I was going to let this one go, but after reading some of the comments on RangefinderForum.com, I thought I'd let loose with several comments.

No. 1: The country of origin. It shouldn't make a difference, as long as effective quality control is in place. Would I like it if the Zeiss Ikon was made in Germany? Of course. Does it bother me that it's made in Japan by Cosina? Of course not.

The economic reality is that Carl Zeiss AG doesn't have the tooling, the skilled labor or the equipment to make cameras. It did after Zeiss Ikon was shut down, but that was more than 30 years ago. Cosina has the experience as a contract supplier and more recently a maker of rangefinder cameras.

Carl Zeiss isn't a camera maker. Yes, it could buy or build a camera factory, train 50 to 100 workers, buy the machinery and then begin making cameras. And then imagine the price tag of that camera. Certainly more than $1,400 it's asking today. So far, I have found that the quality of construction and attention to detail has been impeccable – exactly what I would expect and demand from a Carl Zeiss product.

No. 2:  A number of comments about the camera ran along this line: Possible buyers would wait until a second batch so that Carl Zeiss could iron out any problems with the camera.

The folly in this thinking is that it's approached from the computer point of view, which is that it's a flawed product from the start. This thinking has become the norm in computers, including digital photography. Release it first and fix it later. It's lowered our expectations. We don't expect any computer-related product to get it right the first time whether it be Microsoft Windows, a Web browser or a digital camera. A firmware or Service Pack will fix everything – unless it breaks something else or at until the next Service Pack or firmware is released.

Isn't it possible that some companies will actually try to get it right the first time? In an e-mail conversation I had with Dr. Hubert Nasse of Carl Zeiss, he answered my question about the decision not to use foam. As you know, camera makers have sealed camera backs and SLR prisms (yes, it's up there too) with foam for roughly 30 years. With most cameras older than 15 years, it's by now a sloppy, goopy mess.

Dr. Nasse's reply was that Zeiss and Cosina decided to use a labyrinth design so that they wouldn't have to use foam, which could deteriorate more quickly in certain environments. That means two camera makers looked further down the road than 18 months (current shelf life of digital, although I think it's actually six months in the point-and-shoot market). Amazing – a company with vision.

No. 3: "It's not as heavy as a Leica." Weight = quality.

If this were true, we'd still be driving the Edsel. Weight does not have a direct correlation to quality. An Argus C-3 has considerable weight. Same goes for the Kodak 35 rangefinder. They're good cameras, and you can get very good photos, but you can't place them in the same category as the Zeiss Ikon. Some parts on the Argus can be removed with a monkey wrench!

I've always maintained that there are three primary components to quality: 1) design, 2) choice of materials and 3) workmanship. And the final product is only as good as the weakest component.

If you want an example, look no further than the Kiev and the prewar Contax II. Both used the same design, the same equipment and roughly the same materials, at least initially.

How many times have I read that quality of the Kiev is variable, and the oldest cameras tend to be the most reliable (when the Germans were still overseeing production)? How many times have I read about someone who bought a Kiev, and it didn't work and they had to send it back and get another, often two or three times? Or the lens was not properly assembled? Or the lubricant that was used was closer to automotive grease? Once repaired (workmanship), both cameras operate nearly identical. The weak link in this case is workmanship.

With the Agfa Isolettes and Solinettes, we know the weak link was the choice of materials: lubricant and bellows. The Voigtlander medium format folders? Design of the lens standard and use of pliable metals in the lens standard. And we know now that the weak link for the Contax II is the choice of material for the shutter straps.

By the way, my wife's late father owned an Edsel and drove it for something like 200,000 miles. The comment at the time about the Edsel: "Looks like an Oldsmobile sucking on a lemon."

Reviewing the new Zeiss Ikon: It wins on all three counts of strong design (particularly the rangefinder system), good choice of materials (magnesium and aluminum) and excellent workmanship. Rather than making a blanket call about this camera based on what it weighs or how the film advance lever feels or sounds or where it was made, one must actually use the camera to appreciate it.

Carl Zeiss, Cosina and the Zeiss Ikon

Getting back to Cosina, the first camera, the Voigtlander Bessa-L is a good camera. Although it uses a lot of plastic, I haven't heard of anyone's camera actually falling apart. The Bessa-R added rangefinder focusing, and the Bessa-R2 moved to the Leica M mount. The Bessa-R2A/R3A features an electronic shutter, all-metal body and 1.0x viewfinder (R3A). The cameras have improved with their choice of material with each version.

However, the missing component with the Bessas has been quality control, specifically rangefinder calibration, which seems to be quite variable judging from the number of comments made on Internet discussion groups. I should mention that my own Bessas (an R and the Rollei 35 RF/R2) did not suffer from this problem. And I should note that rangefinder calibration could be a design issue or choice of materials, rather than one of quality control. Or a combination of the three. I haven't disassembled the camera, so I shouldn't comment on which it is.

Cosina's Voigtlander Bessa line of cameras are quite good, but they can't touch the Zeiss Ikon in terms of precision, build and materials. I don't mean that as a knock against Cosina. It's more indicative of the high expectations from Zeiss, which have been met with an effective quality control program. Only time will tell if the camera proves to be durable over the long haul. But I'm very impressed with how tight it feels.

Perhaps Cosina's own cameras will benefit from the experience in building the Zeiss Ikon by raising its own expectations of quality.

Next week

I'll be taking the Zeiss Ikon on a hunting trip to the extreme southwest corner of Pennsylvania next week. I'll be shooting mostly print film, and I'll probably bring two other cameras. I'll report back later in the week.