Riverman
Well-known
I've just posted over on the M boards (where there's a thread discussing the relative merits of the M7 and Ikon).
Today I peered through the viewfinder of a M mount Leica for the first time in my life - albeit an M8. It was a disappointment for a wide angle fan. The widest lines were not comfortable to view.
From what I've seen and heard, the Ikon has a superb and big viewfinder. Does anyone here have both an Ikon and an M7 in their kit? How do you compare the viewfinders?
At the moment in my quest to decide between an M7 and an Ikon, the Ikon nudges ahead - without yet having seen either camera but tarring the M7 with the same brush following my disappointment with the M8 viewfinder.
Today I peered through the viewfinder of a M mount Leica for the first time in my life - albeit an M8. It was a disappointment for a wide angle fan. The widest lines were not comfortable to view.
From what I've seen and heard, the Ikon has a superb and big viewfinder. Does anyone here have both an Ikon and an M7 in their kit? How do you compare the viewfinders?
At the moment in my quest to decide between an M7 and an Ikon, the Ikon nudges ahead - without yet having seen either camera but tarring the M7 with the same brush following my disappointment with the M8 viewfinder.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
If you like to shoot wide, though, nothing is quite like the Bessa R4A.
Riverman
Well-known
Cheers for the replies. I haven't handled an Ikon yet but hope to see one soon. Most places in the UK don't seem to have it in stock.
I see you have a Mamiya 7. I use a Mamiya 6 and I really think the viewfinder spoils me - by the sounds of things though the Zeiss finder is as good as it gets for 35mm RF.
Whether I end up with an M7 or an Ikon as far as lenses go the ZM range seems incredible value. My Contax TVS has a Zeiss 28-50 lens on it and it delivers cracking negatives. Really sharp and punchy. I've no doubt that the current range of Leica M lenses are superb - but man alive are they pricey to buy new.
The guy I spoke to in the Leica store today dismissed the ZM lenses as "softer" than the Leica ones. Perhaps they have characteristics different from the Leicas but I hardly expect that they're mush. As I say - the Zeiss zoom on my Contax turns out negs that are the equal of anything I've shot on my MD Minolta lenses on my SLR. I can only imagine that the ZMs must be knock out.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I started with a .72 M7, and later had a .85 M7. I now have an Ikon. The Ikon's viewfinder is better. I don't have any issues with losing the rangefinder patch.
The Ikon is very comfortable with the 35mm framelines. The 28s, for me, required a bit of 'scanning' around the frame, so i don't use anything wider than 35. If i had to use a 28, though, i would just deal with it, rather than use an accessory finder - it's not that bad. The .85 M7 finder with a 35mm lens was like the 28 on the Ikon - made me sorta unhappy....
I've never tried a .58 Leica. For wides, you might also want to consider the Hexar RF.
The Ikon is very comfortable with the 35mm framelines. The 28s, for me, required a bit of 'scanning' around the frame, so i don't use anything wider than 35. If i had to use a 28, though, i would just deal with it, rather than use an accessory finder - it's not that bad. The .85 M7 finder with a 35mm lens was like the 28 on the Ikon - made me sorta unhappy....
I've never tried a .58 Leica. For wides, you might also want to consider the Hexar RF.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I wear eyeglasses. Here are some experiences I've had:
Ikon: 35mm lines perfect; 28mm a little tight
R4A: 28mm lines perfect; 25mm tight; 21... huh?; 50mm lines too small.
R3A: 50mm lines perfect; 40mm hard to see.
R2A: 35mm lines just a bit snug.
Canon P and Canon 7: 50mm lines perfect; 35mm hard to see.
Nikon F3HP: "Yeah, baby!"
Ikon: 35mm lines perfect; 28mm a little tight
R4A: 28mm lines perfect; 25mm tight; 21... huh?; 50mm lines too small.
R3A: 50mm lines perfect; 40mm hard to see.
R2A: 35mm lines just a bit snug.
Canon P and Canon 7: 50mm lines perfect; 35mm hard to see.
Nikon F3HP: "Yeah, baby!"
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I wear eyeglasses. Here are some experiences I've had:
Ikon: 35mm lines perfect; 28mm a little tight
R4A: 28mm lines perfect; 25mm tight; 21... huh?; 50mm lines too small.
R3A: 50mm lines perfect; 40mm hard to see.
R2A: 35mm lines just a bit snug.
Canon P and Canon 7: 50mm lines perfect; 35mm hard to see.
Nikon F3HP: "Yeah, baby!"
My experience is similar - the Ikon is a perfect 35mm camera and great with a 50 - I wear glasses. The R2M is a bit tighter, but perftectly useable with the 35 or 50.
Mike
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The guy I spoke to in the Leica store today dismissed the ZM lenses as "softer" than the Leica ones. Perhaps they have characteristics different from the Leicas but I hardly expect that they're mush. As I say - the Zeiss zoom on my Contax turns out negs that are the equal of anything I've shot on my MD Minolta lenses on my SLR. I can only imagine that the ZMs must be knock out.[/QUOTE]
The guy you spoke to does not know whereof he speaks! As with any lens line, there are difference between certain lenses. The one thing that Zeiss has managed to do is to make a line of lenses from 15mm to 85mm which is remarkable in its consistency as to resolution and contrast - one thing they are not is soft!
But one cant expect a Leica sales guy to accept the fact that apart from their latest offerings - both Zeiss and VC has bettered Leica with many lenses.
The guy you spoke to does not know whereof he speaks! As with any lens line, there are difference between certain lenses. The one thing that Zeiss has managed to do is to make a line of lenses from 15mm to 85mm which is remarkable in its consistency as to resolution and contrast - one thing they are not is soft!
But one cant expect a Leica sales guy to accept the fact that apart from their latest offerings - both Zeiss and VC has bettered Leica with many lenses.
willie_901
Veteran
The salesperson lied to you. People lie out of fear and to serve their own purposes.
If one resorts to lies/misrepresentations about a competitor's products, then one's products must have some serious short comings – such as their price-to-benefit ratio.
Even the c-Sonnar 50/1.5 which actually is dreamy and soft at f 1.5 becomes impressively sharp at f 5.6 until diffusion kicks in.
Leica lenses are clearly among the best. And Zeiss lens are excellent as well.
This is really a Porsche - Ferrari sort of issue. Would you believe a Porsche salesperson who told you Ferrari's are actually slow and have inferior brakes?
If one resorts to lies/misrepresentations about a competitor's products, then one's products must have some serious short comings – such as their price-to-benefit ratio.
Even the c-Sonnar 50/1.5 which actually is dreamy and soft at f 1.5 becomes impressively sharp at f 5.6 until diffusion kicks in.
Leica lenses are clearly among the best. And Zeiss lens are excellent as well.
This is really a Porsche - Ferrari sort of issue. Would you believe a Porsche salesperson who told you Ferrari's are actually slow and have inferior brakes?
TJV
Well-known
Why not an M7 with 0,58x viewfinder if you like the wider angles?
maddoc
... likes film again.
Last Saturday, I tried a friends ZI. (I had already tried two different ZI before) While trying to focus at different subjects of quite high contrast but in otherwise dim light (one was a non-smoking sticker on a white taxi at ~ 5m and the other an advertisement) both times the RF patch just diminished. I very well know the white-out problem of the M6 and M6TTL, which can be overcome by slightly tilting the camera but looking through the ZI VF nothing helped, tilting the camera and shifting the eye-position.
Since I had my M7 with me I could compare and there was no problem with focusing at all.
Since I had my M7 with me I could compare and there was no problem with focusing at all.
nandemofoto
Established
C'mon now maddoc, be fair! Tell everyone how many beers you've had before you had tried to focus my ZI
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
C'mon now maddoc, be fair! Tell everyone how many beers you've had before you had tried to focus my ZI
3 beers
(maybe four ....) but see it this way, having drunken 4 beers, the M7 can still be easily focused but the ZI not ...
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
3 beers
So we've established the Ikon is not the best camera for drinkers ... next challenge please!
mfogiel
Veteran
Riverman
I have the ZI and both a 0,58 and a 0.85 M7 as well as the Bessa R4A ( I wear glasses). For wide angles, the 0.85 M7 is obviously out of the game - in fact I use it basicaly for the 50mm lens. The 0.58x M7 VF looks a bit like the ZI vievfinder in a smaller and dimmer edition, it is perhaps a tiny bit more comfortable with the 28mm frames ( in fact, I use this one for the 28mm lenses). So the ZI covers easily all the tasks of a 0.58 and 0.72 M7 with the benefit of a bigger and brighter vision and a more precise focusing( it has a longer rf base). As has been mentioned above, for the 21-28 mm range the best body is the R4A, but it has this nasty backward tilt that I never have been able to get used to. As to the lenses, I have not tried many Leica ones , I shoot with current Elmarit 28 ASPH, Elmarit 90, I also use a DR Summicron, and have tried a 35mm Summilux and a 50mm Noctilux. My conclusion so far is, that Leica lenses have on average a smaller microcontrast and sometimes a less pleasant bokeh than Zeiss ( Noctilux and DR Summicron are notable exceptions for the bokeh). Often, Leica lenses are optimized for maximum sharpness wide open at the expense of other optical parameters. Zeiss on the other hand, has often made lenses which are "soft" wide open on purpose (so they say) to give a nicer rendering for portraiture, examples here could be 85/1.4 ZF or 50/1.4 ZF, and above all the 50/1.5 C Sonnar. Another nod has to go to Zeiss for flare resistance and also for the plasticity of the images. Leica on the other hand has the winning cards in the compactness and mechanical quality. So, for me it boils down to what rendering you prefer in what FL, but once you include the price into the equation, Zeiss is a clear winner, at least this is the case where comparable products exist. The Zeiss predominance in the wide angles has been long dated, and still today you can get incredible lenses for a fraction of Leica prices: just pick anything between 15 and 25mm in the ZM line and you will be delighted to use them.
I have the ZI and both a 0,58 and a 0.85 M7 as well as the Bessa R4A ( I wear glasses). For wide angles, the 0.85 M7 is obviously out of the game - in fact I use it basicaly for the 50mm lens. The 0.58x M7 VF looks a bit like the ZI vievfinder in a smaller and dimmer edition, it is perhaps a tiny bit more comfortable with the 28mm frames ( in fact, I use this one for the 28mm lenses). So the ZI covers easily all the tasks of a 0.58 and 0.72 M7 with the benefit of a bigger and brighter vision and a more precise focusing( it has a longer rf base). As has been mentioned above, for the 21-28 mm range the best body is the R4A, but it has this nasty backward tilt that I never have been able to get used to. As to the lenses, I have not tried many Leica ones , I shoot with current Elmarit 28 ASPH, Elmarit 90, I also use a DR Summicron, and have tried a 35mm Summilux and a 50mm Noctilux. My conclusion so far is, that Leica lenses have on average a smaller microcontrast and sometimes a less pleasant bokeh than Zeiss ( Noctilux and DR Summicron are notable exceptions for the bokeh). Often, Leica lenses are optimized for maximum sharpness wide open at the expense of other optical parameters. Zeiss on the other hand, has often made lenses which are "soft" wide open on purpose (so they say) to give a nicer rendering for portraiture, examples here could be 85/1.4 ZF or 50/1.4 ZF, and above all the 50/1.5 C Sonnar. Another nod has to go to Zeiss for flare resistance and also for the plasticity of the images. Leica on the other hand has the winning cards in the compactness and mechanical quality. So, for me it boils down to what rendering you prefer in what FL, but once you include the price into the equation, Zeiss is a clear winner, at least this is the case where comparable products exist. The Zeiss predominance in the wide angles has been long dated, and still today you can get incredible lenses for a fraction of Leica prices: just pick anything between 15 and 25mm in the ZM line and you will be delighted to use them.
Last edited:
Riverman
Well-known
Riverman
Well-known
Thank you for this - really valuable and appreciated. A friend has offered to lend me his M6 0.58 so I'll see how I get on with that viewfinder. I don't suppose you know whether any pre-M6 non-metered Leicas were made with 0.58 finders?