M7 & ZI - the advantage of each.

With the arrival of the Zeiss Ikon anticipated in a matter of weeks,

one can actually start making a decision about a real purchase,

rather than engage in the banter of M7 vs ZI that has gone on here

over the past 6 months. I propose that each has a distinct advantage

that should be considered in making a purchase.

 

First, I'll say that there is no point in comparing a ZI to an MP or

a new M6 (if you can find one). One is mechanical & the other is

electronic AE. Easy choice based on which type of camera you're

looking for.

 

Second, I see no point in comparing build quality. You can buy two

ZIs for the price of one M7 (after the anticipated price increase),

so if the life expectancy is only half as long, it doesn't matter.

I'm sure that some will disagree.

 

Third, both can mount lenses from either manufacturer so access to

quality glass is not an issue.

 

In terms of a comparison, there are however distinct strengths

between the two.

 

The M7 is quieter. The shutter of the M7 can be seen as a specialty

feature. If you shoot in an envirionment where minimizing shutter

noise is essential, there is no substitute. There are other cameras

that are quieter, but not in a rangefinder with interchangeable

lenses. Not everyone needs this feature; in fact, most people don't.

But for those who do, the M7 is the choice.

 

The ZI is better at close focusing. It is rangefinder coupled to

focus its 21, 25, & 28 mm lenses to 0.5 meters. Futhermore, its long

effective base length offers superior precision in focusing standard

& telephoto lenses at their minimum focus distance, especially when

MFD is combined with maximum aperture. No other RF camera offers

this combination with built-in frame lines 28-85. If you like to get

as close as possible, there is no substitute in a modern RF camera.

Not everyone shoots as close as 19 inches; in fact, most people

don't. But for those who do, the ZI gives them a RF choice instead

of their SLR.

 

Rather than bashing either offering, I suggest a purchase based on a

comparison of features & your shooting style. Need to be discrete?

Buy an M7. Like to shoot close up? Buy a ZI.

You forgot easyer loading, faster shutterspeed and faster x-sync. For me this is more important than a quieter shutter.

"Second, I see no point in comparing build quality. You can buy two ZIs for the price of one

M7 (after the anticipated price increase), so if the life expectancy is only half as long, it

doesn't matter. I'm sure that some will disagree."

 

Some facts about the economics of a new M are often overshadowed by it's huge price tag:

The M7/MP is VERY good value.

First, there is the no-quibble FIVE year guarantee. I had my M7 and 50 lux for just over a

year and I have sent them back because I dropped them. I got both back from Milton

Keynes (Leica UK) within 6 days! How many other firms will do this without various

'extended warrenty' charges and whatnot? Most of these companies have their stuff

assembled in cheaper countries and have no local technical support at all. So if after two

years you drop your camera on the pavement your 'half-price M' is worth zero. I would be

much more nervous walking about with a two-year-old 1600 GBP Ikon kit knowing that I

would have to pay for any damage than I would with a 3500 GBP Leica kit still within

Passport.

Second, even in the digital revolution, Ms have managed to hold their value somewhat. If I

wanted to sell my MP in 10 years I am sure I will get at least half of what I paid for it,

Seeing M6s going for 1000 GBP now when they were bought for about 1600 GBP new 10

years ago is very heartening. Which means 10 years of my MP has cost maximum 100 GBP

per year. How much will an Icon be worth? 200 GBP? Look what has happened to the

perfectly fantastic G2 kits: 2100 GBP is now worth 600 GBP.

Like I say, good value. Add to this the 9 month interest-free credit most dealers offer, a

new Leica is available to even students.

Or am I wrong?

The ZI xsync is 1/125 sec. vs m7 1/50. ZI is slightly slimmer and slightly lighter. ZI claims viewfinder is 1/3 fstop brighter than any previous RF. ZI loads film with regular pressure platen film door, some people prefer this arrangement. Exposure compensation in 1/3 ev stops.

 

Don't get me wrong if someone gave me an M- fill in the blank I'd love to have one, but the prices are starting to look like MF Hasselblad prices.

It seems ridiculous to compare a design that has a sixty odd year track record to one which hasn't entered the market to any appreciable extent. Then there is the fact that the proven design has the backing of an organization that has survived the near obliteration of its home photographic industry (irrespective of current fiscal troubles) compared to one now attempting to re-enter a market they abandoned thirty years ago; with outsourced and brand-licensed products. When the newer product has achieved a reputation for reliability, then it may be logical to compare it to the older product. This whole issue has the odor of trolling.

There are of course good arguments on both sides of this discussion. However, the simple fact is that regardless of quality, when your price gets too high, you have restricted yourself to a very small market segment - not the easiest place to survive. The simple fact is that Leica cameras and lenses are too expensive for most people. What is worse for Leica is that they are too expensive for most of the people who would actually care to buy one. While their passport warranty is wonderful for the unlucky, clumsy and idiots, I would prefer paying much less and not subsidising what is essentially an insurance policy for those who damage their cameras. If Leica sold the M7 for $2399(US) with a 1 year warranty, I think they would sell a bunch more and the choice between the Zeiss Ikon and the M7 would probably favor the M7 for most. Like their new 75'cron. If they sold it for $2,000 I would buy one new. At their rediculous price, I'm thinking about a Voigtlander. I love Leica gear and I am not one of those people who describe their difficult to prove photographic qualities. I just like them, but with their current prices, they simply are out of reach.

Seb, I'm not sure there are all that many students out there buying brand-new Leicas .... (are there?)

I'm not sure it's as simple a question as a choice between a discrete camera and a close focussing one. It just can't be that simple. People are going to want Leicas just because they are Leicas. And however expensive a body is, on a per cent basis, it doesn't have to be the biggest cost in a well-rounded kit. Buy a brand new M7 and three minty lenses and it's probably around 40 pct of the total.

 

Anyway, time will tell. Still haven't had a chance to palm a ZI and see if it sings.

Frederick, I think there should be. How many buy a G4 Powerbook and a printer and

software for over 2500GBP, not much less than the entry-level M7/50mm summicron kit.

How much will that Powerbook be worth in 10 years time?

Leica's problem is brand knowledge. If more people knew that they hold their value so

well, less people would be so afraid to get one. In this age of disposability, no-one

considers re-sell value when they buy anything. I am not talking about your average

Jessops (camera chainstore) walk-in, I am talking of keen amateurs who spend enough of

their free-time on photography to want to use the best there is.

It is probably their longevity that has got Leica in so much schtuck now. There aren't

enough entry-level Leica buyers and the current fans can easily satisfy their demand by

trolling Ebay for perfectly functioning equipment 10, 20, 30 years old.

Its like the housing market - no first-time-buyers and the market crashes.

Seb, point well made. But how can Leica access that demand? Or develop demand where it is latent? There needs to be a serious marketing effort here; it's not enough to be an engineering company and rely on the old saw "If you build it, they will come". I think they really need some fresh marketing blood in that company. With students being encouraged to buy digital because journalism is all about digital these days, they will not be able to tap that latency. They have to get out there and appeal to the tradition of HCB et al, appeal to the immediacy of the rangefinder experience, and so on.

to be clear, I should have put quotes around "because journalism is all about digital these days". I don't believe it, but I have heard it argued to students. And with enough people singing the same song, that latent market remains inaccessible to leica.

 

You know, in a way, Bessas may be the best thing for Leica ... by attracting first time rangefinder users into the market, it may actually help a creative marketing effort by Leica. Leica's got to reinvent itself as a marketing company.

I must say it does look pretty good. And the addition of another range of quality lenses providing even more choice for me it only a good thing! It seems that Zeiss are pitching the ZI into the gap left by the G2. Long live the rangefinder.

 

http://www.zeissikon.com/faq.htm

Its actually good that a company started with a clean sheet of paper when designing a new product. Zeiss has been designing for other companies for decades. But starting fresh let them partner with talented companies like Cosina just like Cisco partners with contractors all over the world. If you quality control manufacturing methods are first rate your talented partner can get you started and to market with a high value product much faster.

 

I just handled the Nikon F6 and in almost every way it is better than the F5 with enhancements to most F5 features and carryover of some still revolutionary technology like self adjusting shutter speed accuracy. New doesn't mean untested or unreliable, automatically. Execution of design is very important.

Frederick, I'm quite convinced that journalism is at least 90% digital. The PJ's with film cameras I meet from time to time would soon change to a digital SLR if they only had the funds.

 

The newspapers here take only digital files, often they are transmitted via mobile phones directly from the location.

 

Jobs at heigh quality magazins whith very long deadlines who need highest resolution are very rare, I don't think they even count for 1% of the working journalists.

Shutter noise is indeed one factor to consider, if at all. However, what

affects image quality more is vibration. A recent thread (Here's something interesting by Douglas K. 2005-03-31) showed both decibel and vibration levels for several cameras both SLRs and RFs. If you look at the thread (in Chinese) the left column's graphs show noise level and the right vibration. As expected, SLRs usually show higher levels of both than RFs. The levels for the Leica M2 are very, very low, almost as low as the Hexar AF's "undetectible" vibration. But this may be relevant only at lower handheld shutter speeds (1/15 sec. and below). I would assume the M7 is also very, very low in both, though I've never seen any objective measurements for it or the ZI or C/v Bessas. But this is techno-nitpicking. I have both a H RF and a N SLR; they both take very fine photos, and are capable of much more than I can deliver.

The time to launch a large ad campaign is when they introduce the digital M. It'd be a

waste of money with film cameras.

All other factors aside (& I agree that the M7 is the better camera), if you like to shoot up close & would like to do it with rangefinder lenses, the ZI will allow you to put away your SLR & get up closer than ever before on a modern rangefinder - & with greater focusing accuracy than any other RF with 28 mm frame lines.

 

An M7 remains the preferred tool in situations where the photographer needs to be discrete & where noise will be a factor.

 

Horses for courses.

If you buy a used M for $1,500 and a week later you drop it on the cement, then you've lost your total investment. Leica will not replace your used camera "no questions asked."

 

I also doubt Carl Zeiss will replace your camera if damaged due to negligence. Perhaps they'll offer an extended warranty that covers owner negligence much like other companies do with electronics.

I have two M6's (bought used) and love them. I bought a photo book at Borders on Friday, and the checkout clerk saw the Leica I was carrying and said she was taking photo classes. She said she had a Nikon but that a Leica was "her dream camera" - just too expensive.

 

Well, if CV and Zeiss can bring the joys of RF photography to other shooters with somewhat lower prices, more power to them.

 

Lots of folks won't buy used stuff, or don't hang around on BBS's like this enough to find sellers they trust, or need to go to a store and fondle equipment before they buy it. Some folks need a brand they know (Zeiss vs. CV, say). In any case, for most folks, a few grand difference for a film camera body and a 25/50 or 35/75 lens kit is a huge amount of coin.

 

Zeiss's entry gives us RF shooters another ray of hope that there will be more digital RF bodies coming down with pike.

 

So it's ALL GOOD. Go Zeiss!

I do with the Zeiss had a TTL flash system - maybe the next body.

 

Scott

I agree with Volker that faster flash sync and faster loading are more useful than a shutter with less noise.

 

>There are other cameras that are quieter, but not in a rangefinder with interchangeable lenses.

 

The Mamiya 6, 7 and Bronica RF645 beats the Leica hands down in noise AND image quality.

(& I agree that the M7 is the better camera),

 

Bill has moments of lucidity;)