Macro options for FED or Zorki?

[Coldkennels]

Honestly I would just completely steer clear of the FED 1 altogether. If you're set on a Soviet rangefinder, the FED 3 and Zorki 4 are far better cameras

I would hard disagree with this. The Zorki 4 and 4K is the single most problematic camera of the whole FED/Zorki line - I've seen so many of them with jammed shutters. Something in the way the slow speed mechanism was introduced makes them a lot more unreliable than the other reasonably priced models with a slow speed train (the FEDs 3 through 5). I've heard the slow speed train in the Zorki 3 models are even more problematic, but those are usually much more expensive anyway.

If someone wants a Soviet rangefinder with a combined VF/RF, I always point them at the FED 2, Zorki 5, and Zorki 6. Those things are basically bulletproof.

If you want to do a bit better than the FED-1, there are several cameras that you can purchase an accessory for called an Auto-Up which clamps to the front of the normal taking lens (usually a 5cm/50mm) and covers the viewfinder and rangefinder windows with a prism to change the field of view for close-up photos.

These are a lot easier to use than a NOOKY-HEESUN on the Leica.

I forgot to mention these. The Auto Up can actually be used on a lot of LTM cameras - they're specific to the lens, not the body. I use mine on a Leica IIIg from time-to-time, but they fit anything of similar size (Canons, Leicas, Niccas, Leotaxes, FEDs and Zorkis). You do need a larger Auto Up for bigger bodies like the Canon 7, though.

Anyway, they're much faster/easier to mount than a NOOKY, I'll give you that. But they're nothing like as easy to use.

The NOOKY has a moving cropping frame in front of the Leica's viewfinder, reducing the view from above and the side as the NOOKY is focused, meaning the framing is pretty much bang-on at all distances. On the other hand, the Auto-Up relies on a combination of a little nub, guesswork, hopes and dreams:

Here's what that looks like through the IIIg's finder:


At least with a IIIg, you have a wider view and some framelines that kinda-sorta help you frame. On everything else, it's basically guesswork. As a result, the Auto-Up is very much a "close focus of last resort" option for me rather than a reliable tool.

 

[santino]

I‘m not sure, the Zorki 4 is probably the best bang for the buck. The slow speed mechanism definitely adds complications to the concept of the shutter but strangely, the mass produced Zorki 4s seem to be pretty reliable.

 

[Cascadilla]

I would hard disagree with this. The Zorki 4 and 4K is the single most problematic camera of the whole FED/Zorki line - I've seen so many of them with jammed shutters. Something in the way the slow speed mechanism was introduced makes them a lot more unreliable than the other reasonably priced models with a slow speed train (the FEDs 3 through 5). I've heard the slow speed train in the Zorki 3 models are even more problematic, but those are usually much more expensive anyway.

If someone wants a Soviet rangefinder with a combined VF/RF, I always point them at the FED 2, Zorki 5, and Zorki 6. Those things are basically bulletproof.



I forgot to mention these. The Auto Up can actually be used on a lot of LTM cameras - they're specific to the lens, not the body. I use mine on a Leica IIIg from time-to-time, but they fit anything of similar size (Canons, Leicas, Niccas, Leotaxes, FEDs and Zorkis). You do need a larger Auto Up for bigger bodies like the Canon 7, though.

Anyway, they're much faster/easier to mount than a NOOKY, I'll give you that. But they're nothing like as easy to use.

The NOOKY has a moving cropping frame in front of the Leica's viewfinder, reducing the view from above and the side as the NOOKY is focused, meaning the framing is pretty much bang-on at all distances. On the other hand, the Auto-Up relies on a combination of a little nub, guesswork, hopes and dreams:
View attachment 4882538
Here's what that looks like through the IIIg's finder:
View attachment 4882539

At least with a IIIg, you have a wider view and some framelines that kinda-sorta help you frame. On everything else, it's basically guesswork. As a result, the Auto-Up is very much a "close focus of last resort" option for me rather than a reliable tool.

I have both a Contatest for Zeiss Contax IIa/IIIa cameras and the Nikon version of this for my Nikon SP and 5 cm f/1.4 which are similar to the Auto Up. I haven't used them a lot but I didn't find the framing to be that far off. Sharpness was better than I expected since I think both Zeiss and Nikon made the screw in close up lenses for their specific lenses. I have seen results from generic close up lenses that were pretty bad.

 

[Coldkennels]

I‘m not sure, the Zorki 4 is probably the best bang for the buck.

On paper, I almost agree with you: very large finder, full range of speeds from 1 second to 1/1000, removable back for easy loading, diopter on the viewfinder, and as long as you get an earlier one, strap lugs.

However... the knob wind is not very accessible, the slow speeds almost always cause problems, the rangefinder base length is pretty low, and the shutter speeds are printed rather than engraved.

I haven't touched my Zorki 4 in years; the 5 is smaller, more reliable, more accurate, and a lot more pleasant to use. Ditto for the FED 2... but my FED 2 is a late one and doesn't have strap lugs, and I hate messing around with half cases!

 

[Mos6502]

I've had three Zorki 4s, and one Zorki 4K, and never had mechanical issues with any of them, except the self timer on the 4K would not function. Why three if they work so well? The first was stolen, the second I sold, and later regretted this, so bought a 3rd. The 4K was purchased just to see what it was like, but the lack of strap lugs was a deal breaker. Still, except in viewfinder size and brightness, the Fed 3 bests it in most respects. Maybe some of the later Zorki 4s are not so good, they produced them for a long time. All three of mine have been 1960s era.

 

[farlymac]

The printed shutter speeds started on the 4K, though late 4's had the name printed, but speeds were still engraved like on my '68 model.

PF

 

[santino]

The printed shutter speeds started on the 4K, though late 4's had the name printed, but speeds were engraved.

PF

There are a lot of exceptions.

 

[farlymac]

Sample image taken with the Canon Auto-Up II on the P with the 50/1.8.


Weathered Fence by P F McFarland, on Flickr

PF

 

[farlymac]

There are a lot of exceptions.

Yeah, but it seems most of the issues folks complain about usually start with the introduction of the 4K.

PF

 

[Coldkennels]

Here's the top of my 1970 Zorki 4, which predates the 4K by two years:


Predictably, you can barely see any of the slow speeds. Almost entirely faded and worn away.

This one was given to me for free some years ago because the shutter had totally jammed. Relatively easy fix, but playing with it now for the first time in ages, turning the winding knob feels oddly heavy. The small amount of purchase you can get on the knob thanks to the large shoulder on the top plate next to it doesn't help matters!

I should really clean it up a bit and run some film through it, but it's easily the least appealing camera on the shelf. I will never understand why these damn things are so popular.

 

[Mos6502]

For a long time, the Zorki 4 was, undeniably, the best deal one could get for a rangefinder camera. These days I don't think that's still the case, as prices go up, and cameras in good condition become harder to find. Plus, in the West the Zorki was one of the few Eastern Bloc cameras that sold in decent numbers, so was one of the few Soviet rangefinders that could be found relatively easily from local sellers. The Feds and Kievs were not so common to find before the 1990s, and particularly before online commerce was a thing. The Zorki 4 already had a reputation and a following before the "fad" for Soviet rangefinders kicked off in the west with the rise of selling over the internet.

That said, there's inherent qualities in the design that are appealing. It has the largest and brightest combined VF/RF of all the common Soviet cameras, and indeed it's a good one for any RF of that era. It's solidly constructed, and fairly straightforward to use (doesn't need any special treatment of the film prior to loading, etc. unlike Leicas and most of their closer Japanese copies). Get one made before they started pinching pennies (ie. look for one with strap lugs) and the fit and finish is usually pretty good too. Sure it has its ergonomic faults, but so do the Kievs and many others.