Zeiss Ikon- v- M7 -v- Nikon F100

<p>Currently, I will be using a Nikon F100 with prime lenses (50mm f1.4 AF-D, 20mm f2.8, 85mm f2) and I finally took the time out to look at some Rangefinder cameras. I particularly liked the M7 and the Zeiss Ikon.<br>

My major question would be.. image quality.. would there be a substantial increase in image quality from the Nikon F100 film camera/glass to the Leica M or Zeiss Ikons?<br>

I've found the Nikon glass to be very sharp and the Nikon body to be a pleasure to use.<br>

HOWEVER- I like the feel of the M7 and the Zeiss Ikon (in that order) and the shutter sound is awesome on the M7, and very nice on the Ikon.<br>

If I had to make a comparison, it would be the beautiful old Colt Python from when they actually handmade and fitted parts with it's deep bluing comparing it to the Glock 9mm- they both get the job done, but the contemporary does not have the mystique of the classic.<br>

I guess the main thing is.. the astronomical price of Leica and Zeiss bodies/glass makes it difficult to just jump over to the Rangefinder Arena.. so I would damn sure want to know there will be an appreciable and obvious difference in image quality and durability.<br>

How do you see it?</p>

<p>Bob, I think you are comparing the aesthetics of equipment, rather than that of image quality. The Leica camera is very seductive. I like the micro-contrast of the Leica and Zeiss glass, but given the best glass of both systems, it comes down to preference. I like both. If you are a collector, go with Leica. And I've been looking for a 6" Diamondback with a convertible cylinder for LR and WMag if you know of one.</p>

<p>I am in about the same situation as you. I have the F100 and like it a lot. I was looking at an M7 yesterday and the guy told me that the Leica will give edge to edge sharpness that Nikon can only dream about. He said it's a matter of money. A Nikon prime cost a few hundred dollars and the Leica glass cost much more. And then he carried on about how they polish it to perfection and coat it and all that. However he was selling a camera. I did not buy it but I figure the Leica would have better image quality. However even given the same image quality I would rather have the Leica as it's small and I can carry it around easier. The simple approach to the camera appeals to me. Since I don't take pictures of bugs or birds I figure it would work out fine for me. I like the bright and easy to focus viewfinder. Nice camera but the money is kind of out of the ball park for me. The Zeiss might be ok but I do not trust it would last that well. It's still pricey enough where I would want a lifetime of use from it. Once I hefted it in the camera store and saw that it was all scratched up and had some dings in the metal I figured it lacked enough durability for me. Anyway I don't want one.</p>

<p>I sincerely doubt that prints made from each camera with each manufacturer's "similar" lenses from similar eras of manufacture, same exposure, could be distinguished from one another except by an exceptionally experienced photographer with about 20 years experience.<br>

The differences are notably between SLR & rangefinder cameras, autofocus & manual focus, and tolerances and durability. I've owned many Nikons including the F100, and 5 Leicas (but only 1 of them part of the M series) and no Zeiss cameras. I still have and use 3 Nikons and 3 Leicas (plus others for certain specific jobs). So there you have it...they all do a great job under the right conditions. Personally, I'd tell you to stick with what you have; the Leica or Zeiss won't make you a better photographer...perhaps more versatile, but definitely at a $$ cost. And FWIW, I sold my Colt Python 2 years ago...a great firearm, but I hadn't used it for almost 5 years and don't have anyone in the family who could or would keep it exercised and fit.</p>

<p>I don't believe any police officer in dangerous duty would choose the Colt over the Glock. Similarly, I don't believe any photojournalist would choose Leica or Zeiss over the Nikon, as his only camera, on an assignment. There is no visible difference in image quality. With the Nikon you will get many shots that you would miss with the rangefinders. Just like you would with the Glock. But if your life does not depend on the sidearm and you appreciate well made objects, the Colt will serve well on a shooting range on weekends. I have a Leica M6, and it is a very nice camera. I also shot IPSC competitively for several years and used a modified 9mm automatic for that.</p>

<p>I do not know about film, but having shot these lenses side by side, if you are pixel peeping, I think the Summilux beats the Nikon in sharpness IF you are shooting wide open. Whether or not that would make a difference for you on film and/or at reasonable print sizes is something I cannot answer.<br>

The M7 - Summilux combo will cost you ~ $8000 new.... any equivalent Zeiss obviously less.<br>

I think the more important question is: are you more comfortable/better shooting a rangefinder than your F100. And if you want to change, you may be better off with a M6 and a 50 Summicron, which will probably cost you less than $2000 and you can sell it for the same price later if you change you mind.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Although I have thought about going "Nikon or Leica," I've never been able to do it. I use both systems (F6, F5, D700 and M8, M2, MP) and though I'd like to have one system that works for everything, the reality is (as stated above) they both have their strengths. The Leica rangefinder is superb for all the things it was built to do but if you are using top of the line glass with your Nikon then "sharpness" isn't IMHO a reason to switch to Leica. If you want the best RF available and love the "Leica look" then pick up an M6 and 50 Summicron and see if you like it. As Benjamin said, you can sell it at cost if you don't love it!</p>

<p>If I had a Colt SA Army I would sell it to Lonny Hurlbut for a dollar (former famous Cowboy Sheriff). If I had a Glock, a gang banger gun I would destroy it. If I were a photojournalist I would quit and get back to my job here in town where I am a RN. I did look up the Leica M6 and 50 Summicron and you cannot buy that combo at KEH.com for $2000.00. Just the lens in EX+ condition was I think $1700.00. However I would like to have a M6ttl and a 50mm f2.0 lens. I would not sell my other camera's however. I just figure on shooting them. Right now a friend of mine at the Hospital I work at is letting me borrow one of his Mamiya 7 camera's. I shot a roll with it last night and plan on a couple rolls this weekend. My wife gave me the nod for Yosemite on Saturday. The camera is neat. Feels just like a big 35mm. Not much heavier then my F100. I already mailed out the first roll for processing along with some B/W 35mm film that had been sitting around for a couple weeks.</p>

<p>M7 is quirky and solid and can take a motor and a 75mm lens. The ZI is a very reliable camera but with not as many bells and whistles. I have both. Tend to use the ZI more these days.</p>

<p>Ross -- once you get that Mamiya 7 film back, you will be shocked (assuming you have a proper way to enlarge it or scan it). When you get the superb lenses in the Mamiya and then put them on a 6x7cm negative, there is nothing in 35mm that comes close. Hardly anything in medium format either...<br>

Bob -- the design and build of the Leica is superb. The ZI is also a lovely, well-built camera. It may not be AS well-built, but it is certainly a professional camera made with care. Once which will last you longer than you will likely be able to use it. The same comments apply to the lenses of both manufacturers. In terms of <em>durability</em>, I doubt you are going to beat the Nikon. Leicas are beautiful and superbly made, but the Nikon is more likely to just keep working indefinitely without service. <br>

Having used the Leica lenses, some of the Zeiss lenses, the Nikon lenses and some Voigtlander lenses, I would say that the rangefinder lenses are better. Personally, I think they are a lot better, but I am probably pickier than most. If you take them as a whole, the wide angles is where you tend to see the most improvement over the SLR lenes. Sharpness edge to edge is higher, there is often far less distortion. Sometimes there is a bit more vignetting, but usually not. The standard lenses like the 50/2 summicron and 50/2 Planar have edge to edge performance, macro-contrast and resolution that Nikon 50mm lenses that I have used cannot come close to. (I have used the 50/1.4 AFD and G.) If it is not fair to compare f/2 lenses to an f/1.4, then I would also say the same applies to the newer 50mm f/1.4 ASPH, which is just as good as the f/2 lenses. The advantages tend to slow down a bit in the short telephotos, but I believe they are still there. <br>

Whether this matters or not to you is another story. But in my experience, it has made a difference. I do however, tend to print quite large, so I tax my lenses rather hard. There is another option for you that no one has mentioned...you can get a Zeiss ZF slr lens for your F100. The 35/2 or new 35/1.4 are reputedly excellent lenses, and they would give you a bit of the Zeiss look on the camera you already have. Another option would be to go with the Voigtlander series of cameras and lenses. They may not have the feel of tanks like the Leica, but they are well-made (to a different price requirement), and the voigtlander lenses are fantastic value for money. They have all the advantages of rangefinder lens design, modern glass formulations and metal build. They should outperform most of the Nikon glass as well. </p>

<p>I like both SLR and RF. However, they are optimized for different applications. You can use CV lenses if you prefer. They are cheaper than Leica equivalents and just as compact and nicely built.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I sincerely doubt that prints made from each camera with each manufacturer's "similar" lenses from similar eras of manufacture, same exposure, could be distinguished from one another except by an exceptionally experienced photographer with about 20 years experience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not according to some experiences. One Leica shooter was caught after buying a Leica lens - by his wife. She didn't actually see the lens. She noticed the difference in the prints. I can try to find the thread if anyone cares.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Similarly, I don't believe any photojournalist would choose Leica or Zeiss over the Nikon, as his only camera, on an assignment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Beliefs have nothing to do with it. Some PJs do just that. :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>With the Nikon you will get many shots that you would miss with the rangefinders.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The opposite arguement can also be made.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the advantages of RFs are more than just resolution. In any case, does lens sharpness really matter if you're shooting hand-held at 1/15th on Tri-X? <em>Well corrected</em> lenses always matter, and that's where Leica shines. Many Nikkor primes are not that good. Resolution is one part of a whole.</p>

<p>Final word: if you only could have one or the other you'd pick the SLR. That's just logical - and it uses the 80/20 principle. But that by no means is the final word.</p>

<p>Karim - please post the link to the wife catching on.<br>

You can get ZF.2 lenses for the F100 but the size and weight will be a disadvantage.</p>

<p>The modern SLR such as the Nikon 100 and the Modern Rangefinder such as the M7 are different photographic systems and although they do overlap in the 21 to 135mm range, if using long telephotos or very WA lenses and don't care about sound or bulk, then the SLR is the system. If using moderate lenses and care about noise level and bulk, then the rangefinder system wins out. I have both, Nikon Fm and Fm3a and Leica M7's and use them for vastly different applications. I would assess your applications and decide whether you require a rangefinder based on your assessment rather than perception of the cameras.-Dick</p>

<p>Karim - the wife may have noticed a difference, but I doubt that it was the result of a scientific comparison, but rather the photographer being more fastidious. Anyway - is she available....</p>

<p>I've used Nikon SLR cameras regularly since 1987. I also had a Canon rangefinder. I love composing through the lens, with the entire field of view as the image I am composing. While I do love the smaller body of a Leica rangefinder, and the bright viewfinder, I still prefer composing through the lens with an SLR, as I shoot a lot of wide angle photos. The prices of Leica lenses is way out of my reach financially as well, with the 35mm f2 Summicron being about 10x more expensive than the Nikon version. I just can't justify spending that much more. Maybe if I had a lot of money saved and could afford it, but realistically it just isn't in the cards for me. My local camera store had the M7 and 50mm f2 Summicron lens in the starter set box for $3000.00 and I was tempted, but I already have a couple superb 50mm lenses, and it isn't a focal length I use too often. <br>

I like the Nikon F100 very much, and it feels right in my hand. It isn't too heavy and the grip is about the best I've ever experienced. The camera is tough too. I can drop it and know it will keep on working without a hitch. I can't say the same for the M7. If I dropped it, I can imagine it might be severely damaged, the rangefinder glass could crack, the body could dent, etc. It is just too delicate an instrument for me. </p>

<p>I miss my Mamiya 7. Leica's are lovely to use, the vast array of lenses available is astounding. I haven't use the Ikon but see no reason for it not be lovely too. Go with what turns you on most.</p>

<p>Whatever you spend on Leica gear, you'll likely get your money back, Leica is a large outlay, but you get it back when your done!! Try it.</p>

<p>I mostly shoot Rangefinders, it's wonderful. But here's a list of things that shock/annoy people:</p>

<p>Poor ability to focus close. The mamiya is maybe 1 metre on the 80mm (maybe more), Leica's vary but generally between 0.7 to 1m. The rangefinders just don't work less than 0.7. Parallax errors (you're not looking through the lens so it's a bit offset). No DoF preview. Cannot look through filters (polarisers and graduated filters are a pain in the ****). Inaccurate framing (framelines move when focusing). Each rangefinder only supports a certain number of lens framelines, that means if there's no frameline for that lens you need some other way to frame. Generally you'll not have framelines wider than 35mm nor longer than 135mm (viewfinders come in different magnifications that alter that). If you want to do macro you need goggles or a manual SLR contraption. I think M7's have auto ISO selection, my M6 doesn't.</p>

<p>But if you like RF, an SLR probably doesn't make sense to you. It's like the difference between riding a motorcycle and driving a car. I don't know about guns, they're boring and messy.</p>

 

<p>If image quality (whatever that is) is the sole consideration, there's no effective difference. Among RF cameras, if expense is the consideration, then the Zeiss Ikon wins. I have used Leica cameras for decades, but I happen to think that (all things considered) Zeiss lenses are the better bet.</p>

<p>I've shot and or shoot with Nikon new and old and Leica M3 and M6. You just can't beat a Leica for overall feel, fit and finish. Lens wise Leica, Zeiss and even a few of the V/C lenses are top shelf and 100% crops will probably show them as being better wide open and a bit better in the corners. Having said that I personally don't often shoot wide open and don't sweat the corners much either. Stopped down good luck finding much of a difference in a normal size print. If I was a collector I'd much rather own a new in box , never touched M7. As a shooter an F100 and a decent zoom would do it for me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't believe any police officer in dangerous duty would choose the Colt over the Glock. Similarly, I don't believe any photojournalist would choose Leica or Zeiss over the Nikon, as his only camera, on an assignment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice analogy...but it's a little outdated. I don't ANY photojournalists who shoots film anymore...digital is where it is at for pure speed....so your point is rather moot.</p>

<p>But back to the original question...I think you would definitely see an improvement in image quality stepping up from the Nikon to either the Zeiss or the Leica. I recently bought a used M8 with a few Zeiss primes and they are sharper than almost ALL of my Canon lenses...and I own some nice ones.</p>

<p>I'm not going to touch the Zeiss vs. Leica argument. Not with a ten foot pole. But as far as either versus Nikon, I agree that either could be a step up, depending on how you, the photographer, use the equipment. Considering that Leica's original business plan was to create ,'A brand image of superior quality, due in part to exclusive pricing,' (I can't recall the source of the quote - it came from one of my photo history books), I'd opt for the Zeiss glass over that. I'm not saying one takes better photos than the other; just that Leica costs a lot because Leica costs a lot.</p>

<p>As far as the guns, I agree - bad analogy. Many states choose the Glock as a service weapon because it's extremely durable, and because the very heavy trigger pull makes it much harder to fire the gun unless you really want to. Additionally, some states (like mine - New York) prefer not to hire officers that enjoy shooting enough that they would have a personal preference. I listened to the owner of my local gun shop answer some questions about a 1911 from an officer a while back that even I - a relative newb - thought were pretty stupid. Could be because I'm a 1911 guy though. What can I say? The thing's from WWII (or early Korea - not sure which), and it's still working like the day it rolled off the assembly line.</p>

<p>Clint,<br>

The FBI's HRT (Hostage Rescue Team) use 1911's:<br>

After an official FBI Request for Proposal (RFP) in 1997, the HRT demanded their duty pistol meet additional, more stringent standards. Eight companies responded to the RFP. Each company submitted five pistols for testing. While all of the FBI's requirements were demanding, the most rigorous was accuracy. Chosen at random, two of the five guns had to shoot no more than 1.5 in (3.8 cm) at 25 yd (23 m) for three 10-shot groups from a Ransom Rest. Then the guns would be shot for 20,000 rounds in an endurance test, after which a second accuracy test would be conducted with no more than 15 percent degradation in accuracy being acceptable. The only pistol to meet the FBI's standards was Springfield Armory's 1911 pistol. Springfield's FBI contract pistol, known as "The Professional Model" is available to civilians at a cost close to $2595.00. As a form of quality control, the gunsmith building the pistol does not know if the firearm is going to be issued to an FBI agent or a private citizen.<br>

Zack- I'm a retired Deputy from NY and hate to say that revolvers were still issued up to the early 90's- and they can care less about "your preference" in NYC.<br>

My main point is if a photographer with an Nikon F100 and Nikon Lens was to compare the same photo's with a photographer with a Leica -or- Zeiss Ikon RF with lenses of similar focal length and speed.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 35mm SLR design has gotten carried way too far: The bodies are huge appliances for the negative/sensor size, and most lenses under 60mm have a tremendous amount of curvilinear (barrel or pincusion) distortion. The modern 70-210 lens is a laughable bull in the china shop. 35mm SLR is really for sports and wildlife and some portraiture. That's it.</p>

<p>I think 35mm Range Finder is a best kept secret. I just started shooting it recently after 30 years of 35mm SLR.</p>

<p>I use and highly recommend the Voigtlander Bessa R2A R3A and R4A bodies coupled with Zeiss lenses such as the Zeiss biogon ZM 35 F2 and Zeiss Biogon ZM 21 f4.5. Zero distortion, tiny gem lenses, incredible sharpness, very high quality (and different look).</p>

<p>Anyone have 2 shot's to compare- one with a SLR and the other with "that look" of a Zeiss or Leica?<br>

Please post your best shot with a Rangefinder that has "that look" and let's see.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm too lazy for that.<br>

<br /> The quality improvement is real however and it is the same that I noticed when I upgraded my Nikon El Nikkor 50 2.8 enlarging lens for a Rodenstock 50 2.8 Apo Rodagon.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Karim - please post the link to the wife catching on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't find it. Typical... I only wish I could remember the OP's name. He posted a shot taken with a 50/2.0 @ f/4.0 and noticed how amazingly 3-dimensional it looked. I think it was of a group of people holding up picket signs.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Karim - the wife may have noticed a difference, but I doubt that it was the result of a scientific comparison</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's exactly my point, Stephen. :-P Anyway I'm sure she isn't available!</p>