# Zeiss Ikon Colora



## Compaq (Dec 7, 2011)

I'm considering picking this up, just for fun. It's said it works and is in nice shape. Taking pictures with film is much more fun when snapping away at happenings and stuff. For less serious snapshots.

What would you give for this model if it was mint condition? This probably isn't, how much would you offer?  As I have no idea what-so-ever 
It supposedly comes with a 50mm/2.8


----------



## Buckster (Dec 7, 2011)

Per completed listings on eBay: $12 bucks.


----------



## compur (Dec 7, 2011)

Per un-completed listing on eBay: $49 + s/h :mrgreen:


----------



## Buckster (Dec 7, 2011)

compur said:


> Per un-completed listing on eBay: $49 + s/h :mrgreen:


Actually, I saw a bunch of them going all the way up to about $300.  For some reason though, none actually sold for higher than $12 bucks though...


----------



## compur (Dec 7, 2011)

It's funny, you know.  I go to a lot of yard sales and the sellers sometimes place an eBay printout next to an item showing some outrageously high price for it and the yard sellers are asking a price that is in the same range. They seem quite certain that that is the "value" of the item because they "looked it up on eBay."  And, it's pointless to explain the realities of the situation with them because they'll think you're trying to "rip them off."


----------



## Compaq (Dec 7, 2011)

So, probably not worth too much. Has anyone ever used one of these models? It doesn't look like you can switch lenses, but that's not really a necessity. 50mm on 35mm format might be a little narrow, but I'm not sure how often I'll use it if I buy it. Film isn't that expensive today, and I don't need any expensive film.


----------



## raphaelaaron (Dec 7, 2011)

i have one very similar to that. you have to remember a lot has come in the field of technology for photography. the lenses and build models used in this era are nothing compared to the quality of the builds of today. you'll get okay images, that would end up sub-par ones if placed in digital format. even for a name like zeiss.

if you want to mimic some good old vintage film looks, invest in a nikon, olympus or pentax slr. the glass on those has (in my opinion) stood the test of time.


----------



## compur (Dec 7, 2011)

raphaelaaron said:


> ... the lenses and build models used in this era are nothing compared to the quality of the builds of today.



 :lmao:


----------



## raphaelaaron (Dec 7, 2011)

compur said:


> raphaelaaron said:
> 
> 
> > ... the lenses and build models used in this era are nothing compared to the quality of the builds of today.
> ...



do you have an objection?


----------



## Proteus617 (Dec 8, 2011)

Compaq-That camera dates from an era when some of the German makers  (Zeiss, Voigtlander) started to hit the skids and the Japanese were  preparing to eat their lunch.  There is much better stuff out there.  That plastic shutter button on the front is a sad sight from a great maker who produced beautiful cameras less than 10 years previously.



raphaelaaron said:


> compur said:
> 
> 
> > raphaelaaron said:
> ...



I would register an objection, but I'm laughing so hard I spit my morning coffee all over my monitor.  Let me clean this up first.


----------



## Compaq (Dec 8, 2011)

Hmmm. It's just - it's affordable  

Any suggestions for other cameras that I could get inexpensively? Budget? Not sure. Let's say max around $200 +- some


----------



## Proteus617 (Dec 8, 2011)

SLR?  Rangefinder?  TLR?  Folder?  Need a meter?  I could give you 50 recommendations in the $50 and under range.  For $200 what you can't afford is a short list.


----------



## raphaelaaron (Dec 8, 2011)

Proteus617 said:


> Compaq-That camera dates from an era when some of the German makers  (Zeiss, Voigtlander) started to hit the skids and the Japanese were  preparing to eat their lunch.  There is much better stuff out there.  That plastic shutter button on the front is a sad sight from a great maker who produced beautiful cameras less than 10 years previously.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i am beginning to think i was misunderstood. when it comes to lenses built in previous eras, i meant the technology behind the lenses themselves are very much behind. i must have put 'build quality' in there in my absent mindedness. it is finals week at my school and came back from a 12 hour study day. ;p


----------



## Fred Berg (Dec 8, 2011)

It looks very similar to my Voigtländer Vitoret, and probably has a prontor 125 lens set up (though I can't tell from this photo). The comment above about the lack of image quality you can expect from a camera like this comes, I can only assume, from a lack of experience. The fact is that my Vitoret (Lanthar 50mm, 2.8 to 22 with prontor 125) produces crisp and clear photos in both colour and B&W and by using the hyperfocal method of focusing the results are amazing. You might want to invest in rangefinder and a light meter (if you don't already own these) if your guessology isn't so good, otherwise just invest a little time in learning how to get the most out of it.


----------



## Proteus617 (Dec 8, 2011)

RA-I think we are on the same page here.  Great advances have been made in lens design since the 60s, but some classics will still stand up to any modern glass and beat the pants off of most of it.


----------



## Compaq (Dec 8, 2011)

Thanks for all the help... Using the camera shouldn't be a problem, I've used an Olympus OM-10 on several occasions. That's a neat camera!

Anyway, I don't know much about old film cameras. Basically, I'd like a sort of small one. A fast 35mm or something. That's a fine all-round use for street, indoors, holiday snaps of people and stuff etc. 

A rangefinder camera would certainly be nice, but I'd like fast (slightly) wide angle on it, around 35mm.


----------



## Proteus617 (Dec 8, 2011)

Olympus XA or XA2?


----------



## Compaq (Dec 8, 2011)

Aren't there any out there that look nice? That one's butt ugly 

Olympus 35 RC looks very nice, at least. I want the classic camera look.


----------

