JeffNYC
Well-known
I enjoy using the ZI as well. I do have one issue regarding the vf. It can be washed out by bright light (at times) which makes it a bit difficult to read the meter.
My Review Of The Zeiss Ikon
- Thread starter boomguy57
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 52
- Views 7K
boomguy57
Well-known
I really couldn't say. I haven't used any of the Bessas, honestly. For the price, the Bessas do seem attractive, however.
kxl
Social Documentary
Yup - IMHO, the gap between a Bessay and ZI is much, much wider than the gap between a ZI and an M7.
I have owned at least 4 different Bessa bodies, and the fit and finish, and handling just did not compare. The advantage of the Bessa bodies are mostly in their specific features for specifi cneeds, e.g., if you shoot wide, the R4A/M would be a good fit, or the R3A gives you 1:1 viewfinder so you can shoot with both eyes open.
boomguy57
Well-known
That is the chief complaint I have, and I think I forgot to mention it in my post. The numbers do get obscured easily. But I don't find that the RF patch flares and whites out the same way--do you?
raid
Dad Photographer
There you go; now we have a more balanced presentation of the ZI.
Maybe it is the best deal around for $1000?
Maybe it is the best deal around for $1000?
boomguy57
Well-known
It might well be!
Glass Addict
Established
Best comparison is with M7 as they both have AEL.
So comparing apples to apples, ZI has many features that are superior to M7 such as viewfinder, individual framelines, higher shutter speed, longer rangefinder base, etc (Viewfinder alone was enough for me to convert). The only downside of ZI, IMO, is the build, but the build on ZI is almost as good (shutter sound is a bit more loud on the ZI as well, but it doesn't bother me).
White out is sometimes a problem, but my M7 had periodic white out as well as it did not have the MP viewfinder upgrade. Ones that have the upgrade sells for a bit more.
M7 is about double the cost of a ZI used, and I didn't quite see the benefits of that extra $1000 dollars. If I had the option of having 1 M7 vs. 2 ZI's, I would have 2 ZI's.
So comparing apples to apples, ZI has many features that are superior to M7 such as viewfinder, individual framelines, higher shutter speed, longer rangefinder base, etc (Viewfinder alone was enough for me to convert). The only downside of ZI, IMO, is the build, but the build on ZI is almost as good (shutter sound is a bit more loud on the ZI as well, but it doesn't bother me).
White out is sometimes a problem, but my M7 had periodic white out as well as it did not have the MP viewfinder upgrade. Ones that have the upgrade sells for a bit more.
M7 is about double the cost of a ZI used, and I didn't quite see the benefits of that extra $1000 dollars. If I had the option of having 1 M7 vs. 2 ZI's, I would have 2 ZI's.
boomguy57
Well-known
Agreed, though the ZI VF does have paired framelines, unless you had them masked?
Glass Addict
Established
Sorry, I meant individual framelines for 35mm and 50mm which are the most used focal lengths.
Joerg
Dilettant
Hi,
nice "review". It mirrors my experience as well.
One thing though is that you, as well as a lot of other people, claim that the ZI is not built to the standard of a Leica M6/7. How did you come to the conclusion? Weight? The ZI uses a lot more modern materials which result in a lot less weight than the Ms and in my hands has been very robust and can take a lot of abuse (unfortunately) without any problems.
Ciao
Joerg
nice "review". It mirrors my experience as well.
One thing though is that you, as well as a lot of other people, claim that the ZI is not built to the standard of a Leica M6/7. How did you come to the conclusion? Weight? The ZI uses a lot more modern materials which result in a lot less weight than the Ms and in my hands has been very robust and can take a lot of abuse (unfortunately) without any problems.
Ciao
Joerg
JChrome
Street Worker
So I understand that the ZI and the M6 maybe apples to oranges but I am thinking of an M6 paired with a 35mm lens combo (probably Zeiss zm). I want manual but having the AE might be nice... The m7 is too expensive.
I agree that the bessas are good for special appliqués. I use my r4m for its bright 21mm frame lines... No other rangefinder can boast of such a wide viewfinder!! But then for longer lenses... I wouldn't use it!
I agree that the bessas are good for special appliqués. I use my r4m for its bright 21mm frame lines... No other rangefinder can boast of such a wide viewfinder!! But then for longer lenses... I wouldn't use it!
jpfisher
Well-known
Trevor, thanks for the review. Was wondering how easy it is to see the 28mm frameline with glasses? I've long lusted after a 0.58x Leica for wide-angle, but the funds have never been in place at the right time. Am currently using a CL as my wide angle body (the 50mm tends to stay glued to the M3); the CL is great for 35mm, but fumbling with an external finder is a pain when I go 28mm.
I almost bought a Hexar RF a while back, but the automatic film advance turned me off. The Ikon is an interesting alternative that I've never considered as its finder is listed at 0.74x, but if it's working better for you than a 0.72x Leica my interest is piqued.
Thanks!
I almost bought a Hexar RF a while back, but the automatic film advance turned me off. The Ikon is an interesting alternative that I've never considered as its finder is listed at 0.74x, but if it's working better for you than a 0.72x Leica my interest is piqued.
Thanks!
thegman
Veteran
I have had M3, M6, MP, Zeiss Ikon and Bessa, and the two standouts for me are M3 and ZI. The M3 is an incredible classic and a simply wonderful camera. The ZI is almost the opposite, a modern incarnation of what a film M should be, the finder is so much better, the meter is great, it loads easy, and handles very well. They're opposites, but equally appealing to me.
boomguy57
Well-known
I have tried the 0.58 M6TTL and it is better for the 28mm lines with glasses. The ZI with glasses makes the 28 lines tough; you can do it but will need to move your eyes around the finder.
If you need 28, get an external viewer or use the 0.58x.
boomguy57
Well-known
Agreed. They are opposites in many ways. I paired the ZI with my MP and find they compliment each other well.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Nice review OP.
Raid, I have had a few rf's including Bessa R2m. I currently have an MP, ZI and R4a. The ZI is the most 'together' package in my mind. The MP has a lovely shutter sound and is nicely mechanical. The R4a is a specialist for very wide lenses, but for my everyday photography the ZI is a winner. I wear glasses and tend to use the MP with a 50 and the ZI with 35 or 50 quite happily, but mostly the ZI is just a very complete package.
The MP is much improved with a soft release, which the ZI doesn't need inho.
Best
Mike
Raid, I have had a few rf's including Bessa R2m. I currently have an MP, ZI and R4a. The ZI is the most 'together' package in my mind. The MP has a lovely shutter sound and is nicely mechanical. The R4a is a specialist for very wide lenses, but for my everyday photography the ZI is a winner. I wear glasses and tend to use the MP with a 50 and the ZI with 35 or 50 quite happily, but mostly the ZI is just a very complete package.
The MP is much improved with a soft release, which the ZI doesn't need inho.
Best
Mike
raid
Dad Photographer
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.
willie_901
Veteran
I used a ZI-M daily for a couple of years. I really, really enjoyed that camera, the 35/2 Biogon and the 50/1.5 C-Sonnar. I also used it with Canon 50/1.2, CV Color Skopar 28/3.5 and an ancient Nikkor 85/2 lenses. I did send the camera back to Zeiss for a RF alignment after 18 months of daily carry. I expect that sort of maintenance with optical rangefinders. Ziess's USA service was excellent but I wish it had been a just a bit quicker.
I switched to digital and sold everything years ago when I decided Smart Phones would eventually kill commercially convenient film processing in my part of the world. I wanted to minimize my losses. I missed the ZI-M badly until I started to use the X-Pro 1. Now I only miss the ZI-M a little bit.
I switched to digital and sold everything years ago when I decided Smart Phones would eventually kill commercially convenient film processing in my part of the world. I wanted to minimize my losses. I missed the ZI-M badly until I started to use the X-Pro 1. Now I only miss the ZI-M a little bit.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
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.
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.
gilpen123
Gil
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.
Similar threads
