Why do ZI rangefinders cost so much even used?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ko.Fe. said:
F3HP is outlasting and over performing Leica M2 for three times less.
Click to expand...

You don't get leaking LCDs in a Leica M2. And you also don't seen the electronics starting to fail in a Leica M2. And you don't get to use Leica lenses on an F3.

I have two F3Ps, and several Leicas. There is no point in comparing them as they are very different.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
That's just how the market works, plain and simple.
I want a 1967 Mercedes-Benz 190SL. Even more, I want a 1959 300SL. Or even a lowly 1968 280SE. They are not anywhere near the performance of a modern Subaru. They are fickle, can have reliability issues (especially the electronic fuel injected veraions) bad on gas economy, slow and generally fuddy duddy. I don't like the fact they cost so much because compared with a Subaru or Toyota or Honda they can't compete. Why aren't they less expensive?

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Leica M2 is the mercedes Benz and the ZI is the Subaru.
 
colker said:
Leica M2 is the mercedes Benz and the ZI is the Subaru.
Click to expand...
Sounds about right. Our Forester is just about to clock over 400,000km. A set of spark plug leads, a few sets of plugs, one rear wheel bearing (around 100km a week on dirt roads, not complaining) and a replacement clutch. Nothing else but routine maintenance and frankly not a lot of that. How many "CLAs" would many M2s have had since new by now I wonder.
 
colker said:
Prices on Pentax 67 lenses are so low it´s embarrassing. Beautifully built huge glass selling for peanuts.
Leica R lenses and cameras sell for cheap.
Even Hasselblads are cheap. They used to be ultra expensive. Leicas were cheap compared to Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. Now it´s cheap. Made in Sweden. Zeiss Ikon lenses made in Germany. All cheap.

But a Cosina Zeiss Ikon body costs 1800 dollars? I could buy a Rollei F 2.8 in pristine condition for that money. And I can fix the Rollei. I doubt i could fix the ZI.
Click to expand...

Hasselblads might be cheaper than they were when new in real terms, but your comment above very conveniently overlooks the point that some years ago they were quite a bit cheaper than they presently are, having dropped in price post digital and then, subsequently, appreciated somewhat. Like a number of other film cameras, particularly over the last couple of years or so. Don't believe me? Go compare prices for K1000, Canon AE-1 ten years ago (or even five years ago) to now. Neither of those cameras are paragons of reliability, either (dodgy K1000 meters, AE-1 mirror issues and weak wind system etc) however they fetch the prices people will pay. I personally think it's madness but clearly many others feel differently. ;)
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
Hasselblads might be cheaper than they were when new in real terms, but your comment above very conveniently overlooks the point that some years ago they were quite a bit cheaper than they presently are, having dropped in price post digital and then, subsequently, appreciated somewhat. Like a number of other film cameras particularly, over the last couple of years or so. Don't believe me? Go compare prices for K1000, Canon AE-1 ten years ago (or even five years ago) to now. Neither of those cameras are paragons of reliability, either (dodgy K1000 meters, AE-1 mirror issues and weak wind system etc) however they fetch the prices people will pay. I personally think it's madness but clearly many others feel differently. ;)
Click to expand...

I know that... even so: a used out of production camera w/ no tradition, no current bruhaha around it, costing more used than when sold on shops? It is overpricing on steroids.
 
Peter Wijninga said:
Here an interesting review of the ZI: https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/zeiss-.html
Click to expand...

From the review:
• The aforementioned more accurate electronically-controlled shutter, with a top shutter speed double that of the Leica's at 1/2000th and with a faster flash sync.
(vertical metal shutters on my Nikons ceased to work when stored for a long time. The horiz. on my Leica is still working.)

• The ZI is lighter, about 4/5ths the weight of the Leica. I see this as an improvement; others might not.
(a heavier camera body w/ less vibrating shutter is more stable and shakes less when you are shutting 1/15 of a second. IME)

• It's not as expensive. I see this as an improvement too, although maybe it's not one either. (now it´s more expensive.)

>It has a swing-open back, with conventional film loading. Finally. The lack of a swing-open back, which is standard on virtually every other camera that is even remotely comparable, has always been one of the crowning idiosyncrasies of the original Leica M design. Even to the point that Leica duplicated it in the digital M8, which seemed perverse to me when I tried the M8. Even some of the diehards don't bother to defend this one.
(the original Nikon F has a similar Leica arrangement: remove part of the camera to load film. NOt very user friendly but... it gives quiet loading. Nobody mentions that but the convoluted leica loading is quiet).

• It has AE with exposure compensation.
(just like a Leica M7..)

I am still not convinced to pay 1.8k for this camera. I will pay this money on other photo gear but not the ZI. It´s a free world do as you wish.
 
colker said:
From the review:
• The aforementioned more accurate electronically-controlled shutter, with a top shutter speed double that of the Leica's at 1/2000th and with a faster flash sync.
(vertical metal shutters on my Nikons ceased to work when stored for a long time. The horiz. on my Leica is still working.)

• The ZI is lighter, about 4/5ths the weight of the Leica. I see this as an improvement; others might not.
(a heavier camera body w/ less vibrating shutter is more stable and shakes less when you are shutting 1/15 of a second. IME)

• It's not as expensive. I see this as an improvement too, although maybe it's not one either. (now it´s more expensive.)

>It has a swing-open back, with conventional film loading. Finally. The lack of a swing-open back, which is standard on virtually every other camera that is even remotely comparable, has always been one of the crowning idiosyncrasies of the original Leica M design. Even to the point that Leica duplicated it in the digital M8, which seemed perverse to me when I tried the M8. Even some of the diehards don't bother to defend this one.
(the original Nikon F has a similar Leica arrangement: remove part of the camera to load film. NOt very user friendly but... it gives quiet loading. Nobody mentions that but the convoluted leica loading is quiet).

• It has AE with exposure compensation.
(just like a Leica M7..)

I am still not convinced to pay 1.8k for this camera. I will pay this money on other photo gear but not the ZI. It´s a free world do as you wish.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Free market and all that. After reading your posts it sounds like the ZI isn't for you anyway even if the price were lower. No big deal, it's just a tool.
 
Huss said:
You don't get leaking LCDs in a Leica M2. And you also don't seen the electronics starting to fail in a Leica M2. And you don't get to use Leica lenses on an F3.

I have two F3Ps, and several Leicas. There is no point in comparing them as they are very different.
Click to expand...

I don't even have F3HP. I was talking OP logic.

Talking by your logic...
My family FED-2 will outlast all M2. Because by the time it will be no parts, no technicians for Leica, FED-2 will be still available for parts, it is made in millions and it is DIY for anything. Including curtains. :p
 
colker said:
"There is no new ZIs so the price must go up".. have a look at eBay and check prices for Pentax 67, Nikon F3 and other SLRs which are not made anymore.. Try your reasoning and see if it sticks. It doesn´t.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the Pentax 67II? Many of the original Pentax 67 bodies have issues. SLRs just haven`t gotten to the point where there are more bad ones than good ones... once they are scarcer, they will go up.
 
colker said:
I know that... even so: a used out of production camera w/ no tradition, no current bruhaha around it, costing more used than when sold on shops? It is overpricing on steroids.
Click to expand...

Well if you know that perhaps you should not have asserted that, essentially, Hasselblads etc used to be expensive, and now they are cheap. Which was the thrust of your post I quoted. That is rather different from: them being expensive; becoming affordable; and then experiencing a (relatively modest, but, still, notable) increase.

I don't know what you know. Or what you think. I only know what you've written.
 
My head hurts just from reading this thread. Who cares if its expensive? For whatever reason....

Don't buy one if you don't like the price.
 
I just scrolled through the entirety of this thread: the OP does not want to buy a ZI. He believes that it is overpriced and inferior to a Leica. Case closed.
 
Peter Wijninga said:
I just scrolled through the entirety of this thread: the OP does not want to buy a ZI. He believes that it is overpriced and inferior to a Leica. Case closed.
Click to expand...

Your summary misses an important discovery, namely that my Leica has a previously unknown to me "quiet load" feature. Well it's quiet except for me cursing at it. ;)
 
jawarden said:
Your summary misses an important discovery, namely that my Leica has a previously unknown to me "quiet load" feature. Well it's quiet except for me cursing at it. ;)
Click to expand...
This is true. Though I'm not sure how much louder my F2 is when loading it compared with my M4. Further, why is quiet film loading needed? Is it an inherently loud activity? I think the Leica M loading makes one quieter as you hold the bottom plate in your teeth.
This statement is really ridiculous though. Quiet film loading? Maybe compared to a motorized camera.
It's not quiet when that bottom plate falls to the ground and a loud expletive is released from the user's mouth.
Ridiculous.

Phil Forrest
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom