[Leica] Zeiss Ikon ZM

[freakscene at weirdness.com (Marty Deveney)]

Slobodan,

I used a borrowed one a fair bit over 5 days with the 35/2 and 50/2 lenses.  
To compare, I have a 0.72 MP and a 0.85 M7 and used two M6s as my main 
cameras for years.

The Zeiss has a better viewfinder.  It is larger, brighter, more neutrally 
coloured and has longer eye relief.  It does one weird thing (if you're used 
to Leicas) - when the framelines shift to compensate for parallax, the RF 
patch stays put.  The effective baselength is slightly longer than a 0.85 M, 
but slightly shorter than that of an M3.  This helped me focus lenses that 
can be hard to focus.  It has 28/85, 35 and 50 mm framelines; I found that 
having the 35 and 50 on their own really pleasant.  I found the inability to 
use my 75 Summilux on it really unpleasant (there are no 75mm framelines).  
It has a 0.74x finder - I would like a 1:1 version, but this one worked 
fine.  With the top removed, you can see that the rangefinder is not 
designed like the Leica or Cosina-Voigtlander RFs.  The patch never flared 
in use, a major plus for me (my MP flares occasionally and the pre-MP 
upgrade 0.85 finder in my M7 is a flare monster - why Leica didn't bring 
back the parabolic RF mirror is beyond me).  It loads from the back (nice) 
but rewinds from underneath (what the!? - this is almost as strange as Leica 
sticking to that stuid bottom loading system all these years - it is awkward 
at best).  In general the camera handles well, but several friends commented 
that they thought it seemed to work better for people with larger hands.  

The Ikon is not built like an M, it's lighter, there is more plastic used in 
the construction and it will probably eventually wear out.  This does not 
bother me, it may bother some.  The finish on the black models is at least 
as nice as the black paint on my MP.  The Ikon is lighter than a Leica, 
which I like.  But it makes it quite front heavy with a Noctilux mounted.

The Zeiss ZM lenses are great - I prefer the 35/2 to either the pre-asph 
Leica 35/2 IV or the 35/2 asph, but this is a matter of preference alone.  
The pre-asph Leica 35/2 IV has better out of focus rendition, particularly 
from f4-8 and the 35/2 asph is sharper.  But the Biogon is a superb lens 
that produces photos that I liked better than photos I took with either of 
those Leica ones (having said that I am currently using a Leica 35/1.4 
asph).  The 50/2 is equivalent to the latest Summicron 50/2 but doesn't 
flare like the samples I've had.  It is visibly better in the outer fields 
than the Hexanon 50/2 I am currently using as my main lens on my MP.

Whether these are 'really' Zeiss lenses and cameras or not does not bother 
me.  It does bother some.  The lenses seem to be better coated than the C-V 
lenses, they felt extremely well put together to me (as good as modern Leica 
stuff, still a way off the rock solid heft and smoothness of the Leitz-era 
rigid Summicrons, Contarex lenses etc - you know, the very, absolutely best 
- though I often wonder if we use best where we probably should say most - 
constructed stuff) and performed extremely well.  I have always thought that 
the T* coatings made a difference and this seems to be the case with these 
lenses too.  I didn't like the little 'bump' that you are supposed to use to 
focus.  The camera is as well made as some of the Kyocera built SLRs, of 
which I was very fond, but some of them seemed only so-so too.

Well worth a look, but might be an acquired taste - try before you buy, but 
I liked it.

Marty

Gallery:
http://gallery.leica-users.org/main.php?g2_itemId=7617

Most people can only judge of things by the experiences of ordinary life, 
but phenomena outside the scope of this are really quite numerous.
        Shen Kuo - 'Dream Pool Essays'


-- 
Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!