ZI Rangefinder Misalignment: Fact or Fiction?

Huck,
Because of the very large base of the ZI range finder that flag pole may have not been far enough (no joke intended). Try the moon or something even farther.
That range finded is unbelievably precise. A mile or two may not be the same as infinity.
Zoran
 
OK. I'm sure that I'm not the first one but hope to be the last one, who believes that ZI is the right choice but worries about the misalignment of it.

It is discussed a lot here.

Is there any official explanation of the issue?

Thanks.

Jack
 
my bessa r2a's rangefinder got knocked out when I nailed it on the bus once, but since then I have given my bessa the kind of hell that a person who travels all around china by the worst possible ways. I learned that the rangefinder is pretty durable, even though it is out vertically a bit from the bus for the most part its good. I bet the Zeiss one is better, I wonder why mine had so many problems...
 
slowman said:
OK. I'm sure that I'm not the first one but hope to be the last one, who believes that ZI is the right choice but worries about the misalignment of it.

It is discussed a lot here.

Is there any official explanation of the issue?

Thanks.

Jack
Click to expand...

did you read the first post?
it's not 'official' but it makes sense to me.

joe
 
jjovin said:
Huck,
Because of the very large base of the ZI range finder that flag pole may have not been far enough (no joke intended). Try the moon or something even farther.
That range finded is unbelievably precise. A mile or two may not be the same as infinity.
Zoran
Click to expand...

Yesterday I have noticed a very small misalignment of my ZI's rangefinder, too (horizontal and vertical). Was not necessary to use the moon - a lamp post far away was sufficient: would have needed to turn the lens a little bit beyond infinity to have the images completely overlapping in the rangefinder patch. But this was of course was not possible. Checked it with the 50 and the 85 sonnar - the results are the same.
 
I have just been to my ZI (official) repairman in Milan. He is an experienced camera repairman, and also he is German, what bodes well, generally speaking. if you need some meticulous type of assistance.
Well, despite I can see some misalignement at infinity - he hasn't found any missalignement in my ZI, and he used a professional "collimator" with a Siemens star pattern to check this. He suggested part of the problem derived from the position of the eye in the viewfinder - in fact if you shif it around a bit, the degree of double image overlapping varies a bit. He also said he didn't find anything wrong with my 90/2.8 Elmarit calibration, so the combo should work well. I am going to do a check of my longer lenses' focus precision and sharpness next week, so I will report on the findings.

I am also going to check the Elmarit against 2 SLR Zeiss lenses of similar FL for the general quality of the images, as so far this lens has not impressed me at all.
 
Where can I buy a 1.35X eyepiece/magnifier for the ZM

Where can I buy a 1.35X eyepiece/magnifier for the ZM

mfogiel said:
Your experience is similar to mine, with two exceptions:

1- my ZI is at the repair shop NOW to get calibrated, so we will see what happens
2- I noticed a certain misalignement at infinity ( especially visible with the 1.35X magnifier), but I also had some issues with sharpness, not so much at infinity, as at close distance (esp. with the 35/1.2 Nokton)
3- the technician told me both ZI and Bessas don't have Leica style double alignement ( for close up and infinity) but only one regulation

I left him the camera together with the 90/2.8 Elmarit and asked for calibration of both. Will tell you later how it has panned out.
Click to expand...

****************

May I ask where did you source a 1.35X magnifier?

I do not have a rangefinder problem, but want to increase the view magnification from the standard 0.74X to 1.0X. A simple screw-in 1.35X magnifier would be perfect.

I konw Nikon F and FM eyepieces fit the ZM (have actually interchanged F and FM eyepiece with the ZM), but even "The Complete Nikon System" (Peter Braczko) does not list a 1.35X magnifier.

I use the ZM only with a modified CV 40mm Nokton f/1.4. The lens mount claw was filed to bring up the 35mm frame automatically (provides a tight 97% coverage). I do not wear glasses and love to shoot with both eyes open, as I once did with a Nikon S3.

Thank you in advance.
 
Just to answer to everybody, you can get the magnifier here:
http://www.unicircuits.com/shop/
but it will restrict the vision to the 50mm frames and longer at best - I cannot use the 50mm frames at this point because I wear glasses, so this becomes an 85mm camera at that point.
Coming back to the RF alignement, I have experienced the same thing when I got my ZI as reported by other users here - once I focused on a star, I saw the RF perfectly in line !!! I think my problems with the close up focus had more to do with the process of recomposing after taking the focus centrally.

I have just done a test on a chart at closest distance with all my lenses from 35mm onwards, plus 3 slr lenses between 85 and 135 mm on a Nikon, and there don't seem to be any major issues at hand, apart the fact that the 90/2.8 Elmarit really looks like a poor man's lens next to my Zeiss glass.

I will elaborate on this test later, when I also check the 75/2.5 Heliar, which has arrived yesterday. One thing though is quite striking from the first impressions - the 35/2 Biogon looks to be at its best at f2.8 already !!! at f5.6 it actually starts decreasing the resolving power !!! This confirms my intuition that an accurate RF with a lens like that is an absolute killer combo, as it lets you shoot at very fast speeds, and you become a tripod shooter without a tripod, hahaha...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom