My Review Of The Zeiss Ikon

[Keith]

I've used a Bessa R3a and this is even worst in reading the shutter speed as it is too low in the frame line and almost often washed out. I have been and still intrigued by the ZI though and maybe sometime I'll give it a try.

I had an R3A and I prefered the position of the readout in the Bessa. I found with the Ikon I had to move my eye to the right of the finder to see the metering display ... when I did this I lost the contrast of the RF patch.

 

[ferider]

I recommend two additional tests, comparing the ZI to your Leica:

1) at night, focus on a star at infinity, and move your eye around. What happens to the focus ?
2) in a typical evening situation, ASA 400, 1/30, f1.4, compare patch contrast between ZI and Leica.

Roland.

 

[boomguy57]

I recommend two additional tests, comparing the ZI to your Leica:

1) at night, focus on a star at infinity, and move your eye around. What happens to the focus ?
2) in a typical evening situation, ASA 400, 1/30, f1.4, compare patch contrast between ZI and Leica.

Roland.

What is this designed to prove?

 

[boomguy57]

My only gripe with the camera when I had one was the metering display being washed out in bright sun.

As for build quality in comparison to a Leica ... that's very subjective IMO. The accuracy of the copal shutter is way beyond the capabilities of the Leica cloth curtain type and the lack of weight of the camera compared to an M is more to do with the modern materials chosen for construction.

Yeah, this is the one common complaint. To me, it is offset a bit by the AE; this means I don't always need to know precisely what it is. I know light well enough to know when the speed will be too slow or fast for what I want to do. Still, it's a minus.

Then again, the M bodies don't show shutter speed at all, so it really doesn't come off any worse in comparison, or?

 

[gilpen123]

M7 in A priority does not show, the M6 and others does not matter as we can check the shutter speed dial set during the shot. I think ZI AE lock is far better than the M7 though.

 

[ferider]

What is this designed to prove?

This is designed to show you that the viewfinder of the ZI vs. the Leica has pros and cons. Viewfinder brightness is not everything, stable focus and patch contrast are important, too.

 

[Keith]

Surely that's just an effect caused by the enormous amount of relief provided by the Ikon's eyepiece and it's relationship to the rangefinder. I've noticed with all the Ms I've owned that the small amount you are able to move your eye from the central position of the Leica eyepiece does have a similar effect though not as pronounced.

I kept losing the contrast of the patch when I first got my Ikon due to this available movement ... after ten or so rolls of film I became more familiar with the camera and it stopped happening.

 

[shambla]

I have the Hexar RF as my AE Leica alternative camera. It feels robudt and it is heavy. The ZI is best comparable with the Hexar. What do you think?
It has AE, fast shutter, but aybe not the best VF.

I went straight from a Hexar RF to the Ikon, so maybe I can offer something useful here. I would agree the Hexar feels very solid - I sold it when I bought the Ikon nearly 2 years ago, but from memory I would say that it perhaps felt slightly more dense/solid than the Ikon. Nonetheless, I have used the Ikon quite heavily since then and have had zero reliability issues and so I wouldn't worry about the Ikon in this respect.

On the Hexar the AE was always spot on and as you say the fastest 1/4000 shutter speed can be useful, but I found the viewfinder in the Ikon to be clearly superior. The Ikon's finder is bigger and brighter and I love that the 35mm and 50mm frame lines are completely uncluttered. If you use fast lenses wide open a lot (which I admittedly don't often), then the longer baselength of the Ikon could also be an advantage.

In addition, I am a 35/50mm person with no real interest in wider lenses, so for me the higher magnification of the Ikon's finder was also a big plus. Of course, if you regularly use 28mm you may feel differently and prefer the 0.6x Hexar finder.

Overall I'd say the Ikon is the better camera, but at least in the UK the price of a used Ikon is about twice that of a Hexar RF in similar condition, but then you are getting a newer camera that can more easily be serviced.

 

[shambla]

I kept losing the contrast of the patch when I first got my Ikon due to this available movement ... after ten or so rolls of film I became more familiar with the camera and it stopped happening.

Yep, same here - I noticed it on and off for maybe 5 rolls when I first bought the Ikon and then just adapted to it without realising and the issue disappeared. These days if I shoot with my M6TTL for more than a few rolls without using the Ikon then I sometimes notice this 'problem' with the Ikon again during the first half roll or so while my brain adjusts itself and then the problem disappears again.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Hi Mike,

I have the Hexar RF as my AE Leica alternative camera. It feels robudt and it is heavy. The ZI is best comparable with the Hexar. What do you think?
It has AE, fast shutter, but aybe not the best VF.

Hi Raid

I've not used a Hexar, so hard to add a realistic comparison. The Ikon has a higher magnification viewfinder, so if you like wides then you might prefer the hexar. I wear glasses and the ZI is the best 35mm lens camera I've seen. The 28 lines are marginal for me, but I could ue them if I had a 28. I keep the R4a for the wider lenses, but I really prefer 35 and 50, with occasional excursions up or down the range.

Obviously auto film advance may be meaningful difference, but I still quite like the ability to wind when I'm ready and to do so quietly.

Mike

 

[boomguy57]

Hi Raid

I've not used a Hexar, so hard to add a realistic comparison. The Ikon has a higher magnification viewfinder, so if you like wides then you might prefer the hexar. I wear glasses and the ZI is the best 35mm lens camera I've seen. The 28 lines are marginal for me, but I could ue them if I had a 28. I keep the R4a for the wider lenses, but I really prefer 35 and 50, with occasional excursions up or down the range.

Obviously auto film advance may be meaningful difference, but I still quite like the ability to wind when I'm ready and to do so quietly.

Mike

I have to agree on the last point--I really hate auto advance!

 

[ferider]

Surely that's just an effect caused by the enormous amount of relief provided by the Ikon's eyepiece and it's relationship to the rangefinder. I've noticed with all the Ms I've owned that the small amount you are able to move your eye from the central position of the Leica eyepiece does have a similar effect though not as pronounced.

I kept losing the contrast of the patch when I first got my Ikon due to this available movement ... after ten or so rolls of film I became more familiar with the camera and it stopped happening.

There are two things, Keith, one is the "focus movement", two is patch contrast. You might adjust to the first but not the second. The Leica finder is a bit darker, but the patch has at least a stop more contrast.

BTW, there are also two sides to the shutter noise. The ZI has a metal shutter that is louder than the Leica's cloth shutter. Then again, it's harder to burn holes in metal shutters 🙂

In any case, the OP asked for feedback, and I was suggesting to be a little more objective than "the viewfinder in the Zeiss is better" vs. the Leica being good because "It’s a Leica. Period".

Some of us have tried both and prefer, for example, a used M2 over a ZI. Cheaper, too.

Roland.

 

[Keith]

There are two things, Keith, one is the "focus movement", two is patch contrast. You might adjust to the first but not the second. The Leica finder is a bit darker, but the patch has at least a stop more contrast.

BTW, there are also two sides to the shutter noise. The ZI has a metal shutter that is louder than the Leica's cloth shutter. Then again, it's harder to burn holes in metal shutters 🙂

In any case, the OP asked for feedback, and I was suggesting to be a little more objective than "the viewfinder in the Zeiss is better" vs. the Leica being good because "It’s a Leica. Period".

Some of us have tried both and prefer, for example, a used M2 over a ZI. Cheaper, too.

Roland.

I have to confess I kept my M2 and sold my Ikon! 😀