bill_marshall1

Daniel, Hasselblad told me that they are currently sending repairs back to Cosina (in Japan) - some might be going to Germany. If the scratch does not have a noticeable effect on your pictures, you might want to continue to use it until Hasselblad starts doing the repairs themselves in New Jersey, which should be some time within the next couple of months. As long as they can do this repair in NJ, you should get a quicker turn around. Just a thought.

Zeiss has come to a general agreement with Hasselblad for them to provide service for ZI cameras & ZM lenses. However, when I inquired last week, the deal was still not finalized & they don't expect to have things up & running for at least another month - probably later.

 

You can get more details on their plans from Rich Schleuning, who is in charge of their Camera/Lens Division for Zeiss USA. He can be reached at rschleuning@zeiss.com. He is very responsive & helpful. Best of luck with your lens.

They are different versions of the same basic design. They have more in common than they have differences.

Stephen, the names are proprietary. The designs are anyone's.

 

The Nikon 50/1.4 is virtually a clone of the original Sonnar 50/1.5. The Rollei 40 is a variation on the original Sonnar.

Sorry, Fred, I'm not buying it. Nothing to do with "Zeiss talk." I've been looking at these designs for years.

 

Is your issue only with the 85's? If so, why not say that & not claim that they've been "using the terms interchangeably a while"? The "real Sonnar" was not an 85 as you claim; it was a 50 in its original design. That basic design has been adapted to applications anywhere from 40 to at least 135 - maybe longer but I can't recall at this point. It was modified initailly even in its 50 mm focal length with the introduction of modern coatings & to adapt it to different focal lengths, it has been modified again. However, when I look at a Sonnar, I see a basic design type & same for a Planar. When I look at the designs that you cite, I find it hard to believe that we're looking at the same diagrams & seeing the same thing.

Fred, Zeiss does not use the names Sonnar & Planar interchangeably. In fact, Zeiss is the only lens maker that still uses specific design types for the names which are assigned to its lenses.

Personal correspondence with Zeiss USA back in January. I was told late March/early April. So, I should ammend my comment to say 3-4 weeks, but they often run a little later than scheduled.

Not scheduled for release for another 6 weeks or so.

John, I wouldn't really call the rangefinder on the MP a "redesign" - more of a modification to the same basic design they've been using since the M2. The goal was to eliminate flare, not to correct rangefinder parallax. Since it is the same basic design, I wouldn't expect it to have any effect on RF parallax. I have no idea whether solving the flare problem will make the RF parallax problem easier to experience.

 

Bill

John, what you describe is called rangefinder parallax & it is a very real phenomenon. It is different than viewfinder parallax, which results from the difference between the viewing positions of the viewfinder & the lens.

 

Rangefinder parallax occurs when the eye is not properly centered in relation to the viewfinder & the rangefinder patch, i.e. the rangefinder patch is being viewed from an angle. The design of the M3 viewfinder is different than that of all succeeding Leica M viewfinders, including that of the M6. Due to its design, the M3 rangefinder patch can not be viewed from an angle; you are forced to view it from a centered position. In contrast, the later rangefinder design does allow for viewing & focusing from an angle - with the potential for unfortunate results.

 

In regard to non-Leica viewfinders I'm surprised to read that the Hexar RF is more subject to this phenomenon than "Leica M cameras" because its rangefinder design is identical to that of all Leica M's except the M3. On the other hand, the rangefinder design of the Zeiss Ikon is more like that of the M3 & is therefore similarly immune to this problem

I wouldn't be concerned about problems out of the box with a new camera. That's what warrantees are for. The problem will either be fixed for free or you will get a replacement. As you mentioned a used camera can also have problems & that means money out of pocket.

 

You should also be aware that even the best mechanical rangefinder camera can need occasional service. You can learn to fix a misaligned rangefinder yourself, which will save money on one reason for service.

 

It's hard to know how long service will be available on any film cameras - whether it's a new one or an old one from the 1950s.

Dan, no interest in selling that "garbage" lens?

Click on "Dirtribution Partners" at www.voigtlaender.de

Different design. The C/Y 15/2.8 is a fisheye.

By the way, Dan, how much do you want for the lens?

Since the boy's face is somewhat off center, you obviously moved the camera to compose after you focused on his face. Yes?

Possibly it's the lens itself that needs an adjustment. Could be focus shift.

The "Zeiss Sonnar 4/2.8" mentioned above is a Zeiss design, but it's manufactured by Rollei, so you'll find it as a Rollei Sonnar 40/2.8." I agree that it's a little gem. Compact. Great build quality. Excellent resistance to flare. Warm colors. I don't own the others.

 

I suggest that anyone who doesn't like the bokeh of the Nokton at f/1.4 compare it with the bokeh of the Summicron at f/1.4.

The 18/4 & 21/4.5 are scheduled to be released in April.

Thank you, Rich, that's just what I was looking for. Your site is amazing! Truly amazing!

Hmm . . . A brick? And I thought it was a camera. Hehe.

 

Seriously, though, what is it that makes it stronger & more solid? I know it's heavier even than an M6 & when I handled one at PhotoExpo, It "felt" solid & was thicker than a Bessa. But I don't know if the solid feel was just a factor of the weight or what. And I don't know what's responsible for the weight. It may not have anything to do with things that would make the body stronger. I know that the thickness is to provide room for the LCD screen on the back.

 

The body is cast aluminum like any other Bessa as well as a Leica, Zeiss Ikon, Nikon, Canon, or any other well built camera. The top & bottom plates are magnesium alloy just like any Bessa, or the Zeiss Ikon, or the M8. It's 10% heavier than an M8, so does that mean it's more solid & better built than an M8?

 

Does anyone know anything about the actual construction of the body - other than the nebulous "feel" -to know if it's actually more solid & better built?

I'll add another thumbs up for the Zeiss Ikon. Bought one of the first ones when they came out 14 months ago. Camera still looks like new. The finder is amazing & the shutter responds with the immediacy of a Leica.

Jerry, silver paint on plastic?? What on earth are you talking about?

Sheck Sean Reid's just published review of "28 mm lenses on the M8." Zeiss, Leica, & Cosina/Voigtlander are all covered in the review. It's a pay site but reviews are superb & it's well worth the small fee.

 

www.reidreviews.com

Paul, I'm glad to hear that your Hexar RF was finally repaired and is now up & running. Having read your posts before, I assumed that it was toast. Congratulations. I assume that you are enjoying it now.

Very nice camera. I almost bought one, but decided against the .6 magnification.