spiderfrank
just a dreamer
Hmmmm... are you sure ...?
I am looking through this VF right now and this is what can i see (almost) ...
Maybe i am imaging this in a bad way ... but it seems to me to be the same as with my pics. If i was shooting with "1m" instead of infinity "preset" my real frame was lower (in horizontal shots) or moved to the right (vertical pics) in compare to the intended frame. Am i wrong ?
Bolas, i must apologize for my previous post: I just took my finder and made some "experiments": you are right: if you set the distance to 1m, the finder frame goes down, so you move the camera up, and the result is to cut the top edge of the photo, if the subject is far!
robin a
Well-known
They are beautifully exposed photo's,good luck with your composition problem.
Robin
Robin
julio1fer
Well-known
Easiest way to check agreement between the turret viewfinder and the camera viewfinder:
- Camera on a tripod, point to a far away object
- Set turret to 135, infinity
- Field in turret viewfinder should be about the same as rangefinder patch in camera viewfinder. At least they should be very close and the center should match.
This is for sure a viewfinder problem, either because of wrong distance set in the turret viewfinder or movement (wiggle) of the VF. A problem in the camera body would be very unlikely to give these results.
- Camera on a tripod, point to a far away object
- Set turret to 135, infinity
- Field in turret viewfinder should be about the same as rangefinder patch in camera viewfinder. At least they should be very close and the center should match.
This is for sure a viewfinder problem, either because of wrong distance set in the turret viewfinder or movement (wiggle) of the VF. A problem in the camera body would be very unlikely to give these results.
bolas
Established
Guys thank you so much for answers and ideas ... the was really interesting. I think i will try one more film without changing anything, maybe it was just my mistake ...
julio1fer thanks for idea with matching view for 135 in VF and normal sight. That's interesting i have to check it tommorow.
I don't know details about proccesing and scaning. I just paid for this. All i can say is that it was not a lab but a simple old-school job, made by a friend of mine.
julio1fer thanks for idea with matching view for 135 in VF and normal sight. That's interesting i have to check it tommorow.
It was Jupiter 12, 2,8/35mm a black one, no. 9008XXX, so pretty late production i believe ... Film ? Kodak "Pro Foto 400BW". Settings were mostly the same. Aperture between F5,6 and F8. Firstible i was checking the light with very old Sverdlovsk-4 lightmeter, then adding a bit of time (usually 1~1,5 second more than lightmeter showed). So when f.e. lightmeters showed time of 2 second for aperture F5,6 i was holding the trigger (via shutter wire) for 3~3,5 seconds. That's all.
I don't know details about proccesing and scaning. I just paid for this. All i can say is that it was not a lab but a simple old-school job, made by a friend of mine.
Last edited:
ErnestoJL
Well-known
IMHO, the problem may be either a soft pad on the tripod that´s unevenly compressed when bolting the camera (allowing for the camera for some tilt) or the accessory shoe has some play (allowing the VF for some tilt too).
If true, the first cause can be cured with a thin sheet of aluminum or steel plate in between camera and tripod.
Check with the camera bolted to a rock steady mount like a bench vise or something similar to be sure what happens.
I´m using a FOCA (french made) finder as well as another home made with no problems.
The only I do is to be sure that I´m covering something else than what I want to be in the picture. There´s allways time for cropping a little.
Cheers
Ernesto
If true, the first cause can be cured with a thin sheet of aluminum or steel plate in between camera and tripod.
Check with the camera bolted to a rock steady mount like a bench vise or something similar to be sure what happens.
I´m using a FOCA (french made) finder as well as another home made with no problems.
The only I do is to be sure that I´m covering something else than what I want to be in the picture. There´s allways time for cropping a little.
Cheers
Ernesto
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I'm not seeing how this could be a tripod problem: yes the mount may be tilted but that would tilt camera and the attached VF. So, they would be pointing in the same direction(with in the limits of the usual parallax error). You still should get what's in the VF on the film if the VF is lining up correctly. So, I think that it comes down to either the VF is off or mis-adjusted in some way or the accessory shoe is at fault.
Bolas, if you can borrow another VF--ideally another turret finder--one that is known to be good, and try again, that should show you if it is the VF or the shoe.
I ask because if you were shooting hand-held before these and something has happened to the VF since but you haven't shot hand-held since it would seem like that--hand-held or shoe mounted--would be the difference while it might actually be that hand-held or shoe mounted is not really what the problem is.
And, I should have said earlier: except for the cropping problem, these are very good photos. Actually, I like the one with the dog looking out of the frame and part of the woman's face cropped rahter well just as it is.
Rob
Bolas, if you can borrow another VF--ideally another turret finder--one that is known to be good, and try again, that should show you if it is the VF or the shoe.
Have you shot hand-held with this VF after you took these photos?
I ask because if you were shooting hand-held before these and something has happened to the VF since but you haven't shot hand-held since it would seem like that--hand-held or shoe mounted--would be the difference while it might actually be that hand-held or shoe mounted is not really what the problem is.
And, I should have said earlier: except for the cropping problem, these are very good photos. Actually, I like the one with the dog looking out of the frame and part of the woman's face cropped rahter well just as it is.
Rob
bolas
Established
I've done like julio1fer said. Mounted camera on the tripod, set VF to 135 mm, everything was pointed on old factory far away. It seems that centers of both views are exacty in the same place ... differences on photo below are just because it was difficult to shoot the pic in such conditions
In conclusion of this post i am starting to believe that problem with framing was rather my mistake ...
Spider67
Well-known
There is a dedicated Kiev turret finder (I have both finders. the3y are nearly nidentical). Its only difference compared with the one for Zorkis is that the drum is on the right side, so that it's more comfortable to rewind the film in a Kiev, but which can have disturbing results when using it with a Zorki: The base gets in the way of the speed dial. I never had problems with the turret finder when using it with a Z 4 or 4k. Zorkikat mentions on his site on Zorkis that the turret is also far from ideal when used with Zorki 1 or Fed 1. I read somewhere that it was meant to be used with the metered Contax models originally (which would exüplain why it works on Zorki 4s). I am going to tackle the problem by checking it with a focussing screen taped into a Kiev 4 AM.