M. Valdemar
Well-known
Let's see how bad the lugs are. Post a pic.
Zeiss Ikon Problems
- Thread starter K57H639
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 132
- Views 11K
jbf
||||||
I would but I dont have a digital camera that can focus close enough. My friend is supposed to be bringing me her digital camera (has macro mode) to use when she comes over later today.
Basically the normal lug looks like this from the side view (the view not looking through the hole)
( )
My lug looks like this:
) (
Basically the normal lug looks like this from the side view (the view not looking through the hole)
( )
My lug looks like this:
) (
Last edited:
namelast
Member
Thanks for the info jbf, I'll send them an email when my girlfriend will come back (no digital camera here, so I need to use hers).
jbf
||||||
namelast
Member
joachim said:
40% of issue rate? Of course this number would make sense if they sold only 64 cameras... (assuming that you base that 40% from this very poll)
Arthur
Established
My strap lugs are fine. The viewfinder is fine. The rangefinder is fine. The shutter is fine. However, on two occasions, the film advance did not cock the shutter causing blank frames. The repair was identical in both instances; the malfunctioning part was "bent" into the proper configuration. I think it's a terrific camera but I also think it is not as robust as the M7.
Arthur
Arthur
lshofstra
Established
As I described a problem with backfocussing earlier I thought I'd let you know how things turned out. Zeiss invited me to send them the camera for inspection and adjustment. Is was gone for 2 or 3 weeks. I've made some testshots with the same lenses (VL 35/1.7, Rollei 40/2.8, VL50/1.5, VL75/2.5, VL90/3.5) and they now backfocus about 20mm with the exception of the 50mm, which is spot on. Distance while testing same 1 meter ofcourse. So how do I feel about this? Good and courteous service for one. Most lenses ok now as far as I'm concerned - if needed in practice I'll focus on a nose or two instead of the eyes. Feasable with a 2cm backfocus, not if it's 5cm... Also, I'd have to see how accurate focussing is with Zeiss's own lenses, which I wouldn't mind owning (but wondering whether not to invest in medium format instead, I'll probably start another thread on that particular subject...). So for now I'm okay with this.
Bnack
Established
I would say that because 55 or 60% say all clear doesn't mean 40% are sending them back. The thread is specifically about problems... so people with problems are going to seek this out more than those without. That being said I just sent mine back for repair under warranty. Actually I haven't heard anyone with this problem yet... I believe that a small piece of plastic in the shutter dial mechanism broke that no longer allows me to adjust the ISO setting on the camera. Or well... I can adjust it, but the meter doesn't register the change. I sent it off the other day... they told me once they have a look at it and determine that it wasn't because I bounced it off a brick wall they will replace the entire unit and send my camera back to the factory for refurbishing.
lemos
Established
I for one have not voted, because I haven't had any problems yet.
Paul T.
Veteran
You need to tick Box 5 then, sir, and improve Zeiss's stats.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
My Ikon's focus patch is better than my upgraded M7's, with regard to "white out."
When i first picked up an Ikon in a store, i had no issues with white out. In fact, i didn't even notice it. When i bought the camera, though, i brought it home, and immediately thought there was a problem. But, after a minute of realizing where my eye was supposed to be, i find it works much better than the Leica. I don't even have to think about it. I think i just needed a brief moment to get used to where the eyepiece is, and now it's automatic. With the Leica, though, it depended on the lighting conditions and my eye placement. The Leica, for me, was much more troublesome - both the old and upgraded versions.
Just about the only thing i don't like about the Ikon is that the back seems to flex/give when i grip it tightly. This probably happens most often when i have the large CV 35/1.2 attached. Other than that, it's sweet. The M7 is built better, sure, but the Ikon feels more 'usable.' The viewfinder is better, it has 1/2000, it's lighter, and it's a fraction of the price. I would prefer to use the Ikon even if the cost was the same.
When i first picked up an Ikon in a store, i had no issues with white out. In fact, i didn't even notice it. When i bought the camera, though, i brought it home, and immediately thought there was a problem. But, after a minute of realizing where my eye was supposed to be, i find it works much better than the Leica. I don't even have to think about it. I think i just needed a brief moment to get used to where the eyepiece is, and now it's automatic. With the Leica, though, it depended on the lighting conditions and my eye placement. The Leica, for me, was much more troublesome - both the old and upgraded versions.
Just about the only thing i don't like about the Ikon is that the back seems to flex/give when i grip it tightly. This probably happens most often when i have the large CV 35/1.2 attached. Other than that, it's sweet. The M7 is built better, sure, but the Ikon feels more 'usable.' The viewfinder is better, it has 1/2000, it's lighter, and it's a fraction of the price. I would prefer to use the Ikon even if the cost was the same.
jbf
||||||
I guess I must be using my camera way too much. The letherette on the right side of the camera (the right grip) has startd to get 'gummy' and peel near the middle top where the leatherette meets the silver body of my camera.
I do shoot a lot... But even then, I expect my camera to last. I'll be sending my camera back to zeiss when I get back from France to have the strap lugs and leatherette replaced by zeiss.
Its pretty rediculous that this would happen only after having the camera a max of 6 months.
I must be following gary winogrand's style of shooting too closely. Hah.
I do shoot a lot... But even then, I expect my camera to last. I'll be sending my camera back to zeiss when I get back from France to have the strap lugs and leatherette replaced by zeiss.
Its pretty rediculous that this would happen only after having the camera a max of 6 months.
I must be following gary winogrand's style of shooting too closely. Hah.
Olsen
Well-known
Reading through these threads i conclude that the Zeiss Ikon is a good rangefinder camera with a good finish. As good as can be expected and in most cases as good as comparable Leica M gear.
Here tells a guy of trekking in the Norwegian mountains, 'walking from two to 14 hours a day'. I have done similar trekks with several cameras. Ranging from my old Praktika, some 40 years ago, through Canon A1 to my Hasselblad 500C/M. All of the cameras had scratches and marks after such trekking treatment. My Zeiss Ikon would be ideal for such a journey. It is light and not all that costly. I would not dare to bring my beloved MP through such a treatment. It's shiny black paint is all too vulnurable.
Most disappointing regarding camera finish was my Canon 1Ds II. Far inferior to 1Ds (and EOS3). The 1Ds II 'acumulated' scratches from the smallest thing. - I fear the 1Ds III is the same. The paint seems softer, is more sticky to touch on the two latest models, - which is good for handling, while the 1Ds had a harder and far more robust surface. When the paint comes off, underneath is a ugly and gray aluminium/magnesium alloy. Looks awefull. While on older cameras brass was sticking out, which looked charming, like a weared pare of jeans.
For 'front line duty' I will be using my Zeiss Ikon and I will not worry about how it looks afterwards. Only about how it works. The important thing is to 'go places', out in the forrest, up in the trees, with your gear. For this the Zeiss Ikon is excellent.
My MP, with it's black and shiny finish, - like the Queen's Rolls Royce, will be used for softer purposes. Like impressing people at a neighboring garden party.
Here tells a guy of trekking in the Norwegian mountains, 'walking from two to 14 hours a day'. I have done similar trekks with several cameras. Ranging from my old Praktika, some 40 years ago, through Canon A1 to my Hasselblad 500C/M. All of the cameras had scratches and marks after such trekking treatment. My Zeiss Ikon would be ideal for such a journey. It is light and not all that costly. I would not dare to bring my beloved MP through such a treatment. It's shiny black paint is all too vulnurable.
Most disappointing regarding camera finish was my Canon 1Ds II. Far inferior to 1Ds (and EOS3). The 1Ds II 'acumulated' scratches from the smallest thing. - I fear the 1Ds III is the same. The paint seems softer, is more sticky to touch on the two latest models, - which is good for handling, while the 1Ds had a harder and far more robust surface. When the paint comes off, underneath is a ugly and gray aluminium/magnesium alloy. Looks awefull. While on older cameras brass was sticking out, which looked charming, like a weared pare of jeans.
For 'front line duty' I will be using my Zeiss Ikon and I will not worry about how it looks afterwards. Only about how it works. The important thing is to 'go places', out in the forrest, up in the trees, with your gear. For this the Zeiss Ikon is excellent.
My MP, with it's black and shiny finish, - like the Queen's Rolls Royce, will be used for softer purposes. Like impressing people at a neighboring garden party.
Last edited:
kshapero
South Florida Man
I love those garden parties.
the_jim
human
I bought my Ikon used in October 2006. At the time of purchase, the rangefinder was off, but I cannot fairly attribute that to the factory, as it was second-hand. Anyway, it was serviced under the retailer's warranty and two weeks later I had a gem of a camera.
At first, I felt that the Ikon gave the impression of frailty. The leatherette, like on an FM3a, was very soft (actually, the covering on the Nikon is much softer than the Zeiss). I also feared that this camera would not hold up like an old F2 - I mean, that magnesium top feels so light and the plastic-y back door release...
Nearly two years later, after carrying the camera with me everywhere I go, shooting tons of film, in all sorts of conditions, I can report that this camera is still a pleasure to use without a hint of a problem. Sure the body is slightly more worn that when I got it, but what camera wouldnt be under the same conditions?
The greatest thing about this camera isn't its lineage or its country of origin or the prestige of ownership. It is a tool that is designed to be used to make photos. It excels at that goal.
When I bought mine, I couldnt decide between an M6 or the Zeiss. I had them side by side at the camera store and asked my girlfriend (who is an infinitely talented photographer that doesn't care about brand names) to help me decide. She picked them up, played around and decided that the Zeiss was far more useful. I can't say that everyone will come to that same conclusion, but it was the right one for me.
At first, I felt that the Ikon gave the impression of frailty. The leatherette, like on an FM3a, was very soft (actually, the covering on the Nikon is much softer than the Zeiss). I also feared that this camera would not hold up like an old F2 - I mean, that magnesium top feels so light and the plastic-y back door release...
Nearly two years later, after carrying the camera with me everywhere I go, shooting tons of film, in all sorts of conditions, I can report that this camera is still a pleasure to use without a hint of a problem. Sure the body is slightly more worn that when I got it, but what camera wouldnt be under the same conditions?
The greatest thing about this camera isn't its lineage or its country of origin or the prestige of ownership. It is a tool that is designed to be used to make photos. It excels at that goal.
When I bought mine, I couldnt decide between an M6 or the Zeiss. I had them side by side at the camera store and asked my girlfriend (who is an infinitely talented photographer that doesn't care about brand names) to help me decide. She picked them up, played around and decided that the Zeiss was far more useful. I can't say that everyone will come to that same conclusion, but it was the right one for me.
Ronald M
Veteran
Across the street is not infinity. I have brand new working Leicas I test on a star and that is where the lens lines up to infinity and the rangefinder set up specs will tell you to use infinity and one meter from the film plane as two calibration points . That is why a film plane mark is on the camera and why all 50mm lenses have a one meter mark.
lshofstra
Established
Shot about half a film on holidays (too busy with the kids). The ZI didn't take any knocks but is out of vertical alignment now. I'll probably send it back to Zeiss when I find the time...
amin_sabet
Established
I bought a beautiful black Ikon from an RFF'er, and I'm pleased to say that it is problem free. I forget to turn it off, but that's about it.
Interesting observation! I have three FM3A bodies (s/n 279***, 298***, and 307***) and the 307*** body has much softer leatherette than the other two bodies. Very grippy, but it also seems to wear more quickly. The other two FM3As have hard leatherette similar to older Nikon SLRs such as the FM2 etc. My guess is Nikon made the switch near the end of the production run of approx. 113,000 cameras (s/n 200001 to 312***). Does the s/n of your FM3A start with 3***** ??
Last edited:
hiorgos
Established
I bought the zeiss ikon in June, second hand. It came with the alignment problem, but I was so happy shooting it that I didn't care much about the problem. After some months I took it back to the shop where I bought it and they fixed it for free (they gave me 1 year warranty!). it took around 3 weeks.