Leica M vs Zeiss Ikon ZM

If you wear glasses, make sure you can see the meter readout on the Zeiss. I find I have to use mine either on auto and assume it's right (and it usually is) or use a hand-held meter. The meter is much easier to see with either Leicas or Bessas.
 
The design of the M3 is praised because still in 2008 the 5000 bux M8 is from the exact same design... So when a design is used for such a long time, you could bet some of us think that is a perfect one...
 
scottwallick said:
The main problem with the Zeiss Ikon is that it doesn't have a large red dot on the front and is further crippled by its "Made in Japan" engraving. These two faults exclude it from serious consideration. In other words, La ilaha illa Allah.

Compared to MP, the built quality for the Zeiss Ikon (ZI) is surely lower, yet beyond adequate and better than current Bessas. The ZI is lighter. Without batteries, the ZI does not work. The MP will. The ZI has higher max shutter and x-sync speeds. The MP has amazing ergonomics and can take a motor drive. It costs $3000 US more. The longer baseline in the ZI is negligibly superior. The finders in both are excellent. The ZI has focal lengths in its framelines in case you're an idiot.

Regarding batteries, the SR44/LR44 required by the ZI for operation are found everywhere. Around the world, I have found these batteries without issue.

I have a ZI, as does a friend. Between the two of us, neither of us have had any problems with ours. I an M6 and said pal has an MP. Neither of us had problems with our Leicas either.

A useful comparison between these two beasts would be

Metal vs. cloth shutter, e.g., sound, durability
Electronic vs. mechanical shutter, e.g., accuracy, durability

For both of which I haven't seen conclusive data suggesting one is better across applications than the other, so I can't really say.

Both are capable of excellent exposures.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, since i have both a MP and a Zeiss Ikon. The latter feels lighter, but I am not at all sure if the MP is 'sturdier'. My MP has already been to Solms for repair; fixing a burnt hole in the cloth shutter curtain. I firmly believe that the modern type of magnet actuated shutter, as in the Zeiss Ikon, are far superior to the old fashioned spring operated shutter of the MP. These modern shutters are also far more accurate. The MP shutter has to have it's regular exercise, to be able to operate accurately.

Further, the film loading system of the Zeiss ikon is easier to handle and the viewfinder is larger and better. With the exception of the shutter time indications. The figures are too small and difficult to see under certain circumstances. The 'arrow-system' of the MP seems far better.

The MP has this 'heavy sexy feel' that no other RFF camera has. Everybody that picks it up says 'wow'. Compared, the Zeiss Ikon seems far more ordinary. But a friend of mine who has a degree in 'design' - or something in that line, finds the Zeiss Ikon 'the most elegant camera' in my collection...
 
Last edited:
The MP has this 'heavy sexy feel' that no other RFF camera has. Everybody that picks it up says 'wow'. Compared, the Zeiss Ikon seems far more ordinary. But a friend of mine who has a degree in 'design' - or something in that line, finds the Zeiss Ikon 'the most elegant camera' in my collection...
Click to expand...


It's really noticable that when you hand someone any of the M's their reaction is always the same ... I think the camera's simple smooth shape really accentuates its heft!
 
There was a larger thread about this, wasn't there? Ah well, I played w/ an Ikon the other day and I'd instantely swap my Leicas for Ikons. Seriously, that VF is a whole different level. I fired it next to the M6 and I really wouldn't consider noise an issue. Plus, 1/2000 sec., AE, ...

Just thought I'd share.

martin
 
Which has the better viewfinder, an M3 or a ZI?

I will be able to answer that myself soon as I own a ZI and have an M3 on its way, but was just wondering...
 
Mechanical Leica or a pinhole camera, it is all the same to me. SLOW... If you want a street shooter you need to see your subject fast, focus fast and shoot fast. This demands AE, a good VF and a good AE system. Being able to change films fast is an extra welcome point. So is the ability to point your camera against the sun. You find all that in a ZI. The reliability issues, and RF going out of alignment - well you should expect a more recent design and 1/3rd of the cost to be somewhat less reliable. As to the Rf alignment, I had a ZI and an M7 out, sent both respectively to Solms and Oberkochen, and when they returned, the ZI was more precise. Last point: the weight... after a day with 2 Leicas hanging from my neck, it starts to be painful. If I could buy a 0.52 and a 1.0 ZI, i would certainly leave the Leicas to the fans of the red dot. A final point: my Nikon FM3A is technologically and mechanically a better camera than either the M7 or the ZI, but it is not a rangefinder...
ZI+Biogon 35/2
2189742367_e468549ba3_b.jpg
 
well Mfogiel
You spun my Head Around
Good Points ,Good Arguement...:)

been thinking of selling my 1968/ M4 and getting a ZI
your bring'n me round....:p

the M4 is built like a tank & a Beauty but Speed on the street rules
Am abit nervous about the ZI seeming more bodily Frail ......but who knows ?

Gorgeous Moody Shot BTW/mfogiel

Cheers!- H
 
Last edited:
In the last 20 years I owned an M4-2, M6, M6TTL, M6TTL and nowadays an M8, R2A and R4A.
Yesterday I saw an Zeiss Ikon ZM first time live. I was VERY impressed by the VF. I fell in love with this camera. In the evening I ordered a ZI instead an M7. Thats it.
 
Last edited:
mfogiel said:
Mechanical Leica or a pinhole camera, it is all the same to me. SLOW... If you want a street shooter you need to see your subject fast, focus fast and shoot fast. This demands AE, a good VF and a good AE system. Being able to change films fast is an extra welcome point. So is the ability to point your camera against the sun. You find all that in a ZI. The reliability issues, and RF going out of alignment - well you should expect a more recent design and 1/3rd of the cost to be somewhat less reliable. As to the Rf alignment, I had a ZI and an M7 out, sent both respectively to Solms and Oberkochen, and when they returned, the ZI was more precise. Last point: the weight... after a day with 2 Leicas hanging from my neck, it starts to be painful. If I could buy a 0.52 and a 1.0 ZI, i would certainly leave the Leicas to the fans of the red dot. A final point: my Nikon FM3A is technologically and mechanically a better camera than either the M7 or the ZI, but it is not a rangefinder...
ZI+Biogon 35/2
2189742367_e468549ba3_b.jpg
Click to expand...

A very convincing shot by the 35/2 Biogon. Very nice!
 
mfogiel said:
A final point: my Nikon FM3A is technologically and mechanically a better camera than either the M7 or the ZI, but it is not a rangefinder...
Click to expand...

I soooo agree with this comment! My Nikon FM3A's feels so much better built than my ZI's. Ohhhhh how I wish it were possible to combine an FM3A body with a ZI finder, or at least make SLR lenses the same quality and size as RF lenses :(

By the way, I love your recent B&W work, Marek! Plus you've clearly got the scanning down to a fine art - perfect.
 
Damn, just when I was kinda settled on an M4-2/P :D

I should have known, tho, as I follow Marek's work on flickr.

Earl
 
Double Negative is right -- the ZI is not frail. I've fallen on mine hard (round pebbles underfoot at night) and it is going strong. RF wasn't even out of alignment afterwards. The camera is plenty tough and solid IME. (Strap lugs are a different story, however -- mine are quite worn after less than 18 months of use.)

But, even after using the ZI exclusively for a year, I switched to an M4 for street photography. For two reasons. One was using an incident meter forces me to pay attention to the light proactively, instead of relying on the ZI's internal meter once I've already decided I want to make an exposure. I found that manual metering actually speeds up my shooting when on walkabout because I've already set exposure before I decide to shoot a frame. Of course casual shooting (when my focus is not primarily on photography) is entirely different and then I'll pick up the ZI and lazily let it do the work. :) The meter is quite accurate, especially once you know the weighting pattern (the left-center is weighted more than the right, so don't put that left side up on the sky in portrait mode unless you want it to expose for the sky).

Second was even though the ZI shutter is not particularly loud it is quite a bit more noticeable than the cloth of the M. I suspect it has to do with the metallic nature of the sound. IME, when working close to subjects, people do notice the ZI firing and will look around to locate where that sound came from. That never happens with the M because it just sounds like someone brushed a jacket sleeve or something.

I'm not saying that these reasons will/should apply for everyone, and I'm not bashing the ZI (which I use and enjoy frequently) just sharing what my particular experience and thoughts were ... so, as always YMMV.


helenhill said:
well Mfogiel
You spun my Head Around
Good Points ,Good Arguement...:)

been thinking of selling my 1968/ M4 and getting a ZI
your bring'n me round....:p

the M4 is built like a tank & a Beauty but Speed on the street rules
Am abit nervous about the ZI seeming more bodily Frail ......but who knows ?

Gorgeous Moody Shot BTW/mfogiel

Cheers!- H
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
just how much better are the ZI frame lines for 28mm compared to a 0.72 M (which I find too tight even without glasses)? What about ZI compared to the 0.58 (which I find perfect for 28mm, but a bloody expensive solution)?
 
reliability of Zeikon vs M, with story about Cosina-Bessa L

reliability of Zeikon vs M, with story about Cosina-Bessa L

Keith said:
Sorry Bill ... I should have been more specific. I just supect that if you dropped your Leica into a stream accidentally in the middle of nowhere it may just keep working if you fish it out quickly enough and let it dry. I think I can confidently predict that the Zeiss wouldn't! :p
Click to expand...

I had my Bessa L in a Filson fishing hip pouch and went wading rib deep, casting to trout and oblivious for fifteen minutes. I got back on shore, air dried it, it jammed, I took it to my camera guy who fixed it in fifteen minutes. I've shot it without a problem for two years. I know I'm lucky. It was a lake, not a river.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom