Zenit: Unfairly maligned?

[David Lyga]

I don't know. FTn, I guess.

OK, I have to say this. Only within the past dozen or so years have light seals become so obsessively talked about. I have owned cameras for over half a century and I have rarely worried about them. Fact is, even if worn, cameras are generally light-tight. In fact, the earliest cameras from Japan did NOT have light seals.

Do those who worry about the sealant deteriorating ever bother to check for light leaks? Simply place about six inches of unexposed film into the camera, securely, from cassette area to take up area, close back, take ONE accurate exposure, then leave the camera's back exposed to the sun for a long time (an hour?). then process that 'vulnerable' film. Chances are great that the film will be clear except for the edge markings and exposed frame. The reason for the exposed frame is to provide a reference point for the precise location of any light leak which could possibly manifest. - David Lyga

 

[4season]

We already know that money is a shared belief system, and we choose to believe it because it makes life so much simpler than direct exchanges of goods and services. This is why I'd rather give or receive money as opposed to gift cards, as the latter are often tied to a particular merchant such as Starbucks, while even generic ones are burdened with all sorts of limitations which actually make them worth a bit less than cash IMO.

I don't think the Soviet camera industry was entirely wrong to suppose that cameras like Zenit might satisfy most photographer's actual needs, but by ignoring what people wanted, were forced sell cameras very cheaply. Meanwhile in the USA by the late 1970s and into the 1980s, more sophisticated Japanese cameras had become sufficiently affordable that ordinary people could own one, and the most desirable ones of the era were unabashedly electronic.

 

[AgX]

I have an early 39mm Zenit E with silver shutter speed dial. I have not yet performed maintenance on it, but quality appears good: All markings are engraved, top and bottom halves of leather case can be separated.

The Zenit leather cases, I have come across, have leather used for the straps and the hull, of a quality far superior to any other case.


The only issue they got, is the contact cement at the top and bottom leather patches is deteriorating (as with western cameras) and thus one has to re-glue them.
And... the cases are no beauty, but which everready cases are?
(As KMZ offered as kit lens the short built Industar, I am missing a respective short-built everready case.)

 

[RLangham]

I don't know. FTn, I guess.

If it has N above the exterior meter window and a shutter speed slider visible in the viewfinder then it's FTn. It's a nice camera either way, an excellent intro to Nikon hardware.

 

[RLangham]

OK, I have to say this. Only within the past dozen or so years have light seals become so obsessively talked about. I have owned cameras for over half a century and I have rarely worried about them. Fact is, even if worn, cameras are generally light-tight. In fact, the earliest cameras from Japan did NOT have light seals.

Do those who worry about the sealant deteriorating ever bother to check for light leaks? Simply place about six inches of unexposed film into the camera, securely, from cassette area to take up area, close back, take ONE accurate exposure, then leave the camera's back exposed to the sun for a long time (an hour?). then process that 'vulnerable' film. Chances are great that the film will be clear except for the edge markings and exposed frame. The reason for the exposed frame is to provide a reference point for the precise location of any light leak which could possibly manifest. - David Lyga

This is true of some cameras and not of others. I had a Yashica TL Electro X that leaked badly, and so did my Minolta srT200 before I refoamed it. The worst was probably my Canonet GIII ql17.

On the other hand every other Canon, Pentax, Mamiya and Nikon I've owned has been very light tight without replacement foam, and so has my Zenit S, my FED 2, and so on.

I've only replaced foam on two cameras, and one was to sell.

 

[MattKing]

Gold's "intrinsic" value is what the coin dealer will pay, worldwide. And they are paying what the market says to pay.

There is nothing intrinsic about that value.
The only intrinsic value gold has relates to its chemical, electronic, metallurgical and visual properties - gold jewelry can be quite beautiful.
Just like diamonds, the price of gold is only what the people who control its market are able to convince you of.
While official currencies may also have only as much value as governments can convince you of, at least there are a heck of a lot more people and institutions who have the need to support those values.
I'm trying to remember which classic science fiction stories (Asimov's Foundation series?) it is where a currency pegged to a particular rare mineral was rendered worthless by the vagaries of the market.
I thought this link was fun: https://www.tidbitsfortechs.com/2013/12/fictional-currencies-popular-scifi-tv-movies-literature/

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If it has N above the exterior meter window and a shutter speed slider visible in the viewfinder then it's FTn. It's a nice camera either way, an excellent intro to Nikon hardware.

Don't know about N, but shutter speeds are visible in VF.
I have F2, EM and FTn (I guess) all three were purchased for very low price and any Zenit (IMO) is just nowhere near comparing to any three of them.

 

[RLangham]

Don't know about N, but shutter speeds are visible in VF.
I have F2, EM and FTn (I guess) all three were purchased for very low price and any Zenit (IMO) is just nowhere near comparing to any three of them.

That's obvious. But not every consumer camera has to approach the level of quality of a Nikon or a Leica.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

That's obvious. But not every consumer camera has to approach the level of quality of a Nikon or a Leica.

Zenit is not consumer camera, Zenit is better than nothing camera.

 

[AgX]

OK, I have to say this. Only within the past dozen or so years have light seals become so obsessively talked about. I have owned cameras for over half a century and I have rarely worried about them. Fact is, even if worn, cameras are generally light-tight. In fact, the earliest cameras from Japan did NOT have light seals.

Then you have been utmost lucky.

The problem with deteriorating light seals is not only fogging by light. But the mess caused by the morsels of foam rubber. The stuff is corrosive to several materials, it falls into various parts of the mechanism, turning into goo there. Furthermore cameras having foam door seals typically have such seals at other parts of the body., not readily visible, thus not easy to exchange, if recognized at all. And locared even more near to mechanical parts.

To be fair, even models without any foam rubber light seals may have foam rubber installed for padding the springs holding the prism.. These paddings may corode and destroy the reflective coating of a prism.

Thus any user camera should be completely disassembled and chrecked.
But who does so?? I don't....

 

[George Mann]

I forgot to mention the important vertical seal at the hinge which will leak light.

 

[Dali]

Don't see why manufacturers would put light seal if they have no use... Of course they have. Problem is the foam which does not last very long (10,15 years?), ends up in dust and goo (a pain to clean). In this matter, yak wool is way more durable even if it does not last forever (but at least it stays in one piece).

 

[flavio81]

Something that needs to be keep into account is that Zenit were the people's camera on the USSR. It was a cheap camera, not a deluxe or "pro" camera in the USSR.

A professional sovied camera of the 70s might be the Kiev 15TEE (kiev 15 TTL); you can check out about it on the internet. Much higher build quality, peculiar "fan" shutter, more features, bayonet lens mount, automation, lenses with supposedly tighter quality control (and designs that are not from 1958). I'd love to have one.

Same if you take a look at the Kiev 60, it's better built than a Zenit, the viewfinder is very good, even if the camera is a bit crude. But not as crude as a Zenit.

 

[George Mann]

Don't see why manufacturers would put light seal if they have no use...

There are different types of seals. Some keep dust out, and others
seal against moisture.

On Nikons, only the long felt seal at the hinge prevents against light leaks (some models may have one in the latch area).

 

[RLangham]

Zenit is not consumer camera, Zenit is better than nothing camera.

I mean, it's literally a consumer camera.

 

[RLangham]

There are different types of seals. Some keep dust out, and others
seal against moisture.

On Nikons, only the long felt seal at the hinge prevents against light leaks (some models may have one in the latch area).

I feel like the FTn may have had light seals all the way around, but I would have to check. If it did they weren't needed for light, but they may have been effective against moisture.

 

[George Mann]

I feel like the FTn may have had light seals all the way around, but I would have to check. If it did they weren't needed for light, but they may have been effective against moisture.

The seal in the thin slats of the body that the back door fits into are there to keep dust out.

They also have a horizontally grooved area in the top slat near the hinge that may leak a small amount of light as well.

 

[AgX]

Something that needs to be keep into account is that Zenit were the people's camera on the USSR. It was a cheap camera, not a deluxe or "pro" camera in the USSR.

A professional sovied camera of the 70s might be the Kiev 15TEE (kiev 15 TTL); you can check out about it on the internet. Much higher build quality, peculiar "fan" shutter, more features, bayonet lens mount, automation, lenses with supposedly tighter quality control (and designs that are not from 1958). I'd love to have one.

Same if you take a look at the Kiev 60, it's better built than a Zenit, the viewfinder is very good, even if the camera is a bit crude. But not as crude as a Zenit.

Both, Lomo and KMZ designed and manufactured high-end optical devices. The same time they made consumer cameras. Seen the production figure for the Zenit E alone, a succesful endeavour.

 

[RLangham]

The seal in the thin slats of the body that the back door fits into are there to keep dust out.

They also have a horizontally grooved area in the top slat near the hinge that may leak a small amount of light as well.

If it does leak there I haven't noticed, and I sure have had some good pictures out of it.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The seal in the thin slats of the body that the back door fits into are there to keep dust out.

They also have a horizontally grooved area in the top slat near the hinge that may leak a small amount of light as well.

Let's not reinvent the wheel. Never have I heard ANY camera manufacturer referring to seals as DUST seals (even if they will help keeping dust out as well, naturally), they all call them LIGHT seals, so do camera service points. Some higher end cameras DO have dust and weather sealing, but that is in different areas from what is being discussed here.

 

[RLangham]

Let's not reinvent the wheel. Never have I heard ANY camera manufacturer referring to seals as DUST seals, they all call them LIGHT seals, so do camera service points. Some higher end cameras DO have dust and weather sealing, but that is in different areas from what is being discussed here.

At any rate I suspect that the added dust and damp protection is a reason to vastly overengineed the light sealing on cameras that barely need it, as is the fact that the sealing makes the back fit more snugly, which reduces wear on the hinge and makes the camera feel more high-quality in the hand.

The cameras that need it need it. The ones that don't need it still benefit from having it for other reasons.

 

[George Mann]

Let's not reinvent the wheel. Never have I heard ANY camera manufacturer referring to seals as DUST seals (even if they will help keeping dust out as well, naturally), they all call them LIGHT seals, so do camera service points. Some higher end cameras DO have dust and weather sealing, but that is in different areas from what is being discussed here.

Nikon service specialists call the thin ones dust seals, as no light can leak into the film chamber from there do to the way the parts fit together.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Nikon service specialists call the thin ones dust seals, as no light can leak into the film chamber from there do to the way the parts fit together.

OK, I stand corrected on the Nikon service people. I wa snot arguing the light trap design on most cameras. Light leaks typically occur in places where having light trap was no a feasible solution (like hinge end typically). Still we're in new territory talking dust seals, which is new. If you know of a manufacturer that described these as such, please do let me know though.

 

[cliveh]

A Zenit is one of the worst cameras I have ever handled. You can see all the way round the pentaprism when you look through the viewfinder and when you wind on it sounds like you are rubbing two house bricks together. The build quality is crap with a capital C.

 

[flavio81]

A Zenit is one of the worst cameras I have ever handled. You can see all the way round the pentaprism when you look through the viewfinder and when you wind on it sounds like you are rubbing two house bricks together. The build quality is crap with a capital C.

I have handled some Zenit cameras with smooth winding...