Should I get a ZM?

You can buy whatever camera you like, no need for endorsement from me or anyone.

I only wrote my post to explain my rationale for saying the ZI build quality is par for the course, and why it feels cheap compared to a Leica.

Specs-wise it's no doubt a capable camera, but as you said, it's the indian, not the arrow. Nevertheless, I wasn't discussing photography, but build quality.
 
back alley said:
waileong you have a history here of calling the zi cheap and referring to it as an inferior product.
we disagree. i also have the zi and owned an m3 and m4-p and the biggest difference i found between the cameras was weight.
the zi has quality materials and as far as price, leica prices are insane and they have been cheapening their products for years. glued down faceplates on lenses and plastic parts in their bodies. and they charge a premium price for workmanship that was part of the process 30 years ago but has long since been fading.
you are deluding yourself my friend.
cosina has shown the world that excellence does not have to cost and arm and a leg to enjoy.

joe
Click to expand...

I actually agree with waileong.
The MP/M7 is in a completely different 'class of quality' compared to the ZI which, in lack of better words, feels cheap. It's not crap - it's just not as good.

We all have opinions and I don't think it's fair to tell waileong that he is deluding himself as the same can very much be said about anyone using the word excellence about a ZI :)
 
theburk said:
this is true, thats why i quit using my dads old miranda and my cannon rebel. but using slower speeds can compensate for the small negative side. specificly when blowing a 35mm negative that was shot on 25 or 100 iso film up to 8x10 you still get very good results, thats where having a lens that preforms better in low light gets a little handy but for me its not as important after i saw how well i did shooting 1 sec handheld and still got perfect detail on the icons in notre dame with a rollei i think id be able to hold a little 35 steady. the idea for the zm is for when i need a camera when im being more active but my subjects arent, the rollei is great for walking around on the street but cumbersome for say climing or hiking, but using the 35 with the 120 i can put the 120 in my backpack for when i climb hills, and still use both when walking around on the street. the rollei is an amazing camera, but its square negative makes it a vignette camera, for good action and dramatic more photojournalistic pictures a 35 or 6x9 is what is realy needed. and all the 6x9s ive used are too cumbersome aside from the graflex which i would use when detail is more important or i want large blow ups. basicly i have a different camera for every different type of shooting i encounter. france kinda galvanized this idea, i used my speed graphic for larger shots, crowd shots, and the rollei for intimate vignettes and detail.

anyway rambling over.
Click to expand...

A wall of text with no captial letters?
 
You seem to have had some fine experiences with older cameras, and I think in your shoes I would be looking hard at used Leica gear. Any used Leica will have at least started toward matching your Speed Graphic's longevity. The M cameras have a track record that the recently-introduced ZI will require decades to earn.

I have been under the impression that Leica M bodies are principally brass and that the ZI is magnesium, so you may want to confirm the idea that they are both die-cast aluminum.
 
Have to second Matthew's suggestion. If you shoot with gear like Speed Graphics then you probably know which end of a lightmeter is which, so a meterless camera shouldn't hold too many fears for you. If saving a little money is an objective then a used M2 or M3 would be cheaper than the ZI, leaving more cash for the glass - which is certainly your main objective! If you follow this path I guess the M2 would make a little more sense, opening the way to a 35mm 'cron.

Having said that, if you have a yearning for a bit of automation then the ZI fits the bill perfectly. From what I've heard they won't disappoint.

Jamie
 
Just did it. After having read many of your comments I decided to order a black ZM, with the Sonar 50 from Popflash. The two wll make a nice addition to my M6, M8, Leica and CV glass. After this, there will be no camera or lens buying for me for at least the next 24 months, I decided. Unless there was I great opportunity for an MP .............?!

:D :D
 
Last edited:
congrats on the new purchase, i think you will be very pleased.

as to the 'war of the cameras' this is my last battle as i pledge to not enter into another one.
maybe we are all delusional but trying to convince people to come over to my beliefs about cameras is like trying to convince someone that chocolate is better than vanila, that coke is better than pepsi etc.
i have what i like and that's what counts for me.
i hope that others have what they like.
simple.
joe
 
This combo is wonderful - try to find out how your C Sonnar focuses at wide apertures at your usual distance for 50mm portraits, it will save you some nerves... :) I suggest trying a roll of Astia for a test shot of your preferred female model... My first roll really won me over for this lens... Have fun...
 
jamiewakeham said:
Have to second Matthew's suggestion. If you shoot with gear like Speed Graphics then you probably know which end of a lightmeter is which, so a meterless camera shouldn't hold too many fears for you. If saving a little money is an objective then a used M2 or M3 would be cheaper than the ZI, leaving more cash for the glass - which is certainly your main objective! If you follow this path I guess the M2 would make a little more sense, opening the way to a 35mm 'cron.

Having said that, if you have a yearning for a bit of automation then the ZI fits the bill perfectly. From what I've heard they won't disappoint.

Jamie
Click to expand...

meh what im wanting is something brand new that will last me awhile, if i get a used m2 while it will probably still work fine, and i could buy some new glass for it, i want to get a new fresh 35mm that is modern in terms of operation, if i cant raise the money for a ziess then i probably will do that. also yes i do know my way around a light meter, but having a built in meter is pretty handy. but ya if i cant raise the money for the ziess ill do that. but for now im aiming for the zeiss. (notice my switching of i and e)

and matthew, from zeiss.com: Camera bodyOne piece aluminium base structure. External metal covers. Tripod thread inch in base plate
 
With few exceptions, Carl Zeiss AG hasn't made a camera ... ever.

Zeiss Ikon made cameras but not lenses.

Carl Zeiss (and Carl Zeiss Jena) made lenses but not cameras (except for the East German Werra, completing production of Contarexes after the demise of Zeiss Ikon and a plate camera in the early 1900s).

The current camera is the Zeiss Ikon, not the Zeiss ZM. There is no Zeiss ZM camera. The lenses use the ZM mount, which is the Zeiss version of the M mount -- which in reality is no different from any other M mount lens.

I disagree that the Zeiss Ikon feels cheap compared with a Leica. It weighs less, but it's a very well made camera. The body has no flex to it, and fit and finish are very good. It feels different from a Leica, just as it feels different from the classic Zeiss Ikon Contax II and IIa (my all-time favorite).

My own camera had a problem with the rangefinder. Repaired under warranty, it's been fine since.
 
theburk said:
and matthew, from zeiss.com: Camera bodyOne piece aluminium base structure. External metal covers. Tripod thread inch in base plate
Click to expand...

I believe the Zeiss Ikon's frame is aluminum but the top plate is magnesium. The latest Leica camera bodies have zinc (or aluminum?) frames but brass top plates. Hence the weight difference. I should add that the Ikon feels lighter than, say, a Leica M2, but it isn't exactly a feather.

Personally, I don't understand the fetish for additional camera weight, especially if you're going to be doing a lot of street photography (as I do) or even if you just like to keep your camera with you most of the time.

I have an M3 as well as a ZI. The M3 is a great camera, but it's very heavy. I take the M3 out on a regular basis, and enjoy shooting with it. But the Ikon is the camera that stays in my bag when I'm walking around town, going to work, etc. The weight difference is the reason. And having a camera with me most of the time has increased my photography time, which, in my personal judgment, is the point of getting a camera in the first place.
 
MF Slides

MF Slides

adietrich said:
Burk,
One thing you should consider: When you "step down" from MF/LF you might be disappointed looking at the small negatives. The modern optics might be superior to the old Tessas design, but the difference becomes less important than the difference in negative size.

An alternate "investment" would be a MF slide projector. Best thing I ever bought.

Regards,
Arne
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was about to say - what you see in Rollei photos is because of the MF mostly. When you switch down to 35mm - even with Zeiss it will not hold the same effect. No to say new ZM lenses aren't good. I have a Planar and its very good. Same league as Summicron, with a different fingerfrint. Can't say if it's better, but very good.
Anyway, a sort of OT question - where do you get MF slide projector? Which one to get and are there frame mounts availible for it anyway? I'd love to try that.
 
troym said:
Personally, I don't understand the fetish for additional camera weight, especially if you're going to be doing a lot of street photography (as I do) or even if you just like to keep your camera with you most of the time.
Click to expand...
There is a practical side to it. A heavier camera can help with sharpness at slow speeds. Some people buy silver chrome Leica lenses (brass barrel & rings) for the same reason.
 
I think my Leica M4-2 is better for night photography; the extra weight keeps it more stable.

The Zeiss on the other hand is nice for general use with 35 and 28mm lenses.
 
peter_n said:
There is a practical side to it. A heavier camera can help with sharpness at slow speeds. Some people buy silver chrome Leica lenses (brass barrel & rings) for the same reason.
Click to expand...

That may well be the case, although I suppose the addition of a ball grip or side grip might provide much the same stability when needed.

I wasn't saying that added weight never has any use. I was really questioning the "it's-not-as-heavy-so-it's-not-as-good" mindset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom