Zeiss-Ikon IS good news

[kosmoskatten]

It seems like a few fellow M-fondlers (like me) are glad to see "competition

stiffen up" in the M-series line up with the new ZeissIkon, others are very quick

to pass judgment and diss it without even seeing / handling / reading the full

story. Isn't it a good thing that the market is expanding? I think so; the more the

merrier.

 

I write M-fondler as I shoot with R and a few lenses as well as medium format

but get to borrow a nice M6TTL outfit with some of the best Leica glass ever

made (love that 28 'Cron) whenever I need to. What's keeping me from M is

the fact that the lenses ARE expensive. Even for what you get. My Hassy SWC

can be found significantly cheaper than the 28/2 M-Summicron second hand

and if I want to print big, the small format can't keep up.

 

If now Zeiss (who knows their stuff) develops and configures (seemingly)

excellent lenses with low distortion and lets Cosina/Voigtlaender manufacture

them to help keep prices down, so what? If this means I can get that 21/2.8 or

25/2.8 Biogon for a reasonable buck and stick it to that M6 0.58 I know I'll be a

happy camper.

 

Having used Zeiss lenses extensively (SLR/G) as well as Leica lenses (R/M) I

can't say Leica's are superior. Some are outstanding and some are just

"great". There aren't any real dogs in any of these line ups (at least not the

ones I've used) and I find it hard to believe Zeiss would not be able to produce

some truly excellent (and in some cases reworked) designs to fit the M. Sure,

the statement that they would all be better is bold, but I think they would equal

the quality of the M's for sure.

 

The new 25/2.8 Biogon is my cup of tea. I had the Distagon 25/2.8 for Contax

SLR (which was a semi-dog actually as it was not quite sharp at f2.8 but as

good as it gets from there on) and loved that lens - just wide enough for my

taste. Now it's a Biogon design and probably bettered in many aspects. That

lens on any body would be nice...

 

Until they are released and people have actually started using them I just

don't think it's fair to post and say "huh rebadged Cosina's ey?" or "no, they

can't be as good as Leica's". So, Cosina is making the body, disappointed?

(errr somewhat disappointed I was too) But it depends on the final price, If

Zeiss had some quality input it would work out nicely still, and if not the lenses

are still for us to enjoy on the M's.

 

Give it a fair shot. I think many like me really like the G series lenses, they are

excellent, affordable but came with a crippling camera design. But the lenses

are excellent value for the money. If the ZM lenses are of equal or better

quality and competitively priced I wouldn't hesitate to give them a try on the M.

I might afford building an M system with some of Leica glass and some Zeiss

glass - sounds crispy to me ;-).

 

The Leica forum is one of the few I visit that really know how to unfloat a boat

before it has hit the water.

If Leica comes under pressure; good. Competition is good for all of us. I won't

buy anything sight unseen but will definitely try the wideangles out, the 21 "G"

Biogon (and the 21 Distagon I once had for SLR) are truly spectacular lenses

and I really look forward to a new lens line up.

The Sonnar 85/2 which is to be released is incorporating floating lenses and

seems to be a very promising design and a worthwile alternative to the Leica

counterpart. A co-worker of mine is off to Photokina today and will evaluate

the sytem on the spot ;-).

 

And who knows, maybe Leica gets to shift some more bodies thanks to this?

 

Best regards, Henrik

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>If this means I can get that 21/2.8 or 25/2.8 Biogon for a reasonable buck and stick it to that M6 0.58 I know I'll be a happy camper.</em></p><p>Isn't the <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/kobalux.html">Kobalux (aka Avenon, etc.) 21/2.8</a> sufficiently camp for you?</p>

[kosmoskatten]

Hi Peter,

 

Kobalux? Never heard of / learning all the time...

Thanks for the link, very interesting. Any personal experience? What with

vignetting etc? Looks promising!

[socke]

I love the claims about the longevity of Leica M cameras. And how cheap they were in the 60's compared to today.

But as I had no money for a M in the sixties, was more interested in Matchbox cars then and had to save my pocket money to buy the batmobile, I welcome everything RF and afordable today :-).

 

And to quote John Maynard Keynes "In the long run, we're all dead!"

[john_amiet2]

<< And to quote John Maynard Keynes "In the long run, we're all dead!" >>

 

Well, I ain't goin' till someone convinces me it's worthwhile!

[peter_evans4]

Volker, sorry, no, I don't have any experience of either of the Kobalux/Avenon lenses. But I've read disinterested and credible first-hand accounts of how the 28mm is good and the 21mm excellent. Really, there are a great number of different lenses available at accessible prices, and not all are advertised, in part because not all are still made. For example, I don't know (or much care) how the old screwmount Canon 50/1.4 compares with the latest and greatest lenses, but I do know it's very good and that examples are plentiful and cheap.

[adrian_pateman3]

>>Well, I ain't goin' till someone convinces me it's worthwhile!

 

And I'm hanging on until I can get the ostrich skinned casket with the engraved top plate.

[vidom]

Henrik,

 

I do agree that this is good news not only for Leica but for traditional photography as well. It means that neither the M mount nor traditional photography are getting obsolete with the digital hype and major investments are being made for the development of analog equipment. For the same reason I was also very pleased to read that Nikon brought out a new F6 pro camera. Thousands of Euros I spent for analog equipment were not spent in vain!

[peter_evans4]

Oops, sorry I mixed up the names above. I was primarily addressing Henke rather than Volker.

[peter_werner1]

Until now I have not seen on this forum the address of the Zeiss-Ikon web site, so here it is:<br>

<a href="http://www.zeissikon.com"Zeiss Ikon</a>

<br><div></div>

[lucien1]

I love their brochure:

 

"Extra large viewfinder eypiece and a brillant viewfinder image, unaffected by flare."

 

;-)

 

Lucien

[socke]

Peter, that's ok with me. I am interested in those lenses.

[ben z]

Look at recent history. Leica was saying they couldn't make an M camera with an electronic shutter without abandoning the classic bodyshell, then the Konica RF came along and bingo, out popped the M7. Then Leica was saying they couldn't make a digital camera that used M lenses, then the Epson RD-1 came along and bingo (like, a few days!)the technology suddenly appeared and the digital M was a go. Now, remember the Konica RF had only a 0.6X finder and an obligatory motorwinder, and the RD-1 has the short rangefinder of the Bessas, and neither of them had a name the collectors and snobs could wear with their noses held high. Here comes a "Zeiss" with 0.74X finder, a manual film advance/rewind, _and_ a longer baselength than Leica, _and_ a higher flash syncro speed, _and_ the promise of a digital in the future. I can't imagine this can be anything but a good inspiration for Leica's future product development. What might be a stumbling block is that the "Zeiss" has the same low-budget innards as the Bessas that cost much less, remembering the "Rollei" version flopped.

[al_kaplan1]

Cheap prices in the 60's? First off, both Germany and Japan were trying to get war ravaged economies moving again, people were grateful for any job they could find at whatever wage, and when prices started moving up rapidly in the late 60's Americans squacked loudly about the depreciating dollar.

 

A beautiful new M2 body, no selftimer, seems a bargain today at a list price of $200 and the M3, as well as the M4 when it first came out, would only set you back $288.00. Leitz insisted that franchised dealers only sell at list price or lose their franchise. Factor in the fact that during WW-II there were no new Leicas or Contaxes available, so in the immediate post war years there was little available in the way of used ones coming to market.

 

This was at a time when an entry level job in states with a minimum wage law might pay a whopping $40 a week before tax deductions. Cops made way less than $5,000 a year.

 

The first Pentax I remember, the H-2, was $169.00 with an f/2 lens that had a semi-auto diaphragm. Other brands were priced in the same range. When the Nikon F hit the market both it and the SP were $329 with an f/2, $375 with an f/1.4, not a lot cheaper than an M2 with a Summarit and nobody really trusted the Japanese cameras yet.

 

Still, for the average wage earner of the day, a top of the line brand camera was not cheap. Anything less and the optics were horrid. It was the better part of a couple of months take home pay. Today you can buy a "consumer" SLR with a zoom for half a week's pay working at the drugstore.

[peter_werner1]

Has anybody noticed that the Leica-Camera AG is distributing the ZI in Switzerland ? Odd, even considering that they are also Hasselblad distributors ...

[Nowhereman]

As Al states, a $200 M3 in the 1960s was not cheap: taking into account inflation, $200 in

the early 1960s is worth about ten times that today, or $2000. You can look up the

development of US cost of living index from the 1960s to the present and make your own

calculations.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

[bob haight]

The only company on the planet still making film based cameras is Leica and at a small loss to boot. All the rest of the companies have (even though many will not admit it) ceased production and are selling off existing inventories. The apparent purpose of this venture is to put out a system which will rapidly convert to digital with a sensor based body around the corner.

[ilkka_nissila]

And the Nikon F6 is just one example to show that you're wrong.

[mike_elek]

The Rollei 35 RF didn't do well, because Rollei did very little to make it look different from the Bessa-R2. Same viewfinder, same control for switching viewfinder frames, same rewind crank, same top deck, etc.

 

Turn out the lights, and you're looking at the same camera. This was the same problem GM and Ford had with many of its cars in the 1980s (and still do, to a degree).

 

If I -- as a consumer -- am willing pay a premium for a product, then I'd like to see it look like a premium product and not its less-expensive stablemate.

 

Carl Zeiss AG either watched this carefully or decided beforehand that they wanted a camera with a very specific look and certain other requirements, such as a long rangefinder base, a front-mounted lever for viewfinder frames, etc.

 

If you put the "Zeiss-Ikon" next to a Bessa, most people wouldn't think that they shared the same platform. The back hinge is probably the only giveaway, and most wouldn't pick it up right away.

 

Touch and feel mean a lot, and I'll be interested in seeing if this feels like a Zeiss-Ikon or a Cosina.

 

Any interest in a film camera and an M-mount camera can only help Leica in the long run, both in terms of renewed interest in the brand as well as competition. I would like to see Leica thrive.

[bob haight]

Ilkka, I noted on the Nikon forum you were one of the few who defended Nikon for their release of what the Nikon folks felt was a useless camera nobody needed for over 2k when all their professional work was digital. There was talk that this camera may be digitally compatible at some point ie, a digital back, so it may make sense.

[robert_meyers]

I just want to know:

 

1. When?

 

2. How much?

 

3. Who will be selling?

[ilkka_nissila]

Bob, photo.net does not represent a sampling of the world, it's a techno-geeky subculture with little foundation in the real world. Guess which group of the world's photographers are most eager to use digital? Yes, it's those who spend their lives on-line.

 

Film has many advantages. I'm not anti-digital, I take maybe 75% of my photographs with digital. However, there are numerous applications where film continues to be used, even by professionals. Perhaps not your buddies, but then you don't know much. How many exposures do you expect to be able to take with a 1Ds with one battery in -30 C temperature? Fun to change batteries every few minutes? I can imagine. What about when you don't want thieves to grab your latest gear in a 3rd world country? Better take a battered film camera. Underwater photography? Oh, that housing for your 1Ds cracked, and your $8000 + investment is lost. Too bad. What if you want good separation of tones in flat light? Try some slide film. What if you want to not worry about clipping highlights when shooting wedding guests in unpredictable conditions? Try some negative film. What if you want a high-quality black and white image? Use black and white film. National Geographic? Oh, exactly how many articles have they published using digitally captured images? I thought so.

 

You're dreaming if you think that film is not used by professional photographers in some fields. I'm talking about the world, you know, outside the US.

[ilkka_nissila]

And no, the F6 has no provision for a digital back, which is in itself an absurd idea for 35mm.

[blakley]

Bob Haight wrote:

 

"The only company on the planet still making film based cameras is Leica and at a small

loss to boot. All the rest of the companies have (even though many will not admit it)

ceased production and are selling off existing inventories. The apparent purpose of this

venture is to put out a system which will rapidly convert to digital with a sensor based

body around the corner."

 

What in the world could this statement possibly mean? Given that Canon & Minolta have

introduced BRAND NEW film camera bodies in the last couple of months, and Nikon has

introduced a new top-of-the line film SLR within the last WEEK? To say nothing of Cosina,

which is as far as i can tell producing EXCLUSIVELY film camera bodies, and not to mention

at all the medium-and-large-format vendors who are still very much in production.... Or

Seagull.... or Holga :-)

[EricM]

And one other thing Bob, is stock photography. Ever checked in on the massive file requirements for good paying stock? For the small format world, it's still drum scanned film.