heronop2003
Member
Universal View Finder is good and should have it? if i use zorki 4
Universal View Finder is good?
- Thread starter heronop2003
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 25
- Views 2K
Marcus B
Member
You mean the russian "revolver"-type viewfinder (28-135)? Yes, it is good for the price. If you get one, be careful not go get the "kiev"-version. The "Kiev"-version is somewhat to the right of the hotshoe mount, the FED/Zorki/... version somewhat to the left.
Marcus
Marcus
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I like mine, but if you have only a 50mm lens it's not needed. And there are single focal length finders that you can get to match other lenses.
So...it depends.
I like the one I have because I can carry it and the three different lenses I own(35,50,and85mm) and one finder. Less gear to keep up with and carry.
Rob
So...it depends.
I like the one I have because I can carry it and the three different lenses I own(35,50,and85mm) and one finder. Less gear to keep up with and carry.
Rob
Roger Hicks
Veteran
These finders are excellent. But as Marcus points out, there are both LH and RH versions -- see A HISTORY OF THE 35MM STILL CAMERA, page 147 (www.rogerandfrances.com). Personally I doubt it matters much.
Cheers,
Roger
Cheers,
Roger
jdos2
Well-known
It DOES matter, when the parts are mixed. I believe it Dante Stella himself that experienced that trauma- where the parallax correction appears BACKWARDS because of the LH/RH parts intermingling.
V
varjag
Guest
I must be slow today, but how UTF handedness affects parallax correction?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ummm...
Sorry jdos2 -- parallex is mostly up-down and you'd need to be VERY close before
less than inch (call it 20mm) to left or right mattered a lot. I've had both finders.
Cheers,
Roger
Sorry jdos2 -- parallex is mostly up-down and you'd need to be VERY close before
less than inch (call it 20mm) to left or right mattered a lot. I've had both finders.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
V
varjag
Guest
Roger, if I recall correctly both finders match a turret lens with the eyepiece in the central stand, so the difference in horizontal parallax is hardly an issue too.
jdos2
Well-known
varjag said:
The trouble isn't the handedness of the viewfinders, but if someone mixes parts, the right hand wheel on the left hand holder will be marked backwards for parallax correction.
That's all I was sayin'.
One does have to be fairly close (even with the 135mm) before one starts missing shots on account of paralax.
V
varjag
Guest
Umm, the stand is not really 'central' - I meant that it goes right above the accessory shoe.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I recall seeing somewhere that if the finder is put toghether from parts of both types then the parralx correction works backwards from how it should. And you might not realize it until after you used it and saw the prints/slides/negs.varjag said:
Personally I figure if I need framing to be that precise, I'll use an SLR. For my RF pictures I frame fairly loose and then crop the print if needed.
Rob
V
varjag
Guest
jdos2 said:
Ah, and I thought 'mixing' was in sense of mixing Zorki camera with Kiev UTF and vice versa. Seems I *am* slow 🙂
ScottS
Established
Roger,
If the front (rotating) elements of the LH and RH finders are true mirror images of each other, then mixing the two would result in the parallax marks on the dial being on the wrong side of the center mark. Since the turret finder's parallax correction is done via rotating the dial (rather than tilting the finder forward), a reversed front element would mean that pointing it to the 1m mark would point the front element _upward_ rather than _downward_. Perhaps Dante Stella's finder had the rotating element replaced at one point with the wrong type.
So this was probably not an issue of using the wrong type of finder but in a finder which had been improperly taken apart/repaired/etc.
If anyone happens to have both versions of the finder, I'm curious as to whether there's any difference in left/right position of the viewing element or if the difference is purely which side of the finder the not-currently-used front elements are placed -- a Kiev-style finder would obscure the shutter speed dial on a fed/zorki/leica body, so they reversed it for that purpose rather than for any parallax/optical reasons.
Scott
If the front (rotating) elements of the LH and RH finders are true mirror images of each other, then mixing the two would result in the parallax marks on the dial being on the wrong side of the center mark. Since the turret finder's parallax correction is done via rotating the dial (rather than tilting the finder forward), a reversed front element would mean that pointing it to the 1m mark would point the front element _upward_ rather than _downward_. Perhaps Dante Stella's finder had the rotating element replaced at one point with the wrong type.
So this was probably not an issue of using the wrong type of finder but in a finder which had been improperly taken apart/repaired/etc.
If anyone happens to have both versions of the finder, I'm curious as to whether there's any difference in left/right position of the viewing element or if the difference is purely which side of the finder the not-currently-used front elements are placed -- a Kiev-style finder would obscure the shutter speed dial on a fed/zorki/leica body, so they reversed it for that purpose rather than for any parallax/optical reasons.
Scott
phototone
Well-known
heronop2003 said:
I have a couple of these, one for the Leica style cameras and one for the Contax style Kiev cameras.
I have had two issues with the Leica/Fed/Zorki style, one is that the field of view appears not to be level, in that I can level a shot in the turret finder, and on film it appears tilted. I have taken to standing back and looking at the levelness of the camera body, and adjusting for this, and this seems to work better. I have also found that the parallex correcton is sometimes iffy. Best to allow plenty of crop room.
ScottS
Established
Looks like several people made my point more concisely while I was typing away...
Scott
Scott
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear ScottS,
You sum up my own suspicions precisely. I susoect that the 'handedness' has virtually no L/R effect and even less up/down effect.
Cheers,
Roger
You sum up my own suspicions precisely. I susoect that the 'handedness' has virtually no L/R effect and even less up/down effect.
Cheers,
Roger
dll927
Well-known
Sounds like you could avoid the whole issue by using individual finders for various focal lengths. True, this means more to carry around, but they would probably be more accurate. Then again, this thread is about the universal variety. So far, I only have 50mm lenses for my Zorkis and Kievs, but in due time I may face this issue.
phototone
Well-known
dll927 said:
The Russian individual focal length finders do not have bright frames to indicate parallex at close distances, so they will not be very accurate on tightly cropped shots, especially close up.
The Russian Universal Finder (and I have three or four of these) seem to vary all over the place on accuracy of framing. Best to calibrate on a camera with a removable back so you can put a piece of ground glass in the film plane and compare views. You can put little bits of paper as shims where the shoe is screwed to the finder to tilt forward or back. Unscrew shoe enough to slip shims in.
phototone
Well-known
dll927 said:
If you are referring to the Russian individual focal length finders, I think there are only three. the 20mm, the 35mm and the 85mm. I have never seen any others.
the 20 is supposed to be quite nice. The 35 and the 85, I have, and they are only OK, not nearly as good as a Voigtlander auxiliary finder.
Marcus B
Member
One other thing: if you use a Contax/Kiev style finder on a Leica/Zorki/Fed, it will be in the way while adjusting exposure time.
Marcus
Marcus
