Life-altering decision

[PJRiley]

Ok, everyone - I've scrounged up my money. I've done all my research. I've filled four pages of notes, prices, lens costs...it's time to make a decision between the Ikon and a Leica M6.
I am leaning to the ZI because of the raves about the viewfinder (I wear glasses) and because I can't ever see myself being able to afford Leica glass. It seems foolish to buy a Leica body knowing those $2K and up lenses will never be on it...
So, after drooling over the Ikon porn thread, please give me your thoughts and opinions. I know some of you here own Leicas; I have a beautiful Contax lla but that's it for me for meterless cameras.
BTW, this has been a great forum for RF newbies to learn in; the advice and help is awesome!

[dpetrzelka]

The body and glass have little to do with each other - choose each for thier own merits. Most- if not all - of the lenses you could mount on one of those bodies would be perfectly compatable with the other.
It is a misconception that Leica bodies need leica glass, or that another body does not deserve Leica glass. Many of use here have used $150 used Voigtlander lenses on our ZM and M bodies without a second thought.

The viewfinder and AE would be my deciding factors between the two bodies - What do want? What do you need? Is it a fashion statement? (Does the Zeiss work when the batteries die?) The M6 and Zeiss Ikon are functionally quite different- electronic vs mechanical shutter.

[vrgard]

And there's lots of great Leica glass that doesn't cost anywhere near $2K. But bottom line is that either camera you're considering and either a 35mm or a 50mm lens, all for less than $2K total, will carry you very far.

[akptc]

I would consider battery-free operation of one body vs the other.

[Keith]

There's been a lot written about the Ikon here of late regarding it's reliability and comparing it to various other cameras. My own views would favour the Zeiss over the Leica in most conditions. If I was heading off on a round Australia trip and intended taking a lot of photos I wouldn't want it to be my only camera ... it's still a little unproven in rugged conditions regarding it's durability and reliabilty. It possibly may not survive a mishap like a drop or similar that would leave the Leica unfazed so the answer to your dillema is going to have to be based on your own needs and how you will treat and use a camera in the long term.

A small point worth noting is that you can buy an excellent M6 for much the same price as a new Ikon and if you don't like it sell it for vitually no loss if you buy judiciously ... if the Zeiss doesn't work for you there will be a few hundred dollar loss if you sell!

[DelDavis]

Originally Posted by PJRiley

I am leaning to the ZI because of the raves about the viewfinder (I wear glasses) and because I can't ever see myself being able to afford Leica glass. It seems foolish to buy a Leica body knowing those $2K and up lenses will never be on it...

I couldn't be happier with my Ikon, and I couldn't be happier with my used 90mm Summicron APO-Asph bought from http://www.keh.com.

Might I suggest: Get the Ikon, buy your Leica lenses from KEH or similar. Mine was rated 'Excellent', I got it under the average going price (less than half of what it would cost new, IIRC), and it is nearly flawless. Slightly stiff focusing action in the middle of the range, but hey, it's 10 years old!

That being said, the ZM lenses are stunning. Planar 50 is remarkable. The 'cron is nice, but I am jonesin' to try Zeiss' new 85mm.'

Edit: In the light of the battery comment above, and in the interest of full disclosure, I must amend my statement. The other day I was in Manhattan walking around, battery in the Ikon died. Methinks the demise was accelerated by the insane cold of the day. I had a spare, but it was too damned cold to change it outside. Plus my wife didn't feel like hanging around whilst I fumbled about with a coin to open the battery cap, which I would have likely dropped down a storm drain. Didn't bother me too much -- I got to enjoy the city like a normal person for a little while.

[PJRiley]

See what a big help you guys are?
I liked Keith's point; I use my cameras. They don't match my handbag/shoes and only my old Nikon F4s sits on the shelf most of the time. I suppose the 'lure of the Leica' for me is having something special. But it won't help if I can't see through the vf!
Unfortunately, I don't have access to the two bodies to physically check them out, so it makes it difficult. Particularly when I'm shelling out considerable cash...

[Tom A]

I agree with Keith here. If I would go for a "square" around Oz, I would always carry a back-up body, but that would be the same if it was Leica/Zeiss/VC or Nikon. But for shooting around home and with reasonable access to service - the ZI will work fine. However, it will spoil you forever when it comes to viewfinders and no other camera will really match it.
Start with one lens, maybe the 35/2 Biogon - as good as it gets in 35 and maybe later spring for the 50mm f2 Planar. For the extremes you can always go to VC lenses with virtually no loss of quality!
The only two truly superlative Leica lenses today are the 50mm f1.4 ASPH and the 75 f2 Summicron. The rest of the leica glass is now matched by either Zeiss or VC and at prices that is affordable in comparison!

[ferider]

Did you intentionally leave out the Noctilux and 75 Summilux, Tom ? Something in the CV pipeline we don't know about ?

[dpetrzelka]

PJRiley- what length of lenses are you intending to use?
The 28 is the only one you likely to have real trouble with on the on the M6 with glasses, the 35 is near the edge but very usable.

I've not used a 28 on the Zeiss Ikon - but by the numbers .74x mag vs. the M6's .72x mag I'd be interested in seeing how much more visable the 28 framelines are.

Do you need auto exposure?

[MichaelHarris]

I have a Zeiss and a M3, I like both. I had the same decision you have when I went to get my camera. I went for an M7 and walked away with a Zeiss, a 28mm lens and around 3000 dollars in my pocket. I look at camera bodies like fly reels, one holds line the other holds film. It's the lens and rod you need to concentrate on.

[RF-Addict]

AE is something absolutely wonderful IMHO. I would not buy a new camera without it and in your situation I'd go with the Zeiss. I think it offers an awful lot for the buck. I ahve not read many horror stories about the ZI - the camera seems to be very reliable. In the end the camera is just the black box, BUT some black boxes offer more for the money than others - to compare the ZI to a Leica you'd have to step up to a M7 - now look at the $$$!! Of course the best bang for the money are the Voigtlaender cameras, but they don't offer the great VF of the ZI. I also think that the battery vs. non-battery operation is way overblown. How difficult is it to carry a tiny spare battery with you all the time. They lasy forever anyway.

[PJRiley]

The 35 and 50mm focal lengths appeal to me; I want to shoot a lot of old buildings and my particular quirk, old tombstones...AE is a big consideration, too.
And, how did Michael figure out that I flyfish? - and I'd take the camera with me!

[kshapero]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

The Zeiss new is going to cost you $1,341 USD. I would not buy the Zeiss used unless I personally knew the owner ( the camera is just not all that well proven, as pointed out by Keith) to take chance on one from someone you don't know to save $300 (you will not find a like new one for less than $1000).

.

I have bought 2 ZI's, one new and one used. Both work perfectly, absolutely no difference.

[photogdave]

I love the way my M6 handles and the solid feeling inspires confidence. However I don't really like the LED meter which is all that really separates it from my M4. I'm also sometimes restricted by the lack of AE and faster shutter speeds.
I keep thinking I want to sell it and get a Hexar RF or Ikon (I really envy Keith!) but every time I've handled the Ikon I've been a little put off by the lightweight feel and there are no good deals to be had on a Hexar locally.
Argh!

[akptc]

If you are considering ZI, I would look into the Hexar RF. Other than the VF, the ZI cannot hold a candle to the Hexar, IMHO that is And - it's cheaper, even the like-new ones.

[BillBingham2]

I know this sounds silly, but what about two Bessas and stick the rest of the money in world class glass? Pick up a R3M and an R4A. Get a 75 'Cron, the new 35/1.4 CV and a 25/4 CV or 25/2.8 ZI and stick a fork in it. Perhaps two winders, one for each body.

B2 (;->

[pfoto]

If you wear glasses and you like to shoot wides to normal focal length the VF on the Zeiss is likely to win you over. The Leica competitor would be a 0.58x mag M6 which would mean the TTL version of the camera - slightly bigger and more expensive. Do you want automatic exposure? If so that would clinch it for the Zeiss. The M6 is an excellent camera, I use M6, M7 and MP bodies and find them reliable and sturdy. However had the Zeiss been around when I got my M7 I would have been sorely tempted. I think you owe it to yourself to try both, either through a local club or by travelling to a major city having arranged a demo of both by phone beforehand. You really can't make these kinds of decisions remotely.

Originally Posted by ferider

Did you intentionally leave out the Noctilux and 75 Summilux, Tom ? Something in the CV pipeline we don't know about ?

I think the lens he intentionally left out is the 24 Elmarit. Nothing compares.

[arseniii]

I would go for Contax G1 or G2 in terms of saving money. Considering Zeiss vs Leica I will go for Leica cauz there proven to be the best and if you don't own leica you willl want one eventually but once you have it your soul is in peece! BTW, I hate a Leica cult, which exist i baby mine alot and use G1 as everyday arsenal. Good luck

[mfogiel]

PJRiley
I use an M7 and the Ikon. I wear glasses. For general shooting there's no contest abour which tool is better, the Ikon is the easy winner. The Ikon+35 Biogon combo is probably the most effective photographic tool I've ever used. I'd say get the Ikon first, if you continue to crave for a Leica, get a 0.85x second body for the 50mm lens later.

[peripatetic]

I have not used a RF yet, but when I tried out the M7/M8 with my glasses I actually found it quite a lot harder to see through than my Canon 5D viewfinder. That was not at all what I was expecting.

So I have decided to go with the ZI, pretty much on the basis of others' recommendations on how easy it is to see through the viewfinder with glasses, and of course in side-by-side pictures you can see how much bigger it is.

I have ordered from Matsuiyastore and the parcel tracking system tells me arrived in the UK yesterday and was dispatched from Coventry last night.

So there's a good chance I might get it today, or perhaps tomorrow.

But I still haven't decided on a first lens! I have it narrowed down to 2 options: either the 50mm Planar or the 35mm Biogon. When the camera arrives I'm going to walk round London looking for a store where I can try out both focal lengths to see. My basic inclination is to go with the 50 as that is my favourite focal length with my SLR. But will a RF change my style a bit? It's all terribly exciting.

[PJRiley]

I shoot a Nikon d2h on the job all day, and love its vf; I have no problems with it. My Contax lla vf took some getting used to, but with its build quality and lens I fell in love with photography again. It's a craftsmanship that seems to be long gone these days...
The money I am using was originally going towards a Nikon D300 but not now - see what happens when you hang out at RFF?
Thank you to all of you for your help. I'll let you know what happens...
Mary

[kshapero]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

I know a lot of people are willing to buy used electronics, I am just not one of those folks.

I think everyone has a different toleration for used equipment, anything analog I never think twice about buying used.

::

A film rf like the ZI is almost as analogue as it gets.
Each to their own.

[peripatetic]

Originally Posted by PJRiley

I shoot a Nikon d2h on the job all day, and love its vf; I have no problems with it. My Contax lla vf took some getting used to, but with its build quality and lens I fell in love with photography again. It's a craftsmanship that seems to be long gone these days...
The money I am using was originally going towards a Nikon D300 but not now - see what happens when you hang out at RFF?
Thank you to all of you for your help. I'll let you know what happens...
Mary

Yup, me too. After years of digital it's back to film and my first rangefinder. The ZI arrived yesterday. It is a beautiful thing. Easy to see the 35mm framelines with specs on, and possible with the 28mm framelines if I push them slightly further up my nose than usual. Much better than the M7/M8 with glasses.

As to battery-free - well really! For those of us used to DSLRs the battery is tiny, you could carry 20? 50? of the things for the same weight as a normal SLR battery. And they are alkaline so hold their charge. And lets not forget we are talking a film camera here, you have to pause occasionally to change film anyway, changing the battery takes no longer than changing film.

Good luck with your choice.

[migtex]

Get an Nikon S2!
Is what you shoot that's the important, not with what you shoot (except if is Nikon ah ahah ah ah .... just kidding, well.. may be not...).

Now seriously, IMHO do like like BillBingham2 said, two Bessas and a lot of CV glass!!
Give yourself more options= more glass, not less=branding!