Agree, it's priced as a Leica alternative, not on it's own merits. Seems grossly overpriced when a Nikon F4 is $200.
Same goes forCosina"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.
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.
"The F6 is the toughest professional film camera Nikon ever built since the F2 & F4 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 $100."
Sure the F6 is/was a fine camera! I used to own one but I had more exposure fluctuations and inaccuracies' with it than I do on my F2a. I sold it at a 100% profit. Bought for £650 sold for £1300. It is very well built but I found the matrix metering not the be all and end all that it was cracked up to be.
Same goes forCosina"Voigtlander" Bessa which is as flimsy as a camera can be and yet still dictates ridiculous prices (compared to its build quality) just because it's a rangefinder with screw mount or Leica mount.
When Canon T60, Olympus OM2000, Nikon FM10, Ricoh KR-5 and whatever else there is that shares a Cosina CT1 chassis, is sold for 100-150$ max. and Bessa is sold for three times as much, yet it has the same plasticky feel, same internal mechanism, even the same shutter dial, advance lever and shutter button, all of which feel crappy ... it just doesn't seem right.Don't think the OP is considering a Bessa but I wouldn't argue with somebody that chooses an inexpensive rangefinder to hold their expensive glass, which sounds smart to me if money is tight. I just looked at selling prices of Bessas on Ebay (US) and they're commanding a big spread of prices, likely because of the lenses they accept and the style. On the lower end though they're going for an average of $475 without a lens for new looking bodies. (That's an average price of 12 sold listings.) Is that a ridiculous price? I don't know. On the high end they're closer to $1K which seems high to me but whatever. There is no need for anyone willing to do a little research to pay that much, but people do.
I've never held a Bessa btw so what do I know - maybe they fall apart in your hands when you wind them?
Same goes forCosina"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.
Many of the cheaper Bessa's do not have a rangefinder, they rely on an accessory auxiliary finder, so there is no way to focus other than guessing the distance to subject. Great for the wide angles, but not for anything else.On the lower end though they're going for an average of $475 without a lens for new looking bodies. (That's an average price of 12 sold listings.) Is that a ridiculous price?
Yes I noticed that so I omitted the non-rangefinder models from my analysis. These were all bessa – R.Many of the cheaper Bessa's do not have a rangefinder, they rely on an accessory auxiliary finder, so there is no way to focus other than guessing the distance to subject.
Many of the cheaper Bessa's do not have a rangefinder...
"Many" is quite a strong word for one Bessa camera that doesn't have a rangefinder (Bessa L). Bessa T has a rangefinder but doesn't have a viewfinder. All other Voigländer Bessa cameras (R, R2, R2M, R2A, R3M, R3A, R4M, R4A, R2S, R2C) have rangefinders and viewfinders.
I've never understood the lovefest for the F2, unless it simply represents the age of some of the members here, and it was "the" camera to have when they were young. I personally can't see a single reason to buy one over an F3 if I wanted a "classsic" styled SLR. Parts and service are getting increasingly difficult to find for F2s and they are all at an age where they need servicing. It was a major design goal of the F3 to make the shutter more reliable and with fewer parts than the F2, and they succeed - the F3's shutter has half the parts of a F2.
And the Zeiss ZM was designed by Zeiss Ikon. I think that is the key difference. I am open to the other Bessas made by Cosina.
The Zeiss Ikon name was purchased/licensed by Cosina I don't think Zeiss had any involvement in the camera.
The Zeiss Ikon name was purchased/licensed by Cosina I don't think Zeiss had any involvement in the camera.
My understanding is that Zeiss collaborated with Henssler and Schultheiss and Cosina to design and develop the camera. Do you have a source for Cosina’s ownership/licensing of the Zeiss Ikon name? That doesn’t sound right. I would have expected Cosina to simply be a contract manufacturer for Zeiss but if you have a source claiming otherwise I’d be interested in reading about it.
Zeiss Ikon Analogkamera — Henssler und Schultheiss Design
Wiederbelebung der Traditionsmarke Zeiss Ikonwww.henssler-schultheiss.de
I have to say that the autofocus on my Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7 is the problem. I always find myself turning off the autofocus and focusing manually on my Minolta. The particular issue with my Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/a-7 is that it doesn't have split-image rangefinder focusing screen (native or attachment), so critical focusing can be iffy much of the time, but still far better than letting the Minolta do the focusing for you.
I guess with that said, I should really be asking for a recomendation for a 35mm film camera that has an outstanding 100% viewfinder with the option to install a split-image rangefinder focusing screen. (I also wonder if I might fix everything by simplying buying and installing a viewfinder eye adjustment. The one native to my camera focuses in at -2.0 max, but what I really need is a -4.0 max.
+1
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.
Among other things, that would require a jump from rectangle to square. If you are not into square you might be interested in the 6x7 Mamiya 7, which also has a spectacular 45mm lens. One of the bast cameras ever made IMHO.
Among other things, that would require a jump from rectangle to square. If you are not into square you might be interested in the 6x7 Mamiya 7, which also has a spectacular 45mm lens. One of the bast cameras ever made IMHO.
Minor correction: it's a 43mm lens, not a 45mm. It's an odd focal length. And combined with the fact that there's a 50mm available as well, it's a bit of a head-scratcher.
But I agree with the rest of your post, having owned a Mamiya 7II in the past. The lenses for that camera might just be the best ever made.
Years ago, I had all my Hasselblad stuff stolen while traveling. I had another trip scheduled right after that, so I rented the Mamiya 7 with several lenses. It's a terrific system and the 43mm is a really wonderful lens - tack sharp, wonderful wide field of view. I shot a number of really nice images in an old abandoned mining time with that system and they printed without issue at 16x20.
Mercifully, my HB stuff was insured and replaced, but I was briefly tempted to switch to the Mamiya system instead. To this day, I sometimes wonder if I made the right decision given the weight of lugging an HB with 6 lenses around ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?