Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
So my Leningrad finally arrived, and while it has slight (hopefully fixable) flaws in the form of a missing RF calibration screw and slow speeds all running at the same speed, it's otherwise functional. And so I've been sat around for the last few hours considering its existence; you don't see much written about it, so I thought I'd perhaps share my experiences.
GOMZ Leningrad (1958) by Mark Waldron, on Flickr
(NOT my photo. I don't have a digital camera, hence the lack of images in this big wall of text that follows)
One of the foremost things I read about it before it arrived was it it was big, brick-like, heavy and recoiled like a small cannon every time the spring advance goes off. Now that I finally have it in my hands, I'd like to debunk that... sort of. Because obviously, it ain't no M3. At 94mm x 144mm x 38mm, it's got more in common with the oft-derided M5 than the classic M shape. (For comparison, an M5 comes in at 84x150x36, and the M3 is 77x138x33.5. The extra 10mm height of the Leningrad is almost entirely that huge winding knob.) But that's hardly fair; it's like comparing a speedboat to a pedalo and complaining that it's so much bigger. It's certainly much smaller than the only other camera I have lying around with a motordrive capability (Chinon CM3; 118x141x72) and a lot lighter (740g vs. 890g).
Numbers and statistics aside, it feels good in the hand. The curves on the front form quite satisfying grips, especially on the right hand, which can really get a good, firm hold on what is actually quite a subtle ridge. The kick is somewhat powerful, but not as much as expected; besides, it is delayed until you let go of the shutter release, so if you need a slower exposure, you can hold the camera stable until the curtain has definitely finished its travel.
While I'm on the subject, the shutter mechanism is impressive. It's shockingly fast, although I don't know how much it will slow down when it's pulling a film along. It certainly beats my Chinon's battery-driven motorwinder by a long way, although it won't be anywhere near as fast as a modern professional motordrive. But when you consider it's running entirely off spring tension - and was built in 1963! - it's something fantastic to behold. Quite how reliable it really is I don't know. Maybe it'll die within a year of use. But as it stands, it's certainly deserving of some acclaim. The Russians might take some stick for some of their cameras, but they really got it together with this one. And the noise, too... guh-dang, guh-dang, guh-dang. It's not subtle, but it is fun.
The only downside is some of the more eccentric parts of its design; the oversized wind knob can be awkward to turn due to the position of the oversized shutter release, and removal of the back is so odd I had to look it up. One side has a Fed/Zorki style clasp, and the other is a huge ring that unscrews the base+back from the camera. It's not quick, but I assume for some reason it must be necessary. Engaging the rewind mechanism is also a bit strange - you need to push your thumb onto a disc inside aforementioned huge ring and turn it anti-clockwise until it springs out. I've yet to put an entire film through (just a ruined film I use for testing mechanisms), but the rewind doesn't seem as slow as reported. I'll have to see just how long it takes with a 36exp roll.
The real star of the show, however, is the rangefinder. I've never seen anything like it. It's not a standard ghost-image spot; instead, the rangefinder "spot" is a solid part of the viewfinder, and you have to find and join vertical lines that dissect the boundary between the RF and VF panes. It's not very RF-like - more like a split-prism SLR finder. This design may seem weird, but it actually allows the VF to be brighter and clearer than many cameras. But where it really shines is that as you focus both the RF and the VF images move - in opposition to each other, of course. This is where the claims of parallax correction come from; the framelines (50/85/135 - black, clear, and nice and unobtrusive) remain still while the actual view changes, allowing the limits of the VF to act as a parallax-corrected 35mm frame.
And that's not all. The diopter (adjusted by screwing or unscrewing the VF bezel at the back) has more range than any camera I've seen, allowing even me to see clearly without my glasses (I am extremely short sighted, and have never had this option available before). And while standard vertical and horizontal RF adjustment is easy to access, removal of the top (a surprisingly easy job) allows for adjustment and fine-tuning of the RF image's angle via two screws. No further disassembly or fuss needed.
Whether or not the camera will stand the test of time - and whether or not it will be used on a daily basis when fixed - remains to be seen. But I certainly don't think it deserves the bad rep it seems to get on the rare occasion it gets discussed. It's a shame the design became a bit of a dead-end, and was never pursued and developed further. It's a wonderful piece of equipment when you consider what it is. No, it's not as quiet, small and refined as an M3. But they're very different beasts with very different purposes, and the Leningrad fulfils its purpose well - or at least, it seems to.
GOMZ Leningrad (1958) by Mark Waldron, on Flickr
(NOT my photo. I don't have a digital camera, hence the lack of images in this big wall of text that follows)
One of the foremost things I read about it before it arrived was it it was big, brick-like, heavy and recoiled like a small cannon every time the spring advance goes off. Now that I finally have it in my hands, I'd like to debunk that... sort of. Because obviously, it ain't no M3. At 94mm x 144mm x 38mm, it's got more in common with the oft-derided M5 than the classic M shape. (For comparison, an M5 comes in at 84x150x36, and the M3 is 77x138x33.5. The extra 10mm height of the Leningrad is almost entirely that huge winding knob.) But that's hardly fair; it's like comparing a speedboat to a pedalo and complaining that it's so much bigger. It's certainly much smaller than the only other camera I have lying around with a motordrive capability (Chinon CM3; 118x141x72) and a lot lighter (740g vs. 890g).
Numbers and statistics aside, it feels good in the hand. The curves on the front form quite satisfying grips, especially on the right hand, which can really get a good, firm hold on what is actually quite a subtle ridge. The kick is somewhat powerful, but not as much as expected; besides, it is delayed until you let go of the shutter release, so if you need a slower exposure, you can hold the camera stable until the curtain has definitely finished its travel.
While I'm on the subject, the shutter mechanism is impressive. It's shockingly fast, although I don't know how much it will slow down when it's pulling a film along. It certainly beats my Chinon's battery-driven motorwinder by a long way, although it won't be anywhere near as fast as a modern professional motordrive. But when you consider it's running entirely off spring tension - and was built in 1963! - it's something fantastic to behold. Quite how reliable it really is I don't know. Maybe it'll die within a year of use. But as it stands, it's certainly deserving of some acclaim. The Russians might take some stick for some of their cameras, but they really got it together with this one. And the noise, too... guh-dang, guh-dang, guh-dang. It's not subtle, but it is fun.
The only downside is some of the more eccentric parts of its design; the oversized wind knob can be awkward to turn due to the position of the oversized shutter release, and removal of the back is so odd I had to look it up. One side has a Fed/Zorki style clasp, and the other is a huge ring that unscrews the base+back from the camera. It's not quick, but I assume for some reason it must be necessary. Engaging the rewind mechanism is also a bit strange - you need to push your thumb onto a disc inside aforementioned huge ring and turn it anti-clockwise until it springs out. I've yet to put an entire film through (just a ruined film I use for testing mechanisms), but the rewind doesn't seem as slow as reported. I'll have to see just how long it takes with a 36exp roll.
The real star of the show, however, is the rangefinder. I've never seen anything like it. It's not a standard ghost-image spot; instead, the rangefinder "spot" is a solid part of the viewfinder, and you have to find and join vertical lines that dissect the boundary between the RF and VF panes. It's not very RF-like - more like a split-prism SLR finder. This design may seem weird, but it actually allows the VF to be brighter and clearer than many cameras. But where it really shines is that as you focus both the RF and the VF images move - in opposition to each other, of course. This is where the claims of parallax correction come from; the framelines (50/85/135 - black, clear, and nice and unobtrusive) remain still while the actual view changes, allowing the limits of the VF to act as a parallax-corrected 35mm frame.
And that's not all. The diopter (adjusted by screwing or unscrewing the VF bezel at the back) has more range than any camera I've seen, allowing even me to see clearly without my glasses (I am extremely short sighted, and have never had this option available before). And while standard vertical and horizontal RF adjustment is easy to access, removal of the top (a surprisingly easy job) allows for adjustment and fine-tuning of the RF image's angle via two screws. No further disassembly or fuss needed.
Whether or not the camera will stand the test of time - and whether or not it will be used on a daily basis when fixed - remains to be seen. But I certainly don't think it deserves the bad rep it seems to get on the rare occasion it gets discussed. It's a shame the design became a bit of a dead-end, and was never pursued and developed further. It's a wonderful piece of equipment when you consider what it is. No, it's not as quiet, small and refined as an M3. But they're very different beasts with very different purposes, and the Leningrad fulfils its purpose well - or at least, it seems to.
