Abstract
A camera is a light-tight box incorporating three basic components to achieve good photography, namely: a reliable lens, an adjustable aperture and a fast moving shutter. All the components work together and permit the use of the camera in the varying circumstances of lighting and speed in which a picture may be taken. Cameras also require a viewing system, or viewfinder, through which a picture can be composed, and cameras are most clearly distinguishable by the type of viewfinding arrangements as follows:
-
a)
‘direct vision viewfinder’ which use a viewing window (e.g. the Soviet ‘Cosmic Symbol’).
-
b)
‘single lens reflex’ (SLR) where the subject is viewed through the ‘taking’ lens (e.g. the Soviet ‘Zenith “E”’ range).
-
c)
‘twin lens reflex’ (TLR) which have a separate viewing lens (e.g. the Soviet ‘Lubitel 166B’ model).
-
d)
Medium Format SLR (e.g. the Soviet ‘Zenith 80’).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
See McKay, R., State Standards and the Quality of Production in the Soviet Photographic Industry, Working Paper No. 112, Department of Management Studies, Loughborough University of Technology, 1985, pp. 49, 50.
The production of cameras in pre-revolutionary Russia was probably very small when compared to imports, as camera production was not commenced in Moscow until 1882 (see note 1. above). On the other hand, some 500 000 cameras were imported into Russia between 1889 and 1914 (See Focal Encyclopaedia of Production, Vol. 2).
See note 1. above, p. 7.
See Cooper, J. M., ‘The Civilian Production of the Soviet Defence Industry’; in Amann, R., Cooper, J. M. (ed.), Technical Progress and Soviet Economic Development (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986) pp. 31–50.
See Novye Tovary; June 1982.
That is, manually adjustable for ‘focus’, ‘range’ and ‘exposure’.
Further information on the appropriate attachments can be found in Sovetskoe Foto, February 1980, p. 42 and Sovetsko Foto, April 1981, p. 42.
See Amateur Photographer, 13 August 1969 (Test Report on the Zenith 80’ by N. Maud; pp. 53–6).
Haworth, J.P.; ‘Zenith–80: A Review’; British Journal of Photography, 24 October 1969, p. 1010.
See note 8. above.
See note 9. above.
In 1967 ‘The Zenith E offers very remarkable value for money’ and ‘we have a true SLR selling at a very low price’ {Amateur Photographer, May 1967). Over a decade later, the Equipment Survey (May 1980, p. 249) of the Royal Photographic Society also reported that ‘The most liked thing about the Zenith is, not surprisingly, the price’. Tina Rogers of Amateur Photographer carried out a test report (6 December 1978, pp. 100–3) on the Zenith TTL model, the first through-the-lens (TTL) model of camera to come to Britain from the USSR. She remarked: ‘We guess you’ll be paying about £75 which will make the TTL the cheapest SLR with through-the-lens metering on the British market … As long as we are fairly close with our price estimate the camera will be good value for money. And it will sell.’ As it happened, however, this price estimate was unrealistically low. In the test reports carried out by Amateur Photographer magazine on five other models of Zenith similar praiseworthy comments about price were expressed by various authors involved, as outlined below: a) see Rex Hayman’s Test Report on the Model EM carried out 28 July 1976. b) see John Wilmott’s report on the Model ET carried out on 24 July 1982. c) see David Cocksedge’s report on the ZENITH 19 carried out on 4 June 1983. d) see John Wilmott’s report on the models 11 and 12XP carried out on 21 April 1984.
Amateur Photographer, 18 June 1983, p. 149.
British Journal of Photography, September 1980, pp. 343–4.
Amateur Photographer, 21 April 1984, pp. 66–8.
Amateur Photographer, 4 June 1983, pp. 60–3.
Amateur Photographer, 24 July 1982, pp. 62–4.
(a) ‘The lens performed in much the same way as on other Zenith models — not exactly high class but perfectly adequately’ (Test Report of the TTL model in Amateur Photographer, December, 1978). (b) ‘The specification and lens quality were and are excellent for the price bracket’ (Test Report of the Model E, in Amateur Photographer, May 1967). (c) ‘As has been proved time and time again, is capable of very good results’ (Test Report of the Model BM in Amateur Photographer, July 1976). (d) ‘Performance. Four stars here. Lens was close to excellent, and shutter speeds/exposure metering up to standard’ (Test Report on the Model 19 in Amateur Photographer, June 1983). (e) ‘Acceptable and decent pictures’ (Test Report of the Models 11 and 12XP, in Amateur Photographer, April, 1984). (f) ‘Can be looked at in a number of ways; it is a teacher, it is the cheapest SLR on the market, it is the basis of a budget system. It also takes good pictures’ (Test Report of the Model ET in Amateur Photographer, July 1982). (g) ‘… in no way can the reliability of models owned by members be criticised’ (survey of 12 Zenith cameras, by J. Schofield, British Journal of Photography, May 1980).
See British Journal of Photography, September/October, 1980.
See note 8 above.
Amateur Photographer, July 1976 (Report on the Zenith Model BM).
Equipment Survey by the Royal Photographic Society, on minor brands of SLR cameras (September/October, 1980).
Amateur Photographer, 12 April 1984 (Test Report on Zenith 11 and 12XP).
Amateur Photographer, July 1982, Test Report on Zenith ET, and Royal Photographic Society’s Equipment Survey May 1980 (Zenith TL).
‘Taking a picture with the ET is a seven stage operation’ (Amateur Photographer, 24 July 1982).
See Which May 1981 (‘Servicing and Reliability of Cameras’).
