[stevebrot]

Jussi, what Kiev do you have? A 35mm RF, or one of those MF beasts? Considering a 35mm, but don't know if I should get me a 4(A) or a earlier version (3A, or even a 2...)

While it is sort of clunky in use (hate the infinity lock on the focus), I have to admit really liking my Kiev 4A. It was made in 1961 and is much smoother than the 1981 version that I initially had (4AM). (Sent the newer one back to Fedka in exchange for the older one. The difference is night and day. Still, though, it is not a Contax. ) I also like the pictures it takes!




Steve

[stevebrot]

Got my ZI yesterday,

Gorgeous...almost makes me wonder why I would even think of buying a high-end dSLR if I had a spare $2300 in my wallet!


Steve

[tuco]

While it is sort of clunky in use (hate the infinity lock on the focus), I have to admit really liking my Kiev 4A. It was made in 1961 and is much smoother than the 1981 version that I initially had (4AM). (Sent the newer one back to Fedka in exchange for the older one. The difference is night and day. Still, though, it is not a Contax. ) I also like the pictures it takes!


Steve

Nice score. It looks in really good shape.

[séamuis]

Got my ZI yesterday, finished one roll before the Sun went down, I have to agree that I was much slower than when I'm using an LX

It looks pretty though:

how would you rate the viewfinder of the Ikon? I haver heard it is really incredible, and in photos it would seem larger than the Bessa’s (certainly from what I have read, better than anything Leica currently offers, or have ever offered) but I have a Bessa R3A with the 1:1 finder, and I would be hard pressed to consider another finder easier to use than this one. I don’t even have to close one eye to focus and compose. of course it makes using wider angle lenses a pain, but 35mm can be utilized by using the whole frame. for someone like myself who uses 50mm most of the time (gotta love those summicrons) this 1:1 finder pretty much trumps any other advantage the Ikon may offer for the higher price. would you consider the Ikon a good investment over the Bessa, considering the current prices for the Ikon new? I can hardly bring myself to justify a 1000+ dollar film camera, unless it was an investment I knew I would get a return on. besides, the bess a is just a wonderfully utilitarian camera, its lovely in its own right. but I have to admit, the Ikon is handsome.

[Nando]

Séamuis,

I'm a Leica user and have handled both the Zeiss Ikon and various Bessas. To me, the main advantage of the Ikon's finder over the finder of a more modern Leica is less clutter. On the Ikon, only the 28 and 85mm framelines are paired - 35mm and 50mm framelines are by themselves. The modern Leica finders have 28/90, 35/135 and 50/75 pairs. That said, the M3, M2 and M4 have less framelines. One can also change the Leica finder to have only the framelines that you want - either by ordering a camera through the "a la carte" program or by having a technician remove them.

I'm not sure if there would be such an advantage over your R3A as its finder doesn't have much clutter. Only the 40/90 lines are paired if I remember correctly? Also the Ikon's finder has 0.74x magnification and not 1.00x like your R3M. The Ikon's finder is quite close to Leica's 0.72x finder. Leica does have .58x and .85x magnification as options in the 'a la carte' program. There are also various eye-piece magnifiers available for Leicas. I use a 1.25x magnifier on my 0.72x MP when I use my 50mm and 90mm lenses. With the Zeiss, I'm not sure if there is a magnifier option. If it has the same eye-piece as the Bessas, then there are the Nikon and MS-Optical magnifiers.

In terms of brightness, I couldn't really tell a difference. All three seem equally bright to me. The Bessa and Ikon have better eye relief for eye-glass wearers. The Ikon's focusing patch doesn't flare apparently. The focussing patch in the M4-2, M4-P, M6 and M7 does flare occasionally. I can tell you that the focusing patches in my MP and M3 never flares. I can also vouch for the M2 and M4 in this regard.

