Zorki 4 and other rangefinders

Ben johns

Ben johns

Messages
957
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
Been looking to expand from a canon at1 to a rangefinder for a while but never been sure which to look into. Ideally I’d like an Olympus 35sp for the spot meter but the Zorki 4/4K look really cool and are pretty cheap. What are they like to use and how reliable are they? I’d rather have the 4K as I like the advance arm
 
I have an Olympus 35 RC and a Zorki 4K. Both have faded rangefinder patch's, probably not too much difference between the two really.

The Zorki is pretty solid (but feels flimsier than a Fed 2 and the Zorki 3M). The knob wind of earlier models isn't much of a hindrance and you soon get used to it. Mine needed slight adjustment to the rangefinder to align it correctly but it's an easy fix. It hadn't been used for years by the previous owner but the test roll I shot came back well exposed so I'm happy to trust the shutter speeds.

The Oly feels nicer to use, smoother film advance and the added bonus of a built in light meter. The lens is lovely and sharp. The Olympus will need to have its light seals replaced though which for the RC is a bit of a pain in the behind.

The Zorki (or others) have the added benefit of interchangeable lenses and the Jupiter 12 wide angle and Jupiter 9 telephoto are capable of good results. Despite the dimmer viewfinder I prefer my early model Fed 2b. The darker viewfinder means the rangefinder patch is easier to see (better contrast) and it is a little lighter and smoother to use.
 
Yea, to use imagined the Olympus’s would be better but the Zorki looks so cool! Plus the Olympus goes for quite a bit more
 
I’ll be keeping a keen eye on this thread, I had some similar musings a couple of weeks ago. My better half has been asking me what I would like for Christmas too :naughty:

The other camera that appeared on my radar was the Yashica Electro 35 GSN/GTN :thinking:
 
Yea I’ve been looking at those too. I just can’t get the design of the zorki out of my head! I really like the way the old leicas look.
Is it true that the zorki doesn’t have frame lines? So it’s kind of like looking through an slr but with rangefinder focusing? Obviously you don’t see through the lens but viewfinder is what the photo will look like
 
I am planning to sell mine as I just don't use it much. It is obviously not as good as say an M2 or M3, a bit 'rough and ready' in comparison but it is fun to use and great value. Don't recall mine having framelines but dead easy to use.
 
The Zorki has no framelines. It is just a viewfinder with light rangefinder patch in the middle. It's fun to use in good light but I wouldn't fancy using it anywhere too dark. You have to remember to wind it on before changing the shutter speed and not to turn the shutter dial between either bulb and 1/30 or 1/30 and 1/1000 (check instructions to be safe).
 
cambsno said:
I am planning to sell mine as I just don't use it much. It is obviously not as good as say an M2 or M3, a bit 'rough and ready' in comparison but it is fun to use and great value. Don't recall mine having framelines but dead easy to use.
Click to expand...
Yea that’s what I thought. I’ve always wanted a rangefinder since getting my canon slr but the price of decent fully manual ones are beyond what I want to pay since I’ve never tried one before. So price plus looks is why I’ve been looking at the zorki
I have an Olympus trip 35 but that’s not really the same lol
 
With no framelines, I'd guess not a big deal, since you're guessing anyway... lack of framelines does seem like a big deal in an interchangeable lens rangefinder!
 
Ben johns said:
IS the lack in f parallax correction a big deal?
Click to expand...
If you are doing close-ups it matters a great deal. For landscapes, it does not matter at all. For portraits, learn to keep the subject slightly to one corner.
 
I used my Fed 2 with 52mm Industar lens and the Jupiter 12 35mm lens without any issues for a good few years. I had the basic plastic accessory viewfinder for the 35mm. If I thought about it I would try aiming the camera to compensate for parallax at close focus distances but didn't always remember to. You can always frame slightly loose to give yourself some leeway and then crop afterwards when processing. I have the turret viewfinder now which has manual parallax adjustment on it.
 
ChrisR said:
With no framelines, I'd guess not a big deal, since you're guessing anyway... lack of framelines does seem like a big deal in an interchangeable lens rangefinder!
Click to expand...
I believe it’s already set for 50mm, which is all Id really use anyway
 
It's never been an issue for me with my Zorki, or my Leica IIIf, which is also a 50mm FoV finder with no frame lines.

The only camera I'm aware of that has proper parallax compensation is Leica M. In those, the whole frame line rectangle moves to the bottom right as you focus closer. Everything else, at best, has additional marks to show you how much the shift is for closest focus, but you still have to estimate for anything in between. You can estimate the shift and slightly move the camera just before you take the shot, but if you're framing tightly, there's still the risk of cutting something off. The easiest way to deal with it is to frame a little wider to compensate, and crop later. For any viewfinder camera, framing isn't an exact science, and for most, there's a bit of guesstimation involved.
 
I
Nomad Z said:
It's never been an issue for me with my Zorki, or my Leica IIIf, which is also a 50mm FoV finder with no frame lines.

The only camera I'm aware of that has proper parallax compensation is Leica M. In those, the whole frame line rectangle moves to the bottom right as you focus closer. Everything else, at best, has additional marks to show you how much the shift is for closest focus, but you still have to estimate for anything in between. You can estimate the shift and slightly move the camera just before you take the shot, but if you're framing tightly, there's still the risk of cutting something off. The easiest way to deal with it is to frame a little wider to compensate, and crop later. For any viewfinder camera, framing isn't an exact science, and for most, there's a bit of guesstimation involved.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends how cheaply I can find one for really, if it get towards £50 I’d rather get something better, around £25 and a zorki would be fine
 
Nomad Z said:
The only camera I'm aware of that has proper parallax compensation is Leica M. In those, the whole frame line rectangle moves to the bottom right as you focus closer. Everything else, at best, has additional marks to show you how much the shift is for closest focus, but you still have to estimate for anything in between. You can estimate the shift and slightly move the camera just before you take the shot, but if you're framing tightly, there's still the risk of cutting something off. The easiest way to deal with it is to frame a little wider to compensate, and crop later. For any viewfinder camera, framing isn't an exact science, and for most, there's a bit of guesstimation involved.
Click to expand...

I've used 3 rangefinders, the Canonet QL17, the Leitz Minolta CL, and the Bessa R3A and all have automatic parallax compensation, with moving framelines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top