zeiss ikon or leica M5 ?

If you can afford an M5 or a ZI, I have to think you can also find an M6 in your price range. Unless I needed AE, I would have a hard time choosing the ZI over a well-maintained M6, but it does offer some advantages as others have noted.

I suspect many of the people who never took to the M5 came to it after using classically-proportioned Ms first. I started with the M5 and found it well proportioned and ergonomic. I suggest you read this thread and this page to learn more about the pros and cons of the M5. Concerns about the meter arm are very much exaggerated, and the camera offers the tightest metering pattern of an M, combined with a highly intuitive match-needle display. To those who like the M5, it is an unmatched camera for practical use. Even most of those who don't like the M5 will generally admit that it is a great camera.

The ZI is certainly the easy choice: obtainable new, many of the modern conveniences, no battery issue, a generally more practical shutter, etc.
 
Turtle said:
Quite. It is nice that the MP/M6 is not battery dependent as there is less to go wrong (mechanicals rather than mechanicals and electronics), but it certainly is not that important.
Click to expand...

I would disagree that there is less to go wrong. The mechanics of an all mechanical camera are more complicated than the mechnics of one with an electronic shutter so there is more that can go wrong with those mechanics.

But the real issue is that a mechanical camera very gradually loses its timing & precision. You never notice that the timing is off & you never know by how much. When the battery is dead, you know it right away & it only takes minutes to fix the problem, something you can do right there on the spot. When the shutter timing on a mechanical camera is not working properly, there is nothing that you can do about it & it takes weeks to correct the problem when you send the camera in for a CLA.

Of course you don't have to wait for the shutter timing to be significantly off on your mechanical camera. You can do preventive maintenance & send it in for service on a regular basis. But the same thing is true for a battery dependant camera. You don't have to wait for the battery to die. With an anticipated 10,000 firings from one battery, you can change the battery after 250 rolls & you don't have to send the camera anywhere to accomplish this.

The issue of "battery dependance" became a big deal when SLRs started to incorporate motors for autofocus, autoexposure, & auto film rewind. Thes require more batteries & drain the system faster. Such battery dependance continues to be an issure with digital cameras which place an even heavier drain on batteries. But a rangefinder camera with mechanical film advance & aperture priority autoexposure rather than fully automatic autoexposure really does not have a serious issue with "battery dependance."

I see nothing wrong with having a personal preference for a mechanical camera, which also uses a battery for metering, but it's a preference & not really any significant advantage.
 
Last edited:
"Aperture priority autofocus"? :p

Good arguments, but I think the discussion here was originally about an M5 and a ZI. The fact that the M5 is all mechanical and the ZI has no mechanical speeds/exposure capability without a battery is sorta incidental. I think what some are really wondering about is the build quality of the M5 (definitely heavier than the ZI and proven over the years) and the perceived build quality of the ZI.

Xray's observations on the ZI are welcome and interesting. Personally I don't know about the electronic shutter fails suddently when the battery dies argument. There are other factors, e.g. circuitry, to consider in an electronic camera. I don't know anything about the ZI circuitry, but I assume it's pretty simple. But the issue with electronics is often that it is more expensive to repair and a whole camera replacement is just easier.

With the Leica mechanical cameras, adjustments and perhaps replacement of worn parts can get a 30-40 year camera back in shape for many more years of shooting.
 
Thanks for catching my error, Trius. I've corrected my post to read "autoexposure" instead of "autofocus."

Dreaded brain lock.:bang: :eek:
 
I picked up my ZI-M today to take some meter readings. The shutter speed readout in the finder blinked 2000 and 1 at the same time. This means the battery is weak. (The factory Li battery was installed since April 06).

I popped in a new set of replacement batteries I keep in my bag. This took less than 3 minutes. I'll pick up a new set of spares tomorrow and put them in my bag.

The factory supplied battery lived for 6 months. I used the camera daily.


I really don't understand the "I only trust mechanical cameras because they don't rely on batteries" viewpoint. But I respect it.

Willie
 
the factory batteries in both my cameras died young.
the replacements are doing well so far.

i have read that 2 sr44 batteries last longer than one 1/3n battery.
has anyone else read this?

joe
 
I hadn't read that, but I've always found SR44 (and true equivalents) to be very long lived. The nice thing about them is they die pretty quickly, rather than having a gradual drop-off in voltage, which would give metering errors.
 
I guess what could really make a difference is reports on how the ZI fares under long, intensive, heavy use. I think reports are somewhat mixed here; some of Vladimer's comments have been a bit discouraging with respect to this, others have been more optimistic but then you don't know how either side actually used their camera.

Philipp
 
I will recieve M7 withing this week, I will make proper comparioson, I will try to use M7 in a same hardcore mode as I used ZI...
 
Nachkebia said:
My zeiss ikon is hardcore weared out, beleave it or not :D
Click to expand...


Is it the finish that's wearing out or is it mechanical / electronic issues? After shooting the ZI now I feel you will probably have the same problems with your M. I bought a new Leica CL in the 70's that was in the shop three times in the first year for meter problems. When I sold it I had probably put less than fifty rolls through it.
 
back alley said:
the factory batteries in both my cameras died young.
the replacements are doing well so far.

i have read that 2 sr44 batteries last longer than one 1/3n battery.
has anyone else read this?

joe
Click to expand...

I bought my ZI last november, and have easily run 40 rolls since then (hey for me, that's a lot). I'm still on the same battery that came in the package..... *shrug*
 
I hadn't expected mine to last this long, first time this has ever happened :) But hey, it's not often I get to brag about something I've got good :p
 
The more I use the ZI the more I like it. The first time I picked the camera up it just felt right. I purchased a Nikon S3 last year just because I had a lust affair with Nikon RF's for forty years. While it's a spectacular camera I never felt comfortable with the camera. I hate the focus wheel, the lens mount is awkward for a bayonette and the position of the release and wind felt strange. The non paralax VF drove me nuts. The ZI was a totally different story. I just felt like a old friend even after four decades with Leica. I think the ZI proves there's still room for improvement over the M's even after 50 years.

After using almost all the popular RF's over the years I didn't think the Leica RF/VF could be improved untill I purchased the ZI. The total camera is well designed and well made. Zeiss has used new technology with magnesium in the body and the optics in the camera are first rate. After buying two of the ZM lenses i can say the same about them. The 25 is unquestiones as top notch and the 35 biogon edges out my v4 35 summicron. I suspect the same is true of the other glass.

I've always loved my M's but I certainly do not put leica on a pedistal. As good as any camera is there's always room for improvement. No maker owns the market and no one makes the best of everything. If you look at my kit you'll see a mix of Leica M, ZI bodies, Leica, Zeiss and CV glass. Money not being an issue each have a great deal to offer with each having their own strengths. My reason for getting the ZI was for the AE. To date I have not taken the camera off of auto. I can say I've not had a bad exposure yet. The ZI is rapidly becoming my general carry camera.
 
x-ray said:
Zeiss has used new technology with magnesium in the body.
Click to expand...

Ray, Leica has now seen the light & they too use magnesium in the body of the M8. Here's the quote from their website:

"Materials: Closed solid metal housing made of a highly stable magnesium alloy for long-lasting professional use."

I share your feelings about the ZI & have not had a single problem after a full year of use. Original batteries are still going strong.
 
rxmd said:
Not to mention that it's also a film-dependent camera! What if you forget to watch how many pictures you have taken, and to take a spare roll? You might be unable to take pictures!

Philipp
Click to expand...

And what if you forget to take off the lenscap...

Go for the M5, for once I happen to know what I am talking about, but of course this is a verry, verry subjective advice...

Good luck,
 
PHOTOEIL said:
And what if you forget to take off the lenscap...

Go for the M5, for once I happen to know what I am talking about, but of course this is a verry, verry subjective advice...

Good luck,
Click to expand...

Please let us know what makes a 30 year old M5 superior to the new ZI. What is your real world experience with these cameras?
 
There are obviously some issues to deal with when buying any older camera, but many of the best cameras ever made have been out of production for some time.

Granting that many of the reasons for choosing a 30-year-old M5 over the ZI are the same reasons many would choose a 50-year-old M3 over the ZI, I can still think of a few more.

I haven't used the ZI, but a 30-year-old M5 has been my main camera for a few years and has performed flawlessly after an initial CLA. I'm subjectively attached to having a cloth shutter although I understand the drawbacks. I like the M5's tight metering pattern and have found the meter to be completely reliable and extremely accurate including with slide film. I like the unobtrusive and very informative meter display, which gives more information than typical -o+ LEDs and similar basic displays. The ergonomics of the shutter-speed dial enable a practical approximation of aperture-priority AE, although it's obviously not the same. The finder is outstanding. Etc.

I'm confident that everything x-ray says about the ZI's merits and advantages is right on. If you value some of those advantages highly, it's the obvious choice. I'm sure it is the faster camera to work with in most situations, although for most users most of the time that will be immaterial. I'm sure the viewfinder is a little brighter, although for most users most of the time that will be immaterial. Etc.

It's pretty clear to me that if I were a professional like x-ray I would choose the ZI for a number of very good reasons, including that it's a little quicker, delivers the goods with minimal extra effort when set on AE, and can be replaced overnight. Being an amateur gives me the luxury of using a camera made when I was in first grade if I find "it just feels right." Like the choice to shoot with a manual-focus rangefinder to begin with, the choice of an M5 is subjective and idiosyncratic.
 
What Phillippe and Matthew said.

Actually, X-Ray summed up my first M5 purchase when he bought his Nikon S2: I had been lusting after a Leica since forever. The M5 felt right to me.

You can't buy a camera based on interent anecdotes. Go handle one. Go handle a bunch. Buy what feels right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom