Zeiss Ikonta vs 35mm RF

Another 6x9 photo

Another 6x9 photo

I have posted this before. It is from my Zeiss Ikon with Novar lens.

attachment.php


And in black and white:

attachment.php


I can't give you comparisons with Contax/Leica lenses but it really gives a nice rendition that doesn't show up in small jpg's.
 
Thanks all for the great advice. Excuse my late reply, I did not receive any email that there were new posts.

Its that time again that I am thinking to try MF. I am super-happy with the M6 + Sonnar C, and perhaps a MF RF would supplement it nicely. Thinking of trying a Ikonta, then perhaps move on to Fuji if I like the MF handling (would have to sell my too little-used M8 for that, so trying MF beforehand is mandatory).

Now...only concern is focusing. Any comment of how fast an Ikonta is to focus when one uses M6/M8 normally? Do I have to expect a significant drop in quickness with the camera?

Looking specifically at the Super Ikonta 533/16.

Thanks,
Peter
 
As usual, the answer is "it depends." Depends on factors like your eyesight & how you get along w/the ergonomics of the camera.

Putting aside the additional time required to unfold the camera, cock the shutter, etc., personally I think you'll probably find focusing the Super Ikonta BX to be considerably slower because you have to use a focus wheel (unless you have a tightly fitted lens hood on the lens, in which case you may be able to focus by turning the hood) & the VF & RF patch are dimmer than the M Leica.


Peter_S said:
Thanks all for the great advice. Excuse my late reply, I did not receive any email that there were new posts.

Its that time again that I am thinking to try MF. I am super-happy with the M6 + Sonnar C, and perhaps a MF RF would supplement it nicely. Thinking of trying a Ikonta, then perhaps move on to Fuji if I like the MF handling (would have to sell my too little-used M8 for that, so trying MF beforehand is mandatory).

Now...only concern is focusing. Any comment of how fast an Ikonta is to focus when one uses M6/M8 normally? Do I have to expect a significant drop in quickness with the camera?

Looking specifically at the Super Ikonta 533/16.

Thanks,
Peter
Click to expand...
 
Suddenly it is a year ago.

Oh, well, no one gave a actual numeric comparison. Let's think digital for a minute. Is there any advantage in using a 42mp camera over using a 10mp camera? That is the approximate mp of a 35mm frame @ 2400ppi and a 6x9 frame at the same resolution. At 2400 you are a long way from scanning individual grain clumps, so it is a fair comparison.
 
Peter_S said:
Thanks Robert & Sevo!
The next step up would be a Rolleiflex w/ 3.5 Tessar. Would they be a serious improvement over my G2?
Click to expand...

Yes it would. The bigger 6x6 negative doesn't have to be enlarged as much as a 24x36 mm one, so the perceived sharpness and tonal range will be higher.

sevo said:
Well, a Tessar Rolleiflex is not really that different a beast compared to a Tessar Super Ikonta...
Click to expand...

The Tessar on the Super Ikonta/Ikonta has front element focusing, so it is of a slightly different design than the unit focusing Tessar on the Rollei. Front element focusing lenses are comprimised, some of the aberrations are over-corrected at infinity and under-corrected at closer distances. The "sweet spot" is probably at around 10 meters.

And the Rolleiflex is a sturdier camera than any folder.

I'm sure a Rolleiflex will win over a Super Ikonta if the negatives are enlarged to 30x30 cm or more.

But a folder is easier to carry around and could fit in a large pocket.
 
Peter_S said:
Cheers! Just bought one. Need to try, no way around it. Does not hurt, prices are constant.
Thought about it for ages, now I am excited and cannot wait.
Click to expand...

Congratulations! Which model did you buy?

I have my east german Zeiss Ercona II 6x9 with Tessar loaded with Fuji Reala. I hope to finish the roll soon. 🙂
 
While I do not have a Zeiss Ikonta, I do have a couple of folders that I use.

A Happo 66E (rebranded Balda Mess Baldix) that fits easily into my pants pocket, and takes a nice photo.

hapo-1st-shot2.jpg



And, An Iskra, that takes a fabulous photo but is a bit too large and heavy to fit in a pocket.

test-shot-3.jpg


Both of those were the first test shots with the respective cameras
 
I kinda disagree. The advantage is easy to see when comparing 35mm to 120 scans, regardless of scanner.

The biggest difference between my Leica M4/M6 and the Super Ikonta IV that I've been using is the Leica is a lot easier to use quickly. The 120 folder takes more thought and attention to detail with the controls.

Mablo said:
The advantage of MF negs is easy to see if you make wet prints. When scanning, the advantage is less clear - unless you have access to a good scanner.

But in any case I would buy the Rolleiflex and a Zeiss Ikonta too because they don't cost an arm and a leg and are great fun to use.
Click to expand...
 
I shoot a lot of things with a lot of detail quite often and always like sharp images. I shoot mostly with a Leica and ZM lenses and it's a great combination. I have a Zeiss Super Ikonta III and IV with the 75/3.5 Tessar lenses which are quite sharp although if compared with modern lenses at 100% enlargement from a scan it would not be as sharp as modern lenses. However, I don't have to enlarge the image as much as the 35mm negative and the tonality from the 6X6 negative is wonderful. I love shooting with the Zeiss folders. I would not hesitate to try it but, make sure that the camera you choose is in excellent working order. I have had to get a couple of CLA done to get camera working properly. Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom