accuracy of viewfinders on zorki or rangefinders in general

[dede95064]

i just got a zorki4 with a jupiter 8 lens that came with it. i also have a jupiter 9 lens. i noticed that the zorki viewfinder is not accurate in terms of the final image on the negative. that is, the viewfinder displays more/less than what i actually get when i examine the negative.
this problem is worse for an external jupiter 9 85mm viewfinder i bought. the image in the viewfinder is much wider than the final negative image which crops a lot of what i tried to capture.

is this normal for these cameras? do i need to get a different brand external viewfinder with frame lines such as a leica/canon/etc. to get a more accurate image? if not, how are you supposed to use the viewfinders properly?

thanks for your help!

 

[usagisakana]

Rangefinder viewfinders are generally, at best, a guide to what will appear on the final image. They can't possibly be 100% accurate because the angle of view changes as a lens is focussed at different distances. After shooting enough you'll be able to figure out what will appear in the image at different distances. That said, I haven't shot a zorki before, but the framelines on the leicas and my minolta himatic have never been radically different from the final image.

 

[pschauss]

The biggest problem that I have found with my Russian 85mm viewfinder is that it tilts down too much, causing me to aim the camera too high. Since I wear glasses, I find that, if anything, the viewfinder shows less than what appears on the negative.

My turret finder is more accurate in both respects.

 

[payasam]

All viewfinders, whether in the camera or external, and for all focal lengths, show less than what appears on the film.

 

[kievman]

From my experience it It really depends on the camera model. I find that the kievs 2-4 show close to 100 percent of frame for a 50mm lens without a crop, thats why I love the kiev cameras. what I see- I get on the neg, no more, no less That goes for the Zorki 6 too. it has practically the same viewfinder as the kievs, but brighter. I have 2 Zorki 4's and they do show 100 percent of the frame. but because of the 1x1.15 magafication, you have to hold your eye very close to the finder and then scan with your eye to the far right and left side of the finder. and then you will see the full frame. If you positioned your eye normally behind the Zorki 4 finder you with only see about 80 percent of the frame. - Michael

 

[Keith]

Rangefinder framing is vague at best IMO and this applies to the top of the line widgets ... not just the FSU's!

Good reason to always have an SLR for those occasions when acuracy of framing really matters. 🙂

 

[Sparrow]

Just snap something roughly what you want, then crop it to the proper composition when you print it ...

... I'll get my coat

 

[Roger Hicks]

Go to http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/zeiss.html (Zeiss Ikon review) and scroll down a bit and you'll find a comparison of different viewfinder coverages for different cameras and accessory finders -- and 'different' is definitely the word!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Vince Lupo]

While I didn't have an issue with the view itself in my Zorki 4, I found that I was constantly having to adjust the rangefinder. Just when I thought I had everything aligned and changed lenses (even from one 50mm lens to another 50mm lens) it would go out of alignment again. Fortunately they're not too difficult to adjust, but my particular case it was a real annoyance. Needless to say, I no longer have the camera....

 

[wgerrard]

Rangefinder framing is vague at best IMO and this applies to the top of the line widgets ... not just the FSU's!

Good reason to always have an SLR for those occasions when acuracy of framing really matters. 🙂

Agreed. I've found that taking an SLR is smart when I know I'll be shooting something that needs to be framed just right. I can get close with a familiar RF lens, but nothing is guaranteed and some cropping is usually needed.

This is something we should consider before packing a kit for a big travel vacation. Getting those stereotypical tourist shots for the folks back home often requires accurate framing.

 

[Frontman]

Rangefinder framing is vague at best IMO and this applies to the top of the line widgets ... not just the FSU's!

Good reason to always have an SLR for those occasions when acuracy of framing really matters. 🙂

SLR cameras generally don't provide you with 100% coverage either. But at least you don't have to worry about using external viewfinders, or having to use viewfinder markings to frame your image properly. I always compose an image so as to have a wide perimeter, and crop later if necessary, better to be safe than sorry.

 

[agueco]

Using floating frameline or brightline finders will help more in regards to accuracy than using the built in direct view finders on vintage cameras where eye position plays a more critical role. Direct viewfinders take more skill to use accurately. The modern Voigtlander brightline finders are great but there are a few vintage brightline finders that are also wonderful to use. Using vintage cameras are fun. 🙂

 

[wolves3012]

i just got a zorki4 with a jupiter 8 lens that came with it. i also have a jupiter 9 lens. i noticed that the zorki viewfinder is not accurate in terms of the final image on the negative. that is, the viewfinder displays more/less than what i actually get when i examine the negative.
this problem is worse for an external jupiter 9 85mm viewfinder i bought. the image in the viewfinder is much wider than the final negative image which crops a lot of what i tried to capture.

is this normal for these cameras? do i need to get a different brand external viewfinder with frame lines such as a leica/canon/etc. to get a more accurate image? if not, how are you supposed to use the viewfinders properly?

thanks for your help!

As others have said, an RF can never be accurate for framing. If your external finder is that bad you may want to get a better one but it'll never be totally accurate. Which one are you using? Partly it's a case of learning to use it and framing a little more loosely if you need to. Things are generally worst close-up, where an SLR would certainly be more accurate.

With an SLR there's generally not 100% coverage but at least the view will be fairly "centered", i.e. there will be an even margin around what you saw. With an RF you can chop feet or heads from a portrait without much trouble if you're not careful.

 

[payasam]

"Good reason to always have an SLR for those occasions when acuracy of framing really matters."

I used a Canon SLR (around 96% coverage, I think) and an M3 pretty much interchangeably in the 1980s and 1990s. The M3's V/F accuracy was enough for my needs. The Canon VT Deluxe I had at the same time was not nearly so good.

 

[David Hughes]

I don't think it really matters since very few of us print the entire frame as there's little enough paper with the 2:3 aspect ratio; except 4" x 6".

Of course for slides it makes a difference but slides weren't exactly common place when these cameras were designed and slide masking frame are not 100 accurate either. And as for 100% coverage with SLR's...

Just my 2d worth. Regards, David

 

[croweater]

that is, the viewfinder displays more/less than what i actually get when i examine the negative.

As it turns out, yesterday I spent some time experimenting with my Zorki 3M to get a better feel for this issue. I'm still fairly new to RF shooting, so it's one of those things I'm still learning.

Anyway, with my 3M and a Jupiter 8 (50mm), the viewfinder displays a noticeably narrower view than what the lens captures. Without doing any proper measurements, I'd guess my viewfinder to be the equivalent of a 65mm lens. From my SLR background, this takes some getting used to!

 

[oftheherd]

I don't own a Leica. Those that have frame lines, do they move as one focuses? My Kiev doesn't. I am guessing it being a copy of the own pre-war Contax, it was too technically difficult to try. My Kiev just has a viewfinder.

However, my first Olympus back in the mid-70s, had frame lines that moved as one focused closer or farther away. My Super Press 23 also does that with the built in viewfinder for 100, 150, and 250 mm lenses. When you get to the mounted-on-top viewfinders for other lenses, such as the 65mm or 50mm, that is obviously not true.

Just wondering if later Leicas, or Zeiss cameras have done so? It is not make the frames more accurate, but helps in framing.

 

[wgerrard]

"Good reason to always have an SLR for those occasions when acuracy of framing really matters."

I used a Canon SLR (around 96% coverage, I think) and an M3 pretty much interchangeably in the 1980s and 1990s. The M3's V/F accuracy was enough for my needs. The Canon VT Deluxe I had at the same time was not nearly so good.

No doubt accuracy varies from camera to camera, Payasam. I've developed a bad habit of trying to frame too precisely, with either kind of camera. Result? Botched pictures. I must reform.