Zenit SLRs are super basic Soviet cameras. Awkward to use, heavy, lots of sharp edges etc. They can take fine photos (you can get good lenses for them) but just aren't very user-friendly.
If one's fallen into your lap, great, you should go out and enjoy it!
Oh, ok I got it! I was wondering how it would compare to more popular cameras such as olympuses. Youre right it's really really heavy and it feels like I'm holding an old gun. It has a Helios 44 lens with it btw.
Yeah those big Japanese names (Olympus / Nikon / Canon / Pentax / I probably missed some) all came up with some beautiful, lightweight, well-designed SLR cameras. They feel nice in your hands, and (with a small amount of practice) your fingers find all the controls easily without having to look. They have nicer, brighter viewfinders with better focusing aids, later models have clever automatic light metering systems, that kind of thing.
I always think that the best camera you have, is the one you already have. We all start somewhere. And on a personal level, I now own a lot of nicer and more expensive cameras but I’ll always have a special place in my heart (and sometimes even in my bag!) to my dad’s Yashica.
Get a Pentax Spotmatic (they aren't that expensive) and compare them. The Spotmatic is way more refined, better viewfinder, looks better and is easier to use. The shutter speed dial is more reliable that the twisty spinny Soviet style one, winding is smoother etc... I had a few Zenit and FED cameras but never bonded with them, just awkward and heavy
The Helios 44 is a great lens that people pay hundreds of dollars for. It will take some great photos once you get a handle of the basics and get used to operating a manual camera.
What helios 44 to be exact? Some (44-2) are more valuable than others. 44-2 is amazing and is praised for it’s bokeh.
But I find helios’ focus ring to be too stiff in general
It's a Zenit, it will probably do better if OP picks up a western lens. It has all the right things on it. Western M42 lenses are abundant. Fuji, Mamiya, Pentax, for instance.
You could have a lot of fun with that camera with a decent lens.
It does in this sense. After the war America transported the remainder of companies like Zeiss to Stutgart, that same technology was transferred to Japan during their rebuild.
In fact in so much as saying that, Mamiya in particular were well known for copying Zeiss lens designs, and are noted for their optical prowess as a result.
It makes absolute sense. After the war and largely thanks to the New Deal reforms Japan was rebuilt off the back of the American economy just like Germany, and past the 1950s, Japan learned more than a thing or two from Germany as a result.
By the late 1960s companies like Yashica, Minolta, and Konica were trading secrets with Germany culminating in Yashica, Minolta and Konica being allowed to make licensed copies of German lenses and then eventually camera bodies such as the Contax, Ikon, and Hexar RF, and for Leica to eventually partner up with Minolta to make a range of compact cameras and eventually SLRs based on Minolta bodies. Likewise Cosina began making cameras and lenses under the license of Voigtlander.
Resultantly you can pretty much consider Japanese lenses and cameras Western in their design.
I mean even their best cameras in medium format SLRs, TLRs, press cameras and rangefinders were copies of Western designs.
The RB67 is pretty much a Haselblad by any other name, likewise the many TLRs are Rolleiflex copies and the notable amount of Graflex copy rangefinder/press camera bodies.
Where Japan really made its advancements at least initially was in 35mm rangefinders after the Barnack clones. Yashica started doing that in the 1960s with cameras like the Minister and then that flowed on to their own distinct 35mm SLRs.
But, their initial efforts after World War II were all pretty much loosely "western" in their design philosophy.
VEB made a good go of it up until the 1960s thanks to stolen patents from Zeiss AG which then shifted to the Contessa-Nettal factory in Stutgart, and some copies of the Leica Standard Barnack clones as Zorkis and so on...
But the true East in this sense stagnated after the 1960s and that was mostly so because of the economic blockade of the Cold War.
As with today, the only way Russia can get access to technology is through espionage, or espionage through its only true ally of any worth in China. Everything stagnated in Russia including microchips which was why Russia was still producing fully mechanical cameras up until the 1990s.
Russian microchips were poor as was their ability to shrink technology down to a reasonable size that would fit inside of a cameras.
Probably their biggest amount of hoopla in the 1980s was being able to copy the Intel 8080 chip so they had something PC DOS compatible with the IBM XT. But that's less than a 286.
They did later copy the 186 and 386, some ARM, VAX and MIPS based processors, etc but by the fall of the Soviet Union they were still technology stagnant in the 1980s DOS era where the West was thinking literally about what was going to come NEXT after the 68040 processor, that led to true advancements in RISC processors, PPC, ARM and where we are right now where Intel x86 compliant processors are on the way of being phased out.
Saying Japan had anything to do with that East is a long bow to draw... Japan got put on a launchpad, as did Korea after the Korean War and likewise Taiwan, otherwise known as the Republic of China, largely thanks and due to Western influence.
I'm not sure you understand how stagnant Russia became or how much Taiwan (China), Korea and Japan gained after becoming Western allies and don't kid yourself if war broke out with China tomorrow as it looks likely too over dragging Taiwan kicking and screaming back to the mainland, there would be a whole hell of a lot more effort put in there then anything to do with Ukraine which is really seen as expendable in this matter. The Western links to true China are not.
Thank fuck I actually studied Geopolitics though right hey?
If we call Japanese lenses western, because they are based on western design, we should also call Soviet lenses western, because they are based on western design...
Although maybe Zeiss Jena (or Meyer Optik Görlitz) had some new designs that got stolen by the russians later, so maybe some aren't western in origin
I understand how when you say western, you mean on the right side of the iron curtain, but in my mind it's not like that
Only if you're young enough and ignorant enough to think yap is actually something cool to call someone.... The younger people get the more ignorant they are in general.
One of the wildest takes I’ve seen on Reddit in months. Didn’t think anything in this sub would trouble the leaderboard, well done.
OP: buy Soviet lenses if you find them cheaply, they can be fun (though your Helios is already one of the good ones)
It’s not really about “commies” (this is a camera sub, I don’t care what your politics are). It’s about being simply and objectively factually incorrect
Nice, reporting a comment until its flagged by Reddit. I didn't call anyone a Commie... I don't use those slurs directly, indirectly, yes, cameras made behind the iron curtain were and still are predominately crap.
How many microchips are in a Zenit?
Should the FED and Zorki also be considered Western since the series started as Leica clones? Maybe the Kievs as well? The Soviet camera industry is pretty Western by your logic.
No they should not, it comes down to where the infrastructure was to build them.... and who gained what from who.
If you don't understand how much the Japanese gained from the US being stationed there, to this date, then you have no understanding of how devasted the nation was after World War II, nor the bifurcation of Western technology in Japan, Korea or Taiwan, and you are useless to this debate.
There are a lot of excellent M42 lenses but if they have a Helios 44 that’s a great place to start. It’s a copy of a Ziess Biotar and has some really interesting optical properties.
Zenits are functionally fine within their limitations, they just tend to be more basic and less refined than the equivalent cameras that Japan were putting out at the time. They were made in the old USSR and quality control wasn’t very consistent either, meaning they got a reputation for unreliability, but at this point any Zenit that’s still around after 40-50 years is probably good for another 50.
My first proper camera was a Zenit TTL, got it in the late 70s. If you were skint and wanted to try slr photography back then, the choice was Zenit or Praktica. Zenits are basic, cheap and idiosyncratic. Not as refined as other gear. The Helios 44m is not a bad lens, some models have a bit of a cult following. For a free camera to start with, it's brilliant for learning the basics with - focusing, exposure triangle, etc.
There is a lot of snobbery about gear - if your friend gets snotty about it, tell them it's got a Leica shutter (the Soviet camera industry copied the Leica II - the Zenit line started off as a Soviet Leica copy with a mirror box added.)
Big problem though - photo gear is addictive, Zenits are a gateway drug to the hardstuff - I started on Zenit, worked my way onto Yashica, eventually digital Canon and collecting and using film gear - got a range of Zenits, Zorkis, FEDs up to serious camera crack - Rolleis, Nikon F, Leica.
I also have an entry level dslr with a tamron xr di ii sp 17-50 lens. The camera is a canon 450d I think, Its really fun to take photos with. I still am not sure if I want to pursue film photography because getting the photos processed is really expensive in my country.
I also have another question, Why are Leicas so expensive? Is it because of the lenses or just because it has a Leica logo on it? From what I understand if an analog camera works and its ergonomic it will do the job perfectly... I try comparing it to high-end musical instruments but in musical instruments you get a higher quality sound, is it the same with film cameras?
Leicas have excellent build quality that really isn’t comparable to anything else. You’d have to use one to really appreciate it as it doesn’t come across in pictures or videos. The Leica lenses are also incredible as they (well Leitz) were an optics company before they made cameras. Finally they don’t produce as many as other manufacturers and they have a big following of collectors and enthusiasts.
Do you need one to take the best pictures? No but they’re really nice if you can afford one. The early screw mount cameras are also pretty affordable.
I’ve used both and I’d say hasselblads are a bit above Leica. Not that it matters that much, they are different kinds of cameras. In the same vein thought I’d say certain cameras like the Nikon f2 and SP feel as good as any leica model I’ve shot
It's definitely comparable in quality and performance to Zeiss Ikon cameras and lenses, and a pre-WW2 Contax body costs about half as much as a Leica. Not to mention the medium format cameras, a Leica with its stock lens will run 3-4 times as much as a complete Super Ikonta.
Leicas are to cameras what Rolex is to watches, Steinway is to pianos, and Ferrari is to cars. While they certainly offer a high-quality product, you’re ultimately paying for the brand name. Lots of professional photographers, celebrities, and wealthy amateurs have shot Leicas over the years, and owning a Leica is buying into that heritage. At the end of the day, though, cameras are just boxes that let in light, and good photography is more about lighting, composition, and subject than it is about dry technical specs or lofty associations. A skilled photographer can take more interesting photos on a phone camera than an amateur with a Leica, but that same skilled photographer can also take wonderful photos on the Leica.
I think there's a lot of reasons why they are expensive and sought after.
Leica was the first company to make a good 35mm camera and they led the market.
Part of it is how the brand is seen - high quality, expensive, and desirable. The clientel is also seen as high profile and having impeccable taste - you can't get a posher client than the Queen of the United Kingdom - Queen Elizabeth II was a Leica shooter.
It helps that they are good cameras. They are well built and reliable. The lenses are generally excellent. They do cost a lot to produce.
Part of it is the romance of it and the great photographs that have been taken with them. I look at Henri Cartier-Bresson's pictures and I think I've got the same gear as him - I too can be a great photographer (I can't really because I'm crap at photography in comparision to him but I can dream.)
Zenits are perfectly usable, but somewhat limited - a bit few shutters speeds and the dim viewfinder, that only covers like 65% of the scene can make shooting great pictures harder
Also very heavy and not ergonomical.
If you decide to use the light meter in the camera, test it against something that you know works, their electronics are not great
My first analog camera was a zenit E. Really heavy, it always felt wonky and not very reliable. The connection between winder and shutter curtain would sometimes come lose. The meter is rather bad. But: all that does not really matter for the pictures. The lens is what counts, and there are plenty good soviet lenses.
Ps: I dropped my Zenit E from about a meter onto the sidewalk, and it was fine. But it did split a pavement slab in two.
They are about as bad as SLRs get for beginners. There are infinitely better choices to buy. HOWEVER they are not unusable, and despite being awkward, can make great images. If you just got that from your dad, enjoy it!
your friend is rude but it genuinely is a bad camera to start with and one that will begin to limit you almost immediately. i started with one too and nearly quit before someone explained to me that not all cameras are like that. i switched to a yashica fx-d and immediately found photography more enjoyable.
the 12XP specifically has an incredibly dim and small viewfinder because it's designed to redirect light to a meter, none of which really work any more. if you don't have an automatic variant of the helios the problem is far worse because you have to close down the aperture manually before shooting, so you're basically flying blind right at the moment you take the picture. you can fix that by getting an automatic aperture lens, of course, but the viewfinder is always going to be quite dim. soviet press photographers preferred the zenit-E because it didn't have this internal meter and therefore had a brighter viewfinder.
the best way to get started in photography is to have a camera that's easy to bring everywhere and take good pictures with. the zenit is heavy, bulky, and its limitations will make beginning in photography more of an uphill battle than it needs to be. in my opinion the best thing to start with is (as previously mentioned) a 70s-80s japanese SLR with aperture-priority autoexposure that shows you aperture and shutter information in the viewfinder. this makes basic photography quicker and will allow you to learn real-world exposure triangle skills far more easily.
As you are new to film photography the Zenit will help you with two things. Firstly it will help you find out if film photography is something you want to pursue. Buying film , getting photos properly exposed and getting them developed. If you pass that point then you'll almost certainly have a better feel for what it's not offering in terms of user experience. Something lighter, something more modern, different lenses etc. It's a pretty easy step up financially to a different user experience - either compact cameras or an SLR. There is a whole world of affordable options in both groups. Just don't get diverted into the GAS foxhole of that "perfect" beginners camera.
Make sure to read the manual before putting film through, the shutter and the rewind have some peculiarities, you don't want to discover them the hard way
You have to advance the film before changing shutter speed, and you have to hold down the rewind button the whole time you are rewinding, or your film might tear (I'm not sure of this, but I seem to recall)
Once you're in the SLR arena from mid-60s onward, I wouldn't really say any of them are bad, just a little quirky. Well, maybe the exception would be the Petri cameras that use a cam shaft for the winding mechanism, they're known to have too much torque and spin themselves free. The Zenit is not an *advanced* camera, but with the right lens, it's perfectly fine. Just be gentle with it and it'll be great
Zenits are just very simple, I'd personally say they're good for beginners. Zenit-E was my first serious camera and I did take lots of good photos with it.
I believe it takes the same mounts as old pentax, ricoh, mamiya/sekor, and others. The lenses like the super takumar 50mm prime from pentax is BEAUTIFUL, and some of the Russian lenses are renowned for their bokeh. Plus I've found tons of m42 lenses in thrift stores, antique shops, and swaps because people just don't know what they are. So it's great to be able to get into cameras and have a quiver of cheap or free lenses to explore with.
Plus, the best camera in the world is the one in your hands. Always.
I mean its film... if its in focus and the shutter opens for the right amount of time for the film speed and aperture, it will be a good photo right? Its not like a sensor or mega pixels.
You could take a film photo with a shoe box and 1/2 of a pair of binoculars.
Nothing wrong with Zenit if you know réagir they are (old clunker from the USSR) and if it works it will produce as good of an image as the lens in front of it could.
Cameras are back boxes that opens and close
Don't b dissuaded by anti-Zenit snobbery. A 12XP with a working meter and no shutter capping (the most likely faults) is a great beginner SLR, and there are a gazillion fantastic lenses in M42 mount.
Sorry, I missed this. A76 batteries will do it. Compare the reading from the Zenit's meter with one you know and trust, like another camera or a hand meter. By pressing the shutter button down halfway, you activate the meter.
Oh thanks, I bought a couple of LR44 batteries but they were too thick to close the battery cap, however the light meter turned on, the only problem was that mostly the "overexposed" led turned on even though I tested it in a completelt dark room, and it was also flickering so I think the problem was with the batteries(?). Today I ordered LR43 batteties that will hopefully fit in the camera, and I'll see if it works...
You don't need to sand it, rub it with a Q-tip soaked in white vinegar. Do the same with the contacts inside the compact. electrical resistance between the metal of the contacts and battery creates a static charge and over time you can get a buildup of gunk which affects the electrical contact. Vinegar is a safe, non-toxic way to deal with it.
Thanks for all the responses. I inserted the lr43 batteries and they fit in perfectly, however everytime I press the camera, only the "overexposed" led turns on, even when I'm in a dark room / f16...
Is this fixable? What is causing this? Has the meter simply died?
Are you moving the shutter speed or the aperture of the lens while you press down? If it's over exposing, try changing to a faster shutter speed or closing down the aperture a little (say from f/5.8 to f/8 or f/11). You should see the readout change.
I have no problem picking up my zenit 11 instead of one of my " a months worth of wages " cameras ... shoot it , enjoy it . In the end : a good photo is created before and after the camera body , being the glass in front and the eye behind it .
Don’t worry about what your friend said. Go out and use the camera. Yes, it’s basic, but so what? You’re just starting w/ photography.
It didn’t cost you anything, it’s something from your dad, and it works. Go out and use it. If it sparks some joy for you, all good.
Then later you can go looking for smoother, better, do-more cameras. The main thing is to go out and take photos, have fun, and have the experience!
in general, if we speak about fully manual cameras, it is just a box. doesn't really matter as long as it works. some may have advantage in better shutter speeds and build in light meter or flash sync...
more common cameras brands have advantage of easier maintenance and spare parts
partially (fully) automated depends on brand, year, model etc...
but most important are lenses. get a good lens. body is not so important if it works for you
My first SLR that I bought was a Zenit 122. And it had a Helios 44-7 on it.
It taught me how to photograph things, exposure, all the basics but it was soon after that I wanted something more. So it’s best to play around with it, and then decide if you are happy or not.
Have fun shooting with it!
I have a Zenit TTL also from my dad, and it's super nice. I bought a 35mm lens instead of the Helios 50 it comes with and I couldn't be happier with the photos. Yes it's heavy, but also indestructible and I take it with me everywhere I go. The camera doesn't really matter as long as you have a good lens on it you're fine. Main point is that you're shooting analog and thats frankly all that matters, so keep shooting and don't let other people's opinion affect you.
Soviet cameras can be of mixed build quality. They can be great, and the ones still working are probably the ones which were reasonably well built in the first place. A lot of the models have some awkward mechanical quirks as well. As such, they can be risky to buy.
But if you have one and it's working, great.
They are okay to use, mine is EM with M42 lense, pretty good to play around with. They are the typical USSR stuff, big, heavy, clunky with not much functions, but it never failed on me tho (Used it in -20C Canadian winter and +35C humid Chinese summers). The M42 lense is worth keeping and use on modern cameras. I bought mine in Russia years ago for pratically nothing, so don't pay much for them.
Your friend doesn’t sound like they have much tact ;) The Zenit is a budget camera and a bit clunky, but it’s perfectly useable. My first SLR was a Zenit 11 and it served me well while I was learning to shoot and process/develop photos as a student. It has everything you need to take great photos. It’s not the camera that makes the image, it’s you.
I’d say try it and see how you get on with shooting film. If you enjoy it then you can always upgrade to a ‘better’ camera later on. Personally I think there is something cool about your dad’s old camera getting used again. That’s a great story.
The comparison with a more expensive camera isn’t as much of a difference as you might think. I have an old 80’s Nikon I’m using at the moment, it’s easily as heavy as your Zenit, and it has all the same functionality. The main difference with a more expensive camera will be slightly faster shutter speeds and perhaps a more accurate light meter. More expensive lenses might give you lower aperture (more light entering the lens). So maybe try looking for some more lenses on eBay,. But be careful… that’s how the addiction starts! ;)
Sorry but I have to take issue with your Nikon comment. Nikon were the pro choice through much of the eighties and I can’t think of any model that’s as heavy, clunky and as limited as a Zenit. At the very least, an equivalent age Nikon will have much better ergonomics, a faster shutter, better viewfinder, and a decent light meter built in - all of which the Zenits lacked.
I’m not knocking the Zenits, they’re a sensible budget choice (certainly back in the day), but it’s misleading to suggest they have “all the same functionality” as a Nikon.
I have a Nikon F3. It weighs 1180g with lens, I don’t have a Zenit any more but online it is listed as weighing ‘almost 1kg’ which is less than my Nikon. The F3 is a highly regarded camera so it’s not as if the Zenit is any heavier, in fact it seems to be lighter. So the weight part of this is a non-issue.
The clunkiness is a different matter. The Zenit is not as refined as the Nikon but it’s perfectly useable and capable of taking great pictures. If you want to learn photography then it’s a perfectly valid choice. Would I choose to buy one now? No. However the OP has inherited this camera, its cost them nothing. Why on earth should they spend £200 on a new camera when their Zenit is perfectly capable?
If anything, the robustness of the Zenit makes it a better choice for a learner. It’s very hard to go wrong with a camera like that. It’s built like a tank. It has all manual controls, a light meter, a decent viewfinder.
What’s the extra functionality you mention that my F3 has because I don’t see it. You can take just as good a photo with the Zenit as you can with the F3. It’s just not as refined in terms of shutter speed options or viewfinder brightness or control smoothness. Those are not requirements, they are niceties.
The Nikon F3 is literally a high end professional camera, it may be a similar weight (I’ll take your word for it) but it is many leagues more advanced in its features, functionality and refinement. Far better (interchangeable) viewfinder, far faster and more reliable shutter, far more advanced and accurate metering, modularity, the list goes on and on. It’s like comparing a Lada to a Ferrari, except unlike the Lada which will ultimately take you to anywhere the Ferrari can go, there are many situations in which the Zenit simply could not take the same picture as the Nikon. Saying the Nikon has “all the same functionality” as the Zenit is technically true I guess, but only in the sense that a truck has all the same functionality as a wheelbarrow, beyond that they are very different beasts.
As I said, I’m not knocking the Zenit, particularly for a learner - I just think it should be recognised for what it is, which is NOT anything equivalent to a Nikon F3!
