Re: Leice R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

Hello Tony,



Tony Polson wrote:
Gordon Moat <moat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I know a few professionals using a Bessa R or later R2 body. Better to risk damage to these than breaking a Leica M body, and the image results are quite good. Two of those guys photograph skateboarders, while the others I know using these cameras photograph rock concerts. All hand held shots, quite close in to subjects, and nice image. Of course, getting good images goes beyond the gear. In all these examples, a few rangefinder adjustments were needed, though far less than I have seen needed for those I know using a Mamiya 7 rangefinder; funny when you consider that the Mamiya is highly regarded.


I can understand people buying and using Bessa bodies. I have a Bessa
that I use occasionally. But I think you have missed my point.

My point is that the Zeiss Ikon is little more than a Bessa with a
different outer casing and a better viewfinder. But it costs twice as
much as a Bessa without being any more robust in use. Whether the
outer casing is plastic or metal is immaterial - in each case, the
film transport and shutter are pure Bessa. So save 50% of the cost of
the Zeiss Ikon and buy a Bessa!


Okay, now that makes more sense. I agree with you on that one.


Given my choice, and obviously your choice, either of us would be a Leica M body before ever considering any Bessa body.


I would happily recommend a Bessa to an light user who took care of
his/her gear, or to a heavy user who took risks and needed to be able
to buy a cheap replacement - such as the skateboard shooters you
mention. The rangefinders need constant adjustment even if the camera
is treated with great care, which I would find intensely annoying. It
is yet another reason for me to avoid a Bessa.


.. . . . and apparantly the Mamiya 7, with a few too many people reporting the rangefinder going out of adjustment.


Unlike you, I cannot justify buying two Leica M bodies, because the work that I can do on 35mm does not give enough profit margin to justify the slight difference a Leica gives over my carefully chosen Nikon gear. So about all that I would need to take advantage of rangefinder usage would be an M6TTL or M7 0.85x with a 90mm, or maybe adding one of the 75mm lenses to that.


In fact I have five Leica M bodies, two M7s, an M3, a CL and a Minolta
CLE. I tend to use the M7s with 24mm and 35mm lenses mounted, and
carry 15mm (Voigtländer) and 90mm (Leica) lenses in my bag. I
sometimes use the M3 with 50mm (Leica) and 90mm lenses - the 0.92X
viewfinder and accurate frame lines make 90mm shooting a breeze.


The project was driven by Cosina and Hasselblad, not by Zeiss.

Sure, obvious from Zeiss documents. However, I don't understand the point of your statement.


The point is that Zeiss did not initiate the project. Nor did Zeiss
drive it. They merely approved it, licensed it, took royalties and
offered two grossly overpriced German-made lenses.


I don't think the Zeiss lenses are any more overpriced than Nikon nor Leica, nor any other manufacturer. Manual focus lenses seem like they would be more expensive to produce than some autofocus lenses. Of course, I know many photographer (you likely do as well) that needed service on their autofocus lenses. I think the pricing is more of what the market will bear, rather than a true calculated profit margin. If people don't buy these things, then prices will go down.


Now the Hasselblad deal has failed, Zeiss, who have not marketed 35mm
cameras and lenses for over 30 years, have been forced to take over
distribution. That's how desperate the situation is.


Certainly Nikon did not push Zeiss to design manual focus ZF lenses.


No, Cosina did all the pushing! Mr Kobayashi of Cosina saw an
opportunity to make Zeiss lenses after Kyocera ended the Contax
licensing deal with Zeiss.


The Zeiss Ikon is not remotely as good as the Konica Hexar RF. It is
a cheap and nasty Bessa dressed up to look lime something it isn't.

Okay, so you hate these things. It is certainly not up to me to convince anyone of their build quality. The only in depth review of the Ikon I have seen is from Mike Elek. He presented it with warts and all, and even commented on the service it needed at first under warranty. I wonder if it will actually outsell the Konica Hexar RF, a camera that Konica poorly marketed.


I don't think our views are very far apart. Also, I just bought a
brand new Konica Hexar RF with full warranty. ;-)


Good deal. I have never even seen one between California and Texas.


Quality control is not an issue. The basic design is the issue.
Whatever it appears to be, inside it is just a plastic Bessa.


. . . . and this plastic causes . . . . .

Look Tony, I have metal camera, metal lenses, and except for my Teak and Titanium 4x5 camera largely have only used metal gear. I am about as anti-plastic as you appear to be. I do have numerous lighting gear in plastic housings, and anyone who knows me has seen how rough I can be on that gear; yet I have yet to break any of my lighting gear, or even one of the numerous Nikon Speedlights I use.

So yeah, I like heavy metal camera gear. I did not like the plastic "feel" of the Mamiya 7 system, but those are nice lenses. Some think a Nikon F4 looks a little like plastic, until they lift one. I don't think it is bad if it is used to lighten a camera a little, except when it is not properly protecting the internal parts.


The casing is not the issue here. The point is that the film
transport and shutter of the Zeiss Ikon are no better than those in
the Bessas costing half the price. The Bessa mechanical parts do not
remotely approach Leica standards, and the Zeiss Ikon mechanical parts
are identical to these, despite costing twice as much.


This sounds a bit like the film flatness issue Erwin Puts use to write about with the Konica Hexar RF. Just for a funny comparison, my ultra cheap Yashica GT rangefinder has probably the worst film guide and transport mechanism I have seen, yet I can manage some technically good images using it. I think a bigger question with these cameras should be longevity. A heavily used Leica seems to average around nine (9) years between service. Perhaps of interest is that the film transport mechanism is what failed on my M3.


. . . . . . .

More detailed optical tests of the ZM lenses go far beyond Puts and
Hicks and they reveal some serious flaws, especially vignetting.
Perhaps this is to be expected at the price.


Anything I could view on that? Care to post some samples to me? You can contact me off the group for mailing information. I know your writing style can be a little dramatic at times, but you make it sound like ZM lenses are like the Lensbaby in rendition of images. ;-)


Not at all, but the vignetting is significant. I am referring in
particular to tests done by the highly respected Geoffrey Crawley and
published in "Amateur Photographer", but other detailed tests I have
access to (they are unpublished) have shown similar results.


At this early stage, for Zeiss to have had to take over distribution
from Hasselblad of the Zeiss Ikon and ZM lenses is a disaster.

Hasselblad have already fallen out with Leica. Now it's Zeiss. In
both cases, Hasselblad's headlong rush to tie up with Fuji is the
direct cause.


It would be better to criticize Shriro management and Christian Polson of Imacon. You should see how the reorganization of Hasselblad USA has pissed off many professionals. Then read some reports of people with H1 and H2 problems, shitty support, and general disgust with anything connected to Hasselblad. That company brand has been soiled and dragged through the muck . . . it would be a good idea to not associate with Hasselblad in a professional capacity.


I got out in time. <g> I am delighted that I chose Rollei over
Hasselblad for my medium format outfit.


I know some people getting ZF lenses, and they are quite happy to buy direct from Zeiss. Unless they totally *** up customer service in the US, they should do fine with direct sales. I wish them luck. What we need is more companies making film camera gear and manual lenses, not less. However, if you want them to fail, then be careful what you wish.


I don't want them to fail. But we aren't talking about Zeiss, we are
talking about Cosina. Until Hasselblad were removed as distributor,
the Zeiss involvement was very tiny indeed.

Think of it as a franchise. Kyocera bought a Zeiss franchise, made a
lot of money out of it and finally gave it back. Now the franchise
has been sold on, and the new franchisee is Cosina.


I recall similar criticism directed towards Kyocera and Yashica. It is too early to tell. The history of Voigtländer in the 1970s was far worse than what Kobayashi-san has done.



If I cheer for the little guys, or the small products, that does not mean I think they are better. I want them to succeed in the market. Do I think Leica makes the best rangefinders . . . you bet your ass I do! :-)


I have no love affair with Leica (the company) or even with Leica
bodies. They are well made and mostly reliable, but have some
annoying features as a result of placing a higher priority on
tradition than overall usability.

What I do love is the Leica lenses, and as long as I can buy film and
find a body to use them on, I will be happy. I would just prefer that
the body would be something better than a Bessa. Whether it is called
"Voigtländer" or "Zeiss Ikon" makes no difference. They are all
Bessas.


I have a few disappointments with the Zeiss Ikon. One is the lack of intergrated flash control, something that the Konica Hexar RF also lacked. While I use predominantly manual flash control, there are times that TTL can be very useful. The other thing is a lack of a self timer, though the modern Leica bodies also lack that; this is an item that can be useful in slow shutter night shots. Oh well . . . . . . .

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

.