Not an RF question, sorry!

[rbiemer]

My FSU cameras/lenses pile has dwindled down to just the "necessities" for me (two RF bodies and a bare 7 or 8 lenses) as I've been concentrating on making photos with what I have.
All good.
But, I have recently become more interested in the FSU M39 mount SLR cameras. 😱
At first, it was just idly wondering how those are as users, now I'm finding some of them simply good looking cameras and still wondering about usability. I think I'm sunk.
I've also been participating in a Facebook group for Soviet cameras and lenses and the response to my asking about which of the early M39 mount SLRs were better for use was resoundingly answered with some variant of "None, get an M42 mount camera for real usage." :bang:

So, I will ask here: which of the early M39 mount SLR cameras do y'all find better for making photos with?

I will admit to originally thinking that one of these would be helpful to me by limiting me to just a few different lens choices--I'd thought there were only a few options available in the MIR 37mm wide, a couple of 50s, possibly a J-9, the J-11, and maybe a 180mm. I have since learned that there are other options, though those may be much less common to find--the "allphotolenses.com" site shows 60 different ones in their listings. EDIT: looking closer at that list some of those are RF lenses NOT M39 SLR mount lenses.

The other thing that does appeal to me is the potential to use my current LTM lenses as macro lenses without too much fuss.

Point/counterpoint, folks?

Thanks!

Rob

 

[rfaspen]

If the capital outlay is minimal, I say go for it. Sorry I can't recommend any specific models. I've never even held an M39 SLR or any of the lenses. But from my experience more broadly, if I have an interest and it doesn't cost me anything to check it out....well I'm over half way "there".

Maybe I should ask, "How do you like your new M39 SLR?"

 

[rbiemer]

If the capital outlay is minimal, I say go for it. Sorry I can't recommend any specific models. I've never even held an M39 SLR or any of the lenses. But from my experience more broadly, if I have an interest and it doesn't cost me anything to check it out....well I'm over half way "there".

Maybe I should ask, "How do you like your new M39 SLR?"

Sage thoughts!
Haven't spent any money, yet!🙄 But I'll report back eventually once I have.
I may end up choosing on putative condition and price and go from there.

Rob

 

[xayraa33]

I have the J 11 in M39 and it is a very nice lens, better made than the LTM version for some reason.

The Mir 37 mm lens is also a great lens, won a prize in Brussels in 1958 and all that, but I only have that in M49 and just as well.

 

[wolves3012]

I have a couple of Zenit Cs, one is a beater that's tatty but works well, the other is in excellent condition, cosmetically and functionally. They are tiny! You don't realise how small until you see one for real. I have only the standard I-50 plus a MIR-37. Both are great lenses although they probably can't hold a candle to modern stuff.

They're fun and quirky BUT there are no focussing aids, no auto-diaphragm, the mirror doesn't auto-return (only down when the shutter is cocked) and the VFs are relatively dark. So, they are more useful for the experience of what the SLR-user used to have to work with. Personally, I find them difficult to focus with any accuracy - although, to be fair, I've not had any noticeably OOF results. I also can't focus them without glasses (I'm slightly far-sighted) - it seems the screen is (optically) quite close.

I'm not sure when auto-return mirrors came in (Zenit 3M?) but it'd be an advantage. I think if you "get" the point of an RF rather than dismissing it as an obsolete idea, you'll probably have fun with the early Zenits too.

 

[fanshaw]

I have used all the. M39 Zenits. The only plus the original Zenit or the Zenit C has is small size. The viewfinder image is dark and grainy.so focusing has to be done by scale using the standard f 3.5 lens. There is no instant return mirror or auto stop down lens and it is bottom loading. The Zenit 3 has a much better viewfinder especially when used with the f/2 lens and it has a lever wind. The 3M was a redesign to include a hinged back. I found it quite usable for static subjects.
Unlike Soviet rangefinders the SLR models were steadily improved. The last M 39 model the Zenit E had an uncoupled meter. Some may have had an instant return mirror though most Zenit E cameras with this feature were made with the M42 mount. The only disadvantage of the late models compared with the early models is the increased size and weight..

 

[David Hughes]

Hmmm, this won't be much help but I like these two as one is a RF and the other's a SLR but both obviously from the same family/factory.

but I don't use the SLR.

I thought/think the last M39 SLR was the one called either the plain Zenit or else the Zenit 3M but I'm none too sure. I sorry I can't help more.

Regards, David

 

[seany65]

I had a Zenit-C on which the shutter stopped working after about four firings, which I was doing to test the shutter. I sent it back and they fixed it and returned it, but it went the same way again.

The other problem was that the viewfinder is different to modern viewfinders somehow and I needed my reading glasses to focus it properly whereas with modern cameras I use my distance glasses. I did try to find out if they had eyepiece correction lenses that could fit, but even dealers in FSU cameras didn't know.

Then there's the annoying thing about the line down the middle of the viewfinder, which I'm led to believe is caused by the silvering of the pentaprism wearing away.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

I recommend staying away from the Zenit 3m, a film-tearing, viewfinder-blacking-out, loud-clacking wonder.

 

[Brambling]

Camera Start with Helios 2/50, the camera is completed with a shaft and pentaprism,
lenses on the M39, put through the adapter from the camera kit -
Mir 1 - 2.8 / 37
Tair 11 - 2.8 / 133 - female portrait
Jupiter 11 - 4 / 135 - male portrait, two options - there is an option with aperture preset
Jupiter 6 - 2.8 / 180 - for beauty)
Tair 3 - 4.5 / 300 - for birds
MTO - 8/500 - for small birds)

 

[rbiemer]

They are tiny! You don't realise how small until you see one for real. I have only the standard I-50 plus a MIR-37. Both are great lenses although they probably can't hold a candle to modern stuff. .....I also can't focus them without glasses (I'm slightly far-sighted) - it seems the screen is (optically) quite close.

I'm not sure when auto-return mirrors came in (Zenit 3M?) but it'd be an advantage. I think if you "get" the point of an RF rather than dismissing it as an obsolete idea, you'll probably have fun with the early Zenits too.

wolves3012, I am not expecting modern lens performance--I think after all the FSU rangefinder lenses I've used over the years I'll not be too surprised nor disappointed in the lenses overall. And, I put my glasses on in the morning and leave 'em on til I retire for the night--never been able to use any camera with out mine.

I have used all the. M39 Zenits. The only plus the original Zenit or the Zenit C has is small size. The viewfinder image is dark and grainy.so focusing has to be done by scale using the standard f 3.5 lens. There is no instant return mirror or auto stop down lens and it is bottom loading. The Zenit 3 has a much better viewfinder especially when used with the f/2 lens and it has a lever wind. The 3M was a redesign to include a hinged back. I found it quite usable for static subjects.
Unlike Soviet rangefinders the SLR models were steadily improved. The last M 39 model the Zenit E had an uncoupled meter. Some may have had an instant return mirror though most Zenit E cameras with this feature were made with the M42 mount. The only disadvantage of the late models compared with the early models is the increased size and weight..

Fanshaw, the size is, in large part, what I'm finding appealing about these early cameras. I first learned about using cameras with my grandfather and his Argus C-3 so I don't really think of the mechanics of the no auto-return mirror and stop down metering as a huge disadvantage. I also don't shoot sports or "street", so the slower pace of using one of these isn't too likely to be a problem either.

Hmmm, this won't be much help but I like these two as one is a RF and the other's a SLR but both obviously from the same family/factory.

but I don't use the SLR.

I thought/think the last M39 SLR was the one called either the plain Zenit or else the Zenit 3M but I'm none too sure. I sorry I can't help more.

Regards, David

David, Nice comparison photo, thank you! And, the Zenit has strap lugs, woo hoo! I currently have a rigid I-50 on my Zorki 1d and have also used it on my Bessa, not the fastest 50, for certain, but I do like the results I get with it!

I had a Zenit-C on which the shutter stopped working after about four firings, which I was doing to test the shutter. I sent it back and they fixed it and returned it, but it went the same way again.

The other problem was that the viewfinder is different to modern viewfinders somehow and I needed my reading glasses to focus it properly whereas with modern cameras I use my distance glasses. I did try to find out if they had eyepiece correction lenses that could fit, but even dealers in FSU cameras didn't know.

Then there's the annoying thing about the line down the middle of the viewfinder, which I'm led to believe is caused by the silvering of the pentaprism wearing away.

seamy65, after all the FSU gear I've owned over the last couple decades or so, I'm not going to be heartbroken if it takes a few cameras to get a well working one. Or, I may send whatever I end up with to our friend Oleg (OKVintage Cameras) as I noted on his website that several of these early SLRs are cameras he will work on. I'm also wearing progressive lenses now for my eyeglasses so I'm confident I can at least see through the VF. Hadn't "heard" anything about the line in the VF, though, so thanks for that heads up!

I recommend staying away from the Zenit 3m, a film-tearing, viewfinder-blacking-out, loud-clacking wonder.

David, Loud and blacked out VF aren't going to be too much of a worry but film tearing will be. I can but hope to get a well sorted example and then to be a bit gentle with advance and rewind.

Camera Start with Helios 2/50, the camera is completed with a shaft and pentaprism,
lenses on the M39, put through the adapter from the camera kit -
Mir 1 - 2.8 / 37
Tair 11 - 2.8 / 133 - female portrait
Jupiter 11 - 4 / 135 - male portrait, two options - there is an option with aperture preset
Jupiter 6 - 2.8 / 180 - for beauty)
Tair 3 - 4.5 / 300 - for birds
MTO - 8/500 - for small birds)

Hadn't thought about some of those lenses in M39 mount. I'm thinking of trying to keep my lens kit fairly basic: the Mir 37mm, a 50mm, the Jupiter-9 85mm, a J-11, and, now that you've mentioned it, the Jupiter 6. I have a version of the 500/f8 lens that I got when I had a Kiev 60 and it was ok but not really something I used much. Right now, I have it with an adapter on a Canon Rebel body. Might look to see if there is another adapter so I could use it on M39 mount.

THanks y'all for the input!
Rob

 

[David Hughes]

David, Nice comparison photo, thank you! And, the Zenit has strap lugs, woo hoo! I currently have a rigid I-50 on my Zorki 1d and have also used it on my Bessa, not the fastest 50, for certain, but I do like the results I get with it!
Rob

I thought you might like this view of the two cameras, from a series I did some time ago.

One thing you can say about the Zenits right up to the Pentax K mount, DX etc, etc versions is that no other SLR is derived from the classic 1930's Leica rangefinder. And now there's a new Zenit and Leica digital collaboration...

Regards, David


PS And, Yes, the strap lugs do sort of stand out in more than one sense. ;-)

 

[Joao]

[/url]Three FSU 39 mm mount SLR cameras by João Freitas, on Flickr[/IMG]

Kristal with MIR-1 2.8 / 37
Zenit 3M with TAIR 11 2,8 /133
Zenit C with Industar-50 35/50

All that was said about the Zenit-C is true. The dim viewfinder is its wekest point in my opinion.
The Zenit 3M is quite rough – and may actually tear the film, it happened to me two times (with home-rolled film, if that is relevant). Noisy, yes.
My favourite is the Kristal (hammered grey paint, art-deco prism housing). Better viewfinder than the Zenit –C and less noisy than the Zenit 3-M.

Regards

Joao

 

[Brambling]

On the camera - Telemar-22, 5.6 / 200, sharp, but dark.

 

[seany65]

While the Zenit-C does have a fairly dim viewfinder, (though if memory serves hardly any worse than a Nikon FM with an f3.3-4.5 35-70 zoom),the one I'd owned had the viewfinder or focusing screen cleaned by the shop I'd sent it back to for them to repair the shutter, to a level whereby it looked about 2 stops brighter.

 

[Brambling]

The Crystal and Zenith 3M are not structurally different, the pentaprism itself and the glass collective lens are suitable for Zenit 3, 3M, Crystal, Е, ЕМ, В, 11.
A strip in the center of the viewfinder window appears when the silver coating peels off along the upper face of the pentaprism.
Thanks for the reminder, I will try to replace the pentaprism on Zenith (1), if there are seats of the same size.