Leica M6 and Zeiss Ikon

[stric]

Here is my dilemma. I would like to buy another rangefinder body (and a M mount

lens). Currently I have a Leica MP with 35mm Summilux f1.4 ASPH and I really

like the camera and the lens. M7 is at this point a bit too pricey for me but

Zeiss Ikon and M6 are viable alternatives (I used to have a Bessa R2, liked it a

lot, upgraded it with MP, then sold it; still like Leicas more). In any event

how does Zeiss Ikon compare to M6 (aside from the fact that in terms of features

it is much closer to M7). I am thinking primarily in build quality and

reliability terms. I tend to be biased toward Leica but I can't escape the fact

that Ikon appears to be an excellent alternative.

If anyone has any experience(s) with either camera please share it. Also, I

would like to hear your opinions about these two cameras and perhaps some of

your recommendations. Thanks

[paul t]

WHy do you want the second body? Is it a backup, or an alternative?<p> If a

backup, an M6 will be functionally similar to your MP and feel more familiar in

your hands. However, if you want an alternative - that feels different- the Ikon

has a better viewfinder, the metering is easier to use than the M6 diodes, and

of course it has AE, should you need it.

[Alex_Es]

Well, why don't you be sporting and try the Zeiss Ikon. It's a nice auto camera. The M6

classic and TTL are both great cameras. You won't go wrong whatever you do.

[les_lammers]

What Alex said. The ZI has an excellent VF.

[x-ray]

I have both the classic M6 and ZI as well as 3 MP's. The ZI is the best VF / RF I've ever seen including the Nikon RF's. The ZI is more of a HP finder like Nikons SLR finders where the image appears larger and it's much easier to see to the edges if you wear glasses. the ZI focuses more accurately due to a longer base and is faster to focus accurately. Mechanically I feel it will hold up under many years of professional use. It's magnesium so it's noticably lighter than the Leicas. Film advance is very smooth and the shutter is quiet but has a more metalic sound than the Leica. Loading is excellent with the swing open back and although some complain about the rewind on the bottom I have no issues with it and rewind holding the camera in the right hand and use the left to rewind. Another plus is the no burn metal shutter and higher sync speed. I always use my ZI in auto mode and have never had a bad exposure after shooting more then 100 rolls of B&W.

 

If you buy a new ZI you have a year warranty and will need no CLA as an M6 might. In my book the ZI's VF/RF is the big plus and makes the camera worth buying.

[dennis_cheng1]

M6. Better built and rather cheap now. When you need to sell it in the future, you will most likely to get most of your money back.

[vincenzo_maielli]

Hi, dear friend. If you want another manual camera, the M6 is the finest choose. Whereas, if you want an automatic and manual camera, the Zeiss Ikon ZM is an excellent choice. The rangefinder baselenght is more wide than the Leica M models and the build quality is very good, sensibly better than the VC Bessas. The Zeiss ZM lens allow very fine optical and mechanical quality.

In option, you can try to find an used M7, that allow the TTL flash capability and two mechanical shutter speed (1/60" and 1/125").

Ciao.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

"The ZI is the best VF / RF I've ever seen including the Nikon RF's. The ZI is more of a HP finder like Nikons SLR finders where the image appears larger and it's much easier to see to the edges if you wear glasses. The ZI focuses more accurately due to a longer base and is faster to focus accurately."

 

This statement is somewhat subjective, but I would agree with it on the whole as long as the ZM RF patch is placed square in front of the eye. The ZM RF patch whites out worse than any RF camera I have ever handled.

 

I have been slammed here for saying this before, but IMHO, the Zeiss Ikon ZM is no more than a redesigned Bessa with a longer RF base. The build quality is more or less equal to that of a Bessa R2/3a.

 

Do yourself a favor - for the same money or less, buy another Leica (once again, that's my opinion folks).

[robert meier]

The Nikon HP finder presents a SMALLER image than the regualr, non-HP finder.

[paddler_b]

I don't think many people would regret buying Leica, not sure if this is true about other brands. Having said that, if you have the cash and not worry about resell value maybe get ZI, redesign or not it's not a bad camera. But if money is not burning a whole in your pocket, you are ahead buying leica despite potential higher cost.

 

koorus

[ilkka_nissila]

Has anyone tried the 28/2 Leica on the Zeiss Ikon yet? I am wondering how much of the frame is blocked by the lens.

[stuart_richardson]

Assuming the frames are roughly the same, wouldn't that be constant regardless of the body?

If the frames are the same size, magnification would not affect the proportion of the

viewfinder that is blocked. So if you have access to any body with 28mm framelines and the

28/2, then you should be able determine how much of the frame is blocked.

[aaron_snell]

This is a little review comparison that photographer chris weeks did. i found it very informative

 

http://barbecuediguana.com/archives/2007/04/01/the-zeiss-ikon-and-zm-glass/

[billsr]

Emir, you say you've owned a Bessa in the past, so just go to a camera shop and examine the Zeiss Ikon. If it appears to be a rebadged Bessa ,as others have suggested, don't buy it. If you can recognize quality workmanship and design when you see it, buy the Zeiss Ikon! I have owned one for 2 years, and I love it. The viewfinder is the brightest around and the lighter weight is refreshing in the hand after a long day. It also offers some of the finest lenses to be had, at bargain prices! Best wishes, Bill

[paul t]

"IMHO, the Zeiss Ikon ZM is no more than a redesigned Bessa with a longer RF base. " <p>

You're right! apart from the viewfinder (based on that of the M3 to eliminate whiteout), the

redesigned film transport, RF base, the reworked shutter, the layout - designed-from-

scratch by a German design firm completely independent from Cosina - the shutter

button and mechanics, th film rewind, the cosmetics, and a new testing regime, the ZI is

obviously a warmed-over Bessa! Just like my Bentley is often mistaken for a VW Golf!<p>

There have been some genuine, rather than imagined, problems with the ZI - finish

deterioration on some examples, and a few arrived dead. There's real information, rather

then old folk tales,

over at rangefinderforum.com

[jose_angel]

IMO the best backup is another unit of the same camera, specially with RF cameras. If you use and like Leica MP, buy another one.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

"... designed-from-scratch by a German design firm completely independent from Cosina - the shutter button and mechanics, the film rewind, the cosmetics, and a new testing regime, the ZI is obviously a warmed-over Bessa! Just like my Bentley is often mistaken for a VW Golf!"

 

You might have a valid point (as opinions go). But a more rational comparison would be a Lincoln Towncar to a Jaguar S class or a VW Passat to an Audi A4 (or a Leica R3 to a Minolta XE7). The ZM was indeed designed by German engineers, but built by Cosina, Japan with (many) parts interchangeable with a Bessa R2/3a.

 

I will say the ZM lenses are excellent though (IMHO).

[aplumpton]

I don't have any hands-on experience with the new Zeiss-Ikon RF, but apparently the noise test on its shutter release ("Chasseur d'Images", Jan-Feb 2007 issue) is close to that of the M Leicas (excepting the noisier digital M8). Although that test review didn't include Bessa R2 or R3 models, I understand they are quite a bit noisier than the RF Leicas (certainly my Bessa T is that way).

[allison_reese2]

nice cam, does the zm come in black?

[michael_londarenko]

Emir,

 

As an owner of Zeiss Ikon I have to say that if you want reliable camera you should NOT buy Zeiss Ikon.

 

Here is why, this is from personal experience, not hearsay or anecdotal "evidence".

 

Unlike Leica the new Zeiss Ikon is more of an electronic camera than mechanical, that's pretty much the summary you should keep in mind.

 

I have dropped Ikon once from about a height of a foot to the floor. When it hit the ground I thought "darn, it's a good thing it's all metal". It was working for quite a while after that without any problems. Only much later did I notice that there was a small dent by the advance lever which I thought was no big deal.

 

On one of my most recent trips it got one more jolt while inside the bag that made it inoperable - I couldn't wind the lever (it would rotate freely), operate shutter or exposure meter.

 

So, long story short, when I sent it in for warranty repair the repair guy enlightened me - it's all business on outside and mass-production on the inside. That hit on the ground and the jolt in the bag dislodged few of the integrated circuits that simply got disconnected from each other and threw rangefinder off. It was easy fix, turnaround was one day, cost me $150 and everything works again as if nothing happened. Naturally though if you want a camera that won't quit because electronics quit - Ikon is not for you.

 

In terms of build quality Zeiss Ikon is WAY better than Bessa. I had Voigtlander Bessa R3A before I bought Ikon. In fact it's because I really liked the concept of rangefinder via Bessa that I ended up selling Bessa to buy Ikon.

 

Focusing is certainly more accurate on Ikon than on Bessa. Viewfinder is definitely better - clearer, less flare, but the RF patch whiteout does indeed happen more often than on Leicas. Shutter release is smoother and quieter. Levers are better designed. It has what I'd call a more "sure" grip than Bessa.

 

As an "auto" rangefinder it's excellent. When auto-exposure and flash is concerned it's really great. It's got SLR-style film loading which some people would prefer (but occasionally getting the spool to catch the film can get a little tricky).

 

But for me I'm going the other route now - I realized that since I can only take one camera on my trips, I need the one that is reliable and works no matter what. So, I'm going to sell my Ikon and get a Leica MP.

[allison_reese2]

i don't know which way the shutter speed dial turns on the zm, but an m6 will match the mp.

[michael_londarenko]

Allison,

 

I wouldn't really bother making a decision based on the direction of rotation of shutter speed dial on Zeiss Ikon if you know what I mean :)

I'm in office now and I self-doubt myself as to which direction the dial rotates, so I can check that when I get back home.

[michael_londarenko]

Shutter dial on Ikon turns either way - you can make a complete 360 degree circle. That's probably because it's set and controlled electronically.

 

Also, the shutter release itself is electronic and a bit difficult to judge when it would "break" when you press it. So, it happened to me quite often that I would try to half-press it just to get exposure reading but would accidentally end up releasing it. And that's despite the fact that I used it for almost a year.

 

Unlike Leica MP-3 however the wind stroke is shorter - I'd say about 30 degrees less than on MP-3.

 

Viewfinder in Ikon is definitely larger and brighter, but it doesn't mean however that if you're wearing glasses and your prescription is around -7D you will see 35mm framelines any better - I personally don't. But when you look at 50mm framelines in Zeiss Ikon and Leica MP-3 it seems as if you have more space around the framelines when looking through Ikon. This however may be deceptive, since what I hear is that on MP-3 the 50mm framelines include more film area than typical 23x35mm, it's supposedly almost 24x36mm. In Ikon the framelines are also finer, in Leica MP-3 they appear to be thicker and there is no bottom line at all. In Ikon you also see focal length selected in center of bottom line - e.g. "50" when you have 50mm lens.

 

Also, with 35mm Summicron ASPH attached to both the Leica MP-3 and Zeiss Ikon it seems that on MP-3 the lens blocks larger portion of the frame in bottom right corner than on Ikon. This could be due to longer physical rangefinder base on Ikon, but I'm not sure so if someone can verify that it would be great to know.

 

Rangefinder patch in Zeiss Ikon however has tendency to white out a lot more often than on MP-3. So, all the benefits of brighter and larger viewfinder disappear in tough lighting conditions since you can't focus at all. These include very bright outdoor lighting conditions and dim lighting indoor. I'd say that on average day I'm guaranteed to encounter this several times through the day - trouble focusing with Ikon because I barely see the rangefinder patch or I don't see it at all.

 

Now, my perception is that in Leica MP-3 the rangefinder patch itself appears to be larger than in Ikon. I can't really say whether this is really so, but it seems that way to me. Verification by other folks that have both Leica and Ikon would be helpful.

 

I'm comparing Ikon to Leica MP-3 simply because I have MP-3, I don't have M6. Since viewfinder magnification is the same though I would say that the view would be the same as well, unless there is some hidden difference between the two cameras that I'm not aware of.

 

Hope all this helps.

 

P.S. My Ikon is for sale :)

[jtdnyc]

<Also, with 35mm Summicron ASPH attached to both the Leica MP-3 and Zeiss Ikon it seems that on MP-3 the lens blocks larger portion of the frame in bottom right corner than on Ikon.>

 

If you see less of the lens in the frame in the Ikon's viewfinder, that probably means the viewfinder window is further away from the axis of the lens and thus the horizontal parallax would be greater than with the Leica.

 

Probably doesn't make a difference in practical photography, but just confirms that everything involves a trade-off.

 

I suppose you could design a camera with the viewfinder window directly over the lens, but then the full length of the rangefinder would stick way off to one side, making the camera physically larger than either the Leica or the Ikon, as the film transport mechanism would no longer be entirely beneath the rangefinder.

[michael_londarenko]

Jonathan,

 

<If you see less of the lens in the frame in the Ikon's viewfinder, that probably means the viewfinder window is further away from the axis of the lens and thus the horizontal parallax would be greater than with the Leica.>

 

Viewfinder is further away from the axis of the lens probably because as I mentioned the rangefinder base in Ikon is longer. RBL on Leica is 69.25mm. On Zeiss Ikon it is 75mm, full 5.75mm longer. Effective length on Ikon is 55.9mm (which translates into 0.745(3) viewfinder magnification). Effective length on Leica MP/MP-3 is 49.9mm.

 

Parallax error would certainly be a bit of a problem, but probably much less so than being unable to see what's in that part of the frame :)

 

As far as having viewfinder directly above the lens - that would be worse actually. You won't have much of a parallax problem but you will still be blocking part of the view and that would be with any lens, not just wide-angles. Strictly speaking with Leica MP or MP-3 for that matter if I recall correctly the viewfinder already has parallax compensation that works on the objects that are in-focus. It's the objects in the background where parallax errors become prominent for those situations where you focus relatively close (not infinity in other words).