Zeiss rangefinder

[George Papantoniou]

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

I already apologised for the misunderstanding concerning the amount of plastic usage on this camera. I was overreacting, like I sometimes do when I am disappointed (I had read about the new Zeiss before seeing it and had high expectations).

The mixed emotions part was about the fact that I LIKED the idea of having three Biogon WA lenses to choose from and I DIDN'T like the camera's feel.

 

[George Papantoniou]

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.

I suggest then that you press the 'Ignore user" button under my post and stop bragging about it. I don't think that if I wanted to ignore what someone had to say about anything I would make such a great fuss...

 

[rfshootist]

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.
.

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.
As I read somewhere allegedly 2500 are sold already, not bad related to the time it is on sale now. And tho this will not directly influence Leica's new market too much , indirectly it will influence it strongly via the used market.

bertram

 

[avandesande]

The camera is priced squarely between the bessa and the leica. What would be the point if contax made a camera identical to the leica? You might as well get a leica.

 

[pauldc]

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]

This is really interesting and finally helps me make sense of why many authors have said rangefinders are sharper because of better focusing.

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?

In this way it might be possible to combine the advantages of rangefinding with the flexibility of an slr - especially when using wide lenses

 

[Lee L]

In this way it might be possible to combine the advantages of rangefinding with the flexibility of an slr - especially when using wide lenses

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.

There is a series of mount adapters out that put SLR lenses on Leica mount rangefinder cameras. They have rangefinder dials that measure distance using the rangefinder in the body, then this reading is transferred manually to the focusing ring on the lens. cameraquest.com has them. Occasionally I'll use a rangefinder body to determine focus for another (Bessa L) body that has none.

I'm not sure, however, that transferring from an external rangefinder to an SLR lens focusing scale is necessarily always trustworthy, especially with fast lenses shot wide open, given the vagaries of scale markings and inconsistencies between lenses and brands, etc.

Lee

 

[T42]

Hi Folks.

I will offer a response to a few thoughts from elekm.

Carl Zeiss AG may or may not be aiming at the Leica users.

I think they really are. It is stunning how much the Zeis Ikon RF resembles my M3, even the dimensions and the mass.

I suspect the target audience are those users who want more than a Bessa,...

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.

...want a new camera and not somebody's 40-year-old crapper that probably needs serviced

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.

... and doesn't want to pay the current price of admission to the Leica club.

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.

.. It also is aiming at those who prefer the "Zeiss look," reigniting the Zeiss vs. Leica debate from the 1930s-1960s.

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.

 

[T42]

An SLR with RF built in...

Greetings, Paul.

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?

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:
http://corsopolaris.net/supercameras/innocams40.html

This image is of the 1943 Alpa SLR. Evidently, the redundant RF capability was regarded as superfluous after 1948. Not only did this precision instrument have coupled rangefinder support, but it also had a direct viewing finder as well.

The designer for these esoteric cameras was a Jewish man from Ukraine named Bolskey. He changed his name several times I think, finally becoming Bolsey. He also developed the famous Bolex movie cameras and the affordable Bolsey 35s that were made in the US in the 1950s.

One of the most important things an SLR user can do to improve on screen focusing is to use fast lenses. By contrast, slow lenses, such as the now popular kit zooms, make critical on-screen focusing more difficult, and especially so in dim light.

 

[Les Lammers]

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.

I agree and George P's post has merit too. The ZI does not 'feel like a Leica'. No camera does. I have a mechanical M and was considering an M7. The ZI has a better finder than any Leica M, the shutter speed dial turns clockwise like an M, The M6 TTL and M7, turn counter clockwise. The ZI has an accurate shutter, has 1/2000 and AE. The ZI exposure compensation is easier to use than the M7's. The ZI does not have DX coding, the M7 does. There have been some issues with the electronics in the M7. The sound of the ZI shutter is not as quiet as an M as it has metal blades, not cloth curtains. However, it is far from objectionable.

I chose the ZI over the M7 (I'm keeping the mechanical M too.) for $$$ reasons. It is a nice capable camera. I got a 'limited edition' from Tony Rose at Popflash for $1316 delivered. How long it will remain in production is uncertain and I was surprised to see the limited edition available in the grey market.

The Zeiss look actually refers to the images made (Zeiss v. Leica lens design), not the ZI body.

Les

 

[Claire Senft]

I have not had the opportunity to actually see and handle the camera. I have only seen photos of it. The appearance of the camera as indicated by the photos Really resonates extremely well with me.

 

[avandesande]

Top quality japanese engineering will always have a different feel than top quality german engineering. They have different design and asthetic sensabilities. My porsche actually had wood paneling underneath the carpet.

I am not going to argue which one is better, but I can appreciate both.

 

[Earl Dunbar]

George: As noted, your initial post did not mention your feelings at all. What we have here on APUG are words; we cannot read your mind. I know you apologised for not being clear. So, apology accepted. But really, if you are not careful to write what you truly intend to communicate, you can only expect an understanding on the part of others that is quite different than what you intended.

Many others have commented about the door latch on the ZI. I haven't handled it, so I can't comment personally. Many photographers I respect who actually use camera say it is a good design and is not subject to accidental opening. Are you simply complaining that the switch is plastic and not metal? If so, what difference does it make if it works well? Are you really saying you prefer bottom loading to hinged back? If so, then that's fine. I certainly see the advantage of bottom loading; yes, I once owned a Leica M3, so I know from experience.

If you object to plastic, whether plastic material or plastic "feel", AND you actually purchased the camera, then I'm a bit perplexed. Who would spend that amount of money (even if it's a lot less than a Leica) without evaluating it. But from your post, it appears you didn't buy it, which is a good thing since you don't care for it.

And, by the way, it's not a Cosina camera, it's a Zeiss designed product that Cosina makes under contract, with Zeiss quality control. Same for the lenses, except the ones made in Germany. You may consider that inconsequential, but I certainly don't.

Earl

 

[Biogon Bill]

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...

George, you identify yourself as a medium format shooter, so your comment that you would never accept this kind of plastic lock-unlock button is very odd. Look around among your MF Rolleis (SL66) & you'll find the exact same plastic release! It is not a new design & was also used by Rollei on the 2000 & 3003; its effectiveness & durability are proven. This latch is recessed, so there is no danger of it breaking & the claw that actually holds the back in place on the inside of the camera is metal - & that's the part that counts.

Your comment about the M3 is revealing. You love to hold it, but you don't take pictures with it!! Well, keep caressing & fondling your M3, but if you ever get around to taking pictures, then you might appreciate what has gone into the Zeiss Ikon.

I have never yet taken a single picture with a latch for a camera back or with a film advance. For the camera elements that actually go into picture taking, the ZI is superb. The rangefinder design is the best since the M3 -better than any Leica since. It is the only RF camera made with a effective base line as long as 55 mm AND with 28 mm frame lines. Its viewfinder is regarded by anyone who has used or tested the camera as the best they have ever seen.

Rangefinder photography is about capturing the decisive moment. In this regard, the ZI delivers. Its shutter lag is comparable to a Leica M (14-20 ms) - providing an immediacy of response far better than any camera other than a Leica that you'll find. The depth of travel of the shutter release is half that of a Leica M. Camera weight & shutter release are extremely well balanced. The shutter is not as quiet as a Leica - until you get below 1/30 sec, at which point it is - but it is certainly not a loud shutter.

In comparison with the M7, there have been none of the complaints with the ZI of poor seals around the eyepiece resulting in dust in the viewfinder as there have been witht he M7. In comparison with the M6, there have been none of the complaints of flare that plagued the M6 RF patch & viewfinder. The ZI is flare free. These problems witht he M6 & M7 are real & not imaginary like the criticism of the minimal use of plastic on the ZI, which has no negative effect on the functioning of the camera for its intended purpose.

Overall, the Zeiss Ikon is a very well made camera & is a beautiful picture taking machine.

