froyd
Mentor
I'm looking at Zeiss Ikons as a possible replacement for some cameras I'd like to sell, like my chrome M4. The version of the ZI I prefer is the on with silver paint but this is based on internet photos and I'm afraid that in person it might look cheap (like silver polycarbonate).
Can anyone compare the silver finish of the ZM with the chrome of the old school Leica Ms? My M4 looks stellar and after all these years still shows very little wear despite it never spending any time inside a case.
Can anyone compare the silver finish of the ZM with the chrome of the old school Leica Ms? My M4 looks stellar and after all these years still shows very little wear despite it never spending any time inside a case.
santela
Established
I have the silver ZI and the Chrome M7 sitting in front of me right now. The ZI definitely doesn't feel cheap (neither does the R4M I used to own), when I hold the ZI it has a good weight. Not heavy, but feels sturdy. However when I pick up the M7 it feels noticeably heftier. The silver paint on the ZI looks pretty decent, but it seems to scratch much more easily than the chrome M7, and also the preview lever seems to be made out of plastic.
Other than that, the ZI is a great camera, and I think you'll love it. If you do buy it, I would suggest getting a case though. Btw, did you see the ZI in grey lizard skin? The most sexy camera I've ever seen: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1372418&postcount=180
Other than that, the ZI is a great camera, and I think you'll love it. If you do buy it, I would suggest getting a case though. Btw, did you see the ZI in grey lizard skin? The most sexy camera I've ever seen: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1372418&postcount=180
froyd
Mentor
Ya, just wrote a post a few back referencing that very same picture. It is a beautiful camera and would consider doing the same treatment to it.
Thanks for confirming that the ZI silver paint finish is not as durable as the M chrome (what I feared). I just want to be clear that I'm just considering the look of the paint, not the quality of the ZI vs Leica. plenty has been written about that already, and having owned and liked a Bessa, I think the Ikon will be just fine.
I'm only afraid the silver will look like that of the VCII light meter or the Nikon FM10. Even the slighly nicer faux-chrome finish of the X100 looks a bit cheap to me.
dabick42
-
@ froyd...
Why replace the deservedly iconic, infinately repairable and easily serviced Leica M4 with the decidedly inferior and increasingly- more-difficult-to-repair Zeiss (read Cosina) Ikon ?
Or as Paul Newman once said, with reference to marital fidelity, why go out for a hamburger when you've got good prime steak already sitting at home... ?
Why replace the deservedly iconic, infinately repairable and easily serviced Leica M4 with the decidedly inferior and increasingly- more-difficult-to-repair Zeiss (read Cosina) Ikon ?
Or as Paul Newman once said, with reference to marital fidelity, why go out for a hamburger when you've got good prime steak already sitting at home... ?
kshapero
South Florida Man
Remember an M4 Has a brass top and bottom, so brassing will happen. The ZI also a chrome covering is not brass underneath, So it won't wear as nice.
anerjee
Well-known
I've got both the M4 and the ZI. The ZI is nicer and prettier while the M4 has a better shutter sound.
After almost 3 years and 300 rolls, the ZI has some wear, but quite pretty still. That cameraleather picture was awesome, I'll do that right away!
After almost 3 years and 300 rolls, the ZI has some wear, but quite pretty still. That cameraleather picture was awesome, I'll do that right away!
sailor
Well-known
Perhaps the OP wants the aperture priority auto exposure. Is there any evidence to support the claim that the ZI is increasingly more difficult to repair? I only ask because I've got one and would like to know. The other thing to consider is that cameras only need repairing (as opposed to servicing) if they break down. My ZI has been 100% reliable whereas my M5 has not.
dabick42
-
@ sailor...
I didn't intend to be overly harsh in my opinion of the Zeiss Ikon.
They're better made than some other modern cameras but they're not in the same league as Leica M's for longevity and repairability.
With regard to future servicing and spare parts, it's as well to consider that the ZI was only made for 6 years in relatively small numbers and spare parts availability for the electronics and mechanicals will become limited in a depressingly short time, whereas the M4 can be made to soldier on for ever.
Consider that wonderful camera, the Nikon F3 - according to Dante Stella, the most reliable Nikon ever made and probably the best film SLR in existance.
It was made for 20 years (from 1980 to 2000 ) in huge quantities, but today can only be repaired by (mostly) cannibalisation.
These considerations might not matter to some people but they matter to me, and that's why, in my opinion, film Leicas win hands down as longterm cameras to use frequently.
As ever, though, YMMV....
I didn't intend to be overly harsh in my opinion of the Zeiss Ikon.
They're better made than some other modern cameras but they're not in the same league as Leica M's for longevity and repairability.
With regard to future servicing and spare parts, it's as well to consider that the ZI was only made for 6 years in relatively small numbers and spare parts availability for the electronics and mechanicals will become limited in a depressingly short time, whereas the M4 can be made to soldier on for ever.
Consider that wonderful camera, the Nikon F3 - according to Dante Stella, the most reliable Nikon ever made and probably the best film SLR in existance.
It was made for 20 years (from 1980 to 2000 ) in huge quantities, but today can only be repaired by (mostly) cannibalisation.
These considerations might not matter to some people but they matter to me, and that's why, in my opinion, film Leicas win hands down as longterm cameras to use frequently.
As ever, though, YMMV....
kshapero
South Florida Man
Gonna have to disagree on that point. The F3, a stellar camera no doubt, but it has electronics, so it cannot compare to the original Nikon F meterless prism. I have fixed them in the back seat of a car. They are the roughest, most reliable camera ever made. Can also be used as a formidable weapon.
froyd
Mentor
That's the point of a separate, much more confusing thread, read at your own peril! http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=130907
I had an r2a which I like well enough until I made the mistake to touch a Leica
froyd
Mentor
Nicer and prettier refers to the design or the paint finish? I like the Zi look well enough; my concern is the finish vs chrome.
sailor
Well-known
@dabchick42
Many thanks for your reply. I can see your point. I wasn't trying to suggest that I prefer the ZI to my Leica M5. I like using both of them so my advice to the OP would be to keep the M4 and sell something else to fund the ZI. In my experience if you sell a Leica M you'll only regret it and end up buying another one later on.
A lot of the pleasure I derive from photography is using older film cameras - things I could never afford at the time they were current but which now can be had for ridiculously little money. (Minolta Dynax 9, Nikon F2, Contax AX, etc., etc.). As I don't have a scanner myself, I rely on lab scans which are OK but to be brutally honest, enlarging up to 18"x12", I get at least as good (and possibly better) results from my Nikon V1. Common sense should tell me to stick to the V1 but I do love playing with my film cameras.
Many thanks for your reply. I can see your point. I wasn't trying to suggest that I prefer the ZI to my Leica M5. I like using both of them so my advice to the OP would be to keep the M4 and sell something else to fund the ZI. In my experience if you sell a Leica M you'll only regret it and end up buying another one later on.
A lot of the pleasure I derive from photography is using older film cameras - things I could never afford at the time they were current but which now can be had for ridiculously little money. (Minolta Dynax 9, Nikon F2, Contax AX, etc., etc.). As I don't have a scanner myself, I rely on lab scans which are OK but to be brutally honest, enlarging up to 18"x12", I get at least as good (and possibly better) results from my Nikon V1. Common sense should tell me to stick to the V1 but I do love playing with my film cameras.
anerjee
Well-known
Well, this is subjective. The paint finish is almost pristine on the top plate on mine, so I'm biased. The quality of the finish is very good.
Nicer refers to using it. Prettier is about the looks -- just not the chrome but also the more angular and modern lines on the ZI.
Nicer refers to using it. Prettier is about the looks -- just not the chrome but also the more angular and modern lines on the ZI.
dabick42
-
@ kshapiro....
I can't disagree with your praise of the everlasting Nikon F.
One of those brutes was my very first camera in 1962 (I still have it and still use it) and I've since acquired another 4 of the critters. Love 'em to bits.
As you say, a lethal weapon in the wrong hands.
The world will never see their like again.... !
I can't disagree with your praise of the everlasting Nikon F.
One of those brutes was my very first camera in 1962 (I still have it and still use it) and I've since acquired another 4 of the critters. Love 'em to bits.
As you say, a lethal weapon in the wrong hands.
The world will never see their like again.... !