peripatetic
Well-known
I have never owned a Leica, but a couple of years ago I had some money saved and went into a Leica store pretty much ready and hoping to fall in love with the M8. It surely was a thing of beauty, but as an eyeglasses wearer when I put the camera to my face I found that the whole big & bright rangefinder experience was a complete washout. It was worse than my DSLR. I was so depressed I can't tell you. I also found the camera to be much heavier than expected. Sure the lenses are tiny and light, but with such a heavy camera body...
I ended up buying a Canon 5D and 50 1.2 L instead.
Fast forward a couple of years and my yearning for a rangefinder hadn't gone away. So this April I figured I'd try the ZI and a Coolscan. What a revalation - with my glasses on I can still see and experience the joy of the rangefinder. The camera weight is just right too, and of course optics are interchangeable, but I'm very happy with the 50 Planar.
What's next? Well I certainly wouldn't rule a Leica out in future, but I will need to first move to wearing contact lenses or experiment with finding a diopter than works for me. But the whole take off your glasses, then shoot, then put them back on seems like a major hassle that I'm pretty sure I could never get used to.
I also quite like the fact that I don't immediately come off as a middle-class, middle-aged man with a Leica. Instead I'm middle-class and middle-aged with a camera that no-one's ever heard of. But people either assume is really old or is really cool. Even digerati look at it and go "cool", though often with a bemused expression as to why anyone would want to use film any more.
The notion of never needing a battery is very romantic, but you could carry about 10 spare batteries in a 35mm film canister. I have had the camera for 8 months and still going strong on the first battery. In practical terms it is a complete non-issue.
The ZI, particularly the rangefinder alignment, is quite a sensitive device however. I did manage to bang my camera into a porcelain washbasin and that knocked the RF alignmennt out, so I had to have that sorted; sent it off to Germany - which set me back £100 or so.
I ended up buying a Canon 5D and 50 1.2 L instead.
Fast forward a couple of years and my yearning for a rangefinder hadn't gone away. So this April I figured I'd try the ZI and a Coolscan. What a revalation - with my glasses on I can still see and experience the joy of the rangefinder. The camera weight is just right too, and of course optics are interchangeable, but I'm very happy with the 50 Planar.
What's next? Well I certainly wouldn't rule a Leica out in future, but I will need to first move to wearing contact lenses or experiment with finding a diopter than works for me. But the whole take off your glasses, then shoot, then put them back on seems like a major hassle that I'm pretty sure I could never get used to.
I also quite like the fact that I don't immediately come off as a middle-class, middle-aged man with a Leica. Instead I'm middle-class and middle-aged with a camera that no-one's ever heard of. But people either assume is really old or is really cool. Even digerati look at it and go "cool", though often with a bemused expression as to why anyone would want to use film any more.
The notion of never needing a battery is very romantic, but you could carry about 10 spare batteries in a 35mm film canister. I have had the camera for 8 months and still going strong on the first battery. In practical terms it is a complete non-issue.
The ZI, particularly the rangefinder alignment, is quite a sensitive device however. I did manage to bang my camera into a porcelain washbasin and that knocked the RF alignmennt out, so I had to have that sorted; sent it off to Germany - which set me back £100 or so.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I have never owned a Leica, but a couple of years ago I had some money saved and went into a Leica store pretty much ready and hoping to fall in love with the M8. It surely was a thing of beauty, but as an eyeglasses wearer when I put the camera to my face I found that the whole big & bright rangefinder experience was a complete washout. It was worse than my DSLR. I was so depressed I can't tell you. I also found the camera to be much heavier than expected. Sure the lenses are tiny and light, but with such a heavy camera body...
I ended up buying a Canon 5D and 50 1.2 L instead.
Fast forward a couple of years and my yearning for a rangefinder hadn't gone away. So this April I figured I'd try the ZI and a Coolscan. What a revalation - with my glasses on I can still see and experience the joy of the rangefinder. The camera weight is just right too, and of course optics are interchangeable, but I'm very happy with the 50 Planar.
What's next? Well I certainly wouldn't rule a Leica out in future, but I will need to first move to wearing contact lenses or experiment with finding a diopter than works for me. But the whole take off your glasses, then shoot, then put them back on seems like a major hassle that I'm pretty sure I could never get used to.
I also quite like the fact that I don't immediately come off as a middle-class, middle-aged man with a Leica. Instead I'm middle-class and middle-aged with a camera that no-one's ever heard of. But people either assume is really old or is really cool. Even digerati look at it and go "cool", though often with a bemused expression as to why anyone would want to use film any more.
I remember being at a party using my Ikon and a couple of older guys commented that it was unusual to see someone using a film rangefinder and when I showed them the camera they were even more impressed that it was a Zeiss ... until they noticed that it was made in Japan!
I found their reaction quite interesting ... the Japanese have been making cameras as good as or better than anyone in the world for a long time.
gilpen123
Gil
After handling and using an M2, IMO the RF patch and it's heft, seemingly unbreakable body plus the uncluttered VF are the better features I'd like in an RF. The ZI though I have not tried one looks like a good camera just like the VCs but if I will have to choose, I'll get the M2 anytime.
peripatetic
Well-known
No-one loves cameras more than the Japanese.
Anything that comes out of the Cosina factory needs no excuses in my view.
Anything that comes out of the Cosina factory needs no excuses in my view.
telenous
Well-known
Well, the OP asked for comparisons between the ZI and mechanical Ms, not the M7.
I don't think any ZI or Voigtlander owner has ever been called upon to defend their choice of camera. They are guiltfree, even when they cost quite a bit (over £1000 for the ZI here in the UK.) The only M that does that is the M2, and even then there's the usual litany for brand worship, obscolecence, yadda yadda, though you may get away without being called a 'dentist' or a 'lawyer'.
,
Last edited:
aizan
Veteran
everyone in rangefinderland has been put on the chopping block. it's what keeps us coming back for more!
telenous
Well-known
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I've only owned M7s, not an M6 or anything earlier. I now have an Ikon.
1. The Ikon viewfinder IS better. Even with the MP finder upgrade on the M7, the patch flared. With the Ikon, after the first few minutes of getting used to where to put my eye, i never have finder patch flareouts. It's a non-issue, and it's not a matter of being careful to center my eye. It's automatic, where as in my few years with the M7, that issue never improved.
2. If you shoot in the rain or in extreme conditions, i'd recommend a mechanical camera. But, 99% of the cameras in operation now are electronic, and i don't hear about anyone complaining about problems. Maybe i'm not listening to the right people, but it always seems to be an issue with the Leica folks and not with Olympus, Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Contax....
3. I don't worry about 'battery-dependency.' I've never run out of juice on a shoot. Batteries are smaller than film. Everything else i own/use needs power of some sort. I don't know why a camera has to be different in that respect.
4. I don't get called on to shoot in courtrooms or movie sets or churches, so the Ikon's 3% louder shutter doesn't bother me.
5. The Ikon loads more quickly and conveniently (no need to stick a baseplate in your mouth) and exposure compensation is easier and more logical.
6. The Ikon goes to 1/2000.
7. The Ikon is lighter, and unless you compare it directly to a Leica, the extra weight is no loss. If you compare the two directly, yeah, the Leica is better-built. But, the Ikon is already as well or better built than most other cameras, so again, that extra 10% is unnecessary. The Leica may be considered "overbuilt."
8. If you're worried about reliability, buy two Ikons instead of one M6. Or, get an Ikon and a Bessa with the wide angle framelines.
1. The Ikon viewfinder IS better. Even with the MP finder upgrade on the M7, the patch flared. With the Ikon, after the first few minutes of getting used to where to put my eye, i never have finder patch flareouts. It's a non-issue, and it's not a matter of being careful to center my eye. It's automatic, where as in my few years with the M7, that issue never improved.
2. If you shoot in the rain or in extreme conditions, i'd recommend a mechanical camera. But, 99% of the cameras in operation now are electronic, and i don't hear about anyone complaining about problems. Maybe i'm not listening to the right people, but it always seems to be an issue with the Leica folks and not with Olympus, Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Contax....
3. I don't worry about 'battery-dependency.' I've never run out of juice on a shoot. Batteries are smaller than film. Everything else i own/use needs power of some sort. I don't know why a camera has to be different in that respect.
4. I don't get called on to shoot in courtrooms or movie sets or churches, so the Ikon's 3% louder shutter doesn't bother me.
5. The Ikon loads more quickly and conveniently (no need to stick a baseplate in your mouth) and exposure compensation is easier and more logical.
6. The Ikon goes to 1/2000.
7. The Ikon is lighter, and unless you compare it directly to a Leica, the extra weight is no loss. If you compare the two directly, yeah, the Leica is better-built. But, the Ikon is already as well or better built than most other cameras, so again, that extra 10% is unnecessary. The Leica may be considered "overbuilt."
8. If you're worried about reliability, buy two Ikons instead of one M6. Or, get an Ikon and a Bessa with the wide angle framelines.
nightfly
Well-known
If you think you might like a Leica, you are always going to wonder if you buy something else. This is the one and only way that a Leica might be cheaper- if you add up all the cameras you bought while you were avoiding buying a Leica.
A few years ago I bough a well used M4-P. I've never wondered if I should have bought a ZI or a Cosina. In fact it was the last "real" (non point and shoot) camera I bought and it re-affirms it's value to me whenever I use it.
A few years ago I bough a well used M4-P. I've never wondered if I should have bought a ZI or a Cosina. In fact it was the last "real" (non point and shoot) camera I bought and it re-affirms it's value to me whenever I use it.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
The cameras I most enjoy using are the ones that feel "right" in my hands. This is why I have a series of M cameras and not a ZI, Hexar RF, or a Retina IIIC for that matter. This is partially learned, of course, and fairly idiosyncratic -- that is, I doubt I could articulate to another the reasons for equipment choice or ultimately convince another user that I was "right." What's the right answer for the OP? Go out there and try both, make images with both, and see which one you pick up more often. That's the good box.
Ben
Ben
astroman
-
I started my rangefnder career with a Bessa R2A.Sold it took the leica plunge (M6).Great camera,solid,feel etc.Im back to a bessa.Yes thats right.I tried the leica but I found the bessa much easier to use,film loading and the viewfinder is much better.
parsec1
parsec1
Did that a couple of months ago with a M4P 'in the middle of nowhere' fished it out dried it off and carried on using it. On returning home sent it to Leica who returned it in a couple of days saying "There was nothing they could see that needed any 'adjustment or attention' not sure if the same could be said about the M8...............Sorry Bill ... I should have been more specific. I mean purely as a device for taking photographs the Ikon is hard to beat, the viewfinder, controls, AE with excellent lock, 1/2000 shutter speed all make it superior to any Leica IMO. I just supect that if you dropped your Leica into a stream accidentally in the middle of nowhere it may just keep working if you fish it out quickly enough and let it dry. I think I can confidently predict that the Zeiss wouldn't!
parsec1
parsec1
Absolutley right. Then they were image making tools and designed to be used by 'image makers'.
Just like any craftsman has thier favorite paintbrush ,spanners or chisel or even lathe.
Now there 'designed' to wear or sit in the 'display' cabinet and be admired for what they are rather than what they can do.
Hence more and more pretty engravings and less and less sales.
Lilserenity
Well-known
Having used both, I can honestly say they are both (realising that there is more than one type of mechanical Leica M) superb cameras. We're living in good times, rangefinders are still being sold and being made by more than one company, and out of that we have a range, a good range at that for those with tighter budget in the Bessa's. Then there is the ZI, a truly excellent piece of equipment, and then Leica with a mechnical option (the MP), a auto-exposure film option (M7) and the digital M8 option.
The best way to find out, is as others have said, is to get yourself to a dealer, even if you have to travel, and try out the cameras you are interested in. As much as I can write oodles about why I like the cameras I have, there is nothing that can beat trying it out in person.
I almost a few years ago bought a Nikon F100 based on what someone told me, but when it came to it, I didn't like it -- I ended up going with an EOS 5. You have to try them out and see what works for you.
Whilst I now own a Leica M2, I'm no lawyer, nor a doctor or dentist -- just an average joanne who puts the hours in with a bit of old fashioned graft. I could mention things about the M2 which I'm finding a little irritating like the small shutter speed dial -- but that doesn't mean it's fact that it's bad, it's just one of my little observations which may or may not bother you.
But as an overall, they are both excellent as I say; and either might fit your needs, or not as the chap who bought a 5D instead said.
Finally, I'm not a complete gear-head but I'd be a liar if I said that the equipment I use isn't part of the reason I enjoy photography. I want to use sharp appropriate tools that will deliver the end results I seek in prints, reliably and in the way I envisaged them. If I bought a Holga, I'd get pictures, but not ones I want (I'm not a huge fan of lomography) so the tool does matter to an extent but only accounts for so much of the equation. The rest comes down to your eye, your vision, your ideas, your technical prowess in metering dilligently with a sound knowledge of exposure, and most of all I find -- passion and enthusiasm for your subjects.
The best way to find out, is as others have said, is to get yourself to a dealer, even if you have to travel, and try out the cameras you are interested in. As much as I can write oodles about why I like the cameras I have, there is nothing that can beat trying it out in person.
I almost a few years ago bought a Nikon F100 based on what someone told me, but when it came to it, I didn't like it -- I ended up going with an EOS 5. You have to try them out and see what works for you.
Whilst I now own a Leica M2, I'm no lawyer, nor a doctor or dentist -- just an average joanne who puts the hours in with a bit of old fashioned graft. I could mention things about the M2 which I'm finding a little irritating like the small shutter speed dial -- but that doesn't mean it's fact that it's bad, it's just one of my little observations which may or may not bother you.
But as an overall, they are both excellent as I say; and either might fit your needs, or not as the chap who bought a 5D instead said.
Finally, I'm not a complete gear-head but I'd be a liar if I said that the equipment I use isn't part of the reason I enjoy photography. I want to use sharp appropriate tools that will deliver the end results I seek in prints, reliably and in the way I envisaged them. If I bought a Holga, I'd get pictures, but not ones I want (I'm not a huge fan of lomography) so the tool does matter to an extent but only accounts for so much of the equation. The rest comes down to your eye, your vision, your ideas, your technical prowess in metering dilligently with a sound knowledge of exposure, and most of all I find -- passion and enthusiasm for your subjects.
morback
Martin N. Hinze
I just had he chance to hold an M6 .85 today at B&H and I have to say I was thoroughly underwhelmed. I expected a lot more, but I guess that's to be expected with the hype & myth surrounding the red dot.
M6 cons:
can't wear glasses
cluttered viewfinder (so many framelines!)
anachronistic film loading
no AP (but that's a personal preference thing)
M6 pros:
can't loose the patch
nice & simple exposure meter
beautifully quiet & mechanical
Holding it did not feel any different than the ZI, I did not perceive a difference in quality from handling it (as many seem to experience), but the black finish was much nicer than the ZI's (the reason why I got the silver one).
To sum it up, M6 is a nice camera, but for the same price I get AP and a much nicer viewfinder that also allows me to keep my glasses on. And those are essential assets that allows you (me) to take the picture you (I) want. I would not exchange my ZI for the M6, but, if my ZI were to somehow go belly up, then I would consider the M6 as a replacement, and only because I'm pushing more and more towards analog and manual photography.
ZI>M6
M6 cons:
can't wear glasses
cluttered viewfinder (so many framelines!)
anachronistic film loading
no AP (but that's a personal preference thing)
M6 pros:
can't loose the patch
nice & simple exposure meter
beautifully quiet & mechanical
Holding it did not feel any different than the ZI, I did not perceive a difference in quality from handling it (as many seem to experience), but the black finish was much nicer than the ZI's (the reason why I got the silver one).
To sum it up, M6 is a nice camera, but for the same price I get AP and a much nicer viewfinder that also allows me to keep my glasses on. And those are essential assets that allows you (me) to take the picture you (I) want. I would not exchange my ZI for the M6, but, if my ZI were to somehow go belly up, then I would consider the M6 as a replacement, and only because I'm pushing more and more towards analog and manual photography.
ZI>M6
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
I have had 4 Leica M cameras. I had to send 2 new bodies back for service and waited forever for return even though they did take care of it. I have had all Leica glass except the 135mm. All supurb glass. I still have an M7. I have a Zeiss 35 and am using that more and more. Thier lenses are also supurb. The viewfinder is better. Save the money, and go Zeiss.
Turtle
Veteran
there is no absolute 'better' only better for you. I love my MPs and the feel of them. They feel just right in so many regards. I love the handling and their solidity, quietness etc. The Z1 is I am sure a superb camera and really the only answer is to get your hands on them. I however bought the MP after using someone elses M2. I fell in love with the feel and needed to know no more. It can be that simple. Maybe the Z1 is better in some regards but I found wht felt right for me an then set about taking pictures.
ljsegil
Well-known
Owned an M7, bought a ZI after reading raves of the viewfinder. The M7 viewfinder (0.85) had caused me difficulty in comfortably using the camera as I wished. Fell in love with the ZI. Shooting with it was a pleasurable experience, I hadn't realized that using the M7 I had lost that pleasure as it actually felt like a task to use and not the joy it should have been. Perhaps the 0.72 viewfinder might have been better, but I don't think that was the primary issue. I just found so many aspects of the ZI suited me better than the Leica, though for this eyeglass wearer the dramatically superior viewfinder/rangefinder of the ZI (and the AE, higher maximum shutter speed, and lighter heft of the camera with a flawless (my experience) build) made a quantum difference in the shooting experience. I sold the M7 and have never looked back. Since then I have sold most of my Leica glass in favor of ZM lenses that to my eye perform at least as well as the comparable Leica offerings(not better than all of the Leica lenses however, I have retained the 50/1.4 ASPH and the 75/2.0 APO-Summicron for their sheer excellence), or just differently in the case of the 1.5/50 Sonnar ZM and at a much more favorable price. Anyway, I am a very happy ZI convert. I still shoot with a Bessa R3A and R2S as well as a Nikon SP, but none provides the sheer pleasure and ease of the ZI with a good lens kit. My desert island camera, providing the island has an extra battery or two (on my second set in three years).
LJS
LJS
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I sold my M7 and replaced it with an Ikon and have no regrets ... I never really thought that much of the M7 to be honest. I think of the current available M's they're the least appealing and to me seem to lack the feel of an M2 or M3. I put the Ikon somewhere in between, I think it's a better camera than the M7 but doesn't really come close to the build quality or tactile feel of an M2.
sircarl
Well-known
I have a ZI and find it superb for the kind of street photography I do. Very responsive, easy focusing, super viewfinder, fast loading, handy AEL and exposure compensation, etc etc. The hard-to-see shutter speed indicator is the camera's only fault, in my eyes. Having said that, I don't own any Zeiss glass -- too clinical for my taste. So I "make do" with four Hexanon and Leica lenses.