Zenit

The Zenit line of cameras can certainly be regarded as a 'classic'

line of Soviet slr's. They have always been contoversial. Some people

praise them, others hate them. I still use a 122 reguarly and I have

never had any problems with it.

 

My father's 'Moscow Olympics' Zenit-E is also still working without

any flaws after +25 years (except for the selium cell light meter).

My question is; does anyone still use the Zenit, or am I the last one

out there?

I use mine fairly often. I have two, an e, and a 122 that came with a photosniper. I really like the e; auto nothing, plain viewfinder, simplicity at its best. Sort of the Dodge Dart of 35mm slr's. The 50 that came with the zenit is really the best 50 I own, only bested by the 45 on my contax g2. Really a surprise for a camera I paid $8 for.

I try to use use my Zenit SLRs. I also like their rugged simplicity.

 

Is the "50" that you are referring to as the best, really the Helios 44-2 lens that is actually 2.0/58mm?

I have an E, a B a TTL and a cute 3m, mostly they stay on the shelf (but all work - none needed more than a slight clean and lube) except for the rare occasions when I want a camera for a microscope or telescope when the totally plain screen of the 3m is superb!

 

Nick

I use my Zenit 11 almost everyday. It is a tank and I have never had a problem with it. Light meter still works as well.

I still have 5 working and 2 non working Zenits. Check my Portfolio where I used an ET in Arizona. I also use a Keiv 19M and a Kiev60. I must say I do love my ZenitB even though I bet it only has a vewing area of under70%.<div></div>

Even the 'new' Zenits like the 122 are in fact 'old' Zenits, the only thing different is that the housing is made of plastic these days. Inside it is still the same camera as te 'E' or 'B', all metal with the cloth shutter. Compared to a modern Nikon N65 or EOS Rebel K2, the 'new' Zenits are still much more rugged I think. I use mine mainly with a nice 'Zebra style' Carl Zeiss Tessar 2.8/50, really nice.

If you want to shock the +$1000 Canon digital SLR users, attach a Canon EOS strap to your Zenit. I did just that with my 122, real fun when you see their faces! (I don't have anything against +$1000 Canon digital SLR users by the way, it's just fun).

I have a Nikon strap on my 122. And an Agfa Strap on my EM. The 122 is screw mount I had a K mount 122 and discovered that 4 screws could change the mounts.

Yes the helios is the lens I mean . Really, really, good lens. I also got one of the russian 35's (forget the name), and it also is real good. If you can live with simplicity these cameras are tough to beat.

The Major problem I have had is Curtians that rumple with the cloth and rails. I even had one seperate on what looked like a seam that looks like it was sewn in to make the shutter fit.. A good Vodkaday?

Have a Zenit E, running my first roll thru it now, seems nice for a $5 camera. A Zenit ES mounted on a PhotoSniper that is a real hoot to shoot. And a classy little redhead 1957 Zenit S kit, chrome Mir 1 37mm f2.8, Helios 40 85mm f1.5, and the standard tiny chrome lens Helios 50 50mm 3.5 (?) (it's Cryllic so I'm not real sure of maker) Nice small camera, but need to get a guide to trim the film leader, the only down side on using it more.

I have two Zenit B's, a Prinzflex 500 (Zenit B clone), two Zenit 12XP's and a Zenit TTL. I just returned from a 3-week trip to the UK on which my main camera was a Zenit B fitted with either a 35mm Takumar or a 50mm Pentacon lens. They are good, solid cameras if you don't need the slow shutter speeds.

I've got Zenits...lots of zenits!I've a passion for cheap cameras & eBay..a bad combination!I've got 5 12xp's,4 EM's,2 122's & 1 TTL.Mechanically they're decent cameras.The meters are a different story.I can understand the old selenium meters being off,that's to be expected,But the modern TTL meters of the newer cameras 12xp & 122 seem fickle at best!They either work or they don't with no rhymn nor reason when or how.I've only got one Zenit with TTL metering that works all the time as it should!If you get one of these expect to use a hand held meter..otherwise no complaints.

It's sort of inverse snobbery but I prefer the 3M to the later M42 models - okay, the lens mount is an oddity, but I think of the camera as the essence of Soviet thinking of that era. It's a heavyweight, like it was machined out of old tractor parts, it doesn't have much in the way of features, but it goes on and on. And the 58mm Helios is one of the top all-time standard lenses, despite its humble origins. I don't use it much but I'll never part with it.

Jurgen - I have a Zenit E Olympic made in 1978 as well as an EM from '72. I am fascinated by these chunky beasts and while I can't say that I "use" either of them regularly, I have an unfinished roll in the "olympic" at the moment.

 

It's quite a strange feeling when you take a shot with one of these and then immediately grab an Oly OM1.

 

See my previous post <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Cx1Z" target="_blank"> here.</a>

Does anyone have experience with the tiny Zenit C(S)? Looks like the perfect SLR for rangefinder fans.

Graham - The lens of your Zenit-E 'Moscow' was actually made by the factory 'Valdai' in the former Soviet-Union, not by 'KMZ' as the camera itself. The Helios 2/58 is a really good lens and actually a copy of the Zeiss Biotar 2/58.

I used to have a Zenit ET, until my house got broken into and all the cameras that I managed to acquire during my years in Central Europe got traded for crack rocks.

 

I loved that thing. It travelled rough with it all through the Balkans, and it never failed me. Right now I use my Pentacon and a digital- I figure if I am going to take the time for film I like using MF. But if I ever get another 35mm SLR, Zenit (or praktica) would be the top of my list.

Jurgen - Thank you for that info - I thought it seemed to be similar in appearance to the f1.8 Planar. I had to strip the lens down because the grease in the focussing helical had dried out, and I must say that the construction is very good. The only thing that puzzles me is the fact that the iris blades are not blackened, but are bright metallic silver. I would have thought that this would cause reduced contrast due to internal reflections. I must finish the roll and see for myself.

Graham, I don't know why the iris blades are not painted. It surely is not because the KMZ factory tried to save money on production costs this way. In their communist system the only thing the cared about was to provide jobs to their people, at any cost. A little 'waste' did not matter. This is why the chassis of all Zenits was molded out of one piece. This was a pretty complicated thing to do. It is said that just outside of Krasnogorsk (the city were the factory was), there was a huge dump for all the faulty Zenits that could be seen from a mile away(!). This way of production continued up until the Soviet Union broke apart and KMZ became a private owned factory. Can you imagine what a pile of waste that must have been, the Zenit had been in production since 1952, that's about 40 years of waste piled up!

When such a pile of waste is dug up in 1000 years time, I imagine an archaeologist trying to work out the answer to the puzzle. (If there is still anyone around in 1000 years time, that is.)

 

There may even be a commercial opportunity here - take examples from the pile, mount them on wooden plinths with a small engraved plaque with an inscription commemorating soviet production philosophy or something equally profound, and sell to tourists and nuts like us.

Thank the gods of present I am a Nut.

I currently own four zenits, a TTL now fitted with a cheap 28-55 zoom but supplied with a with a Helios 44M 2/58, an EM with the Helios, an E with the Moshva-80 logo on it, used with my elderly flexar 500mm tele, and a "GLOBAL" with a helios 44 (proudly embossed with MADE IN USSR on it) which, although not strictly a zenit, shares so many parts and features that I call it one. I still use the first three, but the global has a sticky shutter, and has become somewhat unreliable.All of the meters still work accurately, when compared to my handheld. Except the Global, which has none!

I love their simple rugged construction.