Camera store visit has left me confused about Leica and Zeiss

[mllanos1111]

Hi all this is my confusion, I’ve been reading here about Leica’s and Zeiss Ikons etc. I had myself pretty talked into buying an M7, but I wasn’t going to make the plunge until I had a chance to handle both.
I was in L.A. today and stopped buy a large camera store I’m sure you can figure it out since not many stores carry both Leica and Zeiss.
I was trying the M7 and it seemed pretty nice, the viewfinder was good but not OMG good, but much like I remember Leica’s feeling.
Then I picked up the Zeiss and I have to say the viewfinder on it was wonderful, so now I’m thinking the Zeiss is a bargain compared to the M7 and I should get that instead.

The salesman starts talking about the Leica, obviously to him it’s the best camera in the world. He proceeds to tell me that the Zeiss was a poormans Leica and maybe it is, but a poormans Leica with a better viewfinder I’m thinking.
What he said was that Zeiss does not compare because it’s made in Japan not Germany, but he also said that the Zeiss glass does not compare to the Leica glass because it is made in Germany and Leica has never made a lense outside Germany except for one in Canada and that Leica glass will give 100% resolution at all f stops and the Zeiss glass will not, they are only good at maybe f5.6 or f8 on up.
I’ve spent most of my years shooting with SLR’s except for my Rollei 35 and the occasional MF I’ve borrowed, but I’ve never heard anything like this about lenses.
What are your opinions and was this guy just making things up.

Thanks for the input

[FrankS]

Just remember that you were talking to a salesman! :)

[BigSteveG]

Sounds like you were at Samy Camera....aka "The Evil Empire". I say buy what you like. If the Ikon appeals to you, by all means go for it! You can use both Zeiss and Leica glass as well others. There's been a great deal of talk around here about Leica components being made in countries other Germany. Maybe true...I don't really know. I do know the Zeiss lenses are incredible in terms of image production. So are Leica's. But the camera that feels good. Then experiment with lenses.

[Pablito]

don't listen to the salesman. You are going to get a lot more informed people here. "Poor man's Leica", eh? That's funny, considering the Zeiss body is, like $1400 or whatever. "Poor man's Leica" HA....what's wrong with being "poor"???? Personally I use Leica M6 bodies and you can get one in excellent condition for the price of a new Zeiss Ikon. But don't let a moron salesman make up your mind for you! While I have chosen to use Leica over the Z.I., look at all the pros and cons; the Leica longevity and robustness vs. that great viewfinder. Will you be able to get the Ikon repaired 10 years from now? Will that matter to you now? Only you can decide.... As for the lenses, the salesman is truly full of BS. Virtually everyone who has used these lenses seriously has reported them to be equal or perhaps better than Leica's offerings. They tend to be bigger than the Leica equivalents, however.

[retow]

Hi all this is my confusion, I’ve been reading here about Leica’s and Zeiss Ikons etc. I had myself pretty talked into buying an M7, but I wasn’t going to make the plunge until I had a chance to handle both.
I was in L.A. today and stopped buy a large camera store I’m sure you can figure it out since not many stores carry both Leica and Zeiss.
I was trying the M7 and it seemed pretty nice, the viewfinder was good but not OMG good, but much like I remember Leica’s feeling.
Then I picked up the Zeiss and I have to say the viewfinder on it was wonderful, so now I’m thinking the Zeiss is a bargain compared to the M7 and I should get that instead.

The salesman starts talking about the Leica, obviously to him it’s the best camera in the world. He proceeds to tell me that the Zeiss was a poormans Leica and maybe it is, but a poormans Leica with a better viewfinder I’m thinking.
What he said was that Zeiss does not compare because it’s made in Japan not Germany, but he also said that the Zeiss glass does not compare to the Leica glass because it is made in Germany and Leica has never made a lense outside Germany except for one in Canada and that Leica glass will give 100% resolution at all f stops and the Zeiss glass will not, they are only good at maybe f5.6 or f8 on up.
I’ve spent most of my years shooting with SLR’s except for my Rollei 35 and the occasional MF I’ve borrowed, but I’ve never heard anything like this about lenses.
What are your opinions and was this guy just making things up.

Thanks for the input


Better VF, higher shutter speed, easier film load, price - advantage Zeiss. Build, feel, shutter noise, retention of value - advantage M7. Durability and reliability needs to be seen with both, since also the M7 has electronic components, which were new for a Leica.
Made in Japan versus Germany - think of other products. Generally, it is fair to say that manufacturing standards are highest in Japan. And by the way, once poor man can afford a USD 1200 RF camera, we will live in a better world.
As far as glass is concerned, subscribe to Reid Reviews (online for about USD 30 or so pa) to read excellent comparisons of Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlaender lenses - the Zeiss lenses are as good as the Leica ones.
And lastly, find a good camera store with competent sales people.


:D

[Pablito]

And lastly, find a good camera store with competent sales people.
:D

A camera store that will have in stock and let you handle the Zeiss Ikon and Leica cameras....and maybe a Bessa....NEAR IMPOSSIBLE to find. Maybe in LA or NYC. Nowhere else in the WORLD!!! (Maybe Hong Kong or Tokyo??....London???)

[BillBlackwell]

In the first place, the camera salesperson is full of it!

Given the considerable price difference between them the ZM is indeed worth considering.

Other than price your primary considerations should be (IMO):

(1) The Ikon shutter is 100% battery dependent (the M7 has back-up manual speeds of 60 and 125);
(2) The Ikon RF patch whites out very easily unless your eye is square in the finder - the M7 is not so fickle (spend about ten minutes with both cameras and you will see what I'm talking about); and
(3) The M7 shutter is more robust compared to the Ikon.

As to the glass, no reasonably informed person should be able to knock ZM lenses compared to Leica. They are comparable in virtually every respect, except price.

[alternatve]

Just remember that you were talking to a salesman! :)

I agree.

Make your own choice here and go there and buy it. Else you might be buying what they can't sell or what somebody else thinks.

Samuel

[colinh]

The salesman starts talking about the Leica, obviously to him it’s the best camera in the world. He proceeds to tell me that the Zeiss was a poormans Leica and maybe it is, but a poormans Leica with a better viewfinder I’m thinking.
What he said was that Zeiss does not compare because it’s made in Japan not Germany, but he also said that the Zeiss glass does not compare to the Leica glass because it is made in Germany and Leica has never made a lense outside Germany except for one in Canada and that Leica glass will give 100% resolution at all f stops and the Zeiss glass will not, they are only good at maybe f5.6 or f8 on up.
I’ve spent most of my years shooting with SLR’s except for my Rollei 35 and the occasional MF I’ve borrowed, but I’ve never heard anything like this about lenses.
What are your opinions and was this guy just making things up.

This is why I don't bother asking salespeople any questions any more. They lie about as often as politicians. If they are "knowledgable" they just repeat what they read in the magazines (which are equally useless), otherwise you get crap like "Leica glass will give 100% resolution at all f stops". What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

Leica lenses are generally very good. So are the ZMs. (some ZM's art considered to be better than the equivalent Leica.

I expect the Leica feels nicer than the ZI. The Leica oooozes niceness. Whether this is worth the money to you depends. The ZI with ZM or Leica lenses will take excellent pictures, as will the M7.

colin

[richard_l]

Although I am a Leica addict (but not of the M7), I would suspect that the store may be making more profit from selling Leica than Zeiss equipment. Do some research on what others think and make up your own mind.

Richard

[Bosk]

Keep in mind that the Zeiss Ikon's shutter is much noisier than the M7's, but the Ikon is significantly lighter.

If noise levels aren't a concern I dont think you could go too far wrong with either.

[Bosk]

(2) The Ikon RF patch whites out very easily unless your eye is square in the finder - the M7 is not so fickle (spend about ten minutes with both cameras and you will see what I'm talking about);

That's the main reason I traded my Ikon, I couldn't stand having to center my eye in the finder for each shot and it cost me lots of good shot opportunities.
Sometimes I wonder if I should've persisted, maybe there's a trick to bringing the camera up to your eye without having to move the viewfinder around each time?
I still wouldn't recommend that camera for fast street shooting where shots come and go in (pardon the pun) the blink of an eye though.

[thomasw_]

as for the noise i think you are overstating it by writing "much" and underlining it. a bit is more like to my ears.

as for the VF, well it does have to suit you. but bear in mind some very good photogs here at RFF are finding away to take great street shots with their ZIs.

i am huge L body fan, having a couple, but i have to say the ZI body is just gorgeous; don't mistake its lighter weight for a lack of toughness; it has to do with using light and strong materials. the tank leica feel is great, but this is just a different feel.

aesthetically, one cool thing about the ZI is that there is no red dot on it; i wonder why L ever did that....ah the woe of changing for....change's sake?

[Tarzak]

A camera store that will have in stock and let you handle the Zeiss Ikon and Leica cameras....and maybe a Bessa....NEAR IMPOSSIBLE to find. Maybe in LA or NYC. Nowhere else in the WORLD!!! (Maybe Hong Kong or Tokyo??....London???)


There's one in Sydney.

[sting-ray]

And in Melbourne! Pity the prices are so much more than the US of A.

[patrickjames]

I've only got my mits on a ZI once at Freestyle in LA. The viewfinder is absolutely amazing. Don't worry about the retained value of the cameras. People say that Leica retains the most value, but if you are going to buy a new one and you don't like it, prepare to take a huge hit. Not so much with the Zi since it isn't as expensive. I say spend your money on glass. After all, the camera has little to do with how your pictures look. Don't believe the hype.

Patrick

[kshapero]

Ok, I tried both. Of course, leica is amazing, no doubt. But I felt at home with the ZI. Reasons: the viewfinder, the feel, the price. Popflash was very helpful to me. They are in LA somewhere. The sound of the shutter is quiet enought that I could shoot a guy lieing down on a bench without disturbing him. Good enough for me.
http://akivaphotography.smugmug.com/photos/185314260-S.jpg
Shot with the Sonnar 50mm f1.5 at 2.8

[Ewoud]

I used to work at a camera store and considering his burning Zeiss atittude, they must be making more on the leica. And hoping to get you to spend more money.

My advise: don't go back to that store!

On camera choise.. Take what your hand likes to hold and handle.

Lenses are the next issue thankfully both of these nice camera's have the same lensmount. :-) If your really poor(like me ;-) ) buy a Voigtlander Bessa.. And save up for the lenses!

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

[mfunnell]

There's one in Sydney.Which I visit more than I should. Actually, if you allow for 2nd-hand there's more than one.

...Mike

[matt fury]

As others have said, the salesman was full of it. Personally, if I was looking at the two, I would go with the Zeiss, mostly because that money can be used it lots of other places. Pick whichever lenses suit you...it's ok to mix brands!

[RML]

Camera: your choice. A better vf is a good point to consider.
Lenses: CZ lenses are as good as Leica lenses, and they cost much less. Your choice again.

[alternatve]

I would go for a M6 and Zeiss/CV lenses. I like the rounded body and shape of the Leica and don't need AE.

[BillBingham2]

Having been a sales person for about nine months, there are but a few major rules that are practiced by many salesmen. Two of them are:
Sell what is available today. If you do not have it, your customer does not want it. Second, sell what makes you the most money. You are there to make money and you only sell good stuff.

Now, you got a POOR one, there are great ones out there. I’ve known a few, Jim at Ken Hansen in NYC, Ernie at LeBeau in Rochester.

Both are great cameras in their own right. Keep reading through the threads here, there are treasures of knowledge, LOTs of great people who have been here for years. A poormans Leica is a number of FSU (Former Soviet Union) cameras. They are fun, they are good, but they are not as great as a Leica.

IMHO, the Nikon F is every bit as good as a Leica. It’s different, it’s an SLR, but F is a classic. It was made in Japan as was my Nikon S3 2000. I’m lucky enough to have two Leica Ms (M6, M4-P) and there is something about the way the fit in your hand, the way they become part of you. But the best for one person is not the best for everyone. Why did I buy a Honda Fit (Jazz in most of the world) rather than an BMW 325? The 325 is a much better car, but for me, the Fit does everything I want and I have money left over for food.

Look at the Bessas, they are a wonderful wonder cameras at a great price. The ZI and M7 are a step or two above them, they Bessas are just fun cameras. You can buy a R3A and a R4A and some great glass (ZI or CV) for the money you are looking at on the Leica M7.

B2 (;->

[x-ray]

The sales person is full of crap!

Forty years shooting professionally with Leicas and currently own 6 M's which includes 3 MP's. I have set of Leica glass and set of Zeiss with a couple of CV's thrown in. I also have a ZI tha tmy wife gave me lat year.

My opinion, if I were buying RF's with the knowledge and choice I have today I would most likely own 6 ZI's and one M. I thas nothing to do with price and all to do with ergonomics, new age materials, construction, higher sync speed from the QUIET metal shutter, weight and superior RF/VF. No question I would own all Zeiss and CV glass with a couple of exceptions, the 75 summilux and asph 50 summilux.

I've had no problems from any Zeiss products and have had 4 Leica lenses develope major mechanical problems and one of my new MP's at leica now with shutter problems and a loose ISO dial. IMO todays Leica construction is not that great compared to older pre mid 70's Leica M's and lenses. I work each of my cameras equally hard and shoot a great number of rolls a year through them.

Like many salesmen he's full of himself and has no real experience.

[principe azul]

I was once in an upmarket gents' outfitters, and the assistant noticed my M4. "Beautiful camera, those Leicas, sir, best in the world."

"It's good fun," I reply.

"Is that a Leica lens?"

"No, it's a Voigtlander. It's rarely off the camera."

"You should put a Leica lens on it. They're the the best in the world, much better than anything made in Japan."

"Do you do photography?"

"No."

So why do I have an M4? Simple. At the time, secondhand Bessas weren't that common and were really expensive, the Zeiss Ikon hadn't been invented, and I found an M4 that was only a a few hundred more than the Bessa. Trade-in meant I got it for £150, so I keep telling myself... ;)


Most 'Leica' photographers run a mixed bag. It's all, so far as I can tell, good stuff. Some of it's really, really good, and you pay for it. I gather that Lee Friedlander has shot with a Hexar RF, so if it's good enough for him... And even if you were rich and thought nothing could hold a candle to Leica, you'd probably have the Voigtlander 15 instead of the Zeiss or Leica 14-16-18 or whatever if you didn't have much call for that focal length.

And shutter noise? Different sounds, but not especially more obtrusive. In street noise, all much of a muchness. In a quiet room, you'll hear any of them. And Leica Ms quiet? Try putting an M4 on self-timer and 1s. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ - CLICK - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz - CLICK - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. :eek: Give me a Zeiss Ikon any day.

There's a lot of mystique about Leica, and if you're thinking about a Leica, it's hard to shake off.

Really, poor man's Leica. Anyone would think we were talking about an old Praktica SLR with a $5 lens on it. (Sometimes I wish I'd kept the one I found in a charity shop, but I just had to have something better, didn't I? :bang:)

[mllanos1111]

Wow thank you all for all the great advice. I’ve always wanted to own a Leica since I worked in a camera store back in 1982 we had tons of used ones.
I could have purchased an M3 in great condition for a few hundred dollars then, but I had different needs at the time.
I knew this guy was blowing smoke, but I was a little caught off guard much like watching a shell game.
I’ve seen M7’s selling used for about $1800 maybe that’s how I should go, but after reading some comments maybe I’ll look at a nice used M3.
I need to reacquaint myself with the M3 and see if I like the way it feels, for me I just need a tool that works and gets out of the way and lets me focus rapidly.
Not sure why people don’t like the M6, but it doesn’t seem to get much respect, is it not built as well?
I found this ad locally and was wondering if this would be worth looking at.
“Leica M6 TTL .085 body in like new condition. Comes with original box, papers, etc. I bought it new at Bob Davis Camera a few years ago and have only used it a few times. It even still has the original plastic covering on the bottom plate. $1200.”

Again thank you all for your wonderful advice and I figured that the combined knowledge of everyone here would answer these question and debunk this salesman.

[BillBingham2]

I love my M6 classic and think it holds its own against any other M. Everyone has their favorite as everyones hands, needs and desires are different.

B2 (;->

[peter_n]

Just remember that you were talking to a salesman! :)Exactly!

An M6TTL is a mechanical camera. The M7 and ZI are aperture priority automatics with a manual override if you want it. The M6TTL was my first Leica and I loved it dearly until I tried an M7. The addition of automatic exposure is just a wonderful thing. :D If the ZIs had been oround when I bought my M7s I would have been sorely tempted. I have tried one and I like that VF a lot.

[sepiareverb]

I'd go back to that same store and really spend some time handling both cameras. Seems like the salesman will be happy to let you really inspect them. Compare the VF, load some films, give them both a good once over. It really does come down to the one that feels better to the eye and hand. When you've decided on the body follow the advice of Magus and shop elsewhere. I'll chime in for Popflash as a great outfit to do business with.

As to lenses I shoot Leica, Zeiss & Rollei glass on my M's. All deliver wonderful images. Again the feel of them in the hand becomes one of the determining factors unless you have definite needs that only one or two lenses can fill.

[mfunnell]

I'll chime in for Popflash as a great outfit to do business with.Tony is a great guy and goes out of his way to provide great service.

...Mike

[Ronald M]

Zeiss lenses seem to be equal but with a different "look" to the image.

Both are very nice images. The lens mechanics of both are not what Leica used to be. Leica is now using glue instead of set screws and that sort of thing. There are far more reported problems with Leica lenses than ever before and Zeiss is not imune either.

Now if they just had a body for the glass which has always been a Zeiss problem. The current may have a better viewfinder, but the insides are perhaps upgraded CV bodies at best, same as at worst. Leica bodies are tested and designed to work for hundreds of thousands of exposures. Zeiss design specs are "secret", I know as I have asked. Leica is proud of theirs and advertizes them.

[Windwalker57]

I have spent many years as a photo salesman,and I can tell you that you were being 'steered' toward the preferred sale at that store, whether because of brand bias or commission, it doesn't matter. Next time you go to that store, talk to a different salesperson, things may be different.

Best camera to buy? Only you will be able to determine that. Take the advice of many of the previous posters and handle, try out, or rent these cameras before buying anything. Buy the camera that feels best in your hands, that you can operate intuitively, that does the job that YOU need it to do. Buying a super expensive anything on specs or popular opinion might leave you disappointed in your purchase, leading you to trade it at a financial loss, or worse, not use it.

If you decide on an M7, be aware that mint used ones are going for a grand less than if you buy new. Let someone else take the financial hit.

P.S. An FSU RF is the real 'poor man's Leica'. My old boss was a Zeiss man, he would have taken offence at the salesman's remarks...

[colinh]

I’ve seen M7’s selling used for about $1800 maybe that’s how I should go, but after reading some comments maybe I’ll look at a nice used M3.
I need to reacquaint myself with the M3 and see if I like the way it feels, for me I just need a tool that works and gets out of the way and lets me focus rapidly.
Not sure why people don’t like the M6, but it doesn’t seem to get much respect, is it not built as well?

Remember the M3 VF doesn't cover 35 or 28 or 25 mm. And always shows the fat 50 mm lines, even if you have a 90 or 135 mounted.

Regarding the M6 - don't worry. It's an excellent mechanical camera, with the advantage of a built-in meter. So, if you're stuck in Outer Mongolia for several years, and forgot to bring any spare button cells with you, or if after WWIII you can't find batteries any more - your camera will still work. Buying and developing film may be a problem though.

“Leica M6 TTL .085 body in like new condition. Comes with original box, papers, etc. I bought it new at Bob Davis Camera a few years ago and have only used it a few times. It even still has the original plastic covering on the bottom plate. $1200.”

Hey! Those original plastic coverings on the bottom are really rare! Most people just throw them away or :eek: scratch them! If you ever get a new camera, best to cover the protective covering with some more protective covering.

colin

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

[BillBlackwell]

Tony is a great guy and goes out of his way to provide great service ...Mike

I agree. Tony will bend over backwards to make you happy. Make your decision and contact him for your purchase - he sells both Zeiss and Leica gear (www.popflash.com). In addition to great service, he will give you non-nonsense straight answers to your "comparative" questions.

[Michiel Fokkema]

A camera store that will have in stock and let you handle the Zeiss Ikon and Leica cameras....and maybe a Bessa....NEAR IMPOSSIBLE to find. Maybe in LA or NYC. Nowhere else in the WORLD!!! (Maybe Hong Kong or Tokyo??....London???)

Add Rotterdam(at least two stores), the Hague and Amsterdam.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

[sepiareverb]

...Hey! Those original plastic coverings on the bottom are really rare! Most people just throw them away or :eek: scratch them! If you ever get a new camera, best to cover the protective covering with some more protective covering.

colin

Darn. I put mine in protective sleeves after I pulled them off the cameras, thought that would be the safest thing for them.

[colinh]

No, that's a really good idea. Would you sell one? Has to be mint though. My M3 hasn't got one :(

colin

[Rhoyle]

Hmm... I agree with some of the others. Say the salesman makes 5% commission on all sales. He probably doesn't but just for the sake of arguement. 5% of 1200 is $60. 5% of 4000 is $200. He really wants you to buy the Leica.

BH

[nasmformyzombie]

A camera store that will have in stock and let you handle the Zeiss Ikon and Leica cameras....and maybe a Bessa....NEAR IMPOSSIBLE to find. Maybe in LA or NYC. Nowhere else in the WORLD!!! (Maybe Hong Kong or Tokyo??....London???)
Glazer's Camera in little old Seattle.

[efreddi]

I agree with FrankS, don't forget that those are words of salesman! The Zeiss Ikon has been made to be in the level of Leica, not like the Voigtlaender that are more "poor man" Leica (even if there shall be a lot to discuss on it...), About the lenses, I would never be worried by the performances of a Zeiss glass.
In my opinion you should get whatever is matching your liking, don't care about salesman.




Elia

[mllanos1111]

Thank you all for all the advice, I'm going to go somewhere and really handle the cameras and when I decide I'm going to go to popflash.
I want to see how they feel and I'm looking to use a couple lenses somwhere in the 25 range and also another in the 40-50mm range.

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

[colinh]

Thank you all for all the advice, I'm going to go somewhere and really handle the cameras and when I decide I'm going to go to popflash.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the dearth of camera shops where you can go and really handle the cameras?

On the other hand, as has been mentioned, going to a camera shop for advice these days is pretty pointless.


colin

[spyder2000]

I'd suggest you look for a great M2 body instead since the VF is better suited to WA's and then proceed to buy the best M mount glass you can afford. After all, it's the lens that counts and the body just holds the film.

In any case get what you like best. It's you that visualizes the image.

[clintock]

Since a new M7 costs more than the ZI, wouldn't a man be more poor having bought a Leica?

[Dektol Dan]

You were talking to Stephen Gandy's alter ego.
Same personality, different objective. Pick your poison, but like a Packard 'ask the man who owns one' then decide for yourself.