Wulfthari
Well-known
Finally my mark VI has arrived, of course I unpacked it, put a 36 exposure roll in it and went to town to test it....I must say it favourably compares with my M3. the "dot" in the middle of the finder to compose the image is small and the lack of grid baffled me at the beginning, but in the end it came out that all the pics were reasonably sharp.
It was the first I didn't use a light meter, I was slightly worrid but I'm pretty satisfied with the results:
The camera came with the original box, a Jupiter 8 not pretty but functional (BTW, I measured a minimum range of 0.8mt, not 1 m, and everything over 20 mt is infinitive!), with a russian manual, of course yak leather case and in safe and sound conditions...well almost.
The film advancement lever needs a "help" to return to it's position once you advance the next frame, it is annoying, it need to be gently accompanied to its position, I feel and hear the clicks but my sensation is that the spring is too "tired" for the job. Anybody know where to find the spare part and how to proceed with this smal repair?
It was the first I didn't use a light meter, I was slightly worrid but I'm pretty satisfied with the results:
The camera came with the original box, a Jupiter 8 not pretty but functional (BTW, I measured a minimum range of 0.8mt, not 1 m, and everything over 20 mt is infinitive!), with a russian manual, of course yak leather case and in safe and sound conditions...well almost.
The film advancement lever needs a "help" to return to it's position once you advance the next frame, it is annoying, it need to be gently accompanied to its position, I feel and hear the clicks but my sensation is that the spring is too "tired" for the job. Anybody know where to find the spare part and how to proceed with this smal repair?
wolves3012
Veteran
Nice camera, probably one of the best FSUs. You'll find details of how to get at the winder mechanism in our very own sticky:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45110
The initial problem you might find is removing the frame counter retainer, these tend to self-tighten and have no means of grip. Rubber-protected pliers may be needed to apply enough force but don't overdo it, you can break the gears.
I have the opposite problem with my Zorki 6 - the spring is decidedly overkill for the job and is most certainly not "tired"! Since it's the only example I've handled, I can't say if mine is typical but it's a much heavier-duty spring than the one in my Zorki 5.
By the way, your first shot looks rather too soft, you may want to check the RF calibration (there's a sticky on that too) if you're confident the RF was showing focus on the flowers.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45110
The initial problem you might find is removing the frame counter retainer, these tend to self-tighten and have no means of grip. Rubber-protected pliers may be needed to apply enough force but don't overdo it, you can break the gears.
I have the opposite problem with my Zorki 6 - the spring is decidedly overkill for the job and is most certainly not "tired"! Since it's the only example I've handled, I can't say if mine is typical but it's a much heavier-duty spring than the one in my Zorki 5.
By the way, your first shot looks rather too soft, you may want to check the RF calibration (there's a sticky on that too) if you're confident the RF was showing focus on the flowers.
Elmar Lang
Well-known
I think that once fixed the mentioned, minor problems, you'll be happy with your Zorki-6.
BTW, were the pictures taken in Verona?
E.L.
BTW, were the pictures taken in Verona?
E.L.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
As any old RF it needs CLA.
My two Zorki were sold as in working condition on e-bay, but both came dead.
You guys makes me wonder. I keep on thinking to try it for few months now.
My Bessa R doesn't let Summitar all way in and M2 is so expensive.
Maybe I'll try it, while I'm saving for Leica.
My two Zorki were sold as in working condition on e-bay, but both came dead.
You guys makes me wonder. I keep on thinking to try it for few months now.
My Bessa R doesn't let Summitar all way in and M2 is so expensive.
Maybe I'll try it, while I'm saving for Leica.
Elmar Lang
Well-known
A Zorki-6 could be a great choice.
In my opinion, a well-working Kiev-2 or Kiev-4 could be an excellent camera.
E.L.
In my opinion, a well-working Kiev-2 or Kiev-4 could be an excellent camera.
E.L.
Wulfthari
Well-known
Thank you for the suggestion, I showed the thread to my tech (he was already "taking care" of my M3 and solved the problem in 5 minutes, the rangefinder was a little off at infinitive and he also made that slight adjustment.
The last pic looks too soft because I suspect I came too close to the flower... I was "testing" the J-8 and IMO the minimum focus distance is much less than 1 mt, in that case I might have exaggerated, other pictures at close range are in focus...my gues is that the minimum focus distance
of this J-8 is about 0.7-0.8 mt.
These are better, I think:
BTW, my tech also had a Leningrad to adjust and I found the rangefinder excellent (he also agreed, and he's a 70+ years old very skilled old man who saw many cameras in his life) and the shutter very smooth, but he warned me that it's very unreliable and from a 36 exposures roll you can get 10-12 pictures max...that alarmed me.
Yessir!
Here I was trying to get some nice bokeh, but I miserably failed.
I don't have many good faces to make portraits so at the moment I'm limited to landscape, flowers and monuments.
The Kiev is also on my list, but at this point I wonder if it wouldn't be better to get a Contax IIa, the tech had one completerly disassembled and it looked like a marvellous (and complicated) design for the mid 30s, old Contaxes aren't very expensive and what I liked of the mark 6 is that it's not a straight Leica III copy, actually it does have very little of the original Leica (I think the speeds mechanism and the L39 mount) but it's a sort of "evolved" Leica in other directions, with some minuses but also some pluses.
As a M3 owner (I write it here so the Leicamen can't lynch me...) I must say that as stated before having the cameras side by side I have few remarks:
1) The Leica rangefinder is better, no doubt about it, it has a grid for 50 mm, 85 and 135 and it does pre-select them (if you don't use a simple adapter like I do, in this case you see both the 135 and the 50 mm unless you manually select something else), the Zorki rangefinder is smaller, a little blueish but the main problem is that for focusing there's a littel "patch" in the middle, so it takes slightly more time....the Z6 for what I understand from this old Italian ad:
was meant to be used with the infamous multi-shape turret that gives parallax compensation and frames like the M3...mmm...actually five frames, not three...one for the Orion-15, one for the Jupiter-12, one for the Industar 50/Jupiter-8, one for the Jupiter-9 and one for the Jupiter-11, so this limitation of the Z6 IMO should be understood as a by product of the concept of "complete system" the camera was meant to be.
2) However the rangefinder base is longer on the Z6 so when it's in focus it's very accurate.
3) The Leica has more shutter speeds, of course, my sensation is that on the Z6 and Z5 the Soviets adopted the Mir configuration to get rid of the low speeds that cause the infamous "Zorki problem": with these camera you can select the speed before advancing the film without risking to break anything. I suspect that the design problem of the Zorkis is rooted int he infamous Leica mechanism that has two different gears for the fast and slow speeds, the Soviets never bothered to design another system and mass produce it so it was easire sto get rid of the problem, especially for the international market. On the other side this is also an advantage because somebody not used to soviet cameras don't risk to break anything...for the record 1/30 is closer to 1/25 and 1/60 to 1/50, my suspect is that they just changed the numbers on the knob.
4) The Z6 is a real "pocket" camera, it's smaller on each dimension and especially is much slimmer than the M3. The weight is of course at its side, also because the Jupiter is made of alluminium while the smaller Summitar I suspect it's brass.
5) The Leica advancement mechanism is smoother, and the shutter less noisy (but I also think this is due to dried oil on the Z6), the soviet camera requires more force to advance the film (my tech does it in two strokes, he say it's better) but has a nice "mechanical " feel on the lever.
6) Loading a Z6 is much easier than a M3, I don't think it's worth discussing it, the Z6 seems a more "modern" camera on this side.
7) The faux leather covering of the M3 is nicer to the tact than the proletarian nylon of the Z6.
That's it.
To conclude...the Leica M3 is a better camera, no doubt about it, especially finish-wise, but is it 10 times better than a good Zorki 6? Let's chop off all the "cool" factor, the Leica glow, the red dot etc...in the end a CLAd Z6 in perfect conditions can cost 1/10th of a M3 with similar lens (summicron 50/Jupiter 6) and give IMO a good overall performance, not to mention that many gadgets of the Zorki "system" (lenses and turrets) can be also useful on a Leica, so shall we really think that buying a M3 or a M4 is a good deal?
I bought mine because I wanted a Leica and a meter or comparison with the cheap Soviet cameras, but now I'm not sure it is worth the money...however this is what I got with 80 euros: a '64 Zorki 6 export model (type 7B according to fotoua), a '66 Jupiter-8, a filter for the J-8, the funky yak leather case printed "Zorki6", a instruction manual in Russian (I wonder why they sold cameras with Latin characters with Russian manuals, however the serial number matches, I don't know if they have made it later), and a paper box.
locheeboy
locheeboy
There's a haze/softness in most of the photos which would suggest (tae me) either a lens problem, light leak or both. You're correct about being too close - iirc closest focus is 0.9m.
Ah'd check the optical block and the element settings ( one or more may be misaligned or even in the wrong order) and replace the seals anyway, even if they "look OK".
Ah'd check the optical block and the element settings ( one or more may be misaligned or even in the wrong order) and replace the seals anyway, even if they "look OK".
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Thanks for review!
I didn't know about size difference.
I think, cameraleather might have kit for Z-6.
Wulfthari
Well-known
There's a haze/softness in most of the photos which would suggest (tae me) either a lens problem, light leak or both. You're correct about being too close - iirc closest focus is 0.9m.
Ah'd check the optical block and the element settings ( one or more may be misaligned or even in the wrong order) and replace the seals anyway, even if they "look OK".
Well, take into account that I used a cheap HP deskjet printer to scan the pictures from paper to digital format, this is a similar picture taken with the M3 and the Summarit:
If it looks hazy/soft too I assume the problems aren't in the cameras or in the lenses, but in scanning or in the lack of skill of the photographer...
And I'm pretty sure I've taken the pics with the Zorki from a closer range than 0.9
Perhaps this picture taken with my late 90s phone can be of help:
And I'll keep the nylon cover, after all it's original and I don't think the Z6 was never meant to be a "luxury" item.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Thank you for the picture, Wulfthari. Feels smaller for sure.
Did you find RF/VF of Z-6 to be difficult for accurate framing due to the parallax?
My family FED-2 seems to be OK.
Did you find RF/VF of Z-6 to be difficult for accurate framing due to the parallax?
My family FED-2 seems to be OK.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
The Contax II is a lovely camera and - as you have a proper technician nearby - I'd say go for it, or a Kiev.
Old Contax cameras can be a PITA when parts fail etc but the problem is finding someone locally who understands them.
Regards, David
The Contax II is a lovely camera and - as you have a proper technician nearby - I'd say go for it, or a Kiev.
Old Contax cameras can be a PITA when parts fail etc but the problem is finding someone locally who understands them.
Regards, David
Wulfthari
Well-known
mm..no. At least I don't think the problem is parallax, the viewfinder itself is relatively large (I would say it's 0.75 or 0.78) but the round window tends to cut the corners of the frame if you don't place the eye very close, I find the focus less immediate because the area of the combines rangefinder/viewfinder is a small "patch", it looks like a circle in the middle of the viewfinder, but it's tiny compared to the entire square area and the borders aren't clearly limited unlike the M3.
Actually the circle of the Z6 look almost perfectly enclosed in the M3 square, I unshamefully stole the image of the M3 viewfinder from Ken Rockwell and with my limited knowledge of paint I tried to overimpose what I see in the Z6:
The proper tech also had a old Contax completely disassembled on the table, I was fascinated by the level of complexity of the project, and as an engineer I wonder how many skilled draughtsmen Zeiss had in the mid 30s to make anything so complicated, we discussed at length the technical differences between Contax and Leica (the guy is very talkative, especially when he's working, and liked to have an engineer to speak with...I assume sometimes he feels a little lonely) but he also said the Kiev inside is as complicated as the Contax, of course usually Kievs are younger.
S.H.
Picture taker
Yes, Kiev equals contax in term of complexity : the soviets took the entire production lines and some German workers from Jena to Kiev. I'm fascinated by the Kiev/Contax range : the lenses were the top of the line, still very usable today. It is also interesting (for a collector) to see in the early Kiev bodies/lenses that they can contain German parts.
Some early ZK and prewar Jena lenses:
Here is a little article I wrote about mine : http://www.ipernity.com/blog/291397/511691
Fotohuis
Well-known
Charkov in Ukraine is were they put the new factory.