- Joined
- Nov 27, 2004
- Messages
- 92
- Format
- 35mm
Firecracker, I've had my ZI for almost 6 months now & have used it extensively. What would you like to know?
Zeiss rangefinder
-
A
- Thread starter George Papantoniou
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale BOOK SALE! Weston, Karsh, Kenna, Worth, Sexton
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Complete Mamiya RB67 Pro SD collections with camera bags
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
Want to Buy JOBO ATL 1500/1000 or JOBO CPP2
- Started by balazsfff
-
For Sale Foto-100 bulk roll, 100'
- Started by MCB18
-
Sold Hasselblad ELM battery adapters x2
- Started by blee1996
Forum statistics
Biogon Bill said:
I'm assuming you're not a camera manufacture representative, so I would like to hear your take on this product.
Durability and balance with a selection of new Zeiss lenses. How are they?
Also the finder alignment. Have you experienced any problems?
I'm planning to buy a useful rangefinder body sometime later this year, and at this point with my budget, I tend to prefer the new ZI body because of the new finder rather than used Leica M4-P or 2 bodies, etc, which conditons could vary. A M6 TTL body (or without TTL) could be an option, too.
Basically I would like to get something for my next backpacking trip and potential photo and photo-related jobs in the near future.
About SLR focusing and focusing in general, reed the articels by the (U.S. based) ANSTENDIG institute (http://www.anstendig.org/WhyNoCameraCanFocus.html).
I am loking for your reactions!
cheers,
Philippe
www.photoeil.be
I am loking for your reactions!
cheers,
Philippe
www.photoeil.be
I have read this information before. A well aligned camera with an appropriate
focussing system is quite capable of giving me all of the high quality that I desire. If in a 7 times magnification on a print it looks exceedingly sharp then I will accept the result regardless of what these folks think.
focussing system is quite capable of giving me all of the high quality that I desire. If in a 7 times magnification on a print it looks exceedingly sharp then I will accept the result regardless of what these folks think.
leicam5 said:
Reads to me like it was written by an Aluminum Siding Salesman.
Claire Senft said:
I finally figured it out..at last
I was so puzzled by Georges rejexction of the Zeiss Ikon Z1 and by his not using his M3.
There is always a reason for everything. So why was old Gearge, he of rouge noir avec pernod, so rejecting and put off by this camera and why does he not take photos with his M3? I mean the real reason.
Take a look at his avatar. He feels that the Z1 does not do justice to his hat!
His hat brim vignettess any focal length less than 136mm. Of course when it is a choice between taking photos or looking old fashioned...well his habedasher is not the only one who nows for sure..now you too know.
I was so puzzled by Georges rejexction of the Zeiss Ikon Z1 and by his not using his M3.
There is always a reason for everything. So why was old Gearge, he of rouge noir avec pernod, so rejecting and put off by this camera and why does he not take photos with his M3? I mean the real reason.
Take a look at his avatar. He feels that the Z1 does not do justice to his hat!
His hat brim vignettess any focal length less than 136mm. Of course when it is a choice between taking photos or looking old fashioned...well his habedasher is not the only one who nows for sure..now you too know.
OP
OP
Well, Claire, I'm taking my hat off to you... you have so keenly added up the clues, and came up with this Sherlock-Holmes-esque conclusion !!!
In fact, I am a Borsalino addict as much as a Leica/Rollei one. I own three of them and put them on every night, when I take out my M3 and my 2,8 F to fondle them. I know, this all sounds a bit fetishistic, but what can I do ? I've tried therapy, but it made me even more perverse (my therapist was nuts for Minox, and he got me to acquire one, although I stopped the sessions before things got completely out of control...)
So, there you are, you know it all now (well, not really all, but I won't let you know any more of it). You can judge me as being a pervert, but as some guy who I don't remember once said, "De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum"...
In fact, I am a Borsalino addict as much as a Leica/Rollei one. I own three of them and put them on every night, when I take out my M3 and my 2,8 F to fondle them. I know, this all sounds a bit fetishistic, but what can I do ? I've tried therapy, but it made me even more perverse (my therapist was nuts for Minox, and he got me to acquire one, although I stopped the sessions before things got completely out of control...)
So, there you are, you know it all now (well, not really all, but I won't let you know any more of it). You can judge me as being a pervert, but as some guy who I don't remember once said, "De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum"...
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2004
- Messages
- 92
- Format
- 35mm
firecracker said:
No, firecracker, I'm not a manufacturer's rep. Far from it. (chuckle)
I have not experienced any problems with finder alignment. I haven't heard of many & don't really expect to. Among the quality control procedures that Carl Zeiss AG instituted at Cosina is an inspection of each camera before it is boxed to leave the factory. Mine came with a certificate, signed by the quality assurance inspector who checked the camera. Rangefinder misalignment is an obvious problem that can easily be caught by such a check. The rangefinder is a delicate instrument which can be knocked out of alignment in shipping. Even Leicas experience this problem new, out of the box. Such problems should be rare.
I have no idea about the durability of this camera. Only time will tell over the long run. It seems well made to me & I haven't experienced any problems in 6 months of use. In use for back packing, it's light weight should be an asset. However, this is the kind of circumstance in which Leica's heavier duty construction would also be an asset. Everything is a trade-off. If I were taking the ZI back packing, I would make sure that it is in a well padded case - as I would with almost any camera I would carry in such a circumstance.
My lenses with this camera include CV, Leica, & Rollei as well as the ZM 35/2 Biogon. My longest lens is a CV 75/2.5 & my heaviest is a chrome 50/2 Summicron. Balance feels fine to me with all of them. The heavier weight of a Leica M is usually described as an asset in taking hand held shots at slow speeds. However, the balance between camera & the pressure required to release the shutter button is a significant factor in this regard. The Leica shutter button has considerable resistance built into it. Its depth of travel is 2.0 mm. The ZI shutter button's depth of travel is less than half that - only 0.9 mm. This balances perfectly with the lighter weight of the camera, but offers sufficient resistance to prevent premature firing.
Two little publicized quality points for the ZI: immediacy of response matches a Leica M - only 14 ms of shutter lag - and the range/viewfinder is better than a Leica with no flare & no rangefinder parallax as well as being brighter, having more viewable frame lines, & having a longer effective base length for a finder with 28 mm frame lines.
A ZI & an M7 both have their advantages. For me the viewfinder of the M7 was the selling point, but you can't go wrong with an M6 or M7 either.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2004
- Messages
- 726
- Format
- Multi Format
Sorry for ignorance and being a bit off topic, but what is "trolling"?
David.
David.
Biogon Bill said:
Thank you very much for your writing. I think I've got a good view on the camera.
Now I just have to find a friendly camera shop to actually let me press the shutter button only once!
Having owned an M6 and IIIf, the Zeiss Ikon is a very different camera.
The one pitfall that longtime Leica owners stumble into is approaching every camera from a Leica point of view. Often, there is this a needless feature-for-feature breakdown.
The Zeiss Ikon design is somewhat derivative of the M, although you could say that most cameras are derivative of earlier designs.
I would have liked to have seen Zeiss develop a camera that more reflected the Zeiss Ikon designs of the past while incorporating some new features than try to do a variation of yet another Leica M. But then, Zeiss didn't ask me to design the camera. Nor did I expect them to.
On the other hand, the one time that Leica tried a radical move away from the M (the M5), it seems that users largely rejected the camera. Hence, the return of the M4 as the M42 and then the M4-P, the M6, M7 and MP and all of the collector's editions past, present and future.
The handling of the Zeiss Ikon is very nice -- excellent balance, great viewfinder and a film advance that might be too smooth. The comments about the backlatch baffle me. To open the back, you must make a conscious effort to push the latch in an "L" pattern with moderate force. I can see no situation where the back would open accidentally by bumping the latch. And it doesn't protrude from the body far enough that it would catch on something.
Some of my backs for the Rolleiflex SL66 use a similar latch and have never opened accidentally. It's a very good design. Simple to use and secure.
The use of plastic is kept to a minimum and in areas where it makes sense: takeup spool, the cap that covers the PC connector ... I think that's about it, although certainly there probably are more plastic parts.
The back is very stiff with little to no play. Zeiss used a more expensive labyrinth design and avoided the use of foam seals. That means nothing now. In 20 years, when foam seals are ruining other cameras and leaking light, the Zeiss Ikon will continue shooting (hopefully) as well as it does today.
As far as long term longevity? Who knows? Certainly, the Yashica/Kyocera Contax cameras continue to be highly regarded, and those weren't even Zeiss-branded products. Carl Zeiss goes to great lengths to protect its reputation, and I don't believe it would release a subpar product -- especially with its first foray into camera bodies.
Check out the Zeiss Ikon site and pay particular attention to the torture chamber. Zeiss appears to have done considerable testing in the lab, as well as out in the field before the camera went into production.
The one pitfall that longtime Leica owners stumble into is approaching every camera from a Leica point of view. Often, there is this a needless feature-for-feature breakdown.
The Zeiss Ikon design is somewhat derivative of the M, although you could say that most cameras are derivative of earlier designs.
I would have liked to have seen Zeiss develop a camera that more reflected the Zeiss Ikon designs of the past while incorporating some new features than try to do a variation of yet another Leica M. But then, Zeiss didn't ask me to design the camera. Nor did I expect them to.
On the other hand, the one time that Leica tried a radical move away from the M (the M5), it seems that users largely rejected the camera. Hence, the return of the M4 as the M42 and then the M4-P, the M6, M7 and MP and all of the collector's editions past, present and future.
The handling of the Zeiss Ikon is very nice -- excellent balance, great viewfinder and a film advance that might be too smooth. The comments about the backlatch baffle me. To open the back, you must make a conscious effort to push the latch in an "L" pattern with moderate force. I can see no situation where the back would open accidentally by bumping the latch. And it doesn't protrude from the body far enough that it would catch on something.
Some of my backs for the Rolleiflex SL66 use a similar latch and have never opened accidentally. It's a very good design. Simple to use and secure.
The use of plastic is kept to a minimum and in areas where it makes sense: takeup spool, the cap that covers the PC connector ... I think that's about it, although certainly there probably are more plastic parts.
The back is very stiff with little to no play. Zeiss used a more expensive labyrinth design and avoided the use of foam seals. That means nothing now. In 20 years, when foam seals are ruining other cameras and leaking light, the Zeiss Ikon will continue shooting (hopefully) as well as it does today.
As far as long term longevity? Who knows? Certainly, the Yashica/Kyocera Contax cameras continue to be highly regarded, and those weren't even Zeiss-branded products. Carl Zeiss goes to great lengths to protect its reputation, and I don't believe it would release a subpar product -- especially with its first foray into camera bodies.
Check out the Zeiss Ikon site and pay particular attention to the torture chamber. Zeiss appears to have done considerable testing in the lab, as well as out in the field before the camera went into production.
As a former owner of Rollei SL66 bodies and backs (3 each), I can echo the comment for the latch design. Those who slag it know bull-c#$p.
I wouldn't buy this camera because I already have Leica m and prefer it, but I really appreciate Zeiss and Cosina that they still make film camera.
PS the look-ma-no-seals was common in the old ZXeiss Ikon cameras. So that is a nostalgic touch IMHO
Even the prewar Nettar and Ikontas didn;t have those and they keep working fine after many many may years.
Even the prewar Nettar and Ikontas didn;t have those and they keep working fine after many many may years.
I think use of seals is a sign of cost cutting.
I think in this case using light traps is applying quality where it counts.
I think in this case using light traps is applying quality where it counts.
titrisol said:
I've felt that use of foam seals is to compensate for an inferior design and inadequate light trapping. A correctly designed back shouldn't require foam seals.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |