Puts on the Zeiss ikon

[Huck Finn]

Having not met Erwin Puts I am going to reserve judgement, now I have been to his site on occasion, and having read his review of the Zeiss Ikon, he could have written it better. English is not Erwin's first language, its one thing to speak it but something else to write, especially you have a lot of technical information.

Bill

I have to agree with Zeiss Fan on this one. It's not HOW it's written; it's the conclusions. He contradicts himself both within the article & with other things he has written elsewhere. He says that he doesn't know whether the impression of "cheapness" due to light weight is valid or not, but then continues to criticize the camera for this without any substantiation. (See my earlier post in this thread.) And some of what he says is just plain silly . . . & it's not a matter of awkward phrasing.

Remember this man is a professional author, a professional writer. He has written a number of books & has had them published in English. I own a couple of them & have no problem reading him in English.

I am not saying any of this based onthe thinking that his review is negative toward the ZI. It's not; it actually says some good things about the camera. It's just not an in depth review. It's not up to the standards of his own reviews regarding Leica cameras.

Read his section about the "Rapid Advance Lever." He goes off the deep end & it has nothing to do with his familiarity with the language. It's about Zen & your camera. This is not something new for him because he writes about this same "synchronicity" in his Leica M reviews. It just stands out more in this review because there isn't as much substance to the rest of it as there is in his Leica reviews. This is just plain hogwash in any language IMHO.

I don't know why anyone who has actually read this review would defend it. He has written much else that is worthwhile & that I personally have used & found helpful. This is just not one of his better efforts.

Huck

 

[Frank Granovski]

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c021.html

I like the bottom one because you can point it toward the sun for those sun rise and sun set shots without the shutter frying. 😎

 

[vincentbenoit]

Having read the article in question and most of the posts in this thread I would like to make two comments:
1. No camera is perfect.
2. No camera review is perfect.

Vincent

 

[leafy]

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c021.html

I like the bottom one because you can point it toward the sun for those sun rise and sun set shots without the shutter frying. 😎

Has anyone noticed that the Ikon's bottom half of the body is not cut as deeply as the M7. I tried mounting the 50/2 DR on my bessa-t and found that the back protruding sleeve of the lens gets stuck and cannot be mounted. Does the Ikon have such problem too?

 

[Huck Finn]

Something that has gone unmentioned in this discussion is Erwin's observation that "the optical construction of the rangefinder has its roots in the classical M3 finder, not the current M6 design." The M3 rangefinder is reputed to be a more precise focusing instrument than the one that succeeded it. Here is another comment from Puts about it:

"The optical construction of the M3 range/viewfinder is different from that of all successor models. It is more elaborate to build, more sensitivie to shocks and abuses . . . On the other hand, it gives a very clear (if not more contrasty) life size view that is remarkably flare free when used in adverse lighting conditions." Apparently it is only the optics that are "sensitive" & not the mechanism itself because in another part of the same article Erwin goes on to say: "The rangefinder of the M3 is a very durable mechanism that hardly needs adjustment.:

So, why did they change it for the M2 & succeeding models?

I perused some of the other articles that Erwin has on his site and found one that indicates that the M3 rangefinder was designed to focus lenses of 50 mm & longer. It was necessary for Leica to develop a different design to accomodate the needs of wide angle lenses of shorter focal lengths, i.e the 35 mm lenses for the M2. The problem with the successor design is that the light is projected forward at several angles after it enters the camera, angles which do not exist in the M3 design. Such angles create problems, i.e. opportunities for stray light & hence, glare - the notorious curse of some M6's .

So, how did Zeiss & Cosina adapat the M3 range/viewfinder for use with the wide angle views of the 28 & 35 mm lenses that are focused in the ZI viewfinder? This is something that Leica has apparently not been able to do. I have e-mailed Puts with this question but have not yet received a reply. I will post it if & when I hear from him. At this point, I will also e-mail Zeiss to see if they can shed any "light" on this - no pun intended.

Anyway, so much for all of the comments that the ZI is just a "re-badged Bessa." We now know that Zeiss chose a range/viewfinder that "is more elaborate to build" in order to gain greater focus precision & that they incurred additional development costs to adapt an older design to do this. It has also been reported elsewhere that the electronic controls in the shutter mechanism are a brand new design, developed specifically for this camera to achieve greater timing precision. They could have simply recycled the Bessa designs for these two key elements of the camera, but they did not.

More later . . .

Huck

 

[vincentbenoit]

Anyway, so much for all of the comments that the ZI is just a "re-badged Bessa." We now know that Zeiss chose a range/viewfinder that "is more elaborate to build" in order to gain greater focus precision & that they incurred additional development costs to adapt an older design to do this. It has also been reported elsewhere that the electronic controls in the shutter mechanism are a brand new design, developed specifically for this camera to achieve greater timing precision. They could have simply recycled the Bessa designs for these two key elements of the camera, but they did not.

They did, however, contend themselves with using a flimsy piece of plastic to hold the back door... Why? Anyway, thanks Huck for the interesting post.

Vincent

 

[Huck Finn]

The "flimsy plastic" is just the external latch - & so far it's doing the job just fine on my ZI. The internal claw-like clasp that actually "holds" the door is metal.

 

[Sonnar2]

Having read the article in question and most of the posts in this thread I would like to make two comments:
1. No camera is perfect.
2. No camera review is perfect.
Vincent

True, very true... I'm pretty sure E.Puts isn't ambitious to write some kind of RF bible. hopefully you guys critizicing Puts' "non-native" English will never take *my* camera website so serious.. I did received critics of GERMAN readers who called my mother-language "pidgeon-Deutsch"... just because I started some of the texts in English and later-on build the German page...

cheers Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_main.html

 

[Huck Finn]

Who's criticizing his "non-native English"? 😕 ?\

 

[Sonnar2]

people supposing his judgements are influenced by ill translating into English

 

[RML]

As for the pronunciation - I cannot help, although there is a thing at the following address that allows one to hear the names of Dutch master painters being said by a Dutchman - http://www.essentialvermeer.com/dutch-painters/dpainters_wo/twenty_dutch_masterpieces.htm#How to - It might give a clue and is a good site for anyone interested in Dutch art. Incidentally, I understand that the Dutch pronunciation of van Gogh (and indeed the pronunciation he himself would have used) is a million miles from that used in the US. Well you learn a new thing...

The "u" in Puts is pronounced like the "u" in "Dutch", so it is indeed quite close to "putz".

The "g" and "gh" in "van Gogh" are pronounced like the "ch" in "loch" (like in Loch Ness). I'm not going to try to explain the "a" in "van". 🙂

 

[RML]

English is not Erwin's first language, its one thing to speak it but something else to write, especially you have a lot of technical information.

The problem isn't his non-native English, like mine. The problem is he writes too woolly, too fluffy and tries to imitate the language of many art critiquers. Often his writings just don't make sense to me as I can make no hear nor tail of it. That, and his ever so clear biases towards anything Leica, make me disregard his reviews. Whenever I feel I should read one, I get reminded why I stopped doing so last time. That's not to say his reviews might contain nuggets of gold. I'm just not patient enough to sift through a ton of soil to find a grain of gold.

 

[Huck Finn]

people supposing his judgements are influenced by ill translating into English

I don't think that has been the point of this thread. I have read his work extensively & own a couple of his books. I find much of what he has written to be informative. However, I didn't find his review of the ZI to be very informative for the most part. It's this review that is the topic here. Go to his website (www.imx.nl). Read both his ZI review & his review of the M7. then tell me if you think that both of these reviews are equally comprehensive & in depth.

In regard to his "non-native English," remember that this isn't just another guy with a website, stumbling around in a foreign language. He is a published author, whose work is published in English as well as in his native language. He is regarded as an expert on Leica equipment & other related rangefinder equipment (Canon, Konica, Cosina Voigtlander, & Zeiss). He represents his work as being based on scientific testing of the equipment he reviews. He is & should be held to a higher standard than most.

I'm amazed that this thread repeatedly degenerates into a discussion of the author instead of being about the eqipment that he reviews.

Huck

 

[Sonnar2]

Hi Huck,
I like his articles too, but at some point, he *is* just another nice guy with a website... one can agree or disagree. What can be measured about cameras like optical aberrations on lenses, leading to certain picture results, leading to certain MTF-graphs? Shutter precision? Shutter response time? Size, weight, material and handling issues? Maybe this is too philosophical for a pure technical analysis. But he addresses that in some (the "Zen") way... 🙂

cheers, Frank

 

[Huck Finn]

Hi Huck,
I like his articles too, but at some point, he *is* just another nice guy with a website... one can agree or disagree. What can be measured about cameras like optical aberrations on lenses, leading to certain picture results, leading to certain MTF-graphs? Shutter precision? Shutter response time? Size, weight, material and handling issues? Maybe this is too philosophical for a pure technical analysis. But he addresses that in some (the "Zen") way... 🙂

cheers, Frank

Point well taken, Frank. I often like what Erwin writes a great deal. I didn't think that he gave the ZI a bad review. . . He liked some things, he didn't like some others. I was just disappointed that the depth of the review wasn't up to the standard that he has set for himself with his Leica reviews - in this case, his much more thorough M7 review would be the comparison.

For example, he says: "The ZI feels substantially lighter than the M7, but also less solidly built. This initial impression may be wrong, but is still there." There is no problem with language here; his meaning is clear. My complaint is that he leaves it there. He doesn't pursue the question about build quality that he has just raised - despite the fact that he acknowledges that the initial impression may be wrong! He raises doubt by inuendo & without factual support. If you read his Leica reviews, you see that he leaves no such stone unturned. In fact, in his review of the R9, he goes into great detail to explain Leica's use of magnesium to lighten the camera & why it represents high quality. It is this same use of magnesium instead of brass that accounts for most of the lighter weight of the ZI, yet it seems that he can't be bothered explaining it. Such cursory treatment of key issues in this review while using them to create misgivings without any substance disappointed me. Perhaps my expectations were too high.

Huck

 

[Huck Finn]

Writing for the web is a skill, something I am currently learning, I take Erwin is doing this on his own time cut him some slack on the delivery and instead of doing what amounts to a flame, how about a counter review on the Zeiss Ikon.

Bill

Bill, I assume that your comments were in response to ZeissFan. Since it's been a few days & he hasn't replied, I think that it's only fair to point out that he has done an extensive review of the camera & has set up a blog with ongoing reports. See it at http://elekm.net/zeiss_ikon. His comments certainly do not represent a flame.

Yes, writing for the web is a skill, but remember that Erwin is a professional writer, a published author in both English & German. He makes good money for his writing. He has been posting his reviews on the website for many years. This is much more than a part time hobby for him. The issue here is not his writing skills nor his facility with a second language.


Huck

 

[Huck Finn]

In his review of the Zeiss Ikon, Erwin says that the rangefinder design is similar to that of the M3 & different than that of the rangefinder design used on every other Leica M camera.

I was intrigued by this statement & looked elsewhere on his webite (www.imx.nl) for more information on the topic. Relevant explanations can be found in 2 articles in his Leica Pages- "Choosing Leica M Cameras" in the M-System section and "Rangefinder from M3 to M7" in the Engineering Section. Included was information on why the new design (M2 & thereafter) was more flare prone than the M3, but otherwise these articles actually raised more questions:

1. Why does he describe the M3 rangefinder mechanism at one point as "very sensitive to shocks & abuses" but later as a "very durable mechanism that hardly needs adjustment"?

2. He says that Leica replaced the M3 rangefinder with a different one because the earlier one was only effective with focal lengths of 50 mm & longer, but could not accomodate the wider angles of shorter lenses. If so, how was Carl Zeiss able to base their rangefinder on the M3 design when the ZI is used with a viewfinder that accomodates lenses as short as 28 mm & their accompanying wide angle views?

I posed these questons to Carl Zeiss AG & today received a long & detailed e-mail from their Engineering Dept. Here are some excerpts fro that e-mail:

In reply to question #1: "The optical path of the M3 rangefinder was more complex than that of the later Leica models. It contained 3 prisms for beam deflection while all later Leica models have just one. Such a more complex system is more elaborate to adjust during assembly, and at least theoretically the risk of misalignment by later mechanical stress of the camera is higher. . . (But) a theoretical risk is not necessarily a real problem if things are well made. It is more an academic issue. The long product lifetime of the M3 from 1954 to 1967 suggests that it was a reliable piece. And it was in the '60s, that the Nikon F and a Leica M were the regular companions of photojournalists going to rough places.

In reply to question #2: "The M2 finder, which is basically still used today, was cost saving by its ingenious simplicity. But it is not true that the basic advantages of the optical path of the M3 cannot be combined with the larger viewing angles of the main finder, as the Zeiss Ikon is proof.

"This camera (ZI) uses again the basic layout of the M3 rangefinder path with the 3 beam deflections by 90 degrees. It has a similarity to the M3, but it is not a copy of the M3 rangefinder, as it uses different types of prisms to produce an upright image, and a different way to control the rangefinder viewing angle, and it has a different merging point of the view to the bright-line frames and the view to the rangefinder window.

"One difference which the camera user will notice: the rangefinder patch of the ZI does not move with the parallax compensation of the frames, but keeps its position on the optical axis.

"One basic idea of the M3 rangefinder is as well used in the Zeiss Ikon: the frame mask is parallel & close to the illumination window. . . Thus, the Zeiss Ikon shares with the M3 a very low tendency for rangefinder flare. In all non-M3 Leica finders, the frame mask is oblique to the illumination window & more into the interior of the camera. Thus, the frame illumination needs some support by additional optical elements - & they are partly the source of possible rangefinder flare, which always existed to some extent (post-M3) & became more pronounced with the modifications for the frames of the M4-2. Recent MP & M7 cameras use a new design for the frame illumination which reduces the flare problem, but not to the same level as the M3 & the Zeiss Ikon."

I was impressed with the priority on customer service at Carl Zeiss AG that would allow one of their engineers to take the time to provide this level of information to a single customer - a level of information that was longer & even more detailed than what I have reproduced here. I greatly appreciate the fact that they accomodated my request.

Huck

 

[Palaeoboy]

Im impressed by their knowledge of Leicas rangefinder mechanisms!

As for Ewins comments, welcome to the world of Puts contradictions. My favourite is his comment of a particuar Voigtlander lens that this is the first time he has detected no decentering. But he says that same thing about 3 of their lenses LOL

 

[Way]

Huck, thanks for digging deep for more ZI info! How have you been liking your ZI?

Way

 

[Huck Finn]

Im impressed by their knowledge of Leicas rangefinder mechanisms!

I suspect that they know a great deal about Leica cameras & lenses.

Huck