[Leica] Thoughts on the ZI rangefinder

[don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory)]

Gene,
My point about the dressed up Bessa took into account buying habits of
rangefinder users going back more than thirty years.  There have been
a lot of challengers to Leica in the RF arena going back to the
thirties.  Zeiss Ikon left the market in 1961, Nikon effectively quit
the market at about the same time, Canon left the market in the late
sixties, Konica left the market what two years ago?  The Bessa's are
selling pretty well on price but are viewed as a semi-disposable by
the users: if I don't like it I only spent $X and that isn't much to
lose.

Another consideration would be that Leica users, who constitute the
bulk of RF users have been spoiled by a very good design that has been
mostly extremely well built.  Anything new to the market is compared
to an M and that is a very high standard.

You mention the Kyocera offerings.  It was the Zeiss lenses that
appealed to the purchasers.  I have been ghosting the Contax Users
group for years and not very many people were pumped by the bodies. 
We should all admit that the initial offerings were not that durable. 
Finding a good example of an RTS or a 137 that has been used hard is
almost impossible.  Compare that to an SL, an Nikon F or a Canon F1
that seem to thrive on hard use.  I have a 167 which while it has some
clever engineering ideas that make using the camera a pleasure I would
never say the build quality made me happy. (I bought the camera as a
platform for the 50 1.4 and the 85 F2.8 which while superb in imaging
are a little lacking in build quality compared to a Leica lens or a
Canon FD or a mid production Nikon AIS lens or a Pentax 42mm lens.)

I will also go back to the Konica RF.  This was a well engineered
camera with a very useful AE function, a thoughtful built in motor
drive, a good low magnification viewfinder, and some very competant
lenses.  Yet it failed in the market place even though it was
significantly less than an M.

So, while I hope that the new ZI is a rampaging success, I will not
hold my breath.  If the camera has the build quality of the original
Contax II and a viewfinder as bright or brighter than a new MP then it
might sell significant units.  However, if the build quality is only
as good as the 45mm pancake lens that Cosina makes for Nikon then I do
not think it will fly.  For what it will sell for you can purchase a
M6 of most flavors and pay DAG or Sherri to do a complete CLA.  This
is the same reason that Leica is having a difficult time of it, much
lower numbers of film pushers and a whole lot of very fine used
cameras out there.

Also bear in mind that we have only seen prototypes.  The camera
introduction has been moved back a substantial amount of time.  The
Zeiss folks may be rethinking the film business.  I hope it is to drop
a 8MP sensor in.

Please don't get me wrong, I really hope that this camera makes it. 
Not only will it offer choice for a film dinosaur like myself, but it
will likely lead to a good quality digital RF which would make me very
happy.

Don
don.dory@gmail.com

On 6/28/05, Gene E. McCluney <mccluney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >I am not so sure that the Zeiss offering will do all that well.  The
> >Konica RF was and is a pretty good rangefinder with a much better than
> >average rangefinder and good ergonomics.  Build quality was also
> >nothing to complain about.  Yet this camera did not succeed in the
> >marketplace.
> >
> >The Zeiss offering is going to be a dressed up Bessa, I am not sure
> >you can dress up a Bessa enough to get 2.5 to 3 times the price.  If
> >the rangefinder works well with parallax correction in the close range
> >that the lenses allow for then that might compensate for a percieved
> >lack of build quality.
> >
> >Snip
> 
> 
> 
> >0.02
> >
> >Don
> >don.dory@gmail.com
> >
> 
> I honestly don't know how to get across to people that the Zeiss is
> definately NOT a
> "dressed up" Bessa.   The ONLY things it has in common with the Bessa
> cameras are
> the Copal shutter, which is used in a zillion other cameras including
> most of the
> popular digital DSLR's, and the "M" lens mount.
> 
> There is no single common body casting between the Zeiss Ikon and any 
> Bessa,
> the RFDR is different, the viewfinder is different, the advance lever
> is different,
> the rewind lever is different (and on the bottom)
> 
> The Zeiss Ikon has final quality control by Zeiss.  It is Zeiss
> reputation that is
> at stake here, not Cosina.
> 
> The only way it could be MORE different from the Bessa is if it were made 
> by
> some other manufacturer.  The only common denominator is the manufacturer.
> 
> Are we going to belittle ANY camera body from Cosina?    Just wait and
> try out the Zeiss Ikon before making such statements.
> 
> Are all the recently discontinued Contax SLR's and AF cameras just "dressed
> up Kyocera's?"   If that were the case, then wouldn't one be better off 
> getting
> the "Yashica" SLR equivalent of the Contax SLR?  They did make a Yashica
> slr with the Contax lens mount.
> 
> Is a Leica CL, just a "dressed up" Minolta because that is who made it, or
> rather is it a unique camera that has its own merits which happened to be
> made for Leitz under contract by Minolta.  Just like the Zeiss Ikon is a
> unique camera with unique features made for Zeiss by Cosina.
> 
> I will grant you that the Zeiss Ikon is not going to be a runaway best 
> seller,
> but that is because of the nature of the photo market, not the quality of
> the camera.  RFDR cameras are a "niche" market, which happens to
> be going through a "boomlet" at the moment.  I'll bet it will sell better
> than the Konica RF because of the Zeiss Ikon brand recognition in 
> association
> with pro quality cameras and pro quality optics.
> 
> 
> Gene McCluney
> who owns Bessa and Leica and Zeiss Contax cameras and likes them all.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>