Zenit: Unfairly maligned?

AgX said:

I never denied that extreme little coverage. But as I indicated you chose a figure that even makes it looks worse to SLRs where their coverage is calculated differently.

Click to expand...

the two ways to calculate VF coverage have always been used. Manufacturers use the % of one dimension (width or diagonal) rather than the surface, because of course it's always a higher figure.
The axis % is also more intuitive because it tells the proportion staying outside the VF (left, right. top bottom), we evaluate things inside a frame by axial dimensions. So on most Zenit ~1/4 of the captured scene is outside the VF, half of this (~12%) to the left, half to the right, or bottom/top if you capture standing subjects and if the subject is centered.

I never had a problem with this, tricky cases are with full aperture and focus on an area which is at an edge, but it is uncommon. Most common are subjects filling the whole 24x36 frame edge to edge, no possibility to step back more, so in case I have the Zenit-V I must mentally compute the ~12% missing on each side. Can be tricky, I use to be conservative so works most of the times, but otherwise yes it's annoying for many people.

for instance the other day I went to take some pictures with a Start and one of its native Helios-44, and in these two the blue lines show what I was actually seeing in the VF. In the first I wanted to get the whole gable inside the nave and the surrounding edges of the entrance. In the other I wanted the full bridge with both cable anchors in front, and the whole fence and lights to the right. The whole barely fills the frame, but i took the shot seeing what is inside the blue lines. Now that's easy to figure but if I have had the Zenit-V. i would have had to figure out the distance from the red lines, which can be hit and miss.

AgX said:

Get yourself any Praktica L-series model. They all got the likely most refined shoe thee is on a SLR.
Except for unknown reason they all have terribly sharp corners at the front. It would have needed just a tiny bit of grinding to smoothen these two corners before chroming.
Unbelivable that ignorants or penny foxes saved on this step all those years.

Click to expand...

My experience is that when L-series gets a hit and the plastic shell cracks, the "chroming" on top of the plastic forms very sharp edges. The black "RevueFlex" version is better - it's just plastic without metallic layer on top

flavio81 said:

For me this was the main thing against most Zenit cameras. My first camera was a Zenit and I could immediately notice the big difference between what I framed vs what ended up on the final print.

Click to expand...

I've been shooting "four thirds system" and micro-4/3 a lot, that may be the reason I don't notice this so much - the VF of Zenit is essentially 4:3 instead of 3:2.

antonio_b said:

I never had a problem with this,...

Click to expand...

But that lacking within the finder image is not something one would expect.
And that is I blame on the Zenit.

Huss said:

The correct question is.... Is there a worse 35mm SLR than Zenit? That actually would be a far more interesting discussion.

Click to expand...

I've probably got one on the way. I bought a Lomography Konstructor. Build from a kit, plastic lens, one aperture and 1/80 or B shutter, all plastic gears, waist level (or chimney, if you get the accessory kit with it; no prism offered) -- but it's an SLR.

My plan is to (when I get a 3D printer, likely this year) make an adapter to mount M42 lenses on it, which will give it better image quality, and examine the construction to see if it's possible to adjust the shutter speed (the shutter slit is formed by the mirror and "safety" shutter plate rising with a delay between). IOW, see how close I can get it to being a decent camera. For $60 shipped and taxed for the kit, I figure it'll be worth it for the entertainment value.

antonio_b said:

the two ways to calculate VF coverage have always been used. Manufacturers use the % of one dimension (width or diagonal) rather than the surface, because of course it's always a higher figure.
The axis % is also more intuitive because it tells the proportion staying outside the VF (left, right. top bottom), we evaluate things inside a frame by axial dimensions. So on most Zenit ~1/4 of the captured scene is outside the VF, half of this (~12%) to the left, half to the right, or bottom/top if you capture standing subjects and if the subject is centered.

I never had a problem with this, tricky cases are with full aperture and focus on an area which is at an edge, but it is uncommon. Most common are subjects filling the whole 24x36 frame edge to edge, no possibility to step back more, so in case I have the Zenit-V I must mentally compute the ~12% missing on each side. Can be tricky, I use to be conservative so works most of the times, but otherwise yes it's annoying for many people.

for instance the other day I went to take some pictures with a Start and one of its native Helios-44, and in these two the blue lines show what I was actually seeing in the VF. In the first I wanted to get the whole gable inside the nave and the surrounding edges of the entrance. In the other I wanted the full bridge with both cable anchors in front, and the whole fence and lights to the right. The whole barely fills the frame, but i took the shot seeing what is inside the blue lines. Now that's easy to figure but if I have had the Zenit-V. i would have had to figure out the distance from the red lines, which can be hit and miss.

View attachment 266805

View attachment 266806

Click to expand...

In both your examples - which still is awful no matter how you try to frame it (hahaha, frame it) - you only pick one axis to show image cut off.
That is inaccurate. The image is cut off on both horizontal and vertical axis at the same time.

A 35mm image is 24x36
The image shown in the Zenit is 20x28. This shows that it is smaller, by a lot, on both axis. Not just one.

That results in 65% coverage of the image area. Which, let's not beat around the bush, is absolutely awful.

You can try to spin it any way you want, but the actuality is the Zenit shows you only 65% of the image in the viewfinder.
This is one of many reasons why Zenits are maligned for very good reasons.

About 80% per side.

AgX said:

But that lacking within the finder image is not something one would expect.
And that is I blame on the Zenit.

Click to expand...

it's clearly a flaw, and certainly not suitable for pros who don't take their eye away from the VF all along a shooting session and shot at fast pace. As someone mentioned sometime earlier in the thread KMZ could have easily taken care of if they had departed form the Zorki chassis but somehow they didn't bother for what was a cheap mass consumer SLR. Production figures of the E alone is in the 3,3 millions, and some of the derivatives near 1 million each.

KMZ did 90% and 100% VF coverage with other models, also earlier. Besides the mentioned Start, the Zenit-4/5/6, these have 100% coverage, and all speeds 1s to 1/500s on the leaf shutter, they were re-implementation of the Bessamatic.

The other 100% VF coverage were the Arsenal products: Kiev-10/15 and the Nikon mounts Kiev 17/19.
I have a Kiev-10 with the M39 adapter, I removed the solenoid of the automatic mechanism (the first automatic SLR in history!) and the useless dead selenium sensor, replaced with a custom name plate. Full 100% VF coverage and speeds 1/2 to 1/1000. A very nice user, but chunky, bigger than the Zenit-V. Here with a Mir-1:





btw, about the Kiev-10/15, I have spotted still some signs in areas of museums or historical places where photo is forbidden, where the red barred circle is the old one with a Kiev-10 or Kiev-15 pictogram. Not a Zenit! For sure there was one still hanging in the entrance/tickets party of Saint Euthymus monastery in Suzdal couple years ago, while the huge amount of touristic hordes are chineses with japanese DSLR
-
back to the classic Zenit VF: yes 64% coverage in surface, 77% in width/height/diagonal it's not good when the subject will need the full 24x36mm to fit, unless you are used like me to the compensating guesstimation which isn't very accurate yet intuitive, simple.

Moreover people don't read manuals, nor before a buy , nor after, because if they did they'd see it mentions 20x28 mm coverage... If they did they wouldn't also not set shutter speed before winding and then ramble in complains.

antonio_b said:

I have spotted still some signs in areas of museums or historical places where photo is forbidden, where the red barred circle is the old one with a Kiev-10 or Kiev-15 pictogram. Not a Zenit!

Click to expand...

I never came a across a Kiev SLR and such did not even show up in our "Old cameras in old movies" thread!

AgX said:

Can someone explain why the finder screen is that small?
So far my idea was that it is due to sticking as much as possible to the Zorki chassis, and that put these limits.
But today Antonio stated:
"All Zenit but the electronic ones (MT/19/18) have 20x28 viewfinder so a ~77% coverage, the electronic ones have 95% (22,8x34,2), the Start ~91% (22x33)"

Why then got the Start from 1958 already even a bigger screen?

Click to expand...

Thus again, why are there differences, more so at an early model? Nobody knows?

To me, this is one of the most informative threads here at Photrio in years. Thank you antonio_b.

If this hasn't turned any of you off, my Zenit 212K is for sale.



Looks just like a Leica R8! (and came to market before the Leica, so did Leica copy Zenit?...."

With the introduction of the diecast body of the Zenit E the shape changed from that of the earlier models 3M etc .
They became a favorite first SLR in Europe and the UK for those that could not afford a Praktica.
https://kosmofoto.com/2018/12/zenit-e-russian-camera-review/

Huss said:

If this hasn't turned any of you off, my Zenit 212K is for sale.



Looks just like a Leica R8! (and came to market before the Leica, so did Leica copy Zenit?...."

Click to expand...

LOL!! This is worth of a thread on its own.

I once used a 212K. It surprised me the pretty good clarity of the viewfinder, and AFAIK the viewfinder had more coverage than a typical Zenit 122.

antonio_b said:

Moreover people don't read manuals, nor before a buy , nor after, because if they did they'd see it mentions 20x28 mm coverage... If they did they wouldn't also not set shutter speed before winding and then ramble in complains.

Click to expand...

As I stated above not all E-series manuals state the actual size of the finder image.

And as I said, nor the average user, nor I myself expect such gross deviation, if one got a manual in hand where that actual size is being stated.
Moreover the average user likely would not even understand the meaning of those figures for the screen.

And so far in spite of repeated inquiry I have not seen a convincing explanation why the earlier model Sport has got a larger screen than the model E.

Am I the only one that needs a hammer to activate the shutter button on my Zenit?