[séamuis]

Séamuis,

I'm a Leica user and have handled both the Zeiss Ikon and various Bessas. To me, the main advantage of the Ikon's finder over the finder of a more modern Leica is less clutter. On the Ikon, only the 28 and 85mm framelines are paired - 35mm and 50mm framelines are by themselves. The modern Leica finders have 28/90, 35/135 and 50/75 pairs. That said, the M3, M2 and M4 have less framelines. One can also change the Leica finder to have only the framelines that you want - either by ordering a camera through the "a la carte" program or by having a technician remove them.

I'm not sure if there would be such an advantage over your R3A as its finder doesn't have much clutter. Only the 40/90 lines are paired if I remember correctly? Also the Ikon's finder has 0.74x magnification and not 1.00x like your R3M. The Ikon's finder is quite close to Leica's 0.72x finder. Leica does have .58x and .85x magnification as options in the 'a la carte' program. There are also various eye-piece magnifiers available for Leicas. I use a 1.25x magnifier on my 0.72x MP when I use my 50mm and 90mm lenses. With the Zeiss, I'm not sure if there is a magnifier option. If it has the same eye-piece as the Bessas, then there are the Nikon and MS-Optical magnifiers.

In terms of brightness, I couldn't really tell a difference. All three seem equally bright to me. The Bessa and Ikon have better eye relief for eye-glass wearers. The Ikon's focusing patch doesn't flare apparently. The focussing patch in the M4-2, M4-P, M6 and M7 does flare occasionally. I can tell you that the focusing patches in my MP and M3 never flares. I can also vouch for the M2 and M4 in this regard.

I have an M3, and I agree with your assessments. I love the M3, and its uncluttered finder. but even the mighty M3 in my eyes, just doesn’t quite cut it for everyday use when looking through that 1:1 finder. yes the 40 and 90 are paired. as far as I have read, part of the reason the Ikon doesn’t flair is because of the use of coated glass for the patch window where Leica simply uses plastic. (Im not sure what the Bessa uses, but I have not experienced any flare) in fact it would seem that the mighty Leica at its high prices uses quite a lot of plastic where the Ikon uses metal and glass. having an M3 and a Bessa, I think I would choose an Ikon over say an M6TTL or M7 any day of the week if I was buying for the sole purpose of actual serious photography. many people consider the Bessa to be ‘aesthetically challenged’, and while I agree there is certainly some use of cheap parts (the rubber molded grips is a good example) I find it quite attractive. my real questions though, have to do with the Cosina aspect in regards to the Bessa and the Ikon. clearly the Ikon is superior in many ways in terms of materials used, but I wonder just how different they are internally? the shutter, the electronics, the meter, etc. seeing as they are both manufactured by cosina, can the Ikon really be that much better for the price?

[Nando]

Actually, the flare problem seems somewhat of a mystery but I don't think it is due to the plastic illumination window, which was introduced with the M2. The M2 and M4 doesn't have this problem and neither does the current MP. There are some good theories here:
Leica FAQ — RF patch flare

The Zeiss Ikon's rangefinder follows the same linear design as that of the Leica M3.

I can tell you that the Ikon does feel very nice in the hands but to me it feels much closer to its Voigtlander cousins than to a Leica M. I don't know if it is worth the extra price over a Bessa. For me personally, I'll always choose a Leica (used or new) if given the choice primarily for three reasons: the ease of service and repair, their astonishing resale value, and their proven reliability. I think that the jury is still out on the Voigtlander/Ikon when it comes to these three things. My Bessa T is now around 10 years old and so far its been pretty reliable - no complaints.

[frank]

Gorgeous...almost makes me wonder why I would even think of buying a high-end dSLR if I had a spare $2300 in my wallet!


Steve

Thanks Steve. I didn't pay that much, not even half of it actually

how would you rate the viewfinder of the Ikon? I haver heard it is really incredible, and in photos it would seem larger than the Bessa’s (certainly from what I have read, better than anything Leica currently offers, or have ever offered) but I have a Bessa R3A with the 1:1 finder, and I would be hard pressed to consider another finder easier to use than this one. I don’t even have to close one eye to focus and compose. of course it makes using wider angle lenses a pain, but 35mm can be utilized by using the whole frame. for someone like myself who uses 50mm most of the time (gotta love those summicrons) this 1:1 finder pretty much trumps any other advantage the Ikon may offer for the higher price. would you consider the Ikon a good investment over the Bessa, considering the current prices for the Ikon new? I can hardly bring myself to justify a 1000+ dollar film camera, unless it was an investment I knew I would get a return on. besides, the bess a is just a wonderfully utilitarian camera, its lovely in its own right. but I have to admit, the Ikon is handsome.

Sorry I never had any other Rangefinder before, but I did hold Bessa R4A and Leica MP/M6/M7 before. The Leicas feel very nice and solid, but I don't like the way they load film. My buddy friend had Bessas, compared Leicas and Zeiss Ikon, and he chose ZI over a Leica mainly for its viewfinder and easier loading film.

After a few days play, I feel the ZI is a very good camera, to my standard anyway. But I still need some time to get used to the way it works. I'm used to seeing actual thin DOF when focusing with a fast lens on a SLR, but I can't do that on a rangefinder. And all my LM lenses (well, I only got two anyway) can't even focus closer than 70cm I like to get very close to target sometimes, this is really a big shortcome for LM lenses especially when adapted on cameras like my Panasonic GF1...

I'll shoot a few more roll films and see how well I'd like it. For now, I still like my Pentax better

[Nando]

But I still need some time to get used to the way it works. I'm used to seeing actual thin DOF when focusing with a fast lens on a SLR, but I can't do that on a rangefinder. And all my LM lenses (well, I only got two anyway) can't even focus closer than 70cm I like to get very close to target sometimes, this is really a big shortcome for LM lenses especially when adapted on cameras like my Panasonic GF1...
I'll shoot a few more roll films and see how well I'd like it. For now, I still like my Pentax better

Frank,
See my first post on this thread. Don't treat the rangefinder like an SLR because its not an SLR. Explore a new way of seeing and take advantage of the rangefinder's attributes including the unlimited DOF of its viewfinder. You must also give it time.

[stevebrot]

I don't know if it is worth the extra price over a Bessa.

Even with the longer rangefinder base on the Ikon (55.5mm effective baseline as opposed to 37mm on the Bessa R3A/R3M)?


Steve

[Nando]

Even with the longer rangefinder base on the Ikon (55.5mm effective baseline as opposed to 37mm on the Bessa R3A/R3M)?
Steve

I scale focus most of the time. Like I said in my first post, I only focus when I use a large aperture or when the subject is close. Unless one is using a 50f1.4 or a 90f2 wide-open all the time, I think that the Bessa's rangefinder base is adequate enough for most people.

[frank]

Frank,
See my first post on this thread. Don't treat the rangefinder like an SLR because its not an SLR. Explore a new way of seeing and take advantage of the rangefinder's attributes including the unlimited DOF of its viewfinder. You must also give it time.

Yeah, focusing is well, not as easy w/ a rangefinder to me. The focusing ring is too small comparing w/ normal SLR lenses, and I need some practices... Anyway, the camera itself looks really cool though

[Rense]

While it is sort of clunky in use (hate the infinity lock on the focus), I have to admit really liking my Kiev 4A. It was made in 1961 and is much smoother than the 1981 version that I initially had (4AM). (Sent the newer one back to Fedka in exchange for the older one. The difference is night and day. Still, though, it is not a Contax. ) I also like the pictures it takes!




Steve

Steve, thank you! I've read the Soviets had some reasonable QC in the fifties and sixties,but that disappeared over the decades....

Great shot!

[séamuis]

my humble Bessa sporting the M3’s summicron 50. my honest daily carry. why this over the M3? we all love built in meters and auto exposure.