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

[manfrominternet]

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

 

[dynachrome]

If you have a lens or lenses you like in Nikon mount then the F6 might be nice. If the Zeiss 50/2 is something you think will give you better results than other lenses then that might be the better choice. It would help to know what other equipment you have unless the Minolta is all of it. What worries me about both choices is that they could work nicely for years or they could stop working much sooner and be difficult or impossible to get repaired. Even a plain 50/1.8 AIS Nikkor in good condition is capable of excellent results in the 35mm format and a good Nikon body can be had for much less than $1,500. For the amount of money you are considering spending, a medium format camera could be a better choice and allow you to make larger size prints of higher quality.

 

[Austintatious]

The Zeiss is a rangefinder, the F6 is an SLR. Very different cameras. For versatility the F6 offers more for the money. Nikon has loads of great glass for that camera.
You do realize that it is also an autofocus camera. But I believe that you will find it will AF quite nicely and pretty darn quickly as well. For an inexpensive starter lens incase you have none, I recommend the Nikon AF 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 G lens. It is a plastic "kit" lens but many folks on this forum will tell you it is pretty darn good value for money (under $50.00) and is a starting place. Here is an example:

Street Musician by Carlos Yashinon, on Flickr

 

[Paul Howell]

You can always turn the AF on the Minolta 7 off, if you really want a new camera with lens, the advantage of the F6 is depth of field preview, Nikon lens cost less than M mount lens. I use a Mamiya Universal with is a rangefinder and a Kowa Super 66 and SLR, there are time when the depth of field preview comes in really handy.

 

[4season]

The one company that got autofocus right in the film era was Canon, with their EOS system: No buzzy screwdriver-driven lenses! Was delighted to discover that the digital era Canon 40/2.8 pancake lens works perfectly on my Rebel G body.

If you are seeking "new" cameras in hopes of full factory warranty, you might want to double-check before you buy, because I'm pretty sure that both the Zeiss ZM and Nikon F6 are regarded by their manufacturers as legacy products, with iffy support and parts availability.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

....the Zeiss ZM and Nikon F6 are regarded by their manufacturers as legacy products, with iffy support and parts availability.

Nikon USA still offers factory service, for the F6 and the FM10.

 

[mshchem]

If you want another 35mm camera get the Nikon.

 

[chuckroast]

I have been a Nikon shooter since the early 1960s. I currently own and use a Nikkormat Ft, an Nikomat Ftn, a mid-1960s chrome F Photomic Ftn, a black Apollo Photomic FtN, an F2 Photomic, and and F3. So ... I have a lot of hours and experience with Nikon. (I do shoot a bit of digital with a D750, but that's my snapshot camera

Personally, I wouldn't touch anything after the F3. Starting with the F4 and thereafter, Nikon started making gadgety plastic bodies that were power hungry, heavy, and clumsy to use. They had utility for the shotgun shooters - photojournalists and sports photogs - but outside that world, I never saw the point of the weight and complexity of the F4,5,6.

These old mechanical cameras are unbelievably rugged and reliable. My Nikkormat Ft is approach 70 year of age and works just fine (and so does the meter!) My F bodies are 60-ish years old and work great too.

For my money, the very best SLR Nikon ever made was the F2. You can get a clean body with a working meter on eBay for about $200-ish. Spend another $100-ish on an CLA and seal job and you will have an absolute workhorse of a camera that will serve you well for long time. Take the remainder of your budget and buy more Nikon AIS glass or a second body.

Then again, for landscapes, I'd shoot 4x5, but that's a whole other debate

 

[Craig]

I never saw the point of the weight and complexity of the F4,5,6.

I wouldn't call an F4 a complex camera, for what it does it's amazingly simple and intuitive to use. It's also very rugged, I bought one of the first ones out in 1988 and it's still going strong 35 years later and it just as accurate as it was when I bought it. Best of all, I can buy another one for less than an F2. Yes, it does weigh a bit more than an F2 body, but on an equal basis of an F2 with motordrive it isn't close. Same with the F6, another easy to use, yet capable camera.

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.

 

[M-88]

In terms of practicality, rangefinder cameras are a thing of yesterday. Sure, they are head turners, sure, owning big L or big Z feels like owning some fancy hand-built car from decades ago, but from practical standpoint, rangefinders are obsolete. Okay, ZM has auto-exposure and my FM does not, but I still can't imagine what ZM can do that my 30$ N80 can't.

Then again, I know a guy who sold off his Nikon F6 and bought Leica M4 just for the fancy factor.

 

[brbo]

Okay, ZM has auto-exposure and my FM does not, but I still can't imagine what ZM can do that my 30$ N80 can't.

F/N80 doesn't have mirror lock function. ZM doesn't need it.
On ZM you can have a ND (or any other filter) on the lens and not go "blind".
ZM is smaller and a bit lighter.
M lenses are typically MUCH smaller and lighter than Nikon F lenses of comparable focal length and speed.
...


