation on rear of camera
  • AE lock at shutter release
  • choice of viewfinder magnifiications via custom program
  • bottom film loading
  • brass top & bottom plates=heavier
Key Zeiss Ikon features
  • eyeglasses-friendly 28 mm framelines
  • large rangefinder base length
  • unpaired 35 & 50 framelines
  • metal shutter (1/2000 max with flash sync to 1/125)
  • AE compensation at shutter speed dial
  • AE lock on rear of camera with persistence between shots
  • hinged back
  • magnesium top & bottom plates=lighter
  • all shutter speeds require battery
Clearly, I spent a lot of time comparing these before making a decision, partly because it was fun. These are the things I knew about before seeing the cameras in person. After using them, there are other things which you really notice. The shutter speed & meter displays are very different, although I'm sure both work well. One of the things I really like about the ZI is the feel & arrangement of the shutter speed dial, shutter release, & film advance, the primary controls are great. My major deciding factors in the ZI over M7 (since I wanted AE) were the glasses-friendly finder and the value/price. After using the camera, I'm glad the AE lock is on a separate button & the exposure compensation is at the shutter dial (although the Canon EOS system uses the rear dial for compensation & that is OK too, but I prefer the top dial as on the Zeiss).

I hope this helps, please let me know if you have any specific questions. I have only tried an M7 at camera stores, but there are others on RFF who have used both bodies extensively. :)
 
Last edited:
My Yashica FX-3 and my sisters Canon T60 (? unsure about the name) and a friends Nikon FM10 share a lot of parts and as far as I know they share them with the original Bessa R. What Cosina did was making cameras for other companies based on an existing design and have those other companies pay for the improvements which cosina integrated in their next desing.

IMHO Cosina introduced the 1:1 viewfinder in the Bessa R3A after it was used in the Epson R-D1 and the improved Copal shutter after it was used in the ZI.
I think they may not use the ZI viewfinder or it might be too expensive for a Bessa priced camera.

When I bought my Contax G2 I was more interested in a Hexar RF or a Bessa R2 or Rollei 35RF, but my dealer wanted too much for the Hexar kit and hadn't a Bessa for me to try. So I went home with the Contax.

Today I'm torn apart between what the Contax G delivers and how much more choice a M-Mount based system offers.
 
pizzahut88 said:
I

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

My oldest electronicaly shuttered camera turns 30 next year. It has never been serviced although it was used from the Lofotes to the caribbean sea
 
I got a old canon ae1 here, electronic shutter in that, works fine. I think its neat though how the shutter isnt metal but rather cloth too and just the mirror and its housing are metal, either way though the thing makes a nice loud clack when you take a photo.

Im not worried about my camera being ok in 30 years because I think in 30 years ill have found something else.
 
As far as being on par ...

On paper, the Bessa-R3A, Zeiss Ikon and Leica M7 compare favorably with each other, with the Leica having a more sophisticated metering system, particularly when it comes to using electronic flash.

In use, the three cameras are different. Each has a different feel and quite possibly will appeal to different groups.

The Leica has a feel that hasn't changed much since the 1950s, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The Bessa is a lighter weight camera that often is described as being "fun" to use. I've probably read that description about the Bessa more often than anything else.

The Zeiss Ikon, despite being produced in Japan, is a German camera. Sturdy and predictable. By the way, the physical dimensions of the Zeiss Ikon are very similar to the Contax II.

If possible, try to use each of the cameras. More than anything else, that will tell you which camera is for you.

In general, I wouldn't purchase a new camera merely on technical specs.
 
I had an r3a, now own a ZI, ZI is MUCH quieter, finder is brighter, framelines are nicer. I go miss the little grippy bit on the back of the bessa, but the ZI feels excellent in hand. also, auto frameline selection.

mike
 
ferider said:
The M3 and .85 M6 have longer effective baselength than the ZI.
Click to expand...

Yes, the M3 & .85 M6/7 have longer effective base lengths than the ZI, but this is comparing apples & oranges. Those Leica cameras DON'T have 28 mm frame lines. In fact, the M3 doesn't even have 35 mm frames. These Leicas are not designed for all-around use in the way that the ZI is with its built-in 28 frame lines. The ZI has the longest effective base length o fany camera ever built with 28 mm frame lines in its view finder.

The net keeps talking about better QC for the ZI than for the Bessa.
Unless somebody explains the difference in QC process this is just noise/marketing.
Click to expand...

There are 3 elements to the Zeiss Ikon that demonstrate higher quality control: design, manufacture, & inspection.

1. Design:Carl Zeiss AG invested R&D into this camera that Cosina never has into the Bessa line. The camera was designed as an integrated unit from the beginning without compromise. The parts were designed to fit together & work together as a whole unlike the Bessa in which parts were forced to fit into an existing SLR design. After the development of a protototype, Zeiss field tested the camera & solicited consumer feedback in focus groups. They also consulted with the manufacturing people for feedback to the designers. The camera was revised based on this input before it ever came to market. Having such an intensive & extensive design & dvelopment process before production line assembly ever began set a high standard for quality from the beginning.

2. Manufacture: In his review of the Zeiss Ikon system, Erwin Puts reported that his inspection & tests revealed that the system was built to tighter tolerances than the Bessas - not as tight as a Leica, but about half way between the two.

The use of a rangefinder with a 75 mm base line alone is a quality control feature. This is double the length of the Bessa RF base line. Therefore, any error in manufacture & has twice the effect in usage in a Bessa caera than in a Zeiss Ikon. In the development of a precision rangefinder, increased magnification is not a substitute for physical length of the base line.

3. Inspection: Every Zeiss Ikon camera that comes off the production line is examined & certified by a by a QC inspector before it is packaged & shipped. This is not done for Bessa cameras. Quality control is performed by the consumer. Same for the ZM lenses. Every lens that comes off the production line is tested on a Zeiss MTF plotter to insure that it meets performance standards before it is packaged & shipped. We know that this has never been the Cosina practice because the MTF plotters had to be installed in the Cosina factory in order for them to comply with Zeiss requirements.

BTW, from pictures it seems like the R[23]M has a different shutter than earlier Bessas, it looks identical to the ZI's.
Click to expand...

The issue with the ZI shutter has never been its physical parts. It's a standard Copal shutter. No need to reinvent the wheel. It was modified to make it quieter & Cosina may well have copied this same modification for the R2/3M. I have no idea. What makes the ZI shutter different is its electronics, which were specially developed for this camera. The firing of the ZI shutter & the electromagnet used allow for the shutter to have the same shutter lag as the M7, i.e. 14 ms (milliseconds) in manual & 20 ms in AE. In addition, the travel distance of the ZI shutter release is only 0.9 mm, compared with 2 mm on an M7. And the first 0.6 mm of travel of the ZI shutter release is just to activate the meter, leaving only 0.3 ms to actually fire the shutter. The combination of lack of shutter lag & short travel distance of the shutter release allows for instantaneous response by the camera. This is at the very heart of rangefinder photography - the ability to capture your subject in the moment. In contrast, Popular Photography reported a shutter lag of 100 ms when it tested the Bessa R. Cosina has never reported any improvements in shutter lag in its succeeeding Bessa incarnations nor have they reported any attempts to improve shutter performance.
 
Excellent info in the thread. IMO, as a lover for old Zeiss Ikon cameras, I have to say the new ZI is just a japanese camera bearing ZI name. Nothing else could relate it to the great ZI bloodline.
 
roundg said:
Excellent info in the thread. IMO, as a lover for old Zeiss Ikon cameras, I have to say the new ZI is just a japanese camera bearing ZI name. Nothing else could relate it to the great ZI bloodline.
Click to expand...

Actually, the opposite is true. It's a German camera of Japanese manufacture.

As Huck points out, the approach to assembly as well as the design and R&D is more German than Japanese with each body and lens required to pass minimum standards. That's each body and each lens, not random checks on the assembly line. This slows the production, which increases the cost.

The design also is the minimalist German approach with the emphasis being on ease of use and functionality.

One thing to consider is this: Carl Zeiss AG, the parent firm, has not been in the business of camera production, with the exceptions being some plate cameras in the early 1900s and completion of some cameras after the demise of Zeiss Ikon in the 1970s.

Zeiss could have made this camera in Germany, and I believe we would have ended up with the same camera, more or less, although the cost to the consumer would have been significantly higher, because Zeiss first would have had to create a camera production facility and then hire and train camera assembly techs and begin to source and/or fabricate parts ... a sizable investment with no guarantee of financial success seeing that it was entering a niche market that grows smaller every year.

I would have loved a "Made in Germany" Zeiss Ikon, but I'm quite certain that the pricetag would have been closer to the Leica and not at the price point we see now. That would have sharply limited its appeal in the marketplace.

And I say all this as an ardent buyer, restorer and user of the classic Zeiss Ikon cameras.
 
We have german zeiss ikon it is called leica right? it should be good to have choise! I like zeiss ikon! and I like it even more because of its price! I am sure if it was done in germany it would have double price, now with price of new M7 I can buy two or three zeiss ikons, which going to last more? I don`t know :D
 
Avotius said:
yikes that read like a camera advertisement hehe very nice none the less
Click to expand...

Sorry, Avotius. I was not trying to make it a ZI promo. :angel:

My goal was to share some factual stuff that isn't readily available in the camera descriptions - stuff that I had to dig to find.

Those who lump the Zeiss Ikon in with the Bessas & divide the RF world into Leica vs everything else miss the core point about a Zeiss Ikon.

A Zeiss Ikon meets or exceeds the performance features of a Leica in every respect except for shutter noise. That is the simple fact. A Bessa does not. Immediacy of response. Exceptional viewfinder with 28 - 85 frame lines. Long base rangefinder. These are all things that make a difference in the final product - photos & how you take them.

A Zi does not have all of the features of an M7. Things like DX coding. It's a more Spartan design. I'll let others debate issues like build quality. But if you want to match the core performance of an M7, a ZI will do that & a Bessa will not. That's the truth & not a promo. Nor is it a knock on athe Bessas, which are what they are & do a fine job of offering a basic RF body on which to mount high quality RF lenses.
 
I never suspect new ZI is not designed in Gemany by Zeiss. I also never suspect Zeiss try their best. What I suspect is how much capacity Ziess still left in their camera design team. The last real RF they designed is the contax IIa/IIIa, 45 years ago. And obvious Zeiss can't afford a new production line in Germany. So they have to consider how to make use of the current one in Cosina.

No compromise, but it depends on how far their stength could stretch.

On the other hand, I have no complaints on new ZI. I have played with one of my friend for a while. The RF is excellent, but no surprise. How can it surprise someone with a techique M3 has achieved 50years ago?

I am considering my next contax camera collection. So far, ZI is not in the list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom