fwellers
Member
Hello,
I've been lurking around the RF for a while now. Hopefully you'll allow me to ask a couple of beginner type questions.
I am new to photography since January. Been shooting my first non point and shoot, a D90.
I am very attracted to Rangefinders, mainly for the size. I don't like lugging around a big camera so much, but I do, I take it everywhere. I don't want to sacrifice with the quality of today's point and shoots.
I also love the quality of the film shots I've seen. I hand held an M6 and an ZI in a camera shop. I actually liked the feel of the ZI better. Plus the cost helps make the decision.
Not sure yet if RF is for me, I'm not decided fully yet. ( Lots of research to do ).
If I decide to shoot film and and RF the ZI looks real good, except I keep hearing things about how easy it is to knock the RF out of alignment. Can someone shed any light on this, because I don't want to deal with treating a camera with super kit gloves if I dont have to. Or, alternatively, if the RF does go otu of alignment, what does that mean, that it won't focus sharply until I get it fixed ?
One more quck question, I see ZI and ZM listed and talked about. What's the difference ? I only know about ZI ( Zeiss Ikon ), is there some other model ?
Thanks !!
Floyd
I've been lurking around the RF for a while now. Hopefully you'll allow me to ask a couple of beginner type questions.
I am new to photography since January. Been shooting my first non point and shoot, a D90.
I am very attracted to Rangefinders, mainly for the size. I don't like lugging around a big camera so much, but I do, I take it everywhere. I don't want to sacrifice with the quality of today's point and shoots.
I also love the quality of the film shots I've seen. I hand held an M6 and an ZI in a camera shop. I actually liked the feel of the ZI better. Plus the cost helps make the decision.
Not sure yet if RF is for me, I'm not decided fully yet. ( Lots of research to do ).
If I decide to shoot film and and RF the ZI looks real good, except I keep hearing things about how easy it is to knock the RF out of alignment. Can someone shed any light on this, because I don't want to deal with treating a camera with super kit gloves if I dont have to. Or, alternatively, if the RF does go otu of alignment, what does that mean, that it won't focus sharply until I get it fixed ?
One more quck question, I see ZI and ZM listed and talked about. What's the difference ? I only know about ZI ( Zeiss Ikon ), is there some other model ?
Thanks !!
Floyd
Welcome, Floyd! "Z-I" is the better abbreviation for Zeiss Ikon, as you mention. "ZM" is the label on the matching Zeiss lenses, referring to "Zeiss M-mount". Some here call the camera body ZM, but probably shouldn't. OTOH (on the other hand), "Zeiss Ikon" can be somewhat ambiguous, as it's a brand name that can be applied to numerous cameras of the past too. Since ZM refers to M-mount it's more specific to this unique modern Leica-compatible camera. Some have hoped it would be renamed "Contax M" or some such once the Contax name licensee's (Kyocera's) license expires. Oh well... 
One of the vulnerabilities of an RF camera is the proper alignment of the RF spot with the surrounding viewfinder image. In the 40-odd years I've had it, my Leica M2 has needed RF alignment three times, so I wouldn't hold it against the Zeiss Ikon to need adjustment occasionally either. It's often a matter of slight vertical misalignment that doesn't affect focusing accuracy. And I regretfully dropped my Konica Hexar RF and knocked it WAY out of alignment, nothing against the Konica... my fault.
One of the vulnerabilities of an RF camera is the proper alignment of the RF spot with the surrounding viewfinder image. In the 40-odd years I've had it, my Leica M2 has needed RF alignment three times, so I wouldn't hold it against the Zeiss Ikon to need adjustment occasionally either. It's often a matter of slight vertical misalignment that doesn't affect focusing accuracy. And I regretfully dropped my Konica Hexar RF and knocked it WAY out of alignment, nothing against the Konica... my fault.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I've had a ZI for over 2 years. I have not treated it with kid gloves. Even bounced against a boulder while climbing. It has never gone out of alignment.
mfogiel
Veteran
Floyd, before you plunge into the film rangefinders, ask yourself a question what you will do with your film, once exposed. This is by far the most important issue, the RF alignment is trivial in comparison. To really get the full benefit of these cameras, you should either wet print your shots, or scan on a good scanner and print on an inkjet. In both cases, if you shoot B&W you should also learn how to develop yourself. You will find lots of relevant info about all that here or on photo.net or apug.
fwellers
Member
Doug,
Thank you for your response, and the welcome ! I figured there was a good chance ZM had to do with modern ( M mount ) Ikons, but wasn't sure, and you provided that extra bonus of info.
Kshapero,
Thanks for your input too. I was kind of hoping the alignment issue wasn't as bad as it might sound to a wannabe scanning the forums. One person even said that it went out of alignment because he was "dumb" enough to leave the camera in the overhead compartment in an airplane !! Gosh, if it's that touchy, I am given pause. but it may be one of those things, you know, you can't take to heart all the problems you hear on afficionado forums.
Mfogiel,
Yes that is a good point. The whole film thing is the main reason I may decide NOT to get a film body. It's a daunting learning curve. I was thinking that I would buy a very cheap film body ( preferrably a small one ) first, just to see how it would all work out.
I see myself getting into film slowly, as in, going to Costco with my film and getting a CD of jpegs made, then later trying my hand at some light developing of b/w, making prints and just scanning chosen ones of them into digital. I don't know.
I love the look of what I see on this and other RF forums where film is king, but truthfully, right now, if Zeiss made a digital Ikon that was affordable I'd go for that. I'm not sure I would be good at waiting for rolls to be finished before processing. Not sure about a lot of things filmwise. That's probably a whole other thread ( or 10 threads ) LOL.
But it may still be worth a shot to try it out.
Thanks for the responses. Keep em coming if you like)
Thank you for your response, and the welcome ! I figured there was a good chance ZM had to do with modern ( M mount ) Ikons, but wasn't sure, and you provided that extra bonus of info.
Kshapero,
Thanks for your input too. I was kind of hoping the alignment issue wasn't as bad as it might sound to a wannabe scanning the forums.
One person even said that it went out of alignment because he was "dumb" enough to leave the camera in the overhead compartment in an airplane !! Gosh, if it's that touchy, I am given pause. but it may be one of those things, you know, you can't take to heart all the problems you hear on afficionado forums. Mfogiel,
Yes that is a good point. The whole film thing is the main reason I may decide NOT to get a film body. It's a daunting learning curve. I was thinking that I would buy a very cheap film body ( preferrably a small one ) first, just to see how it would all work out.
I see myself getting into film slowly, as in, going to Costco with my film and getting a CD of jpegs made, then later trying my hand at some light developing of b/w, making prints and just scanning chosen ones of them into digital. I don't know.
I love the look of what I see on this and other RF forums where film is king, but truthfully, right now, if Zeiss made a digital Ikon that was affordable I'd go for that. I'm not sure I would be good at waiting for rolls to be finished before processing. Not sure about a lot of things filmwise. That's probably a whole other thread ( or 10 threads ) LOL.
But it may still be worth a shot to try it out.
Thanks for the responses. Keep em coming if you like
)
kshapero
South Florida Man
I have been shooting film since Lincoln was President and although I have developed and wet print many a photo, the vast majority of my film in the last 20 years has been sent for development to a lab or Costco. Nowadays I get a CD and Post Process just like the big boys.
mfogiel
Veteran
Well, I just think that if you like shooting colour, then the film thing could be superfluous. If however you want to have a nice film experience on the cheap, you could get a Yashica GSN, a Canonet, or even a Nikon FM2 and shoot some slides. If you'd still like it, you could spend more on an ZI and a good lens or two and a good scanner. If however you like B&W, then there is no time to waste, as digital cannot match B&W film no matter what.
fwellers
Member
I love black and white. More and more of my shots taken with my D90 get converted into bw with CaptureNx2 !
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I have a ZI and it's a great camera. I knocked the alingment out on mine, but that was a result of dropping about a metre onto a very hard floor and it landed on the corner with the viewinder. It's back to Zeiss ifor a fix. I don't think though that the camera is any more fragile than any other rangefinder - otherwise it gets dragged around over my shoulder kust like the others.
A slightly less expensive (but not cheap) way in would be a secondhand Bessa R2M (or A) which I recently picked up in a bout of missing the ZI. It's actually a very nice camera too and lees expensive if it doesn't work out.
Film is good and bad. I also shoot a 1Ds3 and 5d and they offer many advantages over 35mm film. But, I still enjoy 35mm in both colour and black and white. You just have to be willing to put up with more process.
Finally, the smaller size of the rfs is a ds=istinct advantage compared with the big pro dsllr - mostly because it's easier to carry
Mike
A slightly less expensive (but not cheap) way in would be a secondhand Bessa R2M (or A) which I recently picked up in a bout of missing the ZI. It's actually a very nice camera too and lees expensive if it doesn't work out.
Film is good and bad. I also shoot a 1Ds3 and 5d and they offer many advantages over 35mm film. But, I still enjoy 35mm in both colour and black and white. You just have to be willing to put up with more process.
Finally, the smaller size of the rfs is a ds=istinct advantage compared with the big pro dsllr - mostly because it's easier to carry
Mike
fwellers
Member
You're an enabler
Thanks. I think I made up my mind that the ZI is the one.
Onto more questions, in other threads. Big giant learning curve ahead, trying to be prepared for the "leap".
Thanks. I think I made up my mind that the ZI is the one.
Onto more questions, in other threads. Big giant learning curve ahead, trying to be prepared for the "leap".
fwellers
Member
Used ?
Wait ?
You really know my buttons don't you ?
seriously I may do that. I actually will wait until I have the plan all in place, but after that I probably will do what I do best ..... lose all sense of patience and common sense and go find some new stuff.
Maybe I'll wise up on this go around. who knows.
Wait ?
You really know my buttons don't you ?
seriously I may do that. I actually will wait until I have the plan all in place, but after that I probably will do what I do best ..... lose all sense of patience and common sense and go find some new stuff.
Maybe I'll wise up on this go around. who knows.
fwellers
Member
Thanks Double. That's the game plan. , with all your all help.
, with all your all help.sojournerphoto
Veteran
Yes, I got mine unseen as well. Used with a c-sonnar and I've had no regrets. Gave me a whole new way of seeing. Since I seem to have added a 35 biogon and a couple of CV lenses. The ZM lenses are great though.
Mike
Mike
fwellers
Member
Thanks Soujourner