New to Rangefinders - Zorki Advice

[Xmas]

Agx is correct but there are caveats
The Fed1 and Zorki I are Leica II clones and it would be difficult to change speeds before setting the shutter but you can do double exposures easy.
Kievs are like Contax II before or after is ok but if you do it before you can minimise ribbon wear with some speed changes - don't ask. I can't recall easily
If you don't have slow speeds and have a dial with the pointer on the dial it is ok but dont use force and don't go the long way round there is a stop
If you do have slow speeds there is a stop where you would not expect it don't use force before or after.
It is simpler to wind on immediately and not use force.
There are felt less cassettes for Kievs and the LTM bottom loaders but there may be incompatible variations - not found any myself.
There is total compatibility/interchangeability between the Kiev and Contax II cassettes - the cassettes and bodies are clones.
The Fed and Zorki I are built to the Leica LTM standard for cassette size so there is 2mm of axial freedom with commercial cassettes, in theory but not had a slip yet though.
Some ERC have slots for credit cards, cept you wrote the exp notes on them in pencil.
The lenses all need hoods cause they are all single coated - Nearly.
My favorite is a toilet seat Fed I ('36) although it's lens is uncoated it holds it's own against post war lenses.

 

[Lamar]

My Zorki-4 arrived today. Beautiful camera as I had hoped. Almost no wear even on the case so aesthetically speaking I am very pleased. However..... comma........ there are two issues that concern me. The shutter speed indicator line does not appear to line up correctly with the indicated shutter speed. I can find the correct shutter speeds by going to B which is kind of by itself and notching down, and the speeds seem right. The other issue is that on the 1/30th speed, which is the flash sync speed and located differently on the dial, the shutter curtain does not close when the flash sync selector is set to X. It seems to close ok when its set to M though. I'm trying to decide if this is a show stopper or not. I'm running a roll of film through it today and tomorrow to see how that turns out.

 

[q_x]

No wear often signifies a broken camera. Nothing to be happy about. What I'm picking up often looks like it collected a lot of mana through it's lifetime, and such cameras make me really happy.

To correct positioning of the shutter speed dial you only need to unscrew two grub-screws located inside the knob itself. Cock the shutter, set a known time, take ~1mm diameter flathead ("glasses") screwdriver, undo 1 or 2 turns each screw, reposition the knob to match a given time, tighten the screws back and you're done. 1 minute fix, 99% doable without any heavy magick, 1% goes for stubborn screws. If that's the issue bothering you - thumbs up, it's trivial and easily reparable!

The other issue I'm not sure of. It may be of a similar origin to the first, that is there's something wrong with how the flash delay dial is "calibrated". I have delay in ms on my body, but I assume it's the same thing, as X and M.
In my Zorki 4 the grub-screw from this dial is missing, so I'm not messing around with this, and there ay be a good reason for this Anyway, if there's a position where it all works OK - for me, it works. I'd set it once and leave it like that forever.

This is how things go with soviet cameras in general. My Zorki 4 had a stiffened grease in the curtain rollers, so CLA was needed straightaway. In general, those are 40-50-60 years old cameras. The fact they haven't fallen apart really amazes me - foam from late 80-s is a sticky mess today, silver peels off the mirrors, there are no batteries of a given type... And with those cameras the only problem may be something like stiff focusing ring or badly assembled dials.

 

[Lamar]

Fantastic. I loosened the set screws, re-positioned the knob, and tightened the set screws again and all is right on now.

I ran into the issue you discussed about the shutter button not coming up on it's own after a rewind. It took a bit of fiddling but then it popped up and has been doing well ever since. I did tear the film off the film cassette spool trying to rewind my first roll and had to unload the camera in the dark to get the film in my dev tank. I must remember not to wind the film too near the end of the roll as not being able to complete the winding action appears to keep tension on the shutter cocking dog and keeps it from disengaging the toothed in camera spool.

undo 1 or 2 turns each screw, reposition the knob to match a given time, tighten the screws back and you're done. 1 minute fix, 99% doable without any heavy magick,

 

[Lamar]

Just pulled the film out of the tank and hung to dry. Frame spacing is good. Exposure is good at all speeds except 1/30th which is where the problem was with the rear curtain closing. It looks a bit slow and sounds a bit slow. Based on the negatives I'd say it's about 1.5 stops slow. I'll have to wait until tomorrow when the film is dry to scan and evaluate the focus.

 

[q_x]

To rewind the film in mid-cocking, I put the lens cap on and fire the shutter. It shouldn't stress the shutter too much. Later - as usual: rotate the collar, rewind. No need to waste the film this way or another. If you don't have a "test" roll, I think it's easy to make one, some film and an old canister is all one needs to check things or practice.

I don't quite understand the part about overexposure. Is only 1/30 time affected? Or all or all the slow or fast speeds? Constant 1,5 stops off is almost unimaginable with this type of shutter, but if it's 1/30 only and it doesn't look like "lazy shutter", my guess would be the flash issue we've been talking about earlier has indeed something to do here. Lazy shutter curtain would also affect the slower speeds, at least you should be able to see it spoiling 1/15 also.

Cheers!

 

[Xmas]

It has just been in the repair shop and they did not repair it proper, you should not have adjusted the speed dial...

Give them a ring and see if they will fix your camera and pay return postage.

You also need to save for a 40.5 mm screw in filter and lens hood. They might have such in their junk bin.

 

[Lamar]

I ran a whole set of tests in the same lighting from 1 second to 1/125th so I could evaluate the slow shutter speeds since I suspected an issue with the slow speeds. The exposures are all identical for every shutter setting with the exception of 1/30th. When watching the shutter curtain close at 1/30th you can see the curtain travel speed appears slow and is not always constant. It seems to slow toward the end of it's travel when flash sync is in M and it may not even close at all when the flash sync selector is in X. Otherwise all looks to be great with this camera. I moved to a brighter area to test the higher speeds and they appear to be working correctly too so it's only 1/30th. Perplexing......

I don't quite understand the part about overexposure. Is only 1/30 time affected? Or all or all the slow or fast speeds? Constant 1,5 stops off is almost unimaginable with this type of shutter, but if it's 1/30 only and it doesn't look like "lazy shutter", my guess would be the flash issue we've been talking about earlier has indeed something to do here. Lazy shutter curtain would also affect the slower speeds, at least you should be able to see it spoiling 1/15 also.

Cheers!

 

[q_x]

Well, if you feel adventurous, you may as well try to undo the grub-screw in the X-M sync dial, rotate the dial a bit and tighten the screw back to allow the sync dial to be set past the M setting. Just remeber how much have you moved it to revert the change if needed. But yes, something is not OK, and I'm not sure if this method will work. Sync and slow speed escapement are pretty nasty creatures on their own, and someone combined both right under the dials. Here Rick described how to check if the sync dial is set correctly: http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/zorkip2.gif - using PC socket, rather than lifting the top, it should not be that hard to do.

I'm sure though, that starting another thread here on APUG and asking for help with this specific issue is a better idea.

How's the lens, BTW?

(the camera didn't came from anyone knowlegable, Xmas, not from a repair shop, as any sane person would simply fix the speed dial in no time trying to sell the camera)

 

[Lamar]

I've only scanned a few shots so far. They look good though. Focus appears correct although I haven't gotten to my f/2 shots yet. Lens is sharp in the center, perhaps a little less so around the edges but seems really good for the price.

2 shots with no cropping. I see what you were talking about with the film alignment. Not a problem for me though. No much is lost.



A few more snap shots from around the house. My glasses definitely get in the way of trying to frame due to the "low" eye-point. I need +3.5 correction. The diopter will adjust it clear for me so that is good. However when it is adjusted the magnification is higher so I have to shift it back blurry to frame more accurately. A bit of a nuisance but I can cope with it.

Straight Scan:


Balanced with a touch of selective contrast adjustment:


Straight Scan:


Balanced with a touch of selective contrast adjustment:




Forgot to mention details: Zorki-4 with Jupiter-8 50mm f/2 lens. Ilford HP5 Plus developed in XTOL. Scanned with Nikon CoolScan V ED using VueScan 9. No grain reduction.

 

[q_x]

The last photo shows pretty good definition/contrast/sharpness in the upper right corner. Certainly better, than some modern zoom lenses. The dog doesn't look that good, but the landscapes are pretty sharp, at least it seems so. What strikes me, however, is rather low overall contrast. IDK if that was your idea, I wouldn't blame the lens entirely for that, but it may need a lenshood indeed, as Xmas said.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Take the lens off the camera and shine a flashlight through it. Move the light around, check from both sides, look for haze. It takes very little haze to lower the contrast of any lens, and the haze can be surprisingly hard to spot. A lenshood also helps, with any lens, haze or no haze
What year was your lens made? (First two digits of the serial, usually).

 

[Lamar]

I altered that last scan and bumped up the contrast in certain areas. I thought contrast was a bit low as well. I'm using old pretty XTOL so maybe it's the developer. I need to mix up a new batch to be sure. The lens looks clean. I'll post some pics of the lens later. I building a list of things to get so perhaps a lens hood needs to be on the list.

The last photo shows pretty good definition/contrast/sharpness in the upper right corner. Certainly better, than some modern zoom lenses. The dog doesn't look that good, but the landscapes are pretty sharp, at least it seems so. What strikes me, however, is rather low overall contrast. IDK if that was your idea, I wouldn't blame the lens entirely for that, but it may need a lenshood indeed, as Xmas said.

 

[Lamar]

As suggested, pics of the lens with a light shining through. I see some specs and I added the fingerprint as I removed the lens. Is this enough to cause reduced contrast? I wouldn't think so but then I'm no optics expert either. I'm using pretty old XTOL so perhaps that could be the issue.


From the front:



From the rear:



A few of the body:

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The one picture, #5 of 8, suggests that the lens is in need of cleaning. The fingerprint right in the center will certainly reduce contrast and resolution.
It doesn't matter whether you can get a photo of any haze, what matters is that you get rid of it. As i said, haze can be hard to spot - sometimes you need to really work at it, altering the angle of the light until it appears. It takes very little haze to reduce contrast, and the J-8 is a contrasty lens when clean; at least mine is - and so was it's uncoated ancestor, the 5cm/2 Zeiss Sonnar as long as you shaded the thing. If you disassemble the lens to clean it, beware!! I had to strip mine twice because the haze was not visible immediately after cleaning, all I can think of is hydration from the cleaning fluid made it less visible. When it dried out again, the haze was still there somewhat. Let it sit at least overnight before reassembling, the less you dis- and re- assemble these the better.

The serial of your J-8 is on the side of the focussing ring, from the looks of yours the number might begin '0' or '00' in which case it will not date the lens. For instance, mine is #7518177 made in 1975. The body was made in 1971, which means it's 42 years old and should be CLA'd if it hasn't already.

 

[q_x]

Yups, the dust may look ugly, but the fingerprint on a lens is a no-go. I doubt if invisible or very hardly visible haze would have the power to really reduce contrast much, and it would be worse or better depending on light direction. Here, it's not the case. Unlike the developer that lacked the time or the power to really rise and even out the curve, which could worsen the situation quite evenly...

What's funny, here: http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?-1424201095 they write about Jupiters. Mine version, apparently, is not there, I have PT3080 body, but with markings in cyrilic, from 1968 (I've got it with a body with matching date). Should I report it to those folks? I seriously doubt if it's rare, it looks totally normal, though the screw they've used in the leather case is really obnoxious, so maybe I have a kind of "leftover camera"...

I guess if we're into dating lenses and talking about contrast, this Zorki is a keeper?
If you plan to shoot some more soon, makeshift DIY lenshood may be of interest:
Dead Link Removed

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Mine would be a 3110, except there is no "Made in USSR" marking, and "Jupiter" is in Cyrillic; focus distances are in green and the front ring & aperture scale are screened not engraved. I've found others from the same year, same marking schema, for sale so they're common - the one (3110) with Roman markings and the "Made in USSR" is likely an export version of what I have.

I have to confess, I've caught an unhealthy fascination with the FSU lenses and cameras. I'm trying to figure out a way to put a Helios 103 in a screwmount, also a Industar-61 LD in a collapsible barrel from an I- 10/22/50. Not having the lenses in hand yet, it's all speculation... probably end up buying a Kiev to get a Helios. , I miss my Contax II.

Edit - for the OP, it's good to keep in mind that these cameras and lenses are anywhere from 25 to 50+ years old. They'll need servicing, and likely shutter curtains sooner or later. Getting another one when/if yours gives up is false economy, these cameras if properly serviced will go on taking pictures for quite a few years.
Any older camera will need service, I recently bought a Nikkormat FT from 1966, one of the cleanest looking I've seen, still has the stickers on it. It's working, and working well at room temp., but not in cold weather - after 47 years, it's earned some maintenance!

 

[Lamar]

My second Zorki arrived today, a Zorki-3C from 1956 with an older, silver Jupiter-8. The camera is in very good shape aesthetically but it does have some slow speed shutter issues. With a shutter setting of 1 second the front curtain typically won't complete it's travel across the frame. The remaining slow speeds work but the front curtain was noticeably slow to begin but has improved a bit with use. It will still hang on occasion. Slow shutter times appear to be about 1 stop slower than indicated. On the B setting, in the beginning, the front curtain usually did not complete its travel and I would have to wind and shoot again. With use it is more likely to complete it's travel than not but it still hangs on occasion. 1/25th just appears slow. In the film compartment the toothed sprocket for the film does not rotate freely and has considerable drag when set to rewind, as if there was thick cold grease in it. I can return this item but I would rather try to repair it myself or have the seller reduce my cost and get it repaired. Thoughts?

Zorki-3C:



Showing front curtain hung:



Gears with dirt/gunk:




Regarding your statement E.; I understand completely now. These little cameras are intriguing. Kind of like having an old car to tinker with.

I have to confess, I've caught an unhealthy fascination with the FSU lenses and cameras.

 

[q_x]

Well, if you forget machining marks visible on the inside, this camera has some excellence to it. "Old" times, beveled viewfinder and rangefinder windows (it's harder to stick a finger in it that way, believe or not), vulcanite, rather than leatherette, and you can wear it on a strap. Even the winding knob will hurt your fingers less (Barnack-like first models of FED and Zorki have silky film advance BTW). Pity there's no self-timer.

Despite dragging curtain, I'd "waste" a piece of film, load the camera and shoot 3-4 frames to check for leaking light and evaluate the lens. In case of the lens needing a service as well, I'd return it.

What you're describing is a typical state of a camera after nearly 60 years of occupying a place on a shelf, only being used every now and then, and that's what I'm usually afraid of buying. So yes, thickened grease is what it looks like, it'll need some C, L and maybe A afterwards.

As I've said earlier - either it's an opportunity, or a waste of time to service it on your own, depending of who you are (patience level), and how much time you have on your hands or how much will to get your hands dirty and learn to service stuff, rather than making photos. Those are fairly simple cameras to repair (there are simpler models though), but some basic experience is needed regardless. I'm not good in terms of service myself, I do only the stuff I know. In a similar case, I've taken out the shelf of the lower half of the camera, cleaned the couple of big wheels at the bottom of the camera and added some fresh lubricant everywhere I could reach with a thin screwdriver with a drop of machine oil at the tip (did I write you only need a Swiss Army Knife to service it?). From "sticking" it progressed to "slowing down in the cold", so I've repeated lubrication, and finally it's working in sub-freezing. Not an ethical practice, but I hope to be able to pay for a complete CLA of all my cameras in a couple of years, and DIY lousy service is all I can do now.

So, I think what you have is 90% a problem in curtain drum and rollers. All needs fresh oil. You don't need to disassemble the top of the camera to make it all work, I think, just the lower part. For a preview of what CLA looks, google for "Zorki 4 CLA" or download Meizenberg's book, where he writes: Zorki 3C - same as Zorki 4, but without a self-timer... The sprocket wheel, if it's stiff, will also need some grease to go inside it, as well, as whole set of wheels going from the film advance knob, you see it when you look from the bottom of the camera towards the top.

If you have any thin lubricant (just not dare to use vegetable oil, please) and a small brush to clean the wheels, simple cleaning and lubrication it's worth trying, I think. It'll take one to two hours doing it the first time, and you'll have the opportunity to really clean the camera, as it looks mighty dusty.

What's a meaningful lesson, I think, is that the manual describing the service of every popular FSU camera prior to the date of publication is comparable in size to service manual of Pentax LX alone. Those are cheap, but reparable cameras, and that's why there's so much of it on the market, unlike fancy SLRs.

 

[q_x]

I have to confess, I've caught an unhealthy fascination with the FSU lenses and cameras. I'm trying to figure out a way to put a Helios 103 in a screwmount, also a Industar-61 LD in a collapsible barrel from an I- 10/22/50. Not having the lenses in hand yet, it's all speculation... probably end up buying a Kiev to get a Helios. , I miss my Contax II.

Contax II is the ultimate camera for me! I'd give my three analog SLR cameras (Ricoh XR-1s, borked and corroded XR-1, Carena CX-300) and four lenses (including two Pentax lenses and two of unmentionable brands), plus Moskva 5 (needs CLA, but the bellows, rangefinder and faster speeds are OK), Zorki 4 and beaten up to death and not quite sharp Industar 61 L/D, for a Contax II (or a Leica II or III, for that matter) in good condition, with a standard lens. I'm serious. If someone is up for a swap and is willing to pay for all the shipping/customs to/from Poland, please PM me. I'll add 1m long Kaiser's release cable and a bag of random spare parts if it's still 2013. I can make photos. Else I'll just continue living with what I have and maybe some day I'll buy one.

I've been working for some short time on a Kiev 4am with a Helios 103. What can I say... The camera had some clunk-clunk factor to it, and it suffered from uneven frame spacing issues, prolly due to same reason the Zorki puts sprockets into the image (or the other way around...). It's still a "pro" camera compared to amateur-oriented Zorkis, even if it's usually horribly machined and assembled after '60s or 70s.
The lens was good though. I like the Sonnar look of my Jupiter more, esp. how dreamy and soft it gets wide open, but that's a matter of aesthetics, and I guess I don't have the best sample in the world. The Helios looked like every other lens, which is a compliment for something 30 or 40 years older, than "every other lens"... Shooting Helios some years before, I'm kinda used to how Biotar heritage renders the image, that's the norm for me, like a bread and butter.

As for frankensteining some lenses, either it's an exercise in machining your own gear, or just being wasteful in terms of both time and gear, but it sounds like you know what you're doing. Having a lens, I'd rather use it as it is. But if you're skilled and you have a lathe, I guess there's nothing stopping you really. Collapsible Industar barrel is something like 19mm wide, there's no space for anything close to f/2 or even f/2.8 diameter, it''l be interesting to watch how you overcome that issue.

 

[Xmas]

Contax II is the ultimate camera for me! I'd give my three analog SLR cameras (Ricoh XR-1s, borked and corroded XR-1, Carena CX-300) and four lenses (including two Pentax lenses and two of unmentionable brands), plus Moskva 5 (needs CLA, but the bellows, rangefinder and faster speeds are OK), Zorki 4 and beaten up to death and not quite sharp Industar 61 L/D, for a Contax II (or a Leica II or III, for that matter) in good condition, with a standard lens. I'm serious. If someone is up for a swap and is willing to pay for all the shipping/customs to/from Poland, please PM me. I'll add 1m long Kaiser's release cable and a bag of random spare parts if it's still 2013. I can make photos. Else I'll just continue living with what I have and maybe some day I'll buy one.

I've been working for some short time on a Kiev 4am with a Helios 103. What can I say...

Your best bet is to find an early Kiev say pre '60 and fix any worn bits.
The Contax IIs are similar and also have light leaks and uneven frame spacing... Only the name plate is significantly different, but they are pretty.
Leica II are well expensive, Contax II a lot cheaper.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Your best bet is to find an early Kiev say pre '60 and fix any worn bits.
The Contax IIs are similar and also have light leaks and uneven frame spacing... Only the name plate is significantly different, but they are pretty.
Leica II are well expensive, Contax II a lot cheaper.

Any of these cameras will need work, if only a cleaning, due to their age. You can get a Contax II w/o lens, in need of CLA and shutter tapes for ~ USD 100, there's one on feepay BIN for USD 75 right now. A Leica II or III will cost more, say ~USD 150-225, needing CLA and curtains. If you are able to do this kind of work, there's a lot of bargains out there.
Having seen first-hand what sometimes passes for a CLA, I'd not purchase a camera advertised as freshly CLA'd unless the seller could document the work was done by a skilled and reputable person - then I wouldn't buy it anyway, because I can do the work myself and I'm cheap.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

-snip-

As for frankensteining some lenses, either it's an exercise in machining your own gear, or just being wasteful in terms of both time and gear, but it sounds like you know what you're doing. Having a lens, I'd rather use it as it is. But if you're skilled and you have a lathe, I guess there's nothing stopping you really. Collapsible Industar barrel is something like 19mm wide, there's no space for anything close to f/2 or even f/2.8 diameter, it''l be interesting to watch how you overcome that issue.

I have access to a toolroom, with a Hardinge lathe and a Moore jigborer, so I can machine whatever I need, to whatever tolerance is appropriate, with the exception (for now) of metric threads - there are some ways around that, though. It looks like the focussing mount (inner helicoid) from a late J-8 can be bored out to accept the optical cell of a H-103. I like the Helios because it's a typical clinical-looking double Gauss, just like my 50/2 Nikkor H's.
As for the collapsibel I-61, it may be possible to remachine the I-10/22/50 focussing mount and fabricate a new barrel to accept a (possibly remachined) optics cell from the I-61. I'll most likely end up with examples of these lenses anyway as users, once I do five minutes with a dial caliper will tell me what's possible... maybe a collapsible H-103!

The there are all those M42 Soviet lenses...

For what it's worth - http://forum.mflenses.com/helios-103-vs-jupiter-8-vs-vs-old-collapsible-summicron-t53684.html

 

[E. von Hoegh]

My second Zorki arrived today, a Zorki-3C from 1956 with an older, silver Jupiter-8. The camera is in very good shape aesthetically but it does have some slow speed shutter issues. With a shutter setting of 1 second the front curtain typically won't complete it's travel across the frame. The remaining slow speeds work but the front curtain was noticeably slow to begin but has improved a bit with use. It will still hang on occasion. Slow shutter times appear to be about 1 stop slower than indicated. On the B setting, in the beginning, the front curtain usually did not complete its travel and I would have to wind and shoot again. With use it is more likely to complete it's travel than not but it still hangs on occasion. 1/25th just appears slow. In the film compartment the toothed sprocket for the film does not rotate freely and has considerable drag when set to rewind, as if there was thick cold grease in it. I can return this item but I would rather try to repair it myself or have the seller reduce my cost and get it repaired. Thoughts?

Zorki-3C:
View attachment 78284 View attachment 78285


Showing front curtain hung:
View attachment 78286


Gears with dirt/gunk:
View attachment 78287



Regarding your statement E.; I understand completely now. These little cameras are intriguing. Kind of like having an old car to tinker with.

Looks like the body and lens are the same year - a good sign, possibly the original lens for that body.

 

[q_x]

Xmas, Contax is said to have internal parts chromed, I doubt any Kiev will have it, and finding Kiev assembled from Contax gears in Poland is like hitting needle in a haystack three times in a row. Hence the original Contax. Migrating lens designs was way harder due to different glass available on Russian market, so they had to change every single design as soon as they've run out of Zeiss glass. I can hit either a good body with an inferior lens (Early Kiev) or the other way around (late Kiev). So for now I'm sticking to Zorkis as long as I'm able to service it myself.

Disassembling the shutter and replacing anything in Leica shutter in it is way beyond my comfort zone, E. I'd cruise European flee markets to find a serviceable piece. I haven't yet taken a Kiev apart.
Leica or Contax, doesn't matter. It may be a different story in some years though, servicing Zorki 4 is a learning experience in my case. At least I got mine up ad running. I'm not missing much to really dis- and reassemble whole camera, but I'm afraid to do this and I won't without a good reason and a quality lubricant. And a spanner wrench, costing more where I live, than four Zorkis 4 with their lenses on.

I've seen somewhere I61 in Contax mount. Looking forward for more bizarre lenses made this way.
And yes, that's the softness of Jupiter I've been praising that much. It's not lack of sharpness common in Tessar clones, it's more like the bokeh only ends where you want it to end. For sharp results, I have Pentax M 50/1.7, pretty badass lens for the price, it almost never leaves the body.
Here the Helios is far from "clinical":
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections/72157632455712332/