zorki 1 + summitar

T

Tun

kiumjoon
Local time
7:24 PM
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
71
hi,
would like to hear from people who are using this configuration. does the summitar focus properly on the zorkis? I have heard that FSU cameras are built to the Contax standard.

cheers.
 
I used one on a fed 5c and it worked well

99853038_19baffbe95_o.jpg


99853098_ec8a93b1f2_o.jpg
 
hey, thanks trittium and Dingo for the fast reply.
so how true is it that the FSU cameras are built to contax standard? if the summitar cant focus properly on a zorki, a little of adjusting on the camera should do the job?
 
Tun said:
hey, thanks trittium and Dingo for the fast reply.
so how true is it that the FSU cameras are built to contax standard? if the summitar cant focus properly on a zorki, a little of adjusting on the camera should do the job?
Click to expand...


The Leitz lenses I've fit on the Zorki-1 (and other Zorki or FED as well) work like they work on Leica. As far as these cameras are concerned, there's no such thing as 'contax' standard. Once they got the FED standardised (ie,
with the 28.8 lens "working distance"), any Leitz lens which could mount on either FED or Zorki will focus right, when the rangefinder is properly calibrated for both near and infinity focus. It would probably be more accurate to say that Zorki or FED are 'built to Leica standards' when these followed the lens working distance (Leica used the 28.8mm register). The fact that the first models of Zorki and FED look like Leica II points towards this.

A Zorki can be customised to work with Summitar by doing a few adjustments-
lens register previously mentioned, and calibration of rangefinder. Once done,
a Summitar will focus correctly.

There is mention of a so-called 'Contax lens camming' issue with certain Jupiter lenses though. But it seems not be relevant at all considering that many properly made Jupiters will work with Leica cameras without modification.

Jay
 
Last edited:
santino said:
it is true.
as far as you don't use tele lenses wide open there shouldn't be any problem.
Click to expand...

No, Santino, that is not so.

I've used 9cm Elmars on my Zorki and FED without problems. Calibrating these cameras first is necessary though. However the calibration is not because these cameras were made with "contax standards". It's just because many of these cameras would either have incorrect lens mount flange to focal distances. This arises from either incorrect assembly or else a modification to accomodate a certain lens whose optical block is slightly off.

IT is never because any FED or Zorki had lens-working distances significantly different to the 'Leica standard'.

According to Maizenberg, variations in factory adjusted FED or Zorki- more so with early prewar FED, before everything was standardised at Leica's 28,8mm- was from 28.3-28.5mm. A badly readjusted camera will probably show slightly more or less, but only because the previous repairer did not measure right. Once calibrated properly to have the Leica 28.8mm working distance and the RF is adjusted, any Leitz lens which can mount on a FED or Zorki will focus properly.

The Contax lens working distance is 34.85mm, which is much greater than any variation found among FED or Zorki. No FED or Zorki was ever made with a lens working distance even closely approaching the Contax 'standard'.

:)

Jay
 
Last edited:
I guess with such ancient cameras - let alone dodgy repairing and adjusting , it's amazing that any work properly with a variety of lenses !
i have yet to try out my prewar Elmars and my Summitar on any of my Zorki/feds , can't wait !
dee
 
dee said:
I guess with such ancient cameras - let alone dodgy repairing and adjusting , it's amazing that any work properly with a variety of lenses !
i have yet to try out my prewar Elmars and my Summitar on any of my Zorki/feds , can't wait !
dee
Click to expand...


The variable (I feel that 'adjustable' is the more apt term) quality may be considered as a design feature arising out of the specific needs of the Soviet system of production.

Let me venture in this speculation:

Leica and Canon have made cameras whose rangefinders are 'on the dot' once they leave the factory or maybe even as early as the time they get off the production line. Their parts are so standardised to the point that one specimen can be expected to work as well as another when it comes to lens compatibility and rangefinder coupling. However to be able to produce such goods consistently, a lot of precision is required in making the parts and putting them together. That would mean more time is spent in making one unit as well as the parts that go into it. Then it would also mean that parts which don't fit get tossed out.
More time spent and critical tolerances also mean higher production costs.

Less cameras made in a given amount of time did not matter much since these
factories were not working under state-imposed quotas. Nor were they supposed to make so many in order to keep the costs down. These factories would only make what they could, minding instead the numbers of precision
equipment they churn out, rather than just churning them out.

On the other hand, the Soviet system of production puts more importance on quotas- ie how much is produced in a given time period- than anything else. A factory is successful if it produces an XXX number of units. Basing on the (new) cameras or lenses I've acquired over the years, it appears that it doesn't matter really if a good number of these units worked or not. :(

Going back to FED and Zorki rangfinders: I would also go as far to assume that
using the roller-tipped RF found in Leica and Canon would mean less cameras rolling off the production lines. Such would require greater precision in assembly. So the adjustable tip was used instead. This method allowed less precise assembly for both lens and camera; put them together first as fast as possible and then calibrate each to working specifications.

This was an elegant solution which worked quite well if only one lens (the one which the camera left the factory with) was to be used. I suppose that this was the case with the majority of the cameras sold and used. A FED instruction booklet from the late 1940s even warned against removing the lens. Occasionally though, someone would get a fast 50mm to replace the collapsible 3.5 originally supplied with the camera. Or perhaps it could be a long lens. The instruction booklets of the early FED and Zorki always recommended (Maizenberg also stated this) that the cameras be adjusted for, and matched with the new lens to be used. The new adjustment would in turn be no longer compatible with the old standard lens.

It's not the camera's fault nor the lens's either. It was just that the optical blocks did not always have their optical nodes at the same place relative to the lens mount or the focal plane itself. This issue can often be resolved by reshimming the lens.

Jay
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom