rfshootist said:How can we know that you spoke about the feel ? THAT is what you said:
Just this afternoon fiddled with the new Zeiss plastic rangefinder (made in Japan by Cosina)... I have mixed emotions... Zeiss lenses (3 biogons WAngles), Leitz M lens mount, ugly plastic body with ugly shutter noise
Mixed emotions ? Where was the positive part ?
Of course you have the right to say that you do not like a camera, even if the facts are all wrong and your perception is obviously "out of alignement". (BTW If you can't keep magnesium alloy separated from plastic, what for do you need a Leica then to fondle ?)
And it's your prob solely that you don't hesitate to embarrass yourself with such kinda ridiculous soapbox rubbish.
Forget the Zeiss Ikon, you could not afford to use anything else than Leitz, you know what I mean ?
bertram
elekm said:In general, longtime Leica users will be disappointed with the Zeiss Ikon, because it often becomes a feature vs. feature comparison of how the Zeiss Ikon measures up (or doesn't measure up) against a Leica.
Carl Zeiss AG may or may not be aiming at the Leica users. I suspect the target audience are those users who want more than a Bessa, want a new camera and not somebody's 40-year-old crapper that probably needs serviced and doesn't want to pay the current price of admission to the Leica club. It also is aiming at those who prefer the "Zeiss look," reigniting the Zeiss vs. Leica debate from the 1930s-1960s.
As such, at less than half the price of an M7, the Zeiss Ikon compares favorably. Very solid construction with minimal use of plastic. Good design and uses a modified metal-bladed shutter. (Keep in mind that the digital M apparently will use a metal-bladed shutter). Excellent viewfinder and excellent shutter release. One thing that's always irked me about the M6 is that the release point for the shutter is near the bottom of the travel distance. Sure, you can buy a soft release, but that's simply compensating for poor design.
The Zeiss Ikon, and any camera, should succeed or fail on its own merits and not how it compares with the Leica, whose shutter you describe as "sweet music" -- first time I've ever read that description of a shutter. I did read one Leica user describe advancing the film as a religious experience -- another case of an overzealous Leica user.
Your initial comments are ill-informed and inflammatory, and I would tend to ignore anything else you had to say on any topic.
Agreed, this is exactly the niche Zeiss is aiming too, and this is quite a part of the Leica M market. Leica itself recently had admitted that the market for used gear eats too much of the market of new products. That is less the backside of the product's longevity , rather the backside of an extremly overpriced product.elekm said:In
Carl Zeiss AG may or may not be aiming at the Leica users. I suspect the target audience are those users who want more than a Bessa, want a new camera and not somebody's 40-year-old crapper that probably needs serviced and doesn't want to pay the current price of admission to the Leica club.
.
df cardwell said:The accuracy of an SLR is tied to the magnification of the lens, and the 'depth of field' effect of focus screen. You think the image is sharp, it is not. A rfdr is not tied to the lens, nor the ground glass.
Not opinion, simple fact. Schwalberg did a neat study back in the '80s that gave numbers. Suffice it to say that a Leica has the accuracy of a nikon F2 with a 135/2 lens. SO, every lens, 21, 50, or 135/4 on the Leica benefits of the inherent ability of the rfdr to discern between sharp and not sharp. The shorter the lens on an SLR, the more depth of field, and the true accuracy is muddied. The shorter the lens on an SLR, the less precise the focus. With a rfdr, the more precise. Basically, depth of field works with you on the rfdr, an SLR, against.[/I]
You can find used separate rangefinders made for folding cameras and 35mm bodies that had no internal rangefinders. Many have hot shoe mounts and the reading is taken on the rangefinder, then transferred to the lens. These can be found on the regular auction sites. certo6 is a good source for them.pauldc said:In this way it might be possible to combine the advantages of rangefinding with the flexibility of an slr - especially when using wide lenses
I think they really are. It is stunning how much the Zeis Ikon RF resembles my M3, even the dimensions and the mass.Carl Zeiss AG may or may not be aiming at the Leica users.
I am sure some potential buyers must see it that way, and I hope it delivers for them. I'm just happy for the enthusiasm that would have them out there willing to consider and buy one. The more players in the RF domain, the better.I suspect the target audience are those users who want more than a Bessa,...
That probably is the impression of many potential customers. But a properly cared for M3 is a jewell among cameras, even today. And it will last for generations, something that cannot be said for most modern photographic instruments. Hardly a crapper either. Mine's 45 years old, BTW....want a new camera and not somebody's 40-year-old crapper that probably needs serviced
Those folks may not understand the cost of ownership of a used Leica. I bought a 1959 M3 SS with 1954 collapsable Summicron f/2 in 1999 for $600. I spent another $240 to have Golden Touch in New York give it a good CLA. So I have $840 in the instrument. I have used it seven years, and will continue to use it from now on. Surely it would sell at any moment for more than what I paid. So, then, what is the true cost of ownership? The only other camera I have ever owned that held its value like this was a Hasselblad 500c.... and doesn't want to pay the current price of admission to the Leica club.
The squarish look around the lens mount is sort of "Zeissy-Contaxy" I suppose. The rest of it looks remarkably "Leitzy" to me. Maybe others will see it differently. Again, I am delighted to see Carl Zeiss and Cosina getting in there and making what appears to be a serious, for real rangefinder, and not just another glorified P&S Yashica made exceptional by Zeiss optics... It also is aiming at those who prefer the "Zeiss look," reigniting the Zeiss vs. Leica debate from the 1930s-1960s.
I think that at least one SLR had this dual capability built in. It was present in the Alpa SLRs made from 1943 to 1948. Here is a link to some images of them on Massimo Bertacchi's website:My question is this - given the focusing advantage of rangefinding, would it be possible (or indeed has it been done) to put a rangefinder (not a rangefinder camera, rather a rangefinding mechanism) on an slr (perhaps via the hot shoe), take a distance measurement from the rangefinder scale and then transfer this to the distance scale on the focusing ring of the slr lens?
T42 said:Hi Folks.
I will offer a response to a few thoughts from elekm.
I think they really are. It is stunning how much the Zeis Ikon RF resembles my M3, even the dimensions and the mass.
I am sure some potential buyers must see it that way, and I hope it delivers for them. I'm just happy for the enthusiasm that would have them out there willing to consider and buy one. The more players in the RF domain, the better.
That probably is the impression of many potential customers. But a properly cared for M3 is a jewell among cameras, even today. And it will last for generations, something that cannot be said for most modern photographic instruments. Hardly a crapper either. Mine's 45 years old, BTW.
Those folks may not understand the cost of ownership of a used Leica. I bought a 1959 M3 SS with 1954 collapsable Summicron f/2 in 1999 for $600. I spent another $240 to have Golden Touch in New York give it a good CLA. So I have $840 in the instrument. I have used it seven years, and will continue to use it from now on. Surely it would sell at any moment for more than what I paid. So, then, what is the true cost of ownership? The only other camera I have ever owned that held its value like this was a Hasselblad 500c.
The squarish look around the lens mount is sort of "Zeissy-Contaxy" I suppose. The rest of it looks remarkably "Leitzy" to me. Maybe others will see it differently. Again, I am delighted to see Carl Zeiss and Cosina getting in there and making what appears to be a serious, for real rangefinder, and not just another glorified P&S Yashica made exceptional by Zeiss optics.
I wish them much, much success.
George Papantoniou said:I own a 1959 SS M3 and love to hold it (even if I don't make pictures with it)
I am sorry to say that although Cosina's effort to enter the M-mount rangefinder world might be a well-meant initiative, I wouldn't ever accept a camera that has this kind of plastic button to lock-unlock the swinging back...
Robert Budding said:I think that Leica is in real trouble because so many "Leica diehards" only buy used. They would never pony up the $$$ for a new M7. And they are probably upset because the M-mount will probably outlive the Leica company.
Claire Senft said:I would guess that if you are going to own a 35mm that you will not take photos with one is a capable as another. Does plastic have such a poor reputation that it will not stand up to sitting in a cabinet and ocassionally being fondled? Will a 100% metal camera with the finest optics do the job better?
Maybe if a certain Greek fellow would actually use his M3 and work hard at it he might find that it is a very usefull picture taking machine.
firecracker said:So, anyone got any review on the new Zeiss camera?
Claire Senft said:I would guess that if you are going to own a 35mm that you will not take photos with one is a capable as another. Does plastic have such a poor reputation that it will not stand up to sitting in a cabinet
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?