Was RE: [Leica] DSLR choice - now Zeiss-Ikon

[billgem at hotmail.com (Bill Marshall)]

Hi, Frank -

Great point about design. I agree with you 100%. But I don't think that this 
is an either/or question. BOTH high quality design AND high standards for QC 
yield longevity. And both have been a hallmark of Leica production for many 
years. When there have been exceptions - like the malfunctioning DX contacts 
on the M7, the faulty seals around the eyepiece on the M7, & the flare prone 
viewfinder of the M6 - it has made photography a lot less fun for the owners 
of these cameras no matter how long the camera lasted. For many of them, it 
didn't last long at all because they quickly sold them.

But what does high quality design mean? I sat with a grizzled old 
independent Leica tech a few years ago - a man who had grown up in & been 
educated in Spain where he had earned a degree in engineering. He knows his 
stuff. He loves working on Leicas. In his opinion the devil is in the 
details. It's the little things that Leica does - its use of screws where 
other use glue or solder, its use of metal parts where others use plastic, 
etc. These are more durable & more repairable & the ability to repair a 
camera enables it to keep ticking for a long time as much as anything. It's 
Leica's attention to such small details as much that has made their 
longevity legendary in addition to its overall design.

This brings us to the importance of materials. Everything you say about 
magnesium is true - which is why magnesium wasn't employed for this kind of 
use until recent years. The Zeiss Ikon does not use pure magnesium. It uses 
magnesium alloys which have only been developed in the past decade. In 
developing such alloys, engineers have solved the problems of corrosion with 
pure magnesium, which restricted its applications for many years. The 
emergence of magnesium alloys have allowed its virtues to emerge as well: 
excellent strength-to-weight ratio - among the best in the industry - & 
great elasticity for shock absorption - just what you need on a camera body.

You dismiss magnesium as "cheap & light." If greater weight equalled higher 
quality, we'd all still be living in the Bronze Age. Doing the same job 
(i.e. strength) with a lighter weight material is an improvement & a sign of 
progress. At the very least, it provides an option for those who prefer a 
lighter weight camera (ZI = 16 oz) vs those who prefer one a little heavier 
(M6 = 19 oz) with a frame that is just as sturdy. Magnesium was actually a 
more expensive option in manufacturing until the recent development of 
alloys. Yes, it is now cheaper to use in molds than brass. How is this 
"cheapness" bad? If high quality results can be obtained at lower cost, 
saving money for the consumer, isn't this a good thing?

Let's not forget too that for all this discussion about magnesium vs brass - 
& zinc on the M6 & later M4-P's - that this is only the outer cladding. The 
real structural integrity of the body comes from its internal chasis, which 
is die-cast aluminum in both the M7 & the ZI. Let's not forget either that 
all companies strive to economize. Leica did so on the M4-2, the lightest 
Leica at 18 oz. They introduced zinc top plates on late production samples 
of the M4-P & made them standard on the M6. They replaced the use of screws 
on the front elements of some lenses with glue. These are economies that I 
know of. My Leica tech friend probably knows of more because he takes them 
apart & I don't. However, Leica is restricted from making any changes on the 
M-cameras that are too radical by their "traditionalist" customer base - 
which is why they have returned to brass for the M7 & MP. However, Zeiss 
design engineers have had the freedom to think outside the box. In choosing 
modern magnesium alloys, they may just have come up with an elegant solution 
to the same problem that Leica engineers have but are limited in trying any 
new materials.

If you think that any of the above isn't true, take a look at the spec's for 
a Leica R8 or R9. If brass is synonymous with high quality, why is Leica 
using a zinc top plate & a "fiber-glass reinforced polycarbonate bottom 
plate with an aluminum tripod plate"? Polycarbonate? Isn't that plastic?

Lest I overstate the virtues of the ZI, let me say in closing that the M7 is 
a better camera than the ZI. It has more featurews & it is built to a higher 
standard. For that much higher a price tag, it should be. But that doesn't 
mean that the ZI isn't built to a high quality standard in its own right - 
just not the same standard as a Leica M, which is no slight. Use of words 
like "rubbish" & "cheap" in reference to the materials & build quality of 
the ZI are simply not accurate & are at a minimum very misleading.

Bill