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

[Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie)]

Hi Bill,
I agree with almost all you say apart from the materials aspect. I  
have been designing racing cars for the last 30 years at the highest  
level (mostly Formula 1but a Le Mans car and the current Lola CART  
car for example) and I can assure you that if any company has  
produced a magnesium alloy which has any saving grace other than  
lightness they are keeping very quiet about it! I would not use  
magnesium for any part of a camera. Polycarbonate is, particularly if  
fibre reinforced, a very much superior material in terms of  
resilience toughness and weight for a camera shell but is - yes  
you've got it - plastic so very difficult to sell to non technical  
people who still see plastic as cheap.
I am not trying to run down the ZI or Leica and it does make lenses  
more difficult to deal with for traditional techs not used to dealing  
with high tech adhesives - disassembly needs carefully controlled  
heat etc.. I could go on.
I really do thing magnesium is a poor choice of material for a camera  
shell and would bet any money that it was the choice of the marketing  
department not the design engineers because they knew customers would  
prefer it.
Frank

On 13 Jan, 2006, at 16:23, Bill Marshall 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