Viewfinder Magnification on FEDs and Zorkis?

I received a FED-2 without the inner lens, so I just unscrewed the outer lens and shot like that. I didn't notice any framing issues, but I mainly shoot handheld in changeable situations. Anyway, the seller sent me a new inner lens and I was surprised at how much darker the VF/RF was.

Then the outer lens unscrewed itself on a downtown shoot and disappeared, never to be found again. :( As soon as I find a decent transparent coverpiece, I'm gonna remove the inner lens and just shoot bareback.
 
dgray said:
I'll be happier with the viewfinder on the 4.
Click to expand...
I think this will be correct


dgray said:
Whether the difference in finders is worth the extra conveniences of the 6 remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
It will be. The conveniences are debatable, and marginal at best. The viewinder is a vital part of the picture-taking process.
 
Nickfed said:
"It will be. The conveniences are debatable, and marginal at best. The viewinder is a vital part of the picture-taking process."
Click to expand...
Agreed. Well said, Nickster.
 
That's an interesting comment, because when I first became interested in photography (in the 1950's), "rapid-wind" levers were just coming out. Not even Leicas ever had them until the M series made its debut in about 1954. Several of the first (relatively inexpensive) cameras I first had came with knob wind - no choice in the matter.

In those days, the "brick", a.k.a. Argus C-3, and the Kodak 35 were two of the more common "everyman's" cameras. Both had knob winding and NO provision for interchanging lenses. You got a 50mm, and that was that. (Yes, there were a few attempts to sell attachments that did otherwise.) Nowdays, both of those cameras look like something designed for a KLUTZ!!
 
dll927 said:
That's an interesting comment,
Click to expand...

I think you might have mis-read me. I'm not against lever wind per se. It's just that that on the Zorki-6 is not a good one. It does work, inasmuch that it allows you to wind the film with your thumb while looking through the viewfinder, but that is all.

dll927 said:
(Argus and Kodak C35) Nowdays, both of those cameras look like something designed for a KLUTZ
Click to expand...

You only have to look at them and it is very clear that they were, and by a Klutz too. There is something peculiarly cultural about them, which I guess is why they were never exported. This despite, I understand, that they actually worked well.
 
derevaun said:
I received a FED-2 without the inner lens, so I just unscrewed the outer lens and shot like that. I didn't notice any framing issues, but I mainly shoot handheld in changeable situations. Anyway, the seller sent me a new inner lens and I was surprised at how much darker the VF/RF was.

Then the outer lens unscrewed itself on a downtown shoot and disappeared, never to be found again. :( As soon as I find a decent transparent coverpiece, I'm gonna remove the inner lens and just shoot bareback.
Click to expand...


This is interesting! I don't quite follow exactly what happened, but are you saying that you shot with the camera with no viewfinder glass at all but were looking through the viewfinder hole with nothing in it? If so, you couldn't see the rangefinder patch, could you? Please explain more.
 
dgray said:
This is interesting! I don't quite follow exactly what happened, but are you saying that you shot with the camera with no viewfinder glass at all but were looking through the viewfinder hole with nothing in it? If so, you couldn't see the rangefinder patch, could you? Please explain more.
Click to expand...

The rangefinder stuff is all in there, but the rear lens and the sliding inner lens are removed. Together they focus on the rangefinder (as a reverse galilean?) for diopter correction, but without them you're looking directly at and through the rangefinder glass, which is essentially lenseless. The RF patch is still visible; in fact it's clearer and brighter without the two lenses converging and diverging it. With only one of the dipoter lenses, it's a total blur. My rear lens fell off sometime after my last shot and before I got out of the car at home :( so I had to remove the inner lens in order to see the RF.

You have to take the top off to remove the diopter lenses (or unscrew the rear lens and bash out the inner lens with an icepick :) and with the rear lens gone the innards are exposed to dust, smoke, etc. But it sure is brighter!
 
Whats the magnification of Leica II-IIIa-f compared to Zorki 1 and FED 1?
I have read its about 0.5x for Leica, and Zorki/FED???
 
May I suggest; before we start counting how many angels can fit in a viewfinder :bang:;

that the best solution for any of the Russkis is to add a bright line finder... as in Leica or CV.

That is, if you are interested in taking photographs rather than nit-picking. :angel:

Here's a working example:


med_U20714I1407606457.SEQ.0.jpg
 
You have been asking viewfinder questions for months, over...and over...and over....

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2285250&postcount=1
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144082
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139584
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139880
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72549
etc...dozens more

But like you said yourself, you've tried over 18 cameras and can't be happy.

"...but the viewfinder tint always drives me to hate that little angel.
I have tried many RFs like Hi Matic 7sII, Yashica Electro, Canonet QL19 GIII, Agfa Optima 1535, Vito B, Vitomatic, Olympus Xa-xa4, Leica CL and of course the big boys like Leica M2, M3, M4-2, M6, Canon P, 7, Hexar AF, Contax G2, Bessa R, Zeiss ZM...

The list is endless..."

"I hope to finaly end my endless search for the best camera soon or I will realy get insane." (Jan, 2014)

You've researched every facet of everything you've asked, before, during, and after asking. Why, for gosh sakes, WHY do you keep asking about all this every day or two?
 
The answer is it doesn't matter, the internal VF is next to useless, count on putting an aux VF on any Barnack/copy for serious use. AFAIK the only 50mm lens that does not block part of the view is the rigid I-22, a bit of a rare bird. Once you put a hood on it though, same story.
 
Last edited:
The internal finder is small but some people, like myself, find it quite usable. It is a matter dependent upon the user and their eyesight and preferences. Some folks can use the internal finder, some can not. This question can not be answered on the internet. Buy a Zorki or a Fed and try it. If it does not work for you get something else. Good Luck. Joe
 
Livestreamer, golden answer!
I prefer to have both, internal and external.
And yes, I will give them a try.
Thank you

But still I would like to know if both finders, Zorkis and Leicas are optical identical.
 
I use a Leica IIf and a Zorki 1c routinely. I wear glasses, but I don't use them with these cameras. I like to use the internal viewfinders on both. They are bright, and both have the same field of view at 0.5x. I don't know if the internal optical equipment is the same, but they view the same.

I use the internal VFs for both 50mm and 35mm FL lenses. Composing with a 35mm, I turn the camera 90 degrees to check the height of the image that will result.

I use a Leica external VF for 90mm FL. I use the internal VF for infrequent 135mm and then center and estimate the image.

The two cameras' rangefinders are not the same, of course. The IIf appears to have a little more magnification, and it also has the focus adjustment lever under the rewind knob.
 
You seem to pick only the answers that you like. I can assure you that if you didn't like the Vito B (original model, I assume), you won't like the Zorki. I have both, and a IIIf as well. The Vito has the "best" finder of the three, for what it's worth.

Is it "usable"? Of course it is. But usable and useful are not the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom