What’s a Zorki worth?
- Thread starter Nebular89
- Start date
AndrewFlannigan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,977
- Edit My Images
- No
Everything is worth what someone's prepared to pay for it.
I've owned a Leica IIIc and I've owned a Zorki.
They are totally different machines in both quality of construction and results. I think this is the least bad image I got out of a Zorki...
I've owned a Leica IIIc and I've owned a Zorki.
They are totally different machines in both quality of construction and results. I think this is the least bad image I got out of a Zorki...
Will probably hold out for cheap then. I don’t expect a Leica but I’m not going to drop £100 on a whim
PeterSpencer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,661
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I had a Zorki 1 for a time and enjoyed using it. I think I got it from the Ukraine. I thought to myself that should try a leica and sold the zorki plus other stuff and bought a leica IIIA.
Apart from the fact that the leica had slow speeds, which I rarely used, the cameras seemed identical in use, in fact, the lens that came with the zorki, a copy of a 50/3.5 elmar, outperformed the elmar. I can’t remember exactly how much the zorki cost, it was a while ago and it was probably cheap, whereas the Leica was pretty expensive having had a service and having a warranty. It’s true that the Leica is much better made machine.
I don’t know if the above is much help but, if your finances are up to it I would try to find a Leica with a warranty. You stand to get your money back if you sell it on, whereas the zorki might turn out to have little resale value even if it works well.
In the end I gave up on the Leica as well, the squinty rangefinder and viewfinder proved to be too inconvenient in combination with the tiny engraved lens stops on the lens.
I ditched the Leica and, for my rangefinder fix, bought a canon 7 and a canon p with canon 50/1.4 and a 35/2.8 lenses. Better ergonomics (conventional film loading, combined viewfinder and rangefinder, simplified shutter speed setting) and, dare I say it, better lenses (waiting for an invitation to a duel about that comment), in mitigation, I did keep a 90/4 elmar, which originally bought for the Leica, as the canons have built in frame lines for various focal lengths, so no need for auxiliary viewfinders, another plus for the canons.
Canon also made near Leica copies which, in my estimation would be better buys than zorki, and they can be found easily from various dealers.
The substance of my post is: zorki no, canon yes, Leica yes if you really must have one.
Apart from the fact that the leica had slow speeds, which I rarely used, the cameras seemed identical in use, in fact, the lens that came with the zorki, a copy of a 50/3.5 elmar, outperformed the elmar. I can’t remember exactly how much the zorki cost, it was a while ago and it was probably cheap, whereas the Leica was pretty expensive having had a service and having a warranty. It’s true that the Leica is much better made machine.
I don’t know if the above is much help but, if your finances are up to it I would try to find a Leica with a warranty. You stand to get your money back if you sell it on, whereas the zorki might turn out to have little resale value even if it works well.
In the end I gave up on the Leica as well, the squinty rangefinder and viewfinder proved to be too inconvenient in combination with the tiny engraved lens stops on the lens.
I ditched the Leica and, for my rangefinder fix, bought a canon 7 and a canon p with canon 50/1.4 and a 35/2.8 lenses. Better ergonomics (conventional film loading, combined viewfinder and rangefinder, simplified shutter speed setting) and, dare I say it, better lenses (waiting for an invitation to a duel about that comment), in mitigation, I did keep a 90/4 elmar, which originally bought for the Leica, as the canons have built in frame lines for various focal lengths, so no need for auxiliary viewfinders, another plus for the canons.
Canon also made near Leica copies which, in my estimation would be better buys than zorki, and they can be found easily from various dealers.
The substance of my post is: zorki no, canon yes, Leica yes if you really must have one.
I had a Canon 7 about 4 years ago. I liked it and would get one again but as I have all the film cameras I “need” I’m only really looking for cheap stuff at the moment. By cheap I mean £50 and under.
I have a really nice Canon EF and a Rollei 35. Both work fully but I’ve always preferred a rangefinder over an SLR. But as I managed to get the Canon for £55 with a lens its hard to justify spending more when the Canon has and does everything you’d ever really need from a film camera.
I had a Leica m2 a long time ago too so that scratched the Leica itch. It was lovely to use but really the only advantage it had was the really nice focus patch, most others I’ve used have been just a hard to define circle.
On the subject of Zorki I managed to win a 4k for £30 with a Jupiter lens. Providing it’s all working that should hopefully scratch the rangefinder itch, for the time being anyway. If all it does is make it worse then I’ll probably look for a canon 7 or p. The p looks nicer but I’ve read that the 7’s viewfinder and focus patch is nicer.
I do keep looking at the Canon Barnack copies too though. I think though as they are a bit more of a chore to use it would be the 7 or P first and only a Barnack copy if it’s cheap enough.
AndrewFlannigan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,977
- Edit My Images
- No
I ran a P as a freelance in the late 1960s, with the 35mm f1.8 on the front. It's simpler than either of the 7 models and, I suspect, tougher.
Out of the P and 7 which would you recommend? The P looks nicer but I understand the viewfinder and patch of the 7 is better.
Sangoma
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,951
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I still have a 4K, one of the nicest Russian cameras.
£30 is a good price for one that works. Check the curtains carefully for light leaks, and check they don't stick at low speeds. They are quite easy to strip and reassemble if the need arises.
My favourite rangefinder is the Voigtländer Vito BR, but it is fixed lens. Mine always has film in it
£30 is a good price for one that works. Check the curtains carefully for light leaks, and check they don't stick at low speeds. They are quite easy to strip and reassemble if the need arises.
My favourite rangefinder is the Voigtländer Vito BR, but it is fixed lens. Mine always has film in it
My first camera was a Zorki 4. I traded it in for a variant of the Canon FTb.
Years later, when nostalgia struck, I found that both were expensive used. This is because my Zorki was the model imported by Dixons, with custom engraving, which is now rare, and the Canon just wasn't made for very long.
The Zorki 4 rarely works, anyway. If you changed shutter speeds when it wasn't wound on, that jammed the shutter, and often wrecked the mechanism. When you check the shutter works at all speeds, take the back off and, for the love of all that is decent, wind it on every single time before you change the speed.
If you have one with the ever-ready case, be aware that closing the lid presses on the shutter release. If the camera is wound on, you will waste a frame every time. There is a ring around the release, enabling you to lock it, but if you remember to engage that, you forget to take if off until you have a picture framed and focussed, and miss it.
Soviet technology has more than it's share of frustrations.
The F2 lens was good, and I always used slow B&W film in it (Pan F 50 ASA/ISO). It was only later I discovered that the main fault of that lens was low contrast, and the slow, high-contrast, film compensated for that.
PS: I now own a Zorki 4K, a version with a lever wind, a better frame counter and a hinged back. They are nice, but a sad part of me still wants my first camera first.
Years later, when nostalgia struck, I found that both were expensive used. This is because my Zorki was the model imported by Dixons, with custom engraving, which is now rare, and the Canon just wasn't made for very long.
The Zorki 4 rarely works, anyway. If you changed shutter speeds when it wasn't wound on, that jammed the shutter, and often wrecked the mechanism. When you check the shutter works at all speeds, take the back off and, for the love of all that is decent, wind it on every single time before you change the speed.
If you have one with the ever-ready case, be aware that closing the lid presses on the shutter release. If the camera is wound on, you will waste a frame every time. There is a ring around the release, enabling you to lock it, but if you remember to engage that, you forget to take if off until you have a picture framed and focussed, and miss it.
Soviet technology has more than it's share of frustrations.
The F2 lens was good, and I always used slow B&W film in it (Pan F 50 ASA/ISO). It was only later I discovered that the main fault of that lens was low contrast, and the slow, high-contrast, film compensated for that.
PS: I now own a Zorki 4K, a version with a lever wind, a better frame counter and a hinged back. They are nice, but a sad part of me still wants my first camera first.
Last edited:
Sangoma
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,951
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I started with a Zenit and a 4K, and have often done things in the wrong order, but have never had a failure. My son has had a FED 4 since he was 12 and not had a problem.
I have repaired a couple with the pin under the speed control bent, which I suspect was the results of over energetic users doing it wrong (but none admitted so)
I have never had a Russian camera fail in use, and any ones I have seen recently that don't work is either down to wear and age (curtains and curtain ribbons being the most common) or owner intervention (wrong lube, over tensioning the curtains and forcing things)
The shutters on the Zorki (and a few other Russian cameras) are easier to strip and assemble than a Prontor SVS, the rangefinder is easy to calibrate, though rarely far enough out to matter,
I think when buying any camera that is well over 50 years old it can be considered very lucky to find a faultless one, though they were surprisingly well made, and can usually be brought back to full spec.
PeterSpencer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,661
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Back to the question of canon 7 or p?
Here is my opinion..
Canon 7 frame lines for different focal lengths are selectable, therefore the vf is less crowded than the p
The 7 has a light meter but due to age it might not be reliable
The 7 is quite heavy significantly more than the p anyway
The viewfinders are both good but the 7 wins, it might be a wee bit bigger
The p is a neat little camera and if you have a means of establishing exposure probably the better choice
Both are suitable for 35, 50 and 90mm lenses without auxiliary finders, I can't remember which other focal lengths are supported, maybe 135mm?
Here is my opinion..
Canon 7 frame lines for different focal lengths are selectable, therefore the vf is less crowded than the p
The 7 has a light meter but due to age it might not be reliable
The 7 is quite heavy significantly more than the p anyway
The viewfinders are both good but the 7 wins, it might be a wee bit bigger
The p is a neat little camera and if you have a means of establishing exposure probably the better choice
Both are suitable for 35, 50 and 90mm lenses without auxiliary finders, I can't remember which other focal lengths are supported, maybe 135mm?
AndrewFlannigan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,977
- Edit My Images
- No
I had the clip on meter that coupled to the shutter dial.
Yeah I’m thinking the P out the 7 and P. I’ve owned a 7 before, I liked it but the shape felt a bit big. The viewfinder was better in the M2 I had but there wasn’t really any advantage over the 7.
I’m still in 2 minds between a P or a Barnack/Barnack copy though.
As I mentioned I did have a Leica iii for a couple of days but the rangefinder patch wasn’t aligned properly and it needed a CLA so I returned it. But I did like using it, it felt almost like the large format of 35mm. Focusing takes an extra step, takes a bit longer to wind etc, you can’t run and gun that easily, not a fast camera.
The P would basically be like my Canon EF in terms of speed, a little slower without a meter. Although I didn’t use a meter with my M2 and didn’t have an issue.
It feels more of an experience to use a Leica iii, as stupid as that sounds
Ideally I’d have both, sadly I don’t have the budget
Choices choices!
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,977
- Edit My Images
- No
The Leica iii only worked for me if I fitted it with an external finder, which made it feel bulkier than the M3...
Were you using wider lenses?
I know what you mean, the viewfinders are the best. I’m just deciding if it’s worth getting a P when it’s essentially the same as my Canon but it’s a rangefinder. I wouldn’t sell my Canon so maybe it’s better to get something that’s very different. I’ll have to see what’s available at the time.
AndrewFlannigan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,977
- Edit My Images
- No
I can only say that parting with my Canon P was one of my stupider mistakes.
It is the way I’m leaning. I feel the same about selling my M2. However having that much invested in a film camera was too much for me. At the time they were selling for £600-£700. I had a Konica 50mm f2 and a cheap 35mm f2. I couldn’t justify having over £1k in 1 camera. Especially when as long as the lens is nice all film cameras take basically the same photo when using the same film.
Film is what I take along with digital now, when I got the Leica it was all I used so made a bit more sense then
Back in the day, Soviet Cameras were imported into the UK as a cheap option. There was a UK company (Technical and Optical Equipment) that inspected and repaired faulty cameras before they were sold. This was the era of rushed work to get the current economic plan finished on time.
My father had the Zenith B and the little pin inside, depressed to release the shutter, simply sheared off. That happened to them all the time. I loved mine, and it was reliable, but were lemons.
I'd suggest your experience is an example of healthy survivor syndrome - all the faulty cameras have been binned, so those left are mostly the ones that were built properly. It wasn't like that when they were sold new.
Sangoma
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,951
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I had dealing with Technical and Optical Equipment, best service from a company I ever had. I did know about them checking and calibrating where needed.
My experience with Russian Cameras started in 1972, and not in the UK, though my 4K came from the UK, my mother bought it here and carried it in her hand luggage
Also worked on them quite often over many years, fortunately I have seen or heard of a few problems (maybe more than other makes, but obviously I don't have valid data to compare), and have seen many happy users, but the problems have not been like "never works" or "all the time"
Nikon photographer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 475
- Name
- Geoff Brown
- Edit My Images
- No
I've still got a couple of Zorki's, a 4 and a 4K, while not as refined as a later Leica, there still a perfectly useable camera if you follow the instructions.
Yardbent
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,761
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Zorki 4K rangefinder
well having had to return 2 to Private sellers for undisclosed faults; I bought a 3rd from a Business at a bit more money
who listed ''CLA'd and serviced'' ..........and it's MINT
even the lens markings are as-new, as is the ER case
Seller also added original box and brochures....................:
I added the filter and hood
well having had to return 2 to Private sellers for undisclosed faults; I bought a 3rd from a Business at a bit more money
who listed ''CLA'd and serviced'' ..........and it's MINT
even the lens markings are as-new, as is the ER case
Seller also added original box and brochures....................:
I added the filter and hood