Sold My Zeiss Ikon

[Turtle]

Another way to look at the FF vs. crop thingy:

I feel it's a great advantage to be able to shoot two cameras with a 35mm focal view, while owning only one 35mm lens, without having to swap the lens all the time! Digital=color, Film=B&W, lets roll!

Thats very true and i would probably use a back up used M8 in exactly that capacity, probably with a 50 planar on it for a '75' or 35 to give me a 50.

 

[Turtle]

Amazed. Can't see the benefit of FF.

I think RF photography is best practised using some math😎, and the 1.33 crop on the M8 is just too simple:

12mm=16mm,
15mm=20mm,
21mm=28mm,
28mm=37mm,
35mm=47mm,
50mm=67mm (extra focal length, slight portrait tele),
90mm=120mm,
135mm=180mm

So, for any film body lens, simply pick the next focal length up to know what it will look like on the 1.33 sensor.

The 50mm will turn into a nice small tele lens, perfectly suited for portraits. The only focal difference worthy of mentioning is the 90mm turning into a 120mm, which is an odd one out.

Now, the inadequate frame lines and the bloody IR-cut filters on the M8, those are a reason to get the M9!

Olsen, I would have sold the M8's instead of the ZI when you mind remembering the crop factor. That would have done away with the problem forgood. And the 21mm you love would still have been a 21mm on the M9.

I realise the maths - it is very simple - but don't want to mess about with that when switching lenses and bodies in the field, working quickly, with fleeting opportunities etc and shooting film bodies side by side.

I also don't want to have to have to buy a large super expensive 24 lux just to be able to get a fast 35mm (32) equivalent lens.... when there are much cheaper, smaller and lighter 35 1.4s/f2s about.

Then there is the DOF and difficulty getting the same selective focus with cropped sensors due to shorter FLs and inherently greater DOF.

There's the so-so high ISO performance of the M8 as well as the issues you mentioned.

10 MP is also marginal and cannot fully exploit many M lenses to the full either. Fine for medium or large prints of subjects with modest detail (that can be uprezzed without revealing that fine details are absent), but you cannot uprez detail the sensor has not captured.

I think there are lots of reasons to prefer FF, but everyone has different needs and I can see why the M8 appeals to many, just not to me.

 

[Olsen]

Amazed. Can't see the benefit of FF.

I think RF photography is best practised using some math😎, and the 1.33 crop on the M8 is just too simple:

12mm=16mm,
15mm=20mm,
21mm=28mm,
28mm=37mm,
35mm=47mm,
50mm=67mm (extra focal length, slight portrait tele),
90mm=120mm,
135mm=180mm

So, for any film body lens, simply pick the next focal length up to know what it will look like on the 1.33 sensor.

The 50mm will turn into a nice small tele lens, perfectly suited for portraits. The only focal difference worthy of mentioning is the 90mm turning into a 120mm, which is an odd one out.

Now, the inadequate frame lines and the bloody IR-cut filters on the M8, those are a reason to get the M9!

Olsen, I would have sold the M8's instead of the ZI when you mind remembering the crop factor. That would have done away with the problem forgood. And the 21mm you love would still have been a 21mm on the M9.

I totally agree with you.

After having had my M8 for close to four years it is not the crop factor that bothers me. Not the slightest. The M8 has taught me that a crop factor of 1,33 is easy to live with. No problem at all! It is rather the UV/IR filter hassle and the noisy high ISO performance - plus a lot of other gadgets I would prefer long before I would consider FF.

My M8 will have to go too.

 

[Bill58]

So what makes you guys think a digital ZI is going to be any more reliable or problem-free as the M8 has been? I'm highly skeptical.....

Bill

 

[Olsen]

So what makes you guys think a digital ZI is going to be any more reliable or problem-free as the M8 has been? I'm highly skeptical.....

Bill

Indeed.

I think that a future advanced digital rangefinder camera will not be a result of a 'standard' DSLR sensor simply being put into a rangefinder camera frame, like with the RD-1. This time over it takes far more effort and sensor specialisation to make something worthwhile. Despite it's many weaknesses, I think, that Leica is still closest to making the 'perfect' D-Rf through it's cooperation with Kodak. None of the Japanese sensors known to the market is anywhere close to being suited for a D-Rf due to their lack of handling steep light angles and all that. Nor do we see any Japanese sensor producers being interested in this narrow segment of the market.

 

[Keith]

Nice as the ZI may be, it doesnt have the industrial built of the Leica. Thus it cannot be more reliable. A Toyota Tundra is a nice vechicle, but it is not a Hummer.

Similarly, the Contax 645 is a fantastic auto-everything camera. But the workhorse is the Hasselblad. So too the Leica.

I think its interesting the ZI was liquidated first.

Best Regards -- Paul

I remember a while ago one of the correctional institutions in Oz chose a couple of Hummers as perimeter vehicles for a maximun security prison. Within months they had both broken down on numerous occasions and one in fact was languishing in a repair facility awaiting parts. 🙄

 

[jonmanjiro]

I remember a while ago one of the correctional institutions in Oz chose a couple of Hummers as perimeter vehicles for a maximun security prison. Within months they had both broken down on numerous occasions and one in fact was languishing in a repair facility awaiting parts. 🙄

Talk about choosing the wrong tool for the job - in the words of Marc Faber, dumb dumb dumb!

 

[Turtle]

Talk about choosing the wrong tool for the job - in the words of Marc Faber, dumb dumb dumb!

But they use them in the movies, so how could they possibly be the wrong vehicle for such a job? 😉

 

[alifil]

I don't like Hummers.