| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 02 2014 : 6:19:37 PM
Hello everyone,
To keep the long story short - I've been corresponding with the owner of this camera (a member on this site - although inactive) for quite a while, having long discussions about this camera.
I have an opinion and the owner has an opinion, but I want to hear your expert opinions about this camera first before I present arguments from both sides, what do you think? Anything will be appreciated! Thanks!
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/2102014_FOTO8990.JPG
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/2102014_FOTO8999.JPG
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/2102014_FOTO8996.JPG
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/2102014_FOTO8994.JPG
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/2102014_IMG03.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/2102014_IMG01.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/2102014_IMG02.jpg
|
| 100 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guido |
Posted - Jun 13 2015 : 4:35:33 PM
Hello Lenny
It's 23% buyers premium, so 6000 Euro is not exacly the right price ... But that's not very important, IMNSHO. If one can pay 5000 Euros, he can also pay 6115 Euros. No problem.
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Lenny |
Posted - Jun 13 2015 : 4:24:04 PM
5000 euro was without buyers premium, now it's 6000 euro. |
| Lenny |
Posted - Jun 13 2015 : 08:36:04 AM
Hi Guido,
thanks for the link, I saw it for the first time too. I think the time is too short per lot, especially when bidding online.
Thanks Lenny |
| Guido |
Posted - Jun 13 2015 : 08:19:03 AM
Hello Lenny
No, but it's an interesting auction and I see it first time live over internet.
Best wishes - Guido |
| Lenny |
Posted - Jun 13 2015 : 07:45:24 AM
Did you buy it Guido? I expected less than 4000, but this auction is crazy. |
| Guido |
Posted - Jun 13 2015 : 07:33:57 AM
5000 Euros ... not too much. |
| Guido |
Posted - Jun 13 2015 : 04:48:14 AM
Dear friends
Right now live auction at ...
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/bidapplet71384
(a Leica M3 prototype was sold for 160000 Euros in the last minutes)
Still waiting to lot 362 ...
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Vlad |
Posted - May 20 2015 : 3:14:53 PM
Thanks Guido for the link! It is very interesting to hear Dr. Mladek's opinion about the camera as well! In case I miss it, if someone sees the final price, please update this thread. Thanks!
Vlad. |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - May 20 2015 : 05:20:02 AM
Sure we will follow the sale with curiosity!
Thanks for the news, Guido.
Jacques. |
| Guido |
Posted - May 19 2015 : 3:09:08 PM
Dear friends
Back to this topic and the latest development: The camera in question may be found at the WestLicht Photographica Auction in Vienna.
http://www.westlicht-auction.com/index.php?id=4
(look at lot 362)
"Zenit Preseries *
well preserved Zenit pre series or test camera engraved No. 5000002 from the property of an employee of KMZ. Most of its characteristics are those of an early Zenit, e.g. the “Square Logo”, while it still has a few minor details in common with the first prototypes of the Zenit as well. It mainly differs from the series model by the execution of the prism housing and the eyepiece, which both seem to be one of a kind. Dr. Milos Mladek, well-known expert in Russian cameras writes in his expertise: 'After a thorough examination of the camera and after having compared it extensively with both a Zenit prototype and a “Square Logo” model Zenit, we consider this camera a KMZ factory research model that was very probably made just before the series production of the regular Zenit to test the new rounded shape of the prism housing and moreover to test a special diopter-adjustable eyepiece (+/- 3 diopters, three lenses in a non-rotating mount, very well made - regrettably it later did not make it into series production). It always was highly unlikely that KMZ would have started series production of the regular Zenit body without having tested the new shape of the prism housing: here is the test sample. - It comes with a later lens, cap and case'
Catalogue Number: 362
Sale No: 32126
Condition: B+
Year: 1950
Serial No.: 5000002
Estimate: € 5000-7000
Start price: € 3.000
Buyer's Premium: 20%"
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Nordmannen |
Posted - Nov 18 2014 : 6:04:38 PM
Hello again! Here is a mail from my father to sort some things out with the case. Sorry, it’s rather a bit long.
“After analyzing the opinions expressed by the experts, I want to share my thoughts about the history of this camera.
They will be, as far as possible, justified by the documents that are available to us.
On the observations and analogies that the camera is made at a workshop abroad or in the USSR, I note that it would be possible, if it would be made from standard parts, slightly modified, redesigned.
Now, regarding the opinion that the camera was made at the KMZ by someone for himself or for some official person. I would like to recall that the KMZ was and it was a factory primarily oriented to military production, and a release of cameras was a minor task. On such factories there was a rigid system of secrecy. Passes were required to get into the manufactory room and not many workers could move throughout the factory. In such a situation (by an anonymous denunciation one could easily receive 10 years imprisonment without the right to correspondence) to make for themselves a camera manually, spending a lot of time working on their needs, was impossible.
It is possible that the camera could have been produced later in 70-80th when USSR became slightly more liberal. In such cases they used a serial sample and upgraded it for the better, both mechanically and in appearance. Typically, these cameras are superior to serial samples by all parameters.
The fact that the camera is not made in our time, I'm 100% sure. I bought this camera from an elderly woman, she told me about the former owner of the camera, a family name which is not very widespread in the USSR. And it matched to the records in the archives of the KMZ.
Also, if to forge a camera, people prefer to forge expensive samples, so you can easily and quickly sell. Otherwise, why to waste time, energy and finances?
Now about the official person. During the reign of Stalin in the USSR no officials of the highest rank could feel safe (remember the criminal case against Zhukov - Marshal of the Red Army after WWII). In such a situation, to order a personal KMZ camera is to give a reason for competitors to displace you from office. Even if it happened, is it possible to give such a camera to the official? I think not. The camera is not very well made. In such cases, the product is written off and destroyed, to avoid accusations of financial embezzlement.
In the USSR, they usually gave the serial camera with engraved commemorative plaque "Delegate 25th Congress of the KPSS… ".
Perhaps, there were cases of personal manufactured cameras, maybe experts can give examples.
So, in order to prove that it is a pre-production sample which is unique and is made of different parts, because it had to be done so, I will use the information from www.zenitcamera.com/archive/zenit-1/index.htm. I hope the owner will not mind.
Google on the pre (experimental) samples says:
Production of pre-production samples is a worldwide manufacturing practice for any technically complex products.
"Prototype - a full-scale, fully functioning model, designed to determine the needs and requirements of the production to the manufacture of this product. It is also used to obtain the latest before (fine-) serial production data on the functioning and reliability. The prototype is usually made by hand, as accurately as possible should meet the standards of the final design of the product or batch process. "
Here you dive into the real world of expensive services such as tool and die manufacturing, construction, assistance in moving some cases, planning equipment and accessories, as well as the services of the most expensive from the experts - the technology engineer. You will need all of these professionals, and even more to create a real pre-production prototype. Products created as a "working model" and "technical prototype," is impossible to put in the real market because of their cost price is too high, their design does not take into account all the necessary safety factors, and most importantly, they are not able to maintain that performance on during an acceptable lifetime. The set of inventors failed, trying to prove the opposite. On efficiency, reliability and safety of commercially manufactured products depends your reputation. It can break down by prematurely launching unfinished samples.
The prototype is created in order to show that the performance requirements are met, production problems solved, quality management is implemented, etc. Experienced pre-production sample is created so as to best resemble the product of mass production - the only difference in the volume of output.
© Rosnauka
My camera more than all fits to this definition: manual production, the most similar to the serial product of all the cameras.
By the way, in the process of studying this question, I came to the conclusion that most of the so-called prototypes made through fantasies by Komsomol activists and have nothing to do with the real "Zenit". Too large differences in design, a lot of different parts, which are then not used at all. Enthusiasm was encouraged at that time. Numbering is affixed to all products for the report for the materials used.
I quote from the article "Our Mission" of 31 December 1950 from the original factory newspaper.
"In recent years, we mastered three modern cameras that enjoy great popularity among customers. In the past year developed new models of cameras "Zorki-3" and "Smena 1". Now we are producing samples of the camera "Rodina".
These samples are now laboratory tested at the factory, and then be sent to the state tests in the All-Union Chamber of Commerce. Preliminary reviews by specialists are quite satisfactory. "
Zorki -3 we know. Who can indicate Smena-Zenit, which was on factory testing in the end of 1950 and then in 1951 was supposed be sent to the state tests? This is my camera. Made in 1950, it is very close in design to the production samples. Notice of release of the camera is a consequence of the fact that it belongs to the production factory.
Most likely it was released in a couple of samples. In it 1951 may have been taken to the factory and state tests, design improvement, after the test and so on.
When testing camera it is likely to test its endurance. I know that these tests are conducted in the construction theodolites and dumpy levels, although it is more fragile optical equipment than cameras. Through these tests, the first sample was likely to be crushed. Most likely, after these tests they took away corrector diopter, as it is located outside and it is very vulnerable, and replaced two side cover screws to the frontal plane of the mine to improve shock performance of the design. To the same goal they put deeper the logo of the plant, since it gives additional rigidity lid construction of the mine. By the way, Zorki-3 diopter corrector was designed at that time. He placed it more successfully and therefore was saved.
Quote from the article "For high-volume edition camera Zorki-3 newspaper Soviet patriot 1954":
"This question was at the meeting of the party committee on January 12. During the production camera " Zorki -3" chief engineer comrade Soloviev delivered a message. He noted that in the past year, considerable work on the development of this camera - newly created section of the assembly in the workshop held redevelopment equipment in automaton increased the number of machines in the shop Lens doubled the mechanical area, etc. But all this was not enough.
The speaker pointed out that the pre-production on the camera," Zorki -3 'in a number of issues carried out satisfactorily.
The design of the camera " Zorki -3" had a number of significant shortcomings and was not fit for the organization of large-scale production. An aim to “redesigne and prepare drawings for 1954" was given in June, with the term of meeting by October 1. With this work the design office is not right, and the first drawings were made only at the end of October, and a full set of drawings commissioned only 4 December.
Being late with the release of drawings made impossible a technological preparation of production by 1 January. As a result, in January and February will have to work with old drawings, with an unproven technology without sufficient equipment. "
Although it is said about the camera Zorki -3, manufacturing processes at the factory is the same everywhere. Consequently, all I described above, the test of camera Zenit
could drag on indefinitely, and therefore the release of a prototype in 1950, the end of an experimental batch of 1952, mass production 1953 - is quite real time interval.
Now for the design of the valve body, which Louis was talking about at the beginning of the discussion.
The body of a new design appeared in 1951, therefore, it was started to develop, at least in 1950.
Since the body is made on the basis of Zorki, if we put ourselves in the place of the constructor of my camera, and decide what kind of body we should use. The camera will definitely be launched in the series and we put the body on the old model, which will be out of use later or already out of production.
The question is a rhetorical one. I even can imagine that at the beginning the camera body was old-fashioned, but in the process of construction was replaced as obsolete, and it is not supposed to produce. On other cameras it was left because they hava little in common with the production of camera Zenit. Same story with the velocities at the head extracts. FED moved to the new standard Extracts in 1952. The decision to move was made before, and this decision was made not only on the factory FED, but also throughout the USSR and in this, because camera has been designed for the future, there was originally founded new standard exposures. Constructors in USSR gladly work for the future, however, the technique strongly resisted.
A quote from the same article of the same newspaper:
"Factory Director Comrade Egorov, in his speech said that the design office, engineering, equipment is not considered assembly plants, and in general plant workshops. "
This quote is like nothing better explains why the design pattern is slightly different from the experimental samples of the series.
Based on the foregoing, it is very likely to argue that the camera is a preproduction, prototype and all the details in her right place and it exists in one sample.”
I hope it makes things clearer. Thank you for your time.
Cheers,
Iurii
|
| Lenny |
Posted - Oct 19 2014 : 06:16:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
Can you say what you think the differences between these logos are? First is this camera we are talking about. Second is a 1949 Zorki.
Thank you very much Bill,
so I checked many Zorki-1 logos of the non-export version, because there is enough room for the logo and I found many different ones.
- trapezoids with short base but high with steep sides
- trapezoids with long base not so high and not so steep sides
- trapezoids where each side has a different angle
- much later stamped trapezoids with a very short top
KMZ was not capable to produce the same logo in the same period of time. I think impossible for a Leica. Maybe KMZ did this all to please us collectors. I will keep an eye on the trapezoids. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Oct 17 2014 : 10:54:14 AM
Lenny,
Can you say what you think the differences between these logos are? First is this camera we are talking about. Second is a 1949 Zorki.
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/17102014_zenit 5000002.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/17102014_zorki.jpg
Regards, Bill
|
| Lenny |
Posted - Oct 17 2014 : 07:10:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
Here is what I think could be a possibility regarding the difference in the KMZ 'tomb with arrow' logo that we see on later cameras by KMZ. It seems that up until 1949 there was just the 'tomb' - prism on the logo. It is right at 1950 when the arrow was added to the logo. So, possibly the logo was also in the early stages of design and the differences (mostly that the 'arrow shaft' is placed higher on the 'tomb') are due to the newness of this logo design change. Also, it looks a bit different because in the photos the flat plane, of the prism-housing front, that the logo is engraved on is tilted and not photographed from a higher angle. This causes some distortion to the shape. But if the camera is a prototype or pre-series of 1950, maybe there was no stencil made for the logo yet.
If I remember correctly, the new KMZ-logo came with the Zorki-1a around April 1949. Could be KMZ did not have such a big template to engrave it, but that is the thing with a prototype, you have to make a new one. It does not seem to be so difficult to make a new template.
If this Zenit is from 1950 according to the first two digits in the serial-number the new KMZ-logo was already standard in production.
Could also be that KMZ did not allow to use the official KMZ-logo because this was not an official KMZ-made product. |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Oct 16 2014 : 1:42:53 PM
Accordig to pictures seen I feel as a one of a kind prototype made by some one fulfilling a request or for his own fun.
No more o less than that. Several variations were done.
changes in normal run were due needs of this particular production.
This reinforces the theory of factory built with fresh componentes.
Some time ago a 3m with turrete lens was shown, remember?
This could have been made by at factory at the developing department or in any of the repair rooms abroad the country.
When at former Vitronac and further Optotecnica Instrumental in Rio de Janeiro, once authorized Carl Zeiss Obercochen/ Zeiss Ikon Sttutgart repair shop I saw lots of one of a kind câmeras.
Repaired câmeras used original componens or modified with original componentes with diferente series and they had disponibility of original metals or componentes to be reshaped or really made, this fools the observer and arises lots of hypotesis or fantastic unbased dreams.
Wide angle câmeras with Plaubel Rada backs and Wirgin bodies were regularly built in Rio de janeiro always using Komura 47mm lenses.
Thia Zenit of course has his value although not far from regular câmeras from that era.
This is my particular point of view as Vlad requested
Regards You all!
LP |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Oct 16 2014 : 10:17:12 AM
Hi Lenny,
Here is what I think could be a possibility regarding the difference in the KMZ 'tomb with arrow' logo that we see on later cameras by KMZ. It seems that up until 1949 there was just the 'tomb' - prism on the logo. It is right at 1950 when the arrow was added to the logo. So, possibly the logo was also in the early stages of design and the differences (mostly that the 'arrow shaft' is placed higher on the 'tomb') are due to the newness of this logo design change. Also, it looks a bit different because in the photos the flat plane, of the prism-housing front, that the logo is engraved on is tilted and not photographed from a higher angle. This causes some distortion to the shape. But if the camera is a prototype or pre-series of 1950, maybe there was no stencil made for the logo yet.
Regards, Bill
|
| Lenny |
Posted - Oct 16 2014 : 05:13:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
... as a KMZ workshop piece. The engravings look to be authentic and it is more possible to get a close look at them in the new photos.
This is where it seems so wierd.
For example, someone made this photo with the serial-number to compare the font and it showed to be the same font used for another KMZ-camera. But the KMZ-logo itself is not in the right shape, how is this possible when it should be made inside KMZ with KMZ-tools.
Still many questions for me.
Maybe this should be normal for unique prototypes? |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Oct 15 2014 : 11:00:03 PM
Dear Guido and All,
I have not said anything because I have been looking at the photos over and over. To me, everything looks okay for authenticity of a prototype (or more probably, an early pre-series because of the style of serial number, which includes a year). But, I am no expert on identifying all of the parts on the interior.
If all of the parts on the interior are either unique (hand made) or from cameras of 1950 or earlier, then that would point towards authenticity. To me, the way the prism housing and top plate are fabricated look authentic in technique as a KMZ workshop piece. I think that the diopter feature would be very hard to fake and also very hard to put into production on a large scale, so that looks like an authentic prototype feature as well. The engravings look to be authentic and it is more possible to get a close look at them in the new photos. I find that Iurii has been forthright and open and has responded to requests for information and photos without problem. As well, it would appear that Zoom thinks the camera is authentic in some regard (at least not a recent fake) and I value his opinions very highly.
If someone has a problem with the history of Zenit development and where this camera fits or doesn't fit, then I they would have to tell how the present line-up of known prototypes have been dated and why it would not be correct for this camera to fit in, either by dating or by the design of it. Since the other known prototypes have squared off prism housings and the production cameras have rounded housings, I'm not sure how anyone would expect that there would not be a prototype of the rounded housing design. To me it is a big change between a squared housing and a rounded housing and would have to be shown in person to the directors before proceeding with a rounded production model.
So, those are my thoughts as of now. But I am not an expert. Probably if I was still collecting I would want this camera. But what is the price? Thanks for the new photos Iurii.
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 15 2014 : 8:32:25 PM
I carefully examined the pictures, but I am not an expert on camera repair so I can't back any of my statements up by experience here.. sorry... I think one of few people here who actually has extensive repair experience here is Luiz.. I'm very curious on what he has to say. And thank you Iurii for posting the pictures, I am sure there will be people reading here that have qualifications to make conclusions.
Cheers,
Vlad |
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 15 2014 : 7:58:10 PM
Dear members
I'm very surprised that no one but Lenny said anything about the pictures posted by Iurii. Really no opinion about this pictures? No more comments? Sorry, I'm wondering about ... Do you really have no opinion or there are other reasons to not talking about?
Okay, I have also some problems with the questions of Iurii because of his intentions to sell the camera and make as much money as possible. But this is only one aspect of this case, the other is the historical one. And maybe also the necessity to accept that other prototypes are existing and the history of the development of the Zenit 1 series must be changed. Maybe we should call this camera a "experimental" one, but for me it's not a big difference.
Please let me know your opinions, please share your opinions! And as an additional question, why you don't said anything about all this in the last time? Is there any reason not to talk about this camera? Sorry if I'm in trouble with this, but I don't understand.
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 14 2014 : 6:50:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Lenny
Hope you could put everything back together again.
Hello Lenny
Well, don't be so evil! ;->
Best wishes - Guido |
| Lenny |
Posted - Oct 14 2014 : 3:49:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Nordmannen
Here are some pictures.
Thank you so much for your effort Lurii. It is impressive and unexpected.
Hope you could put everything back together again. |
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 14 2014 : 1:13:57 PM
Hello Iurii
Thank you for the new pictures. Very interesting pictures and the missing drill holes are for me an important evidence that's not a simple fake! I hope some experts will see other details because I don't understand absolutly nothing of the "things in the inside".
Best wishes - Guido |
| Nordmannen |
Posted - Oct 14 2014 : 12:42:31 PM
And some more
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/14102014_IMG475.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/14102014_IMG474.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/14102014_IMG472.jpg
|
| Nordmannen |
Posted - Oct 14 2014 : 12:40:15 PM
Here are some pictures.
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/14102014_IMG480.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/14102014_IMG478.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/14102014_IMG479.jpg
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Oct 12 2014 : 12:37:30 PM
Lurii,
Lenny's instructions sound good. I would add: (1) You don't want to make any marks on the screw heads. So, you must use the correct size screwdriver. Not too small, but one that fits perfectly. Also you can use a bit of tissue or thin cloth to put on the screwdriver so as not scratch the screws. (2) Make sure to photograph everything from all angles and as close as possible once you have the pieces apart.
Also, do not jump to conclusions. If this is a prototype or pre-series that is close to the production cameras, it may be possible that the screws have been moved to the front already. That is why photos will be very important. Try to get close-up photos showing the exact location of these screws, for comparison, as Lenny has said. Also, take photos of everything on all sides of the camera. Good luck, and if you are careful and slow it won't hurt the value of the camera to do this.
Regards, Bill
|
| Lenny |
Posted - Oct 12 2014 : 10:52:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Nordmannen
Hello again!
My father has some knowledge of mechanics, so he probably can do a simple disassembly of the camera.
He asked to explain what you want to see, how to get to it, and what’s the sense in seeing this or that part.
Another thins we are cautious about is that the camera had never been disassembled. Since the camera is to be for sale we are wondering if disassembly would affect the price.
It would be good to take a look on a newer productional camera to know the exact location of those 2 screws ON THE FRONTSIDE. |
| Lenny |
Posted - Oct 12 2014 : 10:40:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Nordmannen
Hello again!
My father has some knowledge of mechanics, so he probably can do a simple disassembly of the camera.
He asked to explain what you want to see, how to get to it, and what’s the sense in seeing this or that part.
Another thins we are cautious about is that the camera had never been disassembled. Since the camera is to be for sale we are wondering if disassembly would affect the price.
First take away the bottom-plate and the lens.
The serial-number is placed on a rim. Also on this rim are 7 screws around the camera. Screw all those 7 screws out but remember which screw belongs to which hole, especially the one under the wind-knob. Those screws may be different in length.
Then you only need to take away the 4 screws on the vulcanite on the frontside.
Now the vulcanite-housing can be easily moved down. It is only needed to move it down for 1cm.
Newer productional-cameras have 2 screws ON THE FRONTSIDE on the rim above the lens-mount. But the prototype-cameras like the #00010 and the #5000002 have those 2 screws ON THE SIDE on the rim, left and right.
When moving down the vulcanite-housing for 1cm it must be recognizable if the vulcanite-housing has also screw-holes ON THE FRONTSIDE above the lens-mount. This would indicate that the vulcanite-housing could be a newer productional-part and not a part made for a prototype. Because the prototypes do not have screws ON THE FRONTSIDE on the rim.
After moving the vulcanite-housing down for only 1cm to check the housing move it up again and put all screws into the same holes again. Everything must work fine again after it. |
| Nordmannen |
Posted - Oct 12 2014 : 08:29:27 AM
Hello again!
My father has some knowledge of mechanics, so he probably can do a simple disassembly of the camera.
He asked to explain what you want to see, how to get to it, and what’s the sense in seeing this or that part.
Another thins we are cautious about is that the camera had never been disassembled. Since the camera is to be for sale we are wondering if disassembly would affect the price.
|
| Nordmannen |
Posted - Oct 10 2014 : 12:14:34 PM
Hello! Sorry for the delay.
"With the prototype 00010, as we agreed, the similarity is how the shutter is made in this camera and my camera. I will try to show that diopter adjustment is alike to the prototype 00010 as well.
If you take a look at Guido’s picture (the perspective from behind, showed by arrow) we can notice a dot on the housing- it seems like there was supposed to be diopter adjustment on this camera as well, but it wasn’t done probably because of the absence of available space. Therefore, the project has been realized on my camera, prism was reduced in size and the pit was done differently. I think there is prism form a prototype 00010 on Ê1020 and Ê1010 that’s why the pits are big. We could compare their pits with the pit of 00010.
The dot pointed at the picture doesn’t look like a factory defect or damage.
Besides this, my camera has (possibly on the prism) a thin black line throughout the frame in the form of +. I recently understood its function.
When the camera focusing on the object, firstly you need to get a sharp image of this line (corrected for vision) with the diopter adjuster and then focus the lens zoom. It seems to me that this procedure proves the relevance of the diopter adjuster.
After that, when the producers removed the adjuster in serial samples, I do not exclude that some of the cameras were produced with such a line as they needed to readjust the equipment before making new samples. Wear and tear of the adjuster I explain by the fact that it extends out of the camera body to 6mm - fragile item".
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/10102014_55555.jpg
|
| Lenny |
Posted - Oct 10 2014 : 06:33:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
Would you think that they would change from an angled prism housing to rounded without making a prototype?
For this change to a different style a prototype would not be necessary. They could have tried this change during production like KMZ did many times. A prototype is not easy to make because many parts for this new camera could not be taken from mass-production. And with #00010 you have to assume that they already made at least 10 prototypes.
Also interesting is why they only sold 200 Zenit-1 in 1952. Maybe they were not satisfied with the results and tried to improve the production during 1952.
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Oct 09 2014 : 11:21:59 PM
Hi Guido,
I agree and if I was still buying cameras I would want to take a look at some of the inside parts just to be sure.
Regards, Bill
|
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 09 2014 : 5:14:02 PM
Hello Bill
Your last phrase is a very important one I think. If the camera in question will be authentic. Still waiting for someone to take a look inside this camera ... ;->
Best wishes - Guido
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Oct 09 2014 : 4:47:46 PM
Lenny,
Although it was said that it was not made by a member of the design department at one point in in this thread about the camera, Zoom has clarified that statemnet. Please read his last post, above. There he says that he believes it is a prototype, although not everyone agrees. Very often, pre-series serial numbers on Russian cameras contain one or two extra '0's. This serial number would appear to be more in the official style of a pre-series camera. The joint on the top plate is very similar to the prototype camera that I owned, Zorki-35. You can see this in the entry in the WIKI for that camera, if you look closely. The fact that it has a joint at all probably means it is a prototype for the rounded prism of the Zenit production model. Would you think that they would change from an angled prism housing to rounded without making a prototype?
Regards, Bill
|
| Lenny |
Posted - Oct 09 2014 : 4:35:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
I think it is probably an original KMZ product (and so does Zoom, I believe). For me, since it has been found not to be a recent fake by research into the history of ownership, I think it is a KMZ product because it has an official serial number.
It was said that this person who was responsible that this #5000002 was made was not a member of the design department. It was said that it was unoffically made. Also this 7-digit serial-number is not the type which KMZ used at that time, it is NOT an official serial-number.
The joint on the refex-top is poorly made because there is a gap to the plate below. I am sure KMZ could have made this joint in much better quality at that time.
The bottom-plate is the older version with the additional two screws, while #00010 has the newer bottom-plate without those two screws.
It would not surprise me if the vulcanite-housing has screw-holes on the frontside above the lens-mount which would mean it is a newer production-part and then everything would make sense. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Oct 09 2014 : 12:55:31 PM
Hi Lenny,
I think that some believe that this is an actual KMZ product and some believe it was made privately by a KMZ worker (probably using the KMZ facilities). There are differences of opinions by experts, it seems, if you read all the latest posts from Zoom.
I think it is probably an original KMZ product (and so does Zoom, I believe). For me, since it has been found not to be a recent fake by research into the history of ownership, I think it is a KMZ product because it has an official serial number. I have seen cameras made in the factory workshops by workers and they only have either no serial numbers or they have serial numbers that are from the parts that were used to make the camera. In this case, the serial number does not appear to be from an old part. Also, I have seen the same type of construction (cutting and joining) on prototypes such as the Zorki 35M. So, are the reasons I am of the opinion that it is an actual KMZ product ... as Zoom says "a prototype of the first series of camera (with the round head)".
Many times prototypes with relatively small design changes are built, rather than just drawn. There are a number of reasons for this including: (1) The actuality of how the design change could affect the production process. (2) How the design change might change the function of the camera, both mechanically and physical handling aspects. (3) To compare, side by side, from all angles, the appearance of the new model with old models or prototypes. (4) The show )and put into their hands)to the executives or decision makers what the camera will be like so that they can give a go-ahead or not. So there are needs to make a prototype like this and it is relatively easy to make a prototype camera with a small design change, and this is the engineers job in any case, so why not make it?
However, my own opinion would be that this may not technically be a prototype, but rather a pre-series (considering the serial number and the closeness to the final design of the production Zenit that we know).
Regards, Bill
|
| Lenny |
Posted - Oct 09 2014 : 08:19:08 AM
Seems KMZ produced only 200 Zenit-1 in 1952. Not many, enough room and time to improve the model during production. KMZ tried to change models during production many times. In some cases they did not proceed with those changes after some time for whatever reason. They restored the former versions again. These changes were also technical-changes to improve the shutter-mechanism. Not only changes for a new look. Why even build a prototype only for the reflex-top like it seems the case here with the #5000002. But as already mentioned this #5000002 is not an original KMZ product.
For example I own a Zorki-1 from 1952 and the shutter-mechanism is different in a small area. A difference original made by KMZ, not changes made by a faker. I never found this difference in the later production and KMZ restored the former version again till they changed to the small shutter-spring. But even with the small shutter-spring they kept the former version in this small area. And there are other examples when KMZ changed the shutter for maybe 2000 Zorkis and then came back to the former version. And they did this all during production. No need to build a prototype only for a different reflex-top. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Oct 07 2014 : 12:13:56 PM
Well, then I have noticed that:
the prototypes have serial numbers with - 5 digits, no year designation (examples: No.00003 or No.00010)
this camera has serial number with - 5 digits, preceded by two-digit year designation (No. 5000002)
the production cameras from 1952 - 4 digits, and year designation before them ( examples: No.520019 or No.520298)
So, maybe the extra '0' in the serial number of this camera designates a 'pre-series' or 'pre-production' example.
So: maybe, prototypes made up to 1950 ... then some pre-production models ... then production models starting in 1952 (or even 1951, a few, none of which have been found). Possible?
Regards, Bill
|
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 07 2014 : 11:51:49 AM
Hello Bill
First production serial numbers for Zenit "Block Logo" was #520019 according to Alexander Schulz and for Zenit with rounded logo #520298 according to www.sovietcams.com.
Hope this helps.
Best wishes - Guido
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Oct 07 2014 : 11:22:50 AM
Thanks for the clarification of your position, Zoom. I also agree with you that it could be the beginning of the cameras with the rounded prism housing. Then the serial number would also make sense with the first prototype cameras just having the serial number without a year, and then moving to production or pre-production with this camera having a year before the serial number.
Of course the problem is the time between this and the lowest known serial numbers of production Zenit. If the answer to this time gap can not be found by KMZ official records and no other cameras with serial numbers from 1950 or 1951 can be found either, then the mystery remains to some extent.
Does anyone know what the lowest serial number on a production Zenit is? Zoom, do you think it would be possible that after this camera was made in 1950 (maybe towards the end of the year) that regular production of the Zenit could be delayed for some reason until early 1952 ?
Regards, Bill
|
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 07 2014 : 09:55:23 AM
Hello Zoom
I'm happy to see you with us! Your opinion is the mine too and I have had also some problems with the year. But it don't destroy the histroy of the Zenit creation.
Maybe Zenit prototypes are made earlier than the "official" dates? Or maybe there were build not within tree years (1950 to 1952) but only within two (1949 to 1950)? If we now say the first prototype was made 1950 it could be that it was finished in this year. From the idea to drawings, functional models of parts (shutter, mirror ...), build of the parts for the prototypes will take a lot of time, so I even think the development must have begun in 1948. The development of the Zorki line begun in 1945/1946 I think, after the preserie in 1947 the first batches were in production from 1948 on. For the next six years the development was modernization and only a small team was needed. And the other developers could began with a new project, the Zenit. Given the fact that the production of Zenit startet 1952 and the second prototype is dated 1951-1952 I don't see no time were the production line and the tooling could be prepared and build.
Maybe we should rethink the timeline?
An other thing that striked me was the fact that the known prototypes are very nice cameras with an attractive prism housing. The camera in question here has a nice housing too but is an optimization after all. Before four parts of vulcanit were needed, with the camera in question here only one. For the production it was desided to mix both variants and used two parts.
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Zoom |
Posted - Oct 07 2014 : 08:21:18 AM
In my opinion, this camera is the prototype of the first series of cameras (with a "round head").
But not all experts agree with me.
The dating of this camera (1950) destroys all history of ZENIT's creation. The time of creating cameras must be shifted to a few years. |
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 07 2014 : 04:53:43 AM
Hello Lenny
I don't think we should talk of a fake. And the person who made this camera was not the same that was the source of the camera sold to the father of Iurii. But the identity of this person was veryfied by Zoom in the personel records of KMZ. That should be possible even 60 years later.
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 07 2014 : 04:44:56 AM
Hello Bill
I agree with you in your points 1 and 2. A remark to point 2: Zoom told me long time ago about such "experimental" models that they were made in spare time.
Your question about if it was allowed to use serial numbers on such a experimental camera is a very good one. I can only tell that later so called experimental cameras used to have serialnumbers from the batch the modified camera came from. Maybe a serial number was useful even for experimental cameras for reference? And so it may be used under this aspect freely in this time? Even the ominous Zenit-L [1] had a serial number, even when I couldn't read it because all pictures of this camera I have are too bad (but it's probably the 000001).
Maybe it would be worth to take a closer look at this camera because the prism housing has some resemblance with the one of the camera in question here. More pictures you can find at the brasilianian site from Luiz [2] and a description in russian on zenitcamera.com [3].
For now a last experimantal cameras not so well knowed but very interesting because it was also a missing link between the Zenit 3M and the Zenit E, the Zenit 3EM documentet by Alexander Schulz in his book "Zenit" [4, in german].
This camera I mention because of the question of prices. It was sold in an online auction some years ago for a price around 350 Euro if I remember correctly. On eBay the 00010 Zenit prototype was sold for 10000 US$. That's the difference. Okay, this may be extreme prices but it gives also an idea of what we talking about.
If the camera in question is a real one made in 1950 my main question is if there are any influence from this camera to the prototype line?
Best wishes - Guido
[1] http://ussrphoto.com/Wiki/default.asp?WikiCatID=69&ParentID=1&ContentID=197&Item=Zenit+L+Prototype
[2] http://www.novacon.com.br/zenita2.htm
[3] http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/zenit-1/zenit-l.html
[4] http://www.g-st.ch/privat/kameras/zenitbuchtext.html#71
|
| Lenny |
Posted - Oct 07 2014 : 02:58:19 AM
There was no reason to fake cameras at that time. For example the 1959 Zorki-2C with a remarked top-plate of a Zorki-C. Nobody wanted this trash at that time, they were used as giveaways for the political party if you believe this story mentioned here on this site. Now a remarked Zorki-2C has a much higher value. The intention to fake cameras at that time can hardly be believed. |
| Lenny |
Posted - Oct 07 2014 : 02:25:53 AM
So there is an KMZ-employee in leadership position who faked the first Zenit inside of KMZ and KMZ still knows this after so many years. Who can believe this. Chose a used bottom-plate from an Zorki-1b with the additional two screws to make the camera look older and changed the lock. Chose "50" for the serial-number to misguide collectors 60 years later. Who can believe this.
Can't imagine KMZ-employees couldn't make better quality at that time. For example the reflex-top which was cut and then put together again but not very good because there is a big gap visible to the plate below.
This story is even more strange than the camera itself. The first faker was an KMZ leader.
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Oct 06 2014 : 5:35:15 PM
My understanding of the origin of this camera is that:
1. It is not a modern fake, but was in fact made in or about 1950. Thanks to Zoom for his research at KMZ to ascertain this.
2. It was not made by KMZ, but was made on the premises by a worker (position unknown) at KMZ. This would have been using the KMZ workshop (tools, parts, workspace) but under using his own ideas, and without supervision or specific direction from KMZ. (I believe this was what Zoom was saying he found out)
So, my questions would be: Why was this individual allowed to mark the camera with a serial number (a number similar or the same to KMZ numbering system) if the camera was not to be part of the official Zenit process (or a model of Zenit, whether prototype or experimental)? It would seem that if it was a private non-KMZ project, even by a KMZ employee, that numbering like this would not be encouraged or allowed. Is it possible that it was allowed to be numbered because the person who designed and made the camera was very important and high-up in the KMZ design development department. The fineness of the engraving of the serial number and the construction of the camera would point to a very experienced engineer.
Of course the value to any collector or to the KMZ museum would be less if the camera was not an official KMZ project, but how much less is just a guess as it would still be a historic part of Zenit history and a unique artifact of the Zenit - KMZ process during that era.
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 06 2014 : 4:27:49 PM
I completely understand, I guess I meant that the part wondering whether this camera comes from KMZ or not is decided.  Regarding last statement maybe if Zoom can clarify his last statement it'll help. And I am by no means am closing the conversation, there is much to discuss.
Cheers,
Vlad. |
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 06 2014 : 3:29:18 PM
Hello Vlad
Please don't get me wrong, it's not against you or Zoom. You know both of you have my full respect. But it remains a bit unclear for me ...
Thank you for posting your communication with Zoom. The second mail is the essential one I think. If Google translate it for me it says different things: if the target language is english it says "but the genesis of Zenith has nothing to do" (with it), in the german translation the "nothing" ("nichts" in german) is missing. But I think after all, your translation was right and the "so called proof" was used a little misunderstandly (if this word exist ...). It meant that the camera was made by KMZ. Okay, that's the first step. The next would be to know when the camera was made and what influence to the product design it had.
As I said, the discussion isn't over yet ... ;-)))
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 06 2014 : 2:56:42 PM
Dear Guido,
Regarding the so called "proof" statement, I fear that I have lost something in translation of Zoom's email to me, let me post his original reply in Russian and someone who speaks it maybe can take a crack of interpreting what he wrote to me... here it is:
"Заводское происхождение фотоаппарата подтверждается по первому владельцу.
"Iurii's family"[Redacted other names for privacy] удалось, видимо, связаться с прежними владельцами и выяснить фамилию того, у кого был этот аппарат.
Я запросил отдел кадров КМЗ и получил положительный ответ. Человек работал на КМЗ с 1948 по 1971 год (скончался). С середины 1956 года работал в ЦКБ (Центральном конструкторском бюро) завода -- на различных руководящих должностях, но связанных с ведением изделий в серийном производстве.
К самой разработке фотоаппаратов отношения он не имел."
Second email:
"А для другого моего корреспондента-эксперта, это, вдобавок к сказанному у Вас на сайте, как раз явилось доказательством того, что фотокамера -- самоделка, пусть и сделанная на КМЗ, но к генезису ЗЕНИТов отношения не имеет..."
Best regards,
Vlad.
|
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 06 2014 : 2:13:19 PM
Hello Vlad
What good news! No, not the fact that you say this would end any discussion and not the fact, that the value of the camera in question has crashed down to 10-20% of this what a "confirmed" prototype would bring if selling in Russia. Also not the so called "proof" (which?) that the camera would be "self-made" (by whom?) and why should such a camera not be part of "the genesis of the official line of Zenits"?
The good news are: We can continue to speculate when this camera was made and what the influences to the product design was, if any.
I think Zoom has done a great job in investigating all this story. The question of the "proof" could maybe reviewed, this would be helpful for all of us.
Best wishes - Guido
PS @ Bill: Your deep knowledge and your "crazy ideas" as you say I really missed for some time. Also your very interesting homepage now offline for too long time I'm missing. If you need a place for a backup of your site please write me.
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 06 2014 : 08:53:51 AM
All,
As much as I hate to end this wonderful discussion , there is good news (I think ) for Iurii and his family. I just got conclusive word from KMZ via Zoom. Some time ago, Iurii's family managed to contact the seller of the camera and get the name of the person who allegedly worked at KMZ in that time period. Zoom was able to check Human Resources records and he did in fact found out that (quoting Zoom) "The factory origin of the camera is confirmed by [finding] the first owner of the camera. The person had worked at KMZ from 1948 to 1971 (deceased). From the middle of 1956 he worked at TsKB (Central Constructor Bureau) of the factory - on various leadership positions related to integrating various mass production. He did not belong to any camera design departments."
However.... (another quote from Zoom):
"In addition to what said on your [USSRPhoto.com] forum, there is proof that camera is self-made [experimental, made unofficially by an employee] one-off model, even though made at KMZ but does not belong to the genesis of the official line of Zenits".
Best regards,
Vlad. |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Oct 06 2014 : 03:22:50 AM
Hi all!
Things are going faster and faster!
Just a word (I leave my home for ten days).
Concerning the production lines, Guido. It would have been stupid for KMZ to have two separate lines, just for standardization questions and problems of cost, of course. For me, they certainly keep numerous "bridges" between the two cameras, as long as possible. And there are many common parts between the first Zenits and the Zorkis...
A proof relies too on the thread of the lens. Keeping the 39mm one allowed to use the "normal" Industar 22 line (with adaptation) but limited the possibilities of the camera. On the contrary, Zeiss had chosen the 42mm thread just before. A missed opportunity for KMZ who were obliged to change some years later.
Leica had done the same for their LTM lines in the thirties: when a model was improved, the whole range had the same soon after.
Amitiés à tous, spécialement à Bill!
Jacques. |
| Lenny |
Posted - Oct 06 2014 : 02:49:08 AM
As already mentioned the lens is a later version and does not match if #5000002 is a prototype.
The diopter-viewfinder shows heavy wear and does not match #5000002 with less wear.
The bottom-plate shows also more wear and does not seem to match #5000002. Besides that this bottom-plate with the additional 2 screws in this style was used for a Zorki-1b and does not match the vulcanite-housing in style of a Zorki-1c.
The lock in this bottom-plate is also a newer version same as also used in Zorki-C/2/2C and does not match a bottom-plate with the additional 2 screws used for a Zorki-1b.
All in all too many parts which do not match and with different wear. The refex-top and the time-wheel look special, other parts seem to be from later production series. I would not regard this #5000002 as a prototype. Too many other facts which are doubtful that KMZ had used them AT THAT TIME because they do not make sense and that is recognizable. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Oct 05 2014 : 10:19:06 PM
Hello All, espcially to my good friends Jacques, Guido, and Vlad!
I have been very busy and it is hard for me to find the time to write. My apologies in case you miss my crazy ideas!
The opinions and replies about this camera are very interesting! I think it may be wrong about the application of the serial number being stamped. If you look carefully at the '2' and the '5' you can see the small 'dot' at both ends of each number. This is engraving ... where the engraver stopped and started always (almost always) leaves this small dot. The '0's dont have it because there is really no specific distinct ending to the engraver's path. Also, I doubt that the dent in the prism has to do with the stamping of the KMZ 'arrow through prism' logo. I can see that the logo is likely also engraved. Probably the dent occurred in this place because the metal has been worn thin, possibly from ginding the front flat area down to get rid of the raised reserve that normally holds the vulcanite (possibly a bad sign for authenticity, however it could have been done to make the camera look that way, a sort of cool design, and done by a KMZ technician).
I don't think that the serial number can be related to, or have a relation to the prototype numbers as they don't begin with the year ('50') and just have a series of five '0's before the camera number. Maybe this camera has the year designation because it is a 'visual design' prototype rather than a mechanical prototype. In other words, the mechanics had already been decided on and now it was more about the exact look of the camera, and so the year of the visual desin was important and designated with the '50'.
All in all I think it may be authentic, however a prototype or experimental model was probably not just made to have new or different mechanical features. The design - cosmetic look of the camera would have also have been just as important. For example ... is this camera going to look as fine as other cameras made by other countries. This was important to the Soviet factories and government officials. Sometimes more important than the way it worked! The Russian sensibilty towards fine design is well known all through the 20th century and many cameras, no doubt, had different design considerations that were very important. Look at Zenit - D Automat and Selena just as examples. So maybe a 'design prototype'.
So although I think it may be authentic, the forum members are correct that an examination of the interior parts may tell the real story and authenticate or not. If it has integral interior parts or attributes from production cameras that are a year or more later, then this may be a problem.
Best regards, Bill
Regards, Bill
|
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 05 2014 : 6:06:15 PM
Dear friends
Some more interesting observations and I would like to say some words about them too:
@Jacques
It's a very good idea to try to find things that don't match the story. My position here is to try to do the opposite, explain why a given detail may be a possible, probable or even imperative. To find out more, I need your arguments!
Your question about what a prototype could be ... Generally anything from a design study to a preproduction model. I would not go so far and count preseries to the prototype class, because they are used to test the production line.
In the camera in question I see - if I'm not going too far because it's not absolutly shure it's an authentic camera build by the development department of KMZ ... - one of the last steps between the known prototypes (K1000 and K1005) and the preserie or production (K1010 - and this is *not* a preserie! - and K1020). What is new in this camera? Well, all the details that are changed from K1005 to K1010. And yes, this are valid questions!
For the dioptric correction by the way I will say something in an other answer.
BTW I also began with Zorki's almost ten years ago but because the Zenit's story began with a Zorki body I expanded my interest to the Zenit's. But I think - I've already said - the idea of using a Zorki body to build a SLR was a very early one (in 1948 or even before?) and I don't think there were used really Zorki's to be converted to Zenit's. It was a complet different production line, even a different departement. Maybe Zoom can say anything about it?
@Iurii
Yes, the dioptric correction is one of the things make me some problems. Such a gadget was first seen on Zorki 3 if I'm right (build 1949 as prototype "Zorki 2", in production from 1951 on to 1955), but on SLR's ... at the moment I don't remember one of this to have this feature. This could meen nothing, but is just a remark on this point. Will say: I will ignore this because I don't know how to qualify it.
This with the "height of the bevel" I don't understand, sorry. Also with the shutter speed dail stroy I'm not very shure to understand. My english is very, very bad, sorry. If the dail shows 6 positions and the shutter also use 6 positions it will be a new speed dail, if there are 8 positions it's an old one.
@Zoom/Vlad
The point with the s/n of the Zenit-L ... well, it let me make a big step back! I don't realy belief in the Zenit-L. There are too much things in question about this camera. But it's just an other story! ;-)
To call a prototype an "experimental camera" sound okay for me but I don't see big differences in this. The fact remains that the camera in question could be seen as the missing link between the known prototypes and the production. By the way: The s/n 5000002 let us expect the existence of a s/n 5000001, so it should be a batch of at least two cameras.
The overall condition may say nothing about the authensity I think, dirt, corrosion and so on could at best prove it's an object made longer time ago, but the lack of it don't say nothing at my opinion.
After all I'm with you with you and your verdict! Do you think to open the camera and take a look inside and compare the pictures with production cameras from 1952 on would help to deside if it's a real prototype or a fake? I hope to find at least little differences that were optimized later in the production.
By the way I would thank you for sharing your expertise on this in the forum.
Thank you to all of you for this very interesting discussion on this case. I hope we will together find the truth on day ... ;-)
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 05 2014 : 4:04:08 PM
All,
incl
I've been having conversation with Zoom about this camera, he had a few things to say, including this:
quote:
Such a camera I have not come across. It has a unique upper cover - design on the pentaprism, and a unique number, by itself, as well as the font and method of applying . It turns out that a very similar number was on the so-called Zenith-L. The very top cover is made using custom-made (there is visible soldering, cleaning, etc.). There are separate parts, other than those in known cameras. Overall: This is an experimental camera, made in a single copy (a few pieces) in the experimental manufacturing Krasnogorsk mechanical plant. But the problem here is that exactly the same way it would be done in the present time and anywhere. However, this work is expensive ... Suspicious here the method of applying the factory mark on the "forehead" of the pentaprism, and the method of application (and print) the serial number. Serial extruded - punched, not milled. Done very carefully and accurately. But if the case with the number is more or less clear, as has been done font here the big question ... On the one hand, it looks like a engraving, but on the other hand - it is unusual as it is ideal ... In short - I've been at a loss to say anything ... Good condition of camera (clean cover, no scuffs and corrosion), in principle, does not add confidence here ... Although, if they did not use and well kept ... ... Indirect but fairly significant sign of authenticity of the camera can be its low price with the purchase of "an elderly woman" at the level of ordinary, production "Zenit". ... In principle, I am inclined to the originality of the camera (the lens was added later, he was - in 1955 and, accordingly is not "originial"). But "doubts" remain ...
Also he said that the seam on the side of the pentaprism is indicative of prototyping as prototypes were usually put together manually and most of worker used filing to fit parts together to smooth it out.
Cheers,
Vlad |
| Nordmannen |
Posted - Oct 05 2014 : 3:33:49 PM
Hello!
The difference in weight around 100 g is alright. My camera has got an additional detail --- dioptric corrector (or “an adjuster”). It is complicated and made of brass, so it can take the weight difference.
Thanks to Guido for sending his measurements. The last measurement, the smallest one, is important for me.
Many think that the prism pit is taken from the first serial sample i.e. they deleted vulcanite with factory logo, polished the chrome edge to smooth at place where vulcanite was, and again put chrome and the factory logo on the chrome.
Measurements provided by you show that it is not possible.
1. The size is totally different in measurement 2 which is the height of the bevel.
2. In order to do that the width of the edge (measurement 3) on the third serial camera should be around 5mm ( 4 mm of my camera then + 1 mm for cleaning of a top layer and leveling the surface for chrome)
3. The prism pit of my camera does not fit to the size of Zenit S which is 1-18,5mm. 2-18 mm.3-2mm .
It follows then that the prism pit is a different instance, a third one.
I was confused myself when I saw heads of shutter speed, so I’ve done some investigation. What came to my mind first is that the head was taken from the old camera but the old shutter speed dial was left. If the change of head happens then scale on the head does not match to the scale on the body as distance between holes on different disks (dials) is different.
Even more, if the shutter speed head is alien, then when you cock the shutter, lift shutter speed head by continuing its drive on the disc surface; it falls not only in the respective holes, but in the other, which are supposed to be if the body is alien to the shutter speed head.
My camera has nothing of these.
|
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Oct 05 2014 : 05:29:32 AM
Hi Guido!
I am not far from signing your post, you know!
Just some reflexions.
You have understand, I just try to find details which wouldn't "stick". The number of slots in the speed mechanism compared to what is on the dial, for example. And if the first Zenits are undoubtedly from Zorki origins, the derivation can be less evident after. It can even be reversed: the new speeds appeared on Zenits first!
I agree with you: the details which are not on the line can be explained one by one. For example, by the important interval which is possible between conception (prototype side) and application (production side). All the question is to know if we don't go too far in that way. What is the limit?
Finally, what is a prototype? The trial of (a) new solution(s)? Probably. So, what is new in this camera, compared with the "official" prototypes? The dioptric correction? The new moulded body? Something else? If we can answer a question of this type, I feel we will have made a large step towards the prototype. But are these questions valid?
As I have already said, my knowledge is limited to rangefinders. Thanks to that thread, I know better the Zenits. All my ackowledgments!
Amitiés. Jacques.
@Lenny:your question about the trace of screws under the vulcanite is very interesting. I am surprised too by these 1b/1c mixed parts.
|
| cedricfan |
Posted - Oct 05 2014 : 01:47:32 AM
One note about these what we call prototypes, or pre-series. I have an AM2 with serial 92000002 and under covers it looks very different to others. Really "home made", electrical wires like spaghetti dish. So it was most likely built to have a working camera that looks and feels like production should. But mostly hand made. This being in the era of plastic, a top and covers is easier to make and modify. But in a 50ies metal Zenit, the metal work must have been individual in these single cameras. So no wonder cameras look different from outside. And in west prototypes rarely leave factory, and don't have serial numbers, but I think in USSR everything had to be numbered and counted, still they escaped to markets.
Best regards,
Juhani |
| Lenny |
Posted - Oct 04 2014 : 9:07:35 PM
Interesting to know would be the length on top of the reflex-top between the edge at the frontside over the KMZ-logo and the edge at the backside over the viewfinder.
It is very easy to demount the vulcanite-housing. It does not need to be taken away completely, it would be enough to just move it down 1cm. Interesting would be if there are screw-holes in this housing on the frontside above the lens-mount. If there are screw-holes it would seem that this housing belongs to a later production series. This would be interesting for PM3010 and PM3015 either. |
| Lenny |
Posted - Oct 04 2014 : 6:24:37 PM
This #5000002 should be behind PM3010 and PM3015 (sovietcams.com) in the timeline. I'm not sure if this #5000002 is original, there are just a lot of strange parts.
In the later production the diameter of the lower part of the timewheel changed. First this diameter was smaller, later it was bigger, same as this #5000002 with a bigger diameter. But the position of the numbers on top of the timewheel is special on this #5000002. In the production the gap between 250 and 500 is smaller and the gap between 100 and 250 is wider. Here on the #5000002 the gaps are the same but 500 has a dash to a different location on the wheel.
As already mentioned, the shutter is in style of a Zorki-1b while the vucanite-housing is in style of a Zorki-1c. This difference doesn't make much sense because there was no mix of both parts in the Zorki-1 production even when both 1b and 1c were produced at the same time for some month. Why mix both parts when they were available at the same time.
A comparison with PM3010 and PM3015 could be interesting because they should be earlier prototypes, both with the vulcanite-housing in style of a Zorki-1c but not the round reflex top. But who knows if these 2 are original because PM3020 (#00010) has already the counter on top of the wind-knob but still the vulcanite-kousing in style of a Zorki-1b.
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 04 2014 : 5:25:43 PM
Just to add to the info on Turygin:
"In the years 1945-1947 Ivan Afanasevich was supervisor of the factories by Carl Zeiss Jena. He oversaw the creation of the world's first small-format SLR with pentaprism viewfinder Contax S. The use of the pentaprism in the cameras was a big step forward, because it allows to carry out the direct sight of the subject. Experience in developing cameras Contax S was taken into account when creating the national "Zenit", which led to the introduction in the optical system of the viewfinder plano lens collector with fine-grained matte, absent in the chamber "Sport" and the first "Exacta"."
Source: http://gazeta.ifmo.ru/article/1961.html
|
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 04 2014 : 4:44:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jacques M.
Zenitcameras notes that I.A. Turygin was one of the chiefs of the Zenit project. But before, he had been in Germany, from 1945 to 1947, for the Contax S one...
Jacques, a very, *very* interesting fact! Back at KMZ in 1947/1948, he could had influence at the Zenit-1 project and the design of the pentaprism housing for example. This may explain the style of the first and second prototypes in 1948/1949. Now we have to find out more on the new design of 1950 ... ;-)
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 04 2014 : 4:37:55 PM
Hello Jacques
I don't know if the visible mechanism has something to do with the old (8) or new (6 slots) mechanism. You know, I don't understand very little of mechanic details as I mentioned a number of times. I may ask you if the shutter of a Zorki and the shutter of a Zenit are the same? I don't know. But I belief to know that the shutter of a rangefinder camera is not as complex as the shutter of a single lens reflex (SLR) like the Zenit's will be.
I own a so called "Zenit 18M", a camera that isn't potentialy an original prototype nor a fake. As Zoom said (many years ago) it may be a camera made by a worker from KMZ without offical order. I don't think the potential Zenit prototype we talking about is such a non offical prototype, but it could be a solution if we cannot proof that it's a real prototype. And the borders are flowing here, what is a "real prototype" and a "inoffical prototype", even if there is no difference in the result?! We have a camera here that match the history and is - as already said - a perfect "missing link" solution.
Now I ask you to look at things that may eliminate possibilities that this camera could not be a real prototype for example. I don't find one for the moment ... Do you have any?
Okay, we try to find a solution here while looking at pictures, compairing details and historical facts. I think we are very limited by doing this, we should take a look at the camera and compair with our own eyes, we should open the bodies and look inside. As I said I'm not an expert in this, but expert exists.
But for me it remain a very interesting story and I'm interested in the result of this research.
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Oct 04 2014 : 4:04:19 PM
About plagiarism...
Zenitcameras notes that I.A. Turygin was one of the chiefs of the Zenit project. But before, he had been in Germany, from 1945 to 1947, for the Contax S one...
If Zoom was there, he could tell us more...
Jacques. |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Oct 04 2014 : 3:38:23 PM
Iurii: it seems our mails have crossed. Hope your camera is a prototype, it would be great!
Guido: thanks for the photo of the s/n 10. Now, things are more clear. The visible mechanism on this K 1005 is exactly the same as the so called K 1007. A Zorki 1b's. But as the 1b has the former speed scale, I wonder if the speed mechanism has 6 (B to 1/500th) or 8 (Z to 1/500th) slots.
Amitiés. Jacques.
|
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 04 2014 : 2:50:56 PM
Hello Iurii (and Iurii's father)
Well, the difference of over 100g in the weight is very much, much more than I was thinking. 20% ...
The bottom plate of my early Zenit 1 is 47g but I'm not so shure that would be very relevant.
Your measurements are a great idea too. Here the results of mine:
1. exactly the same, 21mm
2. hmm ... 21mm on mine!
3. 3.3mm, but the edge is much rounder, so not really to compair
I don't know why this big difference at point 2. Could you maybe find an other Zenit-1 or Zenit-C and compair both pentaprism housings side by side? You know that I noted earlier that I seen some possible differences in shape of this parts.
Thank you for sharing the results of your research. I can't say too much on this. But I'm on this even I don't have followed all the links in detail.
The timeline you established looks fine to me and there are no big differences to mine.
The idea about a problem about plagiarism with the GDR company Pentacon with the Contax D models I like very much if I think at all the 100% copies of Contax II and III made by Kiev and many other copies made in the USSR, all the early FED and Zorki were copies of the Leica II Modell D by the way.
At the moment I tend to say the chance your camera is a real prototype is not so bad. As I said before now someone should open the camera and compair it with an early Zenit-1. I don't know nothing about inspecting cameras "inside", so don't count on me in this.
But I wish you good luck that some experts will find out the truth!
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 04 2014 : 1:33:45 PM
Hello Jacques
Because your post is easier to answer: The second prototype 00010 (K1005) has also the old speed scale.
Well, *maybe* the new speed scale and the shutter mechanic was made in 1950 or not, I can't tell. But it looks logical to me to create a prototype with a new, changed or simplified shutter and not to apply this to the first production serie. Yes, the year 1950, I know ... Let's say it was build in December 1950 and during 1951 the production with the needed tools for the mass production was created and then in 1952 the first batch was shipped. This timeline could make sense to me.
A point less for the prototype? No, I don't think, no points for nothing ... ;->
Here by the way the picture of the 00010 sold on eBay in 2008 from Boris for 10000 US$ (or Euros? I don't remember):
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/4102014_00010_1.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/4102014_00010_2.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/4102014_00010_3.jpg
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Oct 04 2014 : 12:19:09 PM
Something curious about the speed scale.
This one has the new one (B, 1/25th..., 1/500th)which appeared on the 1952 "square logo" K1010 for the first time.
The first series of prototypes K1000 had the former one (Z, 1/20th...). For the second series (K1005), I am unable to see on the JLP and on Sovietcams.
So, this camera was certainly not entirely made in 1950. Unless perhaps if the K 1005 can be the missing link about that scale.
A point less for the prototype?
No comparison that time with the Zorkis The new scale will arrive in 1954 for them!
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| Nordmannen |
Posted - Oct 04 2014 : 12:14:43 PM
Here is the answer from my father.
"It’s a good idea to weigh up the camera since during the production some materials were substituted for lighter and cheaper ones later on.
The weight of my camera without the lens and a coil is 596 g. (measured on electronical weights).
I weighed the lower lid separately, since it has 2 screws and a metal slat. It weights 56.2 g. If Guido weights his and subtracts his weight from mine we’ll find a weight of the screws and the slat. We can subtract the difference from the weight of the camera.
Let me share results of my theoretical investigations of this matter.
There is an article called “Our objectives 1950” (Russian “Íàøè çàäà÷è” 1950) at this web-site www.zenitcamera.com/archive/zenit-1/index.html
It’s written there that new samples of Zorki – 3 and Smena were designed over the past year (it’s assumed that Smena is Zenit)
The very name Zenit is mentioned in 1949 (the references are at the web-site ). Taking into account the strict labor policies, when you could be imprisoned for running late at your working place, and the commitments were to be kept, then, it’s likely that the top panel of my camera was made and the date of my beginning of the production was affixed for to have something to present to the factory management. Then surveying work, prototypes, testing of construction and design were started.
If we assume that my camera is a pre-production sample, then it was in produce until the run of a test batch.
Therefore, since according to the technology the upper panel is made after the shutter, then it is likely to have many features in common with shutters of the prototypes, and the camera body itself with the first production samples, that is, more technological option is selected.
So I think if the camera is made of different parts later then that's fine. The camera was not in use and works perfectly.
Now about the duct cover. It was identified as round, I think, due to the fact that at this time Kontaks was in a process of developing in the GDR (I might be mistaken, I am an amateur) and Kontaks has chopped corners of the duct cover and in order to avoid accusation in plagiarism they have made another duct.
But here is a more practical thing. If we assume that my camera is fake, let’s then try figure out from what kind of camera’s cape the cape on my camera is made.
I don’t thing that it was created manually for a fake sample.
In order to do so I pointed to its measurements on the picture. Let’s compare them with the measurements on Guido’s cameras.
1. The height of the front panel with the inscription Zenith is 21mm.
2. The height of beveled front panel with the factory logo is 16.5 mm.
3. The width of the front chrome edging in front and above of the factory logo - 4mm".
Best,
Iurii
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/4102014_IMG03.jpg
|
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 3:50:06 PM
Of course, Guido, I focus too much on the Zorki side: I don't know the Zenit one, but by books or the net!
By your photos, there was no real evolution on the Zenit side between this "K1007" and your K1010 and K1020. Except for the lock of the baseplate: yours are later and are similar to Zorki 1c's ones. Just the same for the spring which is not bent upright on your photos. So, I think that this camera is earlier.
A point more for a prototype.
I agree absolutely about the weight. We made surprising discovers some years ago at Alain's with his prototype or preserie cameras. A difference of 5 to 8% is common.
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 2:46:42 PM
Iurii, that is indeed quite interesting.
I do want to apologize, earlier I posted that Bill Parkinson was skeptical about this camera, I misunderstood him, his exact position is that there is room for doubt but he believes that the camera is authentic.
I'm very curious as to where the weight question that Guido had asked will go . Very interesting discussion, reads like a detective novel 
Best regards,
Vlad. |
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 1:27:40 PM
Hello Iurii
Wellcome to the show! ;-)
It's a quite interesting find and the story is so authentic that I think it's not a typical fake at least. As you may read in my other postings I'm on the way to belief in this camera as a authentic prototype, the so called missing link.
Maybe you can help us to find out more about your fathers camera.
One thing I'm interested in is the weight of the camera without lens and without the spool. My K2010 from 1952 has 480g and the K2020 from early 1953 has 478g, +/- 1g. The reason for this question is that I found over the time of production some camera models loss some weight, 20 to 25g in a family (Zorki 4 for example) is quite common. And prototypes are not specially optimized on the weight and should be heavyer than production models. Well, your camera could be some kind of early preproduction, so the difference may not be very big ... but, let's measuring!
Best wishes - Guido |
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 1:07:29 PM
Hello Jacques
No, it's not a problem of your explanation, but of my poor understandig of the english language and my ignorance of mechanical details.
I think you focus too much on the Zorki family. The idea of modifying a Zorki and build a mirror and a pentaprism housing on it to make a SLR was of course at the beginning of the design process of this camera. But I'm not so shure that all the details used in the prototypes are taken directly from the actual Zorki production.
For the comparisation I upload a picture of two open Zorki (K1010 from 1952 and K1020 from 1953):
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/3102014_Boden_K1010-K1020.jpg
Maybe one screw is missing in the K1020? Now you can compar with the camera in question and I think you will see not much differences.
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Nordmannen |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 12:53:27 PM
Vlad, my father bought it at a flea market in Southern Ukraine this Spring. An old lady who was selling it told that the previous owner is one of her relatives who worked at KMZ. |
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 11:53:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Nordmannen
Hello everyone! This is my father's camera so I'll be speaking on his behalf. Concerning the arrow on the picture. It is drawn to show the difference of the length of the edge of pentaprism. Here it is 7mm, while on Zenit S it's 11 mm.
All other defects -- a spot on the front groove on the rear panel next to the viewfinder is factory made. The duct cover is made of several parts.
I am afraid I am not able to answer all the questions, but don't hesitate to ask for clarification or more information about the camera. If you want us to take any other measurements, just ask.
Cheers,
Iurii
Iurii, thank you for participating directly in the discussion, can I ask you - how did you father came to the possession of such camera, if he bought it when did he buy it?
Thanks,
Vlad. |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 11:49:35 AM
Hi Guido,
I try to be better in my explanations...
Under the baseplate (second series of photos by Vlad), you can see from left to right:
- The lock which secures the baseplate: as on 1a, 1b. It changes with the 1c (changing of metallurgy) and becomes a part of the shutter box.
- The two bolts to regulate the shutters. Four nuts on these bolts. Fed-Zorkis, 1a and very early 1b have two nuts only. My s/n 32870 has already four.
- The spring connected to the release button. With a bend upwards, like Fed-Zorkis, 1a, 1b... after, the spring becomes flat, then it has the shape of a gull wing.
- The paint: crisp on this Zenit. Like on late Fed-Zorkis then all the other Zorkis. Bright paint before.
So, the mechanism makes me think of a 1950 Zorki's, modified for Zenit. But it would be necessary now to make the same comparison with different Zenits.
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 11:04:00 AM
Hello Jacques
I'm not very shure from witch nut bolts you're talking, sorry. Do you meen the parts under the bottom plate? I can only say that there are little differences between the one of the camera in question and a very early K1010. An other form of screw and a spring (?) with a little other shape.
The thing with the buttons on the K1005 is interesting. The picture on zenitcamera.com shows what you will say, but I have here a picture of then K1005 with s/n 00010 (sold on eBay some years ago) with one button with stripes and one with points ... ;->
Best wishes - Guido |
| Nordmannen |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 10:53:26 AM
Hello everyone! This is my father's camera so I'll be speaking on his behalf. Concerning the arrow on the picture. It is drawn to show the difference of the length of the edge of pentaprism. Here it is 7mm, while on Zenit S it's 11 mm.
All other defects -- a spot on the front groove on the rear panel next to the viewfinder is factory made. The duct cover is made of several parts.
I am afraid I am not able to answer all the questions, but don't hesitate to ask for clarification or more information about the camera. If you want us to take any other measurements, just ask.
Cheers,
Iurii
|
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 10:27:50 AM
Hello Vlad
I don't understand little or nothing in material science and metal machining. The only thing I can say is that when I take off a layer or tier of lets say 1.0 to 1.5mm the geometry of the front will change. The edge (?) over the logo will come down 1.5 to 2mm. And as I can see the top of the block logo has an even bigger distance to the edge and the beginning of the pentaprism housing (2.5mm and not 2mm at the original K1010).
By the way - I'm not shure! - it looks like the pentaprism housing is more round on this 5000002 Zenit, where the pentaprism housing of the K1010/K1020 looks a little more like a rounded triangle. But it may be an optical thing with the picture too, I don't know.
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 10:27:39 AM
Hello!
About your question, Vlad, all is probably too shining on this camera, by the photos! But it is certainly not a clue of anything: the owner can have it completely cleaned.
@ Guido: You are right to compare too the different details with other Zenits. I have not done it as the Zorkis are earlier (and I know them far better!). It would be interesting too to have a look at the mechanism. The 4 nut bolts, for example, don't belong to the early Zorki 1b. And the general appearance of the mechanism (bolts, paint, rivets, spring) exactly look like my Zorki 1b's s/n 32870, but not my early 1c's s/n 136850. I don't talk of the additional equipment special to Zenits.
About the two main buttons, they are both lined with stripes, not with points like on the K1005 (cf zenitcameras for better photos).
Perfectly OK to name K1007 this camera. I write that immediately on my JLP!
Vlad, if you have other questions, please, don't hesitate. You are welcome! Thanks for the good time we had together.
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 09:40:37 AM
Not a problem Guido, I have also noticed the side screws on the pentaprism housing as well as absence of front screws above the lens, that is why I thought this camera needed further discussion here rather than me just dismissing it as a fake.
Does it look like to anyone from the close up of the front of the pentaprism housing that the surface has been milled down to get rid of the indentation for the leather patch seen on production models?
Best regards,
Vlad. |
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 09:32:32 AM
Vlad
Yes, I've seen it some minutes ago. Sorry again.
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 09:30:08 AM
Sorry, I see a little misstake in my argumentation: The picture I linked to was not the one of the Zenit 5000002, but of the Zenit L. Sorry for the confusion.
Best wishes - Guido |
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 09:22:04 AM
Guido, actually the middle tripod socket picture is not from this camera, I believe it's from the Zenit-L for comparison (provided by owner). The bottom of this camera is one of the first pictures |
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 09:20:37 AM
Hello Jacques
I know what Pincelle wrote in his book, dated 2004. Alexander Schulz made his research later and wrote his article in 2005.
To the facts of what you see:
--- the base plate of a Fed Zorki or Zoki 1a (1948/50)
Because of the two screws on the back part of the base plate? Well, nothing to say against, all early Zorki's used to have them for (for me) unknown reason. But take a look at this picture:
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/2102014_zenitbottom.jpg
Two locks - never seen on any Zenit, Zorki or FED - and a tripod mount in the center (found first in the 60th on Zenit? I didn't found the first one, but the Zenit E hadn't it for example).
--- the belt of a Zorki 1c (the moulding)(from 1951)
Like the first type of Zenit 1 (K1010, K1020 ...) had them from 1952 on.
--- the upper plate of a Fed Zorki to Zorki 1b (3 screws)
I think you meen the screws on the back? Like the 00001 and 00003 (K1000) prototypes do have (I've seen pictures).
--- For the front part, upper plate of a Zenit prototype (without screw)
Right, and two screws on the left and the right side, like the 00001 and 00003 (K1000) prototypes too. BTW two of this screws walked to the front in the production models.
--- the rounded prism housing of a K1010 (preserie or beginning of production)
With some differences, wider belts. Same hight as I can see.
--- buttons of K1010 too or after
Buttons like K1005 too ...
I would give this prototype the Princelle code "K1007"! ;-)
Well, one point of skepticism will stay: The year 1950 according the serial number. If this camera is "the missing link" between the prototypes (K1000, K1005) and the production models (K1010, K1020), then the development of the first Zenit has begun in 1949, better in 1948, because such a development usually takes years. In the same time the Zorki 2 prototype (later build as Zorki 3) was designd, the Zorki 1 line development was ongoing. But okay, it could be possible.
Other opinions are wellcome!
Best wishes - Guido
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 08:48:22 AM
Thank you everyone for your very constructive opinions thus far, here is my top concern about this camera and why I'm still skeptical about it: Molded die cast bodies only appear in 1951, yet this model seems to be using one and has a serial # of 1950. Luiz had an excellent point right away there. Being a prototype I can see it use at least Zorki-1a or Zorki-1b body for that, it's too early for Zorki-1c which what it seems to use.
I've had further conversations with Bill Parkinson about it and he also agrees with me now in regards to discrepancy of the timeline, Aidas (who had examined it carefully himself separately before and the overlapping serial# picture is his) and Alexey Nikitin also keep an nagative opinion regarding the authenticity.
There's a lot of stuff that is "off" on this camera in my opinion.. but then again, too many abormalities raise eyebrows as Guido pointed out the middle tripod socket..
Best regards,
Vlad |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 07:45:07 AM
Thanks, Guido, for the article!
I was referring to the JLP who says about this "square logo-round top" (K1010)that it is a preserie with some hundreds of cameras only.
For the moment, it seeems to me that this camera is composed of:
- the base plate of a Fed Zorki or Zoki 1a (1948/50),
- the belt of a Zorki 1c (the moulding)(from 1951),
- the upper plate of a Fed Zorki to Zorki 1b (3 screws). For the front part, upper plate of a Zenit prototype (without screw),
- the rounded prism housing of a K1010 (preserie or beginning of production). Though this housing seems lower on this camera than on K1010s after photos ??
- buttons of K1010 too or after.
Difficult to think of a prototype made in 1950. Logically, it would be a camera assembled a bit later, for example to study the impact of a piece or another.
But these pieces (which seem from different dates) could too have been on tests at KMZ's as soon as 1950.
So....
Jacques.
|
| Guido |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 05:33:38 AM
Dear friends
When I saw the pictures first I was very skeptic but step by step I found details of the known prototypes 00001 and 00003:
- 3 screws on the back
- 2 screws in both sides of the chrom parts of the mirror housing
Very interesting also the modifications of the bottom with the center tripod mount witch not found there way in the production - too expensiv I think.
On the other side prism housing is some sort of home made, not so well done like on the other accepted prototypes.
The next step would be try to find differences between this probable prototype and early Zenit in the mechanic parts, will say inside the camera.
Best wishes - Guido
PS @ Jacques: The so called "Block Logo" Zenit was *not* a preserie camera, you can find them from 1952 to 1954. Alexander Schulz wrote an article about this in 2005 for the "Photographica Cabinett" (sorry it's in german): http://www.g-st.ch/privat/kameras/zenit1squarelogo.html
|
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 04:53:45 AM
Hello,
I am far from knowing well Zenits, and I am delighted by this thread!
Just two remarks:
- the molded parts indicate a "late" Zorki, in fact later than 1950 (made in 1951/53, after the JLP). These molded parts come with the two screws in the back, the rigidity allowing to spare a screw. Before, the Zorki 1a, 1b and of course all the Fed 1 had 3 screws on the back.
- This square logo is reputed to belong to the preserie production batch. Hence (I suppose!) the serial number with a year prefix. It seems that prototypes have serial numbers beginning with 000... at KMZ's. The square logo of the Zenit 1 prototype (with a cover angled, not rounded) is slightly different if I refer to the JLP.
Of course, the lens is not original.
All that makes me think of a camera made of parts of different years: do they work perfectly together?
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| AlexanderK |
Posted - Oct 03 2014 : 03:21:07 AM
Hello guys,
very interesting example. What strucked me immediately, that the camera has three screws on the chrome strip at the rear top. So, it is the body of early Zorki.
The prism on the top? Hm..., it could be really some try to prototype the first Zenit, but it could be also some work of our "fantasy designers" from the former Soviet Union. OK, it is only my speculations, but I would be very happy, if you find any arguments for the prototype.
Regards, Alexander |
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 02 2014 : 9:18:31 PM
I've been also communicating with Bill Parkinson regarding this camera, here's what he had to say:
quote:
There is something that makes me think it has a possibility of being a prototype. That is the way the top plate looks to have been cut. What I mean is: If you look at the photo from the back, showing the serial number, you will see that there is a line where the top plate was cut, just to the right of the prism housing. Then it was put together, probably before the chrome plating was done. Tell me if you understand what I am referring to.
I have seen this joining before on prototypes by KMZ. For example if you look closely at the photos of the Zorki-35m )that I once owned)on the wiki, you can see faint marks on the top plate on both sides of the accessory shoe (not sure if photos show two marks, but there was a cut mark on both sides of the shoe). So, I know that the way KMZ made some prototypes was to join parts from existing cameras. In your Zenit case, maybe the prism housing was joined to some other top plate from another camera.
So those are some initial thoughts, but of course others could do it too, so I have not examined and thought about the other points in the thread yet.
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 02 2014 : 8:39:08 PM
Good point! That also helps determine the age of the camera...
I asked the owner of the camera about the arrow via email, will let you know. Also I asked if he could participate in here directly. We'll see if he can.
Cheers,
Vlad |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Oct 02 2014 : 8:12:37 PM
here the picture
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/2102014_zenit variations.png
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Oct 02 2014 : 7:56:59 PM
exactly! |
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 02 2014 : 7:53:56 PM
Luiz are you talking about the molding lines between the camera leather and the chrome parts? That this prototype has it like later versions and the sharp angled pentaprism prototypes do not? |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Oct 02 2014 : 7:53:08 PM
the arrow seems to be engraved on metal
let's know correctly
Regards
LP |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Oct 02 2014 : 7:50:41 PM
observe another thing:
the shown câmera allegedly stated as 1950 has a molded body of different construction of angled prism counterparts (see the trim around the body leather)and belong to the experimental series as stated on Zenit page
LP |
| Vlad |
Posted - Oct 02 2014 : 7:48:28 PM
Luiz I think the arrow was drawn by the owner with a pencil to demonstrate a point in his letter regarding the angles... |
|
|
