Zeiss Ikon ZM vs. SLR

What you lose going to RF from SLR:

You cannot preview depth of field.
Inaccurate framing.
No parallax.
Limited lens selection.

What you gain (or rather lose):

No mirror box and less shake
Brighter viewfinder

The 35mm SLR is the most versatile camera design ever made. The rangefinder is much more limited. If the camera design does not compliment the way you work neither statement has any meaning.
 
I have added rangefinders to my arsenal only recently. The truth is, this is the first type of camera, I am comfortable taking out with me each time I get out of my house, every day.
It will be lacking in the obvious situations: when you want to control your dof, esp with close subjects, when you will want a tele, when you need a ND grad folter or similar.

However, as 90% of my photography is in the 25/90 mm range, I find myself very happy using a RF, over an SLR. When I go out shooting "light", but seriously, I would bring a couple of RF's with a wide angle and a 50, plus a SLR with an 85.

Honestly, using lenses over 50mm on rf's is not so attractive.
ZI is a wonderful camera, and ZI lenses are really great. I use Zeiss lenses on Hasselblad and the ZF line on Nikon, and the ZM line probably beats them all.

If I were you, I would definitely keep an SLR with a macro, a longer pertrait lens and a tele, and would get a ZI with the 35mm Biogon to start with. You will discover a new degree of freedom, new way of framing, and new speed of shooting.

Take a look at my flickr page (the link at the bottom) there are 3 groups of shots from Warsaw , the first two mainly with rangefinders, and the last, from the cemetery, mainly with the Nikon and 50/2 Makro Planar - you will get the sense of what I have just said.
 
Last edited:
At one point I had 9 Zeiss/Contax lenses and 4 Contax cameras.
Eventually, I got sick of sending my cameras for repair and when Kyocera decided to stop the Contax line I decided to sell the system and move on to something else.
I am keeping an S2b and a 50mm f1.4 planar for sentimental reasons.
I got a Zeiss Ikon and a pair of lenses and could not be happier.
I did a lot of macro and telephoto work so I am about to order a 100mm f2 ZF macro planar (from popflash) and will eventualy get a 500mm Nikon lens. I plan to use the Ikon for landscape and portrait and ZF where I can not use ZM (macro and telephoto).
Appearantly the 100mm f2 macro is the best macro lens ever made. Otherwise,
ZM are better and smaller lenses than the equivalent SLR lenses.
My suggestion is to sell Contax while you can and get into ZM and ZF (FM2n/3a or F6).
Regards,
Zoran
 
For fast focusing standard lenses like 28s 35s and 50s the rangefinder cannot be beat manually. Secondly unless you can lock the mirror on a SLR it will micro shake on exposure but the rangefinder cannot do this, a big plus. Thirdly for manual fast lenses your going to get smaller glass because its mounted closer to the negative where the SLR need more space for the mirror which translates to bigger glass.


For long and short glass I like a SLR, for 28 to 50mm I like rangefinders, in the end its a very personal choice.
 
While I dont own a Zeiss Ikon ZM, I do own two russian rangefinders.

Honestly... I love my rangefinders. While I wish they had brightlines (such as the newer rangefinders like the ZM or Leica M's), i love them for their feel, performance, etc.

I mainly like to work with anywhere from 28-70mm max. to be honest. And personally I would rather work with prime lenses anyway. I hardly ever do any tele work. I really enjoy just shooting people and architecture. So for me its lovely.

There is just something about rangefinders that I enjoy. The fact that depending on your aperature its quite quick and fast to do scale focusing. Ive caught many shots using scale focusing on my rangefinder that I would have never thought I could get with my slr... (unless using one a continuous AF slr.)

But even then I just love feeling so much freer. I dont feel like people tens up as much when i take their photos with my rangefinder, and it feels just so much more compact and portable.

I guess the word im looking for is: refined.
 
I think that you'll find that Leica and like RF cameras (such as the ZM system) are very good within their appropriate range of functions, and offer a different way of seeing and composing your shots compared to any SLR. At least I find that so. I also find that within their range I can focus more accurately and focus/compose more quickly with a manual focus RF than I can with any MF or RF SLR I've used (that may be a function of the RF approach itself or may be just the way I interact with the various cameras I've tried).

But I wouldn't give up my SLRs, because they're much better for other purposes such as wildlife, sport and other such things. I think you should probably try an RF camera system to see how you react to it, and how it fits with your style of work. Fortunately, if you buy 2nd-hand then decide its not for you, so on-sell, you should be able to try things out for very little cost. Of course, if you decide you love RFs you'll probably succumb to GAS and lose all control of your wallet...but that's another story (and the risk you take).

But be that as it may, and even if you do fall for the RFs, I think you should plan to keep at least a basic SLR outfit to do those things that RFs aren't so good at.

...Mike
 
There are three circumstances where I find that my dSLR is essential.
1. Closeups.
2. Action shots in low light (such as my daughter running in a track meet at a poorly lit track). A fast, autofocus telephoto lens is great.
3. Other times when I am in a hurry and must shoot fast.

But nothing beats an RF for low light situations where flash is not allowed and a long telephoto lens is not needed. And I love the quality of the shots I get with my Leica M8 and IIIF. The compactness of RFs is a huge plus.

As said by Rico above, the two systems are complementary. Use and enjoy both?
Eric
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom