Definitely not a Leica...

[wai_leong_lee]

Tried the ZI yesterday. Compared side by side with my M4. It's

lighter, for sure. Metal finish feels cheaper than my M4. Somehow not

as classy. Shutter is loud by comparison, the harsh metallic noise a

jarring surprise. I can even *feel* the sound going vertically.

 

Viewfinder is big-- the exit pupil is about 20% bigger than the Leica

M's. Viewfinder and rangefinder patch are bright, but surprisingly

not as bright as my M4.

 

Aesthetics is of course a personal choice, but I feel it's too boxy

to be pretty. No curves on the ZI.

 

Overall, I have to say that I'm glad and somewhat relieved that the

ZI, while undoubtedly a better-spec camera in all ways-- rangefinder

base, flash sync, back film loading, cost-- is not the equal of a

Leica.

 

At least it shows that the price we are paying for Leica's is worth

it, at least in terms of aesthetics, materials and quality. Woe to us

if ZI made something as good or better than Leica feel and quality

for half the price!

 

This is not to disparage ZI. The camera is from all reports a capable

camera, and modern in every way, but what I'm glad is to see that we

were not fleeced by Leica, at least in terms of cost. There's a

reason why you pay $3,000 for a new M7 vs $1,400 for a new ZI, and

it's not just in terms of technical specs.

[michael_kastner]

Whew! You mean I don't have to trade in all my Leica stuff?

[jsc1]

I, too, have an M-4 and I am also very happy with my ZI. So my perceptions are

completely different...

 

The ZI is lighter. The top and bottom are made of a magnesium alloy. The body is made

of an aluminum alloy. It's been admirably tough enough, to date. With my 1 lb. Thambar

attached, it is not so light but it is still comfortable around my neck.

 

I find the ZI shutter to be only slightly louder than M-4 and the ZI lacks the escapement

noises at longer shutter speeds. (My M-4 might need a CLA...) The vertical shutter does

permit flash-sync at up to 1/125 which is an advantage.

 

The ZI viewfinder is substantially bigger and brighter than the M-4. The rangefinder patch

is slightly larger than the M-4. It is very easy to focus. I wear glasses and the ZI is better.

 

The ZI is not as pretty as my Leica IIIf RD ST, but few cameras are that pretty... The ZI is

not "neck-candy."

 

The hinged back is good but loading the film is... still tedious. I did not like the bottom

rewind at first but I've changed my mind. The camera top is uncluttered because the

rewind knob is on the bottom. The film advance is fast and smooth. I prefer the one-

piece advance lever of the ZI to the two-piece plastic/metal hybrid of the M-4.

 

It's been a capable, high-quality user with all the features of the M-7 at half the price. Its'

simple appearance belies an underlying sophistication. I like that. Film cameras will be

around for a long time...

[ronald_moravec1]

The camera may be somewhat cheaper, but if you are buying for long term, ZI seems not to service their cameras. Mark Hama just put new curtains in my 111f for $177. The machine is back running as new.

 

Contarex were fine machines, but you never hear of anyone using one probably because of parts. Same with Alpa. Both had a first class line of lenses.

 

If you intend to retire it in a few years, get the ZI. If you want to pass it on to grandchildren, Leica is better.

[frederick_muller]

Yeah, ZIs are available in London now too, along with the lenses. I have to say I prefer VC Bessa styling to the ZI styling. I'd buy an R2A before a ZI. The lenses are nice and tempting though. That 50mm Planar looks pretty sweet, and it would be nice to take it for a spin and compare it to my Summicrons.

[john15]

"This is not to disparage ZI"

 

LOL

[terence_mahoney]

"the ZI, while undoubtedly a better-spec camera in all ways-- rangefinder base, flash sync, back film loading, cost-- is not the equal of a Leica."

 

Perhaps I just need a good night's sleep but the foregoing makes absolutely no sense to me.

[jack_wilber]

I guess it's the same question as:

 

What's a better watch? A Rolex or an Omega? An Omega is definitely NOT a Rolex. LOL!

 

What's the better car? A Benz or a BMW?

 

I'm not that particular... they're both nicer than the Camry I drive around!

 

Now, let's be honest... this thread has got nothing to do with anything other than status and snob appeal.

[jtk]

Canon P beats both in many respects...beginning with ruggedness, ease of loading/operation, and arguably beauty. Unfortunately the Canon user is stuck with old lenses or CV.

[h._p.]

You're right, John, the Canon P's a seriously nice piece of kit. The only thing that lets it down is the viewfinder, which is nothing like as nice as the M3's. If you could get Huw Finney or someone to graft a M3 finder on to it, I for one would be seriously tempted.

[al_kaplan1]

I guess I'll worry about "upgrading" when my M3 and M2 bodies wear out.

[michael_kastner]

Al, you'll have to wait another 100 years or so (and everybody knows that). That's why they're here.

[wai_leong_lee]

You can talk about specs. Or you can talk about quality, fit and finish.

 

I was talking about the latter.

[jerry_lehrer]

Josiah,-- "one pound Thambar" ? Not bloody likely! My borrowed Thambar with M adapter and lens hood weigh over 600 grams.

 

Jerry

[terence_mahoney]

"You can talk about specs. Or you can talk about quality, fit and finish."

 

I'd rather my grandchildren inherit lovely photographs than lovely cameras. But I'm an atypical Leicaist.

[aizan_sasayama]

beauty...next thing you'll tell me is that the front battery compartment is a beauty mark.

=)

[jsc1]

"Jerry Lehrer , jan 27, 2006; 02:18 p.m.

