Zeiss Ikon vs Leica M2

[willie_901]

I'm interested in the noise thing.

I'm wavering between Leica and Zeiss - Leica for the 'silent' shutter and Zeiss for the film loading.

Now I hear (!) that the Zeiss shutter isn't at all loud my decision is much simpler.

I use the ZI-M for street photography and other photography of strangers all the time. It's shutter has never alerted anyone. By contrast, I used my Nikon F3 for a couple of weeks out in public, and after its shutter fired several sets of eyes would always turn my way.

i tried my ZI along side a M6 at my local camera shop. The ZI shutter has a different tone (more metallic?) but it was not noticeably louder (to my aging ears anyway).

 

[back alley]

i used a sound pressure level meter to measure the decibel level of my zi against my m3.
they were the same level.
as stated above the zi sound is more metallic.

 

[marke]

But don't you need three hands to hold the camera, the base, and the film at the same time?

Or am I missing something?

I hold the base betwen my two small fingers on my right hand, as I hold the camera with the remaining two fingers and thumb. Drop the film in with the left hand, feed and grab the base with the left hand, and done!

I've had hinged backs in the past, and always thought an M would be slower. But there is no contest for me.

 

[Marc-A.]

Other pictures of the ZI.
First, a picture of the 35mm framelines. It's really nice to be able to see the whole scene even when the 35mm framelines are up (that's something you can't do with the M2 VF. I wonder how it is with the M4/M6/M7 VF since they have the 28mm framelines; someone can add information about that.
Anyway, the VF is definitely the best part of the ZI.

 

[ferider]

Marc,

the M6 gives you additional space, too.

But: The M2 35mm coverage is more exact, which is why I prefer it for 35mm.

The M6 35mm framelines are more like 40mm framelines. If I remember right,
ZI 35mm (and Bessa R2*, BTW) framelines are similar. Good when you shoot slides
and close up.

Roland.

 

[Marc-A.]

Now the back and the inside of the ZI.
The loading system is very easy as stated above, not easier than any SLR or Bessa Rx or even the M4/M6, but definitely easier and faster than the M3/M2.
Every function on the ZI is very convenient but one: the AE lock button which is in the back of the camera. You have to move the camera away in order to push the button with your thumb; it's not quick, it's not convenient either.

 

[Marc-A.]

Thanks Roland, very informative, as usual

Marc,

the M6 gives you additional space, too.

But: The M2 35mm coverage is more exact, which is why I prefer it for 35mm.

The M6 35mm framelines are more like 40mm framelines. If I remember right,
ZI 35mm (and Bessa R2*, BTW) framelines are similar. Good when you shoot slides
and close up.

Roland.

 

[Marc-A.]

Last remark. The ZI is very light compared to the M3/M2:
Pros: you can carry it hanging from your wrist, hours and hours without having blisters ... which is good.
Cons: you can't use it as a weapon in case you're attacked, while the M2 can be used as a club
Seriously, when a 50mm lens is mounted (even a small one), the combo feels rather unbalanced. You have to lay the ZI+Planar down flat because it doesn't stay up.
Here's a picture of the ZI with Planar.

 

[kshapero]

Nice to be nice

Nice to be nice

Thanks for the nice words. BTW I have a black beauty now.

Sorry the title is misleading. I don't want to make a comparison (see the excellent blog of Zeissfan here), just throw some common remarks.
I have bought the Zeiss Ikon from Akiva (whom I thank for his courtesy; he is a gentleman and a great seller). My first impressions are the following:
1. it is very light! compared to the M2/M3. Not unexpected when we know that the ZI weighs 460g, but when we have the Zi in one hand and the M2 in the other, the weight difference seems huge. It's good that the ZI is light for street photography; on the other hand, the M2 seems much more rugged.
2. The other thing that struck me is the viewfinder/rangerfinder. It's common fact that the VF of the ZI is bigger, but that big, I didn't know!! The RF baselenght is equally impressive. In those respects, the ZI beats the M2, no contest.
3. the RF patch of the ZI is less bright than the M2's. Not a problem at all, since I find the M2 RF too contrasty. In fact, the focus with it is much easier. However, the M2 patch is much more resistant to flare; I'd say that there's no flare issue at all with the M2(/M3) VF ... it seems modern VF either from Leica - see the M5/M6 - or from Zeiss are prone to flare and I don't know why.
4. The shutter is quiet, very quiet. I don't understand why Leica is known for being silent. Of course, compared to any SLR, a Leica M (or LTM) is silent, but the ZI is just as silent as the M2 (maybe more silent); others cameras are much quieter that Leica M cameras (Contax II/Kiev; Hexar AF of course etc.)

That's all folks, for the moment. Those features make the ZI very desirable, though I guess I would keep the M2 if I had to choose only one body. Not because it's Leica, but because it's rugged and feels steady.

Some pictures now.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=52180&stc=1&d=1195756790

 

[jbf]

Thanks for the nice words. BTW I have a black beauty now.

Haha, I knew you couldnt live without it! Hahaha.

kshapero, did you ever get that m8 you were lusting about?


btw, that silver lens looks simply beautiful on that black zi.

 

[kshapero]

Haha, I knew you couldnt live without it! Hahaha.

kshapero, did you ever get that m8 you were lusting about?


btw, that silver lens looks simply beautiful on that black zi.

No M8 here. The Sony Nex is my digital squeeze at present.

 

[Moriturii]

i hope 'jbf' wasn't holding his breath for an answer from Akiva S.

 

[Dwayneb9584]

I Love love love my Zeiss Ikon. I find it easier on loading then M cameras. I actually don't like the M loading system. The viewfinder in the Zeiss is Golden.

 

[peter_n]

i hope 'jbf' wasn't holding his breath for an answer from Akiva S.

Indeed!!

 

[Archiver]

I don't have a M2 but I can comment about my Ikon vs my M7. I find that the shutter sound is probably the one thing that makes me want to shoot the M7 more. The Ikon's shutter is a metallic 'chik' that I find quite audible, whereas the M7's soft 'klok' is much nicer and more discreet.

I have not read this anywhere else, but I also find that the Ikon's shutter has a bit of kickback that can throw off the camera during longer handheld exposures. The M7's shutter is either perfectly damped, or the heavier body stabilizes the camera to the point where shutter jump is not an issue.

And while the Ikon has the most amazingly spacious and bright viewfinder, I find that the rangefinder patch is not as good as the M7's. We all know that the Ikon's patch will disappear if you are not looking dead straight through the viewfinder, and this bothers me from time to time, especially when I've been shooting a Leica for an extended period of time.

But the Ikon is just so much lighter than the M7 or M9! It is a joy to carry with no worries about extended wear time. The Ikon can sit in a shoulder bag and be almost unnoticed, whereas the M7 becomes a constant weight over time. The screw-in grip of the Ikon is very nice as well, making it quite the pleasure to shoot.

 

[Moriturii]

Here are some Leica M4-P framelines for 50mm, 35mm, 28mm. It's hard to take pictures with the cellphone though since it doesn't go up as close to the viewfinder as your eye can. But as you can see the 28mm framelines are right up to the edge of the viewfinder.

 

[thegman]

The ZI is probably the only camera I regret selling, it's probably the best all round RF out there for the likes of me. AE is nice to have as a an option, and the finder is great. I do love my M3 though, and I'm not sure if I'd swap back, although for every logical reason, I think ZI beats it, the M3 just has an allure.

 

[Peter^]

1. it is very light! compared to the M2/M3. Not unexpected when we know that the ZI weighs 460g, but when we have the Zi in one hand and the M2 in the other, the weight difference seems huge. It's good that the ZI is light for street photography; on the other hand, the M2 seems much more rugged.

I don't get this. The Leica is made of brass, the Zeiss of aluminum. That makes the Leica a lot heavier, but not more rugged.

 

[Peter^]

All reports on camera ruggedness here are based on anecdotal experiences. With that in mind, I have found the many Ms I have owned to be much, much more rugged in either normal street use or travelling use than any of the three ZIs I owned. Others have told me that their ZI is resistant to the well-known 'going out of alignment' problem. Unfortunately all of my ZIs went out of alignment under normal street use -- one even arrived out of alignment. Although there were aspects about the ZI that I liked, my overall impression was of a camera with a RF mechanism on which I couldn't depend under normal street use, yet alone for travelling. Hardly what I would refer to as rugged. Obviously sample variation in terms of quality is part of any model of camera, but my anecdotal experience includes a stubborn attempt to get along with three different ZIs! As with a batter in baseball, the ZI took three strikes, so it is out.

In a way, this illustrates my point: your problems with the ZI have nothing to do then weight of the camera which comes from the material the body is made of. A good aluminum is easily as strong as brass. The RF mechanism, by comparison, weighs nothing,
To add my anecdotal experience: I've had my ZI for about three years and have never had a problem, although I've been al over the world with it, and take it with me at least once a week mountain biking (and really appreciate the relative light weight).

- Peter

 

[Pikapig]

If i have one, it will definitely be my first choice for travelling. The AE will be very useful..especially on a tour