OT: Whats the point of Zeiss Ikon?

[nick roberts]

Even the Rollei was actually different to the R2 - it has/had different frames, for a start. The ZI appears to be quite a bit different to the "Voigtlanders", and at least gives another choice - not that I need it, with M6, CL, Bessas T and R2.

On the lens front, I couldn't care less where they're made. Zeiss have a long tradition of contracting out their designs to given QC standards, and my Rollei-made and Kyocera-made Zeiss lenses for Rollei and Zeiss SLR systems are in no way inferior to the German versions. More choice. Looks good to me!

[bill_marshall1]

Mark, you ask am I sure? Of course I am. Even the R3A has an effective baselength of only 37mm vs the Zeiss Ikon is 55.9mm. Huge difference. The R2 & R2A have even smaller EBLs of 31mm. REesult: much more precise focusing with the ZI. Furthermore, I can use a 28 mm lens with rangefinder coupling & compose through the viewfinder on the ZI. I can't do that on the R2/A. In fact, I can't even use a 35mm lens on the R3A with matching framelines. Let me add that I handled the ZI at PhotoPlus Expo in New York. Even with glasses, I had no trouble seeing the 28mm framelines. The finder is big & bright, very easy to see through.

 

More precise focusing, bigger viewfinder, increased range of lenses are all greater capabilities of the ZI vs any of the Bessas.

[mark_ng]

So you have seen it for real.

I, on the other hand, have not.

Let me ask you something: How does it feel as a camera? That is, does it have the same

solid feel as some of the Leicas? I have compared an R2 with the MP, and there is

definately no competition in terms of feel.

Could be an interesting option of rangefinder to get into...

 

You know the price of the body?

[james_.1]

I hope Leica is forced to drop those silly prices on their M items. This looks like a great

system and quite a viable alternative to the M. Also, I think the Japanese might have

better quality production than Germans. Would be nice if they had some f/1.4 lenses

though. Besides, the Portugese make Leicas anyway!!!

[mike_elek]

People's opinions on this camera are all over the map. Some complain that the top shutter speed isn't fast enough. Others complain about the lack of a motor drive, the lenses are too slow, the front bayonet ring is too shiny, the hinges are too much like the Bessa, the camera is just a warmed-over Bessa, it's made by Cosina, the film advance isn't tough enough. A great deal of whining for a camera that doesn't arrive in the U.S. until May of next year.

 

From what I could tell, the electronically controlled vertical metal shutter seemed very much like the one in my Nikon FE. Not whisper quiet, but not obtrusive. The camera I handled was empty. Film has a way of muffling the shutter a slight amount (my opinion), so in use the shutter might be a bit quieter.

 

The body itself felt much more rigid than the Bessa. Of course, it won't be as rigid as a Leica, which really is one piece with a flap. However, I doubt that normal use would cause the body to flex, unless you're using it to pry open the front door. And it's something that no one outside this group will even consider. Most photographers don't try to flex a camera body upon first inspection.

 

Lens construction seemed very high quality. Regarding the chrome bayonet ring. Many Zeiss lenses have had this for decades, from the Contarex to the SL66 to the Hasselblad, and I can't recall it ever being an issue or causing internal reflection. Just because some people haven't seen it before doesn't mean that it's a problem all of a sudden.

 

As someone stated in another thread, this is a Zeiss design manufactured by Cosina. Same goes with the lenses. They are Zeiss designs, not Cosina designs.

 

Look at the rangefinder on the Bessa and on this camera. It should be clear that the two are radically different, sharing a back hinge, shutter assembly and little else.

 

This is Carl Zeiss AG reviving the Zeiss Ikon brand. It's not Cosina, and it's not Cosina licensing the Zeiss Ikon brand. It's not badged Cosina. You won't find the Cosina name on this camera.

 

The two lenses made in Germany are the 15mm Distagon and the 85mm Sonnar. Both uses floating elements, and the Hasselblad rep said Cosina couldn't manufacture these types of lenses.

 

You either buy the lenses and/or camera or you don't.

[joel_matherson]

"Am I missing something?"

 

Yes you are. I suggest you do a bit more research before claiming the body and lenses are rebadged Voigtlanders as they are not.

[bill_marshall1]

Mark, to reply to your questions:

 

1. How does it feel as a camera? I have an R2 & a Nikon FM3a as well as some AF SLRs, so that's my frame of reference. The camera felt comfortable in my hands, intuitive to use. It felt more substantial than my R2. I really liked the extra large viewfinder eyepiece - the largest on any RF camera I've seen. It was really easy to see everything in the viewfinder & I wear glasses.

 

2. Did it have the same solid feel as some of the Leicas? Of course not. Nothing does. Absolutely nothing made today does. Leica is the gold standard in this regard. Part of what Leica sells is its build quality. When people say "They don't build 'em like they used to," well . . . Leica does. But if you're not a professional photojournalist, abusing your camera by banging it all around . . . if you're not a mountain climber photographing the Himalayas, do you need this? Some may want this in the same way that someone wants a precision $6000 Swiss watch or the way someone wants a Maserati, but it's not a knock on the alternatives to say they don't have that kind of build quality.

 

It's hard not to compare any new RF camera to a Leica; it sets the standard. The Hexar RF had to go through this same comparison. But this camera should be judged on its own merits. It is not attempting to compete with Leica in build quality. That's not where they put their money, although the camera is solidly built & certainly not flimsy. Zeis put their R&D into functionality. The rangefinder is better than any modern Leica. The viewfinder is better. These will make a difference in actually taking pictures.

 

Some have criticized the price. Hard to fathom on a Leica forum. You pay big bucks for the build quality of a Leica. Because of this among other things, Leica is priced way out of the range of the vast majority of users, who can only hope to find something they can afford on the used market. With the new price increases, a Leica M7 with a basic 50 Summicron will cost about $4300, judging by the last round of price increases. A similar ZI set-up will cost about $2000 less. That's a huge difference for a lot of people. It will cost less than a used M7 & it won't cost much more than a used Leica M6. Cosina opened up the entry level market. The ZI will offer a camera with the capabilities of a Leica M at an intermediate price point. What's wrong with that?

 

3. What is the price? The Hasselblad rep said that it will be priced at 40% less than a Leica, about $1500+. When I pointed out that 40% of the current price on an M7 is close to $1700, he repeated that it will be in the $1500 price range. Meanwhile over at the Leica booth, they were telling everyone to expect price increase on January 1. With an M7 currently at $2800, the ZI could easily be at half the price of the M7 when it finally hits the retailers in May. The prices that Cosina has announced for the lenses in Japan are even lower than the "40% less than Leica" figure that the Hassy rep suggested.

[jsbc]

Mark asked " I'm just asking if there is something special about the IKON that is different from the Bessa series "...

 

 

Hello Mark, you started this thread and you don't know.

 

Like: (1) The body is totally different. Just look at the shape of an R series camera and the ZI camera.

 

Like: (2) The lenses are totally different. Without resorting to lens diagram, CV do not make similar focal lengths with comparable F-stop (although in some cases CV is faster).

 

In fact, you CANNOT find any of the ZI stuff under the CV banner. So If I need an Ikon, I would damn well get an IKON rather than a CV, even if it is made by the company, because they are different products. Whether you like the ZI stuff is another matter.

 

Just do your homework because asking these inane questions.

[0_007]

anything not made by zeiss is not really a zeiss.

[andrew_hull]

My not made by Zeiss, Zeiss lenses are every bit as good as Leica! I hope they don't make some more!

[marbing]

I would expect that for those people who already own a Leica, there would not be much attraction toward any new non-Leica body. That is understandable. The new ZM-Mount lenses might be something that the current Leica owner might consider.

 

For the non-Leica owner, the possibility of a new body might be more interesting since they would have a body that could use Leica lenses.

 

So, the purpose is to expand the offerings availalbe to the public and, perhaps, open people's eyes to what mechanical rangefinders can accomplish.

[jeff_lu]

what's the point?

 

why hasn't anyone raised the possibility that this is just a stand-in body before a digital

version comes out?

[eliot_rosen]

It's a legitimate question to ask what's different or novel about this ZI offering that's not already out there, other than the name. The specs aren't a whole lot different from the Konica Hexar RF. The latter has a shorter effective baselength only because the magnification factor is 0.6. If I recall, the Hexar RF also had a faster shutter (1/4000 vs 1/2000 for the ZI) and the same flash sync speed (1/125).

 

The only thing novel in the lenses is a 15/2.8 Distagon (which will be made in Germany and will undoubtedly generate some interest). All of the other lenses have identical or very similar specs to those produced by Leica, Konica, and Cosina.

 

Well, the good thing is that there is still competition in the RF market, despite the onslaught of digital.

[Aoresteen]

Planar. I will buy the 50 f/2. Why? I just like the image Planars make.

[mark_ng]

Johnson,

 

Yes the bodies dont look identical, but nonetheless, there left a

possibility that their operation was identical being made by the

same manufacturer. President's choice crackers have an

attractive package and fancy shape, but the crackers still taste

like crap because the guys who made the crackers still did the

same bad job. Not the best analogy, because Cosina products

deserve a little more merit. One person here actually tried out the

camera, so he conveyed his experiences to us. It turns out that

they are indeed different in more aspects than one. Basically, his

reply is really what I was asking for.

 

Is it justified to be more expensive than the Bessa, even though

they are made by the same company. He answered yes with

good reason. Fair enough.

I asked if there were notable differences in design and use. He

answered yes with good reason.

 

With regard to the whole rebadging thing, one reply mentioned

something about rebadging. That was a mistake of mine to go

along with that conclusion. Of course the person who tried it out

for real assured me they were very different pieces.

[bill_marshall1]

Eliot, I was really disappointed that Konica abandoned the Hexar RF. They never really supported such a fine camera as fully as they should. I've read that the 35/2 is a superb lens, but I could never find one. I agree that the ZI fills the same niche & price point.

 

The faster shutter speed, motor drive, and 75 & 135mm framelines were features that the Hexar offered that this camera does not. In addition, the build quality of the Hexar RF struck me as more rugged than the ZI. On the other hand, the ZI has a better, brighter, less cluttered viewfinder with a larger eyepiece. Konica solved the flare problem that the M6 had with its viewfinder by making the finder dimmer - coating, I think. Zeiss claims to have solved the flare problem without dimming the finder. I examined the camera indoors, so I can say for sure that it is bright; I can't say whether Zeiss is correct about the lack of flare but that is their claim. While it's true that the ZI baseline is only a little longer than the Hexar & that magnification is the primary factor for its EBL, the longer EBL is significant. Normally lower magnification is to accomodate a wide angle in the VF. In this case ZI has accomodated the 28mm framelines with a larger VF & eyepiece while maintaining the magnification. It should offer more precise focusing capability. Nice job.

 

Otherwise there are more similarities than differences. I like both of these cameras for different reasons. I wish that the Hexar RF were still around to make the choice more difficult.

[paul t]

The Zeiss baselength is 75mm, as opposed to the Hexar's 68mm. The Zeiss

has .72 magnification.<p>

Only a few people seem fired up by the Zeiss's wide rangefinder base; i think

it's a crucial advantage. Wider base rangefinders are so much easier to focus,

apart from being more accurate. Even my funky old Kiev, with its faint orange

rangefinder patch, is really easy to focus because the second image 'sweeps

in' so much quicker. <p>

Bill, what was the metering display like? I often wonder if I'm the only person

who finds the M6's two LEDs pitiful; incredibly slow and un-intuitive to use.The

metering display on the CL is much better. Does the Zeiss have a range of

shutter speeds etc displayed in the finder?<p>

You know, with all of this, I reckon what we all want is or Huw Finney to fit a

meter into the finder on a Contax II, not a Leica III!

[andrew_hall1]

>Only a few people seem fired up by the Zeiss's wide rangefinder base; i think it's a crucial advantage.

 

Count me in, Paul. IMHO It's the Zeiss Ikon's strongest suit. (The flash sync comes in a close 2nd. AE is nice but not as useful as those.)

 

>I reckon what we all want is or Huw Finney to fit a meter into the finder on a Contax II, not a Leica III!

 

Make sure he makes the eyepiece as big as the reborn Zeiss Ikon's!

[bill_marshall1]

Paul, the prototype that I saw did not have the viewfinder display & unfotunately the website does not give a picture, but yes, the viewfinder will have 12 shutter speeds displayed with LEDs to show which one the AE has selected. It will also have the # of the selected frameline.

 

I agree with you about the 75mm baseline & the magnification is even a hair better than the .72 you mentioned; it's .74.

[les_lammers]

The lenses are something to be excited about. Competition is a good thing. List price will be about $900 for the 35 f2.0. Well desingned lenses of good quality are just that. Country of origin is not relevant.

[mark_ng]

I notice they have a special edition coming out for the first 1200 produced

Anything special about this besides a little inscription and a case?

[bill_marshall1]

No, not as far as I know.

[Troll]

If you don't know what's special about the Zeiss Ikon brand, you probably dont understand what's special about Packard and Pierce Arrow, either. You have to have been there to know how it was.

[mark_ng]

Bill,

I intend to wait for it's launch then try it out for myself.

At first, I was intending to get a Leica M, but since this new option

has popped up, I might as well wait another few months.

 

And yes...that was not my time, so I dont feel the same hype as

some. We will see in half years time when it launches in may,

2005.

[mayorson_kirk]

zeiss is a company with many branches for making telescopes, medical instruments, construction measuring devices, optical glass for eyeglass, secret optics for army, navy,airforce. Zeissikon is only a very small part mainly for making money and share markets with leica.