New Nikon F6 VS. New Zeiss Ikon ZM (w/Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar) - Which to purchase?

[Moose22]

You left out that using polarizing filters are a pain on a rangefinder camera, but easy for an SLR.

Ugh, you're not kidding! I didn't think of them because most of my landscapery has been with wides and ultrawides. I get wonky skies shooting a CPL with a 20mm. But lots of interesting landscape work is done without going wide angle, too.

I did love using the TLR for infrared, where the filter was super dark. Rangefinders are good that way, too. One benefit on the other side, if kind of a niche case.

 

[benveniste]

Hi all,

So I currently have the Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7 but the autofocus on it leaves a lot to be desired. (I loath autofucus.) That said, I have a unique opportunity to purchase a brand new Zeiss Ikon ZN with a Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar for exactly $2K OR a new Nikon F6 for $1500.

As I’m a landscape photographer; here’s a link to my work: kristianwolfe.com

Perhaps you more experienced photographers could even suggest a camera that might

This is sort of like asking if you want pasta or paella for dinner. Your two choices are sufficiently different that the deciding factor is going to be personal preference.

With the Nikon, a lot of what you are paying for is automation, including autofocus. Compared to a camera like an F5 or F100, you are also paying for iTTL flash compatibility. That's important if you want to use the current generation of Nikon flash units, but not so much otherwise. I don't recall which focusing screen is standard with the F6, but you'll likely want one with split image and/or microprism focus aids. My F100 lacks such aids and I find I miss them.

With the Zeiss, you are paying for mechanical precision, craftsmanship, and classic metal construction. With both cameras you are paying a premium for a niche product and for collector value.

As for lenses, again, that's largely a matter of personal choice. The 50mm f/2 Planar is a classic Gauss design, with 6 elements in 4 groups. Nikon also made a 50mm f/2 with the same basic optical design, but it was replaced in 1979 with a modified 6-element, 5-group design. In theory, that's an improvement, but given manufacturing tolerances I'd likely give the edge to the Zeiss. Note that you can buy either a Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro or a Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 in Nikon mount. Both are excellent but not inexpensive -- while I do own Zeiss ZF.2 lenses in 18mm and 25mm, I elected to keep my 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor and add a Voigtländer 58mm f/1.4.

Moving past 50mm, you'll find that there are a lot more options available for the Nikon than for the Zeiss. For landscapes, I'm a fan of ultra-wide-to-wide-normal zoom lenses such as the 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor and have shot landscapes at focal lengths ranging from 12mm to 400mm. When I'm in the mood to use film and single-focal length lenses, I usually switch to my Pentax 645n, but even there I'll use a 33-55mm zoom.

At the end of the day, though, it's your gear, your money and your choice. You'll get the best results with the camera you enjoy using the most.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ugh, you're not kidding! I didn't think of them because most of my landscapery has been with wides and ultrawides. I get wonky skies shooting a CPL with a 20mm. But lots of interesting landscape work is done without going wide angle, too.

I did love using the TLR for infrared, where the filter was super dark. Rangefinders are good that way, too. One benefit on the other side, if kind of a niche case.

I have a flip up adapter that I use for dark filters and the polarizers. That way I can adjust the polarizer, set the exposure, filp it up to check the framing, flip it down and take the photograph, although polarizer is rarely dark enough to need to flip it up. More likely to use it for the Red29 and 720 filters.

 

[C Jensen]

What you need is a Texas Leica. Let me know, I have a chrome Zeiss, a Nikon F6, and a Fuji 6X9 RF. None of which I care to Keep.

 

[manfrominternet]

What you need is a Texas Leica. Let me know, I have a chrome Zeiss, a Nikon F6, and a Fuji 6X9 RF. None of which I care to Keep.

Ha! Believe it or not, I'm actually looking to sell my Texas Leica GW690III! Why do you want to sell you Nikon F6 or chrome Zeiss?

Anyway, to eveyone else, I checked out the Zeiss Ikon ZM yesterday and it IS a stunning camera. Everything checked out EXCEPT for the rangefinder alignment which is slightly crooked. I fixed this myself on my Texas Leica (GW690III), so I'm wondering if this is also something I can fix myself or if I need to have somesome else fix for me.

If I absolutely need someone else fix this for me, who out there could fix it, and how much might it cost?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ha! Believe it or not, I'm actually looking to sell my Texas Leica GW690III! Why do you want to sell you Nikon F6 or chrome Zeiss?

Anyway, to eveyone else, I checked out the Zeiss Ikon ZM yesterday and it IS a stunning camera. Everything checked out EXCEPT for the rangefinder alignment which is slightly crooked. I fixed this myself on my Texas Leica (GW690III), so I'm wondering if this is also something I can fix myself or if I need to have somesome else fix for me.

If I absolutely need someone else fix this for me, who out there could fix it, and how much might it cost?

Call Samy's Camera in Los Angeles on La Brea and ask the repair department people.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I've owned both the F6 and the ZM. Of the two, I would get the F6, it's the pinnacle of Nikon's film bodies, wonderful to use, wonderfully built, a bit heavy. I shot for the NFL and MLB so the F6 was great for that, although it came out just as we were converting to digital.
The ZM was a camera I sold when I had an on-line store called therangefinderstore.com and I was a Zeiss dealer. They don't have the build quality and you'll end up wanting a Leica. The lenses are great,
Now that I just shoot video, and stills for fun, I've dropped down to the F3 instead of the F6, and I have the MP instead of the ZM. Both are manual focus, and all the lenses are manual focus. Maybe I should have bought AF lenses for the Nikon in case I want an AF body when my eyes degrade and focus becomes an issue.
However, any medium format will take a higher quality photo than either of these two.

 

[manfrominternet]

If you guys had a choice between a Zeiss Ikon ZM with a 50mm f/2 Planer lens for $2K, or a Nikon F6 (with $500 to spend on any lens)(again for $2K) or a Fuji GA645ZI (645 Medium Format 55-90mm f4.5-f6.9 Zoom Lens Rangefinder) for $1.6K or a New Mamiya 6 with a 50mm f/4 for $2.4K, which would you honestly get?

I basically have $2K to shoot with something very light. The Zeiss Ikon ZM w/5mm f/2 Planar are extremely appealing, but I have to rearrange the rangefinder :/, but I suspect the high image and rangefinder capabilities of both the Medium Format Mamiya 6 or GA645ZI must simply be better, no?

 

[Pioneer]

...
However, any medium format will take a higher quality photo than either of these two.

...and that is a fact...

 

[Craig]

It looks like you shoot most everything with a tripod, and speed of use isn't an issue? You say you have a Fuji GW690, is there any reason that wouldn't do the job?

 

[BMbikerider]

You are lucky to find a new F6 because they were discontinued about 2 years ago. But if it is really 'new' go for it. I had one which I bought in and unmarked used condition for £650 from a dealership that was closing down, but sold it quite happily 3 years later for £1300, exactly 100% profit. The 1st time I have ever made a profit selling a camera to a dealer!

Comments have been made about other cameras made by Nikon and to some extent I agree with some of them but compared to the F6 if I was after another AF camera I would go for an F4. The F5 with the battery pack is just too heavy for general use (You need to be a weight lifter to carry one around.) They are thin on the ground for a really good one but for me the main advantage over the F6 is the power supply, 4 x AA batteries compared to 2 3v lithium.
AA batteries can be bought almost anywhere. I have owned an F3 but they did not appear to be as strong as the preceding F2 or the F4.

The same applies to the F100 with batteries the same as the F4, but although they are similar to a F6 they are not as well built, in particular the film back. It is quite flimsily made and the catch on the back will break easily and new backs are virtually unobtainable.

I am using a F2a at present and appreciate to simplicity of it. It is quite a late one made around the end of 1979 it is virtually unmarked with a perfectly operating and very accurate meter. The shutter is quieter than most and would recommend one to anybody. It gives me a confidence it would take a lot for it to break down. Again batteries are no problem, but are only needed for the meter, so it can be used if the batteries die

 

[Oldwino]

It is like asking which vehicle to buy - a pickup truck, or a Porsche. The truck is much more versatile, but harder to park. The Porsche is much more fun to drive, but if it breaks...

 

[Sirius Glass]

You are lucky to find a new F6 because they were discontinued about 2 years ago. But if it is really 'new' go for it. I had one which I bought in and unmarked used condition for £650 from a dealership that was closing down, but sold it quite happily 3 years later for £1300, exactly 100% profit. The 1st time I have ever made a profit selling a camera to a dealer!

Comments have been made about other cameras made by Nikon and to some extent I agree with some of them but compared to the F6 if I was after another AF camera I would go for an F4. The F5 with the battery pack is just too heavy for general use (You need to be a weight lifter to carry one around.) They are thin on the ground for a really good one but for me the main advantage over the F6 is the power supply, 4 x AA batteries compared to 2 3v lithium.
AA batteries can be bought almost anywhere. I have owned an F3 but they did not appear to be as strong as the preceding F2 or the F4.

The same applies to the F100 with batteries the same as the F4, but although they are similar to a F6 they are not as well built, in particular the film back. It is quite flimsily made and the catch on the back will break easily and new backs are virtually unobtainable.

I am using a F2a at present and appreciate to simplicity of it. It is quite a late one made around the end of 1979 it is virtually unmarked with a perfectly operating and very accurate meter. The shutter is quieter than most and would recommend one to anybody. It gives me a confidence it would take a lot for it to break down. Again batteries are no problem, but are only needed for the meter, so it can be used if the batteries die

Someone on Photrio sells replacement latches for the N80/F80 and F100 for not a lot of money.

 

[Moose22]

Someone on Photrio sells replacement latches for the N80/F80 and F100 for not a lot of money.

+1

I don't have a problem with my F100 and I got a latch replacement anyway. Just for murphy's law. You can be careful with the latch -- just open it as you're closing the door rather than slamming the door closed -- and likely be fine for a long time.

Pros, in the old days when they were on film, probably saw this as a major disadvantage because you just want to drop the film in and get to work before the bride throws the bouquet or the pitcher throws the fastball, but for today's landscape photographer, that's all way less of an issue.

I don't have a problem with the battery choice on the F6, personally. I get 20 rolls from a set, I keep spares in the bag, and you can get good rechargables in the size from online retailers as well. But it is super easy to get AAs for the cameras that use them, absolutely.



For OP and medium format, if you're really seriously going to sell large prints doing landscape, that Mamiya 6 is hands down the one that will make the best negative. I don't know the fuji, though I am certain that would be a winner, too. I like Fuji lenses.

You have to really think before going there, though. The Mamiya 6 only has 50mm as the shortest focal length. 55mm for the Fuji. In 6x4.5, a 55mm shoots a field of view about like a 35mm in 135. In 6x6 with a 50 it's like using... I dunno. A 28mm? 30mm? Not a direct conversion because 135 is a wide format, but it's still just the "wide" range, and no wider than the 645, so not "very wide" or "super wide."

Don't get me wrong, I love the bejeebus out of the normal Fuji lenses I shoot in 6x8, but I personally grab the 50mm most often for landscape (FOV is like a 22mm lens in 135). And on 135 I like 20mm and 24mm views better than 28mm and 35mm. When you want expanse, wider than a normal FOV is what you need. Your style may vary.

So... yeah. IF you like a 28mm lens on you 135 cameras, I'm going to say get the Mamiya 6 from that list and learn to love the 50mm lens. The Fuji will be good, too, both way more resolution than tiny little baby negatives in 135.

 

[brian steinberger]

I’d go for the Mamiya 6 as well. Start with the 50 and you can add the other two lenses as funds allow. It’s a great system and has been my main system for 15 years.

 

[Mogens]

Isn’t the Zeiss Ikon a gussied up Cosina, the same chassis as a Nikon FE10? I wouldn’t pay $2k for that. The Nikon is a whole different level of quality.

 

[Mogens]

Isn’t the Zeiss Ikon a gussied up Cosina, the same chassis as a Nikon FE10? I wouldn’t pay $2k for that. The Nikon is a whole different level of quality.

Yes, looked it up. It's another camera based on the Cosina CT-1. There's nothing wrong with that, but I really question the price people are paying for rangefinder bodies that have the build quality of what were considered super budget cameras like the Nikon FM10 and the Olympus OM2000, which were also versions of the CT-1. The Zeiss Ikon and Bessa bodies should really cost about $300-500. The only reason they go for more is because of Leica-related market forces.

The F6, on the other hand, is built to photograph wars and volcanic eruptions.

 

[film_man]

As a landscape photographer you owe it to yourself to buy the ZM and get a ZM 21/4.5C lens on it. It's just spectacular.

 

[warden]

The F6, on the other hand, is built to photograph wars and volcanic eruptions.

I took my Zeiss Ikon to photograph a volcanic eruption recently. It turned to dust. Why oh why didn't I buy a certified volcanic eruption camera?? I replaced it with another Ikon because I already had those ZM lenses on hand, and went out to photograph war, as one does. BIG MISTAKE. Not war certified either, and now I have only lenses and no camera. Sad!

 

[markjwyatt]

Quite the dilemma- do you choose what may be the worlds finest/most sophisticated and modern rangefinder camera or the what may be the worlds finest/most sophisticated and modern SLR?

Obviously the first choice (as discussed here) is do you want a rangefinder camera or an SLR? I use both, and 90% of the time for me either could work.

I think the most important consideration might be long term survivability. I suspect the Nikon F6 has a significantly better chance of being repaired/ serviced in the future, plus there are likely many more reasonable priced options for it (lenses, accessories, etc.).

Personally, if I were faced with the choice, I would tend towards the Zeiss Ikon, just because I like Zeiss Ikon, I really do not like the more plastic-fantastic cameras (though the F6 has amazing technology in it- beyond the Zeiss Ikon), and I just really like the idea of the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder as one of the most modern and final end-of film camera era rangefinder designs (obviously there are also Leicas also), but I would be pretty worried about depending on it over time. If I had $2k to spend, I would likely be looking for neither of those, but you clearly know photography and know what you are looking for.

 

[Mogens]

I took my Zeiss Ikon to photograph a volcanic eruption recently. It turned to dust. Why oh why didn't I buy a certified volcanic eruption camera?? I replaced it with another Ikon because I already had those ZM lenses on hand, and went out to photograph war, as one does. BIG MISTAKE. Not war certified either, and now I have only lenses and no camera. Sad!

The F6 is the toughest professional film camera Nikon ever built. I'm sure the Zeiss Ikon is a fun camera, but all I'm saying is that its price on the used market reflects spill over from Leica pricing, not its build quality—which, on the inside, is no better than the Nikon FE10 that you can buy for less than $100.

 

[Craig]

The F6 is the toughest professional film camera Nikon ever built.

I actually think that might be the F5. That was designed as a full pro camera, whereas when the F6 was in design many pros were switching to digital. Thus the focus of the F6 was intended more toward the advanced hobbyist, rather than a photojournalist. This was discussed in the interview with the F6's designers. That being said, they set out to better the F5 in every area and were given more time than usual to achieve that. They also improved the weathersealing over the F5 because of the deletion of the removable prism. I chose an F6 over an F5 and have never regretted it.

They set out to make it the most refined 35mm camera ever, and I think they succeeded.

 

[warden]

The F6 is the toughest professional film camera Nikon ever built. I'm sure the Zeiss Ikon is a fun camera, but all I'm saying is that its price on the used market reflects spill over from Leica pricing, not its build quality—which, on the inside, is no better than the Nikon FE10 that you can buy for less than $100.

I’m just being a goof here. There is no wrong answer between these two great cameras. I don’t care what either of them cost because they’re both so much cheaper than film and development that the price of the camera is entirely forgettable. And either would die if I threw them in the river or whatever.

But the Zeiss is better.

;-)

 

[mshchem]

The Zeiss Ikon is a Cosina camera. It's a decent camera, same parts bin as the Cosina Voigtlander bodies. Cosina makes great rangefinder lenses then and now. I have 3 or 4 of the Cosina Zeiss zm lenses, beautiful lenses, I use on M mount Leica.

All this being said the Nikon F6 is 10 times the camera as this Cosina Zeiss Ikon. MHOFWIW

 

[M-88]

I'm sure the Zeiss Ikon is a fun camera, but all I'm saying is that its price on the used market reflects spill over from Leica pricing, not its build quality

Same goes for Cosina "Voigtlander" Bessa which is as flimsy as a camera can be and yet still dictates ridiculous prices (compared to its build quality) just because it's a rangefinder with screw mount or Leica mount.