ikon see for mile & miles...

Sorry that you have to give the camera back so soon...but when you get it back again it'll be like opening yet another new toy. ;)

As for the nudes...that's *my* department. *evil grin*
 
Not going there. Nope. Not at all...

:angel:

What?

William
 
Joe,

So what is the problem with the camera? The 50/35 framelines?

Way

back alley said:
on a more serious note, the zi is repacked in it's box and then in another box and will be shipped back to california tomorrow.
kinda sad but i think it's best to get it right from the beginning.
i have 2 rolls of film taken with it that i need to process. no great art, just some snaps done as quick practice and to see what the lens looks like. i will post a few (no matter how poor) so you all can see for yourselves also.
joe
Click to expand...
 
I confess I haven't been following the rollout of the ZI too closely. But in the two accounts from new owners that I have read (Mike Elek and now Joe's), each of them have had to return their camera soon after getting it because of -- what I assume to be -- manufacturer defects. Any idea how common this has been so far?

And in case anyone wonders where this is coming from, it's from someone who has used, and adored, Zeiss lenses for many years, and who hopes the ZI will be a smashing success!
 
sircarl said:
I confess I haven't been following the rollout of the ZI too closely. But in the two accounts from new owners that I have read (Mike Elek and now Joe's), each of them have had to return their camera soon after getting it because of -- what I assume to be -- manufacturer defects. Any idea how common this has been so far?

And in case anyone wonders where this is coming from, it's from someone who has used, and adored, Zeiss lenses for many years, and who hopes the ZI will be a smashing success!
Click to expand...

I'm a bit woried, too. I'd exepected better QC from them. Two reports of defects are not much, but it's two reports from the only two owners we know here :-(
 
the only problem i had with the camera was that it did not focus at infinty, it was off.
i only noticed it because it was something that i check when i get any new to me camera.
i don't shoot landscapes/cityscapes very much, mostly street scenes at about 10 feet or less so for all practical purposes i could have continued to use the camera. but i thought it best to have it alligned properly while still new and so it would not be missed too much.
the rest of the camera semed fine. nice weight and balance and the lens felt lovely on the camera. it's a good size for focussing and very smooth to operate.
it's feels like a prestige camera.
joe
 
maybe, but with it being brand spankin' new i thought it best to hand it off to the experts.

i have done the p on my own.
 
fits with my avatar, by the way. :)

How's your health doing? I reckon you have to be careful in extremely cold weather.
 
back alley said:
the only problem i had with the camera was that it did not focus at infinty, it was off.
i only noticed it because it was something that i check when i get any new to me camera.
i don't shoot landscapes/cityscapes very much, mostly street scenes at about 10 feet or less so for all practical purposes i could have continued to use the camera. but i thought it best to have it alligned properly while still new and so it would not be missed too much.
the rest of the camera semed fine. nice weight and balance and the lens felt lovely on the camera. it's a good size for focussing and very smooth to operate.
it's feels like a prestige camera.
joe
Click to expand...

Joe, some thoughts on your misaligned rangefinder . . .

I noticed in reading Erwin Puts' ZI review that he notes that "the optical construction of the finder has it sroots in the classical M3 finder and not the current M6 design."

So, I thought that I'd look to see what Erwin has to say about the finder of the M3: "The optical construction of the M3 range/viewfinder is different from that of all successor models. It is more elaborate to build, more sensitive to shocks and abuses . . . On the other hand, it gives a very clear (if not the most contrasty) life size view that is remarkably flare free when used in adverse Lighting conditions."

There must be a reason why Zeiss chose a more elaborate - & therefore more expensive - rangefinder design rather than adopting the simpler one that Cosina already had available. I have read elsewhere that the rangefinder of the M3 has greater focusing precision. So, it would seem that they chose the focusing advantages, the clear view, & the resistance to flare over the simpler design but may have done so at the expense of it being more "sensitive." No one has ever accused the M3 of being fragile nor has it ever been considered anything other than robust, so it must have seemed that this was not a high risk.

All of the above is pure speculation on my part, but it may bear watching. Just thinking out loud . . .

Huck
 
huck, have you read zeiss fan's zeiss blog?
he has the comparison diagrams to support what you are saying.

the zeiss was easy to focus and i'm eager to see the m3 next to it.
 
It will be interesting if you learn how the first ZI got out of alignment. Hopefully a one-off problem due to some ham-handed delivery guy and not a QC problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom