Zeiss Ikon, a second look

[claude_batmanghelidj]

I had another chance to look at the Zeiss Ikon, now that it has been released in Japan.

I should say that I posted a few days ago, with mainly negative comments after glancing

over the camera and dismissing it. Quite a few people reacted to my comments, so I

decided to give it another look.

 

1. The camera finish seems to be of some kind of metal, looks like aluminum, but quite

hard and very smooth. It's actually quite nice.

 

2. The finder is very big easily covering a 28mm viewpoint. A great feature is that the

focusing patch does not flare out, which is really a serious flaw with the M cameras. I liked

the finder. It is a completely different way of seeing compared to the R3A that I compared

the camera with, which has a life sized finder. It's very easy to focus, and as I said it gives

you a nice expansive view. The framelines show up automatically, with the 85mm

viewpoint instead of the 90mm on a Leica.

 

3. The controls are very lightweight, the shutter dial seems a little flimsy, not really a solid

affair, but that may just be the way it feels, it may be very sturdy. The winder is light

action, and it has a ratchety sound as it returns to its start position. The winder lever does

not have the buttery smoothness of a Leica wind lever, and the general construction of the

camera is not the solid hunk of metal that the Leica is. It's a lightweight camera, which

may not be a bad thing. Something I really did not like was that the film take up spool and

the rotating mechanism with the teeth was also plastic. I feel it should have been made of

a lightweight metal, titanium perhaps. It did not look at all like something built to last a

lifetime. Then again, Olympus OM cameras had these parts in plastic and they have lasted

well down the years.

 

4. The shutter is indeed much quieter than the R3A, it is a noticeable difference. It is not

too noisy, but easily more pronounced than the silent click of an M6. Not bad really, just

different. Overall the camera is a nice piece of work. I think it wil make someone a great

walkaround RF, and be an excellent picture taker. My original gripe was that a used M6

would be a better bet. Well, this camera has automatic metering, and if you need that,

then an M6 is not an option. It is probably a pretty good alternative to an M7 though.

 

Things that I would like, would be mechanical redundancy of the shutter speeds, no or as

little plastic as possible, sealing everywhere, to dust and water proof the camera as much

as possible. Titanium should be used wherever possible. As long as the M tradition is kept

alive, it will be only a matter of time until someone makes the Alpha and Omega of M

rangefinders. This one is not it, but it exists in my mind.

[huw_finney]

Thanks Claude, I suppose someone is going to unzip one and show us the insides, there you can realy see how well it is made. My ultimate RF VF would be a zoom, maybe with two or three steps, for 21mm to 135mm with 'unusual' framelines available (e.g. 40mm), with parralax (viewpoint) and focus (scale) correction too.

[john_layton]

Just understand that each of these requirements - mechanical redundancy, little or no

plastic, sealing from elements, lots of titanium, etc., has a price tag. Implementing these

changes while trying to stay within a specific price range can be very challenging. For me,

two things would be interesting: one, to see what another company could produce at the

same price point as Leica, and two, to see what both Leica and that "other company" could

produce if price were indeed no object - regardless of whether or not the resulting "Alpha

and Omega" would in fact be saleable. Finally, I'd be really interested to see if Leica could

produce anything at a lower price point without giving the impression of selling

themselves short. In other words, would there be some "intelligent design" decisions

which could be made to create an M-camera of a quality either consistent with the current

M-product line, or at least better than the CZ offering, at a cost either equal to CZ or at

least significantly lower than that of the current MP/'M7?

[andyaitken]

In fact Leica have been cost cutting (until quite recently anyway) since the M4-2 came out 30 years ago. Unless Leica start using polycarbonate body shells and fittings the only practical cheaper Leica would be a made outside of Germany meterless M6. Oh, hang on we've already had that one...

[ben z]

The problem I see for the ZI is that it is priced awfully close to a mint M7.

[nasmformyzombie]

Ben, as far as price is concerned, the Zeiss Ikon is already about one half the price of a new M7/MP. If the rumored price increase for Leica goes into effect January 1, a new Zeiss Ikon will be substantially less than one half the price of a new M7/MP. Suppose for the sake of argument that the Ikon has a better viewfinder/rangefinder than the M (as Claude reports), is easier to load film, that the M otherwise has smoother controls (shutter, film advance, film rewind), and is motor drive compatible. As long as price is a consideration, and as long as status ("Leica bling") is not a major issue, the new Zeiss looks like a very attractive alternative to the M.

[low light]

I handled an M6 for the first time in B&H a few weeks ago. Things I noted...

1. Very good build quality, although not as good as Eos 1v or F5.

2. Fantastic viewfinder, the only RF i've used is a Bessa R.

3. Quiet, although certainty NOT silent! My Canonet QL17 is quieter.

 

The price was out of my budget but I sooooo want one! But I'm going to look at the Zeiss Ikon first to see how they compare before I part with the best part of a month's salary.

[ben z]

<i>Gary Williams Photo.net Patron, nov 07, 2005; 01:21 p.m.

Ben, as far as price is concerned, the Zeiss Ikon is already about one half the price of a new M7/MP. If the rumored price increase for Leica goes into effect January 1, a new Zeiss Ikon will be substantially less than one half the price of a new M7/MP</i></p>

 

Except that if you read what I wrote I said "mint M7" not "new M7". In reality, let's face it despite all that might be said about its unique advantages, the ZI is mostly going to appeal to people who would really rather have an M7 but can't afford a new one. And among that group only those who are unequivocal about only buying brand-new wouldn't compare the ZI to a mint or demo M7, which as I said, is only a few hundred more.

[stephen_w.]

"The problem I see for the ZI is that it is priced awfully close to a mint M7."

 

But, only from a disgruntled former M7 owner who dropped his in the sea, or whatever, and didn't want to be bothered with Passport with the NIB one you brokered, thanks again. The ISO LED still blinks on occasion until I nudge the ISO dial. It often makes me miss the decisive moment, LOL. ;*)

[ben z]

Huh Stephen? I've never owned an M7 much less dropped one in the sea much less brokered one to you or anybody else. The only cameras I've sold in the last dozen years were my MP to a golfing buddy and my R8 to a neighbor's cousin, both back home in Chicago.

[will_perlis]

"the ZI is mostly going to appeal to people who would really rather have an M7 but can't afford a new one"

 

Or perhaps to those of us waiting to see if it comes close to being what the M7 should have been. I'll know when I've had a chance to play with one.

[james_.1]

I thought the M was already made outside of Germany. :D

[nasmformyzombie]

Ben, I read your message---and as usual you're comparing apples and oranges, a new Ikon to a used M7. New vs. new the Ikon looks very attractive considering it is half the price with a larger price gap coming soon. And if the Ikon's viewfinder/rangefinder is in fact superior to Leica's, well then what is the point in a new Leica?

[c_d5]

How much does a mint 2nd hand M7 goes for? from the Japanese bic camera website, a new ZI will cost around 160,650 Japanese Yen, which translate to around USD$1400. Might be similar to a price for a mint M6. Long rangefinder base, 1/2000 shutter. I will save money to buy one.

[bill_marshall1]

Claude, thank you for a very balanced report.

 

Just to fill in the detail of the metal body. The base structure is made of aluminum in "uni-body" casting. The external cladding that you see is magnesium alloy.

[ben z]

<i>Ben, I read your message---and as usual you're comparing apples and oranges, a new Ikon to a used M7.</i></p>

 

Except we're not talking about fruit and this isn't an exercise in logic. We're talking about camera purchasing and comparing new to used is done often, whether it's the same brand (used M6 vs new MP) or different brands (used CL vs new Bessa, or new Ikon vs used M7). If you want to stand up and say there's something wrong with comparing a new camera to a mint used one that's your privilege, but it's not likely to persuade the legions of people who do it every time they consider a purchase.</p>

 

<i>New vs. new the Ikon looks very attractive considering it is half the price with a larger price gap coming soon.</i></p>

 

Absolutely, I agree 100%, never said otherwise.<//p>

 

<i>And if the Ikon's viewfinder/rangefinder is in fact superior to Leica's, well then what is the point in a new Leica?</i></p>

 

Some people just want a Leica. I'm not prepared to judge them, are you? But if that's what they want, yet can't afford a new Leica, I'm betting that all but a few will be comparing a new ZI to a mint M7, regardless of whether you think they should or not. And so, getting back to my original point, since there is only a few hundred dollars to separate them, the ZI's biggest competitor is going to be used M7s, not new ones. Again, whether or not you think that should be the case.

[bill_marshall1]

>"The problem I see for the ZI is that it is priced awfully close to a mint M7." - Ben Z.

 

I just did a quick check of half a dozen USA Leica dealers for M7s rated as mint, or near mint, or M-, or Ex++. All of them had used M7s in these categories. The price range is $2200 - $2745.

 

If you check prices for the Zi, you'll find that, thanks to the eroding US dollar, the $1617 USA price is the highest in the world - at least AFAIK. For example, you cam buy from a reputable dealer like Dr. Joseph Yao in Hong Kong for $1395 with a Zeiss warranty.

 

Comparing the ZI price range of $1400 - $1600 to the used M7 range of $2200 - $2700, I don't see them competing at the same price point.

 

I'm sure you can find a "minty" M7 sold here or on ebay for less than the dealer prices I've quoted, but you only have the sellers' description without verification that the camera actually is "minty." Sometimes it is & sometimes it isn't. And when it isn't, you have no recourse for a return as you normally do with a dealer It's a roll of the dice.

[m_elek]

Claude, I am going to make my own conclusion, as your comments are now meaningless, as far as I'm concerned.

 

One of your final comments/insults last week described it as "aluminum junk" and "dumb piece of crap camera." Now, you say, "the camera is a nice piece of work." That's a huge jump from "piece of crap" to "nice" -- in fact too large to be of any value to someone trying to evaluate the camera.

 

The metal used is magnesium, as described in the Zeiss Ikon FAQ. And just about every Japanese SLR since the late 1970s has used a plastic take-up spool.

[socke]

Judging from myself, a rangefinder leads inevitable to Leicalust :-)

 

But then I count my pennies and think about all the places I could visit with the cameras I have. I planned to visit Brazil in february 2007 but for variuos reasons it may be next year, so there goes another 3000 Euro for a flight and pocketmoney for three weeks in Bahia.

 

For various reasons the ZI is interesting for me, it adresses the shortcomings of the Bessa, i.e. big and bright viewfinder usable for 28mm, and is a lot cheaper than a used M6 with a one year warranty from my local dealer.

 

And for my Leicalust, I keep searching for that 1959 M2 :-)

[ben z]

<i>Comparing the ZI price range of $1400 - $1600 to the used M7 range of $2200 - $2700, I don't see them competing at the same price point.</i></p>

 

I don't recall saying they would compete at the same price point. What I said was they are close enough in price to be direct competition. I recall numerous threads where people were considering a new Bessa vs a used M2, M4-2, M4-P or even M6, costing about the same difference in dollars, and much more percentage-wise. For some people the difference would cinch the deal for the ZI, for others it'd sway them to a used M7. We won't really know for sure until the ZI is actually on dealers' shelves. I will be interested to revisit the issue then.

[roy_lahay]

What is the bottom line - would you buy a Zeiss Ikon, Claude?

[george_b1]

At the risk of being thrown out of this thread for heresy - - - - For a short three or four years, I owned a CLE, and used my M series Leica lenses on it. The CLE was Japanese, with a motherboard that finally went South. But, golly, as I took my photos, I didn't pause and wonder if the CLE was up to my Leica M4 standards. I just knew that I could use the same set of lenses on either body - - - and one had AE and the other didn't.

 

You guys remind me of a bunch of fondler and hugger perfectionists. IMHO, what you should be looking for are the differences in photographic capabilities between the Leica M bodies you now own and what the ZI will offer. Obviously, this has to wait until several hardy but competent souls can put the ZI to rugged field tests.

 

It's how you intend to use the ZI - - IF you buy one - - is what counts. The rest is wishful window dressing and, in the words of an ancient Cardinal, until the field tests are done, you are now reduced to discussing: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

 

George (The Old Fud)

[eliot_rosen1]

For me, I don't need another RF M mount film body (I use an M4P and an M7 and have plenty of Leica lenses), so someone like me would not have a good reason to look at the ZM unless it had something I really wanted beyond what the M has to offer. The ZM camera doesn't offer enough new to interest me, but a digital version in the future might. I do find the 15/2.8 ZM Distagon of interest but don't want to spend that much money. [At $ 3800 for the lens, they should throw in the finder, another $ 400].

[lee hamiel]

Anthony:

 

I own an M6 original & also an F5 Nikon - Totally different animals - And I disagree with the assesment that the F5 is better built & same with the Canon as well. It's more a matter of simplicity & machining & precision of mechanical components vs 2000 parts wherein there are a lot of circuit boards & electrical components. My son's Nikon S2 or his F or F3 would be close but still not the same as an M6 in my opinion.

 

Once you've owned one you will see that twenty-five years from now the M6 will still be sweet & you will probably have long left your F5.

 

And I really like my F5 a lot - in my opinion the best value for an AF film based camera out there.

 

Sorry Claude - I've totally disregarded your original psoting:)

 

Do miss that taxi-cab yellow Leica you once had & it was very nicely done. I probably would have gone with a Zeiss lookalike paint job at this point in time:)

 

Regards

[peter_evans4]

<p>(On handling some Leica:) <em>Things I noted... 1. Very good build quality, although not as good as Eos 1v or F5.</em></p><p>How can anyone judge build quality in this way? Of course, one can easily see that this or that Zorki hardly fits together, and that the door on a Bessa feels as if it could be folded and snapped in one's bare hands -- but otherwise?</p><p>I hazily remember some research decades ago -- or, conceivably, I'm mindlessly recycling an urban legend; some interested person is welcome to check -- that car companies found "build quality", or quality in general (or even classiness or <em>luxe</em>), was being evaluated in showrooms by the way in which doors made a satisfying baritone "kachonk" when closed, rather than a tenor or alto "kachang". So they promptly turned a lot of attention toward rather unimportant aspects of the door locks, ignoring the <em>fit</em> of the doors and of course never thinking of doing such things as galvanizing substantial parts of the car, let alone making the bodies of (more or less) stainless steel. I suggest that a lot of rapidly-perceived "build quality" can result from similarly trivial differences.</p>