Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
Different beasts, granted. I'm interested by your thoughts however.
Namely the Pros and Cons of the ZM compared to the MECHANICAL Leica.
Not the M7 which is the obvious arch rival.
So, come on what do you think?
Benjamin
Namely the Pros and Cons of the ZM compared to the MECHANICAL Leica.
Not the M7 which is the obvious arch rival.
So, come on what do you think?
Benjamin
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
The Leica is much better built (IMHO) compared to the Zeiss Ikon. And with the Zeiss Ikon, when your bateries are dead, so is your camera. Plus, I have never bought into the Ikon's "superior" finder. It's nice and bright, yes, but you MUST center your eye in the finder or the RF patch will white out. Personally, that would drive me nuts!
Finally, the first time I picked up a Zeiss Ikon, it died while I was snapping off and listening to the shutter. It never fired again and the store owner had to return it to the distributor. Nothing like that (not even remotely) ever happened to the literally tens of dozens of M cameras I have handled and owned over the years.
Finally, the first time I picked up a Zeiss Ikon, it died while I was snapping off and listening to the shutter. It never fired again and the store owner had to return it to the distributor. Nothing like that (not even remotely) ever happened to the literally tens of dozens of M cameras I have handled and owned over the years.
thomasw_
Well-known
The mechanical simplicity, reliability and durability of the Ms is well known. The Leica M2/3/4s are in no need of any batteries. A tune up every 10 to 15 years that is it. The M2/3 VFs are awesome. The ZI vf didn't work for me, as I had trouble looking through the patch. A few others have commented the same. I do think one could get used to it, though. However, for me the killjoy of the ZI was that its RF arrived out of alignment, and I returned it; then the replacement ZI came to me out of alignment; in my view, the ZI was unreliable. I returned it and bought a MP instead. No regrets with that decision so far.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think if I was going off to a remote location and intended shooting a lot of film over an extended period I would take an M ... as much as I think the Ikon is a far superior camera it's urban in it's nature IMO. There has been just enough internet history of this camera's reliability issues to make me not trust it 100% in the described situation!
back alley
IMAGES
oh god, not this discussion, again.
scottwallick
ambition ≥ skill
The main problem with the Zeiss Ikon is that it doesn't have a large red dot on the front and is further crippled by its "Made in Japan" engraving. These two faults exclude it from serious consideration. In other words, La ilaha illa Allah.
Compared to MP, the built quality for the Zeiss Ikon (ZI) is surely lower, yet beyond adequate and better than current Bessas. The ZI is lighter. Without batteries, the ZI does not work. The MP will. The ZI has higher max shutter and x-sync speeds. The MP has amazing ergonomics and can take a motor drive. It costs $3000 US more. The longer baseline in the ZI is negligibly superior. The finders in both are excellent. The ZI has focal lengths in its framelines in case you're an idiot.
Regarding batteries, the SR44/LR44 required by the ZI for operation are found everywhere. Around the world, I have found these batteries without issue.
I have a ZI, as does a friend. Between the two of us, neither of us have had any problems with ours. I an M6 and said pal has an MP. Neither of us had problems with our Leicas either.
A useful comparison between these two beasts would be
Metal vs. cloth shutter, e.g., sound, durability
Electronic vs. mechanical shutter, e.g., accuracy, durability
For both of which I haven't seen conclusive data suggesting one is better across applications than the other, so I can't really say.
Both are capable of excellent exposures.
Compared to MP, the built quality for the Zeiss Ikon (ZI) is surely lower, yet beyond adequate and better than current Bessas. The ZI is lighter. Without batteries, the ZI does not work. The MP will. The ZI has higher max shutter and x-sync speeds. The MP has amazing ergonomics and can take a motor drive. It costs $3000 US more. The longer baseline in the ZI is negligibly superior. The finders in both are excellent. The ZI has focal lengths in its framelines in case you're an idiot.
Regarding batteries, the SR44/LR44 required by the ZI for operation are found everywhere. Around the world, I have found these batteries without issue.
I have a ZI, as does a friend. Between the two of us, neither of us have had any problems with ours. I an M6 and said pal has an MP. Neither of us had problems with our Leicas either.
A useful comparison between these two beasts would be
Metal vs. cloth shutter, e.g., sound, durability
Electronic vs. mechanical shutter, e.g., accuracy, durability
For both of which I haven't seen conclusive data suggesting one is better across applications than the other, so I can't really say.
