ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Infinity doesn't mean Alpha Centauri.
It means the end of the street.
It means the end of the street.
Zeiss Ikon Problems
- Thread starter K57H639
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 132
- Views 11K
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
ClaremontPhoto said:
Jon :angel:
Marek is right. Infinity means "moon" if not Alpha Centauri. If you focus at infinity, and point your RF to the end of the street, you should see what seems to be mis-alignment (it's quite slight but it's here). Conversely, if the overlapping images in the VF align perfectly while you focus at infinity and point at the end of the street, then there's a problem.
Try it and you'll see the difference.
Cheers 🙂
Marc
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
My only problem with My Ikon is it's somewhere between here and Japan (Matsuiya) and the anticipation is killing me!
Monday hopefully ... depending on the Xmas congestion in the mail system. 😛
Monday hopefully ... depending on the Xmas congestion in the mail system. 😛
back alley
IMAGES
Keith said:
i'm looking forward to your impressions of the zi keith.
joe
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
back alley said:
Then of course there's the matter of waiting for the black Luigi 'Grip Case' I ordered for it! 😛
ClaremontPhoto said:
not true.
for RF's
it means a mile or farther away.
Stephen
back alley
IMAGES
Keith said:
very nice...i have the 'standard' luigi black half case for the zi, wonderful in winter.
lshofstra
Established
Hi,
As the original question included specifiying what was wrong, here goes:
Received new ZI two days ago, took it along today, died electronically after about half a film. Cold out there, but not freezing. Changed batteries twice, even though they test o.k. Came back to life for one shot and went dead again. Is now back to room temperature and still dead (medics amonst you will probably know the CPR-saying that a body isn't dead untill it's warm and dead, well, this one is....)
Cleaned the contacts against all odds, no change. So it's going back to whence it came. But looking at the poll I had a 52% chance of it having no problems, right? (just had to chuck in a peevish remark...)
As the original question included specifiying what was wrong, here goes:
Received new ZI two days ago, took it along today, died electronically after about half a film. Cold out there, but not freezing. Changed batteries twice, even though they test o.k. Came back to life for one shot and went dead again. Is now back to room temperature and still dead (medics amonst you will probably know the CPR-saying that a body isn't dead untill it's warm and dead, well, this one is....)
Cleaned the contacts against all odds, no change. So it's going back to whence it came. But looking at the poll I had a 52% chance of it having no problems, right? (just had to chuck in a peevish remark...)
lshofstra
Established
Oops, belay that message...
Seems the fault is mine and not the camera's. On taking out the film I noticed that it seemed to be at it's end, and while I was thinking the film had been fully transported it in fact hadn't - by a narrow margin. So the camera wouldn't wake up. The film must have been the last of a roll of bulk film. That'll teach me to mark them more clearly.... Anyway, can I correct my vote?
Seems the fault is mine and not the camera's. On taking out the film I noticed that it seemed to be at it's end, and while I was thinking the film had been fully transported it in fact hadn't - by a narrow margin. So the camera wouldn't wake up. The film must have been the last of a roll of bulk film. That'll teach me to mark them more clearly.... Anyway, can I correct my vote?
jbf
||||||
Ah yes... in order for the camera to work the film transport has to have completed. If the shutter isnt cocked/readied then it wont fire. hehe.
🙂
🙂
awilder
Alan Wilder
Can someone clarify rf adjustment on the ZI? NB23's suggestion apply to Leica M bodies but I thought the ZI was different. Isn't the adjustment under the hot shoe? Secondly, now that the ZI's been out for a few years, are the 'bugs' substantially removed and lastly, will it take as much punishment as an M7?
lshofstra
Established
As this thread is about ZI, problems encountered and has been discussing focussing/alignment I have a question I'll ask here. As I was getting photo's that were disappointing where sharpness is concerned, I made a series of test shots using 3 camera bodies: ZI, VL-R3a, VL-R2. Lenses: VL90mm, VL75mm, VL50mm and VL35mm/1.7 . One shot with a Rollei 40mm. Shots made using a ruler, distance 1 meter to film plane, angle 30 degrees. Wide open. I will give focus as being back focus (+cm) or front focus (-cm). One photograph did not have enough resolution for interpretation, which was difficult for the 35mm in all cases.
ZI VL90 +4 VL75 +4 VL50 +5 VL 35 +2 Rollei40 +5
R3a VL90 -2 VL75-0,5 VL50 -4 VL35 -5
R2 VL90 +2,5 VL75 +3 VL50 +3 VL35 ?
Didn't put the Rollei on the other camera's, because they then won't fit on my tripod.
Obviously rangefinder adjustment is not the only variable. The lens cam is another, but the ZI and R2 are reasonably consistent with all lenses. The R3a is not, which brings me to the last variables: human error in focussing and interpretation. Can't think of another explanation.
However, to get to the ZI, this seems to have the biggest error of the three. Now to my question: Has anyone else done this kind of testing and what were your results? What should be considered tolerable error? Less than what I'm getting I should guess; focus on the eyes and get well focussed ears... (Don't respond to that, I know the distance is bigger than 4cm...)
By the way, I also made some shots with my Olympus OM40, with its own lenses ofcourse. Sorry to say that it won the contest, R3a second, R2 third and ZI last. Bought the ZI for supposedly improved focussing accuracy. Ouch.
ZI VL90 +4 VL75 +4 VL50 +5 VL 35 +2 Rollei40 +5
R3a VL90 -2 VL75-0,5 VL50 -4 VL35 -5
R2 VL90 +2,5 VL75 +3 VL50 +3 VL35 ?
Didn't put the Rollei on the other camera's, because they then won't fit on my tripod.
Obviously rangefinder adjustment is not the only variable. The lens cam is another, but the ZI and R2 are reasonably consistent with all lenses. The R3a is not, which brings me to the last variables: human error in focussing and interpretation. Can't think of another explanation.
However, to get to the ZI, this seems to have the biggest error of the three. Now to my question: Has anyone else done this kind of testing and what were your results? What should be considered tolerable error? Less than what I'm getting I should guess; focus on the eyes and get well focussed ears... (Don't respond to that, I know the distance is bigger than 4cm...)
By the way, I also made some shots with my Olympus OM40, with its own lenses ofcourse. Sorry to say that it won the contest, R3a second, R2 third and ZI last. Bought the ZI for supposedly improved focussing accuracy. Ouch.
Last edited:
Arvay
Obscurant
Mine died after 1 hour in 0 -1 C...
Waked up after 20 minutes in a car ..🙁
Waked up after 20 minutes in a car ..🙁
mfogiel
Veteran
Ishofstra,
I have tested ZI, M7, R3A with Elmarit 90, Heliar 75, Planar 50. C Sonnar 50, Biogon 35 and Nokton 35 from 1meter distance.
After some lens switching and body switching, these were the conclusions:
ZI and M7 focus accuracy : perfect.
R3A - 5,5 cm backfocus
Lenses:
Biogon 35, Nokton 35 - perfect
Planar 50 - perfect
C Sonnar - this is a separate story described in my comparative test of 2 versions of C Sonnars, however none of them perfect
Heliar 75 - 6 cm backfocus
Elmarit 90 - perfect
FWIW I have also tested my FM3A with a series of lenses:
conclusion: on this body all lenses backfocus 2 cm.
So, as you can see life is not perfect, and you have to test all your lenses and bodies before being able to shoot confidently at wide apertures. I am sure this relates to cameras of any brand and type.
I have tested ZI, M7, R3A with Elmarit 90, Heliar 75, Planar 50. C Sonnar 50, Biogon 35 and Nokton 35 from 1meter distance.
After some lens switching and body switching, these were the conclusions:
ZI and M7 focus accuracy : perfect.
R3A - 5,5 cm backfocus
Lenses:
Biogon 35, Nokton 35 - perfect
Planar 50 - perfect
C Sonnar - this is a separate story described in my comparative test of 2 versions of C Sonnars, however none of them perfect
Heliar 75 - 6 cm backfocus
Elmarit 90 - perfect
FWIW I have also tested my FM3A with a series of lenses:
conclusion: on this body all lenses backfocus 2 cm.
So, as you can see life is not perfect, and you have to test all your lenses and bodies before being able to shoot confidently at wide apertures. I am sure this relates to cameras of any brand and type.
lshofstra
Established
Thanks mfogiel for putting things in perspective. Whether or not this is an acceptable error is however still a question for me. Perhaps I should ask Zeiss customer service...
Added note: Just sent them an email.
Added note: Just sent them an email.
Last edited:
petercs
Member
Worn strap eyelet
Worn strap eyelet
My problems with a 8 month old Zeiss Ikon:
- VERY worn eyelets after a 4 week hiking/climbing trip in Norway. Not just
chrome worn off but obvious bronce abraision. Camera was in the (execellent)
Zeiss case all time, but hanging on the straps most times (hiked 2 to 14
hours per day). Continuing that over a few trips will destroy the eyelets.
Wondering how expensive/complicated it is to replace ?? And: my (much
heavier) Nikon F6 SLR used similar, does not show as much abraision.
- The 2 small screws on the upper back, holding the upper cover, became loose.
So upper cover (including viewfinder) became a bit loose as well. Used Loctite
to fix this. Hopefully did not misaligne anything.
Also, a Leica M6 user installed some of his Leica M-bajonet lenses to my Zeiss.
Found out they are quite shakey in the Zeiss bajonet. At least compared to
how they fit to the M6. Tested that combo myself. Did not have any problems
with my Zeiss ZM lenses in the Zeiss bajonet, though.
Zeiss body is nice but not bomb-proof.
Best Regards, Peter.
Worn strap eyelet
My problems with a 8 month old Zeiss Ikon:
- VERY worn eyelets after a 4 week hiking/climbing trip in Norway. Not just
chrome worn off but obvious bronce abraision. Camera was in the (execellent)
Zeiss case all time, but hanging on the straps most times (hiked 2 to 14
hours per day). Continuing that over a few trips will destroy the eyelets.
Wondering how expensive/complicated it is to replace ?? And: my (much
heavier) Nikon F6 SLR used similar, does not show as much abraision.
- The 2 small screws on the upper back, holding the upper cover, became loose.
So upper cover (including viewfinder) became a bit loose as well. Used Loctite
to fix this. Hopefully did not misaligne anything.
Also, a Leica M6 user installed some of his Leica M-bajonet lenses to my Zeiss.
Found out they are quite shakey in the Zeiss bajonet. At least compared to
how they fit to the M6. Tested that combo myself. Did not have any problems
with my Zeiss ZM lenses in the Zeiss bajonet, though.
Zeiss body is nice but not bomb-proof.
Best Regards, Peter.
wintoid
Back to film
Mine is on my way back to Matsuiyastore within its first week. It has the popping framelines problem. Let's see what the next one is like!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The biggest problem that I'm having my Ikon is that it's that good that I'm considering selling something else so I can buy a second body! 😛
lshofstra
Established
Update.
Here's the answer received from Zeiss, which may be of interest to others because it contains acceptable tolerance according to the manufacturer. The camera is now in the mail.
Dear Mr. Hofstra,
Thanks for your request.
As you already mentioned in your evalution of the fault, the tolerances of the camera, the rangefinder, the lens and the human eye effect the accuracy of focusing.
With a rangefinder system, the human eye should allow to focus within a range of +/- 1cm at an object in a distance of 1m. Combined with the inevitable tolerances of the camera and lens, the focusing should allow an accuracy of +/- 3 cm under these conditions. Different manufactures of camera body and lens may effect that the tolerances increase.
Did you have a chance to make test shots with original Carl Zeiss ZM lenses?
Apart from this, the tolerances in your tests with the ZI camera and your lenses with 40mm and longer seem to exceed the inevitable focusing tolerances.
To make sure that your camera is ok, you can send it to us for checking or adjusting.
Here's the answer received from Zeiss, which may be of interest to others because it contains acceptable tolerance according to the manufacturer. The camera is now in the mail.
Dear Mr. Hofstra,
Thanks for your request.
As you already mentioned in your evalution of the fault, the tolerances of the camera, the rangefinder, the lens and the human eye effect the accuracy of focusing.
With a rangefinder system, the human eye should allow to focus within a range of +/- 1cm at an object in a distance of 1m. Combined with the inevitable tolerances of the camera and lens, the focusing should allow an accuracy of +/- 3 cm under these conditions. Different manufactures of camera body and lens may effect that the tolerances increase.
Did you have a chance to make test shots with original Carl Zeiss ZM lenses?
Apart from this, the tolerances in your tests with the ZI camera and your lenses with 40mm and longer seem to exceed the inevitable focusing tolerances.
To make sure that your camera is ok, you can send it to us for checking or adjusting.
jaap
Jaap
An accuracy of +/- 3cm at 1 meter!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow that means that my G2 is very very accurate !!!!
This also means that we have to live with some out of focus shots with a 85mm ! Or stop down a 85 mm to at least f8 or even more !!!!
Wow that means that my G2 is very very accurate !!!!
This also means that we have to live with some out of focus shots with a 85mm ! Or stop down a 85 mm to at least f8 or even more !!!!