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

[bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen)]

Further, when discussing quality and longevity, one has to factor in the
uses to which the camera, or any other item, will be put. The vast majority
of people on this list are as careful of their Ms as they are of their
children. They own them for years and years and then, if they finally decide
to part with them, they advertise them as looking "like new." If one is
babying a camera that way, there is absolutely no reason why a camera such
as the ZI won't last just as long as an M. If, on the other hand, one is
using the camera on a daily basis, banging it around, subjecting it to
constant exposure to dust, moisture, and temperature changes. Treating it,
in other words, like a tool - then the cost difference between an M and an
ZI probably makes sense, because the M  will, most likely, take the beating
a lot better than will the competition.


On 1/13/06 11:23 AM, "Bill Marshall" <billgem@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information