m_elek

Why would you want to pay $1,000 for a 20-year-old M6 Classic that may or may not need another $200 in work when you can buy a new camera for about just a bit more?

 

A new M7 is double the price of this camera. You need to compare camera to camera. The Bessas, I expect, won't have the same long-term durability as this camera. And its tiny rangefinder base simply isn't in the same league.

 

Why would any Leica fanatic stray from the pack? This is precisely why Leica is going down the drain. The users by and large refuse to buy new gear but won't allow any other alternatives on the market. It's the same reason why they rejected the Hexar, and for the same reason this camera will have a tough go of it.

 

Your summation of the quality of the lenses is based on the "shiny chrome on the tip of the lens" -- this comment is just ridiculous. And finally, you need to stop perpetuating the rumor that this is a rebadged Bessa ("just like all the Cosina RF cameras").

weren't you the one saying that the zeiss lenses were underwhelming because they used a blue dot and had chrome on the front?

The LX1 was reviewed recently by the U.K. publication Amateur Photographer in the 15 Oct. issue. The magazine also reviewed in the same article the FZ30.

 

The FZ30 received a somewhat poor mark of 75%, being criticized for lens distortion, image noise, aggressive in-camera processing and poor RAW software.

 

The LX1 received a marginally better score of 81%. The reviewer liked its panoramic option, large 2.5-inch LCD and metal body. He did not like the lens distortion, image noise, aggressive in-camera processing and poor RAW software -- the same criticisms of the FZ30.

 

In general, he felt both cameras performed adequately only at the lowest ISO setting and small print sizes.

Cleaning marks in the form of light scratches do affect image quality. If there are just five or six, it might not be a problem. If there are many, it can cause some flare in the central part of the image or a slight degradation of sharpness.

 

I would suggest shooting a roll of transparency film as a test.

I think Leica has a typo on their site, because I measured an M6 (front to back) and I only have 32mm. I don't see any way for this camera to be 38mm -- that would be huge.

>"... the Ikon felt a lot taller/bigger in my hands than my MP or R2."

 

In fact, the Zeiss Ikon is slightly smaller than the M7.

 

Zeiss Ikon: 138mm(w) x 78mm(h) x 32mm(d), $1,617

 

Leica M7: 138mm(w) x 79.5mm(h) x 38mm(d), $3,295

Carl Zeiss AG has posted a notice on its Web site that deliveries of the camera bodies has begun.

I was just sitting here wasting more time when I thought about this whole Zeiss Ikon vs. Leica debate.

 

I find it rather curious that when Leica finally released two fairly new cameras -- the M7 and MP -- some the users were excited about the new bodies while others complained that the design hasn't changed since 1952 with the exception of its attempt to introduce a new lookb with the M5, and we all know how that ended.

 

Now we have a new kid on the block backed by a member of the "old guard" -- Carl Zeiss AG. I think that comments on the design and the camera can pretty much be summed up like this: It's not a Leica, so it's inferior.

 

So my question is this: Would Leica users prefer that there be no alternatives because there is no need for an alternative?

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that a good number of Leica users would prefer that this camera system simply go away and that me and the others should shut up (you wouldn't be the first to make that request).

 

I still think Zeiss has quite a challenge on its hands with this system.

> "For example, the Rollei RF35 only accepts 4 different lenses, the Contax 35 only accepts its own lenses and now the Ikon. The huge advantage of Leica and Voitlander is the duel <i>[sic.]</i> compatibility."<p>

 

The Rollei 35 RF accepts any M mount lens with the exception possibly of certain lenses whose element might protrude too deeply into the shutter bay. It has a limited number of frame lines visible, but an M mount on the Rollei is the same as the M mount on a Bessa R2 or a Leica M4, M5, M6, etc. -- physical dimensions.<p>

 

I don't know which Contax 35 you mean -- as there were many Yashica/Kyocera Contax cameras. And yes, they all used a proprietery mount -- just as Nikon has its own mount, Canon, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, etc.<p>

 

Now, the frame lines in the new Zeiss Ikon are matched to the Carl Zeiss lenses. Physical compatibility should be identical. For example, the ZI has frame lines for its own 85mm Sonnar but not a 90mm Leica lens. It has no framelines for a 135 because it doesn't have a 135mm lens.<p>

 

On the other side, the Leica M lacks framelines for its own new 75mm Summilux, but that doesn't mean you can't use the lens with the camera. The Leica M also doesn't have framelines for the 40mm Summicron, but the lens mounts to the camera, and plenty of people love that lens.<p>

 

And different viewfinder mag M6/M7/MP bodies contain different sets of viewfinder frames.<p>

 

So I think what you're hearing is that framelines somehow equals incompatible.<p>

> "I do think the Leica looks better and from the picture the better workmanship appears to be on the Leica."

 

That's the second most ridiculous thing I've read today.

I'm in the group that recommends a quality light meter (and the L358 fits in that category) over the SLR. While you can use the SLR, I see no reason to carry two cameras if you only plan to use one.

 

I think purchasing the optional spot finder for the L358 is a good idea. I think you'll find that to be very useful.

... oh no, it's the anonymous industry source, which is almost as reliable as "my camea rep told me ..."

Actually Paul T., the comment about quality was an unsubstantiated rumor, which the original poster than went on to explain was false after speaking with the Zeiss rep.

 

Even so, it's quitely likely that Cosina and Zeiss had different expectations when it came to product quality.

 

I agree that "be generally available" refers to the regular production, not the initial Limited Series model, which Zeiss claims to have sold out (just 1,200 cameras).

 

Jerry, which sake to you prefer? I used to have dinner with my Japanese neighbor, and he usually brought out several types of sake. By the fourth or fifth glass, I lost track of the minute differences. It was always an enjoyable evening though.

Jim's suggestion is a good one. You probably can find a used copy. John Hedgecoe also has written a number of books, and although I've never bought one, he is frequently recommended.

So the conclusion is that while it's not that bad, it's not that good either.

If you want German lenses, the Rolleiflex SL66 could be added to your list: about $800 for body, film back and 80mm Planar. 150mm Sonnar about $500 and 50mm Distagon about $700. No meter with the base SL66 model. The later SL66E had metering -- but is more money.

Compur is the brand of shutter. I have no idea what "FD" means.

 

If sounds to me like this is a Carl Zeiss Jena lens, and if true, it's likely an uncoated Triotar lens (a triplet), which would mean the camera is one of the prewar models or immediate postwar models. That is, if it's a Rolleicord and not a Rolleiflex.

 

The Triotar is a very nice lens -- not considered to be as good as the Tessar, but among triplets it's one of the better lenses. Stopped down to f/8 or smaller, it should be plenty sharp. And even wide open, it should still be OK.

 

Look here for more information:

 

http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/tlr/

Probably a fair price. It could be anything from a loose connection to a missing part in the flash synch to dirt to "who knows what else." With the older cameras, you just don't know what you're getting.

Let me qualify my remarks and say they were about the German lens makers and more specifically Zeiss. Kelly's knowledge about Kodak, as well as his technical and historical knowledge, far surpasses my own, and I certainly would defer to his his expertise.

 

Getting back to your Rolleiflex, if it's pre-WWII, I would be extremely surprised if it carried a coated lens.

Your best bet -- scan as color. Convert to grayscale. Adjust tones and then have it commercially printed.

I think Panalure has been discontinued.

Blooming - that's the term. Regarding lens coating, I don't believe it was available for consumer lenses until after WWII.

 

From what I've read, there was some wartime coating of lenses, mostly -- although not all -- for military use.

 

It would be very unusual to find a coated lens on a pre-WWII camera unless it was done by a third party or unless it was a prototype.

General guide to Zeiss lenses:<p>

 

Carl Zeiss Jena -- uncoated lens<br>

Carl Zeiss Jena with red "T" -- coated lens<br>

Zeiss-Opton with red "T" -- coated lens<br>

Carl Zeiss with red "T" -- coated lens<p>

 

Again, in general, Zeiss lenses marked in millimeters are postwar and coated, while Zeiss lenses marked in centimeters are usually prewar and not coated.<p>

 

Some people have had prewar lenses coated by a third party.<p>

 

I can't remember the name of the rainbow effect that you see, but it occurs with older uncoated lenses. Curiously, it often proves effective as a lens coating.<p>

In general, a print coming out of an inkjet printer at home falls short of the quality that you can get from a traditional b/w print.

 

However, when making enlargements, you always have issues with dust and scratches, which can't be "cloned" away.

 

With both, keeping the negative as flat as possible is essential.

 

But all things being equal, a traditional b/w print is hard to beat.

With regards to folding cameras, much depends on knowing what you are buying and more importantly the condition of the camera. For landscapes, a Tessar-equipped 6x9 is a true bargain. A coated lens is that much better, but the uncoated lenses can be excellent.