summilux
Well-known
anyone knows if the new ZM body fits with the old googled Leitz lens, like the googled summaron and summicron 35, and also the dual range summicron 50?
ZM body compatible with googled Leitz lens?
- Thread starter summilux
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 29
- Views 3K
Huck Finn
Well-known
Summilux, I don't know either. I would assume that the 50/2 DR would have the same problem that it has on some M6's, Bessas, etc. But the best person to answer this question is prbably Stephen Gandy of www.cameraquest.com. He has researched this question for other M bodies & he sells the Zeiss Ikon. He is very helpful in replying to such questions. You can find his contact information at his website.
ZeissFan
Veteran
In order for that lens to work, the viewfinder and rangefinder windows would have to be in the same physical location. And it also would require that the rangefinder actual baselength be the same.
I believe the Zeiss Ikon's actual rangefinder baselength is 75mm, while the Leica is 69.25mm.
I will offer an uneducated guess and say that it probably won't work.
I believe the Zeiss Ikon's actual rangefinder baselength is 75mm, while the Leica is 69.25mm.
I will offer an uneducated guess and say that it probably won't work.
Huck Finn
Well-known
I thought the same thing, Mike, but there appears to be an additional issue with the Bessa R2 specific to the 50 DR. On his Camera Quest website, Stephen Gandy says that 50 DR will not mount on the R2 "due to internal body restrictions." I have no idea what these are & he doesn't explain. I also have no idea whether these "internal body restrictions" have anything in common with the ZI. Gandy makes no mention of these same issues being a problem with the 35's "with eyes" so I assume that the problem is only with the 50. So, Gandy's comment raises the question of whether the 50 can be mounted even if the "eyes" are removed.
Huck Finn
Well-known
Summilux, I posted your question on Camera Quest's CVUG message list & one of the posters there affirms Mike's point about the "eyes" not lining up with the ZI's viewfinder, but he adds that removing the "eyes" from the 35's will throw off their focusing callibration, so that won't work either.
45-Otto
Member
I just tried my late model dual range Summicron on my new Z.I. body. It will mount if it is set to about 3 feet (1 meter) but starts to bind on something as you start to move the focus ring toward infinity and I didn't want to force anything. Also the "eyes" definitely do not line up with the viwefinder and rangefinder windows. Sorry,
Huck Finn
Well-known
Otto, welcome to RFF. 🙂 How do you like the ZI?
45-Otto
Member
Thanks for the welcome. I've been lurking for a while and finally found a little info I could contribute.
With respect to the Z.I. so far so good. The finder is somewhat brighter than those in either my Leica M2 or M3 and the frame lines seem a little thinner but crisper. I wear glasses and can barely see all of the 28mm frame. The rangefinder patch is more sensitive to eye placement than the Leicas however. The camera is well finished. The chrome appearance is somewhat of a "bright frosty" look. Build quality is very good but it is substantially lighter in weight than the Leica M bodies. While fairly smooth, the film advance doesn't exhibit the "tightness" or lack of wiggle of the Leica. The shutter is a little noisier than the cloth shutters in my M cameras but definitely quieter than any of the Bessas I have. Film loading is about on par with most back loaders and really not much quicker than a Leica M 2 or 3 if you're used to them. The AE seems to work well in most situations. In use it is somewhat similar to the metering in the Konica Hexar RF or the metering in the Minolta CLE except the meter stays active in manual exposure unlike the CLE which turns off in manual. I bought mine body only and have been mostly using a 50mm VC Heliar so I cannot comment on any of the ZM lenses yet. If the photo gods are smiling and I get an annual bonus this year I'll probably acquire some ZM glass, most likely 28, 35, and 50. The shorter and longer glass is a little too pricey for me. I paid about $1,500 for mine (couldn't resist the Special Edition No. 10 engraving). My impression is that it is a lot of camera for half the cost of the Leica M7. How it will stack up durability wise only time will tell. Mike Elek has already had to send his back to Hasselblad for some warranty work on the rangefinder to correct something loose. Might just be some early teething pains with assembly. I certainly hope so.
Rick d.
With respect to the Z.I. so far so good. The finder is somewhat brighter than those in either my Leica M2 or M3 and the frame lines seem a little thinner but crisper. I wear glasses and can barely see all of the 28mm frame. The rangefinder patch is more sensitive to eye placement than the Leicas however. The camera is well finished. The chrome appearance is somewhat of a "bright frosty" look. Build quality is very good but it is substantially lighter in weight than the Leica M bodies. While fairly smooth, the film advance doesn't exhibit the "tightness" or lack of wiggle of the Leica. The shutter is a little noisier than the cloth shutters in my M cameras but definitely quieter than any of the Bessas I have. Film loading is about on par with most back loaders and really not much quicker than a Leica M 2 or 3 if you're used to them. The AE seems to work well in most situations. In use it is somewhat similar to the metering in the Konica Hexar RF or the metering in the Minolta CLE except the meter stays active in manual exposure unlike the CLE which turns off in manual. I bought mine body only and have been mostly using a 50mm VC Heliar so I cannot comment on any of the ZM lenses yet. If the photo gods are smiling and I get an annual bonus this year I'll probably acquire some ZM glass, most likely 28, 35, and 50. The shorter and longer glass is a little too pricey for me. I paid about $1,500 for mine (couldn't resist the Special Edition No. 10 engraving). My impression is that it is a lot of camera for half the cost of the Leica M7. How it will stack up durability wise only time will tell. Mike Elek has already had to send his back to Hasselblad for some warranty work on the rangefinder to correct something loose. Might just be some early teething pains with assembly. I certainly hope so.
Rick d.
Huck Finn
Well-known
Thanks for the report, Rick. Nice contribution! 🙂
After Mike's report, I contacted my dealer about the problem to see if others have come back. He has sold a dozen & none have come back with a problem so far. It would be nice if we could keep track of this with our various dealers to see if it's an isolated problem or if it is something other prospective buyers should be warned about.
Huck
After Mike's report, I contacted my dealer about the problem to see if others have come back. He has sold a dozen & none have come back with a problem so far. It would be nice if we could keep track of this with our various dealers to see if it's an isolated problem or if it is something other prospective buyers should be warned about.
Huck
blee017
John Lee
I just saw that ordinary black ZI's fetch $100 more than silver special edition (check cameraquest.com) and found that quite amusing. 🙂
A bit off topic but I have a friend who swears that he can use the DR with goggles on his Hexar RF.
Does anyone have an experience?
A bit off topic but I have a friend who swears that he can use the DR with goggles on his Hexar RF.
Does anyone have an experience?
ZeissFan
Veteran
I hope mine is an isolated problem 🙁
45-Otto
Member
I just tried my Dual Range Summicron on my Hexar RF and it mounts and seems to focus fine. The goggles do align with all three windows on the front of the Hexar. If a small black spacer on the back side of the goggles near the round lens that covers the rangefinder window were removed to allow the goggles to fully seat on the lens when mounted on the Hexar RF it appears that it would work in the closeup range as well. It seems that the small spacer helps to stabilize the goggles when mounted on a Leica M by resting on the camera top shell just in front of the shutter speed dial. This spacer is secured thru the front of the goggles by a small chrome screw. Hope this helps.
Rick d.
Rick d.
Huck Finn
Well-known
blee017 said:
Blee, I know that Stephen Gandy is charging $100 more for the black bodies, but I don't know it they will actually fetch more when this pricing experiment is tested in the market place. I haven't heard of anyone else charging this price differential.
Stephen originally announced that he would only carry the black bodies & publicly stated his disdain for the look of the silver bodies. I guess this $100 price differential is his compromise. He once asked $450 for a Canonet because it was black. I assume that it eventually sold for that price. His Canonet write-up also says how much better the black Canonets are in appearance.
There's no accounting for taste.
blee017
John Lee
Thanks for the info, Rick.
Huck, point well taken.
Being used to Leica's speical edition pricing, I just thought it was a bit odd that so called limited edition doesn't cost more than non-limited version.
In other words, I hoped that the black ZI would be cheaper (don't we all? 😛 ) as I am eyeing the black ZI. (not because I share Gandy's taste but because I already have two chrome bodies. 🙂)
Huck, point well taken.
Being used to Leica's speical edition pricing, I just thought it was a bit odd that so called limited edition doesn't cost more than non-limited version.
In other words, I hoped that the black ZI would be cheaper (don't we all? 😛 ) as I am eyeing the black ZI. (not because I share Gandy's taste but because I already have two chrome bodies. 🙂)
Last edited:
summilux
Well-known
so the ZI body is not vintage Leitz glass friendly. Just have fondled one is shop, a chrome one, don't like the finishing material, like cheapo plastic, or carbon material found on my Sony discman, I think the black finish of my Bessa R3a has more diginity. This is really a disappointment. I believe both Konica(Monolta) and Contax made better body than Cosina. I guess Zeiss goes to bed with Cosina because it is available and cheap.
Really a pity Zeiss did not ask team up with Konica to produce a Hexar RF mkII.
I will stick to Leica. And apart from the Biogon 25, there is nothing interesting about the rest, but I will wait for the price to drop, the price of the viewfinder is not anyway friendily.
Really a pity Zeiss did not ask team up with Konica to produce a Hexar RF mkII.
I will stick to Leica. And apart from the Biogon 25, there is nothing interesting about the rest, but I will wait for the price to drop, the price of the viewfinder is not anyway friendily.
Huck Finn
Well-known
summilux said:
Not exactly, Summilux. Even some versions of the M6 have problems with the goggled lenses that you asked about. Almost any other vintage Leica lens can be mounted on the Zeiss Ikon.
ZeissFan
Veteran
summilux said:
Well, here we go again with misinformation based on a few seconds of holding the camera. So let's go point by point.
The "like cheapo plastic" is varnished magnesium. I guess it's not brass, but it's metal and certainly not the carbon material found in a Discman.
Dignity? Jeez man, what are you talking about? It's a camera.
Contax never made cameras. Yashica made the Contax, and later Kyocera bought Yashica. Contax is a brand name, not a company. Kyocera was the last company to license the Contax name from Carl Zeiss AG.
"Zeiss goes to bed with Cosina ..." There is some truth to Zeiss looking for a lower-cost manufacturer. Zeiss has no camera-making facilities, and it made no economic sense to build a factory and hire and train workers to produce this camera, when Cosina has had some success producing the Bessa rangefinder cameras.
Why would Zeiss team up with Konica -- a company that stopped making the Hexar several years ago. Zeiss has no interest in rebadging someone else's camera, and before you say it, the Zeiss Ikon is not a rebadged Bessa. It's a Zeiss design built to spec by Cosina. It's not Cosina-branded, and you will not see Cosina's name on the body or any of the material that comes with the camera.
If you will stick with Leica, then why do you own a Bessa? Sort of contradictory, don't you think?
The rest of your comment is typical Leica-fanatic drivel and requires no reply.
summilux
Well-known
Mike,
I did buy a Bessar R3a because it is cheap and has AE. And I am not a leica fanatic. Maybe my comment on the new Zeiss stuff is a bit harsh, but for the high asking price, I think one can be this critical. If you like at the prices of a Bessar R3/2a or the Contax G lens or Hexar RF/lens, one begins to wonder why the new Zeiss is so much over priced. They are neither a good buy nor a long term value retention items.
I did buy a Bessar R3a because it is cheap and has AE. And I am not a leica fanatic. Maybe my comment on the new Zeiss stuff is a bit harsh, but for the high asking price, I think one can be this critical. If you like at the prices of a Bessar R3/2a or the Contax G lens or Hexar RF/lens, one begins to wonder why the new Zeiss is so much over priced. They are neither a good buy nor a long term value retention items.
S
Socke
Guest
Summilux, the ZI body and the ZM lenses are not cheaper than the Contax G and lenses where in their time. The G System is cheap because nobody wanted it and now they cleared stocks at sell out prices.
I'm sure Zeiss could have made a ZI body out of solid unavailium in germany at the price of a Sinar or Linhof of Alpa, but who would buy it?
And another thought about materials, if plastic is so bad, would they build racing cars from plastic? As evidence shows you can crash a mostly plastic 600kg 950hp Formular 1 racer into a wall at 150 mph in training and the next day the car is repaired and you can take part in the race.
Don't try this with your solid and heavy car made from steel!
I'm sure Zeiss could have made a ZI body out of solid unavailium in germany at the price of a Sinar or Linhof of Alpa, but who would buy it?
And another thought about materials, if plastic is so bad, would they build racing cars from plastic? As evidence shows you can crash a mostly plastic 600kg 950hp Formular 1 racer into a wall at 150 mph in training and the next day the car is repaired and you can take part in the race.
Don't try this with your solid and heavy car made from steel!
Huck Finn
Well-known
Summilux, what's the price of the Zeiss Ikon?
Kind of tough to compare it to the Hexar RF, which is not available new, unless you want to buy here - www.photostop.net - where you'll pay $1699, more money than I have seen anyone asking for the ZI. A Hexar RF purchase also involves overcoming concerns about its compatibility with non-Hexar lenses. Further, the Hexar RF is a camera pretty much optimized for wide angle lenses, given its low magnification of 0.6 & the resulting effective base length of 41 mm & yet clutters its viewfinder with 135 mm framelines. The ZI has a much more versatile viewfinder, which is what has stimulated the interest in it, with a magnification of .75, effective baselength of 56 mm, & relatively uncluttered framelines.
The Contax G is, of course, the horse of a completely different color. If it's what one wants, go for it, but there are too many differences with any of the M-mount cameras to make for much of a comparison.
There's really no mystery why the Zeiss Ikon prices are in the range they are. It's the same reason that prices are rising astronomically for Leica cameras. Film cameras have become a niche product & rangefinders are a small niche of that niche. In contrast, the Contax G cameras & the Konica Hexar RF came on the market at the height of film sales. It would seem that this is the price range for a camera & lenses built to this level of quality control, which is not to be confused with the Voigtlander line coming out of the Cosina factory. It is Carl Zeiss AG that controls the manufactuing of this camera system. Cosina does not have a free hand in its manufacture.
Like any new product, the Zeiss Ikon system is certainly open to criticism. You're right about that. It will appeal to some & not to others. Great to have another choice in our little corner of the camera market. I didn't really understand your criticism of the Zeiss Ikon, but that's okay. To each, his own. I'm glad that the Bessa R3A enabled you to find a camera that you like.
Kind of tough to compare it to the Hexar RF, which is not available new, unless you want to buy here - www.photostop.net - where you'll pay $1699, more money than I have seen anyone asking for the ZI. A Hexar RF purchase also involves overcoming concerns about its compatibility with non-Hexar lenses. Further, the Hexar RF is a camera pretty much optimized for wide angle lenses, given its low magnification of 0.6 & the resulting effective base length of 41 mm & yet clutters its viewfinder with 135 mm framelines. The ZI has a much more versatile viewfinder, which is what has stimulated the interest in it, with a magnification of .75, effective baselength of 56 mm, & relatively uncluttered framelines.
The Contax G is, of course, the horse of a completely different color. If it's what one wants, go for it, but there are too many differences with any of the M-mount cameras to make for much of a comparison.
There's really no mystery why the Zeiss Ikon prices are in the range they are. It's the same reason that prices are rising astronomically for Leica cameras. Film cameras have become a niche product & rangefinders are a small niche of that niche. In contrast, the Contax G cameras & the Konica Hexar RF came on the market at the height of film sales. It would seem that this is the price range for a camera & lenses built to this level of quality control, which is not to be confused with the Voigtlander line coming out of the Cosina factory. It is Carl Zeiss AG that controls the manufactuing of this camera system. Cosina does not have a free hand in its manufacture.
Like any new product, the Zeiss Ikon system is certainly open to criticism. You're right about that. It will appeal to some & not to others. Great to have another choice in our little corner of the camera market. I didn't really understand your criticism of the Zeiss Ikon, but that's okay. To each, his own. I'm glad that the Bessa R3A enabled you to find a camera that you like.
Similar threads
- Article
