Unknown Zenit-1 prototype? Please help!

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

Yes, I've seen it some minutes ago. Sorry again.

Best wishes - Guido

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.

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.

Amitiйs. Jacques.

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

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

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

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.

Amitiйs. Jacques.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Amitiйs. Jacques.

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 “Наши задачи” 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

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!

Amitiйs. Jacques.

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

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

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.

Amitiйs. Jacques.

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.