Zeiss Ikon ZM or M5

P

P. Lynn Miller

Well-known
Local time
3:53 PM
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
785
Location
Sydney, Australia
View My Gallery
I have the choice of an Zeiss Ikon ZM or a M5...

While I really love my Bessa R2, there are several things several things about it that I find annoying.

1. I wear eyeglasses all the time with the obvious problems of seeing frame-lines. So I am looking for a camera that will allow me to comfortably shoot a 28mm without always using an external finder.

2. I am really struggling with getting consistent eye-placement and the focus right with the short EBL of the Bessa. Both the ZM and M5 have much longer EBL finders and apparently the ZM viewfinder is exceptional.

3. I also would like to use collapsible lenses, such as the VC Heliar 50/3.5 and I understand that this eliminates the M5. I am also want the VC Nokton 35/1.2 and so I am looking for the most accurate rangefinder that I can get within reason.

I know that the M5 is better built than the ZM, and I know the ZM has a noisier shutter. So while I am concerned with reliability and quality, I am more interested in user-friendliness for my type of photography.

As for exposure, while I use my hand-held meter most of the time, is nice to have TTL metering. AE is neither here nor there and I am not too concerned about battery dependence as I carry a spare set of batteries for my meters anyway.

I have never seen or handled a ZM but have had a chance to play with the M5 which I prefer to the other M's being a big handed person. So I would love to hear from users of both cameras and your advice regarding which camera would serve my needs better.

Thanks,
 
"1. I wear eyeglasses all the time with the obvious problems of seeing frame-lines. So I am looking for a camera that will allow me to comfortably shoot a 28mm without always using an external finder."

That would appear to eliminate the M5. It's got 35mm framelines, but most eyeglasses wearers report that they can't see them. I could, and used the M5's 35 framelines with only minor effort, but it's a highly individual thing, I guess. If you've had the chance to play with an M5, have you spent some time walking around shooting with a 35mm lens?

Personally, I can't imagine using a 28mm lens on the M5 except with an external VF. And I'm very tempted by the ZM, precisely because of that big, bright viewfinder. Good luck with it!
 
100% Zeiss Ikon. I wear glasses and almost can not see the 35mm framelines on my .72 m6. I have to wear contacts to see the 28 lines. The Zeiss Ikon I would say is more reliable too because its much newer and you get a warranty if you buy new.
 
Why wouldn't you consider the Hexar RF or the M6 .58? Both have lower magnification finders. I haven't used the Leica but the Hexar and a 28 is a dream for a glasses wearer (which I am).
 
From your needs: ZI. I have a M5 too and wears glasses, but 35mm is usable, not comfortable. Forget 28mm!!

The M5 is beautifully built. Smooth operating. A real pleasure. But in low light, you don't see the exposure needle so well.

The ZI has more features (AE, bigger viewfinder with lights...) but it's not a Leica!
 
Dont be taken in with the Leica charm, I wanted a M Leica for a long time, even worked a job I hated for 15 months to get one, then did, and was disappointed. Though that is just me, I think the Zeiss Ikon is very nice, and dont worry about reliability issues, the small things seem to be ironed out already. Go hold one, its great.
 
1-The 28mm framelines on the ZI are close to the edge, and even without glasses, they're not ideal/comfortable for me to use without having to scan around to be sure i'm including/not including what i want in a composition. With glasses, i dunno.

3-I can't imagine the ZI could be too noisy for any normal purposes.
I have the ZI and the 35/1.2 and find the combination to be quite accurate at f1.2.

My hands are larger than yours, i'm sure. The Ikon fits very nicely. If you prefer the M5 because of its size, that's a valid sentiment, but i think you could 'get used to' the Ikon's size.


P. Lynn Miller said:
I have the choice of an Zeiss Ikon ZM or a M5...

While I really love my Bessa R2, there are several things several things about it that I find annoying.

1. I wear eyeglasses all the time with the obvious problems of seeing frame-lines. So I am looking for a camera that will allow me to comfortably shoot a 28mm without always using an external finder.

2. I am really struggling with getting consistent eye-placement and the focus right with the short EBL of the Bessa. Both the ZM and M5 have much longer EBL finders and apparently the ZM viewfinder is exceptional.

3. I also would like to use collapsible lenses, such as the VC Heliar 50/3.5 and I understand that this eliminates the M5. I am also want the VC Nokton 35/1.2 and so I am looking for the most accurate rangefinder that I can get within reason.

I know that the M5 is better built than the ZM, and I know the ZM has a noisier shutter. So while I am concerned with reliability and quality, I am more interested in user-friendliness for my type of photography.


As for exposure, while I use my hand-held meter most of the time, is nice to have TTL metering. AE is neither here nor there and I am not too concerned about battery dependence as I carry a spare set of batteries for my meters anyway.

I have never seen or handled a ZM but have had a chance to play with the M5 which I prefer to the other M's being a big handed person. So I would love to hear from users of both cameras and your advice regarding which camera would serve my needs better.


Thanks,
Click to expand...
 
It's a minor point but the M5 was one of the last M's to allow the user easy access to adjust the rf if it goes out of wack from rough use. The ZM needs to go back to Zeiss for this adjustment.
 
The M5 is a wonderful camera but I use it with 50 and 90mm lenses most of the time. For 28 and 35mm I have a M6 TTL 0.58 which allows me to see the 35mm framelines very good and those for 28mm are still ok. (The M5 has no 28mm framelines, but I don't think a external finder is a problem.)
By the way, I wear glasses, too.

I do not know the Zeiss Ikon except for some minutes in a camera store - but the Leicas feel much better (for me).
Of course this doesn't say anything about the pictures one can take with a Zeiss Ikon, Bessa or Hexar 🙂

B.
(Please excuse my deficient English)
 
A very interesting question!

First of all, you can´t compare these two so well because they are totally different cameras (one with auto-exposure and electronical shutter, the other with mechanical shutter etc.).

But,
I had the chance to play with the Zeiss Ikon several times and I own a M5 for more than six months:
My impressions on the Zeiss Ikon are:
A very interesting and well built camera with a very good viewfinder. But especially the viewfinder is perhaps the most overrated item of the camera.
And you feel the "built gap" towards the Leica´s. All in all a very good and much cheaper competitor to the M7 (that´s the real competitor!), but no Leica...

The M5 is a very good camera too, the built quality is superior but it is also more than 30 years old. I´ve got a checked and revised M5 and I´m very happy with it. I wouldn´t change it for the ZI, but additionally I would like to have a ZI too...

At last the conclusion for your needs with the 28mm framelines:
you can´t use the M5 without an external finder, because the viewfinder ends with 35mm. So if the 28mm choice is your last word, then the M5 has to go and your needs are fullfilled with the Zeiss Ikon.

Greetings Bully
 
Memphis,

you´ve got a very nice case for your M5! Is it a Luigi case?
Congratulations to your well used camera!

Greetings Bully
 
Thanks for all the comments and advice.

I am comparing the ZM to M5, because in my situation both cameras are rangefinders and both cameras are at the same price point. The feature that I am comparing the most is the viewfinder/rangefinder of the cameras.

As for build, I know that the ZM is a well built camera, but to say it is built to the same standards as the M5 is ludicrous. The ZM has proven itself a reliable, trustworthy tool in the field, but if you read the entire ZM forum here at RRF as I have done, it is apparent that it is not built to same standards as Leica. Which should be obvious to most users and buyers as the ZM is significantly less expensive than the M7. I have no issues with the build of the ZM because my Bessa has performed very well through the abuse that I have put it through and I know the ZM is built much better. I suspect with regular service and the continued availability of parts, the ZM will be a solid performer for many, many years. As for the M5, it is 30 years old and there are issues with replacement parts for the meter and then there is the lack of proper batteries. So build quality is a mute point to me, other than as a note of interest.

As for the metering, both camera are metered, and I actually prefer match needle metering to all other methods, maybe I am just and old codger! As for AE, I have never used an AE camera as my primary camera in 30 years. So I would be just as happy if the ZM was a fully mechanical, fully manual camera. Or you could not bother with the meters at all, but as I said before I do find TTL metering handy to have. So ZM being AE does not give a leg over the M5. Although the M5 does get a penalty because it cannot be used with collasible lenses such as the VC Heliar 50/3.5 which is the next lens that I am buying. So again the balance is equal between the ZM and M5.

That brings us to the only reason I am considering the ZM, the acclaimed viewfinder and long EBL rangefinder.

I realized that many people took from my post that I want a viewfinder with 28mm framelines. That is not the case, I am happy with a viewfinder that I can very comfortably see the 35mm framelines and simply use the whole viewfinder for 28mm, if I want. Remember I wear eyeglasses all the time.

The key comparison is the EBL of the ZM and M5. The ZM has the longer EBL that the M5. But in real world use, does it make a difference? The only reason I am considering the ZM is because of the viewfinder.

The M5 is being sold by a friend and I can borrow it for a week or two before committing. But quality time with ZM is much harder, the only stocking store in Sydney that I know of, takes the camera out of the case, let's you hold it and look through it and then 'please hand it back'. This why I am trying to tap into the experience of fellow RRF members for advice on the ZM.

As for sentiments and romance, the M5 wins hands down. It feels good, sounds beautiful, and, of course, I would like to own a Leica. But the ZM is new camera with no battery issues, looks just as good as the M5, allows me to use collapsible lenses, and has a longer EBL.

I am hoping to get some time with the M5 in the next week, and will try to do the same with ZM as well.

Again many thanks for everyone's advice,
 
but to say it is built to the same standards as the M5 is ludicrous...

count in among the ludicrous then.
did you know that the viewfinder on the zi (zm = lenses) is as complicated as the leica m3? the need for precision manufacturing is greater for that alone.
the alloys that the zi is made from are actually stronger than the zinc and steel of the m cameras.

but then what would a ludicrous man know?
 
I'm probably in the "ludicrous" group too (having fallen hard on my ZM without any ill effects at all). But, it is perhaps futile to argue with what people "know" from the feel of their hands (i.e., Leicas are heavier and hence MUST have better build quality...) -- rational arguments about materials and such are not likely to change many (any?) minds. ;-)

However, what both sides can agree on is that only time will truly tell if the ZI/ZM is as reliable and long-lived as Leicas -- in 30 years or so we'll be able to say with more certainty one way or another. 😀


back alley said:
but to say it is built to the same standards as the M5 is ludicrous...

count in among the ludicrous then.
did you know that the viewfinder on the zi (zm = lenses) is as complicated as the leica m3? the need for precision manufacturing is greater for that alone.
the alloys that the zi is made from are actually stronger than the zinc and steel of the m cameras.

but then what would a ludicrous man know?
Click to expand...
 
back alley said:
...did you know that the viewfinder on the zi (zm = lenses) is as complicated as the leica m3? the need for precision manufacturing is greater for that alone.
the alloys that the zi is made from are actually stronger than the zinc and steel of the m cameras.

but then what would a ludicrous man know?
Click to expand...

The M5 is made out of brass, is it not?

Also, the complexity of a VF construction is not an indication of how well it'll stand up to rugged use.

The M5 takes a back seat to no camera when it comes to build quality and ruggedness. It's as well built and dependable as any M3 or M2. Can one say the same thing of a ZI?
 
Last edited:
Judging from the age of most people here, in 30 years we'll either be dead or too senile to care about which camera is more rugged.

When people are prepared to spend a significant amount of money, I always suggest that they hold and use the cameras that they are comparing.

There will be things that you will like or don't like about each, and then you'll have to determine which is the better camera for you.

Everyone has their own likes, dislikes and personal feelings about the various brands. Judge them for yourself.

After all, it will be you who will own and use the camera and not any of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom