I hear that the viewfinder in that Ikon is like paradise to see through!!
I am reminded of that old proverb:
"He who dies with the most toys wins!"
You're kidding, right?
I want a Zeiss Ikon.. Tell me why I shouldn't do it..
There IS no reason not to do it.
Nobody ever found themselves lying on their deathbed with one of those little cartoon thought bubbles above their heads saying, "Damn I'm glad I didn't waste any of my money on that camera I really, really wanted. Now I can have a nicer headstone. Good on me. I'm ready to go now..."
"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."
— Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932
As I get up in years, I have taken the time to observe the lives of those around me. The biggest lesson I have learned is this...
Now pay close attention, because it is important...
If you do not do something stupid with your money, your heirs will!
Originally Posted by ambaker
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
A new idea I came up with last night.. I have a Nikon F100 body. I've heard amazing things about the new Voigtlander 40/2 Ultron SL II. I'm wondering how this lens would compare to the Zeiss lenses. I've seen sharpness tests where it blows away Nikon's primes, including the 50/1.8. I know it's not a RF experience but I don't mind using the F100. It's a great camera. My only concern would be focusing in low light. RF are supreme for that. Manual focusing an SLR is a bit tricky in certain situations. Thoughts?
"blow away" in the sharpness department for shooting Air Force test charts vs getting a lens that is plenty sharp enough but has the character you want can be very different. Personally I've not been very happy with most Voigtlander lenses and bought then sold a few. Sharp enough in each case, just nothing special in the character I was looking for. Totally subjective but just saying.
If you only use Medium Format, I think 35mm will help you in having the camera with you in more circumstances, or in having with you a larger set of lenses with the same weight.
Small range-finders in particular, such as a Leica M but also a Minolta CLE, or a Contax G1/G2 as suggested, can enter within a small bag with an entire set of lenses, let's say 21, 28, 50, 90 or 24, 35, 90 for instance. The weight and volume is going to be very small.
I would personally prefer to buy two cheaper bodies (such as Leica CL, Minolta CLE, a second-hand Zeiss-Ikon etc.) instead of just one. That would drastically reduce the number of lens-changing operations (which are always a nuisance) or allow to go round with two different kinds of films.
The advantage of the small format is that it is small. The technical quality of the picture depends much more on the lens than on the camera. Expensive cameras are OK if you have "excess money" to spend in photography. Otherwise I would concentrate the expense on the lenses, going for less expensive but quality-wise perfectly functional alternatives.
If you do not do it this year, you will be a year older when you do!
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
If you decide to go with the Zeiss Ikon kit, send me an email.
I'm a sponsor here at APUG and have a mailorder store called rangefinderstore.com
I have the Zeiss Ikon body in stock and most of the lenses.
I also use one myself along with a M6 and CL.