Some thoughts on the Zeiss Ikon compared to the M7

Bravo Huck! This is exactly the type of discussion I wanted to touch off. Reasonable people can disagree and so forth. Two clarifications for my part. First, the issue of titanium, the ZI uses a titanium shutter, right? That is what I was referring to (titanium versus silk). It is interesting to know that the ZI used magnesium though...I had assumed it was more aluminum, like the core of the camera.

As for the VF, what I think trips me up is that there is nothing behind the numbers in the ZI like there is in SLR's. The numbers are small and can get lost because they are not particularly bright at times compared to the scene and they appear in different places in the VF. In the SLR's they are usually solid (not a transparent overlay), at the edge of the frame, all numbers are visible, and lit by the ambient light. Or at least that is how most I have used are. I must admit that I have never owned a Nikon and have very little experience with them. I definitely don't think this is the system to adopt for a rangefinder, but I think it is more visible if nothing else. One thing I did not mention is that the Leica viewfinder display is also significantly larger. The numbers are much larger so for some people they might be easier to read.

Another thing I forgot to mention -- VF baselength! I cannot believe nobody picked up on it. Yes, one of the big advantages of the ZI is that it has a longer physical rangefinder baselength than the M cameras, and thus it can focus fast lenses and telephoto lenses better than the M cameras. It has a .74 VF with a 75 mm baselength, so it is an effective 55.9mm camera, while the Leica M's have a 68.2mm baselength and .58, .72 and .85 VF's. That means that the effective baselengths are 40.6, 49.32 and 58.52. So the descending order of precision is .85 M, ZI, .72 M, .58 M. The great irony of all this though, is that despite being so precise, the ZI shoots itself in the foot by not having the framelines for most of the lenses that this would be useful for and not making any lenses where its added baselength is really needed! The extra precision is especially useful for the 50/1, 75/1.4, 85/2, 90/2 and 135mm lenses. Of these, only the 85/2 is a Zeiss lens, and it is not even released yet. The others are all Leica, but only the 50/1 has framelines in the ZI (though the 90 should be easily usable). In any case, I find it a bit odd. Don't get me wrong, the more baselength the better, but I wish Zeiss would either make some faster lenses or add some framelines.
 
Stuart I actually have no knowledge of what the ZI shutter blades are made of other than that they are metal. I would also assume that they are metal.

I think that the saving grace for the meter display in the ZI viewfinder is that if the numbers disappear, it is only in very bright light. Do you really care what the meter is telling you when you are looking into very bright light? Either you have metered another part of the scene & have set your exposure manually or you are using exposure compensation or AE lock.

Contrast this with the M7, which is still using the rangefinder developed for the M2. Leica cheapened its rangefinder design after the M3 & is still using it. You can read Erwin Puts for the technical explanation or my article for an explanation of the ZI design at http://elekm.net/zeiss_ikon. But the bottom line is that the current Leica design creates problems with flare and rangefinder parallax. Leica claims to have solved the flare problem with new coatings. Coatings that reduce flare tend to make the finder dimmer.

So your choice is the ZI finder with numbers that potentially disappear when you don't need them or the M7 finder with a RF patch that may disappear when you do need it. After all, you still need to focus when you are looking into bright light even though you don't have to meter.

In regard to the base length, there are several factors that make this a plus even given the focal lengths that Zeiss has chosen to offer. I'll start with the least obvious first:

1. Tolerances: a long base line provides a margin for error even when you don't need its length. A Bessa or a CL may have a long enough base line for certain lenses when it is the bare minimum. In such cases, any degree to which the rangefinder is off or the tolerances to which it is built are such that iti is not spot on mean that you do not have the focusing precision you need. A simple example is that a rangefinder error of 1 mm on a 37 mm Bessa rangefinder is off by a margind of 2.7%. The same 1 mm error on a 75 mm ZI rangefinder is an error of only 1.3%. In other words the longer base line creates a smaller range of tolerance even if built to the same specification as a shorter one.

2. Mechanical advantage: Even when higher magnification increases the effective base length of a rangefinder such as on the R3A, the longer base line still offers a mechanical advantage than makes it superior. Leica understood this when it first introduced the M3. Consider that your comments about the lack of speed in the Zeiss lens line apply equally to the introduction of the M3. Back in 1954, Leica did have a 50/1.4, but they didn't have a Noctlux or anything faster than f/1.5. Their fastest 90 was f/4 & there was no 75. They still created the M3 with the longest effective base length of any camera they've ever made. Although a longer effective base length is not necessary for the Zeiss lens line, even a 35/2 lens will benefit when used at the minimum focus distance where the depth of field is less than 2 inches. The ZI rangefinder forces you to focus with the eye centered. Others like the M7 will allow you to focus with the eye slightly off center, thereby introducing rangefinder parallax. With only 1.8 inches to work with, this can make the difference between focusing on the eye or the ear. The combination of longer EBL & improved rangefinder design make the ZI a more precise focusing instrument which won't affect most situations, but will affect the outcome in certain critical situations.

3. The most obvious factor in the benefit of the longer ZI EBL of course is the fact that the camera is built in M-mount so it is not limited to its own lens line so you can use it with the Noctilux or a 90 Summicron. The only valid criticism in this regard is the lack of 75 or 135 frames. The benefit is the reduced viewfinder clutter for two focal lengths which are less often used. I would never even consider a 135 on a RF, but I'm sure some people do although I have no idea why. I do use a 75 & am still experimenting with it on the ZI. I'll let you know what I find, but for those for whom the 75 is their prime lens, the ZI may not be theor camera of choice or they may have to use an auxiliary finder just as many have to do with a 28 on a Leica M .85x or a Bessa. For everything there is a trade-off.

Off to the Green Mountains of VT . . .
Huck
 
Hi

I have the Ziess Ikon that I bought in preference to the Leica M7 as it appears to correct some of the annoying features of the M7 e.g. bottom plate film loading and removal - flash sync speed etc.
The downside is that in bright conditions it is impossible to read the manual exposure figures so in those conditions manual exposure is an impossibility without the use of a separate exposure meter.
Overall I think the Zeiss is a better camera for photographers than the M7 but the above problem is really annoying.
Zeiss should fix this foc for us all as it is a basic design fault.
Eric
 
That's point is crucial as far as I'm concerned -- a friend of mine bought the Zeiss and sold it because of this. However, the M7 is far from perfect too. A really annoying thing is the way that it's so easy to rotate the film speed dial at the back -- surely this could have been better designed? I prefer the +/- exposure compensation on the Bessa R4 to that on the M7 and the blinking diode when you set a speed other than rated speed of the film is also daft. There's about 30 years between the M5 and the M7 and still in some ways the M5 is superior!
 
Stuart, Huck,

Thank you both for your excellent comments. I wish these unbiased comments had been around when I was researching and comparing the Zeiss Ikon and M7 last year. I ended up going with the ZI, but a few months later I got a great deal on a M7, so now I use both.

I just finished a three week trip through Morocco and Scotland, where I shot extensively with both cameras. In my opinion they both have their strengths and weaknesses. While the viewfinder of the ZI is bright and clear, I like the position of exposure info on the M7 better.

And, while it doesn't effect the pictures, I just like the feel of the M7 better. I don't think the ZI feels "cheap," as some other reviewers have said in the past. Rather, I think the ZI feels good, but the M7 just feels more solid and finely tuned.

As touched on above, the AE lock is an issue that gets some people roiled up. I personally believe that pressing the shutter half way is the easiest, and thus like the M7 better in the regard. The ZI method isn't bad, but it's just not as convenient. I'm left-eyed, so to use AE lock on the ZI, I have to take the camera away from my eye. Also, ZI's AE lock lasts 60 seconds, which is good...until it's not and impacts the next shot. I think the location of the AE lock button on the Bessa R4A is better than the ZI because it is more towards the right on the back of the body--again, personal preference due to being left-eyed.

I love both of the cameras, and both work for me. Each has its quirks, but both are great cameras. However, we are all better off with more quality cameras on the market, and in the end both are light-tight boxes.

Jeff
 
Long ago I owned an M4-2 and sold it in favour of an FM.

3 years ago, I bought a ZI, then I acquired an M2 with intention of experimenting in digital retrofit. Using either camera side-by side:

What sold me immediately in the ZI was the VF. Later, I established the ZI VF is at least 1 f-stop brighter. [I used a Nikon FM mounted with a f1.4 lens as a reference standard.] Some criticize that the patch could disappear if eyeball not centered...so it should, like any fine optical instruments.

In usage, the ZI AE is proven to be reliable. I rarely use manual shutter speed these days...long knowing for any given lighting condition, there is only one correct combination anyway. There is nothing creative setting your own shutter.

The ZI RF is the best part. Focusing acuity is far better...close and far. I bench check the RF often [easy home set up]. It does not drift.

The ZI is lighter, but not flimsy; welcoming for a long day with camera around your neck without becoming a pain in the neck.

The ZI dies without battery. However, a spare set is easy to get, carry, and available anywhere cheap, even on Sunday at Dollar stores. A set lasts a long time anyway, even AE all the time.

Zeiss, Voigtlander and of course Leica all make good lenses. I use a CV 40mm/1.4 MC as my one camera/lens outfit. I don't buy the Leica glow or other myth.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom