Should I get a ZM?

[theburk]

now, i know this is a very broad and personal question, but should i? ive worked with a lot of the classics in camera design, my 2 favorite cameras are my rolleiflex (an older model the 3.5 from i think 1953) and my pre anniversary speed graphic, and what i need right now is a good new 35mm i have a cannon, but its cumbersome, and the image quality while good, isnt anything compared to that lovely zeiss lens i have on my rollei, and when one looks for a 35mm the creme de la creme is the leica, ive asked people why and they said it was the lens for the most part. well, the leica with a lens costs as much (looking on amazon and various american dealers online) as an entire m7, the idea behind getting a new 35mm is because i need a new camera, and specificly a good general purpose 35mm weight for me of course isnt a problem, but durability and build quality are, but even then nothing is as important as optical quality, which was my reasoning behind thinking of getting a zm, for me a nice distortion free lens that is a good average lens is my ideal, but i dont have a lot of money to spend. i want something that can last as long as my speed graphic has, (its nearly 70 years old and still takes great pictures, focal plane shutter still works too) its not neccissarily important that it have super fast shutter speeds, as i rarely shoot over 250 but it would also be nice to shoot in any lighting condition with lower iso films specificly from iso 25 to 400 (im a detail person) so is the ZM the right choice? that is if anyone managed to get through my rambling

 

[kshapero]

I am moving to A Zeiss Zm by the end of summer. Everyone I have talked to is very pleased with the build quality.

 

[theburk]

I am moving to A Zeiss Zm by the end of summer. Everyone I have talked to is very pleased with the build quality.

ya for me the quality of the manufacture was never an issue as ziess has always been setting the standard, and on their page mention the trouble they went through moving machinery and techs to japan to get the factory up to spec.

 

[JoeFriday]

yes, you should get a ZI.. problem solved

 

[payasam]

You might also consider a fixed lens RF camera. Good general purpose things.

 

[mfogiel]

Well you haven't said what is your preferred focal length in 35mm. However, you can combine the ZM lenses with any M mount camera, so If you want to have a brick like solidity you can buy an M2 or M3 body and stick a modern lens onto it.
I am personally a fan of Zeiss lenses, but I am not a fanatic, so I like to try various options, and luckily there are 3 very good quality lenses for low light shooting from CV too: the 28 Ultron, the 35 Nokton and the 50 Nokton, and they are very hard to beat on the performance/price ratio. I have 2 Bessa's and a ZI, and I didn't buy a Leica for 2 simple reasons: I wear glasses and the viewfinders of these cameras are IMO (espeecially the ZI) better than Leica's, and the price of a M7 ( I wanted exposure automation) is to be considered high, if you think that top quality film cameras like Hasselblad or Nikon F are selling for 20% of their new price, at best.
I have a ZI with a 35/1.2 Nokton sitting on my desk right now, the price of this stuff new is 1/3 of what an M7 with a 35 summilux would be, and I personally enjoy it a lot. Look around and discover more clever options for your rangefinder shooting. It will be a lot of fun.

 

[peter_n]

I am fan of Leica but I think if the Zeiss stuff had been around when I was buying I would probably have ended up with it. The VF in the ZI body is the best I have seen and the ZM lenses seem to be very good though I do like the look of the older Leica lenses. You should have no qualms buying Zeiss.

 

[adietrich]

Burk,
One thing you should consider: When you "step down" from MF/LF you might be disappointed looking at the small negatives. The modern optics might be superior to the old Tessas design, but the difference becomes less important than the difference in negative size.

An alternate "investment" would be a MF slide projector. Best thing I ever bought.

Regards,
Arne

 

[Rhoyle]

I was in the same situation as you. Same model Rolleiflex and was in love with the Zeiss glass. Best I'd ever used. So I got the Rollei 35RF with the 40mm Sonnar and also got a ZM 25 2.8. I've never looked back.

 

[clicker]

The ZM is a wonderful camera and the Zeiss glass is as good as it gets.Dollar for dollar there is only one choice as far as I am concerned.Buy the Zeiss and you won't go wrong.

 

[gregg]

I have a very high opinion of the Zeiss camera (beautiful finder) and use the 28mm Biogon ZM as my primary lens on an M6.

If you are intrigued by the Leica reputation and don't need aperture priority you may consider a used M6 for the same price (or less) than the ZM body.

Again, no reason to doubt the build quality of the Zeiss - just an alternative.

 

[waileong]

Hmm

Hmm

I am moving to A Zeiss Zm by the end of summer. Everyone I have talked to is very pleased with the build quality.

I guess you haven't talked to me. Build quality to me is par for the course. You get what you pay for, only that for the same money, you can get a very nice M3/M2/M4 which is the height of build quality.

 

[back alley]

I guess you haven't talked to me. Build quality to me is par for the course. You get what you pay for, only that for the same money, you can get a very nice M3/M2/M4 which is the height of build quality.

a new camera with a meter and ae instead of a 20 year old camera with no meter and a cloth shutter that needs a cla every few years to keep the shutter speeds accurate.

please tell me how you know the zi is so poorly built.

joe

 

[waileong]

Par for the course

Par for the course

a new camera with a meter and ae instead of a 20 year old camera with no meter and a cloth shutter that needs a cla every few years to keep the shutter speeds accurate.

please tell me how you know the zi is so poorly built.

joe

I know about the build quality because I have a ZI, M3 and M4. Personal use and experience.

I said the build quality is "par for the course". Not "poorly built". I assume you are familiar with the expression. It means basically that it's more or less what you'd get for the money.

The meter and ae have nothing to do with the build quality. Those are features.

Build quality comes from the quality of materials and how things are put together. A chair with synthetic leather vs a chair covered with handsewn conolly leather have completely different build quality. Of course, they also have completely different prices. Which is why I used the expression "par for the course".

You get what you pay for.

Choice of shutter mechanism is a conscious decision in today's market. You can opt for an MP with a traditional cloth shutter (and many do, knowing the need for CLA) or an M7/M8 with an electronic shutter. That's not a build quality issue, the build quality issue comes with the type of cloth you choose to use, how you engineer the shutter, how it feels and sounds, etc.

CLA is not a reflection of build quality per se, more a design choice due to the lack of electronic shutters back in 1953. But even swiss watches today continue to be built using mechanical movements that are obviously far less accurate than a $9.99 Timex.

Would you say a top grade swiss watch has less build quality than a Timex because it needs a CLA every 10 years?

 

[theburk]

Well you haven't said what is your preferred focal length in 35mm. However, you can combine the ZM lenses with any M mount camera, so If you want to have a brick like solidity you can buy an M2 or M3 body and stick a modern lens onto it.
I am personally a fan of Zeiss lenses, but I am not a fanatic, so I like to try various options, and luckily there are 3 very good quality lenses for low light shooting from CV too: the 28 Ultron, the 35 Nokton and the 50 Nokton, and they are very hard to beat on the performance/price ratio. I have 2 Bessa's and a ZI, and I didn't buy a Leica for 2 simple reasons: I wear glasses and the viewfinders of these cameras are IMO (espeecially the ZI) better than Leica's, and the price of a M7 ( I wanted exposure automation) is to be considered high, if you think that top quality film cameras like Hasselblad or Nikon F are selling for 20% of their new price, at best.
I have a ZI with a 35/1.2 Nokton sitting on my desk right now, the price of this stuff new is 1/3 of what an M7 with a 35 summilux would be, and I personally enjoy it a lot. Look around and discover more clever options for your rangefinder shooting. It will be a lot of fun.

hmm.. i dont realy have a prefered focal lenght, but id prefer as close to the human eye as possible so around 50mm in 35mm and i have gotten quite used to the 70mm on the rollei, but im not sure what the conversion to 35mm would be, but i do think it would be around 50mm. and a hasselblad for me wouldnt be able to replace my rollei in terms of travel shooting, the only reason i want a hasselblad is for hand held studio work (and most of my studio work recently has been large format) and a good m2 or m3 body though half the cost of the zeiss and with a lens, the point is getting a new camera, one that isnt used or abused and is up to the most recent technical specs, and also one like you said with a bright finder (i also wear glasses) but ya ill probably get a zm.

 

[theburk]

I said the build quality is "par for the course". I assume you are familiar with the expression. It means basically that it's more or less what you'd get for the money.

The meter and ae have nothing to do with the build quality. Those are features.

Build quality comes from the quality of materials and how things are put together. A chair with synthetic leather vs a chair covered with handsewn conolly leather have completely different build quality.

Of course, they also have completely different prices. Which is why I used the expression "par for the course".

You get what you pay for.

CLA is not a reflection of build quality per se, more a design choice due to the lack of electronic shutters back in 1953. But even swiss watches today continue to be built using mechanical movements that are obviously far less accurate than a $9.99 Timex.

Would you say a top grade swiss watch has less build quality than a Timex because it needs a CLA every 10 years?

Choice of shutter mechanism is a conscious decision in today's market. You can opt for an MP with a traditional cloth shutter (and many do, knowing the need for CLA) or an M7/M8 with an electronic shutter. That's not a build quality issue, the build quality issue comes with the type of cloth you choose to use, how you engineer the shutter, how it feels and sounds, etc.

i wouldnt say zeiss build quality is par, id say epson build quality is, zeiss after all hasnt even made a camera in decades, but, the cameras they did make were among the best and still work pretty well without cla's, when they went to japan and built their factory they trained each and every employee properly to ensure quality control and moved machinery from zeiss in germany, so even if its made in japan its still german workmanship, the body is die cast aluminum, just like the leica, all parts are built with world class high preformance machinery, it may be mass produced, but its mass produced with the very best machinery there is. we arent talking about a kiev 88 that was hastily put together to meet a quota, we are talking about a ZM, german engineering and japanese technical skill.

 

[theburk]

Burk,
One thing you should consider: When you "step down" from MF/LF you might be disappointed looking at the small negatives. The modern optics might be superior to the old Tessas design, but the difference becomes less important than the difference in negative size.

An alternate "investment" would be a MF slide projector. Best thing I ever bought.

Regards,
Arne

this is true, thats why i quit using my dads old miranda and my cannon rebel. but using slower speeds can compensate for the small negative side. specificly when blowing a 35mm negative that was shot on 25 or 100 iso film up to 8x10 you still get very good results, thats where having a lens that preforms better in low light gets a little handy but for me its not as important after i saw how well i did shooting 1 sec handheld and still got perfect detail on the icons in notre dame with a rollei i think id be able to hold a little 35 steady. the idea for the zm is for when i need a camera when im being more active but my subjects arent, the rollei is great for walking around on the street but cumbersome for say climing or hiking, but using the 35 with the 120 i can put the 120 in my backpack for when i climb hills, and still use both when walking around on the street. the rollei is an amazing camera, but its square negative makes it a vignette camera, for good action and dramatic more photojournalistic pictures a 35 or 6x9 is what is realy needed. and all the 6x9s ive used are too cumbersome aside from the graflex which i would use when detail is more important or i want large blow ups. basicly i have a different camera for every different type of shooting i encounter. france kinda galvanized this idea, i used my speed graphic for larger shots, crowd shots, and the rollei for intimate vignettes and detail.

anyway rambling over.

 

[back alley]

waileong you have a history here of calling the zi cheap and referring to it as an inferior product.
we disagree. i also have the zi and owned an m3 and m4-p and the biggest difference i found between the cameras was weight.
the zi has quality materials and as far as price, leica prices are insane and they have been cheapening their products for years. glued down faceplates on lenses and plastic parts in their bodies. and they charge a premium price for workmanship that was part of the process 30 years ago but has long since been fading.
you are deluding yourself my friend.
cosina has shown the world that excellence does not have to cost and arm and a leg to enjoy.

joe

 

[waileong]

You left out the context of my past statements. I said it feels cheap compared to a Leica. When you have used both Leica and ZI, you'll understand why the ZI feels cheap compared to the Leica, esp. the acme of Leica build quality.

And I agree with you on the M4-P, etc. They feel cheap too, they don't give an impression of quality compared with their brethren. But hold an M7 and a ZI to see why an M7, second hand, still costs more than a new ZI. It's not just about weight.

Age has nothing to do with build quality. Indeed, in many cases, there is the feeling that the craftsmanship of today is not as good as that of the past. It occurs with Japanese swords, it occurs with cars, it even goes for Leica's, which is why some people refer to the M4 as the epitome of Leica quality (before they had to cheapen themselves with M4-P, etc.). Thankfully, they have recovered lost ground with the new MP.

Since you bring up my "history", I'd like to point out (again) that quality is not just about conformance to specs. Hyundai may rank higher on the JD Powers index, but no one would say that its quality is that of a BMW or Merz, esp. not its quality of materials.

You may be satisfied with the quality of materials used by ZI. I think that they are ok, but certainly when it comes to materials and build quality, there's room for improvement. It may be very good to you, but I want more, and we've all seen M3, MP, MP-3, etc. to know that more can be done.

The question is, do you want to pay $3,500 for an MP, or $1,200 for a ZI. Choice is yours-- choice of quality and choice of price. To get the first 90% of quality is easy. To get the remaining 5% or 10% costs a lot more.

 

[theburk]

You left out the context of my past statements. I said it feels cheap compared to a Leica. When you have used both Leica and ZI, you'll understand why the ZI feels cheap compared to the Leica, esp. the acme of Leica build quality.

And I agree with you on the M4-P, etc. They feel cheap too, they don't give an impression of quality compared with their brethren. But hold an M7 and a ZI to see why an M7, second hand, still costs more than a new ZI. It's not just about weight.

Age has nothing to do with build quality. Indeed, in many cases, there is the feeling that the craftsmanship of today is not as good as that of the past. It occurs with Japanese swords, it occurs with cars, it even goes for Leica's, which is why some people refer to the M4 as the epitome of Leica quality (before they had to cheapen themselves with M4-P, etc.). Thankfully, they have recovered lost ground with the new MP.

Since you bring up my "history", I'd like to point out (again) that quality is not just about conformance to specs. Hyundai may rank higher on the JD Powers index, but no one would say that its quality is that of a BMW or Merz, esp. not its quality of materials.

You may be satisfied with the quality of materials used by ZI. I think that they are ok, but certainly when it comes to materials and build quality, there's room for improvement. It may be very good to you, but I want more, and we've all seen M3, MP, MP-3, etc. to know that more can be done.

The question is, do you want to pay $3,500 for an MP, or $1,200 for a ZI. Choice is yours-- choice of quality and choice of price. To get the first 90% of quality is easy. To get the remaining 5% or 10% costs a lot more.

ok ive seen this a lot on the internet, wai what you have is an opinion, being someone who dosent have a lot to spend on cameras, when it comes down to it, the ziess and leica are basicly the bmw and the porscha of cameras, both german design, both expensive, the hyundai of cameras is basicly a cannon powershot or some other basic camera anyone can afford and use easily, the zi and leica like the bmw and mercedes need a bit of extra care, but are superior machines. when looking at the specs of the m7 and the ZI side by side, they are basicly the same, and built from the same stuff, in the end while one may prefer a hand built machine, the camera is just a machine, a tool to craft an image, and when it comes to tools a flat head is a flat head regardless of weather it is made out of titanium or tempered steel understand what im saying? you like titanium, i cant aford it, so i go with cobalt, does the same job, uses the same head, and as long as i dont run over it with a car itll do just fine as far as survivability. one thing my old cameras have instilled in me is that its not mass production that causes problems, its the manufacturer cutting corners or meeting quotas, the zi is built to the highest standards you can build too while still having mild automation. and in the end a human still does a good deal of work on it as nothing is fully built by machine. in the end the zi will do exactly what the m7 does, but with a normal film loading method and at nearly half the price (depending on where you look, i looked on amazon) and in the end its the photographer not his camera, money isnt everything my photography teacher peter feresten made a great deal of amazing pictures using a cheap old peice of **** diana, its not the camera its the photographer. and the zi to me looks like a reasonably priced and all around great camera system.