ernesto
Well-known
Hello, all Zeiss Fans,
First I must say that at first sight this thread may sound controversial, but this is just my opinion, and can accept and respect that others can have their own.
Having said this, I will got to the point: Last Zeiss Design
I am very interested in design, and have seen many retro experiments in the last decades. One of them was the famous new beetle. Original Beetle design was outstanding because it was extremely minimal, and functional at the same time.
New Beetle copied the look with modern technology, and this produced some design contradictions that were solved stretching the functionality to fit the desired form.
Something similar has happened with Zeiss ZM cameras:
They have a ContaxII look, but in a lighter version. The film back and bottom plate was a single piece in Contax II, now current Zeiss camera have adopted a more standard option, leaving bottom plate as part of the camera body. But it is surpricing that in the new design you can see something that resembles the old mechanical knobs to close the camera back in Contax II. Although these things are no longer needed, they were a distinctive detail of Contax cameras, and now one of the knobs has been converted into the film rewind knob, and the other.... just the tripod socket. For decades Zeiss had a better position for the tripod socket compared to its main competitor Leica, which now with the M8 have corrected it! In the meantime Zeiss seems to go backwards. Perhaps a morfological (look) reason can be stronger than a functional reason in an instrument as a camera?
Another interesting detail, is the new viewfinder frame selector that resembles the self timer in the old case.
These details reveals that the LOOK was something very important at the time of designing the camera, and indeed it is very important. The controversial is that in the Old Contax II design, it was original, and in the New it is a copy. The worse thing is that the copied look do not match with modern technical features.
From the design viewpoint, I would say the new Zeiss camera is a retro design, and it can fit in the same cathegory as the New Beetle, the New Mini Cooper, the New Fiat 500, Chrysler PT Cruiser etc etc.
Ernesto
First I must say that at first sight this thread may sound controversial, but this is just my opinion, and can accept and respect that others can have their own.
Having said this, I will got to the point: Last Zeiss Design
I am very interested in design, and have seen many retro experiments in the last decades. One of them was the famous new beetle. Original Beetle design was outstanding because it was extremely minimal, and functional at the same time.
New Beetle copied the look with modern technology, and this produced some design contradictions that were solved stretching the functionality to fit the desired form.
Something similar has happened with Zeiss ZM cameras:
They have a ContaxII look, but in a lighter version. The film back and bottom plate was a single piece in Contax II, now current Zeiss camera have adopted a more standard option, leaving bottom plate as part of the camera body. But it is surpricing that in the new design you can see something that resembles the old mechanical knobs to close the camera back in Contax II. Although these things are no longer needed, they were a distinctive detail of Contax cameras, and now one of the knobs has been converted into the film rewind knob, and the other.... just the tripod socket. For decades Zeiss had a better position for the tripod socket compared to its main competitor Leica, which now with the M8 have corrected it! In the meantime Zeiss seems to go backwards. Perhaps a morfological (look) reason can be stronger than a functional reason in an instrument as a camera?
Another interesting detail, is the new viewfinder frame selector that resembles the self timer in the old case.
These details reveals that the LOOK was something very important at the time of designing the camera, and indeed it is very important. The controversial is that in the Old Contax II design, it was original, and in the New it is a copy. The worse thing is that the copied look do not match with modern technical features.
From the design viewpoint, I would say the new Zeiss camera is a retro design, and it can fit in the same cathegory as the New Beetle, the New Mini Cooper, the New Fiat 500, Chrysler PT Cruiser etc etc.
Ernesto
Mazurka
Well-known
Yes, the camera is clearly influenced by the IIa, but it was Henssler & Schultheiss who designed it, not Zeiss themselves.
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/0D17FC1AB566498DC1257229004D24DA
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/0D17FC1AB566498DC1257229004D24DA
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ernesto,ernesto said:
Sort of. Zeiss tried a number of prototypes, some even more retro. The rewind on the base was necessitated by the very long RF base, which in turn was a piece of one-upmanship against Leica. Once you have a base rewind, you can have balance problems, hence the second tripod-boss lump. Frame selector like self-timer? Yes: what else would it have looked like?
There's a limit to how much choice you have in styling an RF camera, and I think the ZI no more than nods at the old Contax in this respect. I mean, what changes would YOU make? (I'd change the meter readout -- too hard to see in bright light and in the wrong place).
Cheers,
R.
ernesto
Well-known
Roger Hicks said:
Well, If I forget about the Contax II look, I would have placed the tripod socket in the center of the baseplate! And the film rewind knob will stay in the place where it is now, but without the resemblance to the old camera. It shouldn´t protude outside the baseplate plane, so that you will have a better support!
What I mean is: Why forcing design, to make it look like something else? Be real! In fact it IS POSSIBLE to have certain resemblance without comnpromising functionality!
In my opinion this is a design nistake.
Regarding the selftimer-like knob: You just look at the Voightlander Framelines Knob, and you will realize it is in the right place, from the mechanical viewpoint. Now in the Zeiss camera, it was necesary to build a tricky mechanism to move it to the place they liked. And they liked that place because it looked like a selftimer!
You see the point?
I know that everything is possible, but clean industrial design is such in which everything is as simple as possible. Unfortunately this is not the case with Zeiss Camera.
Ernesto
Roger Hicks
Veteran
ernesto said:
To take a very simple example, I completely disagree about the position of the preview selector lever. It is in the right place on a ZI or a Leica, the wrong place on a Voigtlander (and I use all three). There's a big difference between a preview lever and a lever you set when you change lenses. To borrow your own phrase, see the point?
Mounting the rewind flush with the base would necessitate a thicker base and higher, heavier camera. I don't greatly care for the tripod boss, but equally, as RFs are normally hand-held rather than tripod mounted, I don't see it as a significant objection.
Don't get me wrong. I dislike unsuccessful retro as much as you do, especially the New Beetle and New Wini, but I don't regard the ZI as unsuccessful retro. 'Simplicity' can be invoked in a number of ways, including ergonomics; fewer parts (cheaper, less to go wrong); omitting features...
Like you, I have some interest in this, and am in fact a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, better known as the RSA. The Society's journal has a number of articles on design every year -- the Society of course offers prizes and the like -- and I really don't see the problems you do with the ZI. The meter is another matter.
Cheers,
Roger
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I had the opportunity to see the evolution of the ZM design. Initially I was shown these laser cut blocks of styrofoam and we could move pieces aeound on them to check for "proper" placement. Initially there was some discussion about the "bump" on the top to accomodate the finder. Some of the Zeiss people thought it was counter to the "retro" look. Most of us users, felt that if the finder would be as good as promised, the "bump" was small price to pay. The bottom rewind is a bit unfortunate (I disliked it on the M5 and the "compact" CL/CLE's). The body would have to bee extended considerably to accomodate a downshaft (it would have been the size of a M5).
The "retro" look is rather misleading as you can only accomodate so many variations of the rangefinder/advance and controls on a basic "block". The original Contax II/III is a mechanical wonder (and a nightmare to fix). The finder is squinty and rather user-unfriendly. The new ZM is without a doubt the best and brightes finder ever put into a rangefinder body. What I like is that the advance lever, release and shutter speed dial is in the right place and that the finder is superior to anyone elses! I can even live with the bottom rewind! My only beef with the ZM is the action of the rewind. It is considerably stiffer than on a M or Bessa. Initially I thought it was just on mine, but others that I have tried have the same rather"notchy" feel to it. My SW is the same, so it is obviously a function of the design. The actual advance is superbly smooth though.
The meter is occasionally tricky to see, particularly in bright light, but living in the Pacific North West, that only happens here infrequently!
The "retro" look is rather misleading as you can only accomodate so many variations of the rangefinder/advance and controls on a basic "block". The original Contax II/III is a mechanical wonder (and a nightmare to fix). The finder is squinty and rather user-unfriendly. The new ZM is without a doubt the best and brightes finder ever put into a rangefinder body. What I like is that the advance lever, release and shutter speed dial is in the right place and that the finder is superior to anyone elses! I can even live with the bottom rewind! My only beef with the ZM is the action of the rewind. It is considerably stiffer than on a M or Bessa. Initially I thought it was just on mine, but others that I have tried have the same rather"notchy" feel to it. My SW is the same, so it is obviously a function of the design. The actual advance is superbly smooth though.
The meter is occasionally tricky to see, particularly in bright light, but living in the Pacific North West, that only happens here infrequently!
ernesto
Well-known
Roger Hicks said:
I see Roger. I understand you are right in this point.
I haven´t thought it as for Preview.
Ernesto
Olsen
Well-known
I dont' agree that the new Zeiss Ikon is a retro design. It isn't that many ways to design a RF camera, so it just might resemble something from the past. That said, a friend of mine who has a major in 'design' sayes that my Zeiss Ikon camera is the only really beautifully designed camera I have. Compared to my Canon 1Ds II which he thinks is 'very vulgar'.
Captain
Well-known
Sorry I dont quite understand what your saying here Roger? Are you saying that the bottom rewind means you cant have a centered tripod socket?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'm saying that you can't put the camera down flat, unless you have a much thicker base or a second base boss somewhere. Sure, add a third boss, Contax-style, but I don't see the advantage, sticking with the theme of simplicity. And a boss at one end, and another in the middle, but none at the far end, would look (and probably feel) weird. A tripod socket between two bosses would foul tripods with large platforms.Captain said:
I'm not saying it's perfect: I'm just saying it's not pure retro, but is informed by other features. Long RF base > base rewind > offset tripod boss. I'm not necessarily convinced that the long base was essential, as I believe it was mostly to 'one-up' Leica, as I said.
Cheers,
R
Mazurka
Well-known
Roger Hicks said:
The Contax I and II had longer RF bases than the Barnacks and the M3 too. How dare the current Zeiss Ikon one-up the Leica yet again! They should have used a shorter RF base and offer several different finder magnifications the way God intended. Who cares if the 28mm framelines are more easily visible than those on the 0.72 Leica without reducing magnification or RF accuracy? Just move your eyeball around or take the glasses off or do both!
I'm also not necessarily convinced that the M-mount (even bigger than the Contax mount) was essential, especially when M lenses are not backwards compatible with Barnack cameras. Compared with the Barnacks, the M's body size is needlessly bulky, no doubt a side-effect of the lever-wind, larger lens mount, longer RF base, larger eyepiece with combined VF-RF, all of which were not essential and simply increase machanical complexity. Still, if Leica did it to one-up themselves, I guess it's not a problem after all.
I believe the M's 'gimmicks' (which Barnack never intended) were also meant to 'one-up' the Contax with its smaller bayonet mount, tiny eyepiece and knob-wind. However, since it's Leica who did the one-upmanship to another product, it's perfectly okay.
Last edited:
Sonnar2
Well-known
For people who use the ZI solely as a RF camera, the rewind knob isn't a bad thing. If you use 10 other RF's as well or are used to it for decades to have the rewind knob on top, it's a bit annoying. From technically point of view this is dead right IMHO because it's the only way to gain RF base length, or avoid shading the view frame with big lenses whith a large view of field finder.
I wish Cosina had used the same solution with the Bessa R3/R4 instead of this ridicoulous, useless "Leica style knob" which vanishes valuable space and get stuck when putting the camera into small pockets or cases.
regards, Frank
I wish Cosina had used the same solution with the Bessa R3/R4 instead of this ridicoulous, useless "Leica style knob" which vanishes valuable space and get stuck when putting the camera into small pockets or cases.
regards, Frank
Palaeoboy
Joel Matherson
Not if they are all the same level. Take the CL for example, it does just that and is far better balanced on a tripod that the CLE with is socket up one end.
I dont mind bottom rewind at all. I think that those who have used Leica M's for so long that they are so used to loading film from the bottom that to do a different function there just seems strange to them. Much the same as a regular film SLR users feels when they have to load a film from the base for the first time.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, that really was needed, to fit the big rear glasses of fast lenses (and some other designs) through the 'ole. The actual contax 'ole is hopelessly small and significantly restricted lens design, though the external bayonet ameliorated matters slightly. Ultra-fast lenses really needed an external mount and indeed the Canon f/0.95 adopted that approach too. But with a big enough clear internal bayonet (=M) there was no need for costly, unsightly external bayonet mounts as well.Mazurka said:
The bayonet mount is vastly more convenient than screw -- I used screw for several years before I could afford an M -- and so is auto frame indexing, so I don't think these were 'one upmanship': rather, genuine advances.
Cheers,
R.
Mazurka
Well-known
The LTM Xenon f/1.5, Hektor 73/1.9, the Summarex 85/1.5 were not that fast, I guess. The pre- and post-war 50/1.5, 85/2 and 180/2.8 Sonnars even less so. Faster lenses don't need improved glass formulations and coatings. It all comes down to the hole. Funny how there has never been an M-mount successor to the Summarex.
Of course, when it's done by Leica, it's never about one-upmanship. The pre-war Contax II had combined VF-RF and bayonet mount. Leictz waited until 1954 to introduce the same features. Sounds like catching up to me. Leica developing so many lenses based on the Planar, Tessar, Biogon and Ernostar constructions are not one-upping either -- more like a necessity?
Of course, when it's done by Leica, it's never about one-upmanship. The pre-war Contax II had combined VF-RF and bayonet mount. Leictz waited until 1954 to introduce the same features. Sounds like catching up to me. Leica developing so many lenses based on the Planar, Tessar, Biogon and Ernostar constructions are not one-upping either -- more like a necessity?
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Come on: this is special pleading pushed to extremes. It's not even particularly good special pleading: where are the Canon 50/1.2 and Nikkor 50/1.1? Or f/1.1 Zunow? Part of it, of course, is that they were not very good lenses.Mazurka said:The LTM Xenon f/1.5, Hektor 73/1.9, the Summilux 85/1.5 were not that fast, I guess. The 50/1.5, 85/2 and 180/2.8 Sonnars even less so.
Of course, when it's done by Leica, it's never about one-upmanship -- the pre-war Contax II had combined VF-RF and bayonet mount. Leica waited until 1954 to introduce the same features. Leica developing so many lenses based on the Planar, Tessar, Biogon and Ernostar constructions are not one-upping either -- more like a necessity?
Look at the vignetting with the early fast 50s and you'll see why you need a big 'ole. Ask yourself why Canon used an external bayonet for the 50/0.95. Measure the rear glass of a Noctilux -- 34.5mm, before you put the RF cam round the edge -- and it ain't going to go into a 39mm threaded 'ole. Bear in mind also that the M mount is nearer the film than a screw mount.
Reflect that many early fast lenses were triplet derivatives, not symmetrical derivatives: better for contrast, not so good for resolution. Fitting a fast symmetrical derivative through a 36mm Contax throat is a lot harder than fitting it through a 40.5mm M-mount, though they managed it with the Biotar.
'Based on Tessar' etc? Yeah, right. So Zeiss were copy-cats for splitting the rear glass of a Cooke Triplet to get a Tessar? Look at the sections in the back of Cox's Optics (the most convenient treatise I know) and you'll see how the various families evolved. Of course there was cross-fertilization, but to pretend that Leica were habitual copyists is pretty feeble. Before the Sonnars, after all, there were Meyer Kino Plasmats in the 1920s; some were even fitted, unofficially, to fixed-lens Model A Leicas.
Finally, I've talked to designers in both companies. Both freely admit that 'one-upping' and 'landmark lenses' are an essential part of the game: I'm looking forward to the realization of a few ideas Zeiss were kicking around last time I saw them. But I really don't think you can call the M-mount mere one-upmanship.
Cheers,
Roger
aoresteen
Well-known
I was sad that the ZI didn't have a motor drive/trigger coupling. I love RF cameras with motors. Bad design not to at least use the CV trigger advance.
I wish my Contax IIa had a motor on it at times.
Will I buy one? Probably not. I'd rather have a Nikon SP 2005. My MP4 & M3 MOT work just fine for me. If the ZI had a motor/trigger wind option I would consider it but for now there's no reason for me to get one.
However, I do love my ZM 50mm Planar!!!
I wish my Contax IIa had a motor on it at times.
Will I buy one? Probably not. I'd rather have a Nikon SP 2005. My MP4 & M3 MOT work just fine for me. If the ZI had a motor/trigger wind option I would consider it but for now there's no reason for me to get one.
However, I do love my ZM 50mm Planar!!!
Mazurka
Well-known
Roger, I merely follow your Leica-centric world view, that any improvement of the species outside the Church (especially those from Zeiss) is unnecessary and one-upping, even when it is an inherently more accurate and actually more user-friendly RF, the most important part in such cameras. It's good that you have finally admitted it is extreme.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
As it's a completely different camera, they didn't really have the option.aoresteen said:
I fully agree that it's a great pity there's no trigger for the ZI, but I rather suspect that the base design precludes one.
Cheers,
R.
aoresteen
Well-known
Roger Hicks said:
I think they could have done it. The rewind is on the viewfinder side and the MD coupler would be on the advance lever side. Awakward yes but possible.
It must not have been a design requirement.
I always wanted a Nikon SP type body with a flip open back and the MD4 motordrive. The MD4 motor can rewind the film.
For the SP body to take the punishment of the MD4 it would have to have been beefed up a lot. Ditto for the ZI.