Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Was RE: [Leica] DSLR choice - now Zeiss-Ikon
From: alal at duke.poly.edu (A. Lal)
Date: Fri Jan 13 14:31:08 2006
References: <BAY101-F14416E1B6D30F9C8154BB5AB260@phx.gbl> <AC0BABB2-C11F-4F7D-B445-BA62AD9A017C@btinternet.com>

FWIW, the new Leica R  28-90 zoom  is claimed to have an Mg barrel. Others 
might too, not sure.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Dernie" <Frank.Dernie@btinternet.com>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Was RE: [Leica] DSLR choice - now Zeiss-Ikon


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 
> 12/01/2006
>
> 


In reply to: Message from billgem at hotmail.com (Bill Marshall) (Was RE: [Leica] DSLR choice - now Zeiss-Ikon)
Message from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) (Was RE: [Leica] DSLR choice - now Zeiss-Ikon)