Unknown Zenit-1 prototype? Please help!

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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!

Amitiйs. 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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Amitiйs а tous, spйcialement а Bill!

Jacques.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.