ZI: When Leica fans attack...

Brian Sweeney said:
Zeiss steered off-course into the Contarex and Contaflex in the '50s. At least they have seen the error of their ways and want back into the RF business.
Click to expand...

Brian,

The Contaflex/Contarex had some features that have yet to be matched in 35mm SLRs.

1. Interchangeable backs. In the last 20 years only Rollei had them with the SL2000F series (I know most leak today but so do Hasselbald backs. Seals wear out).

2. Flash Sync 1/500 sec for the Contaflex.

3. Solid dicast constructions. Top end Nikon, Canon & Leica have it but pick ups a EOS Rebel or Minolta body. Platics junk IMHO.

4. Top notch lenses that are still hard to beat. The 50mm f/1.4 Planar, 85mm f/2 Sonnar etc.

The Contaflex has a place in history that is not well known. It was from the Contaflex that the Zeiss engineers started when designing the Sycro-Compur shutters in the Hasselblad 500C lenes. Mechanicly they are very similar. The sucess of the Hasselblad is unmatched in the worls of 6x6 SLRs.

I've just picked up a number of Contaflexs to have fun with! They are not bad cameras!
I like the 50mm f/2.8 Tessar.
 
Am I the only person astounded by the amount of disinformation being spouted about the upcoming Zeiss Ikon camera?
Click to expand...

This is going to sound smug (which it is), but: OF COURSE NOT!!! (see my tongue in cheek Outrageous ZI Flaws thread from April)

Many Leica owners suffer from a very petty snobbishness about their gear and they are quite vocal about it on photo.net. The new Zeiss promises to have a better VF/RF, easier loading, more shutter speeds and all kinds of other advantages in addition to its vaunted marque (which is probably what most threatens the shabby snobbishness of certain Leicaphiles).

It is too bad that ZI chose to use the same shutters from the Bessa, instead of picking the shutters from the Hexar and Contax G - the Hexar and Contax shutters seem much quieter in my experience (as well as having speeds from ~15 seconds to 1/4000).

Well...maybe in the ZI Digital...
 
There are also plenty of Leica owners who are quite equable about other brands, both here and on PN. I've noticed a distinct change in the climate over at PN with respect to using Konica and CV lenses, for example - its nowhere near what it used to be. There are other Leica forums where there is still a definite brand bias however. Let's not bash them too much - its the collectors who are probably keeping Leica in business - ever more tenuously perhaps.

 
Um... Comparing the ZI with an MP is a bit chalk-and-cheese: it's the M7 that the ZI is really going head-to-head with. I'd choose a ZI over an M7 without hesitation but I'd also choose an MP over a ZI. A lot depends on what you want, and a Leica where the shutter speed dial goes backwards is VERY bad news to someone who has been using Leicas for over a third of a century.

But I really wouldn't favour either the ZI or the M7 on the specific grounds of loading, viewfinder or shutter, including speeds -- OK the ZI has 1/2000 and faster flash synch, but fflash on an M is rank heresy anyway. I've only handled non-working ZIs but I have an R3A with the same shutter and with the ZI I could look through the VF and see how the film loading works so it didn't matter that they were non-operational. Really, it does come down to whether you prefer apples or oranges.

I also love trigger bases and use them on both my MP and Bessas; I don't know if they will be available for ZIs. But I'm really looking forward to some ZI lenses.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Though I realize it's about as unlikely as can be imagined, I do keep hoping that sales will be good enough for them to come out with a Contax mount version. I'd just really love to be able to use my pre-war glass on a modern camera and one marked, say, Zeiss Ikon Contax IV would be enough to make me go broke :D Especially if the new lenses were available too :eek:

William
 
Does anyone have a feel for how the lenses are selling? THey've already appeared in a lot of outlets - any retailers here have a view on whether they're doing better, or worse, than expected?
 
Paul,

First, never take anything said at photo.net seriously anymore, it has largely been overrun with people more intrigued with the sounds of their own voices than solid or helpful information. I suspect most of the naysayers are people who haven't remotely come within a mile of handling the camera. Most of these folks seem to be under the mistaken impression that the more innane posts they have on photo.net, the more frequent flyer miles they get ;-)

Second, the US vs THEM attitude is not accurately just about leica owners. I am a leica owner, but I also genuinely want Zeiss to do well. Why not? More choices, more innovations, more possibilities for a digital M body. It would be great to see some solid competition for Leica. Good for Zeiss, good for Leica. I for one am cheering them on.
 
furcafe said:
What appears to be happening now is that CZ is using the ZI name for new cameras made by Cosina, probably because Kyocera was still using the Contax name when the decision was made to create the new ZI RF's. Now that Kyocera has abandoned the Contax camera line, CZ can always use it on new cameras, including the new ZI line. That would make historical sense, since ZI was the name of the camera company, not a certain RF camera model, but the marketing/hyping of the ZI brand may have advanced too far for that to happen anytime soon.
Click to expand...
The public announcement from Kyocera indicated that they'd be continuing to market the Contax 645 camera line until the end of this year. So I expect they'd not want to relinquish use of the name until after that... I wonder if the new Z-I RF camera will be called Zeiss-Ikon only initially, and by this time next year it might be "Contax"?
 
The ZI doesn't look like a modern Contax, so I don't mind if it continues to be called the Zeiss Ikon.
 
peter_n said:
I've noticed a distinct change in the climate over at PN with respect to using Konica and CV lenses, for example - its nowhere near what it used to be.
Click to expand...

Peter, this is certainly true. In fact, some of the ZI bashers will praise the virtues of Bessa or Hexar RF in support of their anti-ZI arguments. It's sad that each time a new offering enters the M-mount market, it has to go through this same hazing ritual. It happened to the Hexar RF & it happened to Voigtlander Bessas.

The loud-mouths who lead the charge at PN are far from representative of Leica owners. Many (most?) of us here include Leica lenses in our equipment bags even if we don't own a Leica camera. That's the joy of the M scene today. You can mix & match equipment regardless of the body that you're shooting with at the time in a way that SLR ownere can only dream about. All of which makes the bashing of increased choices for the user so strange & so hard to figure.

Honest criticism of new - or old - products is a desirable contribution. It's important for potential buers to know the flaws of any product. What makes the the PN discussions not constructive is - as Paul said to start this thread - the blatant misrepresentations, factual inaccuracies, & the dwelling on trivialities that have characterized so many of those discussions. It's a sad state of affairs for potential buyers who actually go there to better understand a new product & for assistance with a decision to purchase. What should be a short cut in their research must become at best a confusing mess & at worst a totally misleading exercise.

Huck
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
But I really wouldn't favour either the ZI or the M7 on the specific grounds of loading, viewfinder or shutter, including speeds. Really, it does come down to whether you prefer apples or oranges.

I also love trigger bases and use them on both my MP and Bessas; I don't know if they will be available for ZIs. But I'm really looking forward to some ZI lenses.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...

Truer words were never spoken. Dispassionate discussions of each available option allows each user to obtain the camera that feels right to him/her. Descriptions of the strengths & limitations of each allows one to choose the right tool for the job. Better or worse comparisons seem like a waste of time.

Roger, unfortunately no trigger winder for the ZI because of the bottom-located film advance AFAIK.

Huck
 
Very Well Put

Very Well Put

I have a Contax IIIa, Canon Canonet QL17 GIII and a Leica M3. I love rangefinder cameras period, I love shooting with them and the results I get. Half my glass for my Leica M3 is not from Leica, in fact I use the Canon 50/1.4 screwmount lens with adapter more often than the 50/2 collapsable Summicron that came with the camera and I love using the CV 35/2.5 and have become quite addicted to it. Now if I had the cash floating around I would buy into the Zeiss Ikon system without hesitatiing, can you say, the optics. Brand snobbery is a joke, I am a shooter not some wacked collector that keeps his/her cameras under glass.
I have not seen the the new Zeiss Ikon in person yet but having read about it's product development in Shutterbug, I am quite impressed. I would not be surprised, if or when the dust settles with Leica, they too will be using Cosina to assemble the gear.


Bill
 
Huck Finn said:
I came across an interesting statement about the Zeiss Ikon in the B&H catalogue that arrived in yesterday's mail. Among its features, the catalogue description lists:

"Metal body for mechanical and thermal long-term stability"

Does anyone have any idea what this means? I certainly understand the reference to mechanical stability, but I've never seen "thermal stability" referenced in descibing a camera body. I haven't come across this description in any of the Zeiss, Hasselblad, or Cosina literature about the ZI. Do all metal bodies inherently have "thermal stability"? Is this something unique to this camera? I would think not, but I don't think that I've ever come across this description of a camera body before in a B&H catalogue.
Click to expand...

IMHO this is marketingspeak only. Why is this?
Firstly, without saying anything about which metal (aluminium has about double the thermal expansion rate of steel, i don't remember the value for brass) this is non-information.
Fibre reinfored resins using carbon fibre or even glass fiber will have similar or sometimes even lower thermal expansion rates than steel. This depends on fibre direction, when done incorrectly, the expansion rate will be much larger than metals! Also, having the fibres in the "right" orientation for optimum thermal expansion may mean they are in the wrong orientation for strength. For tubes the solution is simple, but a complex camera body is something else: good engineering is required. Low thermal expansion may even be reached by using (the right combination of different kinds of) wood as material.
Secondly , the only way to have near-zero thermal expansion using metals is to use invar (name says it all). This would result in a very expensive camera (invar is not renowned for its low price nor for its good machinability).
Thirdly, even when using a (any!) low-thermal-expansion material internal stresses and temperature gradients may induce relatively large thermal *deformations* ("warping") which can have an even larger influence on performance (hence Aluminium may be a better material than steel notwithstanding the higher expansion rate) als the thermal conductivity is better and the temperature gradients can be lower. All depends on the design and the application, YMMV. We're still just scratching at the surface of temperature-insensitive design here...
Fourthly, even a temperature shift of, say, 50 degrees K (using the thermal expansion coefficient of steel of about 12 ppm/K and a flange-to-plane distance of about 30mm) would result in a linear expansion from film plane to lens mount (disregarding temperature gradient/stress effects) that IMHO is much lower than machining tolerances of RF cameras (which I can only guess at).
Anyhow, all this would mean (almost) nothing without having a lens designed along the same low-thermal-expansion guidelines, which leads me to the conclusion that this statement is marketing hype.

Best regards,
Marcus
(I must have too much time on my hands... :)
 
Last edited:
wlewisiii said:
Though I realize it's about as unlikely as can be imagined, I do keep hoping that sales will be good enough for them to come out with a Contax mount version. I'd just really love to be able to use my pre-war glass on a modern camera and one marked, say, Zeiss Ikon Contax IV would be enough to make me go broke :D Especially if the new lenses were available too :eek:

William
Click to expand...

So would I but it would have to be called the Contax Vc. Contax IV and IVa was/is the G and G2 Contaxes. Contax V is the ZI. The ZI with a Contax mount would be Vc. Cosina has the tools and dies as they made the Bessa R2 C. CamerQuest has them but they are discontinued so stocks will be drying up soon.

I'm considering getting one myself.
 
aoresteen said:
So would I but it would have to be called the Contax Vc. Contax IV and IVa was/is the G and G2 Contaxes. Contax V is the ZI. The ZI with a Contax mount would be Vc. Cosina has the tools and dies as they made the Bessa R2 C. CamerQuest has them but they are discontinued so stocks will be drying up soon.

I'm considering getting one myself.
Click to expand...

Good point on the name.

If I had the money, I'd already have an R2C. I've had serious GAS for one ever since I learned of it, but it's just too much for an unemployed stay at home dad to pop for a camera. But it would be really fun to pop my prewar Sonnars onto it... :D

William
 
Huck Finn said:
Thanks for your thoughts, Marcus. Having no engineering background, I had no idea what they were talking about.
Huck
Click to expand...
You're welcome, for me it was nice to dig up stuff from 10 years ago (that was when I was last working in that field)!
 
I like the R2C. I'll be taking it to New York with me next week on my annual spring visit. The 35 & 85mm framelines in the viewfinder are great to have. I mainly use an Opton 35 Biogon, Opton 85 Triotar (much smaller & lighter than the Sonnar, though not as good a performer below f/5.6) along with a later "Carl Zeiss" 50mm f/1.5 for low-light and shallow-DOF stuff.

-Dave-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom