Don't know what to think of ZI

I think I gave a rather curt answer to your first inquiry.

Sherm makes a good point. And to build on what he said, give some thought about which camera you really would like to buy. If it's the M7 that you really want, then don't settle for anything less.

Buying anything else could be a waste of money, because it's very likely that at some point, you'll end up with an M7. And if you buy a Bessa R2A/R3A or the Zeiss Ikon first, you will eventually sell it -- at a loss -- and then buy the M7.

Nearly any camera can have some kind of problem out of the box. Much can happen after the camera leaves the factory. It's at the mercy of the roughest handler in the delivery system. It might get very gentle treatment, or the box of cameras might be slammed onto a container ship or toppled over while being separated from other boxes.

A perusal of Internet groups will turn up complaints about the Leica MP arriving with viewfinders afflicted with internal dust. As well, there were quite a few reports of new Canon Digital Rebel owners finding that their camera had a considerable amount of dust on the sensor out of the box.

However, I will concede that Cosina has developed a poor reputation for rangefinder calibration. Whether reports of rangefinder problems with the Zeiss Ikon is a result of shipping issues or continued poor assembly and poor quality control by Cosina workers isn't yet clear. Maybe a combination.

But the issues appear to have human error involved rather than poor design.
 
If you are hankering after an M7...hold out until you can afford one. I have been there so many times with selling up and ending up with what I always had wanted! None of us are immune!
If you are concerned about reliability, it seems most issues reported with the Z1 are not reliability as such but QC or 'out of the box issues'. If you get a lemon, you can sling it back in the post. If you buy in person you can check RF alignment before leaving the store. There is a huge price difference between teh Z1 and an M7, enough for a set of ZM lenses in fact. You have to consider this from a practical perspective.

I own an MP and went for leica for the bodies not the lenses! I have mainly ZM lenses which I am very pleased with. They are just as well made as my one leica lens - 90 elmarit M...and actually smoother if I had to make a call. Performance is superb. I will admit my 50 planar is being returned for a spec of internal dust, but once sorted under warranty, that is done!
 
Huck Finn said:
I'll make you an offer right now. If you live in the Northeastern USA, I am willing to meet you at a mutually agreeable time so you can try out my ZI to see how you like it. No strings attached. My guess is that wherever you live, you might find an RFF member who will do the same. I can't, however, assuage your doubts about reliability. Only you can deal with that one. Do your research & let your best judgment prevail.

Best of luck with your decision. 🙂

Thank you for your offer. I really am tempted to to so, but I don't live close enough to take you up on it.
So, as you and many suggested - I will do more research, while trying to save more money for other options. Maybe I will come across an Ikon closer to my home. Or there is a choice to give up some features and get M6? While I really like the "package" that Ikon offers at the price - experiences of members such Avotius, where he had 3-4 duds in a row - just make me think too much.
If I didn't have my M3 - it would be soooo much easier to justify something, but as long as I have a good camera to use - it's gonna take longer.
Thanks again
 
Jano,
Thank you for your offer. I'm in Ohio, so it's a bit far. But I really appreciate everyone's help here be that advice or offer to try their camera.
Thank you everyone.
 
Made up my mind - finally

Made up my mind - finally

Well, Once again, I want to thank everyone for their advice, opinion, etc.
After serious thinking, I knew I had to compromise somewhere - either pricewise, (get that M7 and not worry), or reliability risk, with all the other issues - battery, shutter noise, etc. (and get Ikon) or lose some features and get proven camera like MP or M6.
So, as I can't justify price of M7 (while I think it's great), or MP, and really don't want to deal with possible and seem to be frequent issues of Ikon, - I decided on M6. I'll try it, most likely keep it, but if not - there is always a way to trade it to either Ikon or M7.
So, it's M6 for me. I do want to get that Zeiss 25mm Biogon though.
Thanks again everyone.
 
Krosya said:
Well, Once again, I want to thank everyone for their advice, opinion, etc.
After serious thinking, I knew I had to compromise somewhere - either pricewise, (get that M7 and not worry), or reliability risk, with all the other issues - battery, shutter noise, etc. (and get Ikon) or lose some features and get proven camera like MP or M6.
So, as I can't justify price of M7 (while I think it's great), or MP, and really don't want to deal with possible and seem to be frequent issues of Ikon, - I decided on M6. I'll try it, most likely keep it, but if not - there is always a way to trade it to either Ikon or M7.
So, it's M6 for me. I do want to get that Zeiss 25mm Biogon though.
Thanks again everyone.

Congratulations on the decision. Sometimes they're not so easy to make. You'll love the M6! 🙂
 
No regrets so far

No regrets so far

Huck Finn said:
Congratulations on the decision. Sometimes they're not so easy to make. You'll love the M6! 🙂

I think you are right. I just got one, so no real shooting experience yet, but - so far I'm pretty happy with my choice. It looks and feels good. In some ways I like it even more than M3. Time will tell how it works out in a long run.
Anyway, once again, thanks everyone for your help.
 
Leica is a religion...

Leica is a religion...

Leica is a religion. Believers often preach.

Leica owners tend to acquire the Stockholm Syndrome...bonding with the captor (cost). They defend acquisitions no matter what.

Leica collecting is an addiction. Photography has nothing to do with it.

At long last, the ZM is a credible challenger in the rangefinder faith dominated by Leica-philes. The only plausible defence is to argue myths…or spread rumours.

Photographers should choose equipment based on needs…and means. If Leica or ZM fits…buy it.
 
Frankie said:
Leica is a religion. Believers often preach.

Leica owners tend to acquire the Stockholm Syndrome...bonding with the captor (cost). They defend acquisitions no matter what.

Leica collecting is an addiction. Photography has nothing to do with it.

At long last, the ZM is a credible challenger in the rangefinder faith dominated by Leica-philes. The only plausible defence is to argue myths…or spread rumours.

Photographers should choose equipment based on needs…and means. If Leica or ZM fits…buy it.

Gee, this sounds like the stuff that Frank G. - (the guy that complained about dork bars from his pristine Leica CL) - used to write about Leicas.
 
Krosya,
I have started in rangefinders recently, but I am a sort of intensive user, since I carry a camera with me always, banging against the car door, shooting winter and summer in the morning and evening.
I have an M7, a ZI, a R3A, R4A and a Bessa L. The Bessas are nice cameras, the R4A in particular, as it has no substitutes, but they are... economical. The VF is better than Leica, the autoexposure works well, but the rest is simply made on a budget. The M7 is a typical case of a camera made by an elderly precision mechanic - it is a great piece of metal, and it has a good display telling you what is happening to your shutter speed, etc, but the rest is 20 years behind the times. I feel the only real strong point of this camera - and this is why I bought it in the first place - is it's archaic but ultra silent shutter. the VF is plainly a joke - it is not even half as good as that of ZI and it is clearly inferior to Bessa VF as well. The film loading scheme is a monument to arterioslerosis, and the whole thing is damned heavy. As far as I am concerned it is an inferior camera, almost in all aspects with respect to the ZI. If you want to fault the ZI with something, I feel it is the failed system to display the shutter speed in the VF in an effective way when you shoot in bright light, For the rest, when I put a Planar or a Biogon on, some good film, and I go around shooting at the widest apertures, confident in the ultra precise RF, and feel that mechanical ding when releasing the shutter, I know I can count on the results. This is a great camera, make no mistakes about it, just get it and go out shooting, you will see a new light - take a look at this one, Planar 50 wide open:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1096255141/in/set-72157601234693316/
 
Solinar said:
Gee, this sounds like the stuff that Frank G. - (the guy that complained about dork bars from his pristine Leica CL) - used to write about Leicas.



I don’t know what a “dork” bar is...perhaps “dark” bar?

In rangefinder cameras, I had used Minolta Hi-matic 7s, Zeiss Ikonta (645), Leica M4-2, Minolta CLE (not Leica CL), Konica C35, Contax G2… I became a RFF member only recently while looking into rangefinders again.

After much research, I bought a ZM with a 40mm CV Nokton (Leica cost was not the issue), while still maintaining an arsenal of trusty mechanical Nikon F, F2, FM’s.

Under the kind advisement of TomA, I immediately filed the Nokton lens claw to bring up the 35mm frame-lines, giving me 97% tight framing Nikon SLR style.

If Leica camera owners suffer from Stockholm Sydrome, then owners of photogrammetric instruments made by Wild Heerbrugg, whose name was changed to Leica in ’91 (then all owned by the same Swiss financial group) are far worse. Such "Leica"instruments, at any time in history, always cost the equivalent of a decent home…until digital technology rapidly wiped out the heavy metal machines and unreformed fanatics…while Zeiss quietly left the market in ’96. [The "last" of Leica RC-30 aerial camera cost $350k++.]

[Zeiss eventually merged its only salvageable technology--the RMK aerial camera--with Intergraph, forming Z(I Imaging. The industry called it ZI 😉 , and the new digital camera Z(I DMC].

I have dealt with Wild/Leica die-hards all my professional life. To say Leica is a religion is to put it mildly :bang: .

It is ironic that I ended up owning a ZI rather than a Leica.
 
Last edited:
From a pure rational standpoint the ZI is simply the better photographic tool than the Leica M, for reasons mentioned in other posts. And so is the Konica Hexar RF. I sold my M6 TTL and still have the ZI and the Konica. Despite this conclusion, though, once in a while I have to fight gas attacks which try to push me towards buying an MP.

😀
 
Since getting the ZI my MP is not used much. ZI is a very enjoyable camera to shoot with.
 
Solinar said:
Gee, this sounds like the stuff that Frank G. - (the guy that complained about dork bars from his pristine Leica CL) - used to write about Leicas.

pretty paranoid iea from you. i dont think that every guy who dont like leica is frank g. people have right to criticize leica you know.
 
mfogiel said:
Krosya,
I have started in rangefinders recently, but I am a sort of intensive user, since I carry a camera with me always, banging against the car door, shooting winter and summer in the morning and evening.
I have an M7, a ZI, a R3A, R4A and a Bessa L. The Bessas are nice cameras, the R4A in particular, as it has no substitutes, but they are... economical. The VF is better than Leica, the autoexposure works well, but the rest is simply made on a budget. The M7 is a typical case of a camera made by an elderly precision mechanic - it is a great piece of metal, and it has a good display telling you what is happening to your shutter speed, etc, but the rest is 20 years behind the times. I feel the only real strong point of this camera - and this is why I bought it in the first place - is it's archaic but ultra silent shutter. the VF is plainly a joke - it is not even half as good as that of ZI and it is clearly inferior to Bessa VF as well. The film loading scheme is a monument to arterioslerosis, and the whole thing is damned heavy. As far as I am concerned it is an inferior camera, almost in all aspects with respect to the ZI. If you want to fault the ZI with something, I feel it is the failed system to display the shutter speed in the VF in an effective way when you shoot in bright light, For the rest, when I put a Planar or a Biogon on, some good film, and I go around shooting at the widest apertures, confident in the ultra precise RF, and feel that mechanical ding when releasing the shutter, I know I can count on the results. This is a great camera, make no mistakes about it, just get it and go out shooting, you will see a new light - take a look at this one, Planar 50 wide open:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1096255141/in/set-72157601234693316/

I bought a ZM after looking into an M7...my intent was to use AE with manual override where necessary.

Decades of using a meterless Nikon F2 taught me a lesson or two. For any given lighting condition, there is only one "correct" combination of f-stop and shutter speed. If selecting the aperture is the priority, then let the AE shutter do the rest. There is nothing creative in setting your own.

Tripping the shutter at the decisive moment is the key and the ZM shutter feel is just beautiful...complemented by the clutter-free VF.
 
Last edited:
Bought an M7, actually found it a little difficult to shoot--hard to get good focusing shooting close and wide as I prefer. Decided to try the ZI. Like a new world, rangefinder photography became fun again. Focus is much more accurate and easier. I didn't find the shutter appreciably louder than the M7.
End of story--sold M7, kept ZI, no regrets at all, for me it was the right decision. (and I've had no reliability issues with the camera).
Best,
LJS
 
Update

Update

Well, it's been almost a year since I started this thread and I see that it's still alive 😉

So, here is what I think a year later.....
I have had my m6 all this time. I also added a Hexar RF. I really like both cameras. Each for their different abilities. Main reason I still hold on to M6 is because it is a fully mechanical camera, i.e. no battery needed for it to function. If I want AE and such, I have my Hexar, which I find to be a great camera and it's good for most things, yet if I go on a long/distant trip, I take either both or M6.
I still haven't had a chance to try a ZI, so can't really compare the two. And for all I know it may be a great camera. But I feel more at peace with M6. VF is good enough for me. I suppose that ZI may be better, but since I don't M6 and Hexar limiting, I really don't have that much interest in ZI anymore. Longer RF base is nice, I guess, but I find that M6 and even lower mag. Hexar RF is good enough for me to focus my longest lens wide open - Hexanon 90/2.8. Same goes for the fast lenses, which most of them are 50/2.0 and just one 50/1.5 J3, that I don't use much.
So, all in all, I am pretty happy with my choice. Like I said, maybe if I got to play with ZI I'd feel different, but as things are now - I really don't feel the need/desire for it. I think M6 and Hexar RF compliment each other best, as they cover each other's shortcommings very well.
Maybe if Zeiss comes out with a mechanical shutter version of ZI, sort of like Bessa R3M, I'd consider it, but till then I'm pretty much set. Actually, if I buy another RF it would be a digital more so than a film one. Future will tell......
 
Back
Top Bottom