Both are capable of excellent exposures.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
So why do you think the Ikon is superior? Your statement would seem to indicate quite the contrary.
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
I would probably have more faith in Leicas' if they did have the 'Made in Japan' engraving to be honest.
Benjamin
Benjamin
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
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!
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
Thanks for you input folks. The reason I ask is that I'm looking for an M4, and I just wanted to check that I shouldn't pay more attention to the ZM. I personally much prefer fully manual rameracs, though I can see the benefits of an electronic shutter with regards to accuracy. I will almost certainly be using Zeiss glass however. Branding is not issue, I'm afraid.
Benjamin
Benjamin
fuwen
Well-known
Well, much has been discussed about electronics vs mechanical and their reliability. Personally I believe other than extreme conditions and extreme tough professional uses, I do not quite believe electronic bodies are not as reliable. In fact in terms of shutter speed accuracy they are far more superior than the mechanical counterparts.
For myself, as an amateur photographer, I have been using electronic bodies all along (Rolleiflex SL200F, Rolleiflex 3003, Contax Aria, Contax RTS III, Praktica BC1, BX20s) and frankly speaking I cannot remember any situations that theses bodies failed me due to batteries or electronics.
Professionals have been using the fully electronics Nikon F5 and the Canon EOS1 and I really do not believe that they are less reliable than a Leica M for tough professional use.
For myself, as an amateur photographer, I have been using electronic bodies all along (Rolleiflex SL200F, Rolleiflex 3003, Contax Aria, Contax RTS III, Praktica BC1, BX20s) and frankly speaking I cannot remember any situations that theses bodies failed me due to batteries or electronics.
Professionals have been using the fully electronics Nikon F5 and the Canon EOS1 and I really do not believe that they are less reliable than a Leica M for tough professional use.
aizan
Veteran
sure you want a m4? you'd probably want a built-in meter for the kind of photography where rangefinders shine.
roundg
Well-known
ZM is designed at a different level from Leica. IMHO, it's a refined CV products, better material, better finish and better QC (Good quality is from Design not from after-check though) than CV but still come from a same/similar platform.
But no wrong to buy either of them, they are priced at different levels too. U pay what you get.
But no wrong to buy either of them, they are priced at different levels too. U pay what you get.
> Namely the Pros and Cons of the ZM compared to the MECHANICAL Leica.
This is an apples to oranges comparison, but you already knew that
If you want a mechanical Leica, then nothing else will do. Get thee a mechanical Leica!
However, if you want a camera with AE functionality, then the ZI is an excellent choice. I don't buy the whole "when the battery dies, you cannot use your camera" argument, because its no hassle whatsoever to carry a spare set of batteries, and they're tiny and cheap so there's no excuse for not doing so.
As for build quality, sure the Leicas have a nice heft to them, but the ZI is very nice too. The ZI is noticably lighter than the Leicas I've owned (M3 and M6 TTL), and I suspect some equate that to be a less solid build. Personally, I think its just because the ZI is made of lighter, more modern materials, and in reality there's not a big difference between ZI and Leica build. But I'm not going to bang up my ZI to see if I'm right though
The ZI's metal shutter is slightly louder (still not in SLR territory though) than the Leicas, but one thing I like because of this is that I can leave the lens cap off and not worry about the sun burning a hole in the shutter curtains. This advantage far outweighs the slightly noisier shutter IMO. Imagine being one month in to a three month trip and burning a hole in your shutter curtain Won't happen with the ZI
Another advantage to the ZI is the ease of film loading. It's no contest! I can remove film and then reload the ZI much faster than on the M3 or M6 TTL. With the ZI there's no need to juggle a base plate, or flip a back door, or wish you had three hands
Regarding the finder, the M3 finder is the best I've used hands down. Amazing that Leica hasn't managed to top this in 50+ years since the camera was released. But I would rate the ZI above the M6 TTL by a fair margin. One of these days I hope to shoot with an M7 (with finder upgraded to MP level) or an MP to see if the finder is any better than the ZI, but its going to have to wait a while though considering that either camera would cost the equivalent of two or three ZI bodies
On the subject of rangefinder patch alignment on the ZI bodies, the first ZI I bought (used) was out of alignment when I bought it, and I could see it was out when looking it over before purchasing it. But I bought the camera anyway, and then took in on a two week trip to Australia as-is, with the intention of sending it in for realignment when I got home. It turned out that all the photos I took on the trip were perfectly in focus. No problems whatsoever. Although of course, the RF patch being slightly out was a little annoying. Anyway, I did send it in for realignment when I got home, and its been fine ever since. YMMV
This is an apples to oranges comparison, but you already knew that
If you want a mechanical Leica, then nothing else will do. Get thee a mechanical Leica!
However, if you want a camera with AE functionality, then the ZI is an excellent choice. I don't buy the whole "when the battery dies, you cannot use your camera" argument, because its no hassle whatsoever to carry a spare set of batteries, and they're tiny and cheap so there's no excuse for not doing so.
As for build quality, sure the Leicas have a nice heft to them, but the ZI is very nice too. The ZI is noticably lighter than the Leicas I've owned (M3 and M6 TTL), and I suspect some equate that to be a less solid build. Personally, I think its just because the ZI is made of lighter, more modern materials, and in reality there's not a big difference between ZI and Leica build. But I'm not going to bang up my ZI to see if I'm right though
The ZI's metal shutter is slightly louder (still not in SLR territory though) than the Leicas, but one thing I like because of this is that I can leave the lens cap off and not worry about the sun burning a hole in the shutter curtains. This advantage far outweighs the slightly noisier shutter IMO. Imagine being one month in to a three month trip and burning a hole in your shutter curtain
Won't happen with the ZI Another advantage to the ZI is the ease of film loading. It's no contest! I can remove film and then reload the ZI much faster than on the M3 or M6 TTL. With the ZI there's no need to juggle a base plate, or flip a back door, or wish you had three hands
Regarding the finder, the M3 finder is the best I've used hands down. Amazing that Leica hasn't managed to top this in 50+ years since the camera was released. But I would rate the ZI above the M6 TTL by a fair margin. One of these days I hope to shoot with an M7 (with finder upgraded to MP level) or an MP to see if the finder is any better than the ZI, but its going to have to wait a while though considering that either camera would cost the equivalent of two or three ZI bodies
On the subject of rangefinder patch alignment on the ZI bodies, the first ZI I bought (used) was out of alignment when I bought it, and I could see it was out when looking it over before purchasing it. But I bought the camera anyway, and then took in on a two week trip to Australia as-is, with the intention of sending it in for realignment when I got home. It turned out that all the photos I took on the trip were perfectly in focus. No problems whatsoever. Although of course, the RF patch being slightly out was a little annoying. Anyway, I did send it in for realignment when I got home, and its been fine ever since. YMMV
Last edited:
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
Marek?
Cheers,
Uwe
Cheers,
Uwe
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Hehe, he should be along any time now
Cheers,
Jon
Yes ... we're waiting for the difinitive wrap of the Ikon!
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
Hehe, he should be along any time now
Cheers,
Jon
Well, it's only around 8 a.m. here in Europe.
Cheers,
Uwe
jky
Well-known
Only had a brief stint with the ZM before I decided to sell it... reason for selling? Just used to the handling of my old M - that's all. The following are some thoughts re: ZM:
1. Build was fantastic - it felt solid in the hand despite it weighing less than the Leica. My sample had no RF misalignments...
2. Shutter was a little louder; more metallic obviously compared to the cloth shutter of an M.
3. Film Loading much more conventional, but I never thought that bottom loading with the M was as difficult as people said it was.
4. The VF was spectacular - big & bright! This I believe was its best feature.
5. Battery dependency was never a big deal to me - I could carry several sets in a film canister. That's enough for more film I'd ever shoot on a trip.
Give it a shot...
1. Build was fantastic - it felt solid in the hand despite it weighing less than the Leica. My sample had no RF misalignments...
2. Shutter was a little louder; more metallic obviously compared to the cloth shutter of an M.
3. Film Loading much more conventional, but I never thought that bottom loading with the M was as difficult as people said it was.
4. The VF was spectacular - big & bright! This I believe was its best feature.
5. Battery dependency was never a big deal to me - I could carry several sets in a film canister. That's enough for more film I'd ever shoot on a trip.
Give it a shot...
telenous
Well-known
Benjamin, I see you 're in the UK. If you plan to use your camera outdoors, get the M4 over the ZI, it's a more suitable rangefinder for the kind of weather we have here. I 'd personally wouldn't get the M7 either for the same reason, just to be clear.
.
.