Quality of KMZ 35mm viewfinders?

[Jamie Pillers]

Has anyone here used a KMZ viewfinder? I see many advertised for sale on eBay. I assume they're made in the former USSR somewhere. Any thoughts about their quality? How they might compare to the new Voigtlanders? Thanks for any info you can provide. I'm particularly interested in the 35mm version.

 

[xayraa33]

I use them and like them very much.
they are not as bright as the new CV finders , but better than a lot of the 1950s non BL japanese finders.

the price is right too.

 

[colyn]

I feel that they have gotten a bit pricey lately but they are good finders.

 

[hans voralberg]

Good finders, bit hard to find these day but very useable and looks cool 😛

 

[BillBingham2]

I found them better than the bullet finders of years ago, but not as good as any Brightline finders, old or new. When I was shooting with a T, I found I rather save for the new CV or used Leica Brightline finders than go on the cheap. With the exception of 105mm BL finders, most can be picked up for a reasonable price if you are willing to hunt.

B2 (;->

 

[M. Valdemar]

They are very nice, nothing wrong with them at all.

 

[raid]

The KMZ turret finder is my everyday finder with my RF cameras. I like it a lot. I may have 4 or 5 Leitz finders.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I guess I'll continue to save up a few more pennies for a CV finder. I want it to be as clear as possible without breaking the bank for a Leica version. I'm going to use it on my Canon G9 since I use that almost always as the 35mm end of the zoom.

 

[ruben]

I think we could be more accurate in our description of the Kmz finders. They have no bright lines, being their fuzzy borders the borders of the image on the film. Their metal shoe, or their bakelite shoe (a kind of hard plastic) is to be appreciated.

The rear lens is built for disassembly, enabling some degree of diopter correction. Due to their age, this is possible too forcing the dry glue of the front plastic piece.

The quality of the glass is nothing less than superb. I don't think the brihghtness of the image is any less than what you see without them.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[rxmd]

I'd still prefer a 35mm Helios brightline finder (they're available cheap).

The turret finder is nice and useful, but a bit bulky if you want to use it with only one focal length.

 

[mcgrattan]

The 'soviet' 35mm finder I have is very bright and clear. Mine has some masks that can clip on the front for 85 and 135mm views, too.

However, the angle of the 'foot' that sits in the shoe seems wrong. The finder tilts down a little too much [like a parallax correcting finder set for 1 - 2m], I think. I haven't tried it on my Leica, but shots taken on my Zorki 2 have slightly random framing as a result. It's possible the shoe on the Zorki is wrong, but looking at the finder I think it's the base of the finder itself.

Shame, as the optics are pretty good. I'll probably get rid of the finder as, for framing, the turret finder is more accurate.

 

[David Murphy]

Excellent for the money - don't hesitate.

 

[Highway 61]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I guess I'll continue to save up a few more pennies for a CV finder. I want it to be as clear as possible without breaking the bank for a Leica version. I'm going to use it on my Canon G9 since I use that almost always as the 35mm end of the zoom.

I have the late metal CV 35mm brightlines finder (which I use on my vintage RF cameras with 35mm lenses) and a Canon G9 and the idea of using the CV finder on the G9 occured to me.

Worthless - the 3/2 ratio of the finder doesn't allo for accurate framing with the 4/3 G9 sensor even at the 35mm end of the zoom.

Basically the sensor captures way more stuff than what you see through the CV finder - mainly located at the bottom of the image.

Have the G9 screen display the grid and just basic info (speed and aperture) through the customs menu and use the LCD screen for framing, that's what the G9 is designed for.

If you consider the G9 LCD screen to be a MF camera focusing screen rather than something you may be allergic to because it's "digital", you will find it very easy to use and very user friendly... since its image is larger and brighter than what you see in a Hasselblad waist-lever standard finder, for instance.