Zeiss Ikon vs Leica

Tony at Popflsh is where my ZI came from. Actually my wife bought it for my last birthday. What a great lady, my wife that is!

You'll love it and get excellent results.

Thanks and glad you like the images.
 
The Zeiss Ikon uses magnesium, not aluminum for outer coverings. If you go by weight alone, we'd all be using the Argus C-3.

The Zeiss Ikon is structurally very rigid. No flex in the body. And the design is mostly German with some hints of Cosina (door hinge) thrown in. Overall, it's very well made and can stand up to hard use.

A fellow I know bought a Zeiss Ikon that had shutter problems almost immediately. While, he was contacted personally by a Carl Zeiss AG rep, he has opted not to buy into the system at this time and received a refund.

Another person was having the rangefinder adjusted, and the shutter also malfunctioned. It's undergoing repairs at the moment.

My camera had a different rangefinder issue but otherwise has operated flawlessly since its purchase.

If I were to purchase another Zeiss Ikon, I would shoot the hell out of it and try to get as much film as possible through it in the first month. Generally -- speaking of mechanical things -- breakdowns will occur sooner rather than later.

I really would like to see Carl Zeiss develop a camera with a non-electronic shutter. Although battery-dependent cameras have been with us for 30 years, and I always keep spares with me, I'm still not a big fan of them.

The question for any buyer is this: Do you want Leica or Zeiss?

The lenses do impart a different look when shooting wide open. If you shoot mostly at smaller apertures, there isn't going to be a discernable difference in your photos with either camera. Some might not agree, but the truth is that the sharpness from the lenses of either camera will be sufficient for your needs.

Think about ergonomics and how the camera feels in your hands. This is where the opportunity to hold both cameras is a real advantage. Buying a camera on specs or what other people think simply isn't the same.

Although the M6 was an excellent camera, I couldn't warm up to it. I didn't like the film advance and its little hinged flippy tip. And the shutter release didn't work for me either. The release point is far too deep in the travel. I expect it to be at the midway point, but instead it's about 2/3 into the travel. A soft release helped quite a bit, but I didn't think it should be necessary to buy something to compensate for inadequacy. The Summicron was a very fine lens -- no complaints there.

And that's where hands-on comparisons will help any buyer in their decision-making.
 
Another vote for Tony Rose at popflash. Get him to take the body out of the box and test it before he sends it to you to make absolutely sure that the rangefinder is aligned, etc. He will get that done for you no problem, his service is excellent.
 
Hi,

what puzzles me is that often weight is equaled with quality::bang:
Modern material is designed to do a better job with less weight, i.e look at a formular one car, all plastics....:D

The one sure factor favoring the ZI is weight!!!

I once dropped my ZI onto concrete :eek: :bang: , and oh well the rangefinder was misaligned, but the camera otherwise performed flawless wth scale focussing.

Ciao

Joerg
 
Tony is great ... as an added choice on your side of the Atlantic, Robert White has a good reputation here, and is also a sponsor.
 
I've had my M3 for about two years now, and it has a very clear viewfinder and performs flawlessly

I've had my ZI for about 3 months now, and it also has a perfectly clear viewfinder and has always performed flawlessly

that being said, the ZI viewfinder is slightly better than the M3.. and you get framelines for 28 and 35mm!

the film advance is slightly better on my M3, but not enough to give much thought to.. and the M3 is also a bit quieter.. but that's only noticeable in very quiet rooms, where both cameras are likely to be heard anyway

the film loading on the ZI is huge improvement over the M3 (you can do it without putting anything in your mouth or cupping it under your arm!) and you can always look at the back of the camera to see exactly what film you have in it

as other people have stated, I also have a real hard time seeing the left side of the viewfinder in the ZI.. which makes manual metering slower than it should be.. and when I attempt to change shutter speeds with the camera up to my eye, I often accidentally turn the camera off, and then hunt around in the viewfinder for the shutter speed indicators that have been deactivated.. those are probably the only two gripes I have about the ZI

the size, weight and feel are all very good.. I probably would consider the Leica a bit more luxurious.. but again, I'm talking about the M3, which is different than the M6, if only slightly

my advice would be to start with the ZI.. if you decide you don't like it, you'll have a much easier time finding an M6.. and you'll have an easy time selling the ZI.. but both cameras are very good and I doubt you'd regret buying either
 
ZeissFan said:
The Zeiss Ikon uses magnesium, not aluminum for outer coverings. If you go by weight alone, we'd all be using the Argus C-3.

The Zeiss Ikon is structurally very rigid. No flex in the body. And the design is mostly German with some hints of Cosina (door hinge) thrown in. Overall, it's very well made and can stand up to hard use.

A fellow I know bought a Zeiss Ikon that had shutter problems almost immediately. While, he was contacted personally by a Carl Zeiss AG rep, he has opted not to buy into the system at this time and received a refund.

Another person was having the rangefinder adjusted, and the shutter also malfunctioned. It's undergoing repairs at the moment.

My camera had a different rangefinder issue but otherwise has operated flawlessly since its purchase.

If I were to purchase another Zeiss Ikon, I would shoot the hell out of it and try to get as much film as possible through it in the first month. Generally -- speaking of mechanical things -- breakdowns will occur sooner rather than later.

I really would like to see Carl Zeiss develop a camera with a non-electronic shutter. Although battery-dependent cameras have been with us for 30 years, and I always keep spares with me, I'm still not a big fan of them.

The question for any buyer is this: Do you want Leica or Zeiss?

The lenses do impart a different look when shooting wide open. If you shoot mostly at smaller apertures, there isn't going to be a discernable difference in your photos with either camera. Some might not agree, but the truth is that the sharpness from the lenses of either camera will be sufficient for your needs.

Think about ergonomics and how the camera feels in your hands. This is where the opportunity to hold both cameras is a real advantage. Buying a camera on specs or what other people think simply isn't the same.

Although the M6 was an excellent camera, I couldn't warm up to it. I didn't like the film advance and its little hinged flippy tip. And the shutter release didn't work for me either. The release point is far too deep in the travel. I expect it to be at the midway point, but instead it's about 2/3 into the travel. A soft release helped quite a bit, but I didn't think it should be necessary to buy something to compensate for inadequacy. The Summicron was a very fine lens -- no complaints there.

And that's where hands-on comparisons will help any buyer in their decision-making.
Click to expand...

As pointed out many times over here; nor shutter quality or body quality is arguments for Leica in a Zeiss Ikon/Leica comparison. The electronic shutter of Zeiss Ikon - common in many cameras,is good for 200.000 pluss exposures; the double that can be expected of a mechanical cloth shutter like in a Leica, - if the sun does not burn a whole in the curtain long before that. The Zeiss Ikon body certainly feels a lot more flimsy compared to a Leica, but there is no objective argument for that it will outlast the Zeiss Ikon. All the technical solution of the Zeiss Ikon is tried and tested on a lot of cameras. Like the door hinge you mention.

But, all Leicas have this 'high quality feel' about them that the Zeiss Ikon miss. Further; Leica has been around for a long time and has a world wide service organisation bedond compare.
 
Quality?

Quality?

Joerg said:
Hi,

what puzzles me is that often weight is equaled with quality::bang:
Modern material is designed to do a better job with less weight, i.e look at a formular one car, all plastics....:D

The one sure factor favoring the ZI is weight!!!

I once dropped my ZI onto concrete :eek: :bang: , and oh well the rangefinder was misaligned, but the camera otherwise performed flawless wth scale focussing.

Ciao

Joerg
Click to expand...

There are a few definitions of quality.

One is conformance to specs and the absence of defects. If you buy a car, you can check out those guides which show how many warranty repairs are undertaken in the 1st year, and you'll find that Japanese cars often score well on these charts.

Then there is the definition of quality as an attribute which distinguishes one product from another, which makes it feel better. Like leather over fabric in car seats, or Connolly leather over ordinary leather. Stainless steel over plastic, crystal over glass.

Weight, feel, finish, looks, design, materials, form factor-- all these contribute to a feeling of quality. It's where Leica excels.
 
Why not?

Why not?

Olsen said:
As pointed out many times over here; nor shutter quality or body quality is arguments for Leica in a Zeiss Ikon/Leica comparison. The electronic shutter of Zeiss Ikon - common in many cameras,is good for 200.000 pluss exposures; the double that can be expected of a mechanical cloth shutter like in a Leica, - if the sun does not burn a whole in the curtain long before that. The Zeiss Ikon body certainly feels a lot more flimsy compared to a Leica, but there is no objective argument for that it will outlast the Zeiss Ikon. All the technical solution of the Zeiss Ikon is tried and tested on a lot of cameras. Like the door hinge you mention.

But, all Leicas have this 'high quality feel' about them that the Zeiss Ikon miss. Further; Leica has been around for a long time and has a world wide service organisation bedond compare.
Click to expand...

With the prices of Leica these days, people who buy them ought to be concerned about shutter quality and body quality. Certainly people aren't buying them for the 1/50 flash sync or the accuracy of the cloth shutter compared to the Zeiss electronic shutter.

A Leica is now like a mechanical Swiss watch. While Swiss watches are used on a daily basis to tell time, they are certainly not as accurate as a $9.99 Timex. So the argument to buy a Leica is not just about features or specs. It has to do with perceived quality, luxury and reliability/longevity. So when one compares to a ZI, that has to be taken into account.

I would make it simple-- if you want features/specs, go for Bessa R2/R3/R4, if you want quality, luxury, reliability, longevity-- go for Leica. ZI sits in the middle between the Bessas and the Leicas.
 
Last edited:
With respect, the accuracy of the cloth shutter in an M7 is pretty good. People who are really into slides will buy a Leica M7 for precisely that attribute.
 
Olsen said:
But, all Leicas have this 'high quality feel' about them that the Zeiss Ikon miss. Further; Leica has been around for a long time and has a world wide service organisation bedond compare.
Click to expand...

The first point: That's subjective. I don't find that the Zeiss Ikon feels any less substantial than a Leica M. But that's my opinion.

Second point: Carl Zeiss AG is one of the oldest names in photography. In fact, Oskar Barnack was an employee of Carl Zeiss Jena before he left and took his "miniature camera" with him. Carl Zeiss is a hugely profitable company with a global workforce of more than 11,000.

Both Leica and Carl Zeiss are respected names in photography, and both companies appear to have a high amount of admiration for the other.
 
Hmm... I think the guy already made up his mind to try a ZI, and yet the ZI vrs Leica love fest continues. Hope this story doesn't end badly. ;)
 
It's nice to have such a variety of choices in design and price points. The Leica vs. Zeiss debate has been a popular topic since the announcement of the Zeiss Ikon.
 
And I appreciate the discussion. I myself may one day consider getting a ZI. Just was hoping that things remain civil. Sometimes these debates can get a bit touchy....
 
I think it's great to have competition in the market - it forces former monopolists like Leica to remember what their products are all about. Good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom