| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| uccmmcpo |
Posted - Feb 23 2008 : 11:28:59 AM
My newly acquired Zorki 3 (slow speed dial on front) has a square tripod mount that appears to be original. I have seen a couple others pictured with a folding foot and I have read an internet article that stated it was probably a user add on and not factory since it closely resembled the foot found on the early Kiev II.
I`d like to know for sure.
Anyone?
John |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Feb 25 2008 : 4:06:29 PM
My 3 preseries # 00707 has only a round socket. Thus an ordinary one for the foot.
My 3M 5571252 too...
Jacques. |
| uccmmcpo |
Posted - Feb 25 2008 : 10:23:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by mermoz37
i possess 3 differents zorki 3
a pré-serie ( # 04945) whith square socket but whithout folding foot (2 little screw axle in place).
a serial one whith complete folding (kiev) socket
and a "normal" one whith round socket.
is it usefull for you ?
Sure it`s useful and we thank you. It certainly helps to re-affirm with a high degree of probablility that all these configuations are proper from the factory even though the reasons for all these different tripod lugs are quite vague indeed. But then, that`s what makes these FSU`s so interesting.
John
|
| mermoz37 |
Posted - Feb 25 2008 : 08:03:41 AM
i possess 3 differents zorki 3
a pré-serie ( # 04945) whith square socket but whithout folding foot (2 little screw axle in place).
a serial one whith complete folding (kiev) socket
and a "normal" one whith round socket.
is it usefull for you ? |
| okynek |
Posted - Feb 25 2008 : 07:02:31 AM
Yes Achilesov foot  Thank you Vlad for correction  |
| Vlad |
Posted - Feb 24 2008 : 11:51:13 PM
hehehehe... it is also possible that there were 2 parallel production lines, one had a foot another did not :)... and you meant Achilles foot I guess |
| okynek |
Posted - Feb 24 2008 : 11:47:02 PM
I have 3 Zorki-3 from 1954.
s/n 5419927 has foot
s/n 5432649 and s/n 5451398 does not.
Possibly that KMZ put foot on cameras while it supply last. Or may be machine brake down and they decide to stop installing it. Or may be some directives to cut cost or save material. Or someone from Ministry hurt his finger of this foot and order to stop installing it to save humanity.
It also possibility that this foot was Axelesov, and fall out from most of the cameras.
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Feb 24 2008 : 11:44:36 PM
I'm pretty sure all these are factory, the only time you may have a "modified" one is maybe when the foot got broken off .. but John you did start a great topic with an interesting trend, seems like as Aidas had indicated they had manufactured these with and without the foot intermixed...
Vlad |
| uccmmcpo |
Posted - Feb 24 2008 : 11:41:15 AM
I just looked at 4 more and found 2 with a square tripod lug,(54xxxxx) one with a round lug,(55xxxxx) and another one with a folding foot.(54xxxxx)
I would have to think that all of these were factory originals because it`s just not plausable to believe so many have been changed from the original form.
Why would so many owners want to add a foot or remove an existing one ? And for what reason would someone want to change a square lug to round?
I could see an occasional few odd zorki 3`s but all appear to be rather consistant considering the number of 3`s sampled.
John |
| Kievuser |
Posted - Feb 24 2008 : 05:47:51 AM
I think so. You can add a Kiev II foot to a Zorki 3.
Zhang
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
Actually John, it does not closely resemble the Kiev foot, I think it is a Kiev foot at least seems to be the same die.
Vlad.
|
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Feb 24 2008 : 03:08:52 AM
Hello Vlad,
I call it preseries because of the double 0.
As for the viewfinder window, slightly larger than the regular one and without no screw against it, that was not seen by Princelle. It took me a while to realize that my 00707 was different; such are the two cameras of Leicashop.
These very early Zorki 3 often have 1950 lenses: ZK, Jupiter 8, or white rigid Industar 22 while the first regular Zorki 3 have numbers beginning by the (19)54 prefix.
Regards. Jacques.
|
| uccmmcpo |
Posted - Feb 23 2008 : 8:57:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
John, check on each side of the square tripod mount, do you have screws on left and right or holes? If it's holes then it broken off .. if you do have screws, then we're screwed and you truly got an odd one.
Mine has 2 screws in place on the side that look original showing no marks in the slot. And using a loupe I can see no evidence of any hinged attachment ever being on this camera.
The serial # of mine is 5447970
lens is #................5456193 |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Feb 23 2008 : 7:31:15 PM
I did see a very early variation with an amber tinted glass on the main rangefinder window. Never another one was seen. |
| Vlad |
Posted - Feb 23 2008 : 5:06:01 PM
Jacques, thanks I've mentioned that one as #6 on my list, but you call it preseries.. maybe it is.. Princelle just calls it variation...
Vlad. |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Feb 23 2008 : 4:52:46 PM
There are pre series too, with a special viewfinder window, bigger than the regular one and without screw below.
I own the # 00707.
You can see the same one at Leicashop's: http://www.leicashop.com/pic.php?lang=de&order=3861_6
Jacques. |
| Vlad |
Posted - Feb 23 2008 : 4:36:04 PM
John, check on each side of the square tripod mount, do you have screws on left and right or holes? If it's holes then it broken off .. if you do have screws, then we're screwed and you truly got an odd one. |
| AidasCams |
Posted - Feb 23 2008 : 4:35:09 PM
I don't think these 2 types should be separated by years 1954 and 1955 ... |
| uccmmcpo |
Posted - Feb 23 2008 : 4:32:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AidasCams
John,
I do think it's the genuine one, while having one (#549980) in my collection. I have got it from the 1st and only owner, and he claims he bought this camera new and have changed nothing ...
Regards,
Aidas
Ok On your site it shows the early version (type 1)ser #54 with the foot and the (type 2)ser #55 with out the foot.
Mine is a ser #54 without the foot.
Confusing? |
| Vlad |
Posted - Feb 23 2008 : 4:00:47 PM
Actually John, it does not closely resemble the Kiev foot, I think it is a Kiev foot at least seems to be the same die.
Vlad. |
| Vlad |
Posted - Feb 23 2008 : 3:59:20 PM
Oh man, we're gonna go crazy with these clasificators here... so now I am aware of these types of Zorki 3:
Per Princelle:
1. With balance foot (like on Contax and Kiev)
2. Without balance foot
3. Body is olive drab green - is this true?????
4. Prototype with a speed locking mechanism and different slow speed selector knob
5. Classic version with many variants ( as Princelle says)
6. A regular classic version with speed locking mechanism
Now I want to elaborate on this as well...
7. Also an early version that had a PC socket next to rangefinder window (I believe we have one in catalog from Steve B's collection)
Any more variations anyone else has?
Vlad. |
| AidasCams |
Posted - Feb 23 2008 : 3:33:28 PM
John,
I do think it's the genuine one, while having one (#549980) in my collection. I have got it from the 1st and only owner, and he claims he bought this camera new and have changed nothing ...
Regards,
Aidas |
