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

[Mogens]

Why a Nikon F6? It won’t take pictures any better than, say, a FM3A. You’re shooting landscapes, not the Olympics.

 

[Craig]

Why a Nikon F6? It won’t take pictures any better than, say, a FM3A.

Or a $40 F80.

 

[manfrominternet]

I recently got my friend into film photography and he just bought himself a Nikon N70 and, boy, if there's a good reason why to not shoot cheaply that camera is definitely it. (I would have told him to get another camera, but I simply wasn't sure about it myself!) :/

By the way, the Nikon FM3a is an absolutely fantastic camera.

 

[manfrominternet]

With respect, I think the comparisons you're trying to make are little bit like comparing apples and Hondas Let's see if I can distill the essence of the question

• You want portability/light weight
• You want best image quality
• You want lens choice or a zoom

Now - and this is my opinion only - I'd argue that none of the cameras you've mentioned really meet those criteria, they're all compromises:

• The Nikon is heavy and will be limited by format size
• The Zeiss meets most of the criteria but is limited by format size
• The GA690/GF670 lack lens flexibility
• The GA645Zi meets all criteria except that the zoom range is limited and the format is still fairly small (ignoring the LCD issue)

I have to admit that even though I've never shot a GA645ZI, it actually does seem to check off many of my boxes. Literally the only problematic thing that I can think of is the very slow zoom lens. I wonder if the camera would be appropriate for night shooting.

The weight of the GA645ZI is only 880 grams (no batteries). The Nikon F6 weighs in at a whopping 975 grams (no batteries, no lenses) and the Zeiss Ikon ZM weight is 460 grams (no lenses). The fact that the Ikon ZM weighs only 460 grams is a pretty big deal to me, but I'm sure there are other cameras that weigh around the same, no?

 

[chuckroast]

I have to admit that even though I've never shot a GA645ZI, it actually does seem to check off many of my boxes. Literally the only problematic thing that I can think of is the very slow zoom lens. I wonder if the camera would be appropriate for night shooting.

The weight of the GA645ZI is only 880 grams (no batteries). The Nikon F6 weighs in at a whopping 975 grams (no batteries, no lenses) and the Zeiss Ikon ZM weight is 460 grams (no lenses). The fact that the Ikon ZM weighs only 460 grams is a pretty big deal to me, but I'm sure there are other cameras that weigh around the same, no?

The other problematic thing is that the back LCD circuitry is flakey because the flex circuit board cracks over time. You can work around it with some degree of clumsiness.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I recently got my friend into film photography and he just bought himself a Nikon N70 and, boy, if there's a good reason why to not shoot cheaply that camera is definitely it. (I would have told him to get another camera, but I simply wasn't sure about it myself!) :/

By the way, the Nikon FM3a is an absolutely fantastic camera.

It is a good starter camera. Give it time an the G.A.S. will develop.

 

[M-88]

I recently got my friend into film photography and he just bought himself a Nikon N70 and, boy, if there's a good reason why to not shoot cheaply that camera is definitely it. (I would have told him to get another camera, but I simply wasn't sure about it myself!) :/

By the way, the Nikon FM3a is an absolutely fantastic camera.

N70/F70 is well known for its awkward menu system. One of few cameras for which I actually RTFM A poor choice it is.

 

[Pioneer]

To be completely honest, if I ignored the title, it almost sounds as if you are describing an Olympus OM-1n, or my Pentax P3n truck camera, in your original post.

I love my Zeiss Ikon ZM with that almost perfect Carl Zeiss Planar 50/2 lens and use mine regularly. Of course I love using rangefinders. But you could probably buy half a dozen excellent OM-1n cameras for the price of one Zeiss Ikon or Nikon F6 camera. And the Oly has some absolutely marvelous lenses as well.

 

[sojournermike]

To be completely honest, if I ignored the title, it almost sounds as if you are describing an Olympus OM-1n, or my Pentax P3n truck camera, in your original post.