Josiah,-- "one pound Thambar" ? Not bloody likely! My borrowed Thambar with M adapter

and lens hood weigh over 600 grams."

 

1 kilogram=1000 grams=2.2 pounds... so, 1 pound is about 500 grams... which I think is

close enough for this forum...

 

I think the Thambar is a heavy lens. [it's a smallish lump of brass, glass and chrome plated

steel...] The ZI/Thambar combination seems lighter than the M4/Thambar combination;

after several hours, the decrease in weight makes a small difference. At least part of the

reason the ZI is lighter are the alloy metals used in its' construction.

 

Have you taken any photos with your borrowed Thambar?

[buttons_de_ridder]

... No BS question here, I must be missing something but what is a ZI ?

[jsc1]

Buttons...

 

I was hoping someone else would answer...

 

ZI is "short for" Zeiss Ikon.

[al henry]

The last pretender to the throne was the Contax G2 the camera that was going to put Leica out of business.I know someone who sold his Leica to buy this high teck auto everything Zeiss lensed marvel. Full page advertisement in every photo rag. Five star reviews.Today you can buy the whole kit for less than a M4 in user condition. A re badged VC no matter who's name you put on it or how many little improvements you put into it is still a VC camera. ROLEX is ROLEX and a counterfeit ROALX is still a TIMEX no matter what the guy in the bar or boys on Madison Avenue tell you.

[roger_hicks1]

Not exactly 'little improvements'. A new chassis; a longer RF base than the M; arguably a better finder -- and that's from using the ZI side by side with an MP. It's also extremely easy to hold steady, arguably even easier thsan an M: my wife Frances Schultz has a 'benign essential tremor' which means that she REALLY motices how easy cameras are to hold steady.

 

I still prefer the Leica, though. Better feel; slightly less obtrusive shutter note ('clop' rather than 'click'); easier-to-read meter, with higher resolution; and I'm used to them, after 30+ years. I'm also addicted to the trigger-wind base, with a Leicavit on the MP and the Voigtlander version on my R2.

 

I think Wai-Leong is right: there's a reason why a Leica costs twice as much as a ZI, and it ain't snobbery. The ZI is an excellent camera, and I *think* (though I'm not sure) that I'd rather have the ZI than one of my old M2s (45 years newer, metered, brighter finder, BUT battery dependent) but I'm *sure* I'd rather have my MP.

 

Would anyone be interested if I put a review up on www.rogerandfrances.com? There's a catch: it would be $2 or alternatively you could subscribe to the Photo School ($20 a year). This is necessary because if I go around putting up free reviews the magazines for which I review cameras (and who put food on the table) are not going to be overjoyed.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger (every week in AP)

[capocheny]

Josiah,

 

Don't worry about the JL comment!

 

He's simply a PROLIFIC poster.

 

Nuff said!

 

Cheers

[bill_marshall1]

"Metal feels cheaper than my M4." - Wai-Leong Lee

 

I'm always intrigued by the use of such a term as "cheap"- especially when it is used in what portrays itself as a "description" of the camera. "Cheap" is simply not a descriptive term for how the metal finish "feels." It is a judment or an evaluation. A such, does this judgment have any validity?

 

It's funny but when Erwin Puts evaluates the magnesium (same metal as used on the exterior of the ZI) on the top plate of the R9, he refers to it as "a very high cost material." Hmmm . . . Doesn't sound like a synonym for "cheap" to me.

 

In its product information for the Digilux 2, Leica refers to the magnesium body as "extremely robust and long-lived because of the use of high-grade materials & precision fabrication." In fact, they go on to refer to it as a "durable reportage camera." Again, it doesn't seem that Leica itself considers magnesium to be a "cheap" material.

 

It's amazing how many myths are created on the internet. Al seems concerned about capturing the "throne" & feeling secure in buying by brand name recognition. It's just a camera, Al; it's not about competing for royalty. If it makes you feel better, the ZI is no threat to Leica's throne.

 

The Zeiss Ikon is simply an alternative choice in the rangefinder marketplace . . . & that's a good thing. Despite what has been said here, it is not a better spec'd camera. In fact, it is a very basic camera which doesn't have an equivalent list of specifications to the M7.

 

The ZI has some improvements on existing spec's, such as its eyepiece/viewfinder combination, which includes uncluttered frame lines & better eye relief. It offers a lighter weight alternative, which is not better or worse - just a difference which recognizes the fact that the preferences of some human beings are not the same as others. The effective baselength is different, but again this represents a choice, not a better spec.

 

Other than higher flash synch & a stop faster speed, I don't see how the ZI is "better spec'd." Here is a list of features on the M7 that the ZI does not have: mechanical back-up speeds, better options for long exposures (8 & 32 seconds AE & manual vs. 1 & 8 on the ZI), DX coding, automatically adjusted viewfinder brightness for varying lighting conditions, more information in VF, & TTL flash metering.

 

Bottom line is that the M7 is a more expensive camera because it offers more features & in all likelihood is built to a higher standard. It is a superb piece of equipment. So, why don't we stop with the comparisons. It's not about being "as good as" or "better than." The ZI is the mid-priced offering in the rangefinder marketplace which is a fine camera in its own right. For a variety of reasons, some people may prefer to purchase this camera rather than an M7. Okay, what's wrong with that? Many people will still prefer a Leica. It seems to me that's okay too.

 

Bill

[tito sobrinho]

What Bill said!

[andrew_hull]

" think Wai-Leong is right: there's a reason why a Leica costs twice as much as a ZI, and it

ain't snobbery."

 

-Want to bet why they are more expensive (here's a hint, expensive German production

maybe?). I wonder what the cost of producing a Leica MP would be in China? Thailand?