Zorki 4K vs Leica M

[George Mann]

Are they comparable at all? I can't afford to add a Leica to my collection, but I can a Zorki.

I am mainly interested in comparing their viewfinders, and ergonomics in general .

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Zorkis do not have framelines in their viewfinders. They're more like screwmount Leicas, but even less refined.

The M advantage is the projected, parallax-corrected framelines that automatically show the correct frameline for the lens you have mounted. This makes Leica M cameras far easier to shoot with than a Zorki, which has a 50mm viewfinder with no parallax correction.

 

[awty]

From what Ive seen the price of Leica's are still going up and the cost of a Russian camera is still the same as it was 5 years ago, that should tell you something.

What I would like to know is if anyone has a Russian camera that works flawlessly and has so for many years.

 

[AgX]

From your reply I assume you rather trust the Ukranian cameras instead.

 

[Don_ih]

I have a Zorki 4 that I bought because of the bigger viewfinder. It works well with an Industar 50mm. It has a bit of a problem with tearing sprocket holes, but I think I could fix that with a bit of oil in the right place. The shutter is less reliable than a "shooter" Leica. And it doesn't feel like a Leica. But, with a collapsible Industar lens, it does take pictures that are pretty much indistinguishable from those taken by a Leica III with a coated Elmar 50.

I was taking it around regularly, until I looked through the viewfinder and everything looked foggy - so bad, you couldn't focus the camera. It was cold and something went weird inside the camera. It had to sit in the house and get warm for a day before it looked clear again. Then it happened as soon as it got cold again. Who would've guessed you couldn't use a Russian camera outside in winter?

Russian cameras are more expensive now than they were 5 years ago. You could buy a Fed or Zorki for $20 then - more like $50, now. Too many of them have been rebranded as Luftwaffe Leicas.

 

[btaylor]

Closest I think you’re going to get to a Leica M on a budget is a Canon 7. Zorkis take pictures too, of course, but they are rough compared to Western options.

 

[summicron1]

i had a Zorki 4 once -- the viewfinder in it really isn't good -- kind of fuzzy aorund the edges, as I recall, and optically iffy. Not to mention the mechanics of the camera are pretty low-grade.

Save your pennies and buy a Leica -- even a IIIF - screw mount -- would be a vast improvement and can be had for $300 or so.

 

[George Mann]

Save your pennies and buy a Leica -- even a IIIF - screw mount -- would be a vast improvement and can be had for $300 or so.

I would personally buy a Fed 2 over a Barnack. Are you sure that your Zorki wasn't in need of a CLA?

 

[George Mann]

They're more like screwmount Leicas, but even less refined.

With the Zorki having a bigger, brighter viewfinder, and improved film loading, I can't see how the Barnack can win.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

No they are not comparable. No matter how many drinks one might have.

 

[awty]

The problem with the Russian cameras especially the later ones are the mechanics, they are just very poor quality. Even if you buy a mint copy that has just been fully serviced it is likely to fail. I haven't yet heard of anyone having a problem free camera that they have run 100 rolls or more through with out a problem.
As someone has mentioned, Canon is a better option if in good condition and fully serviced.
My 1938 Leica which looks like it has had many 1000 of rolls through it still works fine, just needs a slight curtain tension adjustment for the high speeds, but that's it. My if and iiif are mechanically perfect.
Buy a Russian camera, kid yourself they are a bargain.

 

[George Mann]

As someone has mentioned, Canon is a better option if in good condition and fully serviced.

Yes, but paying hundreds of dollars for these just to have to spend hundreds more to make them serviceable doesn't sound too appealing.

By most owners estimate, a Fed 2 that has been properly serviced proves to be reliable, are they not?

I can buy one with a lens that is ready to go for half the cost of an unserviced Canon body.

 

[George Mann]

I haven't yet heard of anyone having a problem free camera that they have run 100 rolls or more through with out a problem.

It's funny that you mention this because 36 × 100 = 3600 actuations.

My point is that even the vaunted Nikon F/F2 can be technically out of spec by the time it reaches one thousand actuations!

 

[jimjm]

In terms of ergonomics, and specifically the viewfinder, they are not comparable at all.
Leica M viewfinders are pretty much the pinnacle for 35mm RF cameras, maybe with the Nikon SP a close 2nd for cameras of that era. More modern cameras like the Zeiss Ikon and the CV Bessa R series are also very good, but they are discontinued and used prices for these have been on the rise.
If your budget is less than a few hundred for a body/lens, the the Russian cameras are probably the best option, if you get one in good functional condition. Canon RF's (both smaller Barnack-type and later models like the P, VT, 7s, etc) are very well-made and will give no problems if serviced every 10 years or so if frequently used. The Canon RF screwmount lenses are excellent and very-well made, much better than any Russian lenses I've had.
This link at Cameraquest has quite a bit of info on Russian cameras.

 

[btaylor]

Of the many FSU rangefinders I have used FED 2 gets my vote. Simple, likely to be reliable. But again, I really think it is false economy. If you like rangefinders you’re going to end up with a Nikon, Canon or Leica anyway. But I didn’t heed that advice on my journey, should have bought the Leica (or Nikon SP or Canon 7s) instead (but I did have fun with the FSU stuff on my way).

 

[George Mann]

If you like rangefinders you’re going to end up with a Nikon, Canon or Leica anyway.

Not as long as they are selling at inflated prices.

 

[BradS]

By most owners estimate, a Fed 2 that has been properly serviced proves to be reliable, are they not?

I can buy one with a lens that is ready to go for half the cost of an unserviced Canon body.

Seems like your mind is pretty firmly made up. Why don’t you buy the commie camera and let us know how it goes?

 

[George Mann]

Seems like your mind is pretty firmly made up. Why don’t you buy the commie camera and let us know how it goes?

I haven't made up my mind between the Fed and the Zorki. From what I read, either can be reliable.

It's down to a battle between features and ergonomics.

 

[BradS]

I haven't made up my mind between the Fed and the Zorki. From what I read, either can be reliable.

It's down to a battle between features and ergonomics.

any camera of any brand that is more than about five years old is a crap shoot. It all depends on how the individual specimen was treated during its lifetime. The Leica seem to have several advantages working in their favor. First, they seem to have been almost universally held in high regard and thus have a better chance at having been well taken care of. Second they were far higher quality in the first place (better design, materials, and workmanship). Third, they have always been at least relatively expensive (and sometimes ridiculously so) and thus, again, are more likely to have been taken care of.

Other than being cheap, the commie cameras appear to have nothing going for them. Several people have mentioned various areas where they fall far short of Leica (and frankly pretty much every other camera made in Japan or west Germany).

But they are cheap....at least the entry price makes them seem cheap. However, they are not so cheap on whole. How many rolls of film are you willing to risk? How many ruined photos are you willing to suffer? How many times are you willing to have it fixed? How many will you have to buy and try to get one that does not suck? What about the frustration of dealing with a shitty viewfinder or of overlapping frames? or shredded film? missed focus? wrong framing? The list goes on and on and on....and there is no end to it.

Eventually you learn that, if you’re gonna use it (not just set it on a shelf and dust it with a diaper) cheap equipment is never cheap. If you think it is, you’re not counting all of the costs.

but, hey they are cheap...so wtf?
Buy one. Buy five. Satisfy that itch. Who knows, you might get lucky and find that works satisfactorily to last through five rolls of film.
And be sure to let us know how it goes.

 

[bdial]

I had a Zorki something or another for a while, it was heavy, clunky, the rangefinder needed constant adjustment, and was not very pleasurable to use.
As mentioned, the Canon's are far more refined, and are probably as close as you'll get to a Leica M without getting a Leica. The Canon 7's, and the variants all have hinged backs for easy loading. They do cost more than the Russian cameras, but the cost difference is justified, and they are still far less than an M.
Another Japanese alternative might be a Nicca, they are Barnak clones but have a slightly better viewfinder. Sears distributed the Nicca under their Tower name, the Towers might be easier to find. I'm not sure if Nicca made an analog model to the Canon 7.
Canadian Leica M4-2's don't get quite as much love in the market as German Leica M's, so are somewhat less dear, though I've not looked at the prices lately. Finally, you might want to consider one of the CV Voightlanders, I don't know what the current pricing is like, but they are relatively modern cameras. Not sure if they are still being made, but you can certainly find one made this century, instead of going back in time 40 or 50 years.

 

[btaylor]

Not as long as they are selling at inflated prices.

I have to disagree, the prices are what they are because people are willing to pay them- that’s the market. Why decide? Buy a Zorki and a FED. For $100 you’ll get the FSU experience- maybe you will enjoy it.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Soviet era cameras never fail to disappoint at the most inopportune times. You can buy one of the Japanese Barnack clones, like a Canon IV or a Nicca/tower, for just a few $ more than some FSU junk that will be an endless frustration. Oh and BTW very few people will work on the FSU junk when it does fail.

 

[Huss]

I am mainly interested in comparing their viewfinders, and ergonomics in general .

Going by this thread title of Zorki 4K vs Leica M (not Barnack):

The viewfinder in a Leica M is very bright, no colour cast, has defined frame lines that automatically correct for parallax, and has a defined bright rangefinder patch.
The viewfinder in a Zorki is much more dim, smaller, has no frame lines, no parallax correction, and has a dim ill defined rangefinder blob/patch.

There is no comparison.

Not as long as they are selling at inflated prices.

They're not inflated. That is what people are paying for them.

I have a Zorki 4K, Fed 2, Kiev. And Leicas.

The Soviet cameras are cheaper. If you are looking for someone to say 'hey George, there's no difference! Just get a Zorki!', well, no.

Before I load a roll of film in any of my FSU cams, I need to exercise the shutters. Fire them numerous times at all speeds, otherwise the speeds can be erratic. And my cameras were bought from very reputable sources, had been serviced and are in great condition. Just the act of doing this is tiring, as the film speed dials are not great to use. Sharp edges, need to be lifted and rotated fighting the spring mechanism friction. Fiddly to lower accurately into the desired speed setting.
Load a roll of film. The first few shots can be fun, as you are taking pics. But if you plan on shooting several rolls of film a day, you'll notice that it gets less and less fun and smooth as the day goes on. These cameras don't work with you as good gear does. They kinda wrestle with you as you take pics, which tends to grate.

Pick up a Leica, and they are just heavenly to use. Full stop. Period. End of sentence. A Leica M works with the photographer, I never get tired of shooting with one, no matter how much film I shoot in a day. They make you just want to keep on shooting. The Soviet cams make me want to put them away after maybe a dozen exposures. And think about rewinding the film and loading it into a camera I actually enjoy using.

I will say that my Soviet lenses are really really good. It's almost the saving grace, almost because you can buy any cheap Japanese camera that also has really really good lenses. A Pentax SMC 50mm f2 for $25 is just as good if not better than any of my Jupiters, Helios etc lenses. So using Soviet cams for the glass as the excuse doesn't hold water.

Really the next best thing to a Leica M is a Nikon S series RF camera. I bought my gorgeous S2 with 50mm 1.4 lens for under $400.

Anyway, here are my fantastic FSU cams - all for sale! Out of these, I like the Fed2 the most. It just feels better in hand,.

 

[Bikerider]

No they are not comparable. No matter how many drinks one might have.

They are about as comparable to a polished diamond to a chip off the edge of a sheet of glass. They may look almost the same, but are not in every way.

 

[zanxion72]

When comparing Zorkis and FEDs to Leica cameras it is worth noting which compared to what. Comparing them to early Leicas, it may be worth a try, not that you will get realy close to Leicas, but anyway let it be. Doing the same with later Leicas, M2, M3, etc, will not get you even close. Zorki's and FED's most likely will have inaccurate shutter speeds and the not serviced ones even inconsistent focusing problems due to inaccurate lens flange-to-focal plane distances.
The good thing with these, is that they are generally simple constructions that can be serviced even by you. If you cannot service them by yourself they aren't worth it because buying another one costs less even than the postage to send them away for repair.
I like a lot, my zorki/fed I cameras and I usually fool around with them using cheap color films.