Elmar Lang
Well-known
Hello,
I agree with most of your points of view.
I have a Leningrad outfit made in 1958, with 5 lenses, filters, etc., in its leather, red velvet lined carrying case.
In my opinion, the camera feels very good when holding it. Its commands are all in their right place and it looks finished in the best way.
My camera too, needed to readjust the rangefinder (and it was a difficult task!), the main spring is not as strong as it should have been when new. In any case it shoots pictures very well. The recoil is not that strong; the noise though, makes people turn their heads and see if one's arming a bolt-action rifle or shooting pictures with a Leningrad!
The Leningrad is rarer than commonly thought, especially because many, many ones became unusable. Fortunately, it's not very expensive.
I am a Kiev/Contax fan so, I wanted to add this camera because it encloses some of ex-Zeiss technology, in a very curious mixture.
E.L.
I agree with most of your points of view.
I have a Leningrad outfit made in 1958, with 5 lenses, filters, etc., in its leather, red velvet lined carrying case.
In my opinion, the camera feels very good when holding it. Its commands are all in their right place and it looks finished in the best way.
My camera too, needed to readjust the rangefinder (and it was a difficult task!), the main spring is not as strong as it should have been when new. In any case it shoots pictures very well. The recoil is not that strong; the noise though, makes people turn their heads and see if one's arming a bolt-action rifle or shooting pictures with a Leningrad!
The Leningrad is rarer than commonly thought, especially because many, many ones became unusable. Fortunately, it's not very expensive.
I am a Kiev/Contax fan so, I wanted to add this camera because it encloses some of ex-Zeiss technology, in a very curious mixture.
E.L.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I really think I need to dig mine out and send it to Essex -- they quoted a not-unreasonable amount to CLA it. (Any other places that work on these?) A very cool camera, no question.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
E.L., care to explain why the RF adjustment was such an arduous task? On mine, it's because of a missing screw. But I've had it open and it actually seems EASIER to adjust than Fed/Zorkis, in a way. The multitude of vertical adjustments (and the fact they're proper screws and not irritatingly sticky rings around a RF window) is a very nice touch.
But getting that top back on... oy vey. It's dead simple to take off, but my lord, I've never seen something so awkward to realign. I was at it for a good hour and a half before I finally worked out a knack to put it back together.
But getting that top back on... oy vey. It's dead simple to take off, but my lord, I've never seen something so awkward to realign. I was at it for a good hour and a half before I finally worked out a knack to put it back together.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
That was great, thank you!
Elmar Lang
Well-known
Hello,
Soon, I'll take some pictures of my Leningrad outfit, just to add something to this fine thread.
To Tony: regarding the RF adjustment of my piece, well, it was done by a repairman to whom I gave my Leningrad a few days after having purchased it, back in 1997, in order to clean its shutter, etc. The man fixed the mis-aligned rangefinder very well, then told me that it was a difficult thing to do. Being a friend of mine (he did all cleaning, lubricating, etc. for free, just to see how a Leningrad works), I didn't discuss his opinion.
I have one more Leningrad, also with its RF in the need to be re-aligned, and my friend lives nearly 300 km far from here. Would you be so kind to explain how you've proceeded in this work? I think that your help could be important to many of us.
Best wishes,
Enzo (Elmar Lang)
Soon, I'll take some pictures of my Leningrad outfit, just to add something to this fine thread.
To Tony: regarding the RF adjustment of my piece, well, it was done by a repairman to whom I gave my Leningrad a few days after having purchased it, back in 1997, in order to clean its shutter, etc. The man fixed the mis-aligned rangefinder very well, then told me that it was a difficult thing to do. Being a friend of mine (he did all cleaning, lubricating, etc. for free, just to see how a Leningrad works), I didn't discuss his opinion.
I have one more Leningrad, also with its RF in the need to be re-aligned, and my friend lives nearly 300 km far from here. Would you be so kind to explain how you've proceeded in this work? I think that your help could be important to many of us.
Best wishes,
Enzo (Elmar Lang)
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Well, at its heart, it's much the same as a standard Fed/Zorki. Horizontal misalignment at infinity is done via a recessed screw that should be behind the front screw nearest the RF window. Then, if close range is out, the angle of the cam behind the lens will need altering. You keep going back and forth until the horizontal alignment is correct.
