DSLRUsers.com

Call me crazy but I think this camera is marvellous.
I am not sure what would one pay 50 years ago for this camera; I'd think only a fraction of what people paid for Leicas.

I am going to order one soon and I will post the pictures captured on this camera later.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/uusilehto/img/pr ... zorki2.jpg

It'll take decent pictures, but comparing a Russian-clone of a Leica is almost as pointless as comparing a Holga to Blad or a Seagull to a Rolleiflex.

And unless that image is yours, make a link to it.

Nnnnsic wrote:It'll take decent pictures, but comparing a Russian-clone of a Leica is almost as pointless as comparing a Holga to Blad or a Seagull to a Rolleiflex.

And unless that image is yours, make a link to it.

Apologies.

For some reason I cannot stay log in. And so there's no Edit option available once I posted the message.

Well, this particular piece is not Leica Copy, it only accepts LTM lenses. Earlier models, however, were Leica copies. There are even fake Leica are floating around made of Russian and non-Russian cameras manufactured in the 40s and earlier 50s.

joey wrote:Call me crazy but I think this camera is marvellous.
I am not sure what would one pay 50 years ago for this camera; I'd think only a fraction of what people paid for Leicas.

That would be true, and it would be an appropriate situation.

The differences between a Leica and these Russian copies will be significant, and the premium one pays is evidence of this.

I'm curious as to why you are calling this camera a "classic"; I doubt that it carries any attributes that one might normally ascribe to any classic camera: it was never popular, never in wide use, never held in high esteem, never warmly regarded by the user community nor by other manufacturers ...

Finally, I think it's time that I reminded you that this forum is named DSLRusers .... the "D" stands for "Digital", and the "SLR" means "Single Lens Reflex".

While we're certainly happy to entertain some reasonable content that relates to general photography, which will obviously include non-digital media, and non-slr cameras, our primary focus is digital single lens reflex.

From what I'm seeing, very few of your posts seem to be focused in that direction, and while I certainly don't wish to discourage what seems to be your crusade to find a Russian Leica copy, I think you should also take a moment or two to respect this forum's direction.

Thank you for your cooperation.

joey wrote:For some reason I cannot stay log in. And so there's no Edit option available once I posted the message.

1: Ditch IE.

2: See 1.

3: Check your browser's cookie settings.

gstark wrote:I'm curious as to why you are calling this camera a "classic"; I doubt that it carries any attributes that one might normally ascribe to any classic camera: it was never popular, never in wide use, never held in high esteem, never warmly regarded by the user community nor by other manufacturers ...

Finally, I think it's time that I reminded you that this forum is named DSLRusers .... the "D" stands for "Digital", and the "SLR" means "Single Lens Reflex".

A couple of things:

There have been about 3 millions of Zorki-4 (just one model) manufactured in the period of 1957-1978. That falls a little less than what Leica produced throughout its entire history. We are not mentioning other models produced by the same manufacturer. The cameras were popular in USSR and Eastern block countries.

I have opened only two topics related to the rangefinders and both topics are in "Film and non-digital" sub-forum.

If it’s not okay to talk about FSU cameras here I won’t. Okay, it’s junk and shall not be mentioned on a DSLR forum. Let’s enough of this.

gstark wrote:

joey wrote:For some reason I cannot stay log in. And so there's no Edit option available once I posted the message.

1: Ditch IE.

2: See 1.

3: Check your browser's cookie settings.

Cookies are accepted in my Firefox.

joey wrote:The cameras were popular in USSR and Eastern block countries.

Which, with respect, I would suggest could hardly be described as in "wide use". More significantly, by whom were they held in high regard?

Let me put it another way: I can show you any number of images made by photographers of reknown, that were shot using, for instance, Nikon, Canon, Speed Graphic, and/or Leica hardware.

It would be a very easy task to find images such as these, and many of these images would already be known to many people.

Could you please point to some similar, highly regarded images, that have been made using these Russian instruments? Not necessarily images of the ilk of Capa or Bresson or Adams or Ray or even Dupain, but nonetheless, some images that have been shot with these cameras.

While I'm certainly not a proponent of the concept that the camera makes the image, I am challenging your contention that these cameras should be regarded as "classic" onthe basis that I have seen no evidence of this.

Your suggestion that three million users in Russia used them would harbour a similar suggestion that perhaps a Kodak 127 should also be considered a classic camera. They were popular, and they certainly might hold a place in a museum, but I see no evidence to call either of them classic.

That is my point.

joey wrote:

gstark wrote:3: Check your browser's cookie settings.

Cookies are accepted in my Firefox.

This has always been resolved as a local issue. Clear your cache and cookies and see if that helps address the problem.

gstark wrote:That is my point.

Your point is valid and accepted.

gstark wrote:

joey wrote:

gstark wrote:3: Check your browser's cookie settings.

Cookies are accepted in my Firefox.

This has always been resolved as a local issue. Clear your cache and cookies and see if that helps address the problem.

Clearing cache fixed the problem. Thanks!

joey wrote:Clearing cache fixed the problem. Thanks!

Glad to hear. Thanx.