Difference Zeiss Ikon and Leica M7

M

makaroni

Hans
Local time
6:07 AM
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
3
Hello,

I am currently thinking about getting myself a Rangefinder camera, after being a little fed up with my digital gear (which is nice, but almost too "hectic" for me). I have looked at a Leica M7 and it looks quite nice. I would have to get used to it first however, since it is completly different from SLR cameras.

I only heard about the Zeiss Ikon from the Internet and had no chance to hold it in my hand.

My question to Leica and Zeiss Ikon users is: What is the big difference between those two cameras, besides weight and price? What makes the Zeiss so much cheaper. What are the internal advantages of the M7 over the Ikon? Is there any important thing that I missed by reading through the Internet?

I would especially be interested in any first hand experience and not something like "I have heard that...".

I am not really interested in the name itself, so it wont make a difference if its Zeiss or Leica or whatever. All I want is a good and reliable camera.


Regards,
Hans
 
Confuse yourself even more and look at Voigtlander too.

Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander all take the same lenses so you can mix and match.

For a first rangefinder i would recommend a Voigtlander R2A or R2M, or R3A or R3M, or wait for the upcoming (six months away) R4A or R4M. I have the R3A and is is fantastic value for a first rangefinder.
 
The Zeiss Ikon is a more basic and spartan camera than the M7. The list of things it does not have that you will find on the M7 include:

  • no DX coding
  • no TTL flash metering
  • no brass top/bottom plates
  • no mechanical back up speeds if the battery goes dead
  • shutter noise not quite as quiet & low pitched
  • long exposure times limited to 8 seconds (AE) & 1 second (manual)
  • viewfinder does not automatically adjust for brightness to ambient lighting

You will pay a higher price to have all of these extras. You will also pay more for the higher manufacturing costs in Germany. Included with a new Leica purchased from an authorized Leica dealer, you will also receive a 3-year "passport" warranty (covers everything) & a 5-year limited warranty as well as access to Leica service in your country if it exists.

What will a Zeiss Ikon give you that you won't find on an M7?

  • a brighter viewfinder with better eye relief
  • higher flash sync speed
  • one stop faster maximum shutter speed
  • hinged back for easy film loading
  • $2000+ in your pocket

In what ways will performance of the ZI match or exceed that of the M7?

  • focus accuracy of a long base rangefinder
  • minimal shutter lag, providing immediacy of response
  • AE Lock which is "permanent" (20 seconds)
  • flare free viewfinder
  • auto frame selection with preview lever

For more details, refer to Mike Elek's blog: http://elekm.net/zeiss_ikon
 
Last edited:
Welcome JJguaiguai, two new members in the same thread! And on such potentially contentious issues, now what’s the chances of that!!!
 
I've heard the M7 has a lot of [blink]blinky[/blink] lights inside :D


edit -- ah, flubbernugget, couldn't figure out how to insert html [blink] tag. I guess we have a smart admin :p
 
Last edited:
Nachkebia said:
After owning Zeiss Ikon for months I can only say go for mint used M7 (around $2600)
Click to expand...

Hi Nachkebia,

just because it's interesting for me: Why did you change your mind about the ZI? As far as I remember from your posts, you bought your ZI a few weeks before I got mine and in these days you have been pretty raving about it. Just curious, what changed your mind.



Back to topic: When comparing ZI vs. M7, I have to say, that I own the ZI (which is my first rangefinder) for quite a while now while only handling the M7 for about one day. With lenses I have the Zeiss Biogon ZM 2/35 and the Leica Summicron-M 50 (which I used for about own week but don't own cause it's one of a friend of mine).

Coming from SLRs I simply LOVE the rangefinder-thing. Focusing is a real joy if you got used to it, it's lightweight and nice to hold. Though I thought it wouldn't make a difference for me, I now also enjoy the opportunity to compose the picture with viewing what happens outside the frameline. The ZI body is very well built, easy to handle and also capable of not getting annoying when taking around the whole day.
In direct comparison against the M7 I honestly can't see, why anyone would spend so much more money for the Leica. For the very short period of time, I used the Leica, I didn't feel any difference in quality besides that the ZI is lighter (different materials). Both felt the same for me. Both are electronic devices, so I think it's not really an argument, that Leica is best-known for mechanical engineering.

Since I handled the M7 only one day, it may be, that there really is a markable difference in build quality, but in practice this wouldn't make a difference.

To make it clear: It's a completely different thing when it comes to the Leica MP. I will always dream to get one of these and am saving money to fulfill this dream, but here we talk about a full-mechanical camera body and in this case I am pretty sure, that Leica offers the best possible mechanical construction a camera can have. But when it comes to electronical devices, why would Leica be better IN PRACTICE?

By the way: I had a rangefinder misalignment with my ZI body, apparently something, which is pretty frequent with current ZI bodies. I was impressed by how quick and friendly Zeiss has been whith sending me a replacement.

Another thing are the lenses. I always loved Zeiss-glass and also love my current Biogon 2/35 (had experiences with Zeiss for Hasselblad and Nikon before). In comparison with the Summicron 50, I can't see any difference in handling and also in the resulting pictures. This is said - again - by someone who uses his equipment to take pictures, not to show anybody else MTF-charts, so I don't know, if these charts show any difference. Again, why should I spend so much more money for a lens, that does not lead to better pictures than the outstanding Zeiss glass.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Nachkebia said:
?
Photographer suposed to be person who takes pictures right? Can I see his pictures?
Click to expand...
There are a few out there. Can' remember where I saw them. Don't really want to.

(ISTR cheesy nudes.)
 
I think the decision is personal. I like the layout and controls of the ZI better than the M7. I have had -0- issues with the ZI, others have had problems...
ditto for the M7. Handle both and decide for yourself.
 
the topic of this thread is "Difference Zeiss Ikon and Leica M7"
i think this dutch guy's web site may offer some of his idea above the issue.


Nachkebia said:
?
Photographer suposed to be person who takes pictures right? Can I see his pictures?
Click to expand...

if u are interested in his work, just pick it up for his web site.
have fun :)
 
Last edited:
Les Lammers said:
I think the decision is personal. I like the layout and controls of the ZI better than the M7. I have had -0- issues with the ZI, others have had problems...
ditto for the M7. Handle both and decide for yourself.
Click to expand...

I too have had zero issues with the ZI. Others have had issues with the M7.
 
Probably you did not use ZI very frequently.... Zeiss Ikon is not very rigid body, it scratches it gets in trouble and so on, though I have no experiance with M7, all I can say my FM3a or F6 could have done better..
 
I've not used either one, but for me it all comes down to the "bottom lines" of VF brightness and reliability. The rest of the comparisons are much less important.

That's why I use a Model P--two cost me only $600.
 
Nachkebia said:
Probably you did not use ZI very frequently.... Zeiss Ikon is not very rigid body, it scratches it gets in trouble and so on, though I have no experiance with M7, all I can say my FM3a or F6 could have done better..
Click to expand...

I agree. It all depends on the use you intend to put it to. The ZI is built very well for the way I use it. For heavier duty use, I take my FM3A.
 
I agree

I agree

Bill58 said:
I've not used either one, but for me it all comes down to the "bottom lines" of VF brightness and reliability. The rest of the comparisons are much less important.

That's why I use a Model P--two cost me only $600.
Click to expand...

That is why I would just go with a R3M/R2M - save your money...
and spend it on lenses. I would go for some "classic" lenses / leica glass. Bessa are reliable and have nice bright VF.
Still if you are certain about those two cameras, I would go with the ZI...a ZI is made like a Bessa with ZI quality control, you can't go wrong with that combo and you will still save some money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom