Zenit: Unfairly maligned?

[AgX]

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 ...

I can do so with western cameras too.
And at least my Zenits have got no issue with the shit of deteriorarting light-seal foam-rubber.

And why then was the Zenit series one of the most sold SLRs ever? Because people bought it. Because they wanted it.
Including West-Germans.

 

[flavio81]

I can do so with western cameras too.

Yep.

The Canon F-1 has a special prism between the main prism and the eyeprism to prevent these reflections. I have seen it... interesting device.

 

[RLangham]

Yep.

The Canon F-1 has a special prism between the main prism and the eyeprism to prevent these reflections. I have seen it... interesting device.

I think the A series did too, from looking through them and not being able to see any reflections.

 

[RLangham]

I can do so with western cameras too.
And at least my Zenits have got no issue with the shit of deteriorarting light-seal foam-rubber.

And why then was the Zenit series one of the most sold SLRs ever? Because people bought it. Because they wanted it.
Including West-Germans.

I think the takeaway here is that the quality did indeed vary to an absurd extent, since the wind-on on mine sounds just alright.

 

[AgX]

We should not overlook that at least the E-model was manufactured (to my understanding not just assembled) by two different firms, already visible in some design details.

 

[RLangham]

We should not overlook that at least the E-model was manufactured (to my understanding not just assembled) by two different firms, already visible in some design details.

Hmm... I think mine was made in Kraznogorsk, but I could be wrong. The other one was in Belarus?

 

[AgX]

Yes, originally designed and made by KMZ, then a production by Belomo was added.

 

[AgX]

Another point:
The marketing of soviet cameras in the West could not be based on a reputation as with german, especially Dresden cameras. Had a soviet manufacturer actually designed and manufactured for the Dollar market a camera up to japanese standard concernimg features etc. Then how hard would such camera had it in marketing, how risky woud have been those investments?
The strange thing with this argumentation though is, that actually much better featured 35mm SLRs were designed and manufactured in the USSR for the homemarket, however only in miniscule numbers. Which may make one wonder on cost-effectivity.

To be fair, the west-german camera industry had their SLR fiascos too...

 

[Mackinaw]

Yep. The Canon F-1 has a special prism between the main prism and the eyeprism to prevent these reflections. I have seen it... interesting device.

Early production, original F-1's did have this prism. Sometime during production, Canon removed it. The prism was quite effective in reducing secondary reflections in the viewfinder, but also made the viewfinder image a bit darker. One of several things Canon did to improve viewfinder brightness for the original F-1.

Jim B.

 

[RLangham]

To be fair, the west-german camera industry had their SLR fiascos too...

I know... I just tried to fix an Edixa Reflex.

 

[AgX]

With fiascos I rather meant expensive SLR developments that failed at the market. But in one case such camera intended as high-end model completely failed in a test.

 

[RLangham]

With fiascos I rather meant expensive SLR developments that failed at the market. But in one case such camera intended as high-end model completely failed in a test.

Was the Edixa not an overpriced unreliable mess?

 

[flavio81]

Early production, original F-1's did have this prism. Sometime during production, Canon removed it. The prism was quite effective in reducing secondary reflections in the viewfinder, but also made the viewfinder image a bit darker. One of several things Canon did to improve viewfinder brightness for the original F-1.

Jim B.

Wow this is very very interesting information!

Are you positively sure about this? Do you have some source or document? Because when the improvements of the F-1n are listed, this has never been mentioned. I do believe the focusing screens are brighter; i use a standard split-image focusing screen from a F-1n in my original F-1 and it's a bit brighter than the original F-1 screens (with the micro prism center.)

I did experiment with removing the prism and of course image was brighter. However a tiny bit of magnification was lost when removing it, so i left it in place.

Now, something even more interesting: When i held such prism and looked at my room solely through it, what I saw appeared to be a subtle enhancing effect, like if contrast was increased. Perhaps there's some enhancing filter built in?!

 

[polka]

I used a Zenit E with an Helios44 lens once, and when developping the film noticed that I got much more on it than the framing that I remembered.
Actually, the size of the groundglass of these cameras was about 19x28mm instead of 24x36 (and it was indeed confessed in the manual).
Some years after, at a vintage camera fair, I bought a Spotmatic for 8€ and a Helios44 lens for 1€. Together, they compose a nice shooter.
POLKa

 

[RLangham]

I used a Zenit E with an Helios44 lens once, and when developping the film noticed that I got much more on it than the framing that I remembered.
Actually, the size of the groundglass of these cameras was about 19x28mm instead of 24x36 (and it was indeed confessed in the manual).
Some years after, at a vintage camera fair, I bought a Spotmatic for 8€ and a Helios44 lens for 1€. Together, they compose a nice shooter.
POLKa

Yes, the framing of the viewfinder was one of the characteristics carried down from the first Zenits. A 50 feels like a 70.

I do hate using the H-44 with a stop-down camera like a Spotmatic or a Praktika TL though: too many steps to meter. First twisting the aperture ring to the preset stop, then pressing the stop down button to meter, then opening it back up to recompose the shot most likely... oof. I briefly used a Meyer Primoplan (that I sold for much less than I should have) with a Yashica TL Electro X... same problem. And they looked ugly as sin together. I miss that Primo...

 

[flavio81]

I used a Zenit E with an Helios44 lens once, and when developping the film noticed that I got much more on it than the framing that I remembered.
Actually, the size of the groundglass of these cameras was about 19x28mm instead of 24x36 (and it was indeed confessed in the manual).
Some years after, at a vintage camera fair, I bought a Spotmatic for 8€ and a Helios44 lens for 1€. Together, they compose a nice shooter.
POLKa

Yes, this was my main complaint with the Zenit 122 i had as a kid. It was immediate evident, from looking at the developed pictures, that it wasn't what I composed. My other complaint was the lack of speeds slower than 1/30.

 

[AgX]

Actually, the size of the groundglass of these cameras was about 19x28mm instead of 24x36

Many cameras do not have 24x36 but 23x35mm viewing area.


The official viewing area for the Zenit series is 20x28mm.


The reason for this ???
-) safety margin with slides?
-) safety margin in assembly?
-) reducing size of prism?
None of them are convincing to me.

 

[RLangham]

Many cameras do not have 24x36 but 23x35mm viewing area.


The official viewing area for the Zenit series is 20x28mm.


The reason for this ???
-) safety margin with slides?
-) safety margin in assembly?
-) reducing size of prism?
None of them are convincing to me.

I think all of the above, plus the greater magnification it allows possible?

 

[AgX]

The first two points were the reasons some other manufacturers did so, but that is 1mm at each side, not 2 resp 4mm.

 

[AgX]

As said above those 3 reasons do not convince me at all.
The only reason I see are the given dimensions of the Zorki, which was the basis of the Zenit.

If so, then why not enlarge these dimensions by a few millimeters??
Or the Zenit had first been planned for a slightly smaller film format, but then was bored-out so to say, but klinging to the too small groundglass and prism.

 

[RLangham]

As said above those 3 reasons do not convince me at all.
The only reason I see are the given dimensions of the Zorki, which was the basis of the Zenit.

If so, then why not enlarge these dimensions by a few millimeters??
Or the Zenit had first been planned for a slightly smaller film format, but then was bored-out so to say, but klinging to the too small groundglass and prism.

I find those reasons more convincing than a format change--after all, as you say, it was based on a Zorki! Surely they wouldn't adapt Zorki to an SLR AND another format at once!
I think a prime factor would be the cost of the glass elements (GG and condenser especially) as well as the size concern... remember that very few full frame SLR's ever succeeded in being nearly as small as the original Zenit--Olympus OM and Pentax M series come to mind but little else. Even Nikon never made one quite as small. I think Zenit has them all beat for size, but obviously not for anything else.

 

[AgX]

The glass for a ground glass is nihil, the only decent costs are cutting and grinding and mounting. The same for a prism. The precision grinding and polishing are the main costs, a few ml more glass volume should be neglectable.
Beating for size does not make much sense, if one looses/reduces the main feature od an SLR (what yot see is what you get).

 

[jaeae]

I find those reasons more convincing than a format change--after all, as you say, it was based on a Zorki! Surely they wouldn't adapt Zorki to an SLR AND another format at once!
I think a prime factor would be the cost of the glass elements (GG and condenser especially) as well as the size concern... remember that very few full frame SLR's ever succeeded in being nearly as small as the original Zenit--Olympus OM and Pentax M series come to mind but little else. Even Nikon never made one quite as small. I think Zenit has them all beat for size, but obviously not for anything else.

Having opened up a couple of these I think reasons for the bad coverage.. 1) based on zorki 2) big gaps in mechanics for easier assembly and maybe high tolerance for external issues like shock, dirt etc 3) room required for thick and coarse parts made from coarse aluminium castings and thick steel parts

 

[jaeae]

Since using Zenit requires some humour and/or certain lo-fi attitude towards cameras or devices in general I made this slightly humorous list of the Zenit models..

Zenit: Zorki with added SLR viewfinder
Zenit E: Zenit with m42 mount and primitive exposure meter
Zenit B: more primitive Zenit E without the exposure meter
Zenit EM: Zenit E with automatic stop down mechanics
Zenit ET: Zenit EM with new rotate anytime shutter speed knob
Zenit TTL: Zenit EM with TTL
Zenit 11: Zenit TTL without TTL
Zenit 12SD: Zenit 11 with TTL but also with improved construction
Zenit 12XP: Best overall Zenit model. Like 12SD or TTL but slightly better
Zenit 122: Plastic covered Zenit 12SD with improved film counter and simpler assembly

All are just Zenit E with slight differences

 

[AgX]

I guess I already said so, but again: The Zenits are the most sold 35mm SLR's.