I-22 Question

[danielnorton]

I picked up a collapsable I-22 from fedka a while back and have used it on my bessa r3a and 2 different Zorki-4

I just received a beautiful Zorki 4k from Kim with red snake skin (very cool) and mounted the lens. Strange thing is now the focus is really sticky.

Put the lens back on the 4, works fine, tried 2 other lenses on on the 4k (I-50 and the jupiter 8 that came with it) both work fine.

Is it possible for a lens or camera to be fine, but just now work together?

😕

 

[Kim Coxon]

The mounting flange on the 4 and the 4K are the same so I can't think of any obvious reason why it shouldn't work. Can you post a picture if the I22 on the 4K?

Kim

 

[xayraa33]

Check to see if the I-22 cam tube is riding the Zorki 4ks rangefinder's cam properly. Do this with the lens on the camera, back is off camera, and hold the shutter open on "B". you might have to slightly bend the Z4ks rf arm up or down, for the cam to hit the I-22s tube. I had a Fed 2 with this type of problem.

 

[pshinkaw]

Another possibility is that the lens flange on the "new" camera is slightly warped. This can occur when the screws are tightened unevenly. To test it out, loosen all four screws very slightly (1/2 to 3/4 turn). Put the lens on the camera and see if the binding problem still occurs. It it goes away, it means that the screws were unevenly tightened. Just re-tighten the screws in a cross-pattern., like an automobile tire.

-Paul

 

[ZorkiKat]

Check to see if the I-22 cam tube is riding the Zorki 4ks rangefinder's cam properly. Do this with the lens on the camera, back is off camera, and hold the shutter open on "B". you might have to slightly bend the Z4ks rf arm up or down, for the cam to hit the I-22s tube. I had a Fed 2 with this type of problem.

Slightly bending the RF arm would result in alteration of the RF's close focus, and likely, infinity calibration. The rangefinder will have to be checked after such modification, if it still correctly measures (or focuses the lens at ) the right distances. A correctly adjusted rangefinder should show the lens' distance scale exactly at the "1 metre" mark if the camera's film plane is 1 metre from the target. And at the other end, infinity when lens is focused to a avery distant object.

Altering the RF arm or even changing the slope (it can be done as it's pivoted) of its sensor tip will result in the loss of RF accuracy. It could focus at infinity but lose its ability to measure right when it reaches closer distances, or vice versa.

Jay

 

[xayraa33]

Slightly bending the RF arm would result in alteration of the RF's close focus, and likely, infinity calibration. The rangefinder will have to be checked after such modification, if it still correctly measures (or focuses the lens at ) the right distances. A correctly adjusted rangefinder should show the lens' distance scale exactly at the "1 metre" mark if the camera's film plane is 1 metre from the target. And at the other end, infinity when lens is focused to a avery distant object.

Altering the RF arm or even changing the slope (it can be done as it's pivoted) of its sensor tip will result in the loss of RF accuracy. It could focus at infinity but lose its ability to measure right when it reaches closer distances, or vice versa.

Jay

I only had to adjust the rf for infinity on the Fed 2, close focus was right on. the bend on the rf cam arm was vert slight. It fixed the rough focus of the I-22 on that camera. That same lens was very smooth to focus on my Fed 5c, Zorki 4, and Zorki 1.

 

[ZorkiKat]

I only had to adjust the rf for infinity on the Fed 2, close focus was right on. the bend on the rf cam arm was vert slight. It fixed the rough focus of the I-22 on that camera. That same lens was very smooth to focus on my Fed 5c, Zorki 4, and Zorki 1.

You have to check the RF close focus precisely. Only then could you tell if the RF is adjusted properly. The errors at close focus isn't too obvious, and will only manifest when large apertures, long focus, close focus, or all are used.

Note that whenever a Soviet Leica RF is adjusted for infinity, the close focus adjustment will have to be checked as well. Adjusting one will upset the other so careful recalibration at either side is essential.

see here for for more details

http://www.jay.fedka.com/index_files/Page422.htm

 

[xayraa33]

yes , I seen that site before, a good site full of info to properly adjust the rangefinder in your FSU LTM camera. like I said, my adjustment of the Fed 2 rf's cam arm was very slight. the infinity was off a wee bit, not much, the I-22 focused smooth and well on that Fed 2. I used a J-8 on that camera also, the focus closeup, and at full bore was spot on.

 

[Bruce A]

I had a fed 2 that had a rf arm that would not clear the big rear barrell of a j-12. Evidentley this is pretty common. I didn't want to bend it, so I removed the arm and thinned the cam down with a sharpening stone. This does not effect the slope of the cam in any way, is not a lot of work, and seems safer than bending the arm.

 

[Nickfed]

like I said, my adjustment of the Fed 2 rf's cam arm was very slight. the infinity was off a wee bit, not much, the I-22 focused smooth and well on that Fed 2.

You did the right thing. I had the same problem and fixed it the same way. I think this can be common. The RF arm is the only exposed part of the camera mechanism that can get abused., even if unintentionally, and with cameras this old, one cannot be surprised if it has happened occasionally.

People don't seem to realise that RF arm's action is in and out. Moving it up and down will make no difference to the focus whatsoever, and its shape plus the miniscule bending required makes it impossible to bend it horizontally at the same time. You can be sure your "wee bit off" was always there.

FWIW the inside diameter of the focus ring varies between lenses. Examples:

Rigid Industar-50 30.2 mm
FED collapsible 30.5 mm
Leitz Summar 31.0 mm

The outside diameter is more difficult to measure. It wouldn't surprise me if that varied too. After all, it is only the pitch of the thread that counts, the diameter is immaterial.

Further, I submit that reducing the height of the follower, even with a sharpening stone, is a truly dumb solution. It may fix the problem, for now, but reducing the target area may incur problems with other lenses in the future. In short, it makes a bad situation worse.

 

[Bruce A]

Maybe its a dumb solution, but I fail to see where shaving a few thousands of an inch off a piece is going to make much difference. Besides, if you think about it, if you bend the arm your changing the amount of surface area that will rub against the lens, as you will end up cocking the cam a certain amount. Less surface area in contact= more wear.
I decided to do it that way as oppossed to bending for the following reasons;One, it was easier. Two, if you try and bend the arm without removing it, there is the possibilty you could damage the bushing it pivots in. Three, by bending the arm up you are going to change the distance between the arms' pivot, and the end of the cam. Enough to affect focus? Probably not, but with my luck with russian cameras, I would probably go to bend the arm , screw up the pivot, break the arm, get the geometry so screwed up it would never track right, or more likely, a combination of all of the above.

 

[Nickfed]

Maybe its a dumb solution, but I fail to see where shaving a few thousands of an inch off a piece is going to make much difference. .

maybe true but if you have a problem, remember where you heard it first.

QUOTE=Bruce A]Besides, if you think about it, if you bend the arm your changing the amount of surface area that will rub against the lens, as you will end up cocking the cam a certain amount. Less surface area in contact= more wear..[/QUOTE]

The amount of work required and the shape of the arm makes that pretty unlikely and I can't see you going out of the existing manufacuring tolerances. Besides, reducing the area of a follower that is clearly misaligned anyway is the worst solution I can think of for reducing wear.

QUOTE=Bruce A] Three, by bending the arm up you are going to change the distance between the arms' pivot, and the end of the cam. Enough to affect focus? Probably not, [/QUOTE]

Most definitely not and even if it was, it can be fixed with the RF adjustment screw. With decent pliers, it may be possible to bend the arm in situ. I preferred to remove it. (and check internal cleanliness at the same time)

 

[Bruce A]

Many paths to the Buddha

 

[danielnorton]

That did it!

That did it!

Another possibility is that the lens flange on the "new" camera is slightly warped. This can occur when the screws are tightened unevenly. To test it out, loosen all four screws very slightly (1/2 to 3/4 turn). Put the lens on the camera and see if the binding problem still occurs. It it goes away, it means that the screws were unevenly tightened. Just re-tighten the screws in a cross-pattern., like an automobile tire.

-Paul

Thanks Paul! That made a huge difference, I think the lens could also need some new grease, but now it focuses as smoothly on the new 4k as it does on my bessa and other 4.

Seems strange that only this lens had a problem, but it could be that it is just more pronounced due to the lens being a little tight to start off with.

Thanks to everyone for the advice!

Anyone do a full cleaning and greasing on an I-22 I could use some advise :angel:

 

[danielnorton]

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks! Doesn't look too bad.. I'll give it a shot after I shoot a few rolls, that way if I kill it at least I'll have the memories 😀

 

[ZorkiKat]

.

People don't seem to realise that RF arm's action is in and out. Moving it up and down will make no difference to the focus whatsoever, and its shape plus the miniscule bending required makes it impossible to bend it horizontally at the same time. You can be sure your "wee bit off" was always there.

.

I beg to disagree, but there is definitely an effect on the accuracy of the RF when the arm is moved. Bending the arm upwards will affect the orientation of the pivoted sensor tip. It's how this sensor tip is positioned against the lens coupler cams/rings which determines how accurate its coupling is to the camera RF. Minute deviations affect the rf and a properly calibrated RF can lose its adjustment when the arm is bent upwards or downwards.

I don't know if it's just a matter of realisation, but these Case(s) in point would say otherwise: Several FED-2 and early Zorki-1 whose RFs were calibrated according to Soviet instructions- but had RF arms which hang too low. J-12 lenses could not be accomodated so I bent the arms upwards to clear some space for this lens' large rear. As a result, their RF wasn't the same after. On two, the infinity was off. Three cameras which previously measure 1 metre on the dot started "seeing" this at slightly more than 1 metre. That's enough to throw the RF out of kilter.

The Soviet RF adjustment process had to be repeated to bring these cameras' RFs back in line.

 

[ZorkiKat]

And one more thing- many Industar-22 are not in inifinity focus when their tabs are locked. Try to look at the distance scale when the lens is locked- you'll see that the infinity position is a few mm away from locking position.

ADJUST the RF for infinity when the lens set at its real infinity position (as against its locked position). This is one area where the I-22 and real Leitz or its other non-Russian clones differ. Elmar, Canon, and Wollensak lock when lens is at infinity. Viewing through a properly adjusted Zorki RF with the I-22 lens locked will show the infinity image likely not lined up.

Some Industar-22 though DO lock up at their true infinity positions.

Another difference between Soviet Leicas and their German/Japanese counterparts is that Leica and Canons (usually) need ONLY to be adjusted for infinity and everything else follows. Soviet RF adjustment methods require adjustment both at infinity and minimum distance settings. That's the reason why Soviet Leicas use an adjustable sloped RF sensor tip instead of an evenly shaped wheel.

Jay

 

[Nickfed]

I beg to disagree, but there is definitely an effect on the accuracy of the RF when the arm is moved. Bending the arm upwards will affect the orientation of the pivoted sensor tip. It's how this sensor tip is positioned against the lens coupler cams/rings which determines how accurate its coupling is to the camera RF. Minute deviations affect the rf and a properly calibrated RF can lose its adjustment when the arm is bent upwards or downwards.

I don't know if it's just a matter of realisation, but these Case(s) in point would say otherwise: Several FED-2 and early Zorki-1 whose RFs were calibrated according to Soviet instructions- but had RF arms which hang too low. J-12 lenses could not be accomodated so I bent the arms upwards to clear some space for this lens' large rear. As a result, their RF wasn't the same after. On two, the infinity was off. Three cameras which previously measure 1 metre on the dot started "seeing" this at slightly more than 1 metre. That's enough to throw the RF out of kilter.

The Soviet RF adjustment process had to be repeated to bring these cameras' RFs back in line.

OK so minute is a relative term but this is absurd. The lens barrel is cross-cut and parallel with the film plane. All parts of it move in and out at the same time and at the same speed, the barrel being inelastic. The RF follower moves in a plane perpendicular to the film plane. The only thing it has to do is properly engage with the lens. To do this, it is unlikely that the arm will require bending by more than +/- 0.5 deg, no matter where you actually put the bend. Bend it any more and you will miss the lens. The only detrimental thing that may happen is that the effective distance from pivot the tip of the follower may change. Guessing that this is nominally 15mm, the most elementary mathematics will show you that the variation in arm length as a result of this butchery, will be approximately 0.0006mm. I won't type that again or even bother to count the actual number of zeros, but more to the point, the varaition may actually be in the correct direction....

Further, in view of the substantial difference between the movement of the lens and the length of the arm, the lateral position of the sensor is the least important factor in the game and if it was move laterally two or three millimeters in either direction, I suspect you would never know. Mr Barnack wasn't completely stupid, he was designing a camera, not a chronometer - and not a very complex one at that..

The "cases in point" say nothing.

 

[Nickfed]

And one more thing- many Industar-22 are not in inifinity focus when their tabs are locked. Try to look at the distance scale when the lens is locked- you'll see that the infinity position is a few mm away from locking position.

Whilst it is possible that some I-22s are not focussing on infinity when they are locked, I can't see the distance scale being a proper indicator of this. I submit the pointer is just on a ring and has about the same mechanical relevance as a hubcap. If I was confronted with the absurd situation where pointer was "a few millimetres" out when the lens was locked, I would put my bet on the lock.

ADJUST the RF for infinity when the lens set at its real infinity position (as against its locked position).

There is a strong implication here that you adjust your rangefinder to agree with the pointer on the scale, irrespective of where the lens is really focussed. I would really rather hear terms like "image at film plane" here

This is one area where the I-22 and real Leitz or its other non-Russian clones differ. Elmar, Canon, and Wollensak lock when lens is at infinity. Viewing through a properly adjusted Zorki RF with the I-22 lens locked will show the infinity image likely not lined up.

This says nothing or may equally mean the the RF is actually improperly adjusted. Indeed from reading the above, I suspect that that is very likely to be the case.

Soviet RF adjustment methods require adjustment both at infinity and minimum distance settings. That's the reason why Soviet Leicas use an adjustable sloped RF sensor tip instead of an evenly shaped wheel.

Surely this is baloney. Relying on the slope of the sensor to solve the "problem" will only guarantee it's not going to be solved and can only lead to more trouble. If there was a problem, it would be easier to get it right in the first place than to try a fix as dumb as this. You only have to open the back of a Zorki-6 and look, to see that there is nothing to suggest that the curved foot does anything more than serve to reduce wear more cheaply than a wheel, and probably more reliably. Again, if you care to do the geometry, I'm sure you will find that the broader surface presented is immaterial to the rangefinder operation. I submit that the "adjustment" in the follower, which is hardly available to the user, is only there to fix some gross mis-adjustment at the other end of the arm. It's the last component in the assembly, thus the obvious place for a final check.

I guess that's my 2c!!

 

[ZorkiKat]

.Surely this is baloney. Relying on the slope of the sensor to solve the "problem" will only guarantee it's not going to be solved and can only lead to more trouble. If there was a problem, it would be easier to get it right in the first place than to try a fix as dumb as this. You only have to open the back of a Zorki-6 and look, to see that there is nothing to suggest that the curved foot does anything more than serve to reduce wear more cheaply than a wheel, and probably more reliably. Again, if you care to do the geometry, I'm sure you will find that the broader surface presented is immaterial to the rangefinder operation. I submit that the "adjustment" in the follower, which is hardly available to the user, is only there to fix some gross mis-adjustment at the other end of the arm. It's the last component in the assembly, thus the obvious place for a final check

I guess that's my 2c!!

OK, more baloney:

Barnack & company designed a coupled rangefinder and we find this in Leica and clones like the Canon. Mr Barnack however did not design the ones found inside a Zorki or FED. The Soviets modified it to suit their production needs. More on this later.

And before you further dismiss as baloney what I've said about Soviet Rangefinders, may I suggest that you read first a Soviet repair manual which discusses rangefinder adjustment. The fact that you find absurd the notion of adjustable sensor tips would make it seem that you are not really familiar with the mechanics of the Soviet LTM RF coupling. Soviet Leica clones need to be adjusted for infinity using the RF adjusting screw and adjusted for minimum focus using the RF sensor tip.

Read Izaak Maizenberg, or any Soviet publication on Camera repair and you'll see what I mean. I believe that you aren't quite familiar with how their system works.

The roller sensors found in Leica or Canon required high precision during manufacture. The system to which they're attached to also require precision during manufacture and assembly. Their accuracy would allow them to couple, measure and align (and all those things which RFs do) at all distances with just one adjustment.

Requiring high precision during the parts' milling, manufacture, and assembly mean more time and effort- bottom line would mean less cameras made within a given production period.

The Soviet production system placed quotas above anything else. Quantity over quality. Haven't we been hearing about iffy soviet quality control as the first concern about anything soviet-made? They wanted more cameras in less time, so
they had to adopt output-increasing measures. One avenue had been to make the RF less effort and time consuming to do.

By putting less stress on precision (make the parts loose first), more could be made, more could be accepted for assembly, and less thrown out. The RFs were assembled with intent to be adjusted individually later for focusing and lens coupling. That's why many of the early FED and Zorki left with passports which described not only what their measurements were, but sometimes what their optical working distances were.

The sensor tip wasn't even sloped when the Soviets started making them. The roller sensor wasn't used, perhaps because it required more effort and cost to do.
They adopted an adjustable pivoted sensor which allowed subsequent adjustment so that it can jive with the rest of the rangefinder for correct distance measurement. The first sensors were oval/rectangular in shape. Then they became tiny and tear-shaped. The sloped tip came later- first seen in Zorki-1 and then later on all the subsequent FED and Zorki. The changes in the shape of the sensor tip were a design evolution - the wider sloped sensor allowed more adjustment compared to the rectangular or tiny wedges formerly used. They were not there simply as an answer to wear.

It would be impossible to see on film any effect on focus which a distorted sensor
tip can cause - Zorki-1 and FED-1 cameras don't have opening backs.

I stand by my adjustment methods. First they work, the cameras I shoot with have proven that fact. And second, more importantly, it conforms to the methods long established by the Soviet factories, technicians, and designers who built, designed, and repaired these cameras.

Attached are jpgs of the sensors used in FED and Zorki cameras.