Lenningrad in use

[aaa]

I have been thinking of getting a Lenningrad for some time now, but have been hesitating because of reports that the film advance mechanism breaks easily.

Are any long term Lenningrad users lurking on this group and, if so, how has the camera held up under regular use?

Thanks in advance.

 

[jlw]

I'm not using Leningrads now (the limitation on what lenses could be used was too restrictive) but used them a lot while I owned them.

I don't think the winding mechanism is prone to breakage as long as you don't over-wind it. Just use common sense. The film-metering mechanism (the linkage that tells the camera when it's time to wind the film) is somewhat touchy on the early models. On the later ones, the metering mechanism was redesigned with a larger spring and seems to be much more reliable. The first two digits of the serial number indicate the year of production; I don't know what year the larger spring came in, but if you have a choice of two Leningrads, buy the later one.

The other thing that seems to go bad in these cameras are the shutter curtain tapes. They're conventional fabric and seem not to last as well as those in hand-wound cameras, probably because of the repeated shock of the spring motor. However, curtain tapes are an item that deteriorates on any old camera that's used regularly, and you simply have to be prepared to replace them. Someone on RFF has reported that Oleg (Russian camera repairman) can replace these tapes on a Leningrad economically.

 

[pbjbike]

John, have you heard of anyone grinding away a larger relief area from the overhang on the top plate? Lenses with a larger diameter could be mounted then, maybe.

 

[aaa]

Thanks for the very helpful reply.

I'm not using Leningrads now (the limitation on what lenses could be used was too restrictive) but used them a lot while I owned them.

Do you know if a Canon 35/1.5 or 135/3.5 will fit?

I don't think the winding mechanism is prone to breakage as long as you don't over-wind it. Just use common sense. The film-metering mechanism (the linkage that tells the camera when it's time to wind the film) is somewhat touchy on the early models. On the later ones, the metering mechanism was redesigned with a larger spring and seems to be much more reliable. The first two digits of the serial number indicate the year of production; I don't know what year the larger spring came in, but if you have a choice of two Leningrads, buy the later one.

Ok- I have a few related questions; please bear in mind I've never actually used one of these.

How do you operate the wind mechanism to avoid problems? Do you just wind the motor until the wind knob is 'tight' and not rewind again until it runs down? How many exposures can you get per wind and what is the frame rate ?

Is it the late or early ones that have the glass pressure plate so sought after by collectors?

Thanks.

 

[jlw]

First, if you haven't done so already, you might enjoy having a look at my Leningrad page.

I'm not sure whether the two lenses you mention would fit because I don't have either one of them. Basically, the lens can't be more than about 1-15/16 inch in diameter near its base (where it mates with the camera) because there's a decorative overhang in the camera top cover that surrounds the upper edge of the body mount. Lenses wider than this won't screw in all the way; they hang up on the edge of the top cover. You should be able to determine whether a specific lens will fit by measuring its rear diameter.

Another warning you need to observe about non-Soviet lenses on a Leningrad, or most other FSU cameras: They don't have a roller on their RF coupling arms, only a pointy tip. That's no problem with lenses on which the RF coupling cam is a full circle. However, if your lens uses a moving tab for rangefinder coupling (many Canon tele lenses are like this) you must NOT put it on a Leningrad; it will go on OK, but when you try to remove it, the tab will hang up on the point of the coupling arm, locking the lens on the camera! The only way to remove it will be to unload the camera, open the shutter on B, and hold back the coupling arm from the rear while you unscrew the lens.

(The only FSU camera I know of on which this is NOT a problem is the Drug/Droug, which has a nice roller-tipped arm just lik a Leica, Canon or Voigtlander.)

Re the winding mechanism: I don't think it matters whether you let it run down or wind it up occasionally. I've done both and there seemed to be no ill effects. The important thing is to avoid winding it too tightly. The spring is pretty robust, but the inner end is tightly bent (see attachment) and it's possible for this to break off; also the outer end can pull away from its attachment to the enclosing drum. I don't really know what guidance to give you other than to be conservative. You want to use about the same force you'd use to wind an antique clock, NOT the amount you'd use to open a stubborn pickle jar!

How many exposures you get per wind is extremely variable, depending on film friction, temperature, how tightly you've wound the spring, etc. I'd get anywhere from six to fifteen or so. Frame rate doesn't really apply because the Leningrad will NOT shoot sequences -- it advances film one frame at a time, when you release finger pressure on the shutter button. If you've got a quick finger, you probably can shoot 2 to 3 frames per second, but it won't fire continuously, the way a Bell & Howell Foton or late-model Robot Royal will.

Sorry, I can't help you on knowing when the glass pressure plate was dropped. I seem to recall that both of mine had metal pressure plates, and one of them was very early ('59 or so.) I'm not sure the glass is really an advantage other than to collectors.

One other thing you should know if you're considering a Leningrad: You're aware of the frame-spacing issue, right? For those who aren't: The Leningrad had a sprocketless film advance system. Instead of using a sprocket wheel to measure out the correct amount of film, it had a take-up drum fat enough to pull 36mm of film with one-half turn of the drum.

This simplified construction of the camera, but also meant that the spacing between frames grows larger as more film gets wound onto the drum (increasing its effective diameter.) At the beginning of a roll, the adjacent frames almost touch each other; by the end of a 36-exp. roll, they're 5-6mm apart. This isn't a big problem if you're shooting b&w and processing it yourself, but it wreaks havoc on photo labs' automatic film-cutting and slide-mounting equipment, which expects evenly-spaced frames. It also makes batch scanning difficult. This was the other main factor, besides the lens limitation, that eventually got me out of Leningrads; make sure it won't bother you before you take the plunge!

 

[aaa]

Thanks for the reply. Sorry for the delay in replying, but I was away for a while.

The Leningrad seems to be a very nice but quirky camera. The limitations on mounting large diameter lenses, and the film spacing issue, make it less attractive to me as a user camera but I will get one to collect if I can find it at the right price.

 

[outfitter]

There are a bunch of oddities with the operation of this camera that warrants a Google search to find instructions. For example:

Never set the self-timer when the camera is not wound. If the shutter release is pushed in the unwound condition with the self-timer set it will break the self timer when the camera is wound.

Rewinding the film on the Leningrad is also a little complicated. Turn the little screw in the center of the large knob (on the bottom) counterclockwise until it is loose (just put your thumb on it and it will turn). Then pull up on the rewind knob (on the top) until it locks and rewind the film. Remember to turn the screw on the bottom and push the rewind down before using the camera.

My Leningrad won't mount my J-9 lens even though the viewfinder is marked for it and mine was made by KMZ one year after the camera and KMZ was the only make of the J-9 in those days - go figure.

Pros one of the best RF viewfinders on Soviet equipment; fun
Cons weighs a ton, expensive, quirky and complicated.