There are MANY things ZM can't do or does it worse than F80, but saying rangefinder has no advantages is not exactly correct.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

F/N80 doesn't have mirror lock function. ZM doesn't need it.
On ZM you can have a ND (or any other filter) on the lens and not go "blind".
ZM is smaller and a bit lighter.
M lenses are typically MUCH smaller and lighter than Nikon F lenses of comparable focal length and speed.
...


There are MANY things ZM can't do or does it worse than F80, but saying rangefinder has no advantages is not exactly correct.

It's all a matter of aste but, I can't stand rangefinders. I want a viewfinder that sees exactly what thelens sees, meaning SLR all the way!

 

[M-88]

F/N80 doesn't have mirror lock function. ZM doesn't need it.
On ZM you can have a ND (or any other filter) on the lens and not go "blind".
ZM is smaller and a bit lighter.
M lenses are typically MUCH smaller and lighter than Nikon F lenses of comparable focal length and speed.
...


There are MANY things ZM can't do or does it worse than F80, but saying rangefinder has no advantages is not exactly correct.

Every advantage or disadvantage has a workaround at certain cost. For example: mirror of N80 is so smooth that the absence of mirror lockup never bothered me before. ND filters make me go blind? Got an external viewfinder. And how many times I needed either of those? Probably for 5% of all my photos.

Rangefinders went obsolete from professional market long before the introduction of digital cameras. And with technological advancement, SLRs are also losing their share of market. Demise of some things is inevitable regardless of how many advantages may their existence have.

 

[brbo]

It's all a matter of aste but, I can't stand rangefinders. I want a viewfinder that sees exactly what thelens sees, meaning SLR all the way!

Funnily (or not), SLRs that will show you _exactly_ what the film will record are pretty rare. Fortunately, F6 that OP is considering is one of them.

And how many times I needed either of those? Probably for 5% of all my photos.

Exactly my point. It's not about you, it's about what _others_ might value about some piece of equipment. Since you still "can't imagine what ZM can do that my 30$ N80 can't" I just helped you (and your imagination). I couldn't care less what OP finally ends with, but he did specifically mention that he is considering a rangefinder.

BTW, I've sang praise for F80 long before F80 exploded on photrio...

 

[Don_ih]

Looking through your photos on your site, perhaps you'd actually like a large format view camera. Or perhaps something that shoots 6x9 on 120.

 

[guangong]

I try to avoid cameras where function depends upon electronics and batteries. Better to have computer in head rather than in camera. As for SLR vs RF, each has advantages and disadvantages. SLRs rule when using very long lenses, RF short lenses are usually smaller and easier to design. Otherwise, it’s a question of preference and not which is better. I use both.
Being repairable should be an important factor. I am stoic while waiting for the predestined deaths of my unrepairable Contax T3 and Hasselblad 2000FCM.

 

[warden]

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

I like the work on your web page. Is that medium format, digital, maybe large format? Just wondering if 35mm will work for you.

Edited to add that the price you’re being offered for the ZM and lens would be hard for me to pass up. I have a ZM and love it. There is risk due to the electronics in both of your current choices so if you’re looking for a “forever” camera you might look at fully mechanical ones instead. But if that doesn’t bother you and you want a rangefinder I don’t think you can do better than a ZM.

 

[chuckroast]

I wouldn't call an F4 a complex camera, for what it does it's amazingly simple and intuitive to use. It's also very rugged, I bought one of the first ones out in 1988 and it's still going strong 35 years later and it just as accurate as it was when I bought it. Best of all, I can buy another one for less than an F2. Yes, it does weigh a bit more than an F2 body, but on an equal basis of an F2 with motordrive it isn't close. Same with the F6, another easy to use, yet capable camera.

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.

In my case, it's not nostalgia. I never owned an F2 until they were long out of production. But I always loved the F and the F2 is just a really well refined version of that classic. (I do agree that the F3 was yet another step up. But that ridiculous LCD display and illuminator have no place on a serious pro camera.)

 

[etn]

Apart from mundane questions such as SLR vs rangefinder, availability and prices of lenses, etc., have you considered the size and weight?




Here my short list of pros/cons (and obviously I will think of many more as soon as I press the "post" button!)

Pros Zeiss:
- small and light
- great viewfinder
- aperture priority mode
- the 50 f/2 is a terrific piece of glass

Cons Zeiss:
- less lenses available on the tele side
- need a viewfinder for anything wider than 28 mm
- after owning one, you will want a Leica. (Trust me, "been there done that!")

Pros F6:
- "what you see is what you get" in the viewfinder
- terrific exposure metering
- widest lens choice
- can do macro
- your system will be compatible with digital Nikons if you ever want to expand into that

Cons F6:
- Big. Heavy. So much that you are almost in medium format territory, which wins hands down for landscapes.
- after owning one, you will want a Hasselblad

Bottom line: both cameras are so different that you need both!

A variant would be to go for the Zeiss and a "low cost Nikon" such as F90x, F801, F80, etc. Those are really cheap and, while not at F6 level, still terrific cameras which will get the job done.

EDIT: $2k for a brand new Zeiss with lens is a good price, almost too good to pass. (Does it even come with warranty?) You can try it and probably sell it without a loss if you decide it's not for you.
Be aware that some Zeiss ZM lenses develop an issue where the resistance in the focusing ring is not constant. My 50/2 had this, Zeiss fixed it under warranty. Therefore ensure that it is working well - or that it has warranty - before buying!
For the record, my other Zeiss ZM lenses (25, 35, 85, 50 f/1.5 Sonnar) have been working without a problem.

 

[Paul Howell]

If OP want manual focus, why not a standard F, standard prism, for landscape 3 lens, 24, 35, 85, add a modern light meter, still well under that a F6 or Zeiss. If rangefinder, Canon P or 7s.

 

[Pioneer]

The one company that got autofocus right in the film era was Canon, with their EOS system: No buzzy screwdriver-driven lenses! Was delighted to discover that the digital era Canon 40/2.8 pancake lens works perfectly on my Rebel G body.

If you are seeking "new" cameras in hopes of full factory warranty, you might want to double-check before you buy, because I'm pretty sure that both the Zeiss ZM and Nikon F6 are regarded by their manufacturers as legacy products, with iffy support and parts availability.

Not so for the Zeiss I am not sure where you heard this but Zeiss still services the ZM. I just received mine back last month after a cleaning and service. Took them 3 weeks.

Perhaps it is true of Nikon. After owning and using both cameras I sold the F6 so I am not sure how Nikon handles service for the F6 anymore.

If I were really concerned about autofocus I would go find the Canon EOS 1V. That is one of my most reliable autofocus cameras.

 

[Sirius Glass]

… I never saw the point of the weight and complexity of the F4,5,6.

The F100 has all the best features of the F4, F5 and F6 without the weight. All can have the autofocus turned off, but as you get older you will be glad you have it. The advantage that the F4, F5 and F6 have is that with regular use one can avoid the need to regularly go to the gym except to meet new people of the opposite sex.

Do not sell the N80 or F80 short as they are lighter and less expensive than the F100 and the F6.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's all a matter of taste but, I can't stand rangefinders. I want a viewfinder that sees exactly what thelens sees, meaning SLR all the way!

Spoken as a real photographer!

 

[Moose22]

The F100 has all the best features of the F4, F5 and F6 without the weight. All can have the autofocus turned off, but as you get older you will be glad you have it. The advantage that the F4, F5 and F6 have is that with regular use one can avoid the need to regularly go to the gym except to meet new people of the opposite sex.

Do not sell the N80 or F80 short as they are lighter and less expensive than the F100 and the F6.

Dude, you always tout the weight of the F100 like it's some sort of lightweight.

It's 4oz less than the F6. In hand, there's not a lick of difference, either. The F6 is ergonomically great. I never notice any difference.

In fact, just for grins, I weighed things that made close to the difference. The strap, plus the lenscap, hood, and a filter on camera right now add up to 3.8oz.

I own an F100 and think it's great. It's loaded right now and in my bag when I go out. But I don't get how it's "without the weight".

The N80 will save you probably about pound over the F6. It's like 18oz. I just weighed my N75 (since it was out) and it's under 16 oz, so a true lightweight. They lack features, though I use the crap out of my N80 these days.

For OP, the F6 is fine if those two are the choices. It does everything. F100 doesn't do everything, but it is so close that for landscape it does everything. By Everything in a landscape context I mean mirror lockup, timer, see through the lens (vital for positioning GND filters, you can't do that with a rangefinder), excellent TTL metering, and all the other nice tricks you use on a tripod when playing in low light, or good light with filters. Plenty of fantastic lenses normal and wide to choose from.

If you're dealing with the limitations of 135 anyway, you can make due with a LOT of good cameras, though. Including a rangefinder. F100 plus a door repair kit is cheap enough to buy a really nice lens and some film compared to the cost of an F6.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Dude, you always tout the weight of the F100 like it's some sort of lightweight.

It's 4oz less than the F6. In hand, there's not a lick of difference, either. The F6 is ergonomically great. I never notice any difference.

In fact, just for grins, I weighed things that made close to the difference. The strap, plus the lenscap, hood, and a filter on camera right now add up to 3.8oz.

I own an F100 and think it's great. It's loaded right now and in my bag when I go out. But I don't get how it's "without the weight".

The N80 will save you probably about pound over the F6. It's like 18oz. I just weighed my N75 (since it was out) and it's under 16 oz, so a true lightweight. They lack features, though I use the crap out of my N80 these days.

For OP, the F6 is fine if those two are the choices. It does everything. F100 doesn't do everything, but it is so close that for landscape it does everything. By Everything in a landscape context I mean mirror lockup, timer, see through the lens (vital for positioning GND filters, you can't do that with a rangefinder), excellent TTL metering, and all the other nice tricks you use on a tripod when playing in low light, or good light with filters. Plenty of fantastic lenses normal and wide to choose from.

If you're dealing with the limitations of 135 anyway, you can make due with a LOT of good cameras, though. Including a rangefinder. F100 plus a door repair kit is cheap enough to buy a really nice lens and some film compared to the cost of an F6.

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