Zenit: Unfairly maligned?

RLangham · Jul 10, 2020

So I found a Zenit E (m42 version) with a Helios 44-2 at a flea market today. It needed some tensioning of the curtain springs but otherwise was in good shape, working meter and everything, and it was half off at 15 dollars, so I bought it. When I got home I fixed the problem with one screwdriver and a pair of tiny needlenose, and it's firing great at all speeds now.

It's the first E I've ever seen, and I was surprised when I first examined it to find that it obviously wasn't the rickety third-world toy camera I'd been lead to believe. In most ways, it feels quite similar (though larger) to my other Zenit, a domestic-market Zenit S that I bought from Russia, including very, very crisp action of the shutter and an excellent balance in the hand.

Oddly, someone amateurishly engraved "7/9/55" in the baseplate of the E, which aside from being 65 years and ONE DAY ago (a bit of a coincidence, I'd say), assuming that's in American date order, is a good 11 years before the camera was manufactured in 1967! I would have to assume that either it's not a date, or that it's some important anniversary that the poor photographer could not for the life of him remember... odd that he didn't have paper, though...

So being as both of the Zenits I've handled have been excellent little cameras that run great despite at this point being in their fifties, I have to ask: is this unusual? The E series in particular have such a bad reputation as erratic or easy-breaking claptraps. Have I just gotten two unusually good Zenits? Or is it just anti-Soviet sentiment, or something else? I mean, the E is definitely basic for its time, but still exceedingly usable, and the Zenit S was definitely up to par with most of its contemporaries in the early days of the 35mm SLR... and they're all based on Leica II shutters! I just don't get it.

David Lyga · Jul 10, 2020

The Soviet engineering is even admirable but the Soviet quality control was hit or miss. THAT is the problem with the Soviet cameras. If the coffee break was taken BEFORE the work was done, it is usually entirely adequate. But the other way around? However, the Soviet glass was, with hardly an exception, rather exceptional. - David Lyga

Donald Qualls · Jul 10, 2020

That date on the camera might well be a previous owner's birth date, engraved as an identifier (for recovery of stolen goods) that was much easier to remember than the serial number.

I've got one Zenit, a TTL, but at present it doesn't work -- won't cock, and I don't know if that's because it needs film to lock the advance, or there's something broken or out of position inside. I haven't bothered to try to fix it or have it fixed, because I have two or three other M42 SLRs with TTL metering, fully working and with the Copal Square shutter (to 1000, I'd have to check but one might go to 2000, and all with 125 sync), plus my Spotmatic SP (cloth shutter, 60 sync, meter cells replaced in 2006) that I've had since 1981.

ic-racer · Jul 10, 2020

I got a Zenit E for Christmas 1973 and my older brother got an OM-1. I found the Zenit E outdated and hard to use. It was like no camera I had ever seen, being so crude and backward. Especially considering the early 1970s was the hey-day of 35mm cameras. The Zenit seemed like something from the 1940s with its screw-on lens and 'pre-set' aperture ring. Selenium meter. Horizontal cloth shutter. Slow X-synch. Dim, hard to focus viewfinder. Shutter speed dial rotated during exposure. Big and clunky. I got rid of it in a month or so.
Funny thing is I have two of them now. People gave them to me. They are still just as bad as in 1973.

AgX · Jul 10, 2020

David Lyga said:
If the coffee break was taken BEFORE the work was done, it is usually entirely adequate. But the other way around?

This cliché is just the milder version of what recently another Apugger stated about the soviet worker being drunk at work.

AgX · Jul 10, 2020

ic-racer said:
I got a Zenit E for Christmas 1973 and my older brother got an OM-1. I found the Zenit E outdated and hard to use. It was like no camera I had ever seen, being so crude and backward. Especially considering the early 1970s was the hey-day of 35mm cameras. The Zenit seemed like something from the 1940s with its screw-on lens and 'pre-set' aperture ring. Selenium meter. Horizontal cloth shutter. Slow X-synch. Dim, hard to focus viewfinder. Shutter speed dial rotated during exposure. Big and clunky. I got rid of it in a month or so.
Funny thing is I have two of them now. People gave them to me. They are still just as bad as in 1973.

-) no daubt about the Zenit E having been basic already at its time of appearance-
But this was the concept. To stick to on old design and to deliver a plain SLR.

And millions of Zenits were sold. It plays in this regard in the very same league as the Canon AE-1

-) this thread is about quaility control at soviet cameras being lacking or not.
It is not about lacking features at soviet cameras.