I love my Zeiss Ikon ZM with that almost perfect Carl Zeiss Planar 50/2 lens and use mine regularly. Of course I love using rangefinders. But you could probably buy half a dozen excellent OM-1n cameras for the price of one Zeiss Ikon or Nikon F6 camera. And the Oly has some absolutely marvelous lenses as well.

I know this am oldish thread, but

This post is all true, yet… if I could buy anew Ikon ZM and Planer 50/2 for $2,000 (or £1,500) it would be mine already. Great camera and a great lens.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

If ou like to see perfect AF and exposure, the F6 will be hard to beat with a Nikkor AF50mmf/1.8

 

[bimmey]

The one 35mm camera I use for landscapes is the OM4Ti. That meter works well with the zone system, and the body and lenses are light. You should give the system a look at. It also has cult status like rangefinders;-)

 

[Arthurwg]

These days I shoot mainly medium format, but when I shoot 35mm I usually want to work quickly. I shoot my F6 with a 24mm AF-D lens in AF program or aperture priority mode with great success. True, it doesn't really give me that much more, the way I use it, then my old F100. And it would take me a lifetime master all the things the F6 can do. If I want to work more slowly, My Leica M6 does the trick.

 

[JWMster]

Lot to be said for Nikons. I started with a Nikon a few years back (FM2N) thinking of re-aquiring that camera... 'cause I traded up to a Nikon F100 then swapped that out for the F4 which I love a lot, but with 5 batteries ways a ton. Close to my Pentax 645N in heft, but it takes great shots and with AF.... nails shots my aging eyes might miss.

So every now and then I re-think the rangefinder thing. I had a sweet Leica M4 (Canadian build and considered ugly by many but it was fine) and eventually a Leica M6. Good cameras, but I always found loading them trickier than it had to be. Nikons load easy peasy. With Leicas, I found the Zeiss ZM lenses were absolutely tack sharp beautiful.... just gorgeous output in B&W and C41. And as Pioneer points out, Zeiss still services their glass (up in New Jersey I think). The thing in my experience is that I"m much more an SLR guy. If you stick with 35mm (40mm Zeiss) and 50mm, they're great cameras.... even the wide angle with an accessory finder is a great. Telephoto at 90mm isn't going to work all that well.... because the rangefinder focus box is just too small to work as well as an SLR.
But that may not matter.... I think an awful lot of us shoot mostly normal to wide anyway, and plenty of close-ups by top name photographers are actually shot with wide angle lenses. So you don't lose much.

Like Arthurwg above, I'm shooting mostly Medium and Large Format these days and for me, a 35mm FILM camera is close to the size of my Fuji XT-4 that I use to shoot events. I want something without a lot of expense that I can just have around and not worry about.... and that points towards a small 35mm camera that's not too pricey. Zeiss ZM is in Leica M3 / M4 pricing range these days and will run you close to $2,000 for a good condition body and 50mm lens.... if not more. You might even want a CLA. Nikon or Canon or similar would run a fraction of that.... even close to 75% LESS than that...and take equally nice shots.

All depends on what you want to do with your gear, how you use it, how you handle your negs after development.

 

[brian steinberger]

Reviving this thread, just curious what the OP ended up getting?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

For the amount of money you are considering spending, a medium format camera is a better choice and allows you to make larger size prints of higher quality.

exactly what I'm thinking!

 

[manfrominternet]

Well, believe it or not, I went with a Fuji GF670, after originally considering the Mamiya 6. The GF670 is a fixed-lens (80mm f/3.5) folder thats shoots both 6x7 and 6x6. I love it to death. It’s a breeze to use and the lens is literally one of the best lenses I’ve ever used.

Also, in 35mm format, I bought a barely used Pentax LX. It’s tiny with a bit of heft, but it’s incredibly fun to use!

 

[brian steinberger]

Congrats! That camera looks amazing! I never handled one of those. Always thought it would be cool to be able to switch formats depending on your need or mood.

I asked what you had settled on because I actually just bought a Zeiss Ikon ZM with 50 and 35mm lenses. I love it. But I also have plenty of medium format rangefinders. It’s nice to have a 35mm one now that shoots the same way (Aperture priority).

 

[Disconnekt]

Nice

 

[warden]

Well, believe it or not, I went with a Fuji GF670, after originally considering the Mamiya 6. The GF670 is a fixed-lens (80mm f/3.5) folder thats shoots both 6x7 and 6x6. I love it to death. It’s a breeze to use and the lens is literally one of the best lenses I’ve ever used.

Also, in 35mm format, I bought a barely used Pentax LX. It’s tiny with a bit of heft, but it’s incredibly fun to use!

Winner! What a cool camera. Enjoy!

 

[Hassasin]

Given the choices I’d suggest to handle each before going into either. This is a choice between a loaded eighteen wheeler and a small pickup truck. From your site it seems like AF is not needed at all.Neither is quick handling. F6 appears to be a complete overkill.

 

[George Mann]

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

Theories are bunk. The f/2 is King!

 

[Film-Niko]

Theories are bunk. The f/2 is King!

No, that times are long gone.

If you want the best f2 50mm lens with Nikon F-mount you will go for the Zeiss Milvus Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF.2.
That lens surpasses the former Nikkor 2/50 in almost all parameters:
- higher contrast
- significantly better sharpness and resolution, especially at f2 and f2.8, and outside the center towards the corners (the Zeiss has much more even performance across the frame)
- much much lower chromatic aberration, the Zeiss has no visible lateral chromatic aberration, and much lower longitudinal chromatic abberation than the Nikkor
- the Zeiss has much better separation of the in-focus elements compared to the out-of-focus parts of the photo: that leads to an excellent three-dimensional impression ("3d-Pop") modern Zeiss lenses are famous for
- the Zeiss has much better performance in the shorter range
- nicer color transmission of the Zeiss
- the Zeiss has an integrated chip and offers the Nikon AI-P standard, so more functions with modern Nikon film and digital bodies
- the Zeiss offers weather and dust sealing
- the build quality of the Zeiss is much better compared to the Nikkor
- the Zeiss offers much more versatility: Excellent performance from infinity up to macro distances.

And then there is also the Zeiss Milvus Distagon 1.4/50. It offers
- one stop more speed
- even better performance at f2 than the excellent Zeiss Milvus Makro-Planar 2/50
- even better performance towards the edges at f2, f2.8 and f4 compared to the Makro-Planar.

Been there, done that.

 

[Pioneer]

Well, believe it or not, I went with a Fuji GF670, after originally considering the Mamiya 6. The GF670 is a fixed-lens (80mm f/3.5) folder thats shoots both 6x7 and 6x6. I love it to death. It’s a breeze to use and the lens is literally one of the best lenses I’ve ever used.

Also, in 35mm format, I bought a barely used Pentax LX. It’s tiny with a bit of heft, but it’s incredibly fun to use!

Congrats, I hope it works well for you. I had one for about six months. Gorgeous lens but it broke twice so I gave up on it.

 

[George Mann]

No, that times are long gone.

If you want the best f2 50mm lens with Nikon F-mount you will go for the Zeiss Milvus Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF.2.

Horsepucky! Your lense produces sterile and editorialized images!

 

[Film-Niko]

Horsepucky! Your lense produces sterile and editorialized images!

Sorry, but that is wrong.
You have several times explained here on photrio that you have never used current, improved lens designs by yourself.
And that you have never used current lenses from Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss etc.
In contrast to you I have used and tested lots of the improved designs in comparison to the old designs.

The Zeiss lenses don't produce 'sterile and editorialized' images. That statement has nothing to do with reality.
The better color rendition (more rich, deep colors), the much better three-dimensional look, and much nicer, more soft and creamy bokeh alone make the Zeiss images much more attractive from an aesthetical point of view. Especially on film.