Question - turret viewfinder range accuracy

[Apostata]

Hello,

I received a turret viewfinder in the mail the other day, in anticipation of a 35mm Jupiter-12 that I will be receiving shortly. I use a Zorki-4 with a Jupiter-8, and - out of curiosity - when I checked out the 5cm setting on the viewfinder, it looked wider than I instinctively think the 50mm lens naturally is. I should qualify this by saying that I haven't shot using the 5cm setting on the turret, as it's obivously not necessary.

Obviously I'm a little concerned, as I don't want to be under a false impression when I'm depending upon the viewfinder for using the Jupiter-12.

Anyone go through a similar experience (preferrably with a happy ending?)

Cheers,

Matt

 

[fish.rc]

Hello,

I received a turret viewfinder in the mail the other day, in anticipation of a 35mm Jupiter-12 that I will be receiving shortly. I use a Zorki-4 with a Jupiter-8, and - out of curiosity - when I checked out the 5cm setting on the viewfinder, it looked wider than I instinctively think the 50mm lens naturally is. I should qualify this by saying that I haven't shot using the 5cm setting on the turret, as it's obivously not necessary.

Obviously I'm a little concerned, as I don't want to be under a false impression when I'm depending upon the viewfinder for using the Jupiter-12.

Anyone go through a similar experience (preferrably with a happy ending?)

Cheers,

Matt

I also have the same doubt! I try the 28mm focal length agains my SLR camera and the other 28mm finder, the Russian Universal Finder indeed looks wider. Wonder if anyone can verify the issue??

RC

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Remember that most SLR's show the central 90% or so of the actual image formed on film. Most processing labs get ~95% of the negative. The Nikon F and F2 show 100% of the negative, but then you lose out when the film gets printed or slides get mounted.

 

[varjag]

Also, the area visible outisde the frame may add to the impression of wider focal length.

 

[Apostata]

Also, the area visible outisde the frame may add to the impression of wider focal length.

This is true...I will test this soon.

 

[Kin Lau]

Few SLR's show 100% of the view as Brian mentions, and then there's the problem of whether the 28mm is really 28mm, or perhaps more a 29 or 30, since a 5% variance is consider "acceptable" by most lense manufacturers.

 

[dll927]

I have raised inquiries about the turret finders, and there have been several previous threads on them. My take:

1) They are nothing if not controversial. Some love them, and some claim they are next to useless. So I have held off. I have several Zorki and Kiev models, but so far have only the 50mm lenses they came with. The turret finder would be useful if I decide to get other-length lenses, but I'm left in a quandary after reading these threads. For sure, there are different opinions about them.

2) There seem to be "left-" and "right-" handed versions, referring to the orientation of the turret from the viewing section. "Left" seems to be for Zorkis, while "right" is for Kievs. But some of the ads I have seen on e-bay seem to imply that they can be used with either brand of camera. Again, there seems to be disagreement. Or it could be advertising hype.

It would be nice if somebody could straighten this all out. I'm waiting!!

 

[Apostata]

Well, I suppose the best test would be to do what is done in cinematography: shoot a 'rack leader'. Basically, pin a sheet of paper to a wall, with registration marks for the perimeter of the film frame, and position the camera so that the edges of the perimeter are on the very edge of the viewfinder 'safe area'. If indeed the viewfinder is seeing more than what is captured, then this test will immediately show the discrepency. I'm sure there is a still-photo equivalent of this, but as I work in (movie) film, this is the best example I can think of.

What should the dimensions of the test frame be (ie. what ratio)? I will take it upon myself to test this with my incoming 35mm lens and the KMZ turret viewfinder I have. News at eleven, as they say.

Matt

 

[dll927]

There is another possible answer to all this - get one and give it a try. Most Russian equipment is relatively low-cost, so it's not as if one were shelling out for a broken-down car. Maybe one of these days I'll even take my own advice!! Right now I'm recovering from buying a fairly expensive digital SLR, so some other things may wait a bit.

 

[tenebrae]

When using a turret viewfinder, you will have to pay extensive attention to parallax. The attached picture was taken with the use of a J-12, and it was my honest intention to get the Mrs in the centre of the frame. I did compensate for parallax.... but not nearly enough.

 

[doubs43]

When using a turret viewfinder, you will have to pay extensive attention to parallax. The attached picture was taken with the use of a J-12, and it was my honest intention to get the Mrs in the centre of the frame. I did compensate for parallax.... but not nearly enough.

That is precisely the reason I find the Leitz Imarect finder to be preferable to the turret finder. If the Leitz finder is dialed to the correct distance, the subject selected to be centered will be centered.

The turret finder has some admirable qualities but parallax correction is not one of them.

Walker

 

[dexdog]

Do the russian turret finders have parallax correction? Both the pre-war and post war versions of the Contax turrets have it. I find the pre-war version difficult to use due to the fine distance engravings on the chromed ring of the turret- it is just too hard for my aging eyes to see w/o magnification. The post-war ones are a lot easier to use- the distance setting is dialed in at the eyepiece. The one I have is marked in feet and meters, and I have found that it gives accurate framing when distance is dialed in.

 

[tenebrae]

No, Russian turret finders do not have parallax correction. See my post above with the picture. It was taken when using a Russian turret viewfinder, at the 28mm setting for the J-12.

 

[dexdog]

I am surprised that there is no parallax adjustment, given that these finders are copies of the pre-war Contax.

 

[Kin Lau]

I have 2 turret finders (left handed ones), and they both have parallax adjustment. I'll take a picture when I get home and post it.

ps. I didn't even notice the feature until someone else here at RFF mentioned it in a post.

 

[doubs43]

Do the russian turret finders have parallax correction?

They do but it's very coarse and not easy to use. The ideal finder, IMO, would be the Contax-style viewfinder with the Imarect foot and parallax correction system.

Walker

 

[John Robertson]

This is one of these questions which can run and run and run!! Personally I've had Russian Turret finder since 1971, when I bought it in Vienna. I've used it with Fed, Zorki, Leica, and now Bessa cameras. I also had a Leitz Imarect (VIOOH) finder with the TUVOO 28mm converter. The Russian finder is FAR more accurate at 28mm than the Leitz set up despite the clever tilting mechanism on the Leitz finder. There also seems to be quite a bit of variation in the Russian finders. Mine has two spring loaded ball bearings in the "foot" which means it fits the camera shoe tightly and snugly, also mine has click stops at the parallax correction marks on the rotating turret. I have however seen finders without either of these. I prefer the inbuilt frames of the Bessa finder for most settings, but for 28 and 135 I use the turret. I don't crop too tightly in the finder frame as I can always do that at the printing stage, which I find gives more options. Just my two pence worth!! :angel: