aizan_sasayama Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 <i>you can't really put a price on peace of mind</i> <p>sure you can! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 The Leica M6 is a reality. It exists. It is used by photographers all over the world.The Zeiss is a glorified "Cosina" at best or a camera made by "Lucky" cameras in China.It is totally untested in the real world. The world where 400 lines per mm. simply do NOT exist(Zeiss Advert). Zeiss do not build cameras. They piggyback on others..Where are the Kyoceras Contax-Yashica now? Even the Hasselblad relationship is endangered.All the new series are Fuji..and its not C-Z lenses. Leica for all its faults is still the finest Rf system in existence. My M3 is 48 yrs old. Shot about 6600 rolls thru it. Used almost daily as the Main camera, the M6 as secondary.Pure choice on my part. Old shoes more comfortable.The M6 is 5 yrs old. Hundreds of film thru it. When all else is tried and bought, you will still yearn for the real thing. Get a Leica first and last.The 35mm lens is a better choice for a M6. C-Z lenses may be equal or even superior but after the disaster of optical imcompatibility of the Konica RF camera,I would be weary of spending that much money on an unknown box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 Hexar RF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 Yes, or AF or XPan. Which are your needs, your style? In which way would you want to grow? Why a rangefinder? There's more to question than just a choice between two brands. My M6 has lured me into rangefinder cameras, but there's a variety out there, each with their very own specifics, up- and downsides... <p>I've handled the Ikon. It's going to be a fine camera, once having passed Zeiss/Hassy quality controls and being available. Taking into account its matching line of very fine lenses, the Ikon is going to be a worthy challenger to the Leica. But give it some time to outgrow its first run flaws. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
low light Posted September 10, 2005 Author Share Posted September 10, 2005 Lutz, After lugging around my F100 with F2.8 lenses all day, I would like something more compact, but can still give me very high quality images. I looked at the Contax G2 and it was nice, but why have autofocus on a rangefinder? I would consider the Hexar RF, but I'd rather have a completly manual camera. Thanks for all your comments guys, the reason i was thinking of the 50mm lens is because the 35mm costs so much more. Has anyone tried the 35mm F3.5 summaron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 Compact, high quality, all manual... 40/2.8 Sonnar. You can find it for a song these days. Outgrow it, sell it at no loss, move on. Have fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 For crispiessakes don't micromanage the guy. He wants to buy a camera in NYC. He did not know Ikon is not available. 'Deshalb' M is the only option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_matherson Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 "The Zeiss is a glorified "Cosina" at best or a camera made by "Lucky" cameras in China" LOL Still havent a clue I see Jason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper1 Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 Dude get the old man with the beard he's been around for ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hall1 Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 >After lugging around my F100 with F2.8 lenses all day, I would like something more compact, but can still give me very high quality images. The Leica M, etc, are not any lighter or more compact than your FM2. They don't use your existing lenses either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hull Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 "The Contax G1/G2 were also excellent cameras, but they aren't exactly hot properties today." Exactly, who cares what camera works best for the photographer using it, let's make sure that they are using a "hot" camera! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aizan_sasayama Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 <i>The Contax G1/G2 were also excellent cameras, but they aren't exactly hot properties today.</i> <p>Any camera that William Eggleston uses gets the approval of the Hot Property Certification Committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy_lahay Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 The question is, which would you choose? Probably the Ikon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_york1 Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 I like more mechanical cameras, so I would be inclined to go with the M6. The M6, however, will be used and w/o a very good warranty. On second thought, I would wait to see ZI when if finally hits the streets. It has certain advantages over the M6: longer rangefinder base; huge viewfinder; and 1/2000 shutter speed. Contrary to what a bunch of the leicaphiles state, it should be a very good quality, if the quality of the ZI lenses are any indication of the camera. At a street price of about $1600 US, with a new warranty, it should be a pretty good value. Ultimately, it comes down to whether you want the electronics or a more manual camera. And there is a question of whether the build quality of the ZI approaches that of the Leica rangefinders. I would wait and see. It should be out shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_mcbride Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Maybe I'm too impatient, but it seems to me that the Zeiss Ikon M-mount camera = vaporware (and I love Zeiss cameras!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_wang3 Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Now, I am using a hybrid system of Zeiss lenses with Leica M bodies, and a couple of Leica lenses as well. I believe that Leica is making the best bodies. I have M3s and MP, it is extremely difficult for me to believe that Zeiss Ikon is making an electronic shutter more vibration free than the mechanical shutter of M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert goldstein Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 The new ZI electronic shutter may have more vibration than the old Leica cloth shutters, but it will be far more accurate and faster to boot. Life, as they say, is full of trade-offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy_lahay Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 To believe that Zeiss Ikon is making an electronic shutter more vibration free than the mechanical shutter of M is believable. Why wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard crawford Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Well - here is balanced view from Glasgow. I bought a leica m6 titanium and I love it. However if you are used to shooting with rangefinders then whichever fits your hand best and makes you takes photos is the best choice. Some of the best photos I have ever taken were with a contax G1 and that was a pain with bad viewfinder (the reason i got rid of it in the end) and noisy operation.Zeis looks good for some things - higher shutter speed, higher flash sync (shooting fill in with Leica is impossible at 1/50 unless you use the M7 and SF20 flash.) But if you are already thinking of selling then the Leica will probably hold its value better. As for optics well - I am sure to upset people here but value for money is not always Leica. I sold an old summilux 35mm which had awful flare and drop off to the corners on ebay and bought a new Zeiss 35mm. The Zeiss is excellent and one review says very close to the quality if not equal to 35 f2 Leica asph. I have shot with it now and it really is superb. Better yet is the aperture stops which are indented in 1/3 stop markings. I shoot slide only and meter by lightmeter so this for me is useful .... saying that I am sure I have missed shots in the past as I didnt have an AE mode ..... even if it is a 80% hit ratio - in my mind 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing. But back to the camera - whatever feels comfortable (I got rid of my Mamiya 7II because I hated the feel of it) - a zeiss might be less knickeable than the Leica as well. Hope that helps - if it was my money I would try the Zeiss. try jonathan harris for SH leica - or robert white for new zeiss Regards Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now