Zeiss Ikon at PhotoPlus Expo

Huck Finn · 10-21-2005

I spent a couple of hours at PhotoPlus Expo in New York yesterday doing what any good photog would want to do in the Big Apple. I tried to beat the Three Card Monty Players on Eighth Avenue but somehow lost. I watched the famous Dancing Chicken on Mott Street in Chinatown. More importantly I watched the tourists try to play tic-tac-toe against the Chicken. They lose ever time. But the real fun comes when you watch their reaction: "But the chicken went first!!" I kid you not. God's honest truth.

But I did do some photography related stuff. I made it a point to stop at the Fujifilm & Kodak booths so that I could pick up free film. Kodak didn't have a long line of people like me looking for free hand-outs this year because they didn't advertise that they were giving away free film. Fuji went one step better. Instead of giving me the film, they took my name, scanned my registration card, & then told me that they would e-mail me the film. No joke. Yes, friends, it's all gone digital.

After losing at 3-card-monty, visiting the cult of the dancing chicken, & seeking free hand-outs, I decided to get down to business. I visited the Leica booth just to see what I couldn't afford to buy. Bad enough that they were showing an M7 which I couldn't afford now that the price is approaching $4000 - jusk kidding; it won't be $4000 until next year - but they were showing it with the equally unaffordable motor drive attached. I asked about the digital M & found that they were able to say "no comment" in 7 languages. It will be out in 2006. Nothing else is known on this side of the Atlantic. I then took time to listen to the shutter. Uh huh.

I then sauntered over to the Hasselblad booth, armed with my intimidating set of questions devised by the best minds on RFF. As soon as I pulled out my set of index cards, I was greeted by Kornelius Muller, Marketing Manager, Camera Lens Division at Carl Zeiss AG: "Oh, you must be Huck Finn. I've been expecting you." Somehow I suspected that my cover had been blown. The good news is that the good folks at Carl Zeiss AG read RFF. The bad news is that Herr Muller's staff had prepared him in advance with our questions. So, we shook hands, exchanged business cards, & had a good chuckle over the whole thing. We were joined by Erland Pettersson, Hasselblad's Product Manager, Camera Systems, whom I had met here last year & who has answered a continuous stream of e-mails during the past year with an endless supply of patience. The two gentlemen were very gracious in giving me their time & welcomed all questions. They encouraged any of us to address any additional questions directly to them via e-mail (info@zeissikon.com).

Both of these men were nothing if not enthusiastic about this new camera line. Below are their replies to our questions as well as my impressions from handling the camera & lenses:

DIGITAL - There are no plans for a digital ZI any time in the near future. The feeling at Zeiss is that the public expects to obtain the full benefit of Zeiss lenses & that this will not be possible until a full frame sensor is available. End of story.

SHUTTER LIFE - The shutter was tested for a MINIMUM of 50,000 cycles. The reps stressed that this is only a minimum because they stopped testing after 50,000 cycles.

SHUTTER NOISE - To my ear, it sounds like a modified Bessa. Not as harsh but still a "click", not Leica's short "clunk." I brought my R2 for comparison & even at 1/60, there seem to be 2 parts to the Bessa sound. The ZI was a single click. I was okay with it, but this has never been a big deal for me.

LENS HOODS - Their benefit is as much for protection of the lens as for shade. Zeiss coatings typically make flare a non-issue in my experience. I didn't get an answer about why they are priced as they are, but the decision not to include them with the lenses was based on a couple of factors. First, making the hood optional keeps the price of the lens lower. Given that each hood fits 2 different lenses, consumers not only have the option to forego a hood entirely but they can also choose to use a single hood on more than one lens - 50 & 35, for example. Second, inclusion of the hood with the lens can contribute to delays in product availability because it adds a component required for a complete product package. Zeiss chose to avoid any such potential delays that might stem from delays in production of lens hoods.

CLOSE FOCUS - The camera has a close focus distance of 0.7 meters. The 21, 25, & 28 lenses have a minimum focus distance of 0.5 meters. The rangefinder cannot be used to focus this last 0.2 meters, so the photographer must scale focus, zone focus, or measure the distance to use the closest focus capabilities of these lenses. Alternatively, the photographer can choose simply to use 0.7 meters as their minimum focus distance. The 35, 50, & 85 mm lenses have a minimum focus distance of 0.7 meters. The 15 has a minimum focus distance of 0.3 meters but is not rangefinder coupled.

28/2.8 BIOGON & the CLE - The Zeiss people could not comment on the compatibility of this lens with the CLE because they have not tried it with this camera. We were able to compare the Biogon with a 28/2.8 Elmarit & the Biogon seems to intrude slightly more into the camera body - a hair more. We guessed about 1.5 mm.

LEICA COMPATIBILITY - The ZM lenses are fully compatible with Leica M bodies.

VF/RF FLARE - I tried to get the rangefinder patch to flare & was unable to do so. Another customer tried & had the same result. We also did not find a situation in which the RF patch disappeared. This of course was the case with convention hall lighting.

STRAP LUGS - The strap lugs are located on the side but toward the front. Leica lugs are more centered midway along the side. CV lugs are on the extreme sides of the front. None of the samples had a strap on it, so there was really no way to tell, but the reps thought that it was designed to hang straight up & down with a ZM lens on it. The lens really seems to be the key. Believe it or not, my R2 hangs straight up & down with a chrome Leica 50 Summicron on it. But this is a heavy lens. With a CV 28/3.5, on the other hand, it tilts back.

LENS NOTES - The German made lenses (85/2 & 15/2.8) will be available only in black.The 15 will be available by the end of this month (October) & the 85 by the end of the year.

28 FRAMELINES - I had remembered these as being fully viewable with glasses. They are not. Without glasses & with your eye pressed up against the viewfinder, the full 28 framlines can be seen. In retrospect, I think that I remembered them as being easily viewable because it is really no different than a 28 mm lens on my SLR. 35 mm framelines were fully viewable with glasses - just barely with my glasses. A lot depends on the shape of the lenses on your glasses & how close to your eyes the frames sit.

TTL FLASH - No.

METERING PATTERN - This question was referred to the new Zeiss Ikon brochure for a detailed explanation, complete with diagrams. Unfortunately it is not yet available. It is expected back from the printer in 2-3 weeks & should be available at your Zeiss Ikon dealer or from Hasselblad in your country or region.

AVAILABILITY - It will be shipped from Sweden the first week in November - silver only & should be in stores by mid-November or so. (October 29 in Japan in silver & black.) Black will be available outside Japan after the limited edition has been sold, anticipated to be some time after the first of the year.

BEST LENS - Erland Pettersson highly recommends 25/2.8 Biogon. No distortion. No light fall-off. Excellent sharpness of even small details. Pictures taken with this lens are limited in the size to which they can be enlarged only by the resolution capabilities of the film.

QUALITY CONTROL - Carl Zeiss AG has set demanding standards for this camera system. Delays have been related to additional time needed to meet these standards. Products will only be released for sale when they meet the standards set. Every lens, for example is individually checked & tested before it is approved for distribution. No spot checking or sampling. Frankly, QC would seem to be what much of the additional cost is for.

INDIVIDUAL IMPRESSIONS - When I saw a prototype last year, I had some concerns. The back door lock seemed flimsy, as did the frame selection lever. Neither wa a problem on the cameras I saw yesterday. Everything was buttoned up tightly & worked properly. These cameras were fully functioning.

The viewfinder is bright, clear, & uncluttered, with white brightlines for framing & a white RF patch for focusing. On the lower right side of the viewfinder, a white number designates the framelines that have been selected. On the left side, a small red number indicates the shutter speed. When in manual mode, a second number flashes, indicating the camera's shutter speed recommendation only if the selected shutter speed is different. These numbers are unobtrusive & there is nothing else in the viewfinder.

The camera feels comfortable in the hand. Everything is easily reached including the AE lock button which sits in the upper middle of the back of the camera just where my thumb could press it. The camera is on the lighter side. It weighs 460 grams - heavier than a Bessa, lighter than a Leica M. The back corners are rounded, so the hand curves around it easily. Squared off in the front felt a little different but didn't interfere with using any of the camera's functions.

The camera felt solidly built. I liked it & am ready to buy one.

That decision was easy. Now beating the Chinatown Chicken in Tic TAc Toe is another matter. For anyone who hasn't realized it, it doesn't matter if the chicken goes first! It's a chicken. You're a human being; that's got to count for something of an advantage. So why does the chicken always win?

Cheers,
Huck

wlewisiii · 10-21-2005

Thank you for this post but

Argh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I so want a ZI body with a 35, 50, 85 (all ZI) and just because I like them, a 135. A lotto win is, probably, the only way that'll happen. These are the only M items that have ever interested me. I've used M camera's and come away underwhelmed. I wonder if that would happen again? I just don't know and I really wish I had the spare $$$$ to find out.

William

bmattock · 10-21-2005

Incredible information! Thanks very much for this excellent report.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

PS - I had a feeling folks in the industry were reading RFF - that would explain all the emails I get from certain insiders.

jlw · 10-21-2005

Quote:

As soon as I pulled out my set of index cards, I was greeted by Kornelius Muller, Marketing Manager, Camera Lens Division at Carl Zeiss AG: "Oh, you must be Huck Finn. I've been expecting you."

Thanks for the great report!

When I read the above, I couldn't help thinking it sounded a bit like a James Bond movie. I picture Kornelius Muller as a heavy-set, florid individual with a menacing scar... or possibly seated in a wheelchair and stroking a white cat... who speaks with a strong accent:

"Ah, Mister Finn. Ve haff been [menacing pause] expectink you."

HUCK: "Do you expect me to talk?"

MULLER: "No, Mister Finn, I expect you to DIE. Hahahahahaha..." [switches on gigantic Zeiss laser]

HUCK: "Suppose I tell you I know all about... the Digital Ikon...?"

MULLER: [abruptly shutting off laser] "Zere IS no Digital Ikon! Vhere did you get zis information?"

HUCK: [cagily] "Let's say... certain well-informed sources on the RFF forum."

MULLER: "Ah. Ve shall see. Guards! Take him avay."

And now they're coming after US...

Huck Finn · 10-21-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmattock

Incredible information! Thanks very much for this excellent report.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

PS - I had a feeling folks in the industry were reading RFF - that would explain all the emails I get from certain insiders.

Thanks, Bill.

Huck

aizan · 10-21-2005

Wow, thanks for the awesome report! I'm ready to replace my M2 with one, but not my Hexar RF. Was there any other benefit to the high eye-point viewfinder?

Huck Finn · 10-21-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlw

Thanks for the great report!

When I read the above, I couldn't help thinking it sounded a bit like a James Bond movie. I picture Kornelius Muller as a heavy-set, florid individual with a menacing scar... or possibly seated in a wheelchair and stroking a white cat... who speaks with a strong accent:

"Ah, Mister Finn. Ve haff been [menacing pause] expectink you."

HUCK: "Do you expect me to talk?"

MULLER: "No, Mister Finn, I expect you to DIE. Hahahahahaha..." [switches on gigantic Zeiss laser]

HUCK: "Suppose I tell you I know all about... the Digital Ikon...?"

MULLER: [abruptly shutting off laser] "Zere IS no Digital Ikon! Vhere did you get zis information?"

HUCK: [cagily] "Let's say... certain well-informed sources on the RFF forum."

MULLER: "Ah. Ve shall see. Guards! Take him avay."

And now they're coming after US...

ROTFLMAO

back alley · 10-21-2005

great info huck!
well presented too.

must have been a bit freaky to have that greeting, eh?

oh and if any industry insiders are reading this...i'd like to be contacted too

joe

bobofish · 10-21-2005

If any industry insiders are reading, I'd like a freebie.

I'll even test it for you, and write nice things about it.

A couple lenses wouldn't hurt either.

Mazurka · 10-22-2005

Quote:

CLOSE FOCUS - The camera has a close focus distance of 0.7 meters. The 21, 25, & 28 lenses have a minimum focus distance of 0.5 meters. The rangefinder cannot be used to focus this last 0.2 meters,

If the rangefinder/viewfinder can't handle distances below 0.7m, there is little point in having those lenses focus so close where precision is most needed.

Muller didn't give any explanation about the discrepancy, right? I guess they are too embarrased to admit to overestimating the finder's capability and that they only found out about it a few months ago.

Well at least the rangefinder is flare-resistant. It remains to be seen whether it's flare-proof.

Gerold · 10-22-2005

Huck - thanks alot for this well written and to the point report. You definitely got yourself in the front row of nominees for the 2005 rangefinder market scout medal

I reckon my Zeiss Ikon evaluation will be a thirty second thing: One peek through the finder. If the eye relief is right > Buy.

Now folks, go get those limited edition bodies quickly ... so that the black ones can come !

Cheers G

bobofish · 10-22-2005

it'd be interesting to know if it was indeed a screwup. Perhaps someday we'll know.

Perhaps it is also an attempt to make the ZM lenses fully compatible with the later Z-I-2? (that's just wild speculation of course)

10-22-2005

Great hands-on update. Thanks!

For the longest time now I wanted to get my hands on the new Ikon to fondle and kick its tires. I've been holding off buying an R3A for my M lenses---although I bid on one at e-bay. I should go and see where the bids are.

bobofish · 10-22-2005

This thing certainly looks like a lot of camera for the money, at least as far as rangefinders go.

From what I've seen, the ZM lenses are fantastic as well. Anybody who pities Leica for the beating they're probablly going to take with these products is probablly naive.

But since I am naive, I do pity Leica. I am realistic enough however to know that it's Leica's own fault.

I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that if the ZI goes well, Contax will again see the light of day soon enough. Maybe people'll call it Fujitax, or Contuji

p.s. Thanks Huck!

Socke · 10-22-2005

Huck, thanks a bundle! Very informative and superbly written.

Now I know I realy wan't one, too!

rover · 10-22-2005

I don't really have the time this morning to read this, so off to the printer it goes to be digested throughout the day.

aizan · 10-22-2005

huck, just checking, but was the camera plated or just painted?

darkkavenger · 10-22-2005

can't wait to see the black bodies!

dcsang · 10-22-2005

Thanks for the report Huck

That 85 sounds nice to me

Dave

jlw · 10-22-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazurka

If the rangefinder/viewfinder can't handle distances below 0.7m, there is little point in having those lenses focus so close where precision is most needed.

Muller didn't give any explanation about the discrepancy, right? I guess they are too embarrased to admit to overestimating the finder's capability and that they only found out about it a few months ago.

I doubt if they overestimated anything. Rangefinder mechanisms usually have a mechanical close-focusing limit determined by how far the swing arm can extend from the body. (0.7 meters actually is unusually close.)

And to me it DOES make sense to have lenses -- especially wide-angle lenses such as the ones Huck mentioned -- that focus closer than the RF coupling range. At such close distances, you don't really need a rangefinder -- you can focus by measuring. And the DOF of a 21mm or 25mm lens (or a 28mm at small stops) is enough to cove minor errors.

Another benefit is that you can use the "extra" close-focus distance for hyperfocal focusing (focusing within the DOF range.) For example, suppose you're shooting at f/8 and the farthest part of the subject you care about is 0.7m away, but you want as much depth as you can get in front of that distance. You'd put the 0.7m mark against the f/8 mark on the far side of the DOF scale; this would set the lens to give as much depth as possible in front of 0.7m. There would be no way to do this if the focusing mount could not be set to distances closer than 0.7.

peter_n · 10-22-2005

Huck thank you for the extremely comprehensive report. That 25mm sounds good...

zeos 386sx · 10-22-2005

This is what Leica has nightmares about.

hth · 10-22-2005

Great report! When reading it, I so regretted not lining up for one of the bodies.

I hope I will come to senses soon and realize that I already have too many M bodies...

I do not get the chicken thing though, can you explain or show some pictures or it?

/Håkan

yossarian · 10-22-2005

This is the most entertaining thing I've read since the last Carl Hiaasen novel. You could probably expand this to book length, huckfinn.

yossarian

Huck Finn · 10-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by aizan

huck, just checking, but was the camera plated or just painted?

It definitely is not plated. The properties of magnesium don't allow plating - or at least make it so expensive to do as to make it cost prohibitive. The website calls it "varnished magnesium." Sounds like some sort of painting process to me, which is very feasible with magnesium.

Cheers,
Huck