Zeiss Ikon, Kaput

[Krosya]

Wow - thats all I can say. Well, sorry to hear that you had such experience. I was thinking to get Ikon for a while, asking all kinds of questions. And finally went with Leica M6. And I'm very happy that I did. I think that this is terrible that so many people had problems with Ikon. Zeiss should refund you money and give you a couple of lenses to compensate for this experience. I know, I know - other cameras break too, but not like this. Horrible track record. I just hope that their lenses hold up better.
It's Leica all the way. Wow am I glad that I got M6.
If this happened to me - they would give me 3 new cameras and some lenses too - I guarantee. I'd teach them what a customer service is.

 

[Trius]

I have a feeling that there is a small batch of ZIs out there that have the problem of the covering disintegrating. This is the first time I've heard of the shutter speed dial coming off. There are relatively more ZIs with RF alignment proglems when shipped.

While I think it's very disappointing given the Zeiss reputation and the cost of the camera (albeit much less than a Leica), this kind of thing isn't all that uncommon for a new product. Initial production often has a run or two where things go wrong and it's not caught until the product is in the field.

This wouldn't prevent me from buying a ZI, but it would make me very careful when making the purchase.

 

[Harry Lime]

That's horrible. Sorry to hear about your bad luck, but I hope you still managed to bring some good shots back.

I really don't mean to pour salt in the wound, but historically Zeiss has always been better at making lenses, than bodies (and in this case it's not really their body either).

Here is my advice.

Keep the lens, sell the almost new ZM body and buy yourself a nice used M6 for about $1200. It will probably outlast you. AE is nice, but a built in meter is pretty much just as good. More often than not I end up shooting my M7 with a handheld meter...

 

[Krosya]

I have a feeling that there is a small batch of ZIs out there that have the problem of the covering disintegrating. This is the first time I've heard of the shutter speed dial coming off. There are relatively more ZIs with RF alignment proglems when shipped.

While I think it's very disappointing given the Zeiss reputation and the cost of the camera (albeit much less than a Leica), this kind of thing isn't all that uncommon for a new product. Initial production often has a run or two where things go wrong and it's not caught until the product is in the field.

This wouldn't prevent me from buying a ZI, but it would make me very careful when making the purchase.

I could agree with this, but there as many problems, well, more actually, with Bessas. Just read posts on Bessa forum. Seems that Cosina is a MUCH cheaper production deal than Leica. Even with Zeiss supposedly there. And while It's (I suppose) ok for Bessa R, all others and even more so Ikon with it's $1200 price tag - are a rip off. Don't forget the price of the trip, where due to camera failure photos were lost - who will compensate for that?
Cost less that a Leica? Well, lets see - 1200 USD - new Ikon which is expected to actually WORK, and at the same price you can get a used M6 Leica that works and works and works....... Hmmm.
This story upsets me - and I don't even have an Ikon. But I try and put myself in a situation if it happened to me - and I'm very upset. When I spend that kind of money I expect things to work. If Ikon was sold at a Bessa R price - maybe a whole different story. Sorry, but I value my time and money.

 

[Trius]

What we normally hear about are the problems, the horror stories. There are several ZI users here who have used their cameras very hard and have not experienced ANY problems.

Believe me, if I had encountered these problems I would be equally frustrated.

But really, you cannot make judgements based on anecdotal reports on a website. And you cannot compare a new camera with problems (perhaps a lemon) with a used camera that was spot on from day one or has had its kinks worked out. If you search you will find stories of Leica bodies and lenses that were bunged when brand new, right out of the box. .. and stories of Leicas that failed very early in their life.

Again, I am not discounting the veracity or importance of any account of an early failure of the ZI, a Bessa, a Leica, etc. But it JUST HAPPENS.

And I'm not discounting that once enough internet posts of issues are recorded then perhaps there is a bigger problem. So perhaps you can get sales stats from Zeiss, do a careful collection of internet data that you can validate, then run some stats and collate and format the results. That would be a real benefit to the photo community in general and the RF community in particular.

 

[Solinar]

I don't know, but if I heard an anecdotal report such as this and seen the photos, I'd plan on purchasing a Leica.

 

[Harry Lime]

Yes, but the Leica M series has a +50 year record of surviving under circumstances that may cause operator failure, before the camera gives in. ;-)

 

[Pablito]

My M6 failed on an assignment 2,000 miles away from home. I had to use my -OTHER- M6 for the rest of the trip. You gotta have backup. I'd be very upset if a brand new camera failed as miserably as you describe and probably I'd not keep the replacement body. But I'd never, ever, be without some sort of backup. Good luck!

 

[Athena]

As I read through this thread, it seems only the OP and one other individual actually have experienced problems with the ZI.

The rest seemed to have anectodal information and consequent recommendations - both con and pro.

Later on, someone seemed to find a need to disparage the entire Cosina (i.e. Bessa) line.

Upon this website - long ago (2 years perhaps) it was understood that a $500 Cosina Bessa R-series would never equal the quality of a $3000 Leica M.

That the OP has had problems with his ZI is unfortunate - and it seems he was "made whole" by his dealer. So then, why now the 'dissing on Cosina's R-series?

It is what it is - an inexpensive way to carry Leica glass on a reasonably well-performing film plane. But at a sixth of the price - it is not an equal!

 

[amateriat]

I think many a camera has had "issues" upon its introduction. When I bought both my Hexar RFs (roughly eight months apart), I had heard one or two horror stories about someone's HRF totally locking up, etc. I heard about some folks' early-run M7s "falling apart" (whatever that means...in the heat of frustration, things can be overembellished a bit). I did have a "lock-up" glitch with one body, but after it was scoped out, all was well, and it never happened again. And this is after a few hundred rolls, not five, ten, or twenty. (Edit: but, as you'll note, I have two Hexars, not one. As the cop on the beat says, it pays to have backup.)

Any camera that hasn't been screwed together properly is going to have things fall off it, as in the case of this ZI. But it's happened to most every make and model any of us use and hold dear. In this case, I think the particular example of ZI was simply a lemon, but that doesn't let Zeiss off the hook at all (this is a big deal for me since I'm still mulling choosing between a ZI and an M6 as my "non-motorized" third M-mount body, once I have the cash together). If I got the ZI, I would hope it would hold up at least as well as my HRFs.


- Barrett

 

[Johnmcd]

I could agree with this, but there as many problems, well, more actually, with Bessas. Just read posts on Bessa forum. Seems that Cosina is a MUCH cheaper production deal than Leica. Even with Zeiss supposedly there. And while It's (I suppose) ok for Bessa R, all others and even more so Ikon with it's $1200 price tag - are a rip off. quote]

A 'rip off'? A little harsh don't you think? My Bessa R3A is a joy to use and fantastically priced given the 'alternatives'.

I'm over the moon that you have a M6. I'd like a Leica too, but that ain't going to happen any time soon given my investment in other cameras such as a DSLR and lenses and an OM system. In the meantime I point my Bessa at things, and bingo, an image is taken. An image that is only as good as my creativity...

Cheers,

John

 

[T42]

Not all ZI's are lemons

Not all ZI's are lemons

The initial post is a bit of a whine but it’s more about informing potential buyers about this user’s experience. I dislike those threads that develop into Cosina bashing and Leica loving – machines break and lemons taste sour. The plastic piece in the shutter-speed dial might be fine but this camera was used almost entirely in AE mode and 400 film – the dial was used very little. For the price I think Zeiss/Cosina should think about over engineering a little and give the customer a bit of confidence.

Zeiss/Cosina can be proud of their lenses. Good glass for a reasonable price. The dodgy covering is not such a big deal – you could strip the camera and replace it with leather, maybe even vulcanite. Just be careful not to knock the rangefinder out of alignment. Before handing over my money I checked the rangefinder at infinity. Two out of seven were found to be accurate with the ZM 50/2. The kaput Ikon’s rangefinder was perfect until I returned to Seoul. Between July and November, 2006, I shot less than a roll with the toilet paper accessory – it actually worked quite well – before I noticed that the rangefinder had somehow fallen out of alignment.

While I was in Tokyo I handled a few 0.72 M6’s and an MP. The ZI and the 0.72 finder have about the same space above and below the 28mm frame lines but Leica seemed to have more space on the sides. I would have taken the shop’s offer to trade-in my ZI for the original sale price and paid a little more for a Leica but they each had slow shutter speeds and the shop prices seemed high. I feel the 0.58 finder would be better suited to the ZM 25mm.

If I put it in the classifieds who would be brave enough to buy? I cannot guarantee that the viewfinder will not be defective when it arrives nor can I vouch for the durability of the covering on the grip + it is a Japan Only warrantee. If you have a good one, keep it. If you want one, it seems an expensive roll of the dice. ‘nough said.

 

[ZeissFan]

I really don't mean to pour salt in the wound, but historically Zeiss has always been better at making lenses, than bodies (and in this case it's not really their body either).

This is factually incorrect. Zeiss Ikon never made lenses, only bodies. Carl Zeiss never made bodies (with two exceptions), only lenses.

The Zeiss Ikon Contax II introduced in the early 1930s outdid the Leica on a number of important features: Unified viewfinder/rangefinder, self-tmer, wide-base rangefinder, no need to trim the film leader, bayonet lens mount, no rotating parts when the shutter was released and a single shutter speed dial.

Zeiss Ikon also served a number of market segnments, from glass plates to medium format to 35mm to movies. Leica for the most part has produced three cameras and never ventured far from the pack.

If you have ever held any of the classic Zeiss Ikon cameras, you would know that your statement (aside from being factually wrong) is also inaccurate.

Regarding the current body, it's a Carl Zeiss design and not a Bessa.

No camera is perfect. Hard to believe but it's true. Even a Zeiss Ikon or a Leica has its faults.

 

[Avotius]

I had an old zeiss ikon contessamat here a while ago, my goodness that was a solid camera, much more solid then any canon, nikon or anything I had used before, and that was their cheapo lousy model.

 

[ruben]

T42, thank you for your post. Since the ZI is a very young in the market camera, it has not passed the test of several years use. Time has to tell if this has been a sole case or these cameras indeed are not what their name announces. Ceirtainly it is my hope yours has been a exception.

Sorry for your misfortune,
Ruben

 

[Krosya]

Are we lowering our expectations?

Are we lowering our expectations?

As I read through this thread, it seems only the OP and one other individual actually have experienced problems with the ZI.

The rest seemed to have anectodal information and consequent recommendations - both con and pro.

Later on, someone seemed to find a need to disparage the entire Cosina (i.e. Bessa) line.

Upon this website - long ago (2 years perhaps) it was understood that a $500 Cosina Bessa R-series would never equal the quality of a $3000 Leica M.

That the OP has had problems with his ZI is unfortunate - and it seems he was "made whole" by his dealer. So then, why now the 'dissing on Cosina's R-series?

It is what it is - an inexpensive way to carry Leica glass on a reasonably well-performing film plane. But at a sixth of the price - it is not an equal!

Well, I think you need to do a better search - far more than two people had problems with ZI.
But it's not even the issue here, I think.
The problem is, I think, that people are willing to lower their expectations depending on a price or other variables. I think it's wrong from the get-go. When I buy something - whatever it is and at whatever price - I expect it to do it's function.
I think that there is nothing wrong with "dissing" anything. Be that Cosina or any other. I'm almost equally upset with Leica when they don't perform to the standard. "Dissing" is good, because it will (hopefully) make them look at their QC and make a better product.
WHy I'm "almost" as upset when it comes to Leica - not cause I have Leica, but because Leica doesn't need to prove it's place in a photo world. Ikon (and Bessa for that matter) are new items, that were met with huge excitment from many, me included, and they should be able to perform even better , in order to be accepted. Me, as a consumer, I want to have more choices and quality products. I actually started out with Bessa R. And it was a good camera - I never had any problems with it. So when Ikon came out, I was very very interested in it. I got into Leica only after doing research and so for it's proven to be a right move.
I will always critique manufacturer or a product thats poor qulity. It should be done to keep them working better. You know, it's funny how people are willing to except some things. "Well, it doesn't cost too much - so it Ok" I say - No it's not. I work hard to make my money and I expect the best in return.
I'm glad that a dealer stepped up and exchanged a camera - but how many people lost time and money in a process?
I'll tell you one thing - if I did my job with the same faliure rate as Ikon, Bessa, there would be a lot of dead or sick people around.
I think we all need to expect the best and don't settle for less.

 

[lns]

As a matter of logic, the fact that some Zeiss Ikons have documented problems does not mean that it is a poor quality camera in general. I sympathize with the problems of the OP, and can understand his or her anger, although I would think there would be some mollification since the camera store replaced the faulty unit with a new one. But how does this turn into general condemnation from people who apparently have never used the Zeiss Ikon? It's one thing to ask questions or express reservations, it is another to admittedly "diss" something based on internet postings. I am only responding because someone researching the camera might come across this thread and be scared away.

I can say that I have owned and used the M6 and the Zeiss Ikon, and in my personal opinion, the Zeiss Ikon is a terrific camera and I would rather have it. You can also look at what experienced users like Xray have said about the camera. I have nothing bad to say about the M6. But the ZI has a brighter and better viewfinder, with no flare, and a meter that I find to be much better in practice than the M6's meter. It also has auto exposure. On the other hand, the M6 is built like a tank and can be used without batteries if necessary; for me, those criteria do not outweigh everything else.

It also makes no sense to discuss the ZI or any camera without reference to its price. The ZI is approximately 1/3 the price of an M7. I think that makes it a great value. And no, I'm not lowering my expectations. I just live in a world where nothing is perfect and choices and compromises are part of life.

-Laura

 

[Trius]

Krosya: I am in complete agreement with everything in your last post. My criticism of your first comment was in regard to statisical validity of anecdotal reports on the internet. I do expect any product I purchase to perform its function reliably. Experience teaches me that there is a minimum price threshhold for functionality, reliability and overall quality/satisfaction. I think at the price of the ZI, it is beyond that threshhold. But experience also teaches me that most new products have teething problems. I am not convinced that issues with the ZI are nothing more than those initial production issues.

I do believe that Zeiss should make everyone whole if they experience such problems, even past warranty but within a reasonable period.

 

[Harry Lime]

This is factually incorrect. Zeiss Ikon never made lenses, only bodies. Carl Zeiss never made bodies (with two exceptions), only lenses.

Yes, but both items have been sold under the same name, at the same time. In the 1930's you could walk into a store and buy a Contax RF made by Zeiss Ikon and Carl Zeiss lenses for it. BMW doesn't make every part in their cars, but at the end of the day it's still a BMW.

The Zeiss Ikon Contax II introduced in the early 1930s outdid the Leica on a number of important features: Unified viewfinder/rangefinder, self-tmer, wide-base rangefinder, no need to trim the film leader, bayonet lens mount, no rotating parts when the shutter was released and a single shutter speed dial.

True, the Contax series was technologically more advanced, but also keep in mind that the original Contax was a fiasco due it's poorly designed shutter. Even Henry Scherer can't get one of those to work properly. And I don't believe the Contax II and III series cameras can claim the same reliability record as the their Leica cousins.

Zeiss has always sold first rate optical designs, like the Sonnar 1.5/50 which dominated that FL for decades, but if you go down the line and look at the bodies that have been sold with the Zeiss name on them (regardless of their actual origin) several never achieved a stellar reputation for reliability. Aside from the Contax II RF series, how much success have their cameras achieved among professionals? Even in the heydays of film reportage most shooters had a Speed Graphic, Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Leica or Nikon in their bag.

Zeiss Ikon also served a number of market segnments, from glass plates to medium format to 35mm to movies. Leica for the most part has produced three cameras and never ventured far from the pack.

So?

If you have ever held any of the classic Zeiss Ikon cameras, you would know that your statement (aside from being factually wrong) is also inaccurate.

Actually I have used a Contax IIa and it is a very nice camera. The vintage cameras are all finely finished and quite elaborate. But there are several black sheep in the line up like the Contax I, Contaflex, Contarex all of which suffer from unreliable shutters and other bugs.

Regarding the current body, it's a Carl Zeiss design and not a Bessa.

I mentioned that.

No camera is perfect. Hard to believe but it's true. Even a Zeiss Ikon or a Leica has its faults.

Really? You mean Leicas aren't assembled by dwarves in caves under Solms where they are made impervious to fire and water by douching them with magic dragon blood like in the tale of Siegfried?🙄

Of course all cameras can fail. But there are some cameras out there like the Nikon F/F2, M series, Rolleiflex etc. that have a proven, decades old reputation for very high reliability under extreme conditions.

The ZM may be a very nice camera, that certainly appears to be made better than any VC Bessa and most other 'prosumer' SLR cameras. But I don't expect a $1200 camera to be built to the same standards as one that costs nearly three times as much and is intended for professional use.

 

[Solinar]

I own a couple of Leicas and a Rolleiflex from the 1950's. Frankly, I don't expect anyone to build cameras like that any more.

Mike's post was to clarify that Zeiss once was in the camera business and did sell some well put together cameras. The Contax II and IIa were examples of their best. The Contax I may not have gotten it right at the beginning, but it was at the very least an ambitious beginning when compared to the original Leitz Model A.

Zeiss-Ikon in its prime built a much wider range of offerings than Leitz ever did. Mostly as a result of it being a conglomerate of merged German companies, it tried and failed to be in every market at once.

Carl Zeiss does indeed make lenses and to sell them they partnered with Cosina to build a new platform after Kyocera bailed from the camera market.

An unfortunate aspect of the revival of the Zeiss-Ikon brand is that it invites comparisons with the original firm at its best. The current camera bearing this name is at its core a Cosina. While it is the best of the Cosina line, it components aren't of old-world craft and construction.