If you want lower shutter speeds, shoot a affordable 120 film camera on a tripod, These rangefinder cameras are meant for candid shooting. At least in my own opinion.
Great video. From my perspective, a camera searches its owner. And I am happy that some former Soviet ladies have decided to find shelter in my shelf. I am astonished how good the older Feds and Zorkis work. They are soft, precise and silent with astonishing optical performance. Therefore, a Leica III will only be a fulfillment of a dream but not the result of a desperate search for the ultimate camera.
Am I the only person who see a totally different type of beauty in the Zorki, and where it "fails" only adds to this beauty. The Leica is a beautiful lady who has great lines and a perfect finish and of course impossible to copy never mind beat. But the Zorki is brutish and rough, take me as you find me, which has its own charms. I only have one FSU, my Zorki 4K, I love it it’s easily my favourite camera, but I have no intention of adding any more. However, I’m serious consideration to a Leica M6. I really enjoy this channel though and really enjoy watching and learning.
I had already a Zorki 4. When I choose it, I chose the rangefinder camera I could afford that had "all the features" (and shutter speeds) that I was used to shooting SLRs. And I got a few soviet lenses. But the smallness and simplicity of the original Screw-Mouint Leica body has something appealing to it. I have recently purchased a Zorki 1. It is actually a Zorki 1D and was CLA-ed prior to me ordering it. I am not willing to spend Leica money, but I feel like I am getting something that, maybe not as nicely put together, is functionally identical to a Leica II. This comparison video was a very interesting thing to watch to see how these actually compare. I also got an Industar 22 lens. Wich is probably a lot inferior optically (it is quite a bit slower too) than the Jupiter 3 lens I often use on the other Zorki. But the classic look and the collapsible design is what made me decide to get one.
The FED is Ukrainian not Russian. As the Germans approached the FED commune/factory was dismantled and put on trains to behind the Ural mountains along with the #9 Locomotive Factory which was secretly producing the T-34 tank. Elements of the 22nd Panzer stumbled across the factory and found copies of the leica and Leitz microscopes in the building. Tank fire made the factory useless. The commune members started to produce the FED-1 in the KMZ/Zorki factory near Moscow and they were marked as you show. With the factory rebuilt they returned to Karkov in 48/49 in small numbers. The Zorki 2 was the same except for small improvements including a self timer. The Zorki-2S had a redesigned top part and flash syncro. The Zirki-3 finally had slow speeds and an F2 lens.
Hi there! Great to hear your voice again! I believe molded aluminum in Zorki is only the shell and the internal frame, not the top/bottom covers - these are made out of pressed and chromed brass sheet. Does it make a difference? I have some cameras with dents in brass sheet parts, but not in parts made out of molded aluminum. I can't stomach two things about these cameras: how hard it is to clean the film chamber and how cumbersome it is to load the film. Third thing, not Barnack-specific, is 90 to 95% of all cameras have too short eye relief for me. Slow shutter times is one of many factors differentiating between universal and not so universal tools. These oldies are good for a thing or two, surely some of the photos are great, but in terms of usefulness and capabilities these aren't really comparable with typical modern camera (like typical AF SLR from the late 90s/early 2000s). 'Inadequate' or 'outdated' would be a bit of an euphemism here. Good these oldies still work. All the photos I've made with three different Industars are at best slightly fuzzy. Underwhelming experience. Leicas make things easier for certain photographers, harder for others. My point is, while the lenses are far from modern and the cameras are less capable, the image is what counts, not the camera. Cheers!
The image not the camera, completely agreed. I agree too that, by comparison to modern cameras, these oldies seem very simple indeed - but as well as being a drawback this is, in my opinion, the source of their charm. It's a bit like getting out of an up to the minute fully computerised car, complete with 'Keep Out' engine cover, and into, say, a Morris Minor. The latter is the essence of simplicity, no computers, pure Victorian technology, all analogue feedback and information systems, not always entirely reliable, technically a far inferior car to any modern - but with a charm that no modern can match! I think it's also worth remembering that any machine in good condition, no matter how old, is no worse at doing what it did than when it was new! Modern machines probably do the job more quickly and with less fuss, but nothing has been taken away from the old machine! I've found the Industars to be capable of very sharp results indeed, especially the 50, and the later 61 - maybe you've been unlucky? You're right that the Zorkis use cast aluminium only for the body, not the top and bottom plates, which, I ought to have remembered, are sheet brass. Brass is a fairly soft metal. Aluminium is softer still, but when cast is likely to be much thicker than a sheet would be - that's why your sheet brass dents much more easily than your cast aluminium. Good to hear from you again Luke, and as always, thanks for watching.
Perceived sharpness is subjective and I know the subject has more to do with it, than the lens. I recalled fourth Industar I've been photographing with, all equally disappointing. I doubt it's pure bad luck, I was looking online for any photos with good sharpness and definition, found none, all the hi-res samples I've seen lacked the clarity other lenses have no problems delivering. Here is one of my photos, really fuzzy specimen (I like the fuzzy aspect of that photo, but this doesn't make the lens any sharper): www.flickr.com/photos/otherdreams/9759762296/ and here's a good sample form someone I like, it's best to download it in high res: www.flickr.com/photos/9842362@N04/4793310499/ To compare it with something similar, I'm really happy with Tessar that sits in my Rollei 35. Here's a sample: www.flickr.com/photos/otherdreams/34924518681 And here's my Jupiter-8 in action, not the sharpest lens and far from Japanese nifty fifties, but a world of difference already: www.flickr.com/photos/otherdreams/34630326610 If Industars are sharp, this is as good of an image as I've found without any signs of digital alterations or excessive grain: www.flickr.com/photos/96319283@N08/18638562060/ There's nothing wrong with the photo, but I wouldn't call it really sharp. I'd say it lacks definition. With the old machines and cars analogy, it's more like you have a trio of charming 1930-s BMW in a town in a valley and you can't drive out of the valley you're in just because it's too steep. I think it's hilarious analogy and one surely needs a well worn top hat (a.k.a dusty Rondinax) to do groceries with class. I'm not against staying in one town whole life. I like visiting this particular place, but it's not perfect little town, and while I love chunky 1930s BMWs, I'm also paying for fuel and service. So I'm opting for a cheaper car, more refined, that lets me travel to more distant places every now and then, and is just as good, if not better, for the town. Owning 1930s BMW is a hobby by itself. Maybe for me traveling is more important, but there's nothing wrong collecting cars. I just can't help the fact that my Industars (a.k.a Fiats 126) are not nearly as convenient or fast as similar modern cars, or any cars for that matter, my old Nikon is better suited (and less expensive) for any road trip than the 1930s BMW that won't even climb out of the valley. Looking forward to these sharp photos. Edit: I saw your videos with I-61 photo and video samples. UA-cam things are really low quality, no good for these evaluations. I also think kenrockwell.com ("great review") is BS from start to finish, hilarious, but lacks merit. Cheers!
Luke, you brought a smile to my face on what turned out to be a trying day - thanks! Zorkis aren't Ferraris it's true, but then again their fuel consumption is fantastic, they never need an oil change and the cambelt lasts forever! I have to admit, however, that top speed is poor... Now then, those Industars. I really think the softness of those images suggests a fault somewhere. Here are a couple of examples I shot, the first with a Leica iii/Industar 22 combination: www.flickr.com/photos/76981956@N05/21645642394/in/dateposted-public/ And the second with a Sony A7 and Industar 61: www.flickr.com/photos/76981956@N05/24298820015/in/dateposted-public/ Pretty sharp I think? Cheers!
I can't see the I-22 shot to be really crispy, the I-61 one looks good in the center, there's not enough going on in the rest of the image, but I think it's really good. I've also found one (!!!) image on BKSPicture that was acceptable in terms of image quality, so maybe it's indeed a matter of luck. Or maybe these are lenses made for modern mirrorless bodies? I have a sharp lens for the system, so there's no urge, it just seems I wasn't lucky with Industars indeed. Great photostream BTW, lots of gutsy stuff! Cheers!
@@KIFQHESE I don't find these cameras to be a fall back what so ever, it just depends on what you need them for. For B&W film, they are charming and they can deliver interesting dramatic affects if used right. Of course some lenses are better performers then others. Lack of multi coating can cause a bit of loss in the highlights. My Pentax K lenses out perform all the above but that is not the charm. I prefer the Fed-3 and Kiev (The Helios 103 is sharp and contrasty! yet a little awkward to handle ) at the moment. For the Fed-3 and above, you can add a swivel strap lug attachment to the tripod mount. It works great in place of standard strap mount.. Finally, you can use Canon,Nikon LTM lenses. I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 on my Fed-3 and it is a sweat combination. Still my SLR cameras will out perform these cameras for general and Macro and Telephoto work with ease. Photo shot with the Kiev and Helios 103. 500px.com/photo/1008308799/Untitled-by-Michael-Russo?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=3538466
To be most correct - Zorki was NOT a Leica II copy. Zorki was a copy of FED and was made on equipment from FED factory. FED had some step-by-step history of copying Leica - Zorki have not. And srarting from FED (not Leica) KMZ engeneers started they own path of improvement - for example camera in this review has die-cast body with strengthen - visible as black paint lines between rubbered part of body and chrome top/bottom. All Zorki started from 1950 have this lines - but not FED (and not Leica too :) ). Of course Leica had die cast body since Leica IIIc but it has no external marks for it like Zorki has.
Thanks for the correction Peter. Fed originally produced the reverse engineered (from a Leica ii) Fed camera, a derivation of which was known as the Zorki. So Zorki didn't reverse engineer from the Leica as such, although they are in effect the same camera, hence Leica copy. Many thanks for watching!
There are a few ways to do this - you can photograph the negative with a digital camera (you'll need a macro lens and a light box), or you can buy a dedicated film scanner - the Plustek brand one is probably about the cheapest new.
Hi, I wonder, from your or anyone's experiences - do Leica M39 threaded lenses *register* correctly with a Zorki 4 body?, ie will setting a leitz M39 lens to 'infinity' also focus to infinity on a Zorki 4/4K etc? I simply love the basic nature of the Zorki. Thanks in advance if you or someone replies. Regards James.
Hi James, in reply to your question, well, opinion is divided on this matter. One very respected expert says that they won't quite register properly, while another, equally respected expert says he hasn't experienced any problems. From my own experience mounting Soviet lenses on Leica bodies, I can say I haven't experienced any problems, so I would say mounting Leica lenses on Soviet bodies will be successful too.
@@zenography7923 Thanks, appreciate the reply. I guess the difference of opinion may be down to inevitable production variances? Thanks, I'm interested in getting any leitz or even a Voigtlander M39 threaded 50mm lens for the Zorki. I can also use it on my Leica M2/M6 with adapters. Cheers! PS - there just doesn't seem to be much mention of this subject out there.
The Tessar design has the diaphragm positioned between the cemented doublet at the back and the middle negative element; the Elmar has its between the front and middle element; I do not think any of the Russian 50/3.5 lenses is like that.
I think you're right, none of them are. However, there's a theory that the elmar has it's own diaphragm position because the lens designer (Fricke?) wanted to get around the patents for the tessar design that zeiss held at the time, so is a tessar in all but name...
@@georgeparkins777 It isn't. The c3 cintar is a basic triplet. The argus C4 2.8 cintar is a tessar design, however. Am Elmar is a tessar by a different name, just like the xenar, raptar, skopar, etc.
If you want lower shutter speeds, shoot a affordable 120 film camera on a tripod, These rangefinder cameras are meant for candid shooting. At least in my own opinion.
Great video.
From my perspective, a camera searches its owner. And I am happy that some former Soviet ladies have decided to find shelter in my shelf. I am astonished how good the older Feds and Zorkis work. They are soft, precise and silent with astonishing optical performance. Therefore, a Leica III will only be a fulfillment of a dream but not the result of a desperate search for the ultimate camera.
Am I the only person who see a totally different type of beauty in the Zorki, and where it "fails" only adds to this beauty. The Leica is a beautiful lady who has great lines and a perfect finish and of course impossible to copy never mind beat. But the Zorki is brutish and rough, take me as you find me, which has its own charms. I only have one FSU, my Zorki 4K, I love it it’s easily my favourite camera, but I have no intention of adding any more. However, I’m serious consideration to a Leica M6. I really enjoy this channel though and really enjoy watching and learning.
I had already a Zorki 4. When I choose it, I chose the rangefinder camera I could afford that had "all the features" (and shutter speeds) that I was used to shooting SLRs. And I got a few soviet lenses.
But the smallness and simplicity of the original Screw-Mouint Leica body has something appealing to it.
I have recently purchased a Zorki 1. It is actually a Zorki 1D and was CLA-ed prior to me ordering it. I am not willing to spend Leica money, but I feel like I am getting something that, maybe not as nicely put together, is functionally identical to a Leica II.
This comparison video was a very interesting thing to watch to see how these actually compare. I also got an Industar 22 lens. Wich is probably a lot inferior optically (it is quite a bit slower too) than the Jupiter 3 lens I often use on the other Zorki. But the classic look and the collapsible design is what made me decide to get one.
I just prefer saying Zorki more than Leica🤪👍😳
It's a great word, for sure.
Hola, como acostumbras hacerlo es un excelente video. He aprendido mucho contigo gracias, saludos cordiales desde México.
The FED is Ukrainian not Russian. As the Germans approached the FED commune/factory was dismantled and put on trains to behind the Ural mountains along with the #9 Locomotive Factory which was secretly producing the T-34 tank. Elements of the 22nd Panzer stumbled across the factory and found copies of the leica and Leitz microscopes in the building. Tank fire made the factory useless. The commune members started to produce the FED-1 in the KMZ/Zorki factory near Moscow and they were marked as you show. With the factory rebuilt they returned to Karkov in 48/49 in small numbers. The Zorki 2 was the same except for small improvements including a self timer. The Zorki-2S had a redesigned top part and flash syncro. The Zirki-3 finally had slow speeds and an F2 lens.
Many thanks for the info, much appreciated!
Didn't Zorki and the Barnacks play the Shepherds Bush Empire in the 80s?
Hi there!
Great to hear your voice again!
I believe molded aluminum in Zorki is only the shell and the internal frame, not the top/bottom covers - these are made out of pressed and chromed brass sheet. Does it make a difference? I have some cameras with dents in brass sheet parts, but not in parts made out of molded aluminum.
I can't stomach two things about these cameras: how hard it is to clean the film chamber and how cumbersome it is to load the film. Third thing, not Barnack-specific, is 90 to 95% of all cameras have too short eye relief for me.
Slow shutter times is one of many factors differentiating between universal and not so universal tools. These oldies are good for a thing or two, surely some of the photos are great, but in terms of usefulness and capabilities these aren't really comparable with typical modern camera (like typical AF SLR from the late 90s/early 2000s). 'Inadequate' or 'outdated' would be a bit of an euphemism here. Good these oldies still work.
All the photos I've made with three different Industars are at best slightly fuzzy. Underwhelming experience.
Leicas make things easier for certain photographers, harder for others. My point is, while the lenses are far from modern and the cameras are less capable, the image is what counts, not the camera.
Cheers!
The image not the camera, completely agreed. I agree too that, by comparison to modern cameras, these oldies seem very simple indeed - but as well as being a drawback this is, in my opinion, the source of their charm.
It's a bit like getting out of an up to the minute fully computerised car, complete with 'Keep Out' engine cover, and into, say, a Morris Minor. The latter is the essence of simplicity, no computers, pure Victorian technology, all analogue feedback and information systems, not always entirely reliable, technically a far inferior car to any modern - but with a charm that no modern can match!
I think it's also worth remembering that any machine in good condition, no matter how old, is no worse at doing what it did than when it was new! Modern machines probably do the job more quickly and with less fuss, but nothing has been taken away from the old machine!
I've found the Industars to be capable of very sharp results indeed, especially the 50, and the later 61 - maybe you've been unlucky?
You're right that the Zorkis use cast aluminium only for the body, not the top and bottom plates, which, I ought to have remembered, are sheet brass. Brass is a fairly soft metal. Aluminium is softer still, but when cast is likely to be much thicker than a sheet would be - that's why your sheet brass dents much more easily than your cast aluminium.
Good to hear from you again Luke, and as always, thanks for watching.
Perceived sharpness is subjective and I know the subject has more to do with it, than the lens.
I recalled fourth Industar I've been photographing with, all equally disappointing. I doubt it's pure bad luck, I was looking online for any photos with good sharpness and definition, found none, all the hi-res samples I've seen lacked the clarity other lenses have no problems delivering.
Here is one of my photos, really fuzzy specimen (I like the fuzzy aspect of that photo, but this doesn't make the lens any sharper):
www.flickr.com/photos/otherdreams/9759762296/
and here's a good sample form someone I like, it's best to download it in high res:
www.flickr.com/photos/9842362@N04/4793310499/
To compare it with something similar, I'm really happy with Tessar that sits in my Rollei 35. Here's a sample:
www.flickr.com/photos/otherdreams/34924518681
And here's my Jupiter-8 in action, not the sharpest lens and
far from Japanese nifty fifties, but a world of difference already:
www.flickr.com/photos/otherdreams/34630326610
If Industars are sharp, this is as good of an image as I've found without any signs of digital alterations or excessive grain:
www.flickr.com/photos/96319283@N08/18638562060/
There's nothing wrong with the photo, but I wouldn't call it really sharp. I'd say it lacks definition.
With the old machines and cars analogy, it's more like you have a trio of charming 1930-s BMW in a town in a valley and you can't drive out of the valley you're in just because it's too steep. I think it's hilarious analogy and one surely needs a well worn top hat (a.k.a dusty Rondinax) to do groceries with class.
I'm not against staying in one town whole life. I like visiting this particular place, but it's not perfect little town, and while I love chunky 1930s BMWs, I'm also paying for fuel and service. So I'm opting for a cheaper car, more refined, that lets me travel to more distant places every now and then, and is just as good, if not better, for the town.
Owning 1930s BMW is a hobby by itself. Maybe for me traveling is more important, but there's nothing wrong collecting cars. I just can't help the fact that my Industars (a.k.a Fiats 126) are not nearly as convenient or fast as similar modern cars, or any cars for that matter, my old Nikon is better suited (and less expensive) for any road trip than the 1930s BMW that won't even climb out of the valley.
Looking forward to these sharp photos.
Edit: I saw your videos with I-61 photo and video samples. UA-cam things are really low quality, no good for these evaluations. I also think kenrockwell.com ("great review") is BS from start to finish, hilarious, but lacks merit.
Cheers!
Luke, you brought a smile to my face on what turned out to be a trying day - thanks!
Zorkis aren't Ferraris it's true, but then again their fuel consumption is fantastic, they never need an oil change and the cambelt lasts forever! I have to admit, however, that top speed is poor...
Now then, those Industars. I really think the softness of those images suggests a fault somewhere. Here are a couple of examples I shot, the first with a Leica iii/Industar 22 combination:
www.flickr.com/photos/76981956@N05/21645642394/in/dateposted-public/
And the second with a Sony A7 and Industar 61:
www.flickr.com/photos/76981956@N05/24298820015/in/dateposted-public/
Pretty sharp I think?
Cheers!
I can't see the I-22 shot to be really crispy, the I-61 one looks good in the center, there's not enough going on in the rest of the image, but I think it's really good. I've also found one (!!!) image on BKSPicture that was acceptable in terms of image quality, so maybe it's indeed a matter of luck. Or maybe these are lenses made for modern mirrorless bodies?
I have a sharp lens for the system, so there's no urge, it just seems I wasn't lucky with Industars indeed.
Great photostream BTW, lots of gutsy stuff!
Cheers!
@@KIFQHESE I don't find these cameras to be a fall back what so ever, it just depends on what you need them for. For B&W film, they are charming and they can deliver interesting dramatic affects if used right. Of course some lenses are better performers then others. Lack of multi coating can cause a bit of loss in the highlights. My Pentax K lenses out perform all the above but that is not the charm. I prefer the Fed-3 and Kiev (The Helios 103 is sharp and contrasty! yet a little awkward to handle ) at the moment. For the Fed-3 and above, you can add a swivel strap lug attachment to the tripod mount. It works great in place of standard strap mount.. Finally, you can use Canon,Nikon LTM lenses. I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 on my Fed-3 and it is a sweat combination. Still my SLR cameras will out perform these cameras for general and Macro and Telephoto work with ease.
Photo shot with the Kiev and Helios 103. 500px.com/photo/1008308799/Untitled-by-Michael-Russo?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=3538466
Good stuff again, still waiting on that minox review though 😹
To be most correct - Zorki was NOT a Leica II copy. Zorki was a copy of FED and was made on equipment from FED factory. FED had some step-by-step history of copying Leica - Zorki have not. And srarting from FED (not Leica) KMZ engeneers started they own path of improvement - for example camera in this review has die-cast body with strengthen - visible as black paint lines between rubbered part of body and chrome top/bottom. All Zorki started from 1950 have this lines - but not FED (and not Leica too :) ). Of course Leica had die cast body since Leica IIIc but it has no external marks for it like Zorki has.
Thanks for the correction Peter. Fed originally produced the reverse engineered (from a Leica ii) Fed camera, a derivation of which was known as the Zorki. So Zorki didn't reverse engineer from the Leica as such, although they are in effect the same camera, hence Leica copy. Many thanks for watching!
Dear Zeno, how should I digitalize my negatives ? (I have an Epson 370V :/)
There are a few ways to do this - you can photograph the negative with a digital camera (you'll need a macro lens and a light box), or you can buy a dedicated film scanner - the Plustek brand one is probably about the cheapest new.
A Nikon AR-2 cable release will fit the Leica II and III cameras without the need to remove the shutter release collar
If only I could find one (for my Yashica 635)!
Nice to meet you today in Battlesbridge. Enjoyed our chat. Keep on making the videos. Steve
Good to meet you too Steve, thanks for tuning in!
As alway a great review! Best on UA-cam in my opinion.
Very kind indeed, thank you!
Hi,
I wonder, from your or anyone's experiences - do Leica M39 threaded lenses *register* correctly with a Zorki 4 body?, ie will setting a leitz M39 lens to 'infinity' also focus to infinity on a Zorki 4/4K etc? I simply love the basic nature of the Zorki.
Thanks in advance if you or someone replies.
Regards
James.
Hi James, in reply to your question, well, opinion is divided on this matter. One very respected expert says that they won't quite register properly, while another, equally respected expert says he hasn't experienced any problems. From my own experience mounting Soviet lenses on Leica bodies, I can say I haven't experienced any problems, so I would say mounting Leica lenses on Soviet bodies will be successful too.
@@zenography7923 Thanks, appreciate the reply. I guess the difference of opinion may be down to inevitable production variances? Thanks, I'm interested in getting any leitz or even a Voigtlander M39 threaded 50mm lens for the Zorki. I can also use it on my Leica M2/M6 with adapters. Cheers!
PS - there just doesn't seem to be much mention of this subject out there.
The Tessar design has the diaphragm positioned between the cemented doublet at the back and the middle negative element; the Elmar has its between the front and middle element; I do not think any of the Russian 50/3.5 lenses is like that.
I think you're right, none of them are. However, there's a theory that the elmar has it's own diaphragm position because the lens designer (Fricke?) wanted to get around the patents for the tessar design that zeiss held at the time, so is a tessar in all but name...
@@zenography7923 Have you ever heard that the Argus C3 coated Cintar is an Elmar copy? I've heard that it is and I've heard that it isn't.
@@georgeparkins777 It isn't. The c3 cintar is a basic triplet. The argus C4 2.8 cintar is a tessar design, however. Am Elmar is a tessar by a different name, just like the xenar, raptar, skopar, etc.
Zorki and the Barnacks: is this a rock group?
It really ought to be!