Zeiss Ikon ZM or M5

I'm curious as to where you might get your Zeiss (if you go that way) in Australia. I looked at prices here and they were horribly expensive compared to OS so I bought from Matsuiya Store realising that if I have a problem with the camera it will have to go back to Japan for a warranty claim. So far so good.

I had an M5 for a year or two and it was OK ... in no way is it the camera that the Ikon is and at thirty something years old I wouldn't expect it to be. Yes sure ... it has a high build quality but the finder and metering system are way behing the Zeiss IMO. The viewfinder of the Ikon has to be seen to be believed and while your choice probably won't be based on this one point it doesn't need to be because everything else about the camera is excellent also.

The M5 is an interesting camera ... the Ikon is a great camera!
 
A lot of the talk on the ZM seems to be about the covering wearing out. Can it be recovered easily? If so, I think I'd lean towards the newer ZM if you want AE. Just my 2 bits.
 
Mike,

Yes, it's super easy. I bought a griptac covering from cameraleather.com ($16 USD iirc) and it took me literally 4 minutes to have my Ikon completely recovered. That includes both removal of the old covering and application of the new. The old peels right off (3 pieces, each came off cleanly in one piece and left almost no residue behind to clean off the metal) and the new sticks on.

MikeL said:
A lot of the talk on the ZM seems to be about the covering wearing out. Can it be recovered easily? If so, I think I'd lean towards the newer ZM if you want AE. Just my 2 bits.
Click to expand...
 
Keith said:
I had an M5 for a year or two and it was OK ... in no way is it the camera that the Ikon is and at thirty something years old I wouldn't expect it to be. Yes sure ... it has a high build quality but the finder and metering system are way behind the Zeiss IMO. The viewfinder of the Ikon has to be seen to be believed and while your choice probably won't be based on this one point it doesn't need to be because everything else about the camera is excellent also.

The M5 is an interesting camera ... the Ikon is a great camera!
Click to expand...

Keith,

Thanks for this reply, this is the kind of comments and advice I am looking for. Not sure where I will get a ZM, even offshore the sources are a bit thin compared to Bessa.

Joe aka 'Back Alley',

I am most disappointed in your responses, because I am only considering the ZM after reading your comments about the ZM in another thread. But so far, instead extolling the virtues of the ZM viewfinder/rangefinder, you seem stuck defending the build of the ZM, which I have said numerous times is not a deciding factor in my decision.

To everyone else,

It is all about the viewfinder/rangefinder, that will be the basis of my decision. So thanks especially to the contributors that have used both the M and ZM and have given a fair and balanced commentary of the two cameras.

While the M5 is the simplest to purchase, visit a friend and hand him some money after shooting a few rolls of film with it, I am thinking that ZM may be the better camera for my purposes and will try to find one that I can spend sometime with. I suppose, if I can buy a ZM at the right price, if I end not liking it as much as I hoped I can resell for a minimal loss.

A couple of quick ZM questions, are the silver ZM's still available or was that only a limited edition? And could someone take a photo of the bottom of a ZM and post it. I am curious about the two 'bumps' on the bottom.

Thanks,
 
JRG,

Thanks for the link. I could not seem to find a photo of the bottom anywhere. Good thinking to put the rewind on the bottom(which I knew, allow a longer EBL) and the other 'bump' is the tripod mount. And Roger, whose opinion I respect mirrors what many other users are say, the viewfinder is very, very good.
 
P. Lynn,

I'm sure if you've researched previous threads on the camera you'll be a ware that the viewfinder can take some getting used to. Eye position is fairly critical for good contrast in the RF patch and because the eye piece itself is so large it takes a little while to become familiar with it to the point where you go there automatically in regard to correct eye position. I found it a little disturbing at first but after half a dozen rolls of film and thus more intuative use of the camera it wasn't an issue! 🙂
 
JRG said:
"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!
Click to expand...

I had my M5 upgraded to the MP VF, mainly to get 75 framelines in there, and I can report that the 28 framelines are visible (without glasses).
 
sepiareverb said:
I had my M5 upgraded to the MP VF, mainly to get 75 framelines in there, and I can report that the 28 framelines are visible (without glasses).
Click to expand...

What was the cost of the upgrade to the MP finder? That sound like a real option.

wray said:
Say Lynn, when you do get that Zeiss do me a favour and don't take it for a swim at Marouba Beach!
Click to expand...

Com'on, Ray, you know that every camera that I own has to go through initiation ritual of a salt-water bath!
 
Last edited:
roundg said:
I held a ZI before, actually for several times. Definitely M5 is a much better built than the ZM.😉
Click to expand...

I just spent two weeks back home in Sydney shooting with a ZI and an M3. The ZI is noticeably lighter than the M3, but after a putting a dozen or so rolls through the ZI my thoughts are that its the lightness of the ZI body (thanks to the modern alloys etc. used in the construction) that is responsible for making one think its less solid than it really is, and IMHO the ZI build quality is practically up there with the M3. The M3 does have a satisfying heft to it, though. Not sure about the M5 ...
 
Last edited:
In truth, unless you're going to bang your cameras about, both should be up to the task, with the M5 leading in the "hammer nails into a board" category.

The Zeiss Ikon is a lighter weight camera, which often is mistakenly taken for being less well made. If weight alone was the factor, we'd all be shooting a Kodak Medalist.

Both cameras are precision instruments. With the Zeiss Ikon, you have a limited track record, although you get a very good warranty and excellent customer service.

With the Leica, you get a proven product, but probably no warranty. And unless the camera has been serviced recently, you might want to consider factoring in a routine service call for the camera, which will bring it up to spec.

Think about which features you want in a camera. As I always suggest, a hands-on test is best. If that isn't possible, just go with the one that has the features that you want and require. You really can't go wrong with either a Zeiss Ikon or a Leica.
 
jonmanjiro said:
I just spent two weeks back home in Sydney shooting with a ZI and an M3.
Click to expand...

Next time you are in Sydney, would love to catch-up over a coffee or tea.

Looks like the M5 is going to be joining my collection. I have just been offered the M5 at price, that I would have to be absolutely crazy not to buy it. I do think that the Zeiss Ikon is the 'better' camera for me, but I am sure that I can make do with the M5 for now.

I am still looking for a way to spend some quality time with the Zeiss Ikon...
 
ferider said:
There is really only one choice with your criteria and that is a .58 M[67P].

Roland.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised nobody said this earlier. If you want easily visible 28mm framelines and you wear glasses a .58 finder seems like an obvious choice.

Either way, the ZI is a MUCH nicer camera to hold/use than the M5... unless you have gigantic hands or like to carry a lot of extra weight. The AE on the ZI, while obviously not up to modern SLR standards, is excellent.
 
Avotius said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you had a M6 or M6 TTL? I was disappointed with my M6, too, in terms of its build quality compared to the barnacks, earlier Ms and the MP.

P. Lynn, I can understand the Leica mechanical charm. For your needs in a Leica, I highly recommend the M2 or M4-P. Ask Tom A. about shooting a 28 with the entire M2 VF as the frame; it is easy to do and it is quite accurate; it will take your appreciation of the cv 28/2 to new heights. With the M2 you get a great meterless manly man's camera body that you can use as a self-defense brick in times of great need. The M4-P has both a red dot and the 28 framelines in the VF and it is meterless like the M2. The cheapest Leica M option for you is a M2 with a Youxin Ye CLA. Get one, you won't regret it.

This is the year of the M2! Join the party 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom