jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
A good idea, but for Africa I would substitute another continent. Africa is of course the Mecca for wildlife photographers, and I personally would not recommend a RF for that. (having used Leica M's with and without Visoflex in Kenya, South Africa and Zimbabwe.)Will said:
Last edited:
thanatos
Hagakure with perfume
There's far more to Africa than Wildlife, Jaap. Africa is a big place.
BTW, the latest UK "Amateur Photographer" mag (20th May issue) reviewed the ZI and found a few problems with it like the exposure meter being invisible in the viewfinder in bright conditions and a metering interval of 1-stop in spite of an aperture interval of 1/3-stop leading to "a lot of wasted film". I've no axe to grind here but I think that this review would enter my decision-making process when I was having a fondle.
BTW, the latest UK "Amateur Photographer" mag (20th May issue) reviewed the ZI and found a few problems with it like the exposure meter being invisible in the viewfinder in bright conditions and a metering interval of 1-stop in spite of an aperture interval of 1/3-stop leading to "a lot of wasted film". I've no axe to grind here but I think that this review would enter my decision-making process when I was having a fondle.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
True- I've been in the contintinent for six weeks a year for over 15 years now. Yes it is a big place. I've flown over large tracts of it but there is still a lot to see. But most tourists (especially from the USA as holidays tend to be shorter over there) tend to fly in for a week in Botswana or South Africa for "the big Five".That means a hunking big DSLR. 
To get into RF type photography one needs to become a traveller as opposed to a tourist, especially in a continent like Africa that needs to be discovered. I somehow feel that for instance South East Asia is more of a first choice for a RF.
To get into RF type photography one needs to become a traveller as opposed to a tourist, especially in a continent like Africa that needs to be discovered. I somehow feel that for instance South East Asia is more of a first choice for a RF.
Last edited:
telenous
Well-known
About the resale value: The resale value is a genuine concern. We all (?) buy our cameras to use them, not to sell them back and make a profit, but it is nice to know that if you decide to part company with it for whatever reason, you will recapture a healthy percentage of what you paid.
About battery dependence/independence: I appreciate the point of view of users who are comfortable with their cameras being fully electronic. As I am sure they do (or should do) when some of us like their mechanical cameras because they are not electronic.
About battery dependence/independence: I appreciate the point of view of users who are comfortable with their cameras being fully electronic. As I am sure they do (or should do) when some of us like their mechanical cameras because they are not electronic.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Bertram2 said:Despicable !! But really nice !!
Bertram
It was a joke - I hope no one take offense. Or that not too many people take offense (I don't want to be ba.nned for life).
There are good reasons for someone to prefer one camera over another. I just don't like people to justify their positions with "facts" that aren't.
I'd have no issue with people who buy a Leica because:
- It's a chick magnet.
- The designer versions match my belts and shoes.
- I love the build quality.
- I can afford one, so why not?
- I'm trying to pump money into Leica to keep them afloat (oh, never mind, no one here buys new).
- It makes me smile when I hold it (remember Woody Allen in "Sleeper" with the Orgasmatron?)
To cast aspersions on another product to justify your own purchase does not cut it - particularly when so many of the "facts" were just flat out wrong.
Anyway, my guess is that most people could make stunning images with either camera . Or bad images with either camera. Perhaps we should have a double blind test: identical images shot with a Leica and a ZI with the same lens. Then people could try to match the photo with the camera.
Go make photos! Enough of this!
RObert Budding
D'oh!
The M6 is a nice camera. Enjoy it!
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Actually Leica welcomes the existence of lower-priced competitors. They figure, the more customers are attracted to the RF market, the more gear they'll sell in the long run. So just start of with a ZI,buy a collapsible Elmar, buy a M3, buy a 35 lux asph, buy a M4-2, buy a Noctilux, buy a M7, buy a M8, etc etc...
PeterL
--
This is the kind of post I like: it gives facts & it clearly comes from somebody who knows that if somebody is buying an M mount RF camera, hype is the last of his decision criteria.
I find the history of Leica really interesting. Having fondled only a few (so my knowledge is mainly theoretical instead of real-life) it seems to me like they designed the ideal camera, then had to compromise on it for various reasons. Cost being the main one in the long run, implementing features into a body that wasn't built for it more recently. Sometimes it is a better idea to start from scratch, but I doubt Leica now has the financial possibility to do that.
And anyway, as if Japanese designs are bad by definition. Look at the Olympus OM range. Superb ergonomics, very sturdy and durable and some lenses match Leica's.
I went above the polar circle with a battery dependent camera and took the same one to mushy Japan. No problems. Of course.
Photographing in temples was a nice example. Engaging in people will build an atmosphere where photography isn't something "forbidden" that should be "hidden". Even wedding photographers use cameras that are way louder than either of these two under discussion. It's not an issue, because everybody knows what's happening.
Peter.
Huck Finn said:
I find the history of Leica really interesting. Having fondled only a few (so my knowledge is mainly theoretical instead of real-life) it seems to me like they designed the ideal camera, then had to compromise on it for various reasons. Cost being the main one in the long run, implementing features into a body that wasn't built for it more recently. Sometimes it is a better idea to start from scratch, but I doubt Leica now has the financial possibility to do that.
Huck Finn said:
And anyway, as if Japanese designs are bad by definition. Look at the Olympus OM range. Superb ergonomics, very sturdy and durable and some lenses match Leica's.
Huck Finn said:
I went above the polar circle with a battery dependent camera and took the same one to mushy Japan. No problems. Of course.
Huck Finn said:
Photographing in temples was a nice example. Engaging in people will build an atmosphere where photography isn't something "forbidden" that should be "hidden". Even wedding photographers use cameras that are way louder than either of these two under discussion. It's not an issue, because everybody knows what's happening.
Peter.
Will
Well-known
jaapv said:
Viso-pain... hahahaha
Saw a young guy (at my age
) with a black M (no idea which one) with a Viso 3 a few days ago.After I my current business workout, I might just take a trip somewhere in asia, nothing fancy, just somewhere to relax and lay back...
Maybe I should go to Thailand?
Trevor Hare said:
Good Reference.
telenous said:
Ain't that the turth!
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It wasn't that bad at all, in retrospect, though it got me into SLR pretty fast. I'm seriously considering though, when (oh when) the M8 appears to experiment with the Visoflex again, provided, of course, that it will fit.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Tom Diaz said:
I have read this expectation quite often when it comes to the ZI, I mean the silent assumption that a ZI does not last as long as a Leica.
There are no facts which would justify that assumption tho. Especially all those who shoot a roll or two per month or have it on the shelf only anyway , just fo talking about it , will have no probs .
But even when it comes to the professional use of a ZI , nothing indicates it could break easier than a Leica. Why should it ? Because it hasn't got that old fashioned heavy brass body ? And Leicas break too, more often as one should assume btw.
If somebody still wants to have spareparts in 2035 he should take the Leica indeed, I doubt tho that they can fullfill their promise.
My ZI will be written off with 100% ( the third time !) in 2035, I'll buy me a new one then , from the € 2000 gap; which have slept with an interest rate of 8% for 30 years. 20.125,- Euro should bee enuff to get a decent new camera then.
I know, it's no use to calculate this way, some people simply love to have things which are promised to be undestroyable and to last for ever. Maybe this is , as HCB said, simply a compensation for all the uncertainties in there life ?
Well, if it helps, why not ? But if they notice one day, that they begin to talk to "her", then something's gotten off rail, time for the doc then.
bertram
ywenz
Veteran
The ZI is a nice Acura NSX to the M6's Porsche 911 turbo.
Huck Finn
Well-known
thanatos said:
Actually, this comment about 1-stop metering is not true - although it appears to be the case on first look. It's true that the meter only reports shutter speeds in one stop intervals. However, when used with a ZM lens, the aperture setting can be set in 3 different positions before the meter changes. The middle position is what the meter recommends. The other 2 positions are +/- 1/3 stop. While it would be nice if Zeiss provided this information in the viewfinder, the fact of the matter is that the information is available.
The shutter speeds are really no different than a Leica which also has shutter speed adjustments only in full stops. The difference is actually in favor of the ZI because aperture settings are available in 1/3 stops while Leica lenses can only be set in half stop intervals.
BTW, when conditions are bright enough to make the shutter speed numbers disappear from the viewfinder, I'm not using the meter. I'm either using AE with exposure compensation, AE-lock, or pre-setting manually with readings that are not taken by metering directly into the sun or other bright light source.
Last edited:
grantray
Established
ywenz said:
I didn't know the NSX was designed in Germany. Also, I believe all modern Porsches are controlled by electronic fuel injection. I suppose owners are forced to take that into consideration before going any long road trips..
BillBingham2
Registered User
Look at what his real needs are, he wants to start getting M mount glass for a move to digital. I do not think he wants yet another film body, my guess is he would rather buy a digital M or ZI (or even a RD1 perhaps) at some point not too far down the road. He has his classic (film) system done, it's Nikon and Bessa.
Go with a used R2 or a new T and get some new glass. If you go with the T, you can get some way cool Nikkors for her (the 85, 105 and 135) and she will focus them all FINE!!!
B2 (;->
Go with a used R2 or a new T and get some new glass. If you go with the T, you can get some way cool Nikkors for her (the 85, 105 and 135) and she will focus them all FINE!!!
B2 (;->
C
ch1
Guest
grantray said:
And it would probably be advisable to carry a spare battery too!
Huck Finn
Well-known
Will said:
Will,
I became interested in this subject of rangefinder design when I read the Erwin Puts review of the ZI, which can be found here:
www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c021.html
It includes a diagram of the ZI rangefinder, which is also available in the downloadable brochure at www.zeissikon.com/downloads.htm.
Erwin provides more information on his website. An article with charts is called "Rangefinder from M3 to M7" & can be found in his Engineering section. Here is the link:
www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/RFbasics/rfissues.html
There is also good information in his article "Choosing M Cameras" in the Leica M section. Here is the link:
www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/choosem.html
Other information which I have obtained on the subject comes from reading old reviews at a nearby library of the CL from Modern Photography & from Popular Photography, from searching the web for diagrams of the Bessa rangefinder, & from personal correspondence with the Zeiss engineering department. Cosina's Korean website has excellent rangefinder diagrams. Here is the link:
www.cosina.co.kr/category_camera/bessa_r.html
The bottom line is that what the ZI & the M3 have in common is that the framelines are located directly behind the illumination window. The rangefinder design of the M2 & later Leicas as well as the Hexar RF locate the framelines at an angled position in relation to the illumination window, thereby introducing rangefinder parallax and flare. Since the ZI & M3 use direct light and do not depend on reflected light, they are also brighter.
Huck
BrianShaw
Well-known
RObert Budding said:
It is? Every time I've worn a Leica my wife asks when if I'm also going to wear Bermuda shorts, white sox, and black penny-loafers.
But if I wear a Hasselblad... she exclaims: "Humma-humma... WOW... that's a big one!" She's even impressed with a Nikon F-3, but only if the motordrive is attached. Who said rangefinders rule?
ywenz
Veteran
grantray said:
I don't care where the camera was designed..
I should have said the ZI is the Corvette Z06, the M6 is the 911 Turbo.. That's a much more accurate metaphor.
willie_901
Veteran
About two months ago I faced the exact same decision. There was a very nice M6 with a Leitz 35/2 for sale at a local camera store. At the same time I researched the ZI, also with a 35/2.
Both cameras were the same price +/- $100.
I decided on the ZI for two reasons. I did not want a used camera. I was not willing to buy a new Leica. Second, I preferred the lighter weight and more accurate shutter of the ZI.
I carry the camera with me everywhere. I do not regret my decision. In three-five years I may sing a different tune if the ZI does not stand up to heavy use.
The ZI is not a Leica. It was not meant to be a Leica. At the same time the ZI is not a Bessa. A Bessa is not meant to be a ZI. Each of these three cameras has it's market niche. People buy the camera that meets their needs – needs like budget , resale value, manufacturing tolerance and robustness.
I am very impressed with the ZI. The finder is spectacular. Focusing is a breeze. I did not think I would like the light meter (I prefer spot meters). I found the light meter is easy to learn and works very well. The exposure compensation combined with an easy to use exposure lock system changed my mind. In bright light I think the M6 light meter is easier to read than the ZI.
The M6 shutter is quieter, but not by much At the same time the M6 shutter requires maintenance and is less accurate (but it does not need a battery).
I like the ZI so much I am starting to think about selling my Nikon F3 SLR/ Nikkor lenes system in order to finance a second Zeiss M lens and a Bessa L with 21 or 24 mm lens.
In the end, you will be happy with either camera. I think this thread conatins all the relevant informantion you need. It's great people here share their experience and knowledge.
Good luck with your decision.
willie
ps Criticism of the latch is simply misinformation. The latch is secure and the latch mechanism does not feel cheap in any way.
Both cameras were the same price +/- $100.
I decided on the ZI for two reasons. I did not want a used camera. I was not willing to buy a new Leica. Second, I preferred the lighter weight and more accurate shutter of the ZI.
I carry the camera with me everywhere. I do not regret my decision. In three-five years I may sing a different tune if the ZI does not stand up to heavy use.
The ZI is not a Leica. It was not meant to be a Leica. At the same time the ZI is not a Bessa. A Bessa is not meant to be a ZI. Each of these three cameras has it's market niche. People buy the camera that meets their needs – needs like budget , resale value, manufacturing tolerance and robustness.
I am very impressed with the ZI. The finder is spectacular. Focusing is a breeze. I did not think I would like the light meter (I prefer spot meters). I found the light meter is easy to learn and works very well. The exposure compensation combined with an easy to use exposure lock system changed my mind. In bright light I think the M6 light meter is easier to read than the ZI.
The M6 shutter is quieter, but not by much At the same time the M6 shutter requires maintenance and is less accurate (but it does not need a battery).
I like the ZI so much I am starting to think about selling my Nikon F3 SLR/ Nikkor lenes system in order to finance a second Zeiss M lens and a Bessa L with 21 or 24 mm lens.
In the end, you will be happy with either camera. I think this thread conatins all the relevant informantion you need. It's great people here share their experience and knowledge.
Good luck with your decision.
willie
ps Criticism of the latch is simply misinformation. The latch is secure and the latch mechanism does not feel cheap in any way.