Practical Photography, February 1978, pp.66–7.
Amateur Photographer, June 1983.
See ‘Good Results from Cheap Cameras’ in Amateur Photographer, 4 August 1984, pp. 122–4.
‘Shooting on a Shoestring’, Practical Photography, December 1979, pp.78–82.
‘It’s based on a Voigtlander Brilliant, rather like the Rolliflex, but unlike the £100 to £200 Rolliflex, it costs about £11 including case’ (see ‘Shooting on a Shoestring’, Practical Photography; December 1979, p.82).
Technical and Optical Equipment (London) Limited. (See p. 18 of the company’s illustrated promotional brochure).
Amateur Photographer, 13 August 1983, p. 96.
Statements by two owners of Lubitel cameras, one of ten years’ duration, and another of twelve years, from a survey of a sample of owners of Soviet-made cameras living in the Loughborough area. This small survey was carried out by R. McKay, with the co-operation of local photographic societies.
Example 1. Page 42 of the October 1981 edition or Sovetskoe Foto carried an article which explained how ‘distance’ and ‘focusing’ scale modifications had been carried out on the Lubitel 166B by an amateur photographer from Leningrad. Example 2. In a DIY article on photography entitled ‘Polaroidski’, photographic expert Peter Coupe explained how with a Lubitel camera body, a Polaroid swinger, a tube of Araldite and some patience he was able to make a form of instamatic roll-film camera for about £15 which otherwise would have cost in the range of £400 or more. See Amateur Photographer, 13 August 1983, pp.94–6. Example 3. On page 43 of Sovetskoe Foto (published in July 1983) there was an article on new photographic techniques which gave details of how camera enthusiast V. Loberant from Kishinev in Moldavia modified his Lubitel model 166B for the fitting and connection of a flash-gun unit.
‘If you are prepared to fiddle with your camera in return for great versatility and an excellent lens then the choice is … the Cosmic Symbol … would be great fun for the enthusiast at any age.’ (Which, December 1974, p. 358). ‘for £11 to £15 the Cosmic Symbol is the simplest of the multi-speed, multi-aperture, focusing cameras available … it’s an excellent camera on which to learn all about photography’ (‘Shooting on a Shoestring’, Practical Photography; December 1979; p.80) ‘Very good optical class lens … ideal choice for children and beginners’ (illustrated booklet of Technical and Optical Equipment (London) Limited). ‘The Cosmic Symbol is a small 35 mm camera which features a good range of shutter speeds and “symbol” focusing. Exposure is taken care of by a clever “weather symbol” indicator’ (‘Good Results from Cheap Cameras’, Amateur Photographer, 4 August 1984, p. 122).
‘The Cosmic 35 … took outstandingly good photographs of outdoor scenes … the camera which gave the least distorted pictures was the Cosmic 35’ although it ‘was particularly inconvenient to use’ (all from ‘Cheap Cameras’, Which, November 1969).
‘The camera looks for all the world like a Zeiss Contax with all controls and functions being similar … Weight is quite substantial at 750 grammes … Accuracy was not perfect on the sample (of shutter) … tested but consistency of mode of operation were erring on the preferred side … On evenly toned subjects the camera settings provided by this exposure meter compared well with a reputable hand meter … At this point a sad feature was revealed, in as much as although the Kiev is a copy of the Contax, it is by no means a facsimile, particularly as far as lens mounting is concerned … a similar analogy is the Zenith 80, modelled on the original Hasselblads and which was erroneously reported in the popular press of the time of its introduction as being compatible with Hasselblad accessories of this era, whereas there was no matching at all, in practice … Briefly, not a lens of the professional standard to which we have become accustomed today, but definitely a good ‘snapshooting, lens … fine for taking photographs with … Rangefinding was found to be accurate with the lens supplied, and may be expected to be so also with other lenses designed for the camera … It was a pleasant change to use once again a ‘basic’ camera, not one of the modern all-singing, all-dancing machines which may well become impossible to manufacture owing to materials shortages. Back to the hand knitting … there are sufficient detail differences in the Kiev to make it another camera … it did all that was requested of it with a solid, almost stolid feel.’
Which, May 1979, pp. 263–7. This report refers to thirty-one 35 mm cameras. The Kiev 4 was found to have a weight of 765 grm, whereas the weight of most other cameras was within the range 200–600 grm.
See What Camera; 5 December 1981, p.5.
‘The basic construction (of the Zorki 4) is a strong diecast body … Despite the undoubted attractions of an SLR, there are still some photographers who prefer the coupled rangefinder, and few sophisticated cameras of this type, with interchangeable lenses, remain … the rangefinder gives an extremely good separation …. The lens is a 50 mm Jupiter 6. This is a well-known lens, of 6 element type, fully coated, and it was no surprise to find that the performance remained unchanged and as good as ever.… to summarise one could say that although old-fashioned the Zorki 4 has some old fashioned virtues. It can take good pictures while the price … is remarkably low for a coupled rangefinder camera taking interchangeable lens.’ (See Amateur Photographer, 27 December 1967; pp.910–1). ‘The Zorki is probably the cheapest of its type on the market… The camera is very heavy for its small size … [it is a] simple, straightforward camera … capable of producing excellent photographs… The machine looks and feels old-fashioned (but) the lens test results were very good indeed overall.’
Copyright information
© 1988 Malcolm R. Hill and Richard McKay
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hill, M.R., McKay, R. (1988). Cameras. In: Soviet Product Quality. Studies in Soviet History and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09290-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09290-1_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-09292-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-09290-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)