It's vertical alignment where things get odd. On top of the Leningrad, above the RF window, there is a circular piece of metal with two dots. This is a plate on a bayonet fitting covering a hole; using a lens spanner (or something similar) to spin it and remove it reveals the vertical adjustment screw. If that is enough to correct the vertical alignment, congratulations! You're done.
But if doesn't move it far enough, or if the RF image is skewed, you need to remove the top. Simple enough job: unscrew and remove the viewfinder diopter/eyepiece, remove the shutter speed selector (setting the shutter to 1/125 is the easiest way to access both screws), and remove a grand total of 5 screws joining the top plate to the camera body (two on the front, one on either side, and one on the back). Now the top just lifts off... with a caveat. Any tension in the spring will dissipate once the top is removed, so it's a good idea to fire the shutter enough times to get rid of it beforehand.
Once you can see inside, you can see and appreciate how wonderfully complicated the RF mechanism is. I wish I had photos to show you at this point - it's fantastic. But just behind the RF window you can see a black plate with a few screws. The large ones are vertical and angle adjustments. The small ones, according to a yahoo user, are supposedly to lock the adjustments in place. I only had to touch the large screws, so I'm not sure. But if you replace the camera's eyepiece, you can twiddle with the large screws and get everything lined up correctly.
Replacing the top is where the nightmare begins. You have to make sure the connection for the winder and the flash sync both meet up properly - not an easy task. You'll notice that there is a black "rod" (for want of a better word) in the knob winder. This is slotted at the top to lock into place with a piece of metal in the winding knob and shaped at the bottom to fit onto a corresponding piece in the winding mechanism on the camera.
At this point, I suggest you get the thinnest jeweller's screwdriver you have and pray.
Lining up the flash sync is easy. Set the indicator on the top to point to 0, and spin the y-shaped arm on the camera body to loosely match its position. Try and replace the top and you'll notice there is a gap near this point until the top is replaced fully; I suspect this acts as an access point for precisely this procedure. Insert your jeweller's screwdriver to carefully move the y-shaped arm until it is lined up with the yellow piece coming down from the top, and remove the top again.
The big problem is getting the winder to reconnect. I spent ages trying to wind the knob to get the angle of the two couplings to match and replacing the top that way. That doesn't work. If you look at the underside of the top, there's a gear that is being pushed towards the black rod by a spring. This is unfortunately ensuring the two winding couplings won't meet. It's much easier to put the black rod onto the body first, reinsert it into the top (ensuring it's slotted together properly) and then manoeuvre the top back into position. It still won't go down all the way, though - that gear is now stopping the rod from re-entering the top completely. So use your screwdriver to carefully pull the gear to the left, holding it out of the way, until the rod is in far enough that it can be released, the screwdriver can be extracted, and the top can be replaced.
Job done!
It's vertical alignment where things get odd. On top of the Leningrad, above the RF window, there is a circular piece of metal with two dots. This is a plate on a bayonet fitting covering a hole; using a lens spanner (or something similar) to spin it and remove it reveals the vertical adjustment screw. If that is enough to correct the vertical alignment, congratulations! You're done.
But if doesn't move it far enough, or if the RF image is skewed, you need to remove the top. Simple enough job: unscrew and remove the viewfinder diopter/eyepiece, remove the shutter speed selector (setting the shutter to 1/125 is the easiest way to access both screws), and remove a grand total of 5 screws joining the top plate to the camera body (two on the front, one on either side, and one on the back). Now the top just lifts off... with a caveat. Any tension in the spring will dissipate once the top is removed, so it's a good idea to fire the shutter enough times to get rid of it beforehand.
Once you can see inside, you can see and appreciate how wonderfully complicated the RF mechanism is. I wish I had photos to show you at this point - it's fantastic. But just behind the RF window you can see a black plate with a few screws. The large ones are vertical and angle adjustments. The small ones, according to a yahoo user, are supposedly to lock the adjustments in place. I only had to touch the large screws, so I'm not sure. But if you replace the camera's eyepiece, you can twiddle with the large screws and get everything lined up correctly.
Replacing the top is where the nightmare begins. You have to make sure the connection for the winder and the flash sync both meet up properly - not an easy task. You'll notice that there is a black "rod" (for want of a better word) in the knob winder. This is slotted at the top to lock into place with a piece of metal in the winding knob and shaped at the bottom to fit onto a corresponding piece in the winding mechanism on the camera.
At this point, I suggest you get the thinnest jeweller's screwdriver you have and pray.
Lining up the flash sync is easy. Set the indicator on the top to point to 0, and spin the y-shaped arm on the camera body to loosely match its position. Try and replace the top and you'll notice there is a gap near this point until the top is replaced fully; I suspect this acts as an access point for precisely this procedure. Insert your jeweller's screwdriver to carefully move the y-shaped arm until it is lined up with the yellow piece coming down from the top, and remove the top again.
The big problem is getting the winder to reconnect. I spent ages trying to wind the knob to get the angle of the two couplings to match and replacing the top that way. That doesn't work. If you look at the underside of the top, there's a gear that is being pushed towards the black rod by a spring. This is unfortunately ensuring the two winding couplings won't meet. It's much easier to put the black rod onto the body first, reinsert it into the top (ensuring it's slotted together properly) and then manoeuvre the top back into position. It still won't go down all the way, though - that gear is now stopping the rod from re-entering the top completely. So use your screwdriver to carefully pull the gear to the left, holding it out of the way, until the rod is in far enough that it can be released, the screwdriver can be extracted, and the top can be replaced.
Job done!
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Wow. Thanks for the description -- and congratulations on getting it back together.
Elmar Lang
Well-known
Hello,
thank you for the very detailed description of what to do with the Leningrad. Perhaps, my repairman said that it was a difficult job, because he had to remove the camera's top... and had to correctly replace it.
In the next weeks I'll find some free time in the evening and work on my second Leningrad body: it's aesthetically and mechanically almost perfect, but the rangefinder needs some careful work about it.
I can't wait to see the "hidden treasures" of Soviet Feinmechanik; I remember that the Leningrad won a special prize at the Bruxelles Expo in 1958...
Best wishes,
Enzo
thank you for the very detailed description of what to do with the Leningrad. Perhaps, my repairman said that it was a difficult job, because he had to remove the camera's top... and had to correctly replace it.
In the next weeks I'll find some free time in the evening and work on my second Leningrad body: it's aesthetically and mechanically almost perfect, but the rangefinder needs some careful work about it.
I can't wait to see the "hidden treasures" of Soviet Feinmechanik; I remember that the Leningrad won a special prize at the Bruxelles Expo in 1958...
Best wishes,
Enzo
kievman
Kievman
I had one of those nail pounders once about a time, it's so heavy it could be use as hammer I am sure!!!!!!!!!!! In the end I sent mine back to Alex, the film advance spring was weak and would run out of juice before the end of 36 exp. roll The viewfinder was cool. I had never see anything like that before until I bought a Minolta 7 RF at flea market, The 7 has the exact same kind of VF, which I have never be able to get use to.
Elmar Lang
Well-known
Hello,
as promised, I'm posting some pictures (taken in a hurry) of my Leningrad outfit.
The Camera was made in 1958, so do all lenses, besides the Jupiter 8 (made in 1959).
The whole is in a remarkably good condition; the rangefinder only, will need some careful adjustment.
Best wishes,
E.L.
as promised, I'm posting some pictures (taken in a hurry) of my Leningrad outfit.
The Camera was made in 1958, so do all lenses, besides the Jupiter 8 (made in 1959).
The whole is in a remarkably good condition; the rangefinder only, will need some careful adjustment.
Best wishes,
E.L.
Attachments
Elmar Lang
Well-known
pinkarmy
Well-known
my thought on Leningrad is that they are very expansive.
and that i cannot afford one at the moment.
so i will treasure your info. thanks for sharing.
and that i cannot afford one at the moment.
so i will treasure your info. thanks for sharing.
Elmar Lang
Well-known
The Leningrad is not really an expensive camera.
Its price is higher than, let's say, a Zorki-4, because it was made in less pieces. I've seen Leningrad cameras being recently sold for less than 150,- Euro (in Italy); but I've also seen people pay more than 300,- Euro for a very well working one.
I've bought my own Leningrad outfit back in the early '90s and it was relatively cheap, considering that it's in nearly unused condition (besides the rangefinder, to be adjusted) and the velvet-lined, fitted leather case with lenses, filters, etc. is a very nice "plus". Probably, it belonged to a political personality or was used for display purposes...
The viewfinder is excellent; bright and parallax-correcting, with frames for each lens...
I think I'll let the camera be checked, cleaned and adjusted: the Leningrad is a masterpiece and deserves to be properly cared.
E.L.
Its price is higher than, let's say, a Zorki-4, because it was made in less pieces. I've seen Leningrad cameras being recently sold for less than 150,- Euro (in Italy); but I've also seen people pay more than 300,- Euro for a very well working one.
I've bought my own Leningrad outfit back in the early '90s and it was relatively cheap, considering that it's in nearly unused condition (besides the rangefinder, to be adjusted) and the velvet-lined, fitted leather case with lenses, filters, etc. is a very nice "plus". Probably, it belonged to a political personality or was used for display purposes...
The viewfinder is excellent; bright and parallax-correcting, with frames for each lens...
I think I'll let the camera be checked, cleaned and adjusted: the Leningrad is a masterpiece and deserves to be properly cared.
E.L.
john341
camera user
I love it!
I love it!
I bought mine several years ago, and eventually had a CLA done on it - I figured that it was worth it as mine has the name in latin letters, not cyrillic. I love the rangefinder/viewfinder and have shot several films through it. Best part is not having to carry extra viewfinders! It has a solid and reliable feel to it-the comrades got it right with this model-pity its so heavy.
I love it!
I bought mine several years ago, and eventually had a CLA done on it - I figured that it was worth it as mine has the name in latin letters, not cyrillic. I love the rangefinder/viewfinder and have shot several films through it. Best part is not having to carry extra viewfinders! It has a solid and reliable feel to it-the comrades got it right with this model-pity its so heavy.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Elmar -- very impressive Leningrad collection you have! I am very envious. I have never seen a Leningrad with different lenses besides the standard Jupiter-8 ...
I bought a Leningrad a year ago from ebay, and purchased it as a collectible, not a daily use camera. I ran a couple of rolls of film through it and I enjoyed using it. But I felt that the camera was a bit too heavy and ergonomically 'strange' to use ... I've decided to keep mine as a shelf queen for now.
This is a picture of my Leningrad, with other Soviet kitsch.
I bought a Leningrad a year ago from ebay, and purchased it as a collectible, not a daily use camera. I ran a couple of rolls of film through it and I enjoyed using it. But I felt that the camera was a bit too heavy and ergonomically 'strange' to use ... I've decided to keep mine as a shelf queen for now.
This is a picture of my Leningrad, with other Soviet kitsch.
Elmar Lang
Well-known
The Leningrad is a less-known camera, despite being an original soviet project for a high-quality, professional camera.
Never forget another plus of this instrument: the film pressure plate, in most cases is made of polished, black glass! Something to see only on top-level scientifical instruments.
Perhaps, the favour towards this camera failed once the quality control started to fail, after the first series, besides having a very complicated mechanic.
When I purchased the Leningrad, I've used it for some time, especially for the outstanding quality of the Jupiter lenses (my first Jupiter-3 was this one). When shooting, the shutter's sound is very rifle-like, so candid photography is almost impossible. I've also tried to use it to take pictures in a theatre, but I was kindly invited not to disturb either the public and the actors... so I returned back to my favourite Kiev/Contax outfit.
Nontheless, I'm still proud of this strange optical instrument, so lavishly equipped...
E.L.
Never forget another plus of this instrument: the film pressure plate, in most cases is made of polished, black glass! Something to see only on top-level scientifical instruments.
Perhaps, the favour towards this camera failed once the quality control started to fail, after the first series, besides having a very complicated mechanic.
When I purchased the Leningrad, I've used it for some time, especially for the outstanding quality of the Jupiter lenses (my first Jupiter-3 was this one). When shooting, the shutter's sound is very rifle-like, so candid photography is almost impossible. I've also tried to use it to take pictures in a theatre, but I was kindly invited not to disturb either the public and the actors... so I returned back to my favourite Kiev/Contax outfit.
Nontheless, I'm still proud of this strange optical instrument, so lavishly equipped...
E.L.
jarski
Veteran
interesting. Russian M5!
those winding knobs look like its made for cosmonauts in space flight, take spy photographs of American missile bases
those winding knobs look like its made for cosmonauts in space flight, take spy photographs of American missile bases
Elmar Lang
Well-known
The winding knob is so huge, because there's the main spring of the advance motor in there! The rewind knob is large too, as a matter of aesthetical simmetry.
The Leningrad is something peculiar in the panorama of Soviet cameras: it's a motorised hybrid with the best of the Contax and the Leica... with something completely new in it.
The Leningrad is something peculiar in the panorama of Soviet cameras: it's a motorised hybrid with the best of the Contax and the Leica... with something completely new in it.
Wulfthari
Well-known
I ressurrected this old thread because someone already complained I opened a new one on an old topic ( )....however last Sunday I had the pleasure to visit Wolves3012 who kindly repaired the rangefinder of my Leningrad, we spent the afternoon seeing his collection of soviet cameras and visiting a park to test the camera.
The result was pleasing, I just had the Jupiter 8 with me, no lightmeter but all the 30 shots I made came out more or less well, unfortunately as most already know the spacing between frames is not constant so out of 36 pics I could just shoot 30 (still a better result of what I see onling, some people say the Leningrad can just shoot 12 pics, it seems there are a lot of horror stories about this camera) AND the lab cut three of them, scanned wrongly others (in some the horizon is not horizontal...that's not a composition error or a camera flaw) etc...however I thought it would be interesting to share some results and post some pictures of the camera inside with some comments from Anthony who found very interesting things about it.
In this frame the lab gave its worse: 15% of the picture wasted:
Now, I shot these pics in a hurry just to check out the camera was in working and it is, they don't pretend to be "artistic" and I publish them to show the pros and cons of the Leningrad, or better how it is important to have a good lab that don't cut them!
Comments as a user:
1) The split image rangefinder and the viewfinder are great, much better than any other SU cameras I have.
2) With Kodak film you have to wind the knob every three shots, that's annoying. AFAIK the camera was meant to be used to cassettes loaded in the darkroom, I suspect that if you do that the spring is sufficiently strong to shoot all 30 exposures.
3) When the camera works it works very well.
4) It's chunky but that's not a bad thing.
5) Internally the camera is a nightmare, the combination of complex engineering and cheap materials is fatal.
6) For just a 50 mm lens this camera is wasted, the Leningrad thanks to its viewfinder gives it best with the entire soviet system it was designed for: Orion 15, Jupiter 12, Jupiter 8, Jupiter 9 and Jupiter 11: the superimposed frames allow the photographer to compose and decide which lens would suit best its position.
)....however last Sunday I had the pleasure to visit Wolves3012 who kindly repaired the rangefinder of my Leningrad, we spent the afternoon seeing his collection of soviet cameras and visiting a park to test the camera.The result was pleasing, I just had the Jupiter 8 with me, no lightmeter but all the 30 shots I made came out more or less well, unfortunately as most already know the spacing between frames is not constant so out of 36 pics I could just shoot 30 (still a better result of what I see onling, some people say the Leningrad can just shoot 12 pics, it seems there are a lot of horror stories about this camera) AND the lab cut three of them, scanned wrongly others (in some the horizon is not horizontal...that's not a composition error or a camera flaw) etc...however I thought it would be interesting to share some results and post some pictures of the camera inside with some comments from Anthony who found very interesting things about it.
In this frame the lab gave its worse: 15% of the picture wasted:
Now, I shot these pics in a hurry just to check out the camera was in working and it is, they don't pretend to be "artistic" and I publish them to show the pros and cons of the Leningrad, or better how it is important to have a good lab that don't cut them!
Comments as a user:
1) The split image rangefinder and the viewfinder are great, much better than any other SU cameras I have.
2) With Kodak film you have to wind the knob every three shots, that's annoying. AFAIK the camera was meant to be used to cassettes loaded in the darkroom, I suspect that if you do that the spring is sufficiently strong to shoot all 30 exposures.
3) When the camera works it works very well.
4) It's chunky but that's not a bad thing.
5) Internally the camera is a nightmare, the combination of complex engineering and cheap materials is fatal.
6) For just a 50 mm lens this camera is wasted, the Leningrad thanks to its viewfinder gives it best with the entire soviet system it was designed for: Orion 15, Jupiter 12, Jupiter 8, Jupiter 9 and Jupiter 11: the superimposed frames allow the photographer to compose and decide which lens would suit best its position.