Arved
Member
I recently acquired a Zenit 3m, and I'm running a roll of film through it to see if there are any issues needing to be resolved. So the jury is still out, but I have to say...
I love this little guy!
However, lens selection isn't a strong point. I'm wondering if the more modern Zenits (such as the TTL) are just as small, or are they bigger to accept the M42 (Pentax Screw Mount) lens mount?
I guess my next option for a small SLR that will accept the huge number of good, inexpensive M42 lenses is to get a Pentax MX with a Pentax K-Mount to Pentax Screw Mount converter, but I understand that isn't a 100% solution, either. Not like getting a Spotmatic F or other camera that natively takes the Pentax Screw Mount lenses.
I have a good size herd of Nikon F-mount SLRs and DSLRs, so I'm not looking to expand my fleet there (at the moment). But this tiny guy is just so small, easy to carry (uhm, compared to an F4, F5, or D300 w/MD-10 battery grip). The little Zenit is basically a Leica screw mount rangefinder with the rangefinder removed, and a tiny mirror box and pentaprism installed (so small, you only get about 60% of the frame showing). It is such a minimalist camera (and yet, it has a ratcheting rewind lever, and a modern hinged back). Goliath has met David!
So, did the M42 mount Zenits grow in size to accommodate the larger lens barrel, or did Zenit keep 'em small? If they kept them small like the 3m, I'm interested. If it grew to Spotmatic F proportions, that would be a shame.
Thanks!
- Arved
Newbie to the forum - long time photographer
I love this little guy!
However, lens selection isn't a strong point. I'm wondering if the more modern Zenits (such as the TTL) are just as small, or are they bigger to accept the M42 (Pentax Screw Mount) lens mount?
I guess my next option for a small SLR that will accept the huge number of good, inexpensive M42 lenses is to get a Pentax MX with a Pentax K-Mount to Pentax Screw Mount converter, but I understand that isn't a 100% solution, either. Not like getting a Spotmatic F or other camera that natively takes the Pentax Screw Mount lenses.
I have a good size herd of Nikon F-mount SLRs and DSLRs, so I'm not looking to expand my fleet there (at the moment). But this tiny guy is just so small, easy to carry (uhm, compared to an F4, F5, or D300 w/MD-10 battery grip). The little Zenit is basically a Leica screw mount rangefinder with the rangefinder removed, and a tiny mirror box and pentaprism installed (so small, you only get about 60% of the frame showing). It is such a minimalist camera (and yet, it has a ratcheting rewind lever, and a modern hinged back). Goliath has met David!
So, did the M42 mount Zenits grow in size to accommodate the larger lens barrel, or did Zenit keep 'em small? If they kept them small like the 3m, I'm interested. If it grew to Spotmatic F proportions, that would be a shame.
Thanks!
- Arved
Newbie to the forum - long time photographer
Crazy Fedya
Well-known
Welcome!
This is a wonderful place with a tremendous amount of knowledge.
Zenits did get bigger. Look for pre-Spotmatic Pentax SLRs , like S3/H3 or SV/H3V. You will not be disappointed.
This is a wonderful place with a tremendous amount of knowledge.
Zenits did get bigger. Look for pre-Spotmatic Pentax SLRs , like S3/H3 or SV/H3V. You will not be disappointed.
Last edited:
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Zenit 3M is M39.
You are right about your next camera. Any camera is the next after any Zenit.
I have Kiev-19. It accepts Nikkor lenses.
You are right about your next camera. Any camera is the next after any Zenit.
I have Kiev-19. It accepts Nikkor lenses.
johnf04
Well-known
I had a machinist run an M39 thread on a Helios f2 M42 lens so that I could use it on my Zenit 3m - much better than the Industar lens it came with. It may be possible to find an M39 T mount, or to get one machined to M39, to allow you to use T mount lenses.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
If you put a Zenit B or E (M42) beside the 3M (M39) then there isn't much difference. About the same height and width and so on. In a nutshell a mm or two here and there; plus bits sticking out like lugs, levers and so on. It also depends on the lens as you can fit a M39 or M42 Industar-50 to each camera. Going from the B or E to the EM, again it's just a mm or two here and there.
But they get heavier as we move up. With the Industar-50 on each one the 3m weighs 686g; the B 754g and the EM 760g. You'll probably not get Zenit EM (M42) with the Industar-50 as they usually come with a far more modern lens like the Helios-44 and then they weigh in at 989g.
It's only when you get to the last Zenits with the Pentax K mount Zenitar-K2 and plastic bodies that the weight drops; the 212k is 764g but they are bulkier due to the curvy styling...
Being polite I'll add that the 212k's screen is nice and bright but that's the wrong mount for you. What I'd get for small size and much more is the Pentax ME or ME super with the small 40mm f/2.8 lens but they are very, very expensive. You can also repeat this with the Olympus OM's and their small lens.
I hope this helps.
Regards, David
If you put a Zenit B or E (M42) beside the 3M (M39) then there isn't much difference. About the same height and width and so on. In a nutshell a mm or two here and there; plus bits sticking out like lugs, levers and so on. It also depends on the lens as you can fit a M39 or M42 Industar-50 to each camera. Going from the B or E to the EM, again it's just a mm or two here and there.
But they get heavier as we move up. With the Industar-50 on each one the 3m weighs 686g; the B 754g and the EM 760g. You'll probably not get Zenit EM (M42) with the Industar-50 as they usually come with a far more modern lens like the Helios-44 and then they weigh in at 989g.
It's only when you get to the last Zenits with the Pentax K mount Zenitar-K2 and plastic bodies that the weight drops; the 212k is 764g but they are bulkier due to the curvy styling...
Being polite I'll add that the 212k's screen is nice and bright but that's the wrong mount for you. What I'd get for small size and much more is the Pentax ME or ME super with the small 40mm f/2.8 lens but they are very, very expensive. You can also repeat this with the Olympus OM's and their small lens.
I hope this helps.
Regards, David
DanskDynamit
Well-known
I love mine! get some good old Helios 40 for it!
Muggins
Junk magnet
Is that a lens or a beer barrel?
Adrian
Adrian
Arved
Member
Thank you all for your warm welcome and learned and helpful suggestions. I threw together this somewhat comical photo (well, comical to me) to illustrate the allure of the Zenit 3M. When I say it's tiny:
Zenit 3M next to Nikon F5
This encourages use for either travel or "street" photography. The little "pancake" Industar-50 should be a decent performer, although focusing on a ground glass with an f/3.5 lens can be a challenge. I also picked up the Hellios-44 58mm f/2 lens for a song. A bit larger, but should be sharper with bokeh other lenses just dream about. Being a preset lens, it's also much faster to handle than the Industar.
The 37mm MIR-1 is appealing, and I fancy myself getting one eventually, but that's the widest lens available for the Zenit. That's what got me thinking about the vast selection of M42 lenses out there, and a suitable camera to use them - suitable including the compactness of the Zenit 3Ms body.
This encourages use for either travel or "street" photography. The little "pancake" Industar-50 should be a decent performer, although focusing on a ground glass with an f/3.5 lens can be a challenge. I also picked up the Hellios-44 58mm f/2 lens for a song. A bit larger, but should be sharper with bokeh other lenses just dream about. Being a preset lens, it's also much faster to handle than the Industar.
The 37mm MIR-1 is appealing, and I fancy myself getting one eventually, but that's the widest lens available for the Zenit. That's what got me thinking about the vast selection of M42 lenses out there, and a suitable camera to use them - suitable including the compactness of the Zenit 3Ms body.
johnf04
Well-known
The Industar lenses have a varied reputation - I've never used them. The Helios, on the other hand, is a fine lens. My first SLR was a Zenit 3m with the Helios lens, bought new in 1970.
Arved
Member
I understand about the reputation of the Industar-50. It's not an especially easy to work with lens, either. It's very much a rangefinder lens adapted to the Zenit SLR version of the M39 mount. There's no preset. There's just set. There's no click-stops to the aperture ring. You have to treat it just like a rangefinder lens. I can see why this lens is unpopular, just from a mechanical standpoint. The Helios-44 is a much nicer design, both optically and mechanically, but it's a longer lens at 58mm. I'd prefer something wider. The MIR-1 37mm is appealing, but it's hardly what anyone would call a wide angle lens. It's slightly wider than a common 40mm focal length many fixed-lens rangefinder and P&S cameras have. It's this kind of frustration that's leading me toward an M42 mount camera, if I can find something as diminutive as the Zenit 3M.
Well, I finished the first roll of film, and it's loaded in my Peterson developing tank. We'll see how things look very soon.
However, I'd really like to revisit the idea of getting an M42 mount film camera, and hopefully one as small (or not much bigger) than the Zenit 3M.
It's tough to get an idea of how large or small the bodies are. I know the Pentax MX is one of the smallest 35mm SLRs ever made, and it can use M42 lenses with Pentax's own K adapter, but I'm not sure the camera retains metering (which would be a plus). It seems a camera like the Pentax Spotmatics would be ideal, but I'm not sure of the size - memory says they were on the largish size (although not as big as anything from the era with a motor drive).
It seems that most of the lenses available for the Zenit M39 mount are also available in M42
Well, I finished the first roll of film, and it's loaded in my Peterson developing tank. We'll see how things look very soon.
However, I'd really like to revisit the idea of getting an M42 mount film camera, and hopefully one as small (or not much bigger) than the Zenit 3M.
It's tough to get an idea of how large or small the bodies are. I know the Pentax MX is one of the smallest 35mm SLRs ever made, and it can use M42 lenses with Pentax's own K adapter, but I'm not sure the camera retains metering (which would be a plus). It seems a camera like the Pentax Spotmatics would be ideal, but I'm not sure of the size - memory says they were on the largish size (although not as big as anything from the era with a motor drive).
It seems that most of the lenses available for the Zenit M39 mount are also available in M42
farlymac
PF McFarland
Yes, you definitely have to watch out for sellers that will pass off one mount size for the other in the lens lines (M39 rangefinder as opposed to M39 SLR). Or even confuse the M39 lenses with the M42 ones.
As for smallish M42 mount cameras, I really don't know of any. The Zenit E line body is fairly small in the end-to-end dimension, but then they are somewhat tall. Most of that was to create areas for the selenium meter cell over the lens mount, and the meter readout inside the top cover.
Still light in weight though, compared to their Japanese made cousins. I've got a Zenit ET in grey hammertone that has plastic top and bottom covers, which reduces even more of the weight.
PF
As for smallish M42 mount cameras, I really don't know of any. The Zenit E line body is fairly small in the end-to-end dimension, but then they are somewhat tall. Most of that was to create areas for the selenium meter cell over the lens mount, and the meter readout inside the top cover.
Still light in weight though, compared to their Japanese made cousins. I've got a Zenit ET in grey hammertone that has plastic top and bottom covers, which reduces even more of the weight.
PF
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Compactness is ridiculously overrated. You will not take better photos with a smaller camera. A smaller camera is generally not any less noticeable than a larger one (you're holding it up to your face anyways, which is the first thing people look at when they see another person). A smaller camera is not any easier to pack than a larger one, unless of course your packing consists of filling a rigid box entirely with other completely rigid items. And so on, the pursuit of compactness is basically a theoretical point for marketers to capitalize on, with little basis in practical reality. Particularly when you get down to the point of comparing millimeters of difference between cameras.
Here's a photo of a rangefinder, TLR, and 35mm SLR:
sizes by Berang Berang, on Flickr
When you list the dimensions out in millimeters it sounds like there's an enormous difference between them. But just look - there's not much difference actually.
If you want a small M42 SLR, there were a slew of them introduced in the late M42 era that were quite compact. But even so, earlier cameras like the pre-spotmatic Pentax models are pretty small anyway.
Here's a photo of a rangefinder, TLR, and 35mm SLR:
sizes by Berang Berang, on FlickrWhen you list the dimensions out in millimeters it sounds like there's an enormous difference between them. But just look - there's not much difference actually.
If you want a small M42 SLR, there were a slew of them introduced in the late M42 era that were quite compact. But even so, earlier cameras like the pre-spotmatic Pentax models are pretty small anyway.
CMur12
Veteran
I once had a Fujica ST701 that was a compact M42 camera. It had stop-down, match-needle metering, but it used silicon blue cells for the meter, which was very advanced at the time.
Nice cameras and they seem to go for low prices.
- Murray
Nice cameras and they seem to go for low prices.
- Murray
Arved
Member
Well, I'm much more likely to take my FM2n out than my F5. There isn't much difference in the size between the basic 35mm SLRs of the 70s and 80s. My father's Canon A-1 isn't really much bigger than his Contax II (I've inherited both). You're absolutely right.
I suppose that carrying one or two D300 bodies (with MB-D10 grips) at a time, and mixing it up with shooting film on an F4 and F5, I got used to cameras that were much larger. Handling something as diminutive as the 3M was a real treat.
So I've been persuaded to abandon the idea of getting an M42 mount Zenit. I'd still like to get to use some of the great M42 lenses out there. We'll see.
Thanks, all.
- Arved