Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Lotus50, interesting point about comments from the photo shows about Leica being the better quality piece. I think that there is general agreement that Leica is "better-built" - & you pay for that. That was certainly my impression when I handled it. But is that build quality necessary to the intended function, i.e. taking good pictures? Does it mean that it will last longer? Leicas can still be pretty finicky & require more than their share of service. Does a plastic take-up spool mean inferior quality? I don't know, but plastic substitutes pretty effectively for metal in many mechanical uses. Only time will tell about durability. The criticism of the old Zeiss Ikon cameras when they discontinued production is that they were "overbuilt" & therefore not competitive. The same can be said for modern Leicas. But as long as they have their following, they will hod their niche. The ZI has certain features that are more attractive than the M7. I liked the ZI viewfinder/eyepiece even better than the M7 - nice & big & easily viewable. Effective base length is more than 10% longer than .72x Leica & only slightly shorter than .85x Leica but with 28 mm framelines. Swing back makes film loading easier. Leicaphiles will never like this camera, but I think that it will develop its own following.