newbie-questions about zeiss ikon zm

[trmd]

I've seen that photo many times, as well.. and I agree that it looks great there.. but I've also seen photos of the back/bottom/etc (I believe of the same camera) and it was full of marks and scratches.. considering the camera couldn't be more than few months old, it looked like it went through a war.. thus, my poor impression of the black paint durability

I'd be happy with it if it showed brassing.. but with the magnesium body, it just looked abused

I've been looking for the same photos online, but can't find them now.. I think it was a japanese site, and I'm completely illiterate when it comes to reading japanese

Hi JoeFriday,

I think I know the pictures you speak of, but can't find them either anymore. This really looked abused but didn't bother me too much because I am really careful with my equipment (bit of babying it) and simply adore black painted rangefinders. The best would be of course, if Mike is right, and this was only a badly painted prototype.

 

[aizan]

it looks silvery, not like black chrome leicas. but, yeah, it's just a prototype.

 

[trmd]

if you are thinking of the 21mm lens check out Erwin Puts' review on his site - the address is on a prevoius post in this thread. basically he reckons it is the best there is - better than the Leica and much cheaper.

Yes, I liked the review and am really looking forward to this lens.

Generally I try to not involve myself in the upcoming "Zeiss-against-Leica-war". (On the official Leica-Board, there are some threads, that are ridiculous; like kids who try to stomp onto the ground yelling "Nobody's gonna be better than my beloved (and expensive) Leitz-gear" ). I think someone simply can't get wrong, if he/she decides on Leica- or Zeiss-lenses (I don't no Voigtlaender glass), because they both are amazing. Each company has its own characteristics, e.g. Zeiss looks a bit more wonderfully toned while Leica glass seems to be a bit crispier. But those differences are so small, that - I believe - no one could tell in practice. Everybody has to decide for himself, how much he wants to spend for marginal differences. And perhaps there's something like a "brand-effect". Even if both manufactures ship lenses, which are able to produce equally great pictures, some people might be better in photographing, if they think, they have the unbeaten best. (Here speaks the headshrink ). Personally, I have excellent experiences with Zeiss, so that I am sure, that die ZI + lenses will serve me well.

But for the 21/2.8 Biogon: This one will rock!

Greetings,
trmd

 

[trmd]

Not quite, Trmd. Rather, Zeiss/Hasselblad will produce a black version for the international market, which is scheduled for release in March but may not be in the hands of your dealer until April - regardless of what Cosina does.

Cosina may have one for distribution a little earlier, perhaps February/March, for the Japanese market & which may trickle down to the hands of USA grey market dealers sometime in that time span.

Huck

Thank you, Huck. Since I have to wait to gain enough money, I will perhaps get a Zeiss/Hasselblad one. Don't know why, but I would prefer this.

trmd

 

[ZeissFan]

At PhotoExpo in NYC in 2004 when the camera was introduced, many of the lenses were prototypes. Many were simply lens barrels with a front element, possibly not even a real lens, but otherwise were empty.

The body itself changed from 2004 to production camera. There were some cosmetic and functional changes -- the back latch being one, wider improvements to the shutter being another. The body shape and the top hump to allow for the large eyepiece also were restyled.

I wouldn't read much into prototypes. Those are produced as show pieces. I'm a bit surprised they even took it out of the case.

I think most makers at one time used a paint and bake process. I would guess that the prototype got one quick coat of paint.

 

[Huck Finn]

Yes, I liked the review and am really looking forward to this lens.

Generally I try to not involve myself in the upcoming "Zeiss-against-Leica-war". (On the official Leica-Board, there are some threads, that are ridiculous; like kids who try to stomp onto the ground yelling "Nobody's gonna be better than my beloved (and expensive) Leitz-gear" ). I think someone simply can't get wrong, if he/she decides on Leica- or Zeiss-lenses (I don't no Voigtlaender glass), because they both are amazing. Each company has its own characteristics, e.g. Zeiss looks a bit more wonderfully toned while Leica glass seems to be a bit crispier. But those differences are so small, that - I believe - no one could tell in practice. Everybody has to decide for himself, how much he wants to spend for marginal differences. And perhaps there's something like a "brand-effect". Even if both manufactures ship lenses, which are able to produce equally great pictures, some people might be better in photographing, if they think, they have the unbeaten best. (Here speaks the headshrink ). Personally, I have excellent experiences with Zeiss, so that I am sure, that die ZI + lenses will serve me well.

But for the 21/2.8 Biogon: This one will rock!

Greetings,
trmd

The latest comparisons between Zeiss & Leica involve Leica's line of aspherical lenses. I think that Erwin Puts makes a great point about this: aspherics are much more costly to produce. He credits Zeiss for being able to offer outstanding optical quality while still using traditional designs. For example, the 35 Biogon is probably the weakest link in the Zeiss line-up, yet Erwin compares it very favorably with the Summicron, 4th version, a legendary lens in its own right.

Immediately after Leica posters in such discussions talk about how the Zeiss lenses don't match the Leicas, they will recommend to anyone who can't afford the new lenses that they buy an earlier version, such as that Summicron IV. Huh? Why not the Zeiss then? Even new, it's still cheaper than the previous Leica version. And Zeiss coatings can't be beat; the ability to suppress flare is something at which the Zeiss lenses are superior to many of their Leica counterparts.

This is not to bash Leica lenses in any way; the are great optics & people are entitled to their preferences. It would just be nice to see a more even handed conversation in some of those discussions. To each his own.

BTW, if you like the 21 Biogon, you'll love the 25.

Huck

 

[trmd]

The latest comparisons between Zeiss & Leica involve Leica's line of aspherical lenses. I think that Erwin Puts makes a great point about this: aspherics are much more costly to produce. He credits Zeiss for being able to offer outstanding optical quality while still using traditional designs. For example, the 35 Biogon is probably the weakest link in the Zeiss line-up, yet Erwin compares it very favorably with the Summicron, 4th version, a legendary lens in its own right.

Hi Huck,

if I read the test correctly, there's even more: He gives Leica the lead in "spatial resolution" (= crispiness?) and Zeiss the lead in "tonal resolution". This also seems to be the point, why ZM-lenses appear like medium format-lenses, as you quoted before.

Immediately after Leica posters in such discussions talk about how the Zeiss lenses don't match the Leicas, they will recommend to anyone who can't afford the new lenses that they buy an earlier version, such as that Summicron IV. Huh? Why not the Zeiss then? Even new, it's still cheaper than the previous Leica version.

I often think, this is because some Leica-Users need verification, that it really was a good decision to spend a huge amount of money for Leica-gear. If I have spent about 6000 Euro or more for a M7 and one lens and one year later there comes out a new RF-system, which seems to be comparable / equal to "my Leica", I would either :bang: myself or try to find arguments, why this new system is NOT comparable to mine. Perhaps this happens at the moment during some discussions.

This is not to bash Leica lenses in any way; the are great optics & people are entitled to their preferences. It would just be nice to see a more even handed conversation in some of those discussions. To each his own.

I think there is no one who wants to bash Leica (and who could bash them). Leica-user definitely can be content, as Zeiss Ikon-user seem to be. At least I am sure, I will.

BTW, if you like the 21 Biogon, you'll love the 25.

The 25 is on my wishlist, too. I want to start with 21 (I like the dramatic effect) and 50, then proceed to 25. And perhaps... later... 85. And...

Greetings!

 

[trmd]

By the way: I got some info from Hasselblad Germany today: The black version is due to be shipped in April 06 in Germany; this would be the info from Zeiss. Hasselblad said, there were many reservations yet.