presspass
filmshooter
Have had and used ZI and M7 and like both for different reasons. The M7s all have Rapidwinders, and since I shoot left eye, that's a plus. The different finder magnifications are useful and the cameras are rock solid - no failures except when the battery goes down. The downside is - and I know I should have this fixed, probably for free - all my M7s have the original DX reader, so I get a lot of blinking dots. That's also a problem when I set an ISO different than the DX code. It doesn't affect the exposure, but the blinking dot is distracting. That and the viewfinder - much clearer than the M7 - is where the ZI shines. It has its faults - a viewfinder shutter speed readout that's nearly impossible to see in bright light, but it's also worked flawlessly since new. Both are good cameras; each has its pluses and minuses.
froyd
Veteran
Not having own or even held an M7 and a ZI, I feel perfectly qualified to put in my two cents on Akiva's dilemma 
...I feel the ZI is the perfect choice for somebody who already owns/ed a Leica M and having had their "Made in Germany" hitch scratched, can move on to other obsessions with full knowledge of what they are giving up. But for those who still wonder what these fabled Ms are all about, there's no cure but the original article. Sometimes I just want to buy some old beater from the Bay just to say I've tried a Leica and then move on to appreciating the gear that's in my camera bag.
...I feel the ZI is the perfect choice for somebody who already owns/ed a Leica M and having had their "Made in Germany" hitch scratched, can move on to other obsessions with full knowledge of what they are giving up. But for those who still wonder what these fabled Ms are all about, there's no cure but the original article. Sometimes I just want to buy some old beater from the Bay just to say I've tried a Leica and then move on to appreciating the gear that's in my camera bag.
AndySig
Established
Ref film loading in the ZI and the M series. It's routinely maintained by many people that the conventional loading of the ZI is easier than that of M cameras. I got an M6 as a back up body to my ZI and I find the loading of the former to be more reliable i.e. I get zero false starts with the Leica and have to sometimes really fumble to get the start bit of the load with the ZI.
I reckon the M loading is superior because it seems tailored to get the cogs on the spool into the perforations on the film exactly at the base of the leader. All you have to do is get the film all the way down into the body and press the perfs onto the cogs. Maybe give a tiny move of the advance lever to get engagement. Then hold the back closed and away you go!
With the ZI I find that it can be a bit of a bugger to get the leader in properly horizontally into the take up spool.
So in my humble opinion the ZI 2 (if it ever appears) could do with the Leica film loading system along with a black background for the film speeds. (I bet nobody else agrees with any of this.)
I reckon the M loading is superior because it seems tailored to get the cogs on the spool into the perforations on the film exactly at the base of the leader. All you have to do is get the film all the way down into the body and press the perfs onto the cogs. Maybe give a tiny move of the advance lever to get engagement. Then hold the back closed and away you go!
With the ZI I find that it can be a bit of a bugger to get the leader in properly horizontally into the take up spool.
So in my humble opinion the ZI 2 (if it ever appears) could do with the Leica film loading system along with a black background for the film speeds. (I bet nobody else agrees with any of this.)
tlitody
Well-known
the best advert for the ZI over a Leica I've seen is post #31 below
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum65/47934-whos-shooting-zeiss-ikon-zm-4.html
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum65/47934-whos-shooting-zeiss-ikon-zm-4.html
Archiver
Veteran
When I shoot my Ikon, I notice a slight kickback in the shutter that can mess with longer handheld shots. The M7's shutter is either perfectly damped, has even less vibration, or the heavier body counters any movement induced by the shutter.
Unlike the poster who has neither owned nor even held either camera, I believe that the Ikon has nothing to do with the Leica owner who got their made in Germany itch scratched. The Ikon is simply a modern, light film rangefinder like the Bessas, but of better quality and design. The Ikon is for someone who wants a lightweight rangefinder that accepts M-mount lenses and has the benefits of more contemporary film loading, AE lock and exposure metering. This person wants a rangefinder of better build quality and design than a Bessa but is not willing to buy a Leica for whatever reason.
As for me, I enjoy shooting with both. The M7 is an experience in tactile joy, whereas the Ikon can be carried for hours and you will barely notice it is there. If you are walking every day for many hours, the weight difference between the two will be apparent over time. I use the M7 for short trips where a lot of walking will not be involved. I use the Ikon when I know that I'll be trekking all over the place; either that, or a compact like the Contax T3 or Fuji Natura Black.
If the Ikon had the shutter and winding of the M7, I'd probably wouldn't use the M7, I have to admit. But there is great pleasure to be had from the physical act of holding and shooting the M7. Great.
Unlike the poster who has neither owned nor even held either camera, I believe that the Ikon has nothing to do with the Leica owner who got their made in Germany itch scratched. The Ikon is simply a modern, light film rangefinder like the Bessas, but of better quality and design. The Ikon is for someone who wants a lightweight rangefinder that accepts M-mount lenses and has the benefits of more contemporary film loading, AE lock and exposure metering. This person wants a rangefinder of better build quality and design than a Bessa but is not willing to buy a Leica for whatever reason.
As for me, I enjoy shooting with both. The M7 is an experience in tactile joy, whereas the Ikon can be carried for hours and you will barely notice it is there. If you are walking every day for many hours, the weight difference between the two will be apparent over time. I use the M7 for short trips where a lot of walking will not be involved. I use the Ikon when I know that I'll be trekking all over the place; either that, or a compact like the Contax T3 or Fuji Natura Black.
If the Ikon had the shutter and winding of the M7, I'd probably wouldn't use the M7, I have to admit. But there is great pleasure to be had from the physical act of holding and shooting the M7. Great.
OSFlanker
Member
My friend loaned me his M7 to shoot before I bought my own Zeiss Ikon. Granted, the ZI VF is really as bright as claimed by everyone. But is it me or is the M7 focus patch more "contrasty" than the ZI? I looked through both M7 and ZI VF and to my untrained naked eye the M7 seems to have the more contrasty focus patch (in relative terms, since the ZI focus patch is also great and easy to use).
The ZI is a great camera, I am so glad I bought one and I don't miss the loaner M7 at all ;-)
The ZI is a great camera, I am so glad I bought one and I don't miss the loaner M7 at all ;-)
emraphoto
Veteran
Having used both i prefer the zi. The only downside i found with the zi is loading film with wet or sweaty hands was a painful exercise. Rewind nob pop out handle always collapsed when i was running through lots of film and the bottom latch, with mentioned wet hands, was damn near impossible. I realize this might not be an issue for most.
Beyond that, zi all the way!
Beyond that, zi all the way!
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Question for those who have tried ZM & Leica M
Question for those who have tried ZM & Leica M
A question for those who have tried both:
There have been several comments about the ZM viewfinder being really good. Can a typical eyeglass wearer such as myself see the 28mm framelines on the ZM, at least as well as they can see them with a 0.58 M? With the latter, I can just barely keep all four 28mm framelines in view with the 0.58 finder. Do you think I would be able to do the same with the ZI?
Also: How well does the ZM metering handle difficult backlight situations? For example, will a bright overcast sky fool the meter into stopping down too much? Most any camera will react to that kind of sky to some extent, depending on how much sky is in the metering field; but some cameras (e.g. the XPan) seem to over-react in this situation. How would you rate the ZM in that scenario?
Edit: One other thing: the framelines on any Leica newer than the early M4-P are undersized, to be best at close focus. I'd rather have them optimized for longer distances, like on the M2 and M3. How do the ZM framelines compare? Are they also obviously undersized? Or more for distance?
Question for those who have tried ZM & Leica M
A question for those who have tried both:
There have been several comments about the ZM viewfinder being really good. Can a typical eyeglass wearer such as myself see the 28mm framelines on the ZM, at least as well as they can see them with a 0.58 M? With the latter, I can just barely keep all four 28mm framelines in view with the 0.58 finder. Do you think I would be able to do the same with the ZI?
Also: How well does the ZM metering handle difficult backlight situations? For example, will a bright overcast sky fool the meter into stopping down too much? Most any camera will react to that kind of sky to some extent, depending on how much sky is in the metering field; but some cameras (e.g. the XPan) seem to over-react in this situation. How would you rate the ZM in that scenario?
Edit: One other thing: the framelines on any Leica newer than the early M4-P are undersized, to be best at close focus. I'd rather have them optimized for longer distances, like on the M2 and M3. How do the ZM framelines compare? Are they also obviously undersized? Or more for distance?
Last edited:
morback
Martin N. Hinze
Hi Rob:
1) I cannot see the 28 with my glasses on the ZI. The ZI's 35mm looks like 50mm on Leica (right by the edge).
2) I've been very impressed with the lightmeter and how it keeps correct exposure. I remember shooting backlit crowds one evening, and it was exposing correctly for the shadows and not the sky/highlight...
3) According to Roger's chart, they're identical to the M2.
Now some addendi:
1) Some people can see the 35 with glasses on on a regular Leica M. I cannot, they're just outside the edge for me. I have to say I never really tried to see them (28 on ZI or 35 on LM), since I only shoot 50
2) The lightmeter has been very impressive with backlight and such. Though you still have to be careful and realize when it gets fooled. This is why I prefer full manual control over exposure, I don't have to try and understand what the lightmeter sees and measure and then compensate: It wanted to underexpose a big black surface in full summer sun by 2-3 stops.
3) When I tried to compare, I thought the ZI's where slightly smaller. But I just eyballed that. I'd trust Roger on this. Something else to consider also, is that the framelines are thinner.
Was that confusing enough?
1) I cannot see the 28 with my glasses on the ZI. The ZI's 35mm looks like 50mm on Leica (right by the edge).
2) I've been very impressed with the lightmeter and how it keeps correct exposure. I remember shooting backlit crowds one evening, and it was exposing correctly for the shadows and not the sky/highlight...
3) According to Roger's chart, they're identical to the M2.
Now some addendi:
1) Some people can see the 35 with glasses on on a regular Leica M. I cannot, they're just outside the edge for me. I have to say I never really tried to see them (28 on ZI or 35 on LM), since I only shoot 50
2) The lightmeter has been very impressive with backlight and such. Though you still have to be careful and realize when it gets fooled. This is why I prefer full manual control over exposure, I don't have to try and understand what the lightmeter sees and measure and then compensate: It wanted to underexpose a big black surface in full summer sun by 2-3 stops.
3) When I tried to compare, I thought the ZI's where slightly smaller. But I just eyballed that. I'd trust Roger on this. Something else to consider also, is that the framelines are thinner.
Was that confusing enough?
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
Not tottaly true. Because of the wider rf base it can not use any Leica lens with goggles.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I have ZI and a 0.72 MP. I can barely see the 28 framelines in the ZI and the 35 framelines in the MP are slightly better though not as good as the ZIs (which are superb). The ZI finder is just better and the focus patch is fine when you're used. It's easier to focus in low light as it's brighter too. I wear glasses for a -8 prescription.
Metering on the ZI is good. The meter weights the lower left side so is less affected by bright skies than some. It can still be fooled though.
All framelines are undersized. the ZI seems better than the M9, but that may just be the difference in time between tkaing and viewing...
Mike
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Hi Rob:
1) I cannot see the 28 with my glasses on the ZI. The ZI's 35mm looks like 50mm on Leica (right by the edge).
2) I've been very impressed with the lightmeter and how it keeps correct exposure. I remember shooting backlit crowds one evening, and it was exposing correctly for the shadows and not the sky/highlight...
3) According to Roger's chart, they're identical to the M2.
Now some addendi:
1) Some people can see the 35 with glasses on on a regular Leica M. I cannot, they're just outside the edge for me. I have to say I never really tried to see them (28 on ZI or 35 on LM), since I only shoot 50
2) The lightmeter has been very impressive with backlight and such. Though you still have to be careful and realize when it gets fooled. This is why I prefer full manual control over exposure, I don't have to try and understand what the lightmeter sees and measure and then compensate: It wanted to underexpose a big black surface in full summer sun by 2-3 stops.
3) When I tried to compare, I thought the ZI's where slightly smaller. But I just eyballed that. I'd trust Roger on this. Something else to consider also, is that the framelines are thinner.
Was that confusing enough?
Not confusing at all. Thanks, Martin, that's what I needed to know.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
You mean even if some sky is included in the frame? It must have a limited area/semi-spot or strongly center-weighted response, then. Sounds like a strong plus for the ZM!
morback
Martin N. Hinze
To be exactly precise, the camera was set at ASA320 for 400ASA and I think I framed 50/50 (ground/sky). There were other occasions where I compared to my hand held Digisix, and they matched...Of course if you shoot a lonely figure against the sunset (10/90 situation), I don't think it's going to get it right by itself.
As for the pattern see this thread here. Quoted from that thread:
Sucks for me as a left eye shooter, I always put my right hand down...But I'm drifting away from metered cameras anyways.
As for the pattern see this thread here. Quoted from that thread:
Sucks for me as a left eye shooter, I always put my right hand down...But I'm drifting away from metered cameras anyways
.