zorki 4k vs leica m4

nzeeman said:
. . . in a world of lenses leica price include big part of snobbery.
Click to expand...

Or maybe a big part of limited production, hand finishing, state-of-the-art design, mechanical durability...

Sure, snobbery plays a part. But on its own, it ain't enough to explain (a) why their lenses are so well regarded and (b) how they stay in business.

Cheers,

R.
 
interesting comparison. Are you sure the Zorki 4K has a 40mm baselength? I once got a reply of 20mm 4K.

Here are a couple of more plus and minuses:

plus for Zorki - reliable rewind

minus for Zorki - need to advance film lever before setting shutter speed

I may have a hazy example of the I-61 panda, but I prefer the J8, and collapsible I-50 and I-22s to the I-61, unless you're really wanting that Leica glow...
 
Roger Hicks said:
Or maybe a big part of limited production, hand finishing, state-of-the-art design, mechanical durability...
Click to expand...

that is also true, but most important part for lens is optical part, and i am sure they are behind zeiss in that... but when i think about it i dont have right to talk about that, i dont own any of those and i dont think i will have enough money soon, to check differences between leica and zeiss.
and also this was theme about zorki vs leica but i started to talk about other things - sorry...
 
Last edited:
Sure was funny on a test of 50mm lenses from a couple of years back (not the current 50/1.5 test now) It shocked alot of people that the J3 did so well and out performed alot of the Leica lenses. Especially on Bokah test. If you can get your hands on a well colimated J-3 then you have a good lens.
 
ampguy said:
Are you sure the Zorki 4K has a 40mm baselength? I once got a reply of 20mm 4K.

I may have a hazy example of the I-61 panda, but I prefer the J8, and collapsible I-50 and I-22s to the I-61, unless you're really wanting that Leica glow...
Click to expand...

i measured it - it is 40mm.
industar 61 is interesting lens sharp, high contrast. when i look back on my photos i realize that many of those i like are made with panda. as for leica glow - i dont even know what it is. 😕
 
interesting

interesting

So Zorkis have longer baselengths than CLs, CLEs, and Bessas?

nzeeman said:
i measured it - it is 40mm.
industar 61 is interesting lens sharp, high contrast. when i look back on my photos i realize that many of those i like are made with panda. as for leica glow - i dont even know what it is. 😕
Click to expand...
 
Sure it does. The VF of Zorki doesn't even cover 50mm though.

Such bullet-point comparision is farily pointless though. By counting the points it might seem the cameras about on par, while in reality, if you handle the two you'll know at an instant which one is better.
 
I recently purchased a ZORKI 4K "october 50th anniversary" with a humidor and some havana cigars... for less than 10000€, and the cigars where perfect...

Have you ever seen a leica with a red flag engraving... tsssss

Leica fans can be somewhat stupid... sometimes, when I was a young collector I went to the Leica dealer in Brussels (who sells some nice second hand pieces, but more like museum than users) with a prewar red T sonnar (more than rare) for contax... as he read CarlZeiss Jena... he answered in disgust... "eastern production..."

It's only since it's said that HCB was using Zeiss lenses in the fortiess and fifties that those snob collectors turn to Zeiss and wartime zeiss ltm lenses ... By the way, there are photographical evidence that HCB was using Contax mount Zeiss lenses (probably a biogon) with an adapter on a leica III... and not (or not only) zeiss in LTM lenses. (it just happens that I have a nice period Biogon contax mount to sell... if you have an adapter ;-)
 
Roger Hicks said:
I have emphasized what I believe to be the key words.

Are there many who REALLY believe that the premium paid for a Leica is pure snob value? Or maybe you can put a price on reliability, consistency, quality control, smoothness, ergonomics, design evolution, extra features...

(All right, I've owned more Leicas than Zorkiis, but I must have had at least four or five Zorkiis over the years, and I have no difficulty in answering the question.)

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Leicas (that have been CLA`d) are reliable,consistant, have quality control , smoothness. ergs, etc but not actually noticeably more so than my serviced Kievs and Zorkis. Quality control is questionable though since my FSU`s are 40-50 yrs old I can`t be sure what happened in that dept so long ago any more than is known with QC and the Leica Barnacks.
Design evolution and extra features also might be questionable too. Leica Barnacks were nothing special IMO but rudimentary cameras of the era.
My Z-3 (1954) has a much better VF and diopter adjustment than my Leica lllc and an open back for easy reloading.
 
Pitxu said:
"The best camera in the world is the one that slips nicely into your pocket/bag as yo go out the door"

Pitxu
Click to expand...

I have read this quote several times on this forum and, quite frankly, it is nonsense. If you are going out of the door to a Formula 1 Grand Prix or to take photo's of local architecture or to a game reserve (Oh look! A lion, there on the horizon, quick dear, pass me my Olympus Trip out of your bag), or any one of another 1000 situations, then a camera 'that slips nicely into your pocket/bag' is about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.
The best camera in the world is the one best suited to the photographic purpose at hand, whether it be cheap or expensive, simple or sophisticated.
 
varjag said:
Sure it does. The VF of Zorki doesn't even cover 50mm though.

Such bullet-point comparision is farily pointless though. By counting the points it might seem the cameras about on par, while in reality, if you handle the two you'll know at an instant which one is better.
Click to expand...

VF of zorki has only one problem - it doesnt have 35mm FOV. in all other things it is great. it is easier to focus than on other cameras i handled because it is 1:1 and you clearly see focus even in very low light...

you are right about this type comparison and i also said that few posts before but i didnt claim they are on par. i just wrote down their specifications, and people will choose which one is better for them... someone maybe finds easy reloading of zorki important (for example i dont care for that , i like bottom loading) other will think that rewind crank is important... i dont try to make zorki vs leica fight - i just try to help people who want to buy a camera.
 
SimonK said:
I have read this quote several times on this forum and, quite frankly, it is nonsense. The best camera in the world is the one best suited to the photographic purpose at hand, whether it be cheap or expensive, simple or sophisticated.
Click to expand...

That is of course partially true but only if it is with you and with the appropriate lens attached. Isn`t that really what the quote means?
Not exactly nonsense in my view. Lets not get silly over semantics.
 
Nice comparison review. I like it. You can buy a LOT of Zorkis for the price of an M4. However, ahem, there is a little difference in build quality and userability. I think of Zorkis as fixer upper cameras. You have to be willing to dig in there and straighten things out from all the other people who have already been in there. The ones I have used do seem to be pretty crude to operate, but maybe if I got a good one it would feel better.

The Leica M4 is a little easier to use and the controls, being smoother due to better machining, are a plus. But in the end the Zorki is capable of taking pics as good as the Leica, or almost as good, depending on which lenses are used .

Myself, I really like the concept of the Zorkis and Feds, and I think they are attractive cameras. In fact, I am waiting on a CLA'd Fed 1 that Oleg is shipping to me. It has a Fed 1 top on a later Fed body, so it will have strap eyelets to put a strap on. Comes w/ an Industar 50 lens, and w/ shipping it came to $82. Hard to beat!
 
nzeeman said:
i would love to see photos comparing modern Elmar 2.8/50mm and industar 61... i dont think differences are too high. if someone have both please show us.
Click to expand...

I have both lenses. I will try to shoot a couple of test rolls in the next week or two ... we'll see who can spot the difference! I suspect it will be close.

Comparing the two physically, the Elmar (a late 50's or early 60's LTM) is much more solid. It oozes quality. Click-stops are buttery-smooth; focusing is like velvet. You can really feel the craftsmanship/quality. It also has a ridiculous number of aperture blades, 15 or so. It's heavier.

The Industar (a Panda) has some plastic elements and generally feels lighter and looser. Click stops aren't bad, but not in the same league as the Elmar. Only 6 (IIRC) aperture blades. I also have a late-production 61LD. It is noticeably looser (relaxed tolerances?) than the Panda, and even after a CLA the click-stops aren't as nice.

So, for build quality, feel, and operator experience, the Leica is the hands-down winner. Of course it is the images that matter most. Once I get some reasonably objective shots, I'll post.
 
Your M4 is the very proof that Leica Ms are better cameras. If the 4K had shown the same use it probably wouldn't have been there in one package 🙂
 
I have 3 50s that I'd like to test, and am wondering what a good scenario would be with the Zorki 4K, I'm thinking indoors with kodak max 800, on a tripod, trying to show contrast, sharpness, and maybe flare differences. What objects would be good for testing these 3 parameters out? Lenses are a J8, I-22 collapsible, and Panda I-61 non LD with Russian writing?
 
ampguy,
Your idea to test the lenses on a tripod will definitely show objective results. I usually just shoot the lenses hand held, as that is how I am going to be shooting them in real life. I usually drag 2 or 3 lenses around w/ me and shoot each test image at wide open, then at 5.6 or 8 and record the f stops and lighting conditions (cloudy, sunny, etc) on a piece of paper folded up to fit in my pocket. I try to shoot a few landscapes, portraits, interior low light shots, and whatever interests me and will sit still while I shoot, record data, and put on another lens, etc. If color is what you shoot, shoot w/ the film you normally use. I shoot Tri-X and HP5, so I am not concerned about the color film. I use that for checking camera exposures w/ a new camera as it's cheaper and I can get 1 hr at the local lab. Then I edit the shots in Photoshop to get each to an optimum point.

It isn't what I would call a real scientific MTF type lens test, but it shows me the characteristics of the lenses, and I can compare them to each other and make a decision on what stays and what goes. What I am finding out is that after editing the images to get the best results, there isn't that much difference in most lenses. The exceptions so far have been the Leica glass, which just images differently, and there is quite a bit of difference in a Leica R 50 Summi, an Elmar 50 3.5, and a Summar 2. Unfortunately, I like all of them! So much for cutting down on my lenses.
 
hey brachal thanks for future test - i think it will be fun.

and ampguy - you can try and shoot some newspaper that fills whole frame for sharpness. for flare it will be good any setup with bare bulb in frame, and for overall impression you can put any objects that you find , put them on table together and shoot. try to find some packages with small letters and stuff like that.
 
Thanks myoptic and nzeeman

Thanks myoptic and nzeeman

I did one roll of tests, focal point was 2 meters away, used tripod and cable release, noted exposure setting and lens on a sheet posted 3 feet behind the focal point, used readable markers 4" before and after focal point to determine mis-focus issues, went up to f8 on the I-22, and up to f5.6 on the J8, and I-61. Have some bulbs in there, and natural lighting from back and side windows.

Should have the roll back tomorrow or Tue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom