CAMBRON

[Randy]

Just picked up a CAMRON camera on Evilbay for 25 dollars. It is a ZENIT EM rebadged CAMBRON and imported to the US by the now defunct Cambridge Camera. Hopefully this one will arrive in good shape, I haven't been having the best of luck with camera purchases as of late.

[herron]

Looking forward to seeing it. I don't think I've ever run across one before!

[cmc850]

Hey Randy-


many years ago when I was about 16 and shooting with an Argus C-3 and my dad's Ricoh 35S, I lusted after some kind of SLR. I remember my uncle had a Nikkormat and I really wanted something better, but no cash. I was really tempted by the Cambridge Camera ads for that Cambron, though it seemed a little suspect at the time. Is it decent? It wasn't til a couple of years later I got my first SLR...a brand new one...yep, you guessed it, a Minolta SRT! I actually traded that for a used XE-7, then down through a long line of cameras. Funny thing, though...some of my favorite shots of all time were taken when a first got started....C-3 Brick and Kodachrome 25.

[Randy]

I'll try to take some pics of my CAMBRON tonight and get them posted.

[ah110992]

Hello I really could use some help I have this camera that has was my great grandpas not sure really how old or anything about it!! Please email me if you can help. Email with the subject as Cambron Camera. [e-mail] the camera is called Cambron and the number on it is 77099180 thanks

[Stephen]

May 15, 2014 21:24:28 GMT -5 ah110992 said:

Hello I really could use some help I have this camera that has was my great grandpas not sure really how old or anything about it!! Please email me if you can help. Email with the subject as Cambron Camera. [e-mail] the camera is called Cambron and the number on it is 77099180 thanks

If it is the Russian made Reflex through the lens camera, it is a USSR produced Zenit camera, re-badged by Cambridge Cameras in the States. The Zenit was the most mass produced 35mm reflex in the world, and came in manual lens version, then metered and finally auto diaphragm versions.

Basically they are entry level cameras for enthusiasts, and deliver good photos, as long as you know the limitations. The USSR Soviet quality control was poor, although usually the export models were OK.
The lenses were good, the best part of the camera.

On value they were mass produced, but there are collectors after each version, but collectable may not mean valuable, there are the kind of camera that turns up in yard sales and charity shops quite cheaply. Ebay has dozens on sale at higher prices, but the Cambron label makes it less common, but frankly no more valuable. The Cambron trademark started in the late 1970's.

Full instructions for use are available on the net, film is made, and results should exceed most more modern 35mm film cameras.

Cambron also supplied a compact 35mm camera sourced from the USSR as well as the Zenit, again a bit plain and very mass produced.

[Stephen]

Example of Zenit EM in Cambron livery, the body number on yours indicates at 1977 vintage, prior to the '80 Olympic version.
So yours should be an EM, the most popular later model, low value, but very usable if it is in working order.

[philbirch]

And the lens may be used on many modern DSLR's and mirrorless with a cheap adapter.

The typical Zenit was not the best performing camera (I had three and all had their own faults) but the lenses, if you got a good one were super and giving really good performance on 'crop sensors' cameras. Most are only sold for the lens. The image above shows a Helios 44-M lens, earlier ones like the Helios 44-4 and 44-2 are better.

[daveh]

In what way are they better?

[Stephen]

I am sure there are other opinions, but the 58mm F2.0 performance did not alter much in practice. The grinding and elements formula remained the same, but the supports for the glass altered, and the Russians altered the glass grades and types over the years. The coatings remained about the same.

What did alter in the UK was TOE(UK) acceptance testing, very good testing in the early days, but as the cameras became mainstream, and especially when Dixons took them in quantity, the testing virtually stopped, with crates of cameras sent out to shops un-checked.

TOE(UK) were stricter than most distributors, being run by the Russian Embassy, as an Anglo-USSR company. The US forbade the Russians to be involved directly with the importing of USSR cameras, so supplies came from USSR export companies direct to the US.
With poor quality control in the 1980's the standards of the lens fell, but it is not consistent, there are still good lenses from the later productions.

Stephen.

[daveh]

Thanks, Stephen.

I haven't lenses from the different eras of the Helios to do a direct comparison, just a 44M-4. I do (somewhere, if I can find it) have a Jupiter 50mm lens in that lightweight metal body.

This Helios has to be the cleanest lens I have. It looks as though it has never been used. It's reassuringly heavy, and the focussing mechanism is smooth. There isn't even a spot of dust present.

In the end most things are subjective, even "scientific" studies. Camerapedia certainly believes there is a progressive improvement in optical quality of the lens over the years, except that the 44-2 seemed better than the next generation. However, there is no indication how many lenses of each type were tested.

Quality control is a difficult thing to categorise. Tighter manufacturing tolerances can mean that there is less need for rigid quality control at the end of the process. What happened, I wonder, to those lenses that didn't pass muster. Were they destroyed, or were they possibly leaked onto the markets by unscrupulous officials? Of course there can be tighter manufacturing tolerances but with "cheaper" materials which then fail faster.

From lens testing charts (the few I've managed to find) it would appear that my Pentax-F 50mm lens outperforms the Helios. There again, the tests might not have been standardised and so the findings could thus be pretty meaningless. It would, however, seem to be a nonsense for me to buy a converter to use the Helios on a Pentax-K mount body - unless I'm doing it to provide myself with the answer: is my Pentax lens better than my Helios lens. How do they compare to the other standard lenses I have lying around? The answer is "who knows".

[philbirch]

Hi Dave, sorry I didnt get back to answer your question, Stephen summed it up in this phrase

"With poor quality control in the 1980's the standards of the lens fell, but it is not consistent, there are still good lenses from the later productions."

I have used the lenses mentioned and after using and running tests, I consider the 44-2 the better lens, especially the earlier ones. However I do have a copy of the 44-M which is very good, so good in fact I've ditched the older ones.

I know that contradicts what I said in my original post but as Stephen said the quality was inconsistent and I have now got a great one after using many bad ones.

I use the Helios on my Nikon DSLR with a lensed adapter, stopped down to f8 you wouldnt know it.

This was taken with the 44M with the adapter, it is heavily cropped, much less than half the frame. Taken at the closest distance of my lens.

I didn't have a non lensed adapter.

[daveh]

Thanks, Phil.

I just find it frustrating that it is difficult to find accurate information on many things. For instance most lens tens tests will be done on just one sample. There should be at least three in a sample. Any one lens could be a rogue in a batch - for better or worse.

Sorry run out of time.

Dave.

[Stephen]

I can say that TOE(UK)reps were honest to say all the lens made, were delivered, only complete mash ups failed and were binned.

The Russians used a large labour force on hand assembly, and inspection, but the final governing factor was the Factory target production figures. None of the girls used cameras they tested, they were not trained to.

The situation was different to the West, and when the USSR mass export plan was introduced, via the UK, the Russians decided to set up a private company in the UK to do the final tests in addition to the factory checks.

The UK Soviet Embassy set up Technical and Optical Instruments (UK), to do the work, to ensure the cameras worked correctly.

However things slipped over the years and as they found to most cameras and lenses were OK, they quietly dropped the individual checks, relying more on the Factory testing.

Later when Dixons got involved with re-badged Zenit, the cameras were never un-crated in the UK, they went direct.

Lens tests are always related only to the lens being examined, the optical trade relied on the sold lens to exceed the tests figures, whether from Russia or Japan.

It was the magazines and shops who did their own testing that caused major problems. You might see that a lens should deliver so many lines per MM, but find out other mags or shops gave different figures. No British mags seemed to use consistent methods or test laboratories.

As usual the old problem of cost came into it, you could walk into several shops in London and buy off the shelf a tested lens with a certificate, or test negative.....but try that at Dixons!!! People wanted the information, but then wanted a huge discount as well. But paying for full retail price maintained goods did not guarantee the quality if it was just purchased without a certificate, say a quality out of London shop in the home counties.

So most enthusiasts relied on the slightly dodgy methods of the UK magazines to do tests. I saw myself the Office used by one major magazine, it was just a board on the wall of the office, with a pinned on test chart. A mark on a cluttered desk gave the distances, and the job was given to the office juniors.

Our test room at the instrument makers I worked at had a full optical bench, temperature stabilized, with targets etched on glass plates, in a small concrete lined room.

I also did many tests at home, but fairly strict conditions, to check out my own purchases of OM Olympus, when claims were made that they were not as sharp as Nikon and Canon.... they were as sharp, with slightly less contrast than Nikon, but blind testing only showed you could identify the maker by colour balance.

Most Russian lenses tested well, many exceeding Nikon in sharpness at medium settings, but had more edge problems than more expensive lenses.
But at F8... you could not tell one from another.

Stephen.

[Stephen]

Also I should add the testing on Digital is the best way to find a good older lens, although I must make the point that even full frame digital in no way duplicates the performance of film.

It amazes me that people assume that a high figure full frames sensor contains enough pixels to duplicate film.

Film grain not only is denser than the electronic target, it is randomly laid out, with random overlaps and depth.

In contrast the electronic target has built in masking between each pixel sensor, and is responsive in a strictly pixel limited area, and has no depth, or overlap of any kind.

So comparisons with film that are touted about in magazine articles are just plain ridiculous, I deeply suspect to get to the level of Kodak Technical pan film, a sensor would have to exceed 150/180 meg and over 100 to even approach Kodachrome 25, and it would have to be a design with a maskless surface, with staggered pixels. The expression mask refers to the finite non sensitive support around each pixel.

However in real life digital can be as good in appearance as long as the print size is kept reasonable.

The sometimes forgotten digital factor is the printer, they do not print Dot for Dot, but apply jitter, and shading to smooth the image.

Digital tends to be high contrast as default, giving a wide contrast range, and a naturally crisp appearance, but it cannot reproduce the subtlety of film, and never be able to quite do it with todays sensor designs.

All in all this explains why older lenses work so well on digital, no dodgy zoom glass, boosted contrast from the sensor and processing, and the fact they are basically better than the sensor can resolve, a nice built in redundancy, which works to our advantage.

Stephen.