Zorki 5 Camera

[raid]

I have received a Zorki-5 camera. I did not know that there was any Zorki-5. When comparing this camera to a Zorki-4, I notice that it is a smaller camera with a smaller viewfinder and a less clear rangefinder. Does anyone here have experience with the Zorki-5? Is it as solid as the Zorki-4K?

Raid

 

[reagan]

Hey Raid ~

I bought a Zorki.5 -- for my wife -- some time ago. It's the newest Zorki I own, a 1959 model, (link in my sig) and I think it's build quality is just a little less than it's older brothers. I can't compare it to a 4K since I haven't had the urge to acquire a 4K, but IMO in operation and feel, it's quite a different camera from the Zorki.4. It fits in my hands comfortably, being smaller in every dimension than the Zorki.4 and while the VF is somewhat smaller, (though waaay bigger than the Leica.IIIs/Zorki.1s I use most often) the RF on mine is the brightest and easiest to focus of all my 20+ RFs and the wider RF base-length is a plus.

I gave the lever wind a clean/adjust immediately and that worked out fine. The shutter release position had me "hunting for it" until I installed a soft-release, but overall I really like the 5. It's size and feel seems like a nice compromise between the larger bodied Zorki.4 and the smaller Zorki.1s. I chose the Z.5 over the Z.6 simply because I prefer bottom loading; call me weird .

Good luck and let us know your impressions. A soon as I finish up a couple of rolls in other RFs I've got loaded, I need to take the Zorki.5 out for a spin.

 

[ZorkiKat]

The Zorki-5 and the Zorki-4 overlapped. These were not exactly consecutive models. The Zorki-4 is really a variation of the Zorki-3S (C), modified by having the "modern" shutter speed progression and a self-timer.

I don't think that the RF of the Zorki-5 is any less clear than the RF of the Zorki-4. It just appears smaller. In fact, the Z-5 RF (ditto with the Zorki-6) is probably more accurate since its RF baselength is longer.

I find that the Z5/Z6 viewfinders are more accurate too, albeit smaller. Unlike the Z-4, it's possible to see the 50mm lens field fully without moving the eye. The Z-4 VF is indeed larger, but the edges don't appear so delineated.

The Z-6 is an 'improved' Z-5, having a hinged opening back (the only FSU LTM RF to have such-perhaps the "Drug" is another), a fixed take-up spool, and a better advance mechanism.

I like the Z-5, it is the Zorki which gives me the most Leica M-3 like 'feel'.

In as far as build- quality is concerned, the Z-5 I have seems to be better built than any Zorki-4K I've ever seen. Plus, the shutter speed markings on the Z-5 is engraved, unlike the printed ones on the Z-4K which can be erased from constant finger-rubbing.


Jay

 

[fidget]

I chose the Z.5 over the Z.6 simply because I prefer bottom loading; call me weird .
.

Of course you're weird, (have you noticed how the digital users gawp at you?) we all are, you are just that little bit more!
But......My shelf queen Zorki5 is being pressed into service as the intermittent mount for a recently acquired CV35 f2.5 piece of glass (don't blame me, I'm weak)
and for this I am willing to learn to love the bottom feeders too.

Dave...

 

[ZorkiKat]

One more thing: there is an odd design issue found in the Z-5 which was resolved in the Z-6. In the Z-5, the shutter should not be cocked without any lens on the camera.

Without the lens, the RF sensor extends out of the lens mount, and in doing so, the RF parts on the top plate wanders into the area where the shutter speed disc rotates. The RF part concerned can mesh with the shutter mechanism and damage these parts. Having a lens on the camera pushes the sensor back and limits the movement of the RF parts on the top plate.

Jay

 

[reagan]

(have you noticed how the digital users gawp at you?)

Yeah, kinda noticed... ... "Hello. My name is CVBsomethingwhatever - and I'm a bottom-feeding addict." ( Heheee! Yes, they stare while trying to frame shots with their leedle plastic cameras stuck out 2 feet from their leedle squinty faces. )

Jay, Good HU on the lensless dry-firing.

 

[Adam-T]

I still think it`s odd that most Z5s and Z6s appear to be older than most Z4 variants - I wonder why they didn`t carry them on? . the 4K was the last produced of Zorkis wasn`t it? (unless you count the freaky 10 and 11 models which look like homemade disposables from the pics I`ve seen)

 

[wlewisiii]

I went with the 6 for a number of reasons, most mentioned here alreadu The lever, though, on my 1963 model is rather stiff. CVBLZ4, you mention CLAing it - is there anything online? It's a neat camera with a soft release & a collapsible I-50.

Thanks,

William

 

[reagan]

Sure, one of our own RFF homies, Joseph (aka, "je2a3") has blessed us with a great website. Here's the page on lever wind maint. There's a link for disassembly there.

 

[wlewisiii]

Good stuff. Thank you for the pointer.

William

 

[Trius]

Yes, they stare while trying to frame shots with their leedle plastic cameras stuck out 2 feet from their leedle squinty faces.

Oooh, I love that! You should sell that to APUG as their site singalong!

 

[raid]

I have loaded the Zorki-5 with some Velvia 50 film to test it.The camera came with a 50/3.5 lens. Do you know which lens this is and whether it is good or a dog?

Raid

 

[wlewisiii]

Fixed? Collapsible? Markings on the front? The Industar 22 & 50 collapsibles I've used have been really quite good Tessars & the rigid Industar 50, while having been seriously abused with a fugly bat, is still very competent at producing images.

All of the FSU 50/3.5 lenses are potentially great & potentially cr*p... the delight of FSU QC - almost as nonexistent as Microsoft's

William

 

[raid]

This is a rigid lens. It has aperture settings from 3.5 to 16. The letters are not what I am used to,but it could be an Industrar based on the number of letters with last 3 being XXXXXTAP-50.


Raid

 

[ZorkiKat]

I still think it`s odd that most Z5s and Z6s appear to be older than most Z4 variants - I wonder why they didn`t carry them on? . the 4K was the last produced of Zorkis wasn`t it? (unless you count the freaky 10 and 11 models which look like homemade disposables from the pics I`ve seen)

Not really unique to Zorki. If you look at Leica, you'd find that variants of the M4 came out after the M5. The model numbers weren't really assigned consecutively, but rather were given to model lines which may or may not appear simultaneously. As mentioned, the Zorki-4 is really an older design, based on the Zorki-3S. The Z-10 and Z-11 were actually produced earlier than the Z-4K.

The Z-5 could be thought of as a descendant of the Z-2C, but modified with
a longer base RF and lever wind. The Z-4K is a descendant of the Z-3 which
introduced the slow speed to the Zorki line (though there were very rare versions of the Zorki-1 with slow speed dials). The Z-3 line evolved into the Z-3M which used the single shutter dial scheme found in FSU RF, and got a larger
top cover when the flash synch mechanism was included. Note that the body design of the Z-3, Z-3M, Z-3C, Z-4, Z-4K are the same, showing their common heritage. The Z-5 on the other hand has more in common with the Z-2C, and much of its styling can still be seen on the Z-6 though its back opened.

As to why the line died and only the Z-4K survived, one explanation given was that KMZ simply took cues at what was shown in photofairs to decide which lnes to retain or modify. Thats why around 1977, they stopped making RF cameras and decided to make only SLRs- the photofairs were showing more SLR than RF cameras.

Jay

 

[ZorkiKat]

This is a rigid lens. It has aperture settings from 3.5 to 16. The letters are not what I am used to,but it could be an Industrar based on the number of letters with last 3 being XXXXXTAP-50.


Raid

Hard to go wrong with Industar lenses. Yours sounds like a rigid "Индустар"(Industar)-50. It's a very good one. I've never really found a crappy Industar lens, be it collapsible or rigid. They're Tessar-based. There have been many instances when I found/felt that the Industar did better than my Elmars- I have the 3.5 and 2.8 varieties.

The 'dogs' I have are those which had been reassembled from different lenses.

Jay

 

[wlewisiii]

Raid,

Yep, that's an Industar 50. This can be a very good lens if you appreciate the Tessar look. Think about your I-61L/D with somewhat less contrast...

Also, I agree with ZorkiCat. I do think that the rigid I-50 is a seriously ugly lens (with some utterly wierd ergonomics...) but the Tessar formula is really very simple and the Soviets always did a decent job on it. Unless your example has chips gouged out of the center of the lens, you'll have decent images that, given more modern coatings, may well surpass classic Elmars.

YMWV, obviously, but I think you may well be plesantly surprised by this lens. Put it in your massive 50 test so I don't have to send you my I-50!

(More seriously make sure a I-22 or I-50 is represented.)

William

 

[Adam-T]

thanks for the explanation Jay, it makes sense if the 4 lineage is selling and there were two different lines, it`s the model Numbers which confuse things... I guess the 10 and 11 were a different product for the budget end of the market with Automatics (sorta like Olympus Trip wannabes) ..
Zenit gets a bit tricky too with the E being the main later camera, the B being the E with no Lightmeter, the TTL being a black E with TTL and dial mods, the 11 and 12 being updated TTLs etc....

What amazed me was that despite the Zenits from the E onwards at least being from KMZ (or most of them) that they didn`t have shutter speeds higher than 500th sec or the slow speed mech, X sync was a slow 30th sec instead of a far more useful 125th of the Zorkis and with the Zenit E you didn`t have to cock the shutter before setting the shutter speed whereas the Zorkis made way after the Z-E`s introduction you had to and the Zenits never gained the shutter Speed range.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Raid,



Also, I agree with ZorkiCat. I do think that the rigid I-50 is a seriously ugly lens (with some utterly wierd ergonomics...)
William

William

The rigid I-50 gets my vote as the second ugliest lens on the planet...saving #1 position for something else. Years ago at the Russian camera forum, I made this (see attachment) to address the issue:

Covering that big bald patch of a belly helped. That BTW was inspired by a similar trim found near the base of Elmar 90mm SM lenses.

 

[ZorkiKat]

thanks for the explanation Jay, it makes sense if the 4 lineage is selling and there were two different lines, it`s the model Numbers which confuse things... I guess the 10 and 11 were a different product for the budget end of the market with Automatics (sorta like Olympus Trip wannabes) ..
Zenit gets a bit tricky too with the E being the main later camera, the B being the E with no Lightmeter, the TTL being a black E with TTL and dial mods, the 11 and 12 being updated TTLs etc....

What amazed me was that despite the Zenits from the E onwards at least being from KMZ (or most of them) that they didn`t have shutter speeds higher than 500th sec or the slow speed mech, X sync was a slow 30th sec instead of a far more useful 125th of the Zorkis and with the Zenit E you didn`t have to cock the shutter before setting the shutter speed whereas the Zorkis made way after the Z-E`s introduction you had to and the Zenits never gained the shutter Speed range.

The commonly found Zenit (11, 12, TTL) evolved from the Zenit 3M, which in turn was the SLR version of the Zorki-6.

The Zenit in this family line all retained the classic Leica II shutter, the same which is found in Zorki-1, C, 2, 2C, 5, and 6. That's part of the reason why these Zenit are (relatively, compared with the Zenit from other family lines) fairly reliable. The Zenit and Zenit-S were the SLR versions of the rangefinder Zorki-1 and Zorki-2S respectively. The last bottomloading Zenit, the model "3" can be considered as the SLR counterpart of the Zorki-5.

That's also the reason why the synch remained at 1/30: The original Leica shutter's full opening (=curtains are far enough to expose the film gate simultaneously) was at 1/20. The 1/20 setting eventually became 1/25, then 1/30 as found in the Zenit. Electronic flash requires full shutter opening to synch properly.

For some reason, no slow speeds were used for the Zenit in this line. It is likely that the Leica II shutter would not easily allow the incorporation of a slow speed mechanism when coupled with a reflex mirror system.

Some Zenit did have slow speeds and fast X synch (some at 1/125) but the only thing they shared with the Zenit 12 family is the lens mount. The Zenit 19 or 20 had these features but were often bugged by mechanical problems.

BTW, the letters used in Zenit do not often reflect some sort of placement in the sequence of the model's appearance. For instance, the "E" is supposed to be an initial of one of the camera's designers. The "M" designation often stands for an improved model, take it to mean (but not really so) as 'modernised' or 'modified' .