ZI review in the 'bug

Overall, Roger & Frances did a nice job with this review, but in the paragraph at the top of page 2, the say the following: "If the required exposure is outside the range available, . . . there is no "over" or "under" warning."

Note that they got this wrong. There is an "over" & "under" warning.
 
That's not the only thing they got wrong.

Just flipped through the mag in the supermarket. They mention a "40mm Biogon" in the R2A/3A review when it's most probably the Sonnar from the Rollei 35S/SE they had in mind.
 
Mazurka said:
That's not the only thing they got wrong.

Just flipped through the mag in the supermarket. They mention a "40mm Biogon" in the R2A/3A review when it's most probably the Sonnar from the Rollei 35S/SE they had in mind.
Click to expand...

Pretty observant of you to spot this error, Mazurka. :cool: In their effort to bestow - in their words - "semi-canonical status" on the 40 mm focal length, it is more likely that they were referring to the 40/2 Biotar which was introduced back in the 1933 for the Contax I.
 
Last edited:
It was differnt to most reviews I have read. Sometimes I felt I was reading a list of feature list points one after the other than a regular camera review. Some things I found odd.

"If you are not already committed to a system, and want a rangefinder camera, the ZI body warrants very serious consideration indeed. Otherwise......... "

So if you already have another M mount camera you wouldnt give the ZI serious consideration for a second body? Why not? Seems an odd thing to say, maybe its the way I read it.

"As a second body in an M-System, the ZI is obviously more of a competitor for an M7 (exposure automation, battery dependency) than for an MP, but either way there are significant differences from a Leica, most notably the rewind crank on the bottom and the meter read-out."

Hmmmm sorry but I would have thought the most notable difference straight up is the film loading rather than where the rewind knob is.

Although you cant help but compare the ZI to Leica M, the review seems to revolve around that. It came across as Leica user and owner sizing up the competition rather than how the camera stands in its own right as a photographic tool. Still, will be interesting to see what is said about the lenses.
 
Last edited:
From Roger Hick's review:

"Probably the most accurate finder in the table is the old Russian “turret” finder, ironically a copy of a pre-World War II Zeiss design."

"Another security concern, rather more serious, is the accessory shoe. This is no tighter than on a Bessa, and distinctly less tight than an MP. Given that finders are occasionally lost even from Leicas, this is worrying. Consider dipping viewfinder feet in clear Plasti Dip (www.plastidip.com), which is normally used to make tools more 'grippy.'"

He doesn't say which type of turret finder (Zorki turret to the left or Kiev/Contax turret to the right of the shoe). Probably the Zorki because of the shutter speed dial on the ZI?
chin.gif
I'd try a piece of electrician's tape on the bottom of the foot before dipping it in Plasti Dip.


R.J.
 
Last edited:
Huck Finn said:
Pretty observant of you to spot this error, Mazurka. :cool: In their effort to bestow - in their words - "semi-canonical status" on the 40 mm focal length, it is more likely that they were referring to the 40/2 Biotar which was introduced back in the 1933 for the Contax I.
Click to expand...

Huck, thanks for pointing out the Biotar which I had not been aware of. But I would think that one was "fully canonical", as opposed to the Rollei-made 40mm Sonnar. ;) Besides, the present ZM series aren't "canonical" either: they all have the rival's lens mount, and most of them aren't even made by Zeiss. :D

Palaeoboy said:
"If you are not already committed to a system, and want a rangefinder camera, the ZI body warrants very serious consideration indeed. Otherwise......... "

So if you already have another M mount camera you wouldnt give the ZI serious consideration for a second body? Why not? Seems an odd thing to say, maybe its the way I read it...

Although you cant help but compare the ZI to Leica M, the review seems to revolve around that. It came across as Leica user and owner sizing up the competition rather than how the camera stands in its own right as a photographic tool.
Click to expand...

Why Joel, "committed" of course means "committed to the Leica faith"! And you've practically said so in your last paragraph. :D
 
Roger IS a long time Leica user and prefers mechanical cameras. However, the review is fair and the ZI is a fine camera. That said, no other RF is as solid as an M camera. But how important is that if the snaps are excellent?

IMHO, the ZI is more user friendly than an M7.
 
I thought that the lens reviews were scheduled for the May issue, but they're not there. Does anyone know when they will appear?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom