people_atease
Wide Wide
Just came back from Bangkok, earlier this morning I found that my ZI can not focus to infinity. When i turn the focus ring of my lens to infinity, the patches still spilt apart. I have tried several lens, CV21, 28, summaron 35 and summicron 50. the problem is still there.
but seems that focus to one meter is okay.
First trip with ZI and it's not working well.....
luckily it's the last day of the trip and i got a contax T3 with me.
it seems that it needs repair.... isn't it?
but seems that focus to one meter is okay.
First trip with ZI and it's not working well.....
luckily it's the last day of the trip and i got a contax T3 with me.
it seems that it needs repair.... isn't it?
back alley
IMAGES
mine was like that out of the box.
tony, from popflash, exchanged it with no questions asked.
joe
tony, from popflash, exchanged it with no questions asked.
joe
laptoprob
back to basics
feature!
feature!
Sooo, it is a feature, not an error?
feature!
Sooo, it is a feature, not an error?
Patman
Established
Boy, it seems all i'm reading about are problems with the ZI, got my M3 over 50 years never a problem! "You tried the rest should have stayed with the best." Sorry guys only kidding, hope your problems get slved in a speedy and efficient way. Good luck.
people_atease
Wide Wide
I have used Bessa R2 for over 50 of rolls, never have a problem.
now this zi, just used 6 rolls...
ZI + CV = QC sucks?
now this zi, just used 6 rolls...
ZI + CV = QC sucks?
sf
Veteran
They just don't make cameras like they used to . . .
people_atease
Wide Wide
Just went to the distributor for a camera check, the rangefinder really have problem. It have to be shipped to Japan for repair.
Sigh, the ZI just lived 18 days and it needs a fix.
fragile little thing.
Sigh, the ZI just lived 18 days and it needs a fix.
fragile little thing.
howpow
Established
Are you sure that you haven't accidentally knocked/moved the tip on the rangefinder arm when you collapsed, removed or re-fitted the lens. The tips are a friction fit and can move to adjust the rangefinder.
Huck Finn
Well-known
people_atease said:
I don't understand this comment. If you have used a CV camera for 50 rolls without a problem, how does the Cosina factor added to the ZI result in QC problems?
Last edited:
people_atease
Wide Wide
I am just suggesting that R2 is more durable, maybe i am wrong.
people_atease
Wide Wide
howpow said:
Just remember my friend had dropped the camera with the lens slightly to the ground, maybe that's the reason why rangefinder fails to perform normally.
but it was just a 0.5 m drop from the ground....
skhan
Established
Don't worry
Don't worry
Its a common problem in RF cams, so don't blame Zeiss for this. Most Leicas have it, even though the owners have not noticed it yet. My M3 is off at infinity too. Fortunately, its an easy fix on earlier Ms (just use a screwdriver to adjust the arm) [at least the horizontal errors are easy to correct].
Now the question is: is there a DIY fix for this on ZI? (e.g. later Leicas [I think starting from M6] made it hard to solve this problem, so that you have to send it to them, and they can earn some $$$$).
Don't worry
Its a common problem in RF cams, so don't blame Zeiss for this. Most Leicas have it, even though the owners have not noticed it yet. My M3 is off at infinity too. Fortunately, its an easy fix on earlier Ms (just use a screwdriver to adjust the arm) [at least the horizontal errors are easy to correct].
Now the question is: is there a DIY fix for this on ZI? (e.g. later Leicas [I think starting from M6] made it hard to solve this problem, so that you have to send it to them, and they can earn some $$$$).
skhan
Established
Don't worry
Don't worry
Its a common problem in RF cams, so don't blame Zeiss for this. Leicas have it too. My M3 is off at infinity too. Fortunately, its an easy fix on earlier Ms (just use a screwdriver to adjust the arm) [at least the horizontal errors are easy to correct].
Now the question is: is there a DIY fix for this on ZI? (e.g. later Leicas [I think starting from M6] made it hard to solve this problem, so that you have to send it to them, and they can earn some $$$$).
Don't worry
Its a common problem in RF cams, so don't blame Zeiss for this. Leicas have it too. My M3 is off at infinity too. Fortunately, its an easy fix on earlier Ms (just use a screwdriver to adjust the arm) [at least the horizontal errors are easy to correct].
Now the question is: is there a DIY fix for this on ZI? (e.g. later Leicas [I think starting from M6] made it hard to solve this problem, so that you have to send it to them, and they can earn some $$$$).
skhan
Established
Yikes
Yikes
Yikes... :bang: :bang: :bang:
Yikes
Yikes... :bang: :bang: :bang:
Huck Finn
Well-known
people_atease said:
Very unlikely. I know that this kind of problem is frustrating, but Zeiss/Cosina will correct it & you will have a very fine camera back in your hands. No way that the R2 was built to a higher standard than the ZI. don't be discouraged.
Huck
Palaeoboy
Joel Matherson
"Just remember my friend had dropped the camera with the lens slightly to the ground, maybe that's the reason why rangefinder fails to perform normally. but it was just a 0.5 m drop from the ground.... "
Just remember? You didnt actually mention it had been dropped in your opening post you were implying it was a quality control issue. I think that changes the whole perspective of the post dont you think, its not really a quality control issue if the camera has been dropped?
Just remember? You didnt actually mention it had been dropped in your opening post you were implying it was a quality control issue. I think that changes the whole perspective of the post dont you think, its not really a quality control issue if the camera has been dropped?
back alley
IMAGES
last summer i flew home to new york with 2 canon p bodies.
both were fine when i got on the plane. they were stored in an mclassic bag for the flight. (no padding) and i had to put them under the seat in front of me so they had maximun vibration.
when i landed, one was fine and one needed a rf adjustment.
not really a quality control issue.
both were fine when i got on the plane. they were stored in an mclassic bag for the flight. (no padding) and i had to put them under the seat in front of me so they had maximun vibration.
when i landed, one was fine and one needed a rf adjustment.
not really a quality control issue.
Huck Finn
Well-known
I've heard stories of rangefinders going out of alignment after sitting on the floor during a bumpy car ride. I always put mine on the seat now.
jano
Evil Bokeh
Huck Finn said:I've heard stories of rangefinders going out of alignment after sitting on the floor during a bumpy car ride. I always put mine on the seat now.
Aaahhh crr...ud. I drive an old MBZ diesel, which just enhances the bumpiness. So far, no misalignment. But guess it may happen sooner or later.
Uhmm.. I seem to recall reading two things. First, the ZI RF was based on the M3 design, and second, that the M3 design was a very complex, highly precise, and delicate RF design where a decent bump would easily throw out the alignment.
With this comment, I should expect lots of M3 users to want to follow up and say "yeah, I dropped the camera from the top of the chicago tower and it survivied" etc etc. Save your time and don't, I'm just regurgitating what I remember having read sometime ago whether true or not and if it is then it may be a possible reason why the ZI could have alignment issues.
Huck Finn
Well-known
Jano, you remember correctly. We both read this comment in the Erwin Puts review. I was curious about this & so I wrote to both Mr. Puts & to Carl Zeiss AG. I received replies from both of them.
Erwin clarified his statements in the review, which said at one point that the M3 rangefinder has been extremely durable & at another point that it could be easily knocked out of alignment, as follows: "There seems to be a contradiction in my remarks: the M3 finder is a one piece design & does not need adjustment as there is nothing that can be dislocated. But the M3 one piece construction is located very close to the top cover and frequent crashes on the top cover by, as example, a second Leica body or by abuse as the camera is laying on the floor in a truck, can dislodge the finder assembly." He contrasts this with the rangefinder in the M6, which was designed for the M2 & is found all successive Leica M's: "The M6 finder series is a two piece construction and sometimes needs some additional adjustment."
So, what I read Erwin to be saying is that the finder in the M2 - M7 will need periodic adjustment as the result of normal use and the finder in the M3 will not. However, the finder in the M3 is capable of being knocked out of alignment if subjected to repeated ("frequent") abuse due to its interface with the top cover. Thus, the vulnerability of the M3 finder has nothing to do with the design of the finder but with the overall design of the camera & the way its parts fit together.
From Carl Zeiss AG, I received the following reply: "The optical path of the M3 rangefinder was more complex than that of later Leica models It contained 3 prisms for beam deflection while all later Leica models have just one. Such a more complex system is more elaborate to adjust during assembly and at least theoretically the risk of later misalignment by later mechanical stress on the camera is higher. But a theoretical problem is more an academic issue if things are well made. Not only the long product life of the M3 from 1954 to 1967 suggests that it was a reliable piece, but it was in the 60's that a Nikon F & a Leica M3 were the regular companions of photojournalists going to rough places."
So, like Puts, Zeiss stresses that a "well made" rangefinder assembly should not be a problem although misalignment is theoretically possible. They note that it is during assembly that it is vulnerable to alignment problems because of the complexities of the design. It seems to me that Zeiss quality control, which includes an inspection of every camera before it leaves the factory, should catch anything as obvious as rangefinder misalignment. So, having a ZI end up in a customer's hands due to improper adjustment during assembly is highly unlikely.
I should note that the ZI rangefinder design is not a replica of the M3 design; there are differences. This is obvious in use in that the rangefinder patch remains stationary in the M3 while it moves as focus is adjusted in the M3. It seems to me that the ZI design is more an elaboration of the design developed for the CL, made more complex by the requirements of a longer base line. What the ZI design has in common with the M3 is that unlike the M2 - M7 design, the frame mask is parallel to & close to the illumination window. The result is increased brightness, reduced flare, & elimination or rangefinder parallax.
Huck
Erwin clarified his statements in the review, which said at one point that the M3 rangefinder has been extremely durable & at another point that it could be easily knocked out of alignment, as follows: "There seems to be a contradiction in my remarks: the M3 finder is a one piece design & does not need adjustment as there is nothing that can be dislocated. But the M3 one piece construction is located very close to the top cover and frequent crashes on the top cover by, as example, a second Leica body or by abuse as the camera is laying on the floor in a truck, can dislodge the finder assembly." He contrasts this with the rangefinder in the M6, which was designed for the M2 & is found all successive Leica M's: "The M6 finder series is a two piece construction and sometimes needs some additional adjustment."
So, what I read Erwin to be saying is that the finder in the M2 - M7 will need periodic adjustment as the result of normal use and the finder in the M3 will not. However, the finder in the M3 is capable of being knocked out of alignment if subjected to repeated ("frequent") abuse due to its interface with the top cover. Thus, the vulnerability of the M3 finder has nothing to do with the design of the finder but with the overall design of the camera & the way its parts fit together.
From Carl Zeiss AG, I received the following reply: "The optical path of the M3 rangefinder was more complex than that of later Leica models It contained 3 prisms for beam deflection while all later Leica models have just one. Such a more complex system is more elaborate to adjust during assembly and at least theoretically the risk of later misalignment by later mechanical stress on the camera is higher. But a theoretical problem is more an academic issue if things are well made. Not only the long product life of the M3 from 1954 to 1967 suggests that it was a reliable piece, but it was in the 60's that a Nikon F & a Leica M3 were the regular companions of photojournalists going to rough places."
So, like Puts, Zeiss stresses that a "well made" rangefinder assembly should not be a problem although misalignment is theoretically possible. They note that it is during assembly that it is vulnerable to alignment problems because of the complexities of the design. It seems to me that Zeiss quality control, which includes an inspection of every camera before it leaves the factory, should catch anything as obvious as rangefinder misalignment. So, having a ZI end up in a customer's hands due to improper adjustment during assembly is highly unlikely.
I should note that the ZI rangefinder design is not a replica of the M3 design; there are differences. This is obvious in use in that the rangefinder patch remains stationary in the M3 while it moves as focus is adjusted in the M3. It seems to me that the ZI design is more an elaboration of the design developed for the CL, made more complex by the requirements of a longer base line. What the ZI design has in common with the M3 is that unlike the M2 - M7 design, the frame mask is parallel to & close to the illumination window. The result is increased brightness, reduced flare, & elimination or rangefinder parallax.
Huck