Zeiss Ikon vs Voigtlander R3A

[michaelstevens]

For various reasons I want to replace my Nikon FE2 with a rangefinder but can't decide which one of these two to go for.

Obviously the R3A is a lot cheaper but I'm a little worried about its shorter rangefinder base length. I'll only really be using 35mm and 50mm lenses but often in very low light with wide apertures. I therefore need pretty accurate and quick focusing.

My question to those in the know is: would I notice much of a difference in accuracy and speed of focusing between the two cameras with these lenses under these conditions? My only real rangefinder comparison is a Yashica Electro 35 which I found very dim and difficult to focus compared to the Nikon SLR.

Any thoughts from members with experience of both cameras or keen rangefinder brains would be much appreciated.

 

[kshapero]

both great but ZI is better. you get what you pay for.

 

[Tompas]

Obviously the R3A is a lot cheaper but I'm a little worried about its shorter rangefinder base length. I'll only really be using 35mm and 50mm lenses but often in very low light with wide apertures. I therefore need pretty accurate and quick focusing.

The R3a has no framelines for 35mm lenses. Consider the R2a instead, which has. It's 50mm frame is ok, too.

I don't have a ZI, so I can't compare.

 

[presspass]

I have a ZI and an R2 (not a), so I'm interpolating a bit for the R3. The ZI's finder is certainly clearer, but the meter readout can be an issue if you wear glasses. The R series meter readouts are easily visible, the ZI readout is on the left side of the viewfinder and hard to see, especially in bright light. If you're willing to let the AE pick your exposure, or choose your own with a handheld meter or by sunny 16, the ZI is better. If you want to see the meter readout, the R series wins.

 

[wakarimasen]

My only real rangefinder comparison is a Yashica Electro 35 which I found very dim and difficult to focus compared to the Nikon SLR.

I recently sold an Electro 35 and am selling a Canon Q17 due to the rangefinder patches being poor in low light. I don't have any experience of the Ikon, but the rangefinder patch in my Bessar R is like a night and day difference to the other two cameras.

Best regards,
RoyM

 

[mfogiel]

Zeiss Ikon is the best low light camera, and the RF, if well aligned is extremely precise. I use it normally with the 35/1.2 and I have also used it with the 50/1.1 lenses. It is a great camera. The R3A is ok, but not anywhere near.

 

[Dwayneb9584]

I happen to personally like the metering on the left side of the frame lines in my Zeiss Ikon. I'd go for the Zeiss. I looked through the R2/3 and you really can beat how big and bright the Ikon's viewfinder is. I use mine with a 35mm f2.5 color skopar PII. I love it. I had them both for a couple of months now and been caring it with me everyday since. I love it. You can find a used Ikon for pretty cheap now. Overall i'd save for the Ikon.

 

[Keith]

The R3A is a very good camera for the price and the Zeiss is just a better camera ... but for pure value for dollar and getting the job done the Bessa has it IMO.

 

[Mister E]

The ZI is great, but I have to repeat what Thomas said and suggest an M2 or M4 due to the shutter lag of the Ikon. After owning a bessa or two I'd never consider another. The finder of the Ikon is spectacular and the build is great, but the shutter lag has recently started to get on my nerves.

 

[mfogiel]

Shutter lag ? What shutter lag ? Never had one.

 

[Mister E]

Shutter lag ? What shutter lag ? Never had one.

You might not notice it, but it's especially apparent with old batteries and the fresh batteries I just put in my Ikon made no difference. I've probably put close to 200 rolls through this Ikon and maybe 50 through my other Ikon in a handful of different countries. It's certainly not my imagination.

 

[mfogiel]

I think it might be imaginary. The perceived difference between the ZI, and an M7 or M4, can be given by a "two step" action which you perceive with the Ikon, as the button first releases the electrical circuit and then the shutter fires, as against a "one step" action in the Leicas. However, the Leica shutter release requires that you press the shutter button deeper, therefore the effective time difference is probably null. However, I think that the technically minded could measure the difference in an objective way. It could be interesting to know.

 

[flip]

Figuring that the Ikon might be close to a hexar, I would go that route. Longer baselength = more low light options.

 

[Mister E]

I think it might be imaginary. The perceived difference between the ZI, and an M7 or M4, can be given by a "two step" action which you perceive with the Ikon, as the button first releases the electrical circuit and then the shutter fires, as against a "one step" action in the Leicas. However, the Leica shutter release requires that you press the shutter button deeper, therefore the effective time difference is probably null. However, I think that the technically minded could measure the difference in an objective way. It could be interesting to know.

No, it's not imaginary. There is a noticeable lag at times, where there too much time between when I press the shutter release and the shutter actually releases.

 

[Jipe]

Hello,

About

... would I notice much of a difference in accuracy and speed of focusing between the two cameras with these lenses under these conditions?

According to Erwin Puts (http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/technique/page49.html) the two of them are ok in accurancy with 35mm and 50mm lenses, even at wide apertures. No idea about focusing speed.

I've got the both. I like the R3A, a good camera that I use only with a 40mm lense. The ZI ZM seems one step better for me.

Regards

 

[jonmanjiro]

No, it's not imaginary. There is a noticeable lag at times, where there too much time between when I press the shutter release and the shutter actually releases.

Never noticed that on mine. If its an intermittent problem, it could be due to a dirty contact somewhere or a bad battery...

 

[Mister E]

Never noticed that on mine. If its an intermittent problem, it could be due to a dirty contact somewhere or a bad battery...

It's tied to the battery voltage to some extent. Which brings up another issue. I get about 100 rolls out of an FE2 on two *R44 batteries, but only about 20 rolls out of the Ikon. Everyone I know that's ever used an Ikon has said as much. None of these issues keep me from using the hell out of my Ikon, which I do. It's a great camera, but not having this frustration on any of my manual cameras keep me shooting them when conditions warrant it.

 

[noimmunity]

It's tied to the battery voltage to some extent. Which brings up another issue. I get about 100 rolls out of an FE2 on two *R44 batteries, but only about 20 rolls out of the Ikon. Everyone I know that's ever used an Ikon has said as much.

Same with me.
On the other hand, the same pair of batteries on both my Bessa R4A and Bessa T will last at least twice as long...

 

[michaelstevens]

Thanks for all the replies. I know that the Zeiss is the "better camera" and if money were no object it would be the first choice. But unfortunately money is an object and I can get the R3A with a good lens for less than the price of the Ikon body alone.

Build quality, "feel" or battery life will all have to be secondary to usability; ie: low light performance and focusing accuracy wide open at about 50mm. So am I getting overly obsessed with the rangefinder baselength issue on paper or does it really make a big difference in the real world?

 

[Mister E]

Baselength makes a huge difference. Get a decent used Ikon and a CV 35/1.4. That will leave you with a nice kit.