Desmolicious wrote:
The capaciousness of it were overwhelmed by the fade out RF patch, the exposure read out that became invisible in daylight, not being able to see the frame lines and the exposure read outs at the same time - or the rf patch and the exposure readouts, and the rf patch that did not move with the frame lines.
These things may not bother some, which is fine as we all like different things.
But they bothered me, umm, 'somewhat'...
The faults in the that you catalogued in your posts earlier in this thread obliterated any interest that I might have had in the Zeiss Ikon ZM or its SW sibling. The revelation that it shares parts and is of similar construction to Cosina’s RF cameras reminded me of the time I briefly considered getting an R3M to use with a Nokton 40/1.4. Handling it for a few minutes was enough to convince me that it was rubbish compared to a Leica M.
It’s not a perfect product. Perhaps you can tell me, but most the rangefinders (limited) I’ve used struggle in the same context. The Mamiya 7 offered lower clarity, did not feel is large and was often hard to see the read out as well. The M6 I handled briefly had a much smaller viewfinder and I would expect have a similar difficulty in extremely bright situations or if the light hit the right angle of the optical viewfinder.
I’ve never used a photography product they didn’t have some faults. The Ikon included. I favored a Sony a900 over the Nikon D700 and 5DMark2 back in the day for that same viewfinder trade off despite how many flaws that camera had. Still one of the best cameras I’ve ever used.
edit: I am confused, and may be responding to the wrong thing/misunderstanding, so if this doesn’t make sense please ignore!
Nehemiah, I agree it's not a perfect world.
Leica cheapened the RF in its cameras after the early production run of the M4-2, through the M4-P, through the M6, M6ttl and into the pre 300XXX M7s. They removed a condenser - cuz cheaper that way - which caused RF flare in certain (and often) light angles. It was very real and I found it much worse than the fading patch on the Zeiss, because at least with the Zeiss it was just due to eye positioning.
Leica updated the rf by adding back the condenser in the MP, and made a running change in the M7 at that point.
M6ttl/M6 can have that retrofitted as well as earlier M7s.
While I think the idea of a huge viewfinder seems good on paper, in practice as has been shown with the Zeiss, it has resulted in a whole bunch of downsides. I much prefer the slightly smaller VF in the M7, where the trade off is your eye always perfectly centered, the patch is always visible, the frame lines are always visible, the exposure readout is always visible, and the rf patch moves with the frame lines so it is always centered.
I bought the Zeiss because I heard so much good about it, but it was kinda shocking to me that there was a failure to mention a bunch of these faults. I would have kept it if it didn't have them (and if it didn't fail).
Desmolicious wrote:
Nehemiah, I agree it's not a perfect world.
Leica cheapened the RF in its cameras after the early production run of the M4-2, through the M4-P, through the M6, M6ttl and into the pre 300XXX M7s. They removed a condenser - cuz cheaper that way - which caused RF flare in certain (and often) light angles. It was very real and I found it much worse than the fading patch on the Zeiss, because at least with the Zeiss it was just due to eye positioning.
Leica updated the rf by adding back the condenser in the MP, and made a running change in the M7 at that point.
M6ttl/M6 can have that retrofitted as well as earlier M7s.
While I think the idea of a huge viewfinder seems good on paper, in practice as has been shown with the Zeiss, it has resulted in a whole bunch of downsides. I much prefer the slightly smaller VF in the M7, where the trade off is your eye always perfectly centered, the patch is always visible, the frame lines are always visible, the exposure readout is always visible, and the rf patch moves with the frame lines so it is always centered.
I bought the Zeiss because I heard so much good about it, but it was kinda shocking to me that there was a failure to mention a bunch of these faults. I would have kept it if it didn't have them (and if it didn't fail)....Show more →
This makes sense. Honestly, I researche, I tried an M6 and M7 in person briefly, and then deiced on an Ikon. I have shot my Mamiya and m240 and noticed similar issues to my Ikon--when it gets really bright, the whole OVF gets compromised for me--focusing too. I don't know the RF/film niche near as well as many here, including you, and won't pretend to. I have become use to my Ikon, and can work around the issues when the pop up, but interesting to hear the m7 has overcome this. I highly recommended the Ikon, and have had zero mechanical issue with it, but perhaps my opinion isn't too educated
Desmolicious wrote:
Nehemiah, I agree it's not a perfect world.
Leica cheapened the RF in its cameras after the early production run of the M4-2, through the M4-P, through the M6, M6ttl and into the pre 300XXX M7s. They removed a condenser - cuz cheaper that way - which caused RF flare in certain (and often) light angles. It was very real and I found it much worse than the fading patch on the Zeiss, because at least with the Zeiss it was just due to eye positioning.
Leica updated the rf by adding back the condenser in the MP, and made a running change in the M7 at that point.
M6ttl/M6 can have that retrofitted as well as earlier M7s.
While I think the idea of a huge viewfinder seems good on paper, in practice as has been shown with the Zeiss, it has resulted in a whole bunch of downsides. I much prefer the slightly smaller VF in the M7, where the trade off is your eye always perfectly centered, the patch is always visible, the frame lines are always visible, the exposure readout is always visible, and the rf patch moves with the frame lines so it is always centered.
I bought the Zeiss because I heard so much good about it, but it was kinda shocking to me that there was a failure to mention a bunch of these faults. I would have kept it if it didn't have them (and if it didn't fail)....Show more →
+1. Leica should have done a M6-version recall when the missing condenser issue became obvious similar to what they had to do with the M9 and the sensor corrosion. I have the M6, and I find it the only main culprit of this camera - the rangefinder patch flare. It can be annoying at times. To exchange the rangefinder, cost was already $250 a couple years ago. This was 1/4th of the price I got my M6 for, so I bailed out of this one. Now I am using a simple piece of polarized foil which I taped carefully around the frame line window - it darkens a bit the frame lines in the viewfinder, but it avoids the flare significantly. Cost: $0
My newer M7 suffers only very rarely from this patch flare (without the polarized foil patch).
I decided upon the M4 as my film Leica precisely because of this missing condenser issue. Yesterday I returned two otherwise immaculate Canon 7S bodies to their sellers because both had a shapeless blob masquerading as a rangefinder patch. The only camera I’ve found that has a rangefinder patch which comes close to the quality of the M5 & earlier or M7 and later Leicas is the Hexar RF.
retrofocus wrote:
+1. Leica should have done a M6-version recall when the missing condenser issue became obvious similar to what they had to do with the M9 and the sensor corrosion. I have the M6, and I find it the only main culprit of this camera - the rangefinder patch flare. It can be annoying at times. To exchange the rangefinder, cost was already $250 a couple years ago. This was 1/4th of the price I got my M6 for, so I bailed out of this one. Now I am using a simple piece of polarized foil which I taped carefully around the frame line window - it darkens a bit the frame lines in the viewfinder, but it avoids the flare significantly. Cost: $0
My newer M7 suffers only very rarely from this patch flare (without the polarized foil patch). ...Show more →
More than $0, but Jadon at Red Dot Repair will do the condenser mod for $150.