 

[George Papantoniou]

Earl and Bill, I understand and accept your "matter of fact" remarks on the functionality and the qualities of the Japanese camera, they are - though - different than my personal (and difficult to communicate through words in an internet forum) feelings about the "feel" of a camera in my hands. I agree that what I tried to talk about is something very personal and subjective and that is why I apologised for the misunderstanding it caused... But you also have to admit that since there are other persons (some of them posted on this thread) that feel the same way I do, it's not only a strange peculiarity of my disturbed psyche.
About the fact that I don't usually shoot 35mm film, it's just that I find it too small for my taste. I shoot middle (and large) format for its image quality and its handling in the enlarger. If the post-stamp format was big enough for my needs, I would surely use Leitz or Zeiss lenses. But I guess that I would stick to my M3...

 

[Earl Dunbar]

George: I completely understand about the feel of a camera. For example, I love the feel of the Olympus 35 SP, a fixed lens RF. It is my favourite RF (at least right) now, in spite of the obvious limitation of no lens interchangeability. In fact, in may ways I prefer it to the M3 I had.

I also shoot 4x5, but I gave up medium format some time ago, primarily to trim down to two formats.

 

[Robert Budding]

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.

 

[George Papantoniou]

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.

That's right, Robert... in fact I, too, believe that due to the wordwide crisis (high cost of living, low wages), "Leica diehards" cannot afoord the cameras they once could. I would gladly own an MP, not for shooting with it, but just for the fun of playing around with it... (I know, you'll all call me sick again :-(. But I can't afford the top bucks they ask for it. So the Leica company will wave us bye bye one of these days. I just hope that I won't live to see the day a Korean (or Chinese) company that manufactures kitchen ustensils and pre-fabricated downscaled ancient Greek temples copies for garden decoration buys the brand name and starts fabricating "plastic" Leicas...

 

[Claire Senft]

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.

 

[George Papantoniou]

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.

Claire, you always are soooo right. I decided to go to the Leica importer and exchange my M3 with one of his MP dummies (you know, the ones that are empty inside and are used in shop windows). I will fondle that one, it'll be the same as a real one. Or, maybe, I'll ask him if he could convert my M3 to make it able to shoot 4x5 inch. This way, I'll be happy to use it...

 

[Robert Budding]

Leica cameras are beautifully built. But I personally wouldn't put that much money into any 35mm camera, either Leica or the new Zeiss Ikon. I used to own a Contax IIIa - great build and excellent Zeiss lenses for a lot less money than Leica. But then I was seduced by larger negatives and I sold the Contax.

 

[firecracker]

So, anyone got any review on the new Zeiss camera?

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

So, anyone got any review on the new Zeiss camera?

Mike Elek: http://elekm.net/zeiss_ikon/

Tom Abrahamsson: http://www.cameraquest.com/zeiss_ikon_m.TA.htm

Lieberman: http://www.cameraquest.com/ZM Lieberman.htm

 

[Biogon Bill]

There are also reviews by Roger Hicks & Frances Schultz in the April issue of Shutterbug and by Erwin Puts at www.imx.nl as well as numerous user reviews at www.rangefinderforum.com

 

[rfshootist]

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

<GIGGLE!!>
Brilliant, best answer so far, spot on ! Boils it all down to the essential prob. !
Regards,
bertram

 

[firecracker]

Biogon Bill and Tom Hoskinson:

I was being a bit sarcastic because all the posts here are about Leica, not about Zeiss Ikon as the title of this thread. Thanks for the links though. Very useful.

But I still wonder if there's any APUGer who has used the new Zeiss Ikon camera extensively. I'm much like those who seek rangefinder cameras in a particular style, too. So, I need to hear the opinions from the users.

Lately I don't know why, but in some camera stores (small to big) in Japan, the store clerks wouldn't let me wind and/or fire the shutter of a new camera, even if it's a display model. I was even denied with a Bessa camera, and that was a pretty unplesant experience!