I'm definitely not a collector and prefer to use my gear to its limits.
I've been considering one of these for a few years, but all of a sudden they stopped production and they went out of stock. Now I've come across a new Zeiss Ikon ZM at a local camera dealer's and the fingers are obviously itching. Not only because I'd like to have and use the camera, but also because it may be a great deal considering their scarceness, now, and even more so, in the future.
Will stuff like this ever increase in value within a reasonable time?
Tons of cameras have been discontinued and never increased in value, unless it was a limited run of something actually desireable, like a black leica that normally only came in chrome. The Ikon was basically a glorified bessa, nothing terribly special about it except maybe the gigantic VF. Get one for shooting, but expect to take a hit financially.
I liked mine, for a rangefinder
Got it in a special bundle at B&H with a biogon 35/2. It was meant to be a bargain, but I still lost money when I sold it 6 months later
If you want a 35mm rangefinder get an M6 or M7 - there are plenty around and prices are reasonable (by current inflated Leica standards). I had an M6, an MP and an M8. Both the film cameras were great but not that different to justify the gap in the prices people ask now - better to get a good M6 if you want to shoot film or an M8 if you prefer digital. My experience with an M8 was much better than its reputation might imply.
One thing I don't like about the Ikon is it being a battery-operated unit. I'd rather get a fully mechanical rangefinder like an M6, MP or even a Bessa R2M or R3M than the Ikon. I'll have to admit, it is a very beautiful machine though, my local store also has one silver unit, but I am watching the (local) used market for an M3.
I do have an M2 and an M3 that I use regularly, with a voigt external meter. It was mainly the larger VF, the built in exposure metering and the frame-lines that intrigued me. Also I have the hots for Zeiss
I do however agree that the fully mechanical cameras are the way to go. That is the biggest draw-back with the Ikon imo.
The best thing about the Ikon is the viewfinder, light years ahead from the dim and narrow viewfinder of the M6. The rest is all Cosina. The RF mechanism can go in and out of alignment every now and then. The body doesn't feel sturdy and knobs will eventually fall out. I had the M6 and two Ikon bodies. I really preferred the Ikon due to the viewfinder, but was always worried that it would fall apart in my hands
edwardkaraa wrote:
The best thing about the Ikon is the viewfinder, light years ahead from the dim and narrow viewfinder of the M6. The rest is all Cosina. The RF mechanism can go in and out of alignment every now and then. The body doesn't feel sturdy and knobs will eventually fall out. I had the M6 and two Ikon bodies. I really preferred the Ikon due to the viewfinder, but was always worried that it would fall apart in my hands
I'm surprised and disappointing to hear this. Sure it's not a Leica (however, judging by the M240 forums, this is nowdays a good thing), but it still is (was) a fairly expensive camera. Actually, for being a rather simple film camera, it's really expensive.
I don't give much to the cosina argument, neither in this case or or when it pertains to the ZF/ZE line. Specifications and QC is what matters nowdays, not where the machine stood that manufactured it.
Anyway, thanks for putting me competently off it, saved me a bundle
I have to say that both my Ikons worked perfectly. I never had falling knobs, but I could see the leatherette being too thin and soft that I could wear it out in a couple of months of use if I didn't put on the half case. However the RF problems are real. Both my cameras could go out of calibration for a couple of days, and then magically back into calibration without reason. There are plenty of reports of knobs falling down because the screws have loosened, but if you can recover all the parts, this is a DIY thing. When I say Cosina, I mean that the camera was designed from the inside out by Cosina, using Cosina manufacturing standards, using many parts from the Bessa. The only Zeiss contribution is the VF. It is not the same thing as with lenses.
signed by Hans. which is short for Hideyoshi
No, bad joke, it starts with a "Y"...
zeiss obviously has the responsibility for the final product, but it's all Cosina. Not necessarily a bad thing in my book, but I didnt keep it long enough to have an opinion on durability.
Several months ago, I caught the RF & film bug and checked out the Bessa vs Ikon vs M6 (B&H had everything there). Loved the fabulous VF on the Ikon but compared against an M6 for tactile sense, solidity and residual value, there was no contest. In the end, I found a .85 M6 at Camera West, negotiated a fair price (a few hundred more than a standard .72) and bought it.
The Bessa, also with a nice VF/RF, felt like a toy (no offense to Bessa fans, I hear the metering is stellar).
Probably not the best move for an investment but the Zeiss Ikon's are a really nice camera. Sure, not as well built as an M6 but still pretty good. The VF on the Ikon is incredible though - a joy to use.
j.liam wrote:
The Bessa, also with a nice VF/RF, felt like a toy (no offense to Bessa fans, I hear the metering is stellar).
The Bessas are a great alternative if you want to explore RF shooting without investing a lot of cash, or you already know you love rangefinders but spent all of your money on lenses. They will also likely force you to learn how to calibrate your own RF.
Gary Clennan wroteSure, not as well built as an M6 but still pretty good.
"Good" built means different things to different people though. Leicas have a fair bit of weight in a rather small body that offers little grip, which can be an uncomfortable combination. Personally I was in for an unpleasant surprise, for the way I hold a 35mm camera (always in the hand, no neck strap) I found it very uncomfortable and unnecessarily over-engineered. I'm not sure what people do with their cameras exactly, mine spend 95% of their lives in padded bags and 5% in careful hands and do not need to be built like soviet tanks.
I found the Ikon more comfortable to hold and operate than my m6 because of the reduced weight.
edwardkaraa wrote:
...I never had falling knobs, but ...
Just wait Edward, no doubt that will come with other signs of aging ...
Back OT, doesn't the Ikon reportedly have a wider base distance for more accurate RF functionality than the Leicas? (and deviating OT a little, doesn't the unpopular M5 have a wider distance also?).
I have an M6 Classic, bought when I rationalised that I wasn't going to change my M8 for an M9. However , now I have that M6, a 2nd M8 to replace the 1st (sold to fund the faulty M9 that is due back shortly after 6 months of turnaround repair [but free due Leica generosity]). I am more likely to sell the M9 (never used by me yet in practice) and buy an A7R and keep the M8 as my digital RF / B&W / IR machine
I think of selling the M6 because I don't use it enough, but would no doubt end up spending 50% of the funds on a Bessa or something as a replacement, so I keep it and enjoy it.
So Rodluvan, I'm finally back OT - if you are still with me - buy that Zeiss Ikon in Stockholm and enjoy the experience!
If you can find a Zeiss Ikon at a good price, get it. All M6 / M7 / MP and Zeiss Ikon are fine picture taking machines. The Leicas feel nicer in the hand, the Zeiss feel better when taking pictures. The Ikon has the longest RF base length and a bigger viewfinder so it's rangefinder is better than the Leica. Its failing is the construction feel slightly less strong than the Leicas, and the fact that it's not a Leica . For the last 50 years, rangefinders are synonymous with Leica even though they are not the only manufacturer in the game.
signed by Hans. which is short for Hideyoshi
No, bad joke, it starts with a "Y"...
zeiss obviously has the responsibility for the final product, but it's all Cosina. Not necessarily a bad thing in my book, but I didnt keep it long enough to have an opinion on durability.
Dude I have the same crap signature on my brand new ZE 50mm planar 1.4
I am new to the Zeiss Ikon camera as I just managed to get a 2nd hand body only last week in Singapore. My 1st RF camera was the Contax G1 with 45mm anf 90mm lens but sold away as I had too many SLRs.
Caught the bug again recently and here I am with a Zeiss Ikon ZM body and a cheap TT 7Artisan 50mm F1.1 lens to play with before I slowly graduate to a better lens.
Rodluvan wrote:
I'm definitely not a collector and prefer to use my gear to its limits.
I've been considering one of these for a few years, but all of a sudden they stopped production and they went out of stock. Now I've come across a new Zeiss Ikon ZM at a local camera dealer's and the fingers are obviously itching. Not only because I'd like to have and use the camera, but also because it may be a great deal considering their scarceness, now, and even more so, in the future.
Will stuff like this ever increase in value within a reasonable time?
All rangefinder cameras have increased in price over the last couple of years - some like the M6 significantly due to a hype which set in for it. Even formerly quite cheap Voigtlander Bessa cameras are now more in demand and getting more expensive. At this point it all depends on the opportunity and what you have to pay for - if the deal for the Zeiss Ikon ZM is okay and the condition is good, go for it. I believe prices for it will also continue to climb steadily in upcoming years.
This thread is 7 years old retrofocus!
felix woke it from it's slumber...
I just returned a like new condition ZM Ikon after it failed. 2 rolls in.. (uneven film spacing and the shutter sporadically would not cock).
I was not disappointed to return it.... People who keep going on about how big the VF is conveniently fail to mention the rf patch (which you cannot see unless your eye is perfectly placed) does not move with the frame lines. As the frame lines move when you focus due to the parallax correction, the rf patch is only centered at about 5 ft.
Also you cannot see the frame lines and the exposure readout at the same time. And the exposure readout becomes invisible in bright daylight.
It's nutty to me that this cheaply made thing now costs the same as a Leica.
However 
, now I have that M6, a 2nd M8 to replace the 1st (sold to fund the faulty M9 that is due back shortly after 6 months of turnaround repair [but free due Leica generosity]). I am more likely to sell the M9 (never used by me yet in practice) and buy an A7R and keep the M8 as my digital RF / B&W / IR machine 
. For the last 50 years, rangefinders are synonymous with Leica even though they are not the only manufacturer in the game.
