Would you or have you ever gone to the Dark Side?

Would you or have you ever gone to the Dark Side?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 35.6%

  • No

    Votes: 38 64.4%
  • Total voters
    59
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good M typ 240 at your side.

(sorry, someone had to pull that one out!)
 
The question is somewhat ill conceived. I have both systems, and although obviously they overlap, they are not the same.
Zeiss Ikon is foremost a low light camera for me. It is the best 35mm FL body there is around, and paired with the Nokton 35/1.2 is simply unbeatable for low light film photography. Zeiss Ikon is also a better camera for the street than any film Leica, for the 1/2000th sec shutter, which gives you extra flexibility with exposure. On the flip side, Leica has the 0.85x and 0.58x magnifications, that are better suited for 50 and 28mm - in fact I have 2 M7's (0.85x and 0.58x) for these focal lengths.
As to the Zeiss lenses, with the exception of C Sonnar, they are very high contrast, and unless you like that look in B&W, I feel that they excel in colour photography. You can mitigate the problem somewhat by exposing richly and pulling your film, but this has its separate consequences.
The final point is, the reliability/durability/fondling factor. Although my ZI works flawlessly, somehow Leica bodies give you a psychological feeling of being a more reliable tool, and this is not necessarily correlated to the effective maintenance problems with the cameras.
I would not want to part with my ZI, but I would not want either to have it as the only M mount body.
 
if i were looking at buying a film rangefinder today, i would get another bessa...maybe the r4 and a 25mm lens.
great street outfit!
 
Recently I sold my M4-P body to pay for Henry Scherer to overhaul a Contax II prewar 50mm f2 Sonnar and 35mm 2.8 Biogon. The results have been incredible. It is a zen experience for me to shoot that way. The funny thing is that I normally hate chrome cameras, preferring black bodies. This camera seems to be the exception to a lot of "rules" for me. If I go back to the M bodies, I think I will get the Contax RF to M adapter first and use the old lenses initially. I, too, think the ZM lenses excellent and prefer their look (and of course price) to Leica. The Pinnacle will be to eventually have a Leica M or M9 body and use the classic glass.
 
I thought that selling buying a Leica was going to the dark side... ;)

Seriously, judgmental threads like this usually end badly. There is no dark side in camera choices....

Other topics? Definately! But I'd buy a ZI if I had the money.
 
Last edited:
Unless there was some benefit, I don't see a reason to do that... and if I'd bought a Zeiss, I'd likely not bother to trade it for a Leica. If Mr. K had continued making digital bodies, I'd likely have a couple of digital Bessas and a film something-or-other that all accept M mount lenses. The body, despite arm waving to the contrary, remains a box for the media with a focusing mechanism onto which the lenses fit. The fit, finish, and 'feel' may be different, but they all make images. It's really the glass out in front that's important, and that too is a matter of taste.
 
I have traded an awfully beaten M4-2 and a 50/2.8 for a Contax G2 with 45/2. I'd do it again and again. The only thing I miss is the huge VF in the M4-2 as compared to the one in the G2, but image quality makes that up quickly.

Anyways, I have also another M. :)
 
I own two Leica cameras and I am more comfortable with M Film and Digital. Anyone having a Zeiss feel the same thing and it doesn't make any different to change into one from another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom