ZI Review from Tom Abrahamsson

[Huck Finn]

The Leica response to the ZI is the used market -- M6 or M7. Now true, you only may get a 90 day warranty as compared to the one year warranty of the ZI, but these things are built like a tank and are unlikely to have any problems. I bet used M6's on Ebay in mint go for as little as $900.

Now what's a better deal, the new ZI for $1600 with AP or the tried and tested M6 for $700 less? That's a tough question.

This is a red herring since ZIs will also be turning up on the used market. You've got to compare apples with apples. Anyone who prefers the used M6 can wait for a used ZI to become available - probably about the same amount of time that it will take to get that rare $900 "mint" M6.

I did a search recently on another thread & found that while you can find an M6 on eBay in the $900 - $1000 range, they're very rare - & they won't come with a 90 day warranty . . . & you're assuming that the seller's posting as "mint" is accurate . . . & you're assuming that it won't need a $300 CLA after you get it. Regardless, it's not the alternative to the ZI; the M7 is.

$1600 is not the better deal for the ZI 😉 - not when they're readily available for $1300 - $1400, which is a comparable price to the average price for an M6 from a dealer. Some M6's will be higher. A used M7 will be much higher - $2000+.

I have no problem with anyone preferring a used Leica M6 or M7. It's great to have choices. There's room for both. Too often conversations come down to this same comparison. You might as well ask: "Why buy a Ford when you can buy a Chevy?" The customer should buy the one s/he likes & the market is better for having both.

Rather than viewing the ZI based on how it compares to a Leica, it should be appreciated for & evaluated based on what it is in its own right, i.e. a highly spec'd Rf camera aimed at users & enthusiasts rather than at the pro market. It is the first such offering in 30 years as even the Hexar RF was aimed at the pro market while the CL, CLE, & Bessas have lower spec's. Nikon & Canon have offered SLR alternatives stepped down a notch in spec's from their pro lines for decades. Some of them even became a hit with pros. Too bad Leica didn't do the same. But I'm glad that someone finally has.

 

[sgy1962]

Your right, it should be evaluated on its own.

I'm just babbling, because no one talks to me at home, except my dog which barks at me (I don't know if that is good or bad).

The ZI iis clearly a better value over an M7.

But let me ask you an unfair question: If price were not a consideration or if they both cost the same, which one would you get, and why?

I ask, because I believe a big chunck of Leica's market is folks who have the discretionary income to burn, and they just want the best, whether it is overpriced or not. Now, if your telling me that the ZI is substantially equal in terms of build quality and function as an M7, then that's something special.

Sort of like the ZI lenses. Their optics are great, approaching annd equaling Leica quality, except in the wide open area in certain situations, but at a fraction of the cost. I would say generally comprable quality (too bad they don't anything faster then f/2). Can the same said for the ZI body?

 

[Frank Granovski]

...too bad they don't anything faster then f/2....

There's always Voigtlander lenses from the same womb.

Can the same said for the ZI body?

Seems pretty good to me and at less than half the price. 😎

 

[Socke]

But let me ask you an unfair question: If price were not a consideration or if they both cost the same, which one would you get, and why?

I'd buy the ZI for the viewfinder and flash sync, the one stop faster shutter may come in handy, too.

 

[sgy1962]

The eye relief is what I find so appealing.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that -- price aside -- does the ZI have the same subjective (or objective) feeling of quality as a leica M7?

I will give you an example. I've been shooting Leica Ms for about ten years and owned a couple of M6s, which I eventually sold when the MP came out. I don't know anything about the construction of the cameras, but it appears to me that the MP is so much better built then the M6s (tighter tolerances, ect.); albeit a more expensive camera. Without a doubt. But there both good cameras.

So that's the gist of my question: Does the ZI approach the quality of an M7 or MP, from both a subjective and objective viewpoint? Or, is the quality a step down, but at 1/2 the price?

I have to be a little careful about talking about Leica optics, because their most recent offerings (e.g., 50mm Summilux ASPH; 75mm Summicron ASPH) are in a class of their own. I held off getting the 50mm lens for 1 1/2 year, but when I finally got it, i kicked myself for waiting. The optical quality is amazing; blowing away the legendary summicron even wide open. It's the type of lens where -- for a moment -- you think "Well, maybe I can sell one of my kids into slavery to get this lens.?"

 

[Socke]

sgy1962, that depends of what you see as quality.

For example, the german car manufacturers are very strict with tolerances in the parts of the cars body. Gap width is adjusted perfectly for every hood and door.
My Audi TT roadster had perfectly sewn brown leather, antireflective coating on the instruments, brushed aloy and a perfect paint job.

But the direction indicators where broken most of the time, the gearbox blew up, the heating for the right seat couldn't be turned off, stability controll and anti skid brakes stoped working when it got cold, and and and ....

The Fiat Barchetta I had before had varying gap width around the hoods and doors, the paint job wasn't as highly polished but the car did just work. 35000 km with the Audi against 120000 with the Fiat, eight unplaned stops in the workshop with the Audi against one with the Fiat. Audi gave me a Polo with 55 hp when my car was two weeks the workshop and I had to pay one week myself, Fiat lend me another Barchetta the next day and payed the Hotel I stayed at for the night.


Now I have a Mini Cooper Convertible, no problems up to now.

 

[Frank Granovski]

Now I have a Mini Cooper Convertible

My wife wants one of those but might settle with a Beetle. We'll see. 🙁

I would almost bet the new Z1 is more reliable.... It is, after all, built in a modern factory with the latest materials, etc, etc. Plus they have a worldwide network, unlike Leica. (Leica doesn't even have a Canadian distributer!) 😎

 

[Bertram2]

The Leica response to the ZI is the used market -- M6 or M7. .

Yes, that's their only response I'm afraid. Embarrassing for them, and , as the CEO admitted, one of their main probs in marketing. That's simply the dark side of the shiny high-price medal.

It will be interesting to see how the "used or new?" question will be answered by the photographers and what the impact will be on the yet half dead Leica biz.
I have a quite clear imagination.

bertram

 

[Bertram2]

sgy1962, that depends of what you see as quality.
For example, the german car manufacturers are very strict with tolerances in the parts of the cars body. Gap width is adjusted perfectly for every hood and door.
My
But the direction indicators where broken most of the time, the gearbox blew up, the heating for the right seat couldn't be turned off, stability controll and anti skid brakes stoped working when it got cold, and and and ....
.

Volker,
that's why Ferdinand Piech was derisvely named as "Fugen-Ferdl" ! 😀
I have similar experiences with the VAG products and VAG itself, and the same opinion about Fiat too.

Back on topic: I also would like to ask about what kinda quality we speak about here?

"Built like a tank" is that a virtue which can stand for its own ? Or is it simply a stoneold obsolete design, which btw is in reality often not as reliable as expected and needs , as all mechanical machines, an considerable amount of maintaining effort if it shall stay nice and working well?
It makes the camera heavy and expensive first of all and up til today nobody could answer me the question why I should invest in a life expectation which is
longer than my own ? 😕
Last not least body quality alone does not necessarily contribute to the quality of the result, and lens quality often first at a level most users never achieve.

So for me too the quality discussion related to the Zeiss Ikon and Leica comparison sometimes seems to lose contact with the real life, it's emotion only and nothing to do with facts. At least not on the quality level we speak about here, which is the absolute top level of waht you can buy new today in general.

If somebody says "I need that feeling and I pay for it" I respect his attitude of course. But this has nothing to do with facts. OMHO the whole discussion suffers a bit from masking the emotion with facts, what for ? That's misleading.

bertram

 

[sgy1962]

Volker,
that's why Ferdinand Piech was derisvely named as "Fugen-Ferdl" ! 😀
I have similar experiences with the VAG products and VAG itself, and the same opinion about Fiat too.

Back on topic: I also would like to ask about what kinda quality we speak about here?

"Built like a tank" is that a virtue which can stand for its own ? Or is it simply a stoneold obsolete design, which btw is in reality often not as reliable as expected and needs , as all mechanical machines, an considerable amount of maintaining effort if it shall stay nice and working well?
It makes the camera heavy and expensive first of all and up til today nobody could answer me the question why I should invest in a life expectation which is
longer than my own ? 😕
Last not least body quality alone does not necessarily contribute to the quality of the result, and lens quality often first at a level most users never achieve.

So for me too the quality discussion related to the Zeiss Ikon and Leica comparison sometimes seems to lose contact with the real life, it's emotion only and nothing to do with facts. At least not on the quality level we speak about here, which is the absolute top level of waht you can buy new today in general.

If somebody says "I need that feeling and I pay for it" I respect his attitude of course. But this has nothing to do with facts. OMHO the whole discussion suffers a bit from masking the emotion with facts, what for ? That's misleading.

bertram

It really is not a misleading issue when you understand the perspective from which the question is asked.

First, build quality does have an impacct on the useful life of the product. That's obvious. And Leica has that high quality. Look at how many 30-40 year old M2s, M3s, and M4s are still in use, and some are still in heavy use. I've seen some of these old cameras which have been physically beat to hell, but still function perfectly.

But there is a more intangible issue. I always draw a distinction in photography between the act of taking the picture and the final product. Now, any camera can take a great picture, but for me a rangefinder has the greatest "fun factor" in the taking of that picture. And using a finely crafted rangefinder increases that fun factor , for me. And sometimes, the adventure of getting the picture is more meaningful then the final product.

I believe most rangefinder folks feel this way, even if it is not a conscious feeling, because rangefinders aren't very practical today, there just fun too use.

And therein lies the genesis of my question regarding quality.

Now, I know reasonable people can disagree. Someone can say is all that matters is the final picture, and that's reasonable position. But I suspect if someone strictly holds that position, there not using a rangefinder.

And I also realize that there is a possible spectrum between fun to use on one end and the the final product (picture) on the other, and that most rangefinder folks fall somewhere in the murky middle. And your response to the perceived quality question will depend where you fall on that line.

I hope I made myself clear, I don't seem to be very articulate this morning.

 

[Huck Finn]

But let me ask you an unfair question: If price were not a consideration or if they both cost the same, which one would you get, and why?

Tom, if money were no object, I would buy the Zeiss Ikon, but that is not necessarily what I would recommend to you, or to my best friend, or to anyone else. It depends on your needs.

The reason why I would buy the Zeiss Ikon regardless of money is strictly for the viewfinder. I am not going to buy multiple bodies to mount multiple lenses, as some people do. I am ecstatic about the opportunity to have one camera with frame lines that range from 28 - 85, all of which I can see well enough to use despite the fact that I wear glasses. I can't do that with an M7. I don't need the level of build quality that goes into a Leica M camera, which seems to me to be built for the most demanding abuse that it can be given by a working photojournalist or other pro photographer. The standard to which the ZI is built is just fine for me. I also don't need the motor wind capability of an M7 that the working pro may need.

IMHO what's great about the arrival of the ZI is that it offers the kind of choice that the Bessas really don't. All of the basics of a highly spec'd RF camera in terms of base length, full range of frame lines, & relibility of high quality control are there. However, there are differences between the ZI, a more basic & spartan camera, & an M7 that influence choices besides the viewfinder:

Do you prefer a heavier camera or one that's a little lighter? Leica users are used to & comfortable with the weight of their cameras, but some people would like to travel lighter.

How important is it for you to have that little "snick" of a noise from the shutter? It doesn't matter at all to me. The ZI is quiet enough, but others use there cameras under conditions where it seems to matter.

How important is mechanical back-up to you? Not at all to me. I simply carry an extra battery. But the M7 has 2 mechanical back-up speeds, should the battery fail.

Do you take long time exposures? I don't. Leica offers 8 & 32 seconds for AE/manual, Zeiss only 1 & 8.

Do you need/want DX coding? Leica has it. As dumb as I am, I probably should have it, but I'm jumping out of the plane without a parachute.

The M7 seems to offer more information in the viewfinder & it automatically adjusts for brightness to ambient light conditions. Nice touch!

The M7 has TTL flash metering if you need that.

Higher flash synch, uncluttered frame lines, & a stop faster shutter speed are advantages for the ZI for anyone who cares.

The big issue is build quality for those who need the very best or for those who use their cameras under the most demanding conditions, e.g. back packing. Most of the comments that I've seen on the greater "heft" of a Leica M camera seem just plain silly to me. Such comments seem to imply that an M camera is better built, which I hope it is for all of the extra money it costs. But this weight factor just is not an indicator. The M7 uses brass bottom & top plates - & same on the front plate I assume - which is mostly what accounts for the weight difference. Because it's a soft metal, it must be thick to achieve the necessary strength & rigidity. The ZI uses a magnesium alloy, which wasn't available 50 years ago when Leica first started building M cameras. In fact, it wasn't available 10 years ago. It has one of the highest weight-to-strength ratios in the industry, has excellent elasticity to absorb shock, & is cheaper to use in manufacturing. It saves weight & cost, making for a lighter camera at a lower price that is just strong. I think that Leica still uses brass only because they are trying to keep their "traditionalist" customer base who recoiled when they tried to economize on the M-4P & the M6 by using zinc on the top plate. The real structural integrity of a camera comes not from its external cladding but from its interior chasis. In this case, both cameras are die-cast aluminum.

I sat with an old & grizzled, very experienced, independent Leica tech in my part of the world a few years ago. He is a native of Spain where he obtained an engineering degree. He knows his stuff & is picky. He made it clear to me that the superior build quality of a Leica comes from the little things, not from its heft - the use of screws where others use glue or solder, the use of metal parts where others use plastic - especially when this means that a part can be refabricated or adjusted rather than replaced. I should note that even Leicas today aren't built like they used to be. We've read complaints of front elements coming off lenses because glue was used instead of screws. So, where it's not visible, Leica too economizes. The key question is: to what degree? And how does it compare with the competition? When I asked him about a Bessa, he muttered "piece of junk" - his words, not mine. I repeated the question, saying that the R2 was built better than its predecessors. He said: "They're all the same, can't be repaired." And then reiterated: "piece of junk." So, the devil is in the small details, which have little effect on the weight & "heft" of the camera.

Since I can't get under the hood of either an M7 or a ZI, I have no idea what the differences are in the small details if any. I can only assume that the M7 is built to a higher standard. I believe that you get what you pay for. You pay more for an M7 & I believe you get more - both in features & in build quality. However, there are differences & the difference maker for me favored the ZI - even if money were no object.

Huck

 

[Huck Finn]

build quality does have an impacct on the useful life of the product. That's obvious. And Leica has that high quality. Look at how many 30-40 year old M2s, M3s, and M4s are still in use, and some are still in heavy use. I've seen some of these old cameras which have been physically beat to hell, but still function perfectly.

Tom, I agree that build quality has an impact on the useful life of a product. As you point out, this is what makes a Leica a legendary camera. Those beat up old workhorses were used by any number of photojournalists in a newsroom & they still work perfectly!

Matching build quality to intended use is also important. The Nikon FM/2 is also a legendary camera with superb build quality. It does not have the build quality of a Nikon F2 or F3, its contemporaries in its first few years of issue. But it is a robust camera nonetheless & its virtues enabled it to find its way into the camera bag of many a working pro. When I was on a cruise a few years ago, my wife & I signed up for a portrait that the cruise ship offered. The shooter used an FM2n. For such a commercial use, it was perfect.

I see the ZI as filling the niche in relation to the M7 that the FM/2 filled in relation to the F2 & F3. High quality, excellent build quality, reliable, but a notch below the pro line both in features & in build quality - which is not a bad thing.

In regard to aesthetics, many an FM2n/3a user to this day gets an emotional charge out of using this camera & finds it to be a fun shooter. Its film advance is buttery smooth - even smoother than a Leica M according to many users. Similarly the ZI has a nice feeling to it & has a very smooth film advance, giving a sense of high quality mechanics. Its feel is definitely different than an M7, so individual preferences will be a factor here.

Huck

 

[Bertram2]

The big issue is build quality for those who need the very best or for those who use their cameras under the most demanding conditions, e.g. back packing. Most of the comments that I've seen on the greater "heft" of a Leica M camera seem just plin silly to me. Such comments seem to imply that an M camera is better built, which I hope it is for all of the extra money it costs. But this weight factor just is not an indicator. The M7 uses brass bottom & top plates - & same on the front plate I assume - which is mostly what accounts for the weight difference. Because it's a soft metal, it must be thick to achieve the necessary strength & rigidity. The ZI uses a magnesium alloy, which wasn't available 50 years ago when Leica first started building M cameras. In fact, it wasn't available 10 years ago. It has one of the highest weight-to-strength ratios in the industry, has excellent elasticity to absorb shock, & is cheaper to use in manufacturing. It saves weight & cost, making for a lighter camera at a lower price that is just strong. I think that Leica still uses brass only because they are trying to keep their "traditionalist" customer base who rebelled when they treid to economize on the M-4P & the M6 by using zinc on the top plate. The real structural integrity of a camera comes not from its external cladding but from its interior chasis. In this case, both are die-cast aluminum.

Huck

Huck,
very well said, better than I ever could say it with my poor English.
What both amuses and amazes me is that from the very first moment on it was automatically assumed by many people, that the ZI can't be built as good as the the Leica. And it is still assumed, tho only a handful of people own the camera since some weeks.

Reminds me to Wilhelm Busch, a humorous German poet and draftsman of the 19th century:

"Und so schliesst er messersharf, dass nicht sein kann was nicht sein darf !"
And so he concludes razor-sharply that it cannot be what mustn't be ( or shall not be ?)

Not sure, but anyway, I think my translation at least makes clear what kind of "logic" he meant. 😀

bertram

 

[sgy1962]

What both amuses and amazes me is that from the very first moment on it was automatically assumed by many people, that the ZI can't be built as good as the the Leica. And it is still assumed, tho only a handful of people own the camera since some weeks.



bertram

But that is why these questions are being asked to those who have the camera. I don't think people are basing the ZI, it just seems that intuitively, a camera at less then 1/2 the cost, but built approaching the quality standards of a Leica M does not seem possible. But if it is, what a feat.

Of course, we shouldn't be suprised, because they did it with the ZI lenses.

I still got to see one of these cameras. That eye relief may overcome my "fear" of electronics.

 

[Mazurka]

I see the ZI as filling the niche in relation to the M7 that the FM/2 filled in relation to the F2 & F3. High quality, excellent build quality, reliable, but a notch below the pro line both in features & in build quality - which is not a bad thing.

In regard to aesthetics, many an FM2n/3a user to this day gets an emotional charge out of using this camera & finds it to be a fun shooter. Its film advance is buttery smooth - even smoother than a Leica M according to many users. Similarly the ZI has a nice feeling to it & has a very smooth film advance, giving a sense of high quality mechanics. Its feel is definitely different than an M7, so individual preferences will be a factor here.Huck

Good analogy, but don't forget that the FM/FE (or their predecessor the Nikkormat) series always had a faster maximum flash sync speed than the F, F2 and F3 - the FM2/FE2 were more than 1 stop faster in this regard.

Neither did the F series suffer from dusty or flaring finders like the MP and M7. And of course, the F series never slow you down or make you screw up with bottom loading either. 😛

I have a laugh whenever I see die-hard Leicaphiles gush about how smooth the M's film advance is, because the first thing I noticed about my M6TTL was how grindy, rough and tight the film advance felt (and still does) compared with my lowly Nikon FM! 😀

 

[sgy1962]

Neither did the F series suffer from dusty or flaring finders like the MP and M7. And of course, the F series never slow you down or make you screw up with bottom loading either.

Oh, you sinner, you going to HE double toothpicks for uttering such blaspheme. Those problems have been fixed, and they never were much of a problem other then to fondlers who sit aroound on their couch and try to find something wrong with their equipment. I used my M6 for almost 10 years and it never flared, or rarely. A dusty finder? I still want to see one and I have one of the original MPs that is supposed to have this grevious defect.

I have a laugh whenever I see die-hard Leicaphiles gush about how smooth the M's film advance is, because the first thing I noticed about my M6TTL was how grindy, rough and tight the film advance felt (and still does) compared with my lowly Nikon FM! 😀

Something is definately wrong with your camera. You probably purchased it used. its a definite siggn that you need a CLA. It should be a lot smoother then what you describe. Like I said, it needs a clean and lube job.

 

[Mazurka]

they never were much of a problem other then to fondlers who sit aroound on their couch and try to find something wrong with their equipment.

Something is definately wrong with your camera. You probably purchased it used. its a definite siggn that you need a CLA. It should be a lot smoother then what you describe. Like I said, it needs a clean and lube job.

I bought it brand-new from an official dealer, with a factory warranty, when it was in current production. The film advance, though rough and tight, is regular in its movement. The steel gear (as opposed to brass gears of the M3/2) movement does feel normal, though not very pleasant. I don't suppose a CLA will put in extra ball bearings to smoothen the action. 😱

The 0.85 finder on the M6TTL (I don't think it's what you have) is particularly prone to RF flare, which in turn is a well-documented problem. Why else would you think Leica offers, for a fee, to put back two cheapo, plastic bits to the M6 finder as an "upgrade", with which late MPs and M7s leave the factory?

The RF patch of my sample flared out at the slightest provocation. (Sorry, I don't exactly fondle the camera when I try to focus before taking a picture.) After putting on the SHADE, it still flares, but not to the point of complete white-out and it now remains usable even under previously unfavourable lighting conditions.

 

[Huck Finn]

Good analogy, but don't forget that the FM/FE (or their predecessor the Nikkormat) series always had a faster maximum flash sync speed than the F, F2 and F3 - the FM2/FE2 were more than 1 stop faster in this regard.

Good point, Dan. It always interested me that Nikon seemed to introduce more advanced features on their lower tier cameras before they included them on their pro models, making it easy for Canon to pass them by in the '80s with more highly spec'd pro models. I always thought that Nikon was trying to give the message to the pros: "We're not going to experiment on you. When you pay top dollar, you'll be able to count on the reliability of everything working the way it's supposed to. You won't be our guinea pig." As a result, their pro cameras seemed to consistently be more conservatively designed that Canon. Once the feature was proven, then it would make the jump to the pro model. So, after 1/4000 on the FM2, Nikon blew everyone out of the water with 1/8000 on the N8008/F801 & then it showed up on the F4.

Huck

 

[sgy1962]

I bought it brand-new from an official dealer, with a factory warranty, when it was in current production. The film advance, though rough and tight, is regular in its movement. The steel gear (as opposed to brass gears of the M3/2) movement does feel normal, though not very pleasant. I don't suppose a CLA will put in extra ball bearings to smoothen the action. 😱

The 0.85 finder on the M6TTL (I don't think it's what you have) is particularly prone to RF flare, which in turn is a well-documented problem. Why else would you think Leica offers, for a fee, to put back two cheapo, plastic bits to the M6 finder as an "upgrade", with which late MPs and M7s leave the factory?

The RF patch of my sample flared out at the slightest provocation. (Sorry, I don't exactly fondle the camera when I try to focus before taking a picture.) After putting on the SHADE, it still flares, but not to the point of complete white-out and it now remains usable even under previously unfavourable lighting conditions.

I didn't mean to insinuate you were a fondler. It's just that in the ten years of my heavy use of a Leica M, I've always found this flare problem to be a bit overstated. Maybe my use of the camera is just very different from all you folks who complain about the flare.

I still think you got a lemon of an M6 if I understand what you are describing. I've only experienced what your describing in used cameras which need relubing or something. The M6s I've owned and used have all been pretty smooth.

 

[sgy1962]

The more I think about it -- and it is hard to divest yourself from "Leica loyalty" after so many years using their great little camera w/o much in the way of competition -- if your a rangefinder aficionado, then it shouldn't be Leica vs. ZI, but rejoice that there is another high quality rangefinder on the market.