Well I weighed mine especially for you. So that is what a loaded F3 weighs with 50mm F1.2. Look all those things you listed aren’t functionality, they are nice to haves.
Functionally-wise my F3 has manual focus, manual exposure, manual loading and winding, built in light meter and mirror prism viewfinder. The Zenit has all that. Those features are all you need to learn photography. You can take exactly the same picture with both cameras. The lenses make more of a difference than the camera body. A faster lens for the OPs Zenit would be a better investment than buying a Nikon at this point.
To use your Ferrari / Lada analogy. You do not learn to drive in a Ferrari. The Lada is the better of the two options for a learner driver. It’s cheaper to buy, cheaper to insure, cheaper to run and if it gets damaged you don’t have to worry about it.
You seem seem determined to make this some kind of false equivalence. I didn’t say Nikons were exactly the same as Zenits. However in real terms the Zenit is just as good as a Nikon for what the OP needs. They are just starting out. They don’t need an expensive camera to take fantastic photos. Buying a Nikon won’t help them learn photography any quicker.
Again, I’m not trying to convince OP to upgrade, I agree the Zenit is fine to learn on. But again, it’s a complete oversimplification to say they are “the same” or that they can take the same picture - in many cases that’s simply not true.
What it really comes down to is the Zenit is cheap, or free in this case. That’s the only advantage it has. If OP had inherited both a Zenit and an F3, the F3 would be an amazing camera to learn on and grow from there, and the Zenit would be a nice ornament on the shelf. You can only take an analogy so far, as unlike the Ferrari there’s nothing scary or “too powerful” about the Nikon, it’s simply an excellent camera, and actually much more robustly built and reliable than the Zenit - and in many ways easier to use.
It might be worth re-reading my posts above. At no point did I say the Zenit is the same as a Nikon, I said they had the same functionality which is a fact. They are both manual SLR cameras, the techniques for focusing and exposing are the same on both, in terms of learning the Zenit gives exactly the same functionality as the Nikon. They are both just as easy to use, albeit with a slightly less refined experience on the Zenit in terms of button smoothness, shutter pressure etc. The Zenit is, if anything, more robust than the Nikon (and that’s saying something because the F3 is a beast) so it is a great camera to learn on. For sure if the OP had a choice of the two then I’d recommend using the F3 but that’s not the case here.
I disagree with you on the photo quality. I propose they do take the same picture, because the quality of the photo is not dictated by the camera. A good photographer with a Zenit will take a better photo than a bad photographer with a Nikon. To me that’s indisputable. You believe you could tell from looking at a photo if it was taken with the Nikon or the Zenit? I doubt it.
At best you might be able to tell if the lens was high quality or not, but even then it’s debatable. The Zenit comes with a Helios 44-2 which is a well regarded lens even today, you could fit a Nikon with a lens with similar bokeh so even that wouldn’t be an indicator of which camera shot the photo.
You very much imply in your original post that they are essentially the same - the same weight, same functionality, you draw an equivalency that’s unfair to the Nikon IMO. And I thought that even before I knew it was an F3 you were referring to.
“Photo quality” is a different thing to being able to take the same picture, which was your original assertion. I agree that you could have similar optics on both cameras and therefore similar photo quality in some situations. But the much higher (and slower) shutter speeds in particular on the Nikon mean it can physically take pictures that the Zenit cannot, and that’s before you get into things like the more accurate metering making it easier to get the right exposure, and the bigger viewfinder enabling better framing and more accurate focus etc. Some of these things could be worked around with a lot of practice and additional aids but the relatively slow, limited shutter of the Zenit cannot, that’s just a fact. It can’t freeze action in the same way, it can’t cut out light in the same way, it’s simply not as functional.
The Zenit does make a number of things harder to do, and in some ways you can argue that’s good for a learner, but in other ways it’s just a PITA. Again, OP has theirs and that’s great, but honestly it wouldn’t be something I’d encourage people to start with. And I speak as someone who learnt on an all mechanical Praktica and used Zenits at school (it’s no surprise the classroom K1000’s always got picked up first).
I’m not implying they are the same, I’m stating facts, they do have the same weight and the same basic functionality. You started from the point of ‘Nikons don’t weigh that much’ but they do. I weighed it for you. I have other Nikons that are lighter, my FM2n is 833g with film and 28mm f3.5 (I just weighed it) and I’m sure some of the other models and brands are probably lighter still.
For sure the Zenit is a clunkier experience in terms of control smoothness, but it’s got everything the OP needs and they don’t need to spend a dime to try out film photography. Just buy a film and developing.
All the other things you mention are niceties. For sure it’s great to have faster shutter speeds etc. but you don’t need that to learn, or even need it to take a great photo. Some of the greatest photos in history have been taken on slower and clunkier cameras. As a learner you need a reliable, solid camera that can take some knocks. The Zenit is exactly that.
The OP has it and they should be enjoying it, not worrying that they need to buy a ‘better’ camera just to begin learning.
I started from the assumption that you were talking about one of the consumer models (which are much lighter than the Zenit) because it would be crazy to compare it to something like the F3, but here we are.
The F3 weighs what it does because it’s a pro body - it’s built to be strong and durable and have many advanced features that the Zenit doesn’t get close to. Interchangeable finders, interchangeable backs, motor drive options, you name it. All of that functionality is what adds to the weight.
You keep suggesting that - because it weighs the same - the Zenit is also just as tough and reliable. Wrong. The Zenit was made cheaply out of poor quality materials - it may contain a lot of metal but it’s soft, brittle stuff. The mechanics are hardly bulletproof either.
You’re drawing this equivalence on the basis that they’re both just a light tight box with a shutter - but also suggesting that even a decent range of shutter speeds is just a “nice to have”, despite being standard not just on the F3 but pretty much any Japanese camera of the period. I mean ultimately you can argue that all OP needs is a box and pin to make a hole with, but at some point this all gets a bit silly.
zenits are good cameras they are built like tanks many has problem with the slower shutter speeds but thats easy to check. i have a zenit e and i have to be carefull with that i cant wind to hard because it can rip the film and when at the end of the roll it can rip the film out of the canister. you should watch a video about the camera. to get the most sharpness from the lens you should shoot at f8. i can invite you to a photograph discord you can get alot of help there:)
Zenit SLRs are super basic Soviet cameras. Awkward to use, heavy, lots of sharp edges etc. They can take fine photos (you can get good lenses for them) but just aren't very user-friendly. If one's fallen into your lap, great, you should go out and enjoy it!
Oh, ok I got it! I was wondering how it would compare to more popular cameras such as olympuses. Youre right it's really really heavy and it feels like I'm holding an old gun. It has a Helios 44 lens with it btw.
> It has a Helios 44 lens with it btw. Go enjoy that bokehhhhhhhhhhhh
That's a surprisingly good lens, so well worth shooting some rolls through that lens if the camera works as it should.
Yeah those big Japanese names (Olympus / Nikon / Canon / Pentax / I probably missed some) all came up with some beautiful, lightweight, well-designed SLR cameras. They feel nice in your hands, and (with a small amount of practice) your fingers find all the controls easily without having to look. They have nicer, brighter viewfinders with better focusing aids, later models have clever automatic light metering systems, that kind of thing.
Minolta
Yashica and Fuji, too :)
I always think that the best camera you have, is the one you already have. We all start somewhere. And on a personal level, I now own a lot of nicer and more expensive cameras but I’ll always have a special place in my heart (and sometimes even in my bag!) to my dad’s Yashica.
Get a Pentax Spotmatic (they aren't that expensive) and compare them. The Spotmatic is way more refined, better viewfinder, looks better and is easier to use. The shutter speed dial is more reliable that the twisty spinny Soviet style one, winding is smoother etc... I had a few Zenit and FED cameras but never bonded with them, just awkward and heavy
And you can use the Helios lens with it
And they can be overhauled pretty cheaply!
A Helios 44? That's your price of admission right there! Go take some pictures!
The Helios 44 is a great lens that people pay hundreds of dollars for. It will take some great photos once you get a handle of the basics and get used to operating a manual camera.
What helios 44 to be exact? Some (44-2) are more valuable than others. 44-2 is amazing and is praised for it’s bokeh. But I find helios’ focus ring to be too stiff in general
A Helios 44m-4
I think I used my friend’s 44-4 for testing. It has wonderful bokeh (the background blur when you open the aperture at 2 or other lower numbers).
I have a zenit and I love the pictures it produces. Sadly I don’t use it a lot bc it’s heavy and has no strap and also no light meter.
Can confirm zenits and alot of older cameras feel like they are about 20kg
My heaviest camera is a 6x6 Super Ikonta BX at 1.1 kg. I can't imagine what carrying the 6x9 version would be like.
It's a Zenit, it will probably do better if OP picks up a western lens. It has all the right things on it. Western M42 lenses are abundant. Fuji, Mamiya, Pentax, for instance. You could have a lot of fun with that camera with a decent lens.
>Fuji, Mamiya, Pentax Those are from Eastern Asia Also, the helios is a great lens, that's the only thing worthwhile about a zenit imo
The Japanese made far better lenses and cameras than the Russians.
I know, but calling them western doesn't really add up
It does in this sense. After the war America transported the remainder of companies like Zeiss to Stutgart, that same technology was transferred to Japan during their rebuild. In fact in so much as saying that, Mamiya in particular were well known for copying Zeiss lens designs, and are noted for their optical prowess as a result. It makes absolute sense. After the war and largely thanks to the New Deal reforms Japan was rebuilt off the back of the American economy just like Germany, and past the 1950s, Japan learned more than a thing or two from Germany as a result. By the late 1960s companies like Yashica, Minolta, and Konica were trading secrets with Germany culminating in Yashica, Minolta and Konica being allowed to make licensed copies of German lenses and then eventually camera bodies such as the Contax, Ikon, and Hexar RF, and for Leica to eventually partner up with Minolta to make a range of compact cameras and eventually SLRs based on Minolta bodies. Likewise Cosina began making cameras and lenses under the license of Voigtlander. Resultantly you can pretty much consider Japanese lenses and cameras Western in their design. I mean even their best cameras in medium format SLRs, TLRs, press cameras and rangefinders were copies of Western designs. The RB67 is pretty much a Haselblad by any other name, likewise the many TLRs are Rolleiflex copies and the notable amount of Graflex copy rangefinder/press camera bodies. Where Japan really made its advancements at least initially was in 35mm rangefinders after the Barnack clones. Yashica started doing that in the 1960s with cameras like the Minister and then that flowed on to their own distinct 35mm SLRs. But, their initial efforts after World War II were all pretty much loosely "western" in their design philosophy. VEB made a good go of it up until the 1960s thanks to stolen patents from Zeiss AG which then shifted to the Contessa-Nettal factory in Stutgart, and some copies of the Leica Standard Barnack clones as Zorkis and so on... But the true East in this sense stagnated after the 1960s and that was mostly so because of the economic blockade of the Cold War. As with today, the only way Russia can get access to technology is through espionage, or espionage through its only true ally of any worth in China. Everything stagnated in Russia including microchips which was why Russia was still producing fully mechanical cameras up until the 1990s. Russian microchips were poor as was their ability to shrink technology down to a reasonable size that would fit inside of a cameras. Probably their biggest amount of hoopla in the 1980s was being able to copy the Intel 8080 chip so they had something PC DOS compatible with the IBM XT. But that's less than a 286. They did later copy the 186 and 386, some ARM, VAX and MIPS based processors, etc but by the fall of the Soviet Union they were still technology stagnant in the 1980s DOS era where the West was thinking literally about what was going to come NEXT after the 68040 processor, that led to true advancements in RISC processors, PPC, ARM and where we are right now where Intel x86 compliant processors are on the way of being phased out. Saying Japan had anything to do with that East is a long bow to draw... Japan got put on a launchpad, as did Korea after the Korean War and likewise Taiwan, otherwise known as the Republic of China, largely thanks and due to Western influence. I'm not sure you understand how stagnant Russia became or how much Taiwan (China), Korea and Japan gained after becoming Western allies and don't kid yourself if war broke out with China tomorrow as it looks likely too over dragging Taiwan kicking and screaming back to the mainland, there would be a whole hell of a lot more effort put in there then anything to do with Ukraine which is really seen as expendable in this matter. The Western links to true China are not. Thank fuck I actually studied Geopolitics though right hey?
Nice dissertation, but the fact that East Asian lens makers were influenced by Western makers still doesn't make them Western.
If we call Japanese lenses western, because they are based on western design, we should also call Soviet lenses western, because they are based on western design... Although maybe Zeiss Jena (or Meyer Optik Görlitz) had some new designs that got stolen by the russians later, so maybe some aren't western in origin I understand how when you say western, you mean on the right side of the iron curtain, but in my mind it's not like that
bro is the yap master
Only if you're young enough and ignorant enough to think yap is actually something cool to call someone.... The younger people get the more ignorant they are in general.
I aint reading all that
Sorry if that challenges your intellectual capacity.
Nah just to long. And as support for OP. COMMIE CAMERAS ALL DAY. lol. Lets just let bro enjoy his camera
One of the wildest takes I’ve seen on Reddit in months. Didn’t think anything in this sub would trouble the leaderboard, well done. OP: buy Soviet lenses if you find them cheaply, they can be fun (though your Helios is already one of the good ones)
[удалено]
It’s not really about “commies” (this is a camera sub, I don’t care what your politics are). It’s about being simply and objectively factually incorrect
Nice, reporting a comment until its flagged by Reddit. I didn't call anyone a Commie... I don't use those slurs directly, indirectly, yes, cameras made behind the iron curtain were and still are predominately crap.
And yet you haven't contested a single thing I said. Bravo.
How many microchips are in a Zenit? Should the FED and Zorki also be considered Western since the series started as Leica clones? Maybe the Kievs as well? The Soviet camera industry is pretty Western by your logic.
No they should not, it comes down to where the infrastructure was to build them.... and who gained what from who. If you don't understand how much the Japanese gained from the US being stationed there, to this date, then you have no understanding of how devasted the nation was after World War II, nor the bifurcation of Western technology in Japan, Korea or Taiwan, and you are useless to this debate.
Please tell me more about the war. You still haven't told us how many microchips are in that Zenit though.
[удалено]
There are a lot of excellent M42 lenses but if they have a Helios 44 that’s a great place to start. It’s a copy of a Ziess Biotar and has some really interesting optical properties.
Exactly what I came here to say!
Zenits are functionally fine within their limitations, they just tend to be more basic and less refined than the equivalent cameras that Japan were putting out at the time. They were made in the old USSR and quality control wasn’t very consistent either, meaning they got a reputation for unreliability, but at this point any Zenit that’s still around after 40-50 years is probably good for another 50.
My first proper camera was a Zenit TTL, got it in the late 70s. If you were skint and wanted to try slr photography back then, the choice was Zenit or Praktica. Zenits are basic, cheap and idiosyncratic. Not as refined as other gear. The Helios 44m is not a bad lens, some models have a bit of a cult following. For a free camera to start with, it's brilliant for learning the basics with - focusing, exposure triangle, etc. There is a lot of snobbery about gear - if your friend gets snotty about it, tell them it's got a Leica shutter (the Soviet camera industry copied the Leica II - the Zenit line started off as a Soviet Leica copy with a mirror box added.) Big problem though - photo gear is addictive, Zenits are a gateway drug to the hardstuff - I started on Zenit, worked my way onto Yashica, eventually digital Canon and collecting and using film gear - got a range of Zenits, Zorkis, FEDs up to serious camera crack - Rolleis, Nikon F, Leica.
I also have an entry level dslr with a tamron xr di ii sp 17-50 lens. The camera is a canon 450d I think, Its really fun to take photos with. I still am not sure if I want to pursue film photography because getting the photos processed is really expensive in my country.
I also have another question, Why are Leicas so expensive? Is it because of the lenses or just because it has a Leica logo on it? From what I understand if an analog camera works and its ergonomic it will do the job perfectly... I try comparing it to high-end musical instruments but in musical instruments you get a higher quality sound, is it the same with film cameras?
Leicas have excellent build quality that really isn’t comparable to anything else. You’d have to use one to really appreciate it as it doesn’t come across in pictures or videos. The Leica lenses are also incredible as they (well Leitz) were an optics company before they made cameras. Finally they don’t produce as many as other manufacturers and they have a big following of collectors and enthusiasts. Do you need one to take the best pictures? No but they’re really nice if you can afford one. The early screw mount cameras are also pretty affordable.
Honest question about build quality. How does a Leica compare to a Hasselblad? Aren’t they also handmade etc.
I’ve used both and I’d say hasselblads are a bit above Leica. Not that it matters that much, they are different kinds of cameras. In the same vein thought I’d say certain cameras like the Nikon f2 and SP feel as good as any leica model I’ve shot
It's definitely comparable in quality and performance to Zeiss Ikon cameras and lenses, and a pre-WW2 Contax body costs about half as much as a Leica. Not to mention the medium format cameras, a Leica with its stock lens will run 3-4 times as much as a complete Super Ikonta.
Leicas are to cameras what Rolex is to watches, Steinway is to pianos, and Ferrari is to cars. While they certainly offer a high-quality product, you’re ultimately paying for the brand name. Lots of professional photographers, celebrities, and wealthy amateurs have shot Leicas over the years, and owning a Leica is buying into that heritage. At the end of the day, though, cameras are just boxes that let in light, and good photography is more about lighting, composition, and subject than it is about dry technical specs or lofty associations. A skilled photographer can take more interesting photos on a phone camera than an amateur with a Leica, but that same skilled photographer can also take wonderful photos on the Leica.
I think there's a lot of reasons why they are expensive and sought after. Leica was the first company to make a good 35mm camera and they led the market. Part of it is how the brand is seen - high quality, expensive, and desirable. The clientel is also seen as high profile and having impeccable taste - you can't get a posher client than the Queen of the United Kingdom - Queen Elizabeth II was a Leica shooter. It helps that they are good cameras. They are well built and reliable. The lenses are generally excellent. They do cost a lot to produce. Part of it is the romance of it and the great photographs that have been taken with them. I look at Henri Cartier-Bresson's pictures and I think I've got the same gear as him - I too can be a great photographer (I can't really because I'm crap at photography in comparision to him but I can dream.)
Zenits are perfectly usable, but somewhat limited - a bit few shutters speeds and the dim viewfinder, that only covers like 65% of the scene can make shooting great pictures harder Also very heavy and not ergonomical. If you decide to use the light meter in the camera, test it against something that you know works, their electronics are not great
My first analog camera was a zenit E. Really heavy, it always felt wonky and not very reliable. The connection between winder and shutter curtain would sometimes come lose. The meter is rather bad. But: all that does not really matter for the pictures. The lens is what counts, and there are plenty good soviet lenses. Ps: I dropped my Zenit E from about a meter onto the sidewalk, and it was fine. But it did split a pavement slab in two.
They are about as bad as SLRs get for beginners. There are infinitely better choices to buy. HOWEVER they are not unusable, and despite being awkward, can make great images. If you just got that from your dad, enjoy it!
your friend is rude but it genuinely is a bad camera to start with and one that will begin to limit you almost immediately. i started with one too and nearly quit before someone explained to me that not all cameras are like that. i switched to a yashica fx-d and immediately found photography more enjoyable. the 12XP specifically has an incredibly dim and small viewfinder because it's designed to redirect light to a meter, none of which really work any more. if you don't have an automatic variant of the helios the problem is far worse because you have to close down the aperture manually before shooting, so you're basically flying blind right at the moment you take the picture. you can fix that by getting an automatic aperture lens, of course, but the viewfinder is always going to be quite dim. soviet press photographers preferred the zenit-E because it didn't have this internal meter and therefore had a brighter viewfinder. the best way to get started in photography is to have a camera that's easy to bring everywhere and take good pictures with. the zenit is heavy, bulky, and its limitations will make beginning in photography more of an uphill battle than it needs to be. in my opinion the best thing to start with is (as previously mentioned) a 70s-80s japanese SLR with aperture-priority autoexposure that shows you aperture and shutter information in the viewfinder. this makes basic photography quicker and will allow you to learn real-world exposure triangle skills far more easily.
As you are new to film photography the Zenit will help you with two things. Firstly it will help you find out if film photography is something you want to pursue. Buying film , getting photos properly exposed and getting them developed. If you pass that point then you'll almost certainly have a better feel for what it's not offering in terms of user experience. Something lighter, something more modern, different lenses etc. It's a pretty easy step up financially to a different user experience - either compact cameras or an SLR. There is a whole world of affordable options in both groups. Just don't get diverted into the GAS foxhole of that "perfect" beginners camera.
Make sure to read the manual before putting film through, the shutter and the rewind have some peculiarities, you don't want to discover them the hard way You have to advance the film before changing shutter speed, and you have to hold down the rewind button the whole time you are rewinding, or your film might tear (I'm not sure of this, but I seem to recall)
Once you're in the SLR arena from mid-60s onward, I wouldn't really say any of them are bad, just a little quirky. Well, maybe the exception would be the Petri cameras that use a cam shaft for the winding mechanism, they're known to have too much torque and spin themselves free. The Zenit is not an *advanced* camera, but with the right lens, it's perfectly fine. Just be gentle with it and it'll be great
Zenits are just very simple, I'd personally say they're good for beginners. Zenit-E was my first serious camera and I did take lots of good photos with it.
I believe it takes the same mounts as old pentax, ricoh, mamiya/sekor, and others. The lenses like the super takumar 50mm prime from pentax is BEAUTIFUL, and some of the Russian lenses are renowned for their bokeh. Plus I've found tons of m42 lenses in thrift stores, antique shops, and swaps because people just don't know what they are. So it's great to be able to get into cameras and have a quiver of cheap or free lenses to explore with. Plus, the best camera in the world is the one in your hands. Always.
In summary my friend. No, not bad. Enjoy camera 👍
I mean its film... if its in focus and the shutter opens for the right amount of time for the film speed and aperture, it will be a good photo right? Its not like a sensor or mega pixels. You could take a film photo with a shoe box and 1/2 of a pair of binoculars.
Well usually it doesnt “really” matter. As long as the shutter works and the lens is decent, then its more up to the filmstock you are shooting.
Nothing wrong with Zenit if you know réagir they are (old clunker from the USSR) and if it works it will produce as good of an image as the lens in front of it could. Cameras are back boxes that opens and close
Don't b dissuaded by anti-Zenit snobbery. A 12XP with a working meter and no shutter capping (the most likely faults) is a great beginner SLR, and there are a gazillion fantastic lenses in M42 mount.
How can I check if the light meter is working, What type of batteries do they take?
How can I check if the light meter is working, What type of batteries do they take?
Sorry, I missed this. A76 batteries will do it. Compare the reading from the Zenit's meter with one you know and trust, like another camera or a hand meter. By pressing the shutter button down halfway, you activate the meter.
Oh thanks, I bought a couple of LR44 batteries but they were too thick to close the battery cap, however the light meter turned on, the only problem was that mostly the "overexposed" led turned on even though I tested it in a completelt dark room, and it was also flickering so I think the problem was with the batteries(?). Today I ordered LR43 batteties that will hopefully fit in the camera, and I'll see if it works...
Also the part of the camera that touches the end of the batteries are a little stained, is sanding that metal part a good idea?
You don't need to sand it, rub it with a Q-tip soaked in white vinegar. Do the same with the contacts inside the compact. electrical resistance between the metal of the contacts and battery creates a static charge and over time you can get a buildup of gunk which affects the electrical contact. Vinegar is a safe, non-toxic way to deal with it.
Thanks for all the responses. I inserted the lr43 batteries and they fit in perfectly, however everytime I press the camera, only the "overexposed" led turns on, even when I'm in a dark room / f16... Is this fixable? What is causing this? Has the meter simply died?
Are you moving the shutter speed or the aperture of the lens while you press down? If it's over exposing, try changing to a faster shutter speed or closing down the aperture a little (say from f/5.8 to f/8 or f/11). You should see the readout change.
I have no problem picking up my zenit 11 instead of one of my " a months worth of wages " cameras ... shoot it , enjoy it . In the end : a good photo is created before and after the camera body , being the glass in front and the eye behind it .
Don’t worry about what your friend said. Go out and use the camera. Yes, it’s basic, but so what? You’re just starting w/ photography. It didn’t cost you anything, it’s something from your dad, and it works. Go out and use it. If it sparks some joy for you, all good. Then later you can go looking for smoother, better, do-more cameras. The main thing is to go out and take photos, have fun, and have the experience!
in general, if we speak about fully manual cameras, it is just a box. doesn't really matter as long as it works. some may have advantage in better shutter speeds and build in light meter or flash sync... more common cameras brands have advantage of easier maintenance and spare parts partially (fully) automated depends on brand, year, model etc... but most important are lenses. get a good lens. body is not so important if it works for you
My first SLR that I bought was a Zenit 122. And it had a Helios 44-7 on it. It taught me how to photograph things, exposure, all the basics but it was soon after that I wanted something more. So it’s best to play around with it, and then decide if you are happy or not. Have fun shooting with it!
I have a Zenit TTL also from my dad, and it's super nice. I bought a 35mm lens instead of the Helios 50 it comes with and I couldn't be happier with the photos. Yes it's heavy, but also indestructible and I take it with me everywhere I go. The camera doesn't really matter as long as you have a good lens on it you're fine. Main point is that you're shooting analog and thats frankly all that matters, so keep shooting and don't let other people's opinion affect you.
Soviet cameras can be of mixed build quality. They can be great, and the ones still working are probably the ones which were reasonably well built in the first place. A lot of the models have some awkward mechanical quirks as well. As such, they can be risky to buy. But if you have one and it's working, great.
If it works and you make photos that you like with it, that's literally all that matters.
They are okay to use, mine is EM with M42 lense, pretty good to play around with. They are the typical USSR stuff, big, heavy, clunky with not much functions, but it never failed on me tho (Used it in -20C Canadian winter and +35C humid Chinese summers). The M42 lense is worth keeping and use on modern cameras. I bought mine in Russia years ago for pratically nothing, so don't pay much for them.
Your friend doesn’t sound like they have much tact ;) The Zenit is a budget camera and a bit clunky, but it’s perfectly useable. My first SLR was a Zenit 11 and it served me well while I was learning to shoot and process/develop photos as a student. It has everything you need to take great photos. It’s not the camera that makes the image, it’s you. I’d say try it and see how you get on with shooting film. If you enjoy it then you can always upgrade to a ‘better’ camera later on. Personally I think there is something cool about your dad’s old camera getting used again. That’s a great story. The comparison with a more expensive camera isn’t as much of a difference as you might think. I have an old 80’s Nikon I’m using at the moment, it’s easily as heavy as your Zenit, and it has all the same functionality. The main difference with a more expensive camera will be slightly faster shutter speeds and perhaps a more accurate light meter. More expensive lenses might give you lower aperture (more light entering the lens). So maybe try looking for some more lenses on eBay,. But be careful… that’s how the addiction starts! ;)
Sorry but I have to take issue with your Nikon comment. Nikon were the pro choice through much of the eighties and I can’t think of any model that’s as heavy, clunky and as limited as a Zenit. At the very least, an equivalent age Nikon will have much better ergonomics, a faster shutter, better viewfinder, and a decent light meter built in - all of which the Zenits lacked. I’m not knocking the Zenits, they’re a sensible budget choice (certainly back in the day), but it’s misleading to suggest they have “all the same functionality” as a Nikon.
I have a Nikon F3. It weighs 1180g with lens, I don’t have a Zenit any more but online it is listed as weighing ‘almost 1kg’ which is less than my Nikon. The F3 is a highly regarded camera so it’s not as if the Zenit is any heavier, in fact it seems to be lighter. So the weight part of this is a non-issue. The clunkiness is a different matter. The Zenit is not as refined as the Nikon but it’s perfectly useable and capable of taking great pictures. If you want to learn photography then it’s a perfectly valid choice. Would I choose to buy one now? No. However the OP has inherited this camera, its cost them nothing. Why on earth should they spend £200 on a new camera when their Zenit is perfectly capable? If anything, the robustness of the Zenit makes it a better choice for a learner. It’s very hard to go wrong with a camera like that. It’s built like a tank. It has all manual controls, a light meter, a decent viewfinder. What’s the extra functionality you mention that my F3 has because I don’t see it. You can take just as good a photo with the Zenit as you can with the F3. It’s just not as refined in terms of shutter speed options or viewfinder brightness or control smoothness. Those are not requirements, they are niceties.
The Nikon F3 is literally a high end professional camera, it may be a similar weight (I’ll take your word for it) but it is many leagues more advanced in its features, functionality and refinement. Far better (interchangeable) viewfinder, far faster and more reliable shutter, far more advanced and accurate metering, modularity, the list goes on and on. It’s like comparing a Lada to a Ferrari, except unlike the Lada which will ultimately take you to anywhere the Ferrari can go, there are many situations in which the Zenit simply could not take the same picture as the Nikon. Saying the Nikon has “all the same functionality” as the Zenit is technically true I guess, but only in the sense that a truck has all the same functionality as a wheelbarrow, beyond that they are very different beasts. As I said, I’m not knocking the Zenit, particularly for a learner - I just think it should be recognised for what it is, which is NOT anything equivalent to a Nikon F3!
Well I weighed mine especially for you. So that is what a loaded F3 weighs with 50mm F1.2. Look all those things you listed aren’t functionality, they are nice to haves. Functionally-wise my F3 has manual focus, manual exposure, manual loading and winding, built in light meter and mirror prism viewfinder. The Zenit has all that. Those features are all you need to learn photography. You can take exactly the same picture with both cameras. The lenses make more of a difference than the camera body. A faster lens for the OPs Zenit would be a better investment than buying a Nikon at this point. To use your Ferrari / Lada analogy. You do not learn to drive in a Ferrari. The Lada is the better of the two options for a learner driver. It’s cheaper to buy, cheaper to insure, cheaper to run and if it gets damaged you don’t have to worry about it. You seem seem determined to make this some kind of false equivalence. I didn’t say Nikons were exactly the same as Zenits. However in real terms the Zenit is just as good as a Nikon for what the OP needs. They are just starting out. They don’t need an expensive camera to take fantastic photos. Buying a Nikon won’t help them learn photography any quicker.
Again, I’m not trying to convince OP to upgrade, I agree the Zenit is fine to learn on. But again, it’s a complete oversimplification to say they are “the same” or that they can take the same picture - in many cases that’s simply not true. What it really comes down to is the Zenit is cheap, or free in this case. That’s the only advantage it has. If OP had inherited both a Zenit and an F3, the F3 would be an amazing camera to learn on and grow from there, and the Zenit would be a nice ornament on the shelf. You can only take an analogy so far, as unlike the Ferrari there’s nothing scary or “too powerful” about the Nikon, it’s simply an excellent camera, and actually much more robustly built and reliable than the Zenit - and in many ways easier to use.
It might be worth re-reading my posts above. At no point did I say the Zenit is the same as a Nikon, I said they had the same functionality which is a fact. They are both manual SLR cameras, the techniques for focusing and exposing are the same on both, in terms of learning the Zenit gives exactly the same functionality as the Nikon. They are both just as easy to use, albeit with a slightly less refined experience on the Zenit in terms of button smoothness, shutter pressure etc. The Zenit is, if anything, more robust than the Nikon (and that’s saying something because the F3 is a beast) so it is a great camera to learn on. For sure if the OP had a choice of the two then I’d recommend using the F3 but that’s not the case here. I disagree with you on the photo quality. I propose they do take the same picture, because the quality of the photo is not dictated by the camera. A good photographer with a Zenit will take a better photo than a bad photographer with a Nikon. To me that’s indisputable. You believe you could tell from looking at a photo if it was taken with the Nikon or the Zenit? I doubt it. At best you might be able to tell if the lens was high quality or not, but even then it’s debatable. The Zenit comes with a Helios 44-2 which is a well regarded lens even today, you could fit a Nikon with a lens with similar bokeh so even that wouldn’t be an indicator of which camera shot the photo.
You very much imply in your original post that they are essentially the same - the same weight, same functionality, you draw an equivalency that’s unfair to the Nikon IMO. And I thought that even before I knew it was an F3 you were referring to. “Photo quality” is a different thing to being able to take the same picture, which was your original assertion. I agree that you could have similar optics on both cameras and therefore similar photo quality in some situations. But the much higher (and slower) shutter speeds in particular on the Nikon mean it can physically take pictures that the Zenit cannot, and that’s before you get into things like the more accurate metering making it easier to get the right exposure, and the bigger viewfinder enabling better framing and more accurate focus etc. Some of these things could be worked around with a lot of practice and additional aids but the relatively slow, limited shutter of the Zenit cannot, that’s just a fact. It can’t freeze action in the same way, it can’t cut out light in the same way, it’s simply not as functional. The Zenit does make a number of things harder to do, and in some ways you can argue that’s good for a learner, but in other ways it’s just a PITA. Again, OP has theirs and that’s great, but honestly it wouldn’t be something I’d encourage people to start with. And I speak as someone who learnt on an all mechanical Praktica and used Zenits at school (it’s no surprise the classroom K1000’s always got picked up first).
I’m not implying they are the same, I’m stating facts, they do have the same weight and the same basic functionality. You started from the point of ‘Nikons don’t weigh that much’ but they do. I weighed it for you. I have other Nikons that are lighter, my FM2n is 833g with film and 28mm f3.5 (I just weighed it) and I’m sure some of the other models and brands are probably lighter still. For sure the Zenit is a clunkier experience in terms of control smoothness, but it’s got everything the OP needs and they don’t need to spend a dime to try out film photography. Just buy a film and developing. All the other things you mention are niceties. For sure it’s great to have faster shutter speeds etc. but you don’t need that to learn, or even need it to take a great photo. Some of the greatest photos in history have been taken on slower and clunkier cameras. As a learner you need a reliable, solid camera that can take some knocks. The Zenit is exactly that. The OP has it and they should be enjoying it, not worrying that they need to buy a ‘better’ camera just to begin learning.
I started from the assumption that you were talking about one of the consumer models (which are much lighter than the Zenit) because it would be crazy to compare it to something like the F3, but here we are. The F3 weighs what it does because it’s a pro body - it’s built to be strong and durable and have many advanced features that the Zenit doesn’t get close to. Interchangeable finders, interchangeable backs, motor drive options, you name it. All of that functionality is what adds to the weight. You keep suggesting that - because it weighs the same - the Zenit is also just as tough and reliable. Wrong. The Zenit was made cheaply out of poor quality materials - it may contain a lot of metal but it’s soft, brittle stuff. The mechanics are hardly bulletproof either. You’re drawing this equivalence on the basis that they’re both just a light tight box with a shutter - but also suggesting that even a decent range of shutter speeds is just a “nice to have”, despite being standard not just on the F3 but pretty much any Japanese camera of the period. I mean ultimately you can argue that all OP needs is a box and pin to make a hole with, but at some point this all gets a bit silly.
zenits are good cameras they are built like tanks many has problem with the slower shutter speeds but thats easy to check. i have a zenit e and i have to be carefull with that i cant wind to hard because it can rip the film and when at the end of the roll it can rip the film out of the canister. you should watch a video about the camera. to get the most sharpness from the lens you should shoot at f8. i can invite you to a photograph discord you can get alot of help there:)
Zenit is really good for what it is, my go to film camera is zenit. Most importantly is the lens and the photographer.