E.Leilz wetzlar Universal viewfinder for leica vs. Univesal turlett viewfinder

[heronop2003]

E.Leilz wetzlar Universal viewfinder for leica vs. Univesal turlett viewfinder for Zorki. is there can use the same? and which one is the better? if it the same if i will use it for my Zorki 4 ?

and how many kind of Universal viewfinder i can use it for Zorki? please help 😕

 

[phototone]

One of the Leitz finders actually crops down the image for the telephoto lenses, so when you turn the ring from wide to telephoto you get a smaller and smaller rectangle to view through. The Universal Turret Finder for Zorki maintains the same size view window, the various focal lengths just change the magnification of the image. If utility is the objective, then the Universal Turret Finder for Zorki is probably better. You can use any kind and brand of auxiliary finder on a Zorki that fits into the accessory shoe. (Cold shoe/hot shoe) The Universal Finder designed for the Kiev/Contax style cameras, will obstruct somewhat the shutter speed dial. Many companies made auxiliary finders, Leitz, Canon, Nikon, Argus, Kodak, Cosina/Voigtlander, Contax, Tewe, then the FSU Universal Finder, etc.

 

[Roman]

If you intend to use the camera with a portrait tele (85mm, like the Jupiter-9) at closer distances, you can forget about the Socviet Universal finder - the parallax correction on that is a very bad joke, you will cut off parts of the person you are trying to take a picture of at least 2/3rds of the time. An added problem is that the foot of the finder is rather loose in many cameras, making it move slightly to the left or right.
This Universal finder is the number 1 reason that made me buy a Bessa R - only for the parallax corrected framelines!

Roman

 

[doubs43]

E.Leilz wetzlar Universal viewfinder for leica vs. Univesal turlett viewfinder ... <snip>

Those turlett finders are pretty crappy! (That's a joke...... a play on words.)

Seriously, the FSU turret finders are, as Roman says, awful when it comes to parallax correction AND he's correct that they often are a loose fit in the aux shoe. If you're going to use a universal finder, the Leitz Imarect is the better of the two. A lot is made over the difference in views that each finder gives but I've used the Imarect finders for many years and have never felt disadvantaged because I couldn't see more than the field of the lens I was using.

Walker

 

[dll927]

As a retired language teacher, I appreciate the original posting in this thread. It's pretty interesting how, if one speaks a language, he/she can "see around" a non-speaker's wording. I've seen some pretty funny remarks about the Japanese trying to put camera instructions into English.

It stands to reason that Leitz will probably outshine FSU. One was concerned with quality, the other, at least a lot of the time, with production numbers. Can we assume that a Leitz universal finder would outshine FSU for accuracy and framing? We might try e-bay for Leitz on price differences.

 

[ray_g]

Before buying a Leitz Imarect or VIOOH, try to inspect it yourself as most of these have developed haziness with age. That being said, they're still good finders if you can find a good sample.

What focal lengths do you use? I do not use the 135mm focal length on my LTM camera, and find the combined 35/40 + 85/90 VF's (by Yashica or Petri, among others) more convenient. They are much smaller and are usually brighter. I find the floating framelines easier to work with. They usually are available for very reasonable prices, in the $10-15 range.

 

[phototone]

One was concerned with quality, the other, at least a lot of the time, with production numbers. Can we assume that a Leitz universal finder would outshine FSU for accuracy and framing? We might try e-bay for Leitz on price differences.

Leitz would be tops for accuracy, and certainly for precise manufacturing tolerances, but since the FSU Universal Turret Finder is actually the older Zeiss Contax finder design, from a design standpoint, and from a user viewpoint as regards the clarity of the view through the finder, the FSU finder is top notch considering the period in which it was manufactured. I think the view (contrast, brightness) is better than some of the older Leitz varible focal length finders. Some of the FSU Turret finders also show you an area beyond the frame, which is clearly defined, therefore you can anticipate a composition. Also where can you get a 28mm finder (one of the views available on the Turret finder), for under $50. (e_boy prices) So the price/performance ratio is quite high on the FSU finder, considering the 5 focal lengths it covers. The only drawback (other than appearance, or size) of the FSU Turret finder, is that it will probably require a bit of calibration with shims in the foot, to get it properly aligned to your specific camera. Who knows if other brands might require the same thing?

 

[John Robertson]

My own Turret finder bought in 1972 is pretty accurate. My VIOOH with 28mm attachment fitted was anything but accurate, and also had quite bad distortion. Other ones I have tried were exactly the same. Also in the FSU finder the image size remains a useable size, at 135 setting the VIOOH shows a tiny image!! Personally I would leave them for the collectors!!

 

[Roman]

Phototone,

frankly, I disagree - while the Universal finder might have a good price, its performance is so low that the price/performance ration is not good at all.

The inherent design fault of the Universal finder (and I assume, the Contax original as well, but I never tried one of those) - the 'guesstimate' parallax correction by simply turning the revolver barrel a few mm to one or two rather deliberately chosen distance marks (and even those 1 or 2 marks per focal length don't have click stops) - makes it totally unusable for any lens longer than 50 mm at portrait distances (say, 1 to 5 m); this is NOT cured by shimming, and what's the use of am admittedly nice and clear view through the finder, if what you see is not what you are taking a picture of? Even if you 'only' paid around 40 or 50 bucks for the revolver (which seems to be the average price), this is not cheap if you ruin a lot of pics because of this inaccuracy (and I'm speaking from experience here, and I own 3 of those darn things).

Roman

 

[wyk_penguin]

When extreme accuracy is needed for potrait pics, nothing beats a Leica with projected framelines, well maybe except an SLR. :bang:

 

[phototone]

Phototone,

frankly, I disagree - while the Universal finder might have a good price, its performance is so low that the price/performance ration is not good at all.

The inherent design fault of the Universal finder (and I assume, the Contax original as well, but I never tried one of those) - the 'guesstimate' parallax correction by simply turning the revolver barrel a few mm to one or two rather deliberately chosen distance marks (and even those 1 or 2 marks per focal length don't have click stops) - makes it totally unusable for any lens longer than 50 mm at portrait distances (say, 1 to 5 m); this is NOT cured by shimming, and what's the use of am admittedly nice and clear view through the finder, if what you see is not what you are taking a picture of? Even if you 'only' paid around 40 or 50 bucks for the revolver (which seems to be the average price), this is not cheap if you ruin a lot of pics because of this inaccuracy (and I'm speaking from experience here, and I own 3 of those darn things).

Roman

Oh, yes, if your main use for the finder is in the telephoto range, then this and most other auxiliary finders are not so accurate, and that is the reason I was trying to draw a value comparison in regards this finder and ANY other auxiliary finder for 28mm. The inaccuracy at 28mm would be minimal, and the price would be very fair in comparison to ANY other finder that would give you a 28mm view. So just don't use the 85 and 135mm positions. A 28mm CV viewfinder is at least $165. Leica, even more.

 

[Skinny McGee]

I have the Leica viewfinder on my111a I love it. It is a cool little piece of equipment

 

[dll927]

After reading through this and a couple of other similar threads, I'm about ready to give up on the idea. To say the least, there seems to be a wide range of opinions regarding the universal finders, ranging from useful to they are junk. One thing for sure, they are not very plentiful, and I wonder if they ever were a viable means of picture-taking. And the opinions are, in several cases, from persons who own one or more of them. Maybe they are just controversial!

 

[phototone]

Yah, well I guess you hit the nail on the head, they are controversial. ha ha. It is just that you can't expect the framing accuracy from any external auxiliary finder that you get from a nice "M" Leica internal bright-frame finder, or a nice Voigtlander R or R2 or R2a or R3a finder, or Konica Hexar finder, etc. The built in finders ARE much more accurate as they are calibrated to the body they are within, whereas an external finder can only give an approximation of field of view, and you have to learn what it "sees" in relation to the camera you have it mounted on. The distance from the center of the taking lens on the camera to the hot or cold shoe on top of the camera varies widely between camera models and this fact alone can alter the parallex between the auxiliary finder and the scene as photographed on film. On the older cameras, of course you only have the choice of an auxiliary finder, and so you just have to shoot some tests and see what you see.