RLangham · Jul 10, 2020

David Lyga said:
The Soviet engineering is even admirable but the Soviet quality control was hit or miss. THAT is the problem with the Soviet cameras. If the coffee break was taken BEFORE the work was done, it is usually entirely adequate. But the other way around? However, the Soviet glass was, with hardly an exception, rather exceptional. - David Lyga

AgX said:
This cliché is just the milder version of what recently another Apugger stated about the soviet worker being drunk at work.

See, I guess I just don't understand what camera manufacturing looked like in the mid-20th century. Was that much of the shutter really hand-machined? Weren't there guides to make hand-machining more consistent? Is it that assembly was poor? I just don't know how you mass-produce something without consistency... I guess this hearkens back to the month I spent working on a single-fold paper towel machine. That has been my only experience with production.

RLangham · Jul 10, 2020

AgX said:
-) no daubt about the Zenit E having been basic already at its time of appearance-
But this was the concept. To stick to on old design and to deliver a plain SLR.

And millions of Zenits were sold. It plays in this regard in the very same leage as the Canon AE-1

-) this thread is about quaility control at soviet cameras being lacking or nor.
It is not about lacking features of soviet cameras.

I think it's about both, but definitely the quality control thing is what's interesting to me, since with the exception of ONE lens that had a big bubble in it, I've never had a bad experience with Soviet gear. I just want to understand the extent to which I've been luckier than the average person who buys this stuff.

As for being the league of the AE-1, I say the same about the Argus C-3 often, and some photographers vehemently disagree... aber so sind die Fotografen eben.

AgX · Jul 10, 2020

RLangham said:
See, I guess I just don't understand what camera manufacturing looked like in the mid-20th century. Was that much of the shutter really hand-machined? Weren't there guides to make hand-machining more consistent? Is it that assembly was poor? I just don't know how you mass-produce something without consistency... I guess this hearkens back to the month I spent working on a single-fold paper towel machine. That has been my only experience with production.

Camera manufacture In West-Germany, East-Germany, the USSR in those years was similar. Conveyor belts and robots were rather late introduced if at all.

RLangham · Jul 10, 2020

AgX said:
Camera manufacture In West-Germany, East-Germany, the USSR in those years was similar. Conveyor belts and robots were rather late introduced if at all.

Incidentally I bought a Praktica Super TL 3 at the same time. Primitive but charming...

AgX · Jul 10, 2020

The Praktica Super TL already plays in another leage feature-wise, than the Zenit E.

But both, the cameras from the Praktica E family as the the Zenit E, are very common in West-Germany. And in some other west-european countries even more. Both served a big clientele.

And the US market was different from the west-german market, and even more so for other countries.

Paul Howell · Jul 10, 2020

When I left Italy to return to Arizona in 1986 the camera shop I shopped at sold me a Zenit at a rock bottom price, like $20 U.S, with the 44 F2, brand new, it lasted a year or so and I only used once or twice. The film advance lever, something snapped and just stopped advancing the film or cocking the shutter. I have the lens packed away somewhere, a nice lens but nothing exceptional. A several years ago I bought a mounting press, the woman who sold it to had lost her husband in an auto accident, she gave me a Kiev 88 with a couple lens, like the Zenit, not a very good camera which I remind myself when I think about a Soviet Leica Copy.

RLangham · Jul 10, 2020

AgX said:
The Praktica Super TL already plays in another leage feature-wise, than the Zenit E.

But both, the cameras from the Praktica E family as the the Zenit E, are very common in West-Germany. And in some other west-european countries even more. Both served a big clientele.

And the US market was different from the west-german market, and even more so for other countries.

Ah, but the Super TL 3 is not the Super TL... they have roughly the same features, but the Super TL looks like it's made of metal, and came out in 1968, whereas the Super TL 3 is entirely metalized plastic and came out fully ten years later. Praktica fell beind. In terms of features, it was very primitive for 1978, with a mechanical shutter that doesn't go up to 1/1000th, center-the-needle stopped-down metering, and a basic m42 mount--this is when even Pentax was doing compact SLR's with bayonet mount and autoexposure.

Overall the TL feels very flimsy, compared to a very solid feeling Zenit E. When I manipulate either of my Zenits or my FED 2, I feel tight mechanical tolerances, hard metal gears meshing with hard metal gears--- it feels better than an AE-1 in that regard, given that the gears in the AE-1 shutter are metalized plastic.

tokam · Jul 10, 2020

Don't forget the diabolical back door catch on the Zenit E. My camera would 'rock' in its ER case and the door catch would rub against the case and then release and open the back door. Plenty of partially fogged frames encountered before I fabricated a clamp out of brass strip to go over the catch and camera body to keep the damned thing closed.

The Industar 50mm f3.5 was a cracker of a lens at that price point. I bought my Zenit E, Industar 50/3.5, a Hanimar 135mm F3.5 and a nondescript speedlite for Just over $NZ100 back in 1973. Got 5 years good use out of it before I bought an AE-1 as Christmas present to self in 1978.

RLangham · Jul 11, 2020

tokam said:
Don't forget the diabolical back door catch on the Zenit E. My camera would 'rock' in its ER case and the door catch would rub against the case and then release and open the back door. Plenty of partially fogged frames encountered before I fabricated a clamp out of brass strip to go over the catch and camera body to keep the damned thing closed.

The Industar 50mm f3.5 was a cracker of a lens at that price point. I bought my Zenit E, Industar 50/3.5, a Hanimar 135mm F3.5 and a nondescript speedlite for Just over $NZ100 back in 1973. Got 5 years good use out of it before I bought an AE-1 as Christmas present to self in 1978.

Well, the quality control must really be erratic then, since the latch on mine is snug... I have experienced the same with other cameras though and it is the worst feeling.

David Lyga · Jul 11, 2020

AgX said:
The Praktica Super TL already plays in another leage feature-wise, than the Zenit E.

But both, the cameras from the Praktica E family as the the Zenit E, are very common in West-Germany. And in some other west-european countries even more. Both served a big clientele.

And the US market was different from the west-german market, and even more so for other countries.

When the US Dollar was strong (pre August 1971) for some, including the Brits, the Zenit was the only affordable way to be able to use an SLR. I remember visiting Europe before that time and kept wondering why Europeans were 'so poor'. NOW it is the Americans who are 'so poor'. - David Lyga

Helge · Jul 11, 2020

David Lyga said:
When the US Dollar was strong (pre August 1971) for some, including the Brits, the Zenit was the only affordable way to be able to use an SLR. I remember visiting Europe before that time and kept wondering why Europeans were 'so poor'. NOW it is the Americans who are 'so poor'. - David Lyga

Most populations in Europe also have wholly different attitudes and conventions for spending on stuff.
Notice how electronics shops are very rare in most Latin derived speaking countries.
Same with new cars. You see a lot of old cars in the streets of these countries.
There simply isn’t much social capital and status symbol value in getting expensive and new stuff of these types.
On the contrary, it’s often frowned upon as spendthrifty and silly to get a new car or TV if you have one that is working.

Similarly in the UK there isn’t nearly the same tradition of consumerism as in the US.
Penny pressing and frugal living, is practiced even (especially) by country gentry and other groups who set the tone for other parts of society, and is presumed to have amble resources.
The English have always been risk averse and hesitant with going in full on and spending on new technology.

grain elevator · Jul 11, 2020

Helge said:
Most populations in Europe also have wholly different attitudes and conventions for spending on stuff.
Notice how electronics shops are very rare in most Latin derived speaking countries.
Same with new cars. You see a lot of old cars in the streets of these countries.
There simply isn’t much social capital and status symbol value in getting expensive and new stuff of these types.
On the contrary, it’s often frowned upon as spendthrifty and silly to get a new car or TV if you have one that is working.

Similarly in the UK there isn’t nearly the same tradition of consumerism as in the US.
Penny pressing and frugal living, is practiced even (especially) by country gentry and other groups who set the tone for other parts of society, and is presumed to have amble
resources.
The English have always been risk averse and hesitant with going in full on and spending on new technology.

Excellent points. Two more: Buying stuff other than houses of apartments on credit is rather uncommon in Europe. And of course a lot of the American wealth, as expressed in purchasing power of foreign goods (to the chagrin of US manufacturing industries), is due to the strength of the USD, which I think has geopolitical reasons.

awty · Jul 11, 2020

ic-racer said:
I got a Zenit E for Christmas 1973 and my older brother got an OM-1.

Thats just mean, hope you have had adequate counselling.
I have the one on the left, the wind on cog is a bit like me, missing a tooth or two.

David Lyga · Jul 11, 2020

Helge said:
Most populations in Europe also have wholly different attitudes and conventions for spending on stuff.
Notice how electronics shops are very rare in most Latin derived speaking countries.
Same with new cars. You see a lot of old cars in the streets of these countries.
There simply isn’t much social capital and status symbol value in getting expensive and new stuff of these types.
On the contrary, it’s often frowned upon as spendthrifty and silly to get a new car or TV if you have one that is working.

Similarly in the UK there isn’t nearly the same tradition of consumerism as in the US.
Penny pressing and frugal living, is practiced even (especially) by country gentry and other groups who set the tone for other parts of society, and is presumed to have amble
resources.
The English have always been risk averse and hesitant with going in full on and spending on new technology.

NOW, Helge, I know why I always felt more European (derived from Sardinian and Ukrainian stock) than American. This is how I feel, also. Consumerism is a religion in the USA and I am agnostic even on this. The obsession to buy new, at all times, is what drives me crazy here. I have always marveled at how London scenes from the 50s would have even some cars from the thirties or even twenties. As far as I am concerned, this is an aspect that others have over Americans in a positive way. How I hate waste, and that includes wasting money. What you have written is all too true and even profound when looked at deeply and psychologically.

What you wrote, Helge, should be framed in gold.- David Lyga

Bill Burk · Jul 11, 2020

I went to a 'new' camera show mid 1970's and for my $79 had a choice of a Kalimar branded Zenit with Helios or a Rollei 35.

I bought the SLR.

I was able to get a few rolls through it before it broke. I was able to get into fix it and it hobbled along for a while but eventually the issues went deeper and pretty soon it was curtains.

4season · Jul 11, 2020

I've had a bunch of Soviet cameras come and go, and the better ones have been pretty good. Most are basic offerings, pared down to essential features that someone felt most photographers "should" need.

But I speculate that managers of Soviet camera factories sometimes had to be very resourceful in order to meet production quotas, and the more resourceful they had to be, the iffier the quality became.

Meanwhile, as part of war reparations, the US Dollar - Japanese Yen exchange rate was fixed for a number of years, and this made Japanese products relatively affordable to Americans. But until the Gorbechev era, I'm not sure where one would've gone to buy a new Soviet camera in the USA, Cambridge Camera perhaps.

Bill Burk · Jul 11, 2020

I developed some neurotic habits because of the experience.

For example, I would leave a camera stashed at my cabin which was at the end of a long drive including seven miles of dirt road.

The idea was to avoid subjecting the camera to too much vibration.

Had they used any sealant on the critical screws, (which was was common for Japanese manufacturing) this precaution might not have been needed.

David Lyga · Jul 11, 2020

4season said:
I've had a bunch of Soviet cameras come and go, and the better ones have been pretty good. Most are basic offerings, pared down to essential features that someone felt most photographers "should" need.

But I speculate that managers of Soviet camera factories sometimes had to be very resourceful in order to meet production quotas, and the more resourceful they had to be, the iffier the quality became.

Meanwhile, as part of war reparations, the US Dollar - Japanese Yen exchange rate was fixed for a number of years, and this made Japanese products relatively affordable to Americans. But until the Gorbechev era, I'm not sure where one would've gone to buy a new Soviet camera in the USA, Cambridge Camera perhaps.

Bretton Woods exchange rated FIXED until 15 AUG 1971. I remember the day well: before: four Swiss francs per US dollar. Overnight: three Swiss francs per US dollar. NOW: slightly LESS than ONE Swiss franc per US dollar. Switzerland is not so expensive; it is just that the US dollar has, largely, collapsed. Before the Bretton Woods collapse: 360 Japanese yen per US dollar. NOW: about 100 Japanese yen per US dollar. There really is a REASON why Americans used to be perceived as being RICH. Glad I went three times to Europe because I cannot go any more! - David Lyga

Kodachromeguy · Jul 11, 2020

4season said:
Meanwhile, as part of war reparations, the US Dollar - Japanese Yen exchange rate was fixed for a number of years, and this made Japanese products relatively affordable to Americans. But until the Gorbechev era, I'm not sure where one would've gone to buy a new Soviet camera in the USA, Cambridge Camera perhaps.

I remember that in the 1960s and 1970s, Soviet cameras were available in the USA, but they were uncommon. I do not know who imported them, but you could see advertisements in the back of the camera magazines. There was not much US demand for them. The Japanese companies largely dominated the popular market. In 1968, 1969, 1970, or so, you could buy a Nikkormat, Minolta SRT101, or Spotmatic with 50mm lens for around $200 or $220. I have no way to translate that price to European currencies of the era, and do not know if the Japanese cameras sold at approximately similar prices in Europe. US service-members could buy cameras at much lower prices via the PX stores on military bases.

The professional market was split between German and Japanese companies, with Hasselblad and Rolleiflex at the higher end.

Large format cameras were a mixed item. Old-line American companies like Wollensak and Ilex still sold lenses, but Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, and Fujinon soon captured the market.

I wonder if anyone ever made a numerical model to calculate the number of hours a working person (say, a mid-level engineer) needed to work to buy cameras or lenses in different countries. That would be the best way to compare between different countries. The price in $$, DM, Drachma, Yen, etc. does not tell the full story if you do not know the wage ranges in that country.

Zenit: Unfairly maligned?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency