Who of you would choose Zeiss over Leica?

[Toby]

It's all a question of tools for different jobs. I live near a large housing project / council estate. On the whole, although I can see the virtues in ZI or Leica, I'd only use what I could afford to lose so my user bessa R is the tool for for high risk jobs like this one.

 

[climbing_vine]

Craziness. The Leica's film advance lever is totally out of proportion to the rest of the body, the rangefinder window on the front has no bezel, the shutter speed dial is just hanging out there whereas the one on the Zeiss is nestled just in place, the self-timer is totally wrong (similar to the advance lever... from a pure visual design standpoint the Leica is far, far clunkier to this eye. The Zeiss is much more in keeping with the classic approach to proportion and such.

Ergonomically... I have very small hands for a man, and they are none too nimble so I appreciate ease of mechanical operations. I haven't handled them extensively but the Zeiss feels far more "right" in these hands. YMWV (You Mileage *Will* Vary). 🙂


-bdh

I'm not a fan of the film winder on the Ikon, it looks like a piece of melted metal of abritrary shape.. Its shape conflicts with the rest of the camera design and over all the camera has no strong form or design whatsoever:

I've said it before, the Ikon looks like a design where the engineer threw everything they need onto a "block" and called it a camera. From the front view, the Ikon looks like it could have been designed using MS Word and playing around the the page margines feature...

 

[venchka]

Economics. Dollars and sense. Someday I would like to own a lens wider than 35mm. A black lens. The ZI 25mm lens makes the most sense for my dollars.

 

[Stephan]

I prefer the cool-ish color rendition of zeiss lenses, but I prefer the brick-like construction qualiti of leica bodies.

 

[peter_n]

Cameras - I use Leicas and I have held two ZI cams and I may be biased or just acclimated to them but I do prefer the Leica bodies. I would definitely be interested in one or two Zeiss lenses if they removed the bump from the focusing ring. Since they probably won't I'll stick with mainly Leica and some CV and Konica glass.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

If there's a contest for a million Euros (face it, let's stick with the winners) and the prize is to own a camera with a brand in reverse alphabetical order, then I would choose Zeiss over Leica.

Otherwise, I just choose both their optics.

I do choose briefs over boxers.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

ywenz : For me it looks like zeiss was designed by germans (zeiss has kind of medical feel to it 😀 silver one) and leica by italians 😀 😀

We know both were designed by Germans. Just one set of designers went to Ikea while the other set went to Venice 😉

 

[Kyle]

I bought a ZI back in April. I used it and loved it for months. An M2 was my second camera, which is a great camera. In the back of my mind I always longed for an MP, though, but never thought I could afford it. However, recently I started to really get the itch for an MP. I did a little research and realized that if I sold off the ZI (or the M2) plus my 25/2.8 ZM (which I rarely used as I'm not necessarily a super-wide guy) I could afford a used MP. I ended up finding a very nice MP at a great price, and the seller is going to help me honor the warranty for the next four years. I ended up selling the ZI, mainly cause I got no interested in the M2 and I really wanted the MP. The ZI was a great camera, but I had that itch to get the Leica, despite being such a nice camera, I sorta felt like I was 'settling' I guess.

The finder of the ZI is incredible, but the MP is no slouch, either. However, IMO the feel of the ZI just doesn't compare to the MP, which is hands down, the nicest camera I've ever handled.

Here's the main thing to remember which I realized through all of this. I know I'm not the first person to ever figure this out, but I'll say it again: If you can, get what you really want first. It will save a lot of time, effort, and money. I lost a lot of money buying a new ZI and then selling it a few months later and buying the MP, but I'm OK with that, since I've wanted one from the beginning. I think that now I can honestly say that this is the last main camera I'll ever want to buy. I might be tempted to do something like get an M3, because its a classic, but beyond something like that, there's nowhere for me to go.

I was awake for 32 hours straight. I finally got about 2 and a half hours of sleep and just woke up. If my thoughts are scattered and all over the place, then that's the reason. 🙂

 

[Bromo33333]

I did choose Zeiss over Leica. 🙂 I wanted a new camera, and the Zeiss, while pricey, was about half of what the Leica would have cost :bang: - no contest. I can still use Leica Lenses if I choose to as well - so for me there is little down side. 😛

I never had auto aperture before and it is kind of cool. 😎

 

[Kyle]

BTW, I still love the ZM lenses, and the 50/1.5 is my main lens right now.

 

[BillBingham2]

Not I. While the Zeiss looks like a wonderful camera, for me, it's Leica.

I know my Leicas will be able to be fixed in 40 years. It may cost some money, DAG's son or someone will be able to fix the shutter. I doubt the same will be said about the ZI.

I like having the option for a winder, not that I use them all the time, but they are on almost every body.

I do not need a self-time that can not give me a 10 second exposure (ala F2).

That does not mean I think it's Leica or nothing. I love my S2 and hope to get a user SP in a year or two. Loading the M6 is, well, special, very special. I can do it walking down the street, but it is a pain.

I expect better from ZI when building a new camera with 40 years of good and bad camera ideas to look at.

B2 (;->

 

[ghost]

i would choose a snickers bar over a kit kat.

uh, i mean, i would choose a black paint zeiss ikon over everything but an a la carte black paint mp with angled rewind crank, hinged advance lever, and vulcanite-style leatherette.

 

[back alley]

the canon p is still the best!

it's all a crap shoot and it's all mostly about what you happen to own at the time.
i have a pretty good stereo and when i want to totally experience the music i am listening to i use it.
i also have a clock radio for msuic listening to fall asleep to.
they both do the job and sound good to me. sure one is way different than the other. and it needs to be that way because i can't fit 5 speakers and a hugh subwoofer on my bedside table.

i happen to like the looks of the zi and that's good because i wanted new equipment. i would have gone the cv bessa# route if the zi hadn't landed on my door.
most people, when talking about leicas, end up talking about 20 to 50 year old machines and that's fine...but i wanted new, and i wanted a swing back. listen to folks talk about loading a leica, it's funny hearing all the 'it's not as hard as people say' routines. the zi is not hard to load at all. no one says it is...
i like leica. the m3 is probably the smoothest most refined camera i have ever owned. but it's still a bottom loader and that is not acceptable to me.

buy what makes you happy, use what works for you.

there is no comparison worth making if you really like what you have.

joe

 

[Kyle]

buy what makes you happy, use what works for you.

there is no comparison worth making if you really like what you have.

Joe hit the nail on the head!

 

[Trius]

ywenz: about industrial design, I really do agree with you. But I want the long baseline and framelines of the ZI. Guess that means M4-2 or M6 for me. That said, I haven't held a ZI, whereas I have owned an M3. I'm so conflicted. As for lenses, I'm pretty sold on Zeiss or a combination of both. Then there's the CV Nokton 40.

 

[x-ray]

Why do we incessantly pit Zeiss against Leica? I have used both makes through the years, and throw out most blanket statements. I believe the majority of us cannot actually see the small differences between the two. Inherent in photographers must be something that demands that we validate ourselves by our choices in camera gear. Buy what you like and go make images. The rest is just grist for the mill.

Well spoken! I have a mix of ZM and Leica glass and bodies. Each maker makes particular lenses that are better than others bit no maker makes all lenses the best. Leica has some excellent glass and so does Zeiss. The same is true for bodies.

Magnus put it very well too. There is no Leica glow other than what's in the mind.


vol72 - I'm in Knoxville too - we need to link up.

 

[Pherdinand]

i prefer bodies with not so rounded corners (except when they are alive), so, based on the look, zeiss is far ahead. This is valid for the 50 y old Zeiss Contax cameras too.

 

[ray_g]

I'm more interested in Carl Zeiss equipment than Leica, be it vintage or recent. You have to try a 180/2.8 Sonnar to understand what quality is 😉

Is that for the Pentacon mount, Max? Would you know it it has the same optics as the Olympic Sonnar for 35mm, in C/Y or M42 mount?

 

[ray_g]

I would be happy with either one. For me, it was just a matter of what was available, and price. When time came to get a "modern" body, it was either a new ZI for (then) $1500 vs a mint classic M6 for 2/3 that.

As regards lenses, sure certain lenses are better than others. However, at this level of price, performance, and quality, they are all great lenses and I would be hard pressed to tell the difference between modern Zeiss and Leica glass. With wet prints, maybe, but not after the film has been scanned and post-processed, and especially not on a computer screen.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Both make excellent products, no reason to let brand name rule, let your needs dictate which body